Or maybe he decided to invade Iran. And then Kuwait. And lose.
The invasion of Iran was totally supported by the U.S. Also, the invasion of Kuwait may have been green-lighted by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, which is the message the Iraqis were given.
Furthermore, the U.S. has no problem at all with invasions in principle. The U.S. itself invaded Panama only a few months before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and it has supported a whole string of illegal invasions, from Israel’s numerous invasions, to Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus, to Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, and so on. So, clearly it was not the principle of invasion that put Iraq on the enemies list.
Even if supported by the US, it devastated the nation. And if these invasions didn’t make Iraq an enemy, then, what do you think did?
Of course, maybe the administration just loathes the Iraqi’s and needs quick cash. Afterall, racism and greed are the only TRUE motives the US has ever used. :rolleyes:
<Evil Imperialistic Hat On>
Okay, here’s a thought to ponder. The US decides to:
•close its’ borders,
•withdraws all humanitarian aid to all of those ‘needy’ countries in the world,
•brings home all of the troops who risk their lives to maintain peace in developing nations et al,
•kicks out everyone living here illegally or with expired visa’s and denies entry to anyone else,
•keeps all of the tax payers dollars and gives zilch to the UN and in turn invests the money into its’ own people,
•returns to being a Republic and stops its’ capitalistic/imperialistic march into world domination (sarcasm)
•and its’ people sit at home enjoying the spoils of living in the greatest, freedom loving country on earth?
Then every time a Hitler or a Saddam shows up in the world, well tough shit folks. Deal with it because we’re not going to get involved, help, rebuild, and offer aid - nada. Pick up your stones and fight your way out.
Now, what if all of us on this small green planet demanded that our respective countries did the very same thing? Would we all develop and prosper at the same rate as our neighbors? Would the benefits (and YES they exist) from sharing in ideas, products, and services on a global level continue to exist? The same benefits that allow some underdeveloped nations gain in prosperity and improve the lives of their people?
Power to the people? In the US, we call that the right to vote. And to think that the US is the only ‘empire’ in the world to not play by the ‘rules’ is pure Barbara Streisand (BS).
o42cDeadBeef: actually, if you read Chumpsky’s posts long enough, you’ll see that he blames the U.S. for violent suppression of civil rights and cold indifference leading to famines and whatnot, i.e. they’re guilty for ther actions and their inactions.
Coming up with premises is so much easier when you have an unshakable conclusion in mind.
DeadBeef wrote:
The hubris.
You have designed and legislated the voting system so that the choice is a dichotomy — Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. It is the ethical equivalent of Iraq’s Yes or No for Saddam. You have assigned rights to those who have the most political clout. Those without power have their rights usurped.
The vote of an individual is like a snowflake in a blizzard. Great wealth and exposure is required for access to power. Boundless bureaucracies entomb the hopes of struggling minorities whose issues earn no sympathy from oblivious and apathetic majorities.
Power to the people my red ass.
I would enjoy reading a sound, prima facie argument making that case. Would you please provide one?
That’s a sincere request, not a veiled attack. 
p.s. Why is your ass red? Are you a Libertarian communist, or do you wipe too hard?
Inquiring minds want to know – why is your ass red?
Okay, just a little levity Lib.
Opinions are like assholes – everyone has one and they all stink! Rodney Dangerfield
I am a Cherokee Indian.
The voting system is designed to coerce a two-party government. Those who legislate, enforce, and interpret the rules are themselves nearly one-hundred percent Republican or Democrat.
Because of their rules, a Libertarian Party candidate in New York, for example, must collect 50,000 signatures before he can even run. Each time he wants to run. Some states place even heavier burdens. And in Wyoming, each signatory may sign only once for any party’s petition.
They force anyone who is not one of them to beg to participate in the system, jump through hoops that Republicrats never have to jump through, and then be ignored in national debates even when they have met all objective criteria.
See this report from the Cato Institute, How the Republicans and Democrats Maintained Their Market Share. There is much more documentation online if you care to search.
“It is the ethical equivalent of Iraq’s Yes or No for Saddam.”
Last time I checked, Bush hasn’t ordered people in the room to be taken out back and shot in the head as Saddam did on television. Well wait; there was that whole Clinton & Vince Foster thingy. Gee, how could I forget that? :smack:
“The vote of an individual is like a snowflake in a blizzard.”
Regardless of your comment, I still take my voting rights seriously and exercise them often. Remember, each snowflake is unique and unlike any other – or so they say. Kind of makes me feel special when I think about your comment. Thanks for making my day Lib!
I enjoy learning, reading, debating and educating myself on politics, so I’m going to click on the link and read what you have offered. Thanks!
If you wish to educate yourself on libertarian politics, the Libertarian Party and Free-Market are good places to begin. And welcome to Straight Dope Great Debates.
Saddam (or one of his ministers) was meeting with our ambassador, April Glaspie(sp). He complained about Kuwaiti theft of Iraqi oil via slant drilling. IIRC, he said something along the lines of needing to deal with it. Glaspie, not having any instructions on the matter, basically said the US did not wish to get involved in the dispute.
This meeting has become the famed “green light for an invasion”.
Somehow, a vague hint about needing to deal with stolen oil and a
somewhat vague reply about not wanting to get involved in that
dispute became a direct request for permission to invade and just as
direct permission to go ahead.
Have you read “The Road to Serfdom”? It’s a great book. I read it because I saw Milton Friedman interviewed on an anniversary of the book’s publishing, and he said that reading that book is what made him a libertarian. Brian Lamb referred to it as “the conservatives bible.” Anyway, I was suprised by the extent and force of Hayek’s arguments that fairly extensive government regulation was required to have a sound economy, i.e. the ‘free market’ is bunk, the competitive market is da bomb, as the kids say. (“Free market” appears no where in the proof of the First Fundamental Theorem, after all…)
Does this post qualify as a “hijack”? I’ve been seeing that term around. What is “IIRC”?
I would like to save myself a lot of typing.
Participants in the thread will please re-read all of Chumpsky’s posts, and insert the following after every sentence.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
PS -IIRC = If I Recall Correctly. Welcome to the SDMB.
Africanus wrote:
Yes, indeed. It was in the course of writing that book that Hayek developed his Theory of Spontaneous Order, and that eventually led to his Nobel prize in economics for proving that socialism is indemically unfeasable.
But do not misunderstand Hayek’s points about the free-market. The only ethical government interference is suppression of coercion (initiated force or fraud). Any other interference is harmful to the economy. But that particular kind of interference is necessary. It is called a “noncoercive free-market”. And it is the very heart of libertarianism, i.e., the Noncoercion Principle.
Incidentally, for what it’s worth, the book that led me to libertarianism was Human Action. At the link, hosted by Cato, you may read the entire text.
Oh, and IIRC is “if I recall correctly”. Welcome to Straight Dope.
Interesting article by Ron Rosenbaum (author of EXPLAINING HITLER among other books) in last week’s NY OBSERVER.
A quote:
“…Pardon me if I return to that sign: “BUSH IS A DEVIL … HANDS OFF N. KOREA, IRAQ,” etc. Pardon me if I ask what might seem like a naïve question, but isn’t the Left supposed to be on the side of oppressed people, rather than on the side of the police states, such as North Korea, or the vicious theocracies, such as Iran, that oppress them? That’s why I used to think of myself as part of the Left. How did it all turn around so that if Mr. Bush opposes a police state, that particular police state is then taken under the nurturing, protective wing of the Left—and those oppressed people don’t count. Police states like Iraq and North Korea must be worth protecting even though they torture their citizens, murder their dissenters, repress women and gays, because—well, because Bush is the devil, and if the devil opposes something, it must have something going for it.”
There are perfectly jamming rock bands out there besides Rage Against the Machine, Chumsky.
Of course, Milo.
But Rage is still a bloody good band!