Ok look at at Iraq. US ambassador albright when questioned on tv about iraqi and kuwait relations said it was an arab problem and US would not get involved. ie u gave a green light to saddam. Even if you just wanted regime change America could have taken Saddam out without killing hundreds of thousands of innocents through sanctions and wars.
Please tell me you are not blaming Saddam's invasion of Kuwait on the U.S., because you insinuate this rather strongly. "If not for Albright's tacit approval, or at the least, non-interference statement, Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait." Is that it?
Behind the Albright smoke screen, it is obvious that a Muslim nation (Iraq) wanted to attack another.
And dont tell me that oil did not play a part in america going in.
Not this tired rhetoric again. Look up the companies and nations that recieved oil contracts in Iraq. Next, calculate the cost of waging a war vs. simply buying the oil openly on the world market. I'd venture it to be 100X the price. Finally, look at where Iraq falls on oil imports to the U.S. It is a tiny, tiny amount, down at #7, FAR behind even
Colombia.
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Oil imports by nation to the U.S.
With that said, most people in the U.S. believe the Iraq war was a dumb thing... but at least Saddam and his buddies like "Chemical Ali" are now history.
Oh and 9-11 i remember watching tv on the day it happend and i was sickened by the attack. I even wanted to help in any way that I could and wanted to give money to any charity that could help and my heart went out to the americans.
Your sentiment is appreciated.
However that changed when I saw the disproportionate response in americas response.
The response to 9-11 was the invasion of Afghanistan, initially by about 200 Americans. With the Northern Alliance assisted by U.S. Air Power, the Taliban were ejected from Kabul.
Our response should have included immediate and harsh destruction of al Quaeda, the training camps, and the Taliban who supported them. Then, we should have left, leaving behind an obvious message - "If you export violence again, we will return." No nation-building.
I dont normally hate but in the case of the american government I make an exception. To be honest I dont even think that the US govt even looks after or represents its own poor and downtrodden
I think you have been bombarded for 10 years with the worst sort of imaginary rhetoric. If the term "Millions killed" is said 10,000 times over, people believe it. I know you won't believe this, but the U.S. hand in Afghanistan has been extraordinarily light. Even in Iraq... remember the battle for Fallujah?
Fallujah was a nest, a base of operations, for insurgents. Let's ignore the politics, the motivations for a moment, and look only at the operation. You (an American) are tasked with neutralizing Fallujah. You have two choices:
1) We could bomb Fallujah with B-52's back to the stone age. Level every building. Turn it into dust and rubble. The Iraqi casualties would have been staggering. But the U.S. casualties... ZERO.
2) We could clean it out in harsh, house-to-house urban combat. Target insurgents but not civilians. Iraqi casualties - much less. U.S. casualties - way up.
Which did we do? If we are
eeeevil, why did we do it that way?