Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Reincarnated

3,000 Soldiers For Saddam, Was it worth it?

3,000 Soldiers For Saddam, Was it worth it?  

68 members have voted

  1. 1. 3,000 Soldiers For Saddam, Was it worth it?

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      43


417 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

leadbelly

When you consider the history of that area, say, since the discovery of oil and subsequent strategic interest taken by Great Britain and Germany, etc., and the desire for a shift from colonialism by the arabs and persians, it has followed the prescribed path.

During WWII, the British worked hard to maintain oil supplies from that area. Afterwards, much of the world was de-colonialized. The arabs, etc, worked to consolidate what they could, but the West kept what influence they felt was important. With the Soviets on the scene, and the value of oil, it is no wonder life "happens".

Saddam was a gun wielding assasin, who plied the U.S. agents for inroads to power. One way or another, he lived by the sword, and ruthlessly. When he finally ascended, he did what others thought was the most grandois- to attempt a pan-arab leadership. He use both the carrot and the stick, for better and for worse.

To his north was a rival- Turkey. Between them lay the Kurds. The Kurds were not the rustic arab type, and their beliefs clashed with both turks and other arabs. They were numerous, needing to establish themselves independently, and loved by no one else. Saddam cojoled them, and repressed them. The turks did, likewise. And the persians in Iran were allied to the Kurds.

Over time, Saddam was forced to use every means at his disposal to deal with rival neighbors, and the Kurds. He was not a religious fundamentalist, and practiced less of that repression, than expedient politics.

In the end, human conflict destroyed his world. He was embargoed, and his oil wells suffered from lack of parts. He owed $75 billion in loans, and even if he could pump enough oil, countries like Kuwait were selling at liberal prices, far below what he needed. He was between a rock and a hard place, and vulnerable. He espoused his pan-arab dreams again, and wanted to go nuclear. The Israelis bombed his reactor, the West engaged him militarily, and he was in the middle of an oil kingdom with problems.

He tried to assasinate the Bushes in post-war Kuwait. They never forgot...

My belief is that the change of politics in Iran was a slippery slope for the modern world. That prompted various conflicts, reaching to the U.S. and Soviet interests. Not to mention Europe's need for oil from Iraq and Iran, and the role of the Saudis in that regard. And, the U.S., as well.

Another factor is the increased populations that oil money allows desert countries to attain. In the end, the hare will outrun the tortoise, in my opinion. And, the whole thing will not be so sustainable.

Conflicts and tensions seem inevitable, unfortunately. While we do not want blood on our hands, we do elect others to make critical decisions on our behalf. I doubt Saddam was entirely bent on attacking the U.S. homeland, especially since he had his agents kill a key egyptian terrorist, who was hiding in Iraq. That person was trying to sell his services abroad, in exchange for medical treatment for cancer. But, Saddam had him eliminated, perhaps to show some good faith to the West prior to the Persian Gulf War.

Finally, he had his time on the world stage. He also produced one psychotic son, who the entire world despised, and another ruthless son, as well. A generation of **** brains.

Sorry, Saddam. And, good riddance to the inheritors we never had to deal with.

Edited by leadbelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
When you consider the history of that area, say, since the discovery of oil and subsequent strategic interest taken by Great Britain and Germany, etc., and the desire for a shift from colonialism by the arabs and persians, it has followed the prescribed path.

During WWII, the British worked hard to maintain oil supplies from that area. Afterwards, much of the world was de-colonialized. The arabs, etc, worked to consolidate what they could, but the West kept what influence they felt was important. With the Soviets on the scene, and the value of oil, it is no wonder life "happens".

Sadam was a gun wielding assasin, who plied the U.S. agents for inroads to power. One way or another, he lived by the sword, and ruthlessly. When he finally ascened, he did what others thought was the most grandois- to attempt a pan-arab leadership. He use both the carrot and the stick, for better and for worse.

To his north was a rival- Turkey. Between them lay the Kurds. The Kurds were not the rustic arab type, and their beliefs clashed with both turks and other arabs. They were numerous, needing to establish themselves independently, and loved by no one else. Saddam cojoled them, and repressed them. The turks did, likewise. And the persians in Iran were allied to the Kurds.

Over time, Saddam was forced to use every means at his disposal to deal with rival neighbors, and the Kurds. He was not a religious fundamentalist, and practiced less of that repression, then expedient politics.

In the end, human conflict destroyed his world. He was embargoed, and his oil wells suffered from lack of parts. He owed $75 billion in loans, and even if he could pump enough oil, countries like Kuwait were selling at liberal prices, far below what he needed. He was between a rock and a hard place, and vulnerable. He espoused his pan-arab dreams again, and wanted to go nuclear. The Israelis bombed his reactor, the West engaged him, militarily, and he was in the middle of an oil kingdom with problems.

He tried to assasinate the Bushes in post-war Kuwait. They never forgot...

My belief is that the change of politics in Iran was a slippery slope for the modern world. That prompted various conflicts, reaching to the U.S. and Soviet interests. Not to mention Europe's need for oil from Iraq and Iran, and the role of the Saudis in that regard. And, the U.S., as well.

Another factor is the increased populations that oil money allows desert countries to attain. In the end, the hare will outrun the tortoise, in my opinion. And, the whole thing will not be so sustainable.

Conflicts and tensions seem inevitable, unfortunately. While we do not want blood on our hands, we do elect others to make critical decisions on our behalf. I doubt Saddam was entirely bent on attacking the U.S. homeland, especially since he had his agents kill a key egyptian terrorist, who was hiding in Iraq. That person was trying to sell his services abroad, in exchange for medical treatment for cancer. But, Sadam had him eliminated, perhaps to show some good faith to the West prior to the Persian Gulf War.

Finally, he had his time on the world stage. He also produced one psychotic son, who the entire world despised, and another ruthless son, as well. A generation of **** brains.

Sorry, Saddam. And, good riddance to the inheritors we never had to deal with.

Applause! :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

If Bush would have pulled a Clinton and did nothing, the leftwingers would've raised hell in a few years when nukes fell on downtown U.S.A. If Bush would've at least made an effort they would've gone after him swearing that he wanted to kill Americans to make his friends money. There is no winning in an argument with people who can't see beyond MTV and Comedy Central. Sometimes I think that it's best to just let them puff away and hope clear-er minds prevail.

Other times, I'd swear that they are in league with Osama.

At least the last generation was willing to make the sacrifice so that even the most anti-American can live in peace and freedom.

By the way, I'm going to save the next liberal the effort of actually having to put down his mind expanding cigarette and type it out for them:.....

Bush is a monkey, Bush is an idiot, Bush just likes to watch Americans die!

There that should save about a million electrons and at least four drags off a joint somewhere.

Edited by Lord Umbarger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
Iraq is just a battle in the war on terror. Aside from that...if we hadn't gone after Sadaam, and if he had ended up with a nuclear weapon that was used...all of you bleeding hearts would want Bush's head on a platter. You would all be whining and crying and p***ing all over yourselves: 'That retard KNEW he had WMD and did nothing about it...everyone knew it..Clinton warned him, everyone knew what a threat Sadaam was and that SOB knew it too and did nothing. Why didn't that b****** do something about Sadaam...he knew he was a signigicant threat (every intelligence agency said so) and he did nothing...what complete incompetence.'

The fact of the matter is that you all have such hyped-by-the-media hatred for the guy that you cannot and will not allow yourselves to objectively look at the picture as a whole. The incompetency is your own!

Amen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak
3000 men is a ridiculously low number for a war. We lost more men than that in the first 15 minutes at Normandy.

I'd be more concerned with the 100's of thousands of Iraqis and ask that question again. And again the answer would be YES unfortunately. See there seems to be a mindset of people who are totally against the war who presume those that accept it for what it is suffer from blood lust or insanity.

Thousands of Iraqi children died each MONTH before the war due to the embargo which was being reneged upon by the French and the Chinese so very unfortunately for the state of the world YES 3000 soldiers were more than worth it.

Interesting article

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html

There are always alternates to war and those alternatives would have bin of equal worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated
...or perhaps we just are able to see the greater picture.
Why don't you enlighten us as to what this greater picture is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
Why don't you enlighten us as to what this greater picture is?

What's the point? There are none so blind as those who will not see. Why should I waist my breath on you and your ilk? You are simply not able to grasp a coherent thought that doesn't involve hatred of GWB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger
There are always alternates to war and those alternatives would have bin of equal worth.
17 U.N. Resulutions, Hmmm? Talking didn't seem to work. Letting some tinhorn dictator have his way? That might have given more steam to other hotheaded nut jobs like the SLB in North Korea. Please, what other solutions were there available?

Better yet, now that we're committed, have you a real solution for 0600A.M. Jan. 02, 2007?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated
What's the point? There are none so blind as those who will not see. Why should I waist my breath on you and your ilk? You are simply not able to grasp a coherent thought that doesn't involve hatred of GWB.
:lol:

Thanks anyways :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

Well, this rabbit won't live forever.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
17 U.N. Resulutions, Hmmm? Talking didn't seem to work. Letting some tinhorn dictator have his way? That might have given more steam to other hotheaded nut jobs like the SLB in North Korea. Please, what other solutions were there available?

Better yet, now that we're committed, have you a real solution for 0600A.M. Jan. 02, 2007?

Or how about discussing the additional criminals that everyone seems to gloss right over. The spineless French who VOTED for embargoes and secretly reneged on them? Why isn't that an issue?

What's the point in trying to sort it out when the voting members of the UN are lying through their friggin teeth and doing whatever makes them happy.

Why is it no one ever wants to talk about the oil for food scandal? Its just Bush Bush Bush. It doesn't do any good to come to the table with pirates who vote and say one thing to your face and then sneak around behind you when you've gone and deal with the enemy on their own terms. The UN should be scrapped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

Was it worth it?

shouldn't we save that question until after the war is over? eg if the west wins, or is forced to withdraw?

Were the 425,000 troops killed and wounded at the end of the normandy campaign worth it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

Times up, the rabbit just died.

It's a hard question, ain't it? "What do we do now?" Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. Takes a long time to give birth to a new idea, huh? A lot of things are in play.

Rather you like Bush or not, the fact remains. He did what he had to do. Right or wrong, it was the choice that any reasonable person would have made at that time and in his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

Have to give him props for standing up to the world. Unfortunately he's an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash_Tyagi
...or perhaps we just are able to see the greater picture.

The only greater picture is this "war on terrorism" is a sham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger
Was it worth it?

shouldn't we save that question until after the war is over? eg if the west wins, or is forced to withdraw?

Were the 425,000 troops killed and wounded at the end of the normandy campaign worth it?

Hell, it's worth it already. One less SOB to worry about. Sure, ther are others, ther always will be. At least this oneis of the streets.

"But, he'll be replaced by another one just as bad". That's no reason to not put THIS rapists and muderer in the grave, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
The only greater picture is this "war on terrorism" is a sham

Really funny how the US hasn't been attacked again since we went over there. Hmmm. Everyone always says Saddam had nothing to do with it to which I say "Are you serious? You don't think he helped finance this?"

I think time will tell. Truthfully I think its like the darkest before the dawn. I might eat my words but I feel this year is the dawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated

They went after Saddam after all else failed. This isn't a question of if he deserved this or not because we all know the answer to that but we are rather pointing out the decision process of the Bush administration. I find it funny how people want us to support our troops but we can't care about them too much or we are bleeding hearts. I did not know there was a limit to what is considered an acceptable level of sympathy.

Other times, I'd swear that they are in league with Osama.
You would love that wouldn't you? Because then individuals with different view points would be the enemy and not worthy of an opinion!

I like your thinking Umbarger [not].

Edited by Reincarnated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash_Tyagi
Really funny how the US hasn't been attacked again since we went over there. Hmmm. Everyone always says Saddam had nothing to do with it to which I say "Are you serious? You don't think he helped finance this?"

I think time will tell. Truthfully I think its like the darkest before the dawn. I might eat my words but I feel this year is the dawn.

We wouldn't have been attacked even if we didn't go over there, the whole global terror network doesn't exist and never did, and those that carried out 9/11 were mostly killed or captured afterwards (and even before the attacks were a very small group anyways), the neocons pulled the wool over the world's eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

I love the word neocon. Makes it so much easier to know whom to take seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated
I love the word neocon. Makes it so much easier to know whom to take seriously.
Sounds nicer than kooky liberal or conspiracy nutjob. The list is so long. Edited by Reincarnated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Slayer

EDIT: No. (surprised?)

3000 men is a ridiculously low number for a war. We lost more men than that in the first 15 minutes at Normandy.

But then again, it was a different kind of war.

I'd be more concerned with the 100's of thousands of Iraqis and ask that question again. And again the answer would be YES unfortunately. See there seems to be a mindset of people who are totally against the war who presume those that accept it for what it is suffer from blood lust or insanity.

Thousands of Iraqi children died each MONTH before the war due to the embargo which was being reneged upon by the French and the Chinese so very unfortunately for the state of the world YES 3000 soldiers were more than worth it.

Interesting article

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html

I agree to all that. Well said.

Edited by AshKatNah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
Really funny how the US hasn't been attacked again since we went over there. Hmmm.

Thats if you don't count the daily attacks on American troops in Iraq and Afganistan. I take it you are just talking about attacks on American soil though right? When was the last time that happened before the war on terror? 8 years prior to 911 in 1993? Not sure what your point is.

Everyone always says Saddam had nothing to do with it to which I say "Are you serious? You don't think he helped finance this?"

I dont see any evidence for it. Maybe Saddam kept his financial records with his WMDs? If you have any real evidence of Saddam supporting Osama in anyway, I would love to see it. If you are just repeating what they told you on TV, you should watch this -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...98582&hl=en

I think time will tell. Truthfully I think its like the darkest before the dawn. I might eat my words but I feel this year is the dawn.

That would be great but 2007 aint looking so good. Even though there has been a "victory" in your mind, we are still racking up a 8.6 trillion dollar debt, still fighting in Iraq & Afganastan, still on the verge of war with Iran, and we are looking to send more troops into the war. Its gonna take alot to bring a "dawn" in 2007.

Edited by el midgetron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

No offense to anyone here but I have to say that I find it funny how everybody doesn't like how their country is being runned or what it is doing but nobody actually does anything about it. Everybody hates Bush but he got elected for a second term. Everybody seems to think this and think that but nobody actually does anything. Actions speak louder then words.

The idea that the government is runned by the people is an illusion, in truth people are ruled by their governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.