thank god someone ALMOST had a grasp on modern history untainted by the massive left wing propaganda juggernaught now commonly known as "the press".....but that last line "yeah, remember back when we actually waited for other countries to be aggressive, rather than anticipating their aggression" you sort of lost it.dshak wrote:
its not really worth even bringing up the first gulf war, there's no debate on motives or justifications for that one (oil or no oil)... that whole discussion goes for a walk when Iraq invades a largely defenseless Kuwait. (yeah, remember back when we actually waited for other countries to be aggressive, rather than anticipating their aggression)
It's not ur fault though, u have to dig up the facts for yourself, the easiest way to start is to google the iraq war resolution. You will see a myriad of reasons, the single most important being Saddam's ignoring the terms of the original peace treaty for over a decade, we (all of the nations, not just the US)ran him back to baghdad in the 90's, at which point HE went to the UN, and asked to talk terms. He did not abide by those terms, he offered 50000 dollars to families of suicide bombers, he sent his regiment 99 to train the tsetse rebels (Mogadishu), he allowed a myriad of terror organizations to hold training camps in Iraq (not bin laden cuz they were having a tiff), he continued to exterminate the kurds in northern iraq, he constantly talked of re-establishing the Babylonian empire and owning everything from Egypt to Pakistan (Kuwait was the first step of this plan)...I could go on and on.
You'll never see any of this broadcast except a few low key productions by the few truly historically unbiased agencies like national geographic. For instance, how many times has CNN international shown the sattelite photos of the trucks and rail cars hauling ass from the suspected weapons sites while Saddam stalled the UN for the 6 months prior to the second war, how many times have you heard BBC talk of the 144 verified violations of the weapons clauses in the peace treaty, including 5 tons of uranium sitting a few miles south of baghdad, hundreds of missiles, some with warheads capable of carrying chemical and biological agents, with israel in their targetting computers, or the 1100 gallons of 15 different agents used in the creation of nerve gases and such some of which are lethal enough to be weapons in their pure form.
Never heard of this? Really? Not surprised. We live in a time when the so-called "legitimate" newscasts sound exactly like the fake ones on Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show, historically know for being havens of liberalism. The information is out there but YOU have to go find it, don't let "them" bring it to you, there are no reporters anymore, just leftist propagandist hippies disguising editorials as fact. I'm a little rusty on the subject but aside from the original Kuwaiti invasion timeline and the 2nd war's resolution a good place to start are the UN's resolutions 678, 876, and 1441. Although to be fair, the UN is a bloated, impotent, welfare recipient wasting valuable resources of nations that could be using them to advance the human legacy, instead of funding oil for food scandals. Until the UN gets a testosterone injection and lives up to it's charter it up to the US, UK, AUS, and recently (though somewhat unreliably) the former USSR to kick ass and take names. Hell even China's starting to stand up to North Korea and Iran.
To rehash the original subject, whether benevolent or oppressive, the strongest power is always the lightning rod of criticism, whether it be capitalist modern America, imperialist England of the 1700's, expansionist Spain of the 1500's. God I knew I shouldn't have started reading this thread, i think i just gave someone a good start on a thesis paper.
And no, I don't have to prove there's liberal bias in the media, Dan Rather did it for me when he ran stories degrading Bush's character based on documents he knew were forged.
