Thank God Kuwait is now free!

[Sophistry and Illusion]

I haven't ever posted in the Pit, because in general I don't like being abused and called an asshat, but we all have to be deflowered eventually, right?

Here goes...

:dons cup and hardhat:

Uproar over Kuwait's 1st woman Cabinet member
KUWAIT CITY, Kuwait (AP) -- Kuwait's first female Cabinet member took the oath of office in parliament Monday over the shouts of Muslim fundamentalist and tribal lawmakers opposed to women's participation in politics.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/20/kuwait.womanminister.ap/index.html
More than a decade after we 'liberated' Kuwait, there is one female MP, and she got in through the back door, not by being elected. Will someone please explain to me why we bothered to liberate this backward-ass, medeival country? How many tens of thousands of people have died for this decision? Why should a single life be lost to 'rescue' a country whose values are diametrically opposed to our own, who don't recognize equality of the genders, or any other 20th-century value, as far as I can tell? If I saw Saddam Hussein kicking Fred Phelps's ass, I would stand back and watch, not try to stop the beating. Why is Kuwait any different?

[glee]

More than a decade after we 'liberated' Kuwait, there is one female MP, and she got in through the back door, not by being elected. Will someone please explain to me why we bothered to liberate this backward-ass, medeival country? How many tens of thousands of people have died for this decision? Why should a single life be lost to 'rescue' a country whose values are diametrically opposed to our own, who don't recognize equality of the genders, or any other 20th-century value, as far as I can tell? If I saw Saddam Hussein kicking Fred Phelps's ass, I would stand back and watch, not try to stop the beating. Why is Kuwait any different?

You seem confused why the US fought the war over Kuwait.
Of course it wasn't about democracy.
What military effort has the US made over Burma, for example?

'Burma is ruled by one of the most brutal military dictatorships in the world; a dictatorship charged by the United Nations with a “crime against humanity” for its systematic abuses of human rights, and condemned internationally for refusing to transfer power to the legally elected Government of the country – the party led by Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.'

http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/

Consider the main product of Kuwait.
Oil.
And there you have it. It's also why Saudi Arabia is an important ally of the US. Have a look at their governing system.

[Imasquare]

Will someone please explain to me why we bothered to liberate this backward-ass, medeival country?Perhaps it had something to do with ensuring the continuity of the oil supply - I think Kuwait has rather a lot of it.

Also possibly to ensure the US has another friendly country in the region to use for military bases.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Perhaps it had something to do with ensuring the continuity of the oil supply - I think Kuwait has rather a lot of it.
This being the SDMB, I knew this would be the first answer I got. But I was hoping for more of a moral justification. Anyone who really, honestly thinks that it is permissible to go to war to lower the price of oil by a few dollars a barrel is the asshat worn by an asshat.

[FinnAgain]

Mmmm hmmmmm... (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1230-02.htm)

[Walker in Eternity]

As said above the answer is oil, if Kuwait were a famous producer of cabages do you reallt think we would have liberated them? (Rhetorical question BTW)

Take a look at how long it took for us to step in in the Balkans, reason - no oil.

Same thing for Iraq, the only thing in Iraq that's been liberated from oppression is the precious oil.

Nobody really gives a shit about spreading democracy, this is all just about continuation of an oil supply for the west. And by using my car and demanding lower fuel prices I am as guilty of anyone else of contributing to these injustices.

I agree with the OP, if people want to live in a medieval society, where they do not respect the rights of an enture sex or of individuals why should we assist them. All our war on terror achieves is to exacerbate the problems that the people in these countries experience leading to more resentment of the west. Even if democracy is achieved the most likely outcome would be an islamist government that is anti western in its approach.

[flodnak]

Welllll... as a general rule, unprovoked invasion of another country, as Iraq/Saddam Hussein did to Kuwait, is seen as a Bad Thing. Since Saddam was still licking his wounds after the long and nasty Iran-Iraq war, which he also started, there was good reason to believe he had grander plans that would involve even more of the region. To prevent chaos, Kuwait had to be returned to its rightful dictator.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the West wouldn't care too much about the region if it wasn't for the sticky black stuff. When's the last time you heard someone get outraged about the fate of Western Sahara?

[BobLibDem]

Iraqi troops were committing atrocities against Kuwaitis. Such things matter when they happen to caucasians with oil.

[duffer]

And this is somehow America's fault? We should have let the rapes continue. Why bother defending the ones that had no defense?

I hope you immediately stand up and say to the women in Kuwait, "I wish you were all raped again! I don't give a shit that you were invaded by this guy that some here still defend!"

You fuckers make me sick. I don't even care if it's in half-jest. And seeing some of you, I suspect it isn't. Win me over by convincing me how the invasion back then was acceptable.

[calm kiwi]

I don't think they are saying that the invasion was acceptable. Just questioning if they are any better off after being saved.

The same question could be asked by Iraqi's.


Perhaps Mr Bush just needs to look more carefully at who he saves and why.


Has he noticed Zimbabwe? Sadam didn't like those who argued with him, Mugabe seems to not like most of his countrymen. Sadam tortured or killed those who didn't agree with him or criticised him. Mugabe just runs rough shot over his country willy nilly.

For those who have had their homes bulldozed and their lives destroyed...I have my fingers crossed that you find oil.

I'm not sure that anyone, anywhere wants to invade Zimbabwe.....it just seems that while Sadam was obviously extremely nasty to anyone who opposed him, Mugabe is just evil.

It is a shame that places like Zimbabwe and North Korea don't have oil.

[Mr. Moto]

Nobody really gives a shit about spreading democracy, this is all just about continuation of an oil supply for the west. And by using my car and demanding lower fuel prices I am as guilty of anyone else of contributing to these injustices.

You know, you'd have had me there, except that one of the injustices that always has the Left's panties in a bunch is that we won't make nice-nice with Castro.

Some of you folks only complain about dictators when they're not your dictators.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

I hope you immediately stand up and say to the women in Kuwait, "I wish you were all raped again! I don't give a shit that you were invaded by this guy that some here still defend!"
I'd rather stand up to the 100+thousand dead conscripted Iraqi soldiers, the 50+thousand dead Iraqi civilians, etc., and say, "I'm glad you're all dead!" Oops--except I can't, because they're all dead. :rolleyes: Wars have costs. Let's be judicious concerning the circumstances under which we start them.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Some of you folks only complain about dictators when they're not your dictators.
Good thing only liberals do that.

(I'm I getting into the swing of things in the Pit yet?)

[Sophistry and Illusion]

(I'm I getting into the swing of things in the Pit yet?)
Am I. :smack:

[duffer]

I'd rather stand up to the 100+thousand dead conscripted Iraqi soldiers, the 50+thousand dead Iraqi civilians, etc., and say, "I'm glad you're all dead!" Oops--except I can't, because they're all dead. :rolleyes: Wars have costs. Let's be judicious concerning the circumstances under which we start them.


What the hell does this have to do with your OP?

You were talking about Kuwaiti's being unworthy, in your mind, of liberation from Hussein.

Yeah, based on those with a hard-on for Bush here, you'll fit in just fine. Welcome to the club.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

What the hell does this have to do with your OP?

You were talking about Kuwaiti's being unworthy, in your mind, of liberation from Hussein.

Yeah, based on those with a hard-on for Bush here, you'll fit in just fine. Welcome to the club.
It has everything to do with my OP. Wars have huges costs in terms of civilian lives, and in terms of the lives of soldiers who are often *not* volunteers. Why incur that cost to liberate a nation which systematically violates the basic human rights of its citizens, without in any way making civil reform a condition of that liberation?

BTW, I assume you mean I have a hard-on for Bush junior. I'm not pitting him; he didn't liberate Kuwait. ;)

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I don't want to make too much of this, but the fact is that Kuwait is now, and has been since 1991, free from Iraq and the threat that they posed. Now, you may not like their form of government, but isn't it enough to say that the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 allowed them to have the choice?

We can't make people eat democracy until they choke on it. They have to take a bite all by themselves. And it appears that this might be the first little nibble. Or maybe not. They have the right to do whatever their hearts desire, thanks to us. And isn't that really what democracy is about in a nutshell? The right to choose the sleazeball down the corner, the feminist radical, the religious nutjob, or the calm, rational human being is what it's all about. I would venture to say that had we not done what we did in 1991 they would never have the opportunity.

[Walker in Eternity]

You know, you'd have had me there, except that one of the injustices that always has the Left's panties in a bunch is that we won't make nice-nice with Castro.

Some of you folks only complain about dictators when they're not your dictators.

I don't care about Castro, he may be the exception that proves the rule, possibly the one case where the US has dealt with someone from a position of moral authority (except for guantanamo bay).

Which dictators are my dictators?

Personally I'm against all forms of repression whether religious or political (left or right). I agree with the quote "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the others", Winston Churchill I think, please excuse any misquoting.

The point is that we are only exporting democracy to those places where it will directly benefit the interests of the west, while still doing business with some of the most corrupt and repressive regimes on the planet. Why? For oil of course. The problem is when these regimes collapse as they inevitably do, they will more likely than not be replaced by regimes that are not sympathetic to the west.

If we really want ot bring democracy to the middle east, we need to encourage the lot of the normal people, not with bombs but by not doing business with their corrupt leaders. Unfortunately we all like to drive cars, so this is unlikely to happen until we move away from an oil based economy.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

I don't want to make too much of this, but the fact is that Kuwait is now, and has been since 1991, free from Iraq and the threat that they posed. Now, you may not like their form of government, but isn't it enough to say that the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 allowed them to have the choice?
I dunno. It allowed the Kuwaiti men to choose--and they (not surprisingly) chose to keep on doing what they had been doing for decades--namely, deny basic human rights to 50% of their population. What I am getting at is that given the cost of war, why would we put our asses on the line for people who don't share our basic values, or even a basic commitment to human rights? And without demanding that they clean up their act as a condition of their liberation?

And it's not just that I don't like their form of government--it's that I think their form of government, which disenfranchises half of the population, is fundamentally immoral. C'mon, guys, it's us liberals who are supposed to be the relativists! ;)

[Walker in Eternity]

I don't want to make too much of this, but the fact is that Kuwait is now, and has been since 1991, free from Iraq and the threat that they posed. Now, you may not like their form of government, but isn't it enough to say that the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 allowed them to have the choice?

We can't make people eat democracy until they choke on it. They have to take a bite all by themselves. And it appears that this might be the first little nibble. Or maybe not. They have the right to do whatever their hearts desire, thanks to us. And isn't that really what democracy is about in a nutshell? The right to choose the sleazeball down the corner, the feminist radical, the religious nutjob, or the calm, rational human being is what it's all about. I would venture to say that had we not done what we did in 1991 they would never have the opportunity.


Good point!

[calm kiwi]

We can't make people eat democracy until they choke on it. They have to take a bite all by themselves. And it appears that this might be the first little nibble. Or maybe not. They have the right to do whatever their hearts desire, thanks to us. And isn't that really what democracy is about in a nutshell? The right to choose the sleazeball down the corner, the feminist radical, the religious nutjob, or the calm, rational human being is what it's all about. I would venture to say that had we not done what we did in 1991 they would never have the opportunity.


Well said.

Does that mean that now America has given Iraq a "nibble" they will be leaving soon?

Does America intend to spread the nibble?

The right to choose the sleazeball down the corner, the feminist radical, the religious nutjob.

Spread the word.

[calm kiwi]

The people of Cuba have benefited mightily and rejoiced in the democracy that the US has bought them.

If they wern't dancing in the streets they may well be paddling to America.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

The point is that we are only exporting democracy to those places where it will directly benefit the interests of the west, while still doing business with some of the most corrupt and repressive regimes on the planet. Why? For oil of course. The problem is when these regimes collapse as they inevitably do, they will more likely than not be replaced by regimes that are not sympathetic to the west.

If we really want ot bring democracy to the middle east, we need to encourage the lot of the normal people, not with bombs but by not doing business with their corrupt leaders. Unfortunately we all like to drive cars, so this is unlikely to happen until we move away from an oil based economy.

If there's one thing you need to take away from this debacle in Iraq, it's that people get the government they want (or deserve). If they want a new one they can put in half as much effort as they do killing people in Iraq with suicide bombs and remedy the situation.

The governments that they have are the governments they are happy with. What we see as corruption they see as normal day-to-day business. We can't frame our arguments from our perspective and expect everybody to see it our way. The mess we have over there right now is what happens when we do that. The people in the Middle East will choose their own fate. Thay have to. We can't do it for them. If we don't all we'll be doing is getting in the middle of a fight we can't possibly win (reference Sunni/Shia, Jew/Muslim, Arab/Kurd conflicts).

Now, I agree that we need to get away from oil ASAP so as to stop funding these people, and barring that we need to reduce usage, but until that happens we need them. Reality trumps wishful thinking every time.

[calm kiwi]

The governments that they have are the governments they are happy with. What we see as corruption they see as normal day-to-day business. We can't frame our arguments from our perspective and expect everybody to see it our way. The mess we have over there right now is what happens when we do that. The people in the Middle East will choose their own fate. Thay have to. We can't do it for them. If we don't all we'll be doing is getting in the middle of a fight we can't possibly win (reference Sunni/Shia, Jew/Muslim, Arab/Kurd conflicts).


Were they rioting in the streets to get rid of Sadam? Every news report I saw had Iraqis claiming they were happy and going to win the war.

Mugabe has banned journalists. The only reports are made secretly and no one seems even vaguely happy.

It seems Mr Blair should be asking Mr Bush for help this time.

[Walker in Eternity]

The governments that they have are the governments they are happy with. What we see as corruption they see as normal day-to-day business. We can't frame our arguments from our perspective and expect everybody to see it our way. The mess we have over there right now is what happens when we do that. The people in the Middle East will choose their own fate. Thay have to. We can't do it for them. If we don't all we'll be doing is getting in the middle of a fight we can't possibly win (reference Sunni/Shia, Jew/Muslim, Arab/Kurd conflicts).

Now, I agree that we need to get away from oil ASAP so as to stop funding these people, and barring that we need to reduce usage, but until that happens we need them. Reality trumps wishful thinking every time.

I really can't disagree with you there. BTW I meant "improve the lot" not "encourage the lot", that's what I get for not previewing.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Were they rioting in the streets to get rid of Sadam? Every news report I saw had Iraqis claiming they were happy and going to win the war.

Mugabe has banned journalists. The only reports are made secretly and no one seems even vaguely happy.

It seems Mr Blair should be asking Mr Bush for help this time.

I can see how happy they are to be rid of Saddam every time I turn on the news.

Come on. Saddam might have been a scumbag, but what have we given them in return? Nothing but not-so-random bombings in the streets and daily violence. It's easier to be afraid of the boogeyman than it is to be afraid of the other monsters in your closet once you get rid of him. Saddam was predictable. What is happening now is not.

As far as Mugabe goes, it's the same old story. Change comes from within. All that is required for change is for someone in that country to grow some stones and cap the guy. Since they aren't willing to make the change I can only conclude that they are happy with what they have, or else they are unwilling to try to change things for themselves. It could have happened with Saddam 20 years ago. We can't make it happen for them.

[ElvisL1ves]

I haven't ever posted in the Pit, because in general I don't like being abused and called an asshat, but we all have to be deflowered eventually, right?
Fuck off, asshat.

Hey, MM? If Cuba had oil, no doubt we'd have found a way to put up with Castro long ago, right?

[calm kiwi]

I can see how happy they are to be rid of Saddam every time I turn on the news.

Come on. Saddam might have been a scumbag, but what have we given them in return? Nothing but not-so-random bombings in the streets and daily violence. It's easier to be afraid of the boogeyman than it is to be afraid of the other monsters in your closet once you get rid of him. Saddam was predictable. What is happening now is not.


That was my point. Average Joe Iraqi was safer under Sadam then he is now. Sadam was dangerous to those that dissented. Average Joe is more worried about feeding his family and being able to get to work and get his kids to school without being blown up, then he is in the machinations of the government.


As far as Mugabe goes, it's the same old story. Change comes from within. All that is required for change is for someone in that country to grow some stones and cap the guy. Since they aren't willing to make the change I can only conclude that they are happy with what they have, or else they are unwilling to try to change things for themselves. It could have happened with Saddam 20 years ago. We can't make it happen for them.

Mugabe is actively terrorising the citizens of his country. He is making the conditions for Joe Avearge much worse then Sadam did in Iraq. You are right, it should be up to the people to make the change but considering Iraq's people were "saved" before the govt bulldozed their houses surely Zimbabwe is worthy.

It is a damn shame that war is justifiable when a) WMD are hinted at b) Oil is involved and c) People are living in an undemocratic state in an important part of the world....but not justified when people are being terrorised, by the govt, in a country that the world has nothing to gain from.

[Latro]

Wasn't Cuba something to do with sugar and CocaCola?

[Mr. Moto]

Fuck off, asshat.

Hey, MM? If Cuba had oil, no doubt we'd have found a way to put up with Castro long ago, right?

Learn your history. Cuba had missiles, so we found a way to put up with Castro.

If the missiles went away, Castro got to stay.

And there's the problem. The world, sadly, isn't chock full of democrats and democratic regimes. Sure, there are more now than there were before, but they used to be plenty scarce.

The United States and other countries had to swim in a pool filled with sharks as well as bluegills. Still does, as a matter of fact.

If you have a simple solution for this, let me in on it. But international relations isn't known as a field with lots of easy answers.

[Bricker]

More than a decade after we 'liberated' Kuwait, there is one female MP, and she got in through the back door, not by being elected. Will someone please explain to me why we bothered to liberate this backward-ass, medeival country? How many tens of thousands of people have died for this decision? Why should a single life be lost to 'rescue' a country whose values are diametrically opposed to our own, who don't recognize equality of the genders, or any other 20th-century value, as far as I can tell? If I saw Saddam Hussein kicking Fred Phelps's ass, I would stand back and watch, not try to stop the beating. Why is Kuwait any different?

Sounds like cultural elitism to me. How dare you ascribe superior values to one culture over another? Do you think Western culture is inherently superior somehow? What about diversity and tolerance? Huh?

[calm kiwi]

How do bulldozed homes and starvation sound?

[eleanorigby]

Come on. Saddam might have been a scumbag, but what have we given them in return? Nothing but not-so-random bombings in the streets and daily violence. It's easier to be afraid of the boogeyman than it is to be afraid of the other monsters in your closet once you get rid of him. Saddam was predictable. What is happening now is not.
<snip>
It could have happened with Saddam 20 years ago. We can't make it happen for them.

I agree with you, but also want to add that WE, the USA, helped Saddam to power (a fact that for some reason, Bush et al , never pointed out--I'm sure it was an oversight on Ari Fleischer's part). So, I have to disagree with your last bit there about it could have happened 20 years ago--20 years ago or so, we were helping Saddam to power because of the Ayatollah in Iran. Saddy was our friend back in the day.

As for Cuba, I don't have a cite, but I did hear on NPR a while back that agribusiness leaders and others etc want in to Cuba's markets--for crops, but also for Coca-cola, blue jeans etc--you know that stuff that makes up our "culture". So, I don't see it as "liberals" wanting to make nice with Cuba--I see it as a hard headed business opportunity--and one that would kill Casto's regime for all time, IMO. Is it fear of pissing off the Cuban-American base in Miami that stays Bushs' hand? I think so.

[ElvisL1ves]

Learn your history. Cuba had missiles, so we found a way to put up with Castro.Learn yours. If Cuba had something we wanted and needed, Castro wouldn't have sucked up to the Soviets in the first place.

And there's the problem. The world, sadly, isn't chock full of democrats and democratic regimes. Sure, there are more now than there were before, but they used to be plenty scarce.Who the hell are you saying needs to learn history? A large number of the authoritarian regimes in the world, during the Cold War but now too, were supported by the US simply because they said "We're anti-Communist, now give us the money and the weapons". Much of the fault is ours, and we need to do more to repair the damage. But first we need to stop creating it, no?

If you have a simple solution for this, let me in on it. But international relations isn't known as a field with lots of easy answers.Not all solutions are simple or easy, and many aren't even solutions but simple efforts. The lament that there aren't any that don't involve some effort or sacrifice on our part is too easy an excuse for sliding into a rationalization that we don't need to, or shouldn't, do anything at all. You are a prime example.

[Walker in Eternity]

Not all solutions are simple or easy, and many aren't even solutions but simple efforts. The lament that there aren't any that don't involve some effort or sacrifice on our part is too easy an excuse for sliding into a rationalization that we don't need to, or shouldn't, do anything at all. You are a prime example.

Well said! Just because the road ahead may be difficult does not mean that we should not make the attempt.

Although as Airman Doors, USAF says once people have a democratic choice of government we have no right to object to their choice, although we can retain the right to defend ourselves if attacked by said regime.

[AHunter3]

flodnak: Welllll... as a general rule, unprovoked invasion of another country, as Iraq/Saddam Hussein did to Kuwait, is seen as a Bad Thing.

Whch it is.

Even when the United States is the one who does it. Even if the country we do it to once did the same thing to another country a decade or so ago.

[calm kiwi]

Doing something doesn't have to mean war. South Africa responded to pressure without any other kind of aggression (sanctions, sporting bans). It seems Sadam did too, unless he did rebuild his WMD and I missed the news.

The sanctions hurt Iraqis because there was no end to them other then 'get rid of Sadam'. South Africa didn't need a war. Diamonds vs Oil?

Something needs to happen when Joe Average is suffering. Iraq? Not so much. Zimbabwe? Yes.

The west has screwy priorities.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Sounds like cultural elitism to me. How dare you ascribe superior values to one culture over another? Do you think Western culture is inherently superior somehow? What about diversity and tolerance? Huh?
Tolerance is one thing; refusal to judge is merely weak-mindedness.

[Mr. Moto]

Not all solutions are simple or easy, and many aren't even solutions but simple efforts. The lament that there aren't any that don't involve some effort or sacrifice on our part is too easy an excuse for sliding into a rationalization that we don't need to, or shouldn't, do anything at all. You are a prime example.

I'm not saying there aren't answers, just that there aren't easy ones.

It's all well and good to say we shouldn't deal with authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, but what if the only choice was to support an autocrat to prevent a total dictator from taking over?

Quite a dilemma, but one the United States faced many, many times. And while it backfired sometimes, it often proved successful.

South Korea today is prosperous and free. So is Taiwan. So is, amazingly enough, Chile, a country that suffered a worse autocracy than most.

[ElvisL1ves]

I'm not saying there aren't answers, just that there aren't easy ones.No shit. What does that imply for our obligations? To you, nothing that you've been willing to share with us so far.

what if the only choice was to support an autocrat to prevent a total dictator from taking over?That is usually not the case, and is irrelevant to the many, many times we have supported an autocrat (who turned into a dictator, there's little difference) over democracies.

South Korea today is prosperous and free. So is Taiwan. So is, amazingly enough, Chile, a country that suffered a worse autocracy than most.Attributable in all cases primarily to their own efforts, not ours, and with our own role not clearly being supportive of them rather than obstructive. It is not clear that North Korea ever could successfully attack South Korea after the armistice, for instance, not without China's backing - attribute SK's relative peace to world diplomatic efforts rather than US support of their authoritarianism. Similar story in Taiwan - a Chinese invasion has never been plausible, but it was the excuse for supporting Chiang in the name of the hall of mirrors called anti-Communism. Chile had a nice democracy started before we overthrew it, with the same excuse. They still have authoritarian rule, "amazingly enough".

[Sophistry and Illusion]

I expected the OP to piss off conservatives more than liberals, and this has indeed come to pass, but I really don't see how this is a liberal/conservative issue. Consider the facts:

1) Wars always result in the death of lots of people who don't deserve to die (as indeed the Gulf War did).

2) At the time, it was thought that Iraq would put up a tough fight (at least this is what was being publicized), and everyone I knew expected quite a lot of Coalition casualties.

3) We were doing this to defend a country which openly rejected our value system.

4) Invading/occupying other countries has hugely unpredictable consequences, and we knew this before Gulf War I. (Jonathan Kwitny's Endless Enemies should be required reading for all. He is a patriot who argues that the US's meddling abroad has hurt it more than helped it.)

I don't see how these are liberal/conservative issues. Why wouldn't a conservative agree that we should use our military might judiciously, and primarily in defense of ourselves and countries who share our values? Am I naive?

[Mr. Moto]

Chile had a nice democracy started before we overthrew it, with the same excuse. They still have authoritarian rule, "amazingly enough".

Cite for your last, please? You should be aware that Chile is heading into runoff presidential elections at this time, and the favorite is Michelle Bachelet, a Socialist former defense minister whose father, an Air Force general, was executed by Pinochet in the 1970s.

Freedom House certifies Chile as a free country.

In what way are they currently authoritarian?

[ElvisL1ves]

In what way are you currently going to address the subject matter? Or continue to support your self-serving bullshit any more?

[Mr. Moto]

Listen, you don't need to get mad at me just because you happened to be wrong about a particular fact.

[elucidator]

We can only hope that the Chilean people are appropriately grateful for all the America has done to them. For them. Grateful for all that America has done for them.

[andros]

AFAICT, anyone who claims our liberation of Kuwait was only about oil is an idiot. Anyone who claims it had nothing to do with oil is as much an idiot.

Saddam thought he had a good shot at seizing some of the best port facilities in the ME. Had he accomplished the invasion he would have benefitted immensely--Iraq would have become a major player in the MENA, in OPEC, and in the world, and would have substantially tipped the balance of power with Iran, as well as posing a powerful economic and military threat to Israel.

President Bush felt that possibility was too great to risk. So when the Kuwaitis asked for aid, he decided it would be in the best interests of the ME, our allies, the cause of democracy, and the US as a whole to provide that aid and eject Iraq.

Of course it was about oil. And a whole bunch of other things. But not once was it about securing democracy or civil rights for Kuwaitis.

[ElvisL1ves]

The regional power politics and all the rest of that would have meant nothing to us if not for, yes, oil. It isn't widely remembered, but the initial US reaction to Saddam's invasion was accommodation - IIRC Powell commented about there being "a new sign on the gas station". Bush 1 only decided on war after Margaret Thatcher goaded him into it, in the name of preventing Saddam from taking the Saudi oil fields too and getting too much market share.

Mr. Moto, it would seem you're out of both arguments and honesty. But, if you still want to be entertaining, please enlighten us as to the US's contributions toward establishing democracy in Chile. How is anything good there happening because of us, not in spite of us? Where are the causality relationships that have convinced you to be so proud of our government's conduct there? Or anywhere else you've pointed to, for that matter?

But "don't get mad at me because you happen to be wrong" about, not a "particular fact", but your entire position.

[andros]

It isn't widely remembered, but the initial US reaction to Saddam's invasion was accommodation - IIRC Powell commented about there being "a new sign on the gas station".

With respect, I'd like to see cites for both of those assertions, if you don't mind.

Bush 1 only decided on war after Margaret Thatcher goaded him into it, in the name of preventing Saddam from taking the Saudi oil fields too and getting too much market share.

And for that as well. Thanks!

[ElvisL1ves]

That was from my own memory, but this interview with Thatcher (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/thatcher/1.html) covers both statements.

[ElvisL1ves]

James Baker (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/baker/5.html) denies the "gas station" view, fwiw.

[ElvisL1ves]

But this site (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0105lies.htm) says it was the prevailing opinion at the National Security Council, according to "one participant".

[andros]

That was from my own memory, but this interview with Thatcher (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/thatcher/1.html) covers both statements.
Well, it doesn't demonstrate that the first US reaction was accomodation, nor that the president had to be "goaded" by Mrs. T into the war.

on preview:

But this site says it was the prevailing opinion at the National Security Council, according to "one participant".
Perhaps it was so. But discussion and advice is a long way from an "initial US reaction," I think.

[Mr. Moto]

We can only hope that the Chilean people are appropriately grateful for all the America has done to them. For them. Grateful for all that America has done for them.

I was there a few years ago, and was treated very well indeed.

We were down for joint naval exercises, and I wound up riding one of their frigates for more than a week, the Almirante Lynch. I made some friends with some of the chief petty officers on the crew, and one of them had another American sailor and me to his house for dinner.

We didn't discuss politics. I was much more concerned with getting as much of that excellent Chilean cabernet into the hold of our American flagship as I could.

If you ever get a chance to go, grab it. The Four Aces were playing the casino at Vina del Mar, and pertty girls were all over the beach. It was a swinging time.

[irishgirl]

At least Kuwait gave women the vote (last month).

Do you actually think it's about democracy?

Iran is democracy, where women get the vote...no argument from me that it's run by lunatics, but at least they're ELECTED lunatics.

Unlike say...Saudi Arabia, which is run by a corrupt monarchy, and where women are unable to vote.

Guess which one is an American ally.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Iran is democracy, where women get the vote...no argument from me that it's run by lunatics, but at least they're ELECTED lunatics.
I'm not sure the elected people in Iran have much power. But Iran was our ally when it was ruled by a corrupt and oppressive dictator who was installed by the US. Woo-hoo! Who's for some good old-fashioned American values?

[Imasquare]

Anyone who really, honestly thinks that it is permissible to go to war to lower the price of oil by a few dollars a barrel is the asshat worn by an asshat.I never said I thought it was a justifiable reason to go to war. I just said that I thought that was a possible reason.

[duffer]

Learn yours. If Cuba had something we wanted and needed, Castro wouldn't have sucked up to the Soviets in the first place.

I don't suppose that little dalliance with Marxism had anything to do with one man looking to spread his dictatorial rule over the rest by siding with a regime that he modeled his country after?

In a time when it was still uncertain whom would come out on top? Remember, Reagan wasn't in office yet.

Nuclear missles 90 miles from Miami wasn't enough to cause us to just blow the shit out of the island. You honestly think a little oil would have changed anything?

I know you like to stick to the tired old "Oil is why America kills people". But this is tired. Do you really (no, really) beleive it?

[Sophistry and Illusion]

I never said I thought it was a justifiable reason to go to war. I just said that I thought that was a possible reason.
No, it was clear from your post that you weren't endorsing this position.

[duffer]

Iran is democracy, where women get the vote...no argument from me that it's run by lunatics, but at least they're ELECTED lunatics.

Those up for election must be approved by the mullahs.

Loses something in translation, I guess.

[Princhester]

And this is somehow America's fault? We should have let the rapes continue. Why bother defending the ones that had no defense?

I hope you immediately stand up and say to the women in Kuwait, "I wish you were all raped again! I don't give a shit that you were invaded by this guy that some here still defend!"

You fuckers make me sick. I don't even care if it's in half-jest. And seeing some of you, I suspect it isn't. Win me over by convincing me how the invasion back then was acceptable.

And the usual straw man crap from you.

[ElvisL1ves]

duffer, I don't know how to answer your question.

Really - because it's totally incoherent. I only know it's a question because you used a ? instead of a .

[Mighty_Girl]

I was there a few years ago, and was treated very well indeed.Which only proves that the average Chilean has good manners. I don't know what that had to do with how Chileans view what happened on September 11 (their 9/11).

[rjung]

Iraqi troops were committing atrocities against Kuwaitis.
Don't repeat the "Iraqi troops taking Kuwaiti babies out of incubators" myth, (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html) or I'll have to come over there and slap ya. ;)

[Princhester]

One day there will be a war in which one side does not accuse the other of atrocities. Today is not that day. Yesterday wasn't either. I hold little hope for tomorrow.