The Kurds were only safe so long as the U.S. maintained no-fly zones over Iraq and Saddam remained boxed in by sanctions. Both of those situations were unstable. The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in support of the No-Fly zones was cited as a cassus belli by Bin Laden in attacking America. The sanctions regime was crumbling.
It is entirely possible that had the Iraq war not happened, Saddam would have been cut loose by now, and Iraq would still be erupting in bloodshed today - only this time by Ba’athists crushing Kurds and Shiites.
Or would you have supported an indefinite maintenance of the no-fly zones, perhaps for decades, despite any terrorist attacks that might arise in opposition to them?
See General Zinni on the sustainability of the sanctions: Summary, easy & cheap. Bonus: Highly effective too.
False dichotomy. There’s no either:
Indefinite Saddam & sanctions regime; or
Invade Iraq.
If political reform in Iraq was the goal it open to achievement in many ways. But it wasn’t. Violent death of thousands of Arabs was a non-negotiable after September 11.
Americans, per capita, give more to charity than any other nationality on earth. Our government may not give as high a percent based on GDP as others, but our people are the most charitable on earth, and because our GDP is so high, the amount we give still dwarfs most other countries.
One of my favourite images of all time was a photo taken by AP just after the Asian Tsunami. It’s a photo of a kid on a beach in Indonesia, wearing a Osama Bin Laden t-shirt, being handed a yellow MRE humanitarian ration from a US Navy seaman in a flight suit. You want a t-shirt, go to Osama. You want to eat after your village is washed into the sea, come to the US Navy seems to be the message.
Hear hear! We didn’t invade Iraq because it was the only option to facilitate regime change in the area. We invaded Iraq to settle a grudge and to try to capture some oil. If regime change was truly what we wanted, we could have kept doing surgical strikes or supporting insurgents in Iraq and never had to invade at all. There were tons of ways to deal with Saddam short of invasion - sanctions and the No-Fly Zones were only one of a host of possibilites. Possibly none of them would have been rosy with 20-20 hind sight, but we also wouldn’t be stuck into the quagmire we’re in now either.
We should have stayed in Afghanistan longer, never gone into Iraq at all, and our options would be much more flexible in dealing with other Islamist extremists all over the world and we wouldn’t have given a whole new generation justification to hate us even more than they already did.
No, we are just richer, and so the lower percentage we give makes us look generous. Do recall that we only became generous with money for that tsunami after being shamed into it; before that our contribution was much less than other countries. The last time I heard of a ranking of charitable givings ranked by wealth per capita, America was right around Haiti.
Are you really this ignorant of math, or just fishing for an emotive response? 0.15% of a trillion dollars is more than 20% of a billion - do the math. Our GDP is so huge that even giving such a small percentage still puts us at the top of the league table in the real dollar value of money given, which is what really matters anyways. Bitching about % of GDP is stupid - talk about the total dollar amounts and still say the US isn’t charitable and doesn’t do any good in the world as you claim.
Your cite only talks about one thing - the Asian Tsumai. But Tsunami Relief was only one recent natural disaster we gave generously for; we also did the same for mud slides in Honduras, earthquakes in Iran, and lots and lots of other places. And we didn’t just give money - we gave resources in the form of transport, on-the-ground support, etc etc etc. Humanitarian missions all over the world are entirely dependent on US transport capabilities. Which guess what - comes from the transport capabilities of the US Air Force and Navy. Y’know, that group of thugs you complain about so heartily and think have no redeeming qualities.
You keep claiming that America is genrerous; for that, the percentage of wealth does matter. If Bill Gates gives a thousand dollars and I give ten, I’m being more generous than he is.
A lie; it talks about giving since WWII, right where I quoted it.
Bullshit. Percentages mean nothing except in your view. Bill Gates can give a thousand because he can afford it; the percentage of his wealth he gives away is immaterial.
I can’t imagine why people don’t take you seriously when you use ridiculous over-the-tip statements like that. It talks about WW2 only in reference to comparing then to now. Which you would know if you actually read your own source instead of parroting the highlights.
Bullshit again. Read your own posts: posts You’ve called the US Military thugs and war criminals with no redeeming qualities so many times it’s expected of you whenever you open your mouth 'round here.
But your cite doesn’t show that. It shows we give a lower % per capita to developing countries that other wealthy countries, but it’s entirely possible that American charitable contributions go to other worthy causes, especially given Bill Gate’s and Warren Buffet’s recent offerings.
C’mon, show me where America ranks at the bottom of all countries in per capita charitable contributions. Put up or shut up.
Yes, well some people adopt extreme positions, unfortunately Bush did just that.
I’m pretty sure his Foreign Minister was Christian, and that he did not give a toss about religion or ethnic group
a bit like Stalin, he just recruited those that he sort of trusted
and a bit like Stalin he was (justifiably) paranoid
I would say keeping violent majorities and minorities in check, he was the only thing holding the place together. The sad thing is that he did not understand the West and a large chunk of the West did not understand him.
@SamStone Those no fly zones were a bonus to the USA, they justified the bases in Saudi, which were really there for another reason.
Osama Bin Laden would use anything to justify attacking the USA, his real target is the House of Saud, but the USA was/is a soft target for him.
Personally I don’t consider him particularly important, he is the surfer rather than the wave. While his cash and contacts might have been useful, plenty of others were/are capable of raising funds through extortion.
