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:
Wars always result in the death of lots of people who don’t deserve to die (as indeed the Gulf War did).
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.
We were doing this to defend a country which openly rejected our value system.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?