Damien435 said:
Also should be noted that France attempted to hide behind the Maginot line, sticking their head in the sand and pretending that the Germans would enter France that way. Snip to fit
The Maginot Line was the greatest defensive fortification that the world has ever seen. The Germans knew very well that they could not go through it, but Belgium did not want the French building it opposite their borders. In addition, it was so expensive that France could not have continued all the way to the Atlantic. Belgium also built a defensive line and told the French that the Germans would not pass. The biggest fort, Fort Eban Emael fell to a new tactic that the Germans invented especially for it, and no, it was not blitzkreig. Actually, it makes fascinating reading. But as I said, the French were as prepared for it as they could have been. Also keep in mind, if it had have been the US Army on the border of Belgium and France, they would have been crushed. The Germans were just too good.
Damien435 said:
See, I ask the same question in regards to Canada sending troops to Iraq. It is merely a token gesture of aid, and like the others would not amount to anything more.
And now who is the one trying to hide behind the Atlantic? I’ll give you a hint, it is not the US.
I still maintain that the War on Terror had nothing to do with Iraq.
And how can we possibly be hiding behind the Atlantic when our forces are fighting in Afganistan? When and more importantly how did Iraq become the great battle in the War on Terror? The answer? It became the main battle of the War on Terror the moment the administration realized that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Before that, it was something completely different.
Damien435 said:
See, umm, about Canada’s peacekeeping thing, most Americans are only familiar with the Peacekeepers in Rwanda, in which the Peacekeepers stood by while the Rwandan’s slaughtered each other. Obviously Canada will likely have some success stories with their peacekeeping forces, but then again so does the US.
Yeah, but what about the 30-some-odd others? As for Rwanda, the peacekeepers were also slaughtered, which was the reason that no one sent anymore troops. Nobody was willing to commit troops for a country that was not worth anything. I guess it's too bad that Rwanda has no oil.
Damien435 said:
(SNIP TO FIT)we do not feel like starting WWIII.
True, enough, WW III is not really a good idea. However, all I was trying to point out was that the US has a long history of supporting dictators as long as their politics were more to the right than to the left. About two years ago, I was in New Hampshire and I got into a conversation with a Vietnam vet about 9/11. When he realized that I am Canadian, he asked me why so many people hated the US. I found this strange, but he went on to tell me that he and many others don't get access to foreign media and differing opinions. I replied that the US tends to treat other countries very selectively. His reply was a blank stare. I went on to say that US foreign policy was not to defend freedom, it was to make the world free for US corporations to make profits wherever they wanted to. He gave me a hard look, and said, "yeah, you're right." For example, in Chile, the US helped overthrow a democratically elected, left centrist socialist government and activley supported the right-wing brutal dictatorship that replaced it. The world has not forgotten about this or other dictators that the US defended in the name of freedom, including, as I stated earlier, Saddam Hussein himself. I would just love it if the US tried harder to practice what it preaches.
Damien435 said:
We had to start somewhere and I think Iraq was chosen for several reasons.
-Saddam still being in power was a constant reminder of the failure by the coalition forces in Desert Storm.
What failure? The objective of Desert Storm was not to depose Saddam Hussein. It was the removal of his army from Kuwait, and the entire coalition was on the same page with this. Some members of the coalition did want to go farther, but it was agreed to stop, because the coalition would have fallen apart if the coalition forces had advanced to Bagdad. I must underline one fact, deposing Saddam Hussein was not the objective of Desert Storm. Desert Storm was successful in all respects.
Damien435 said:
-Iraq is a nation with the potential to grow into a regional power, economically and militarily. (I think I spelled that last word wrong, but you guys get the point, I hope.)
You spelled it right. Again though, I state that Iraq under Hussein was unable to do anything of the kind. Half of Iraqi airspace was a no fly zone, coalition aircraft could overfly Iraq at will, weapons entering Iraq were few and far between, inspectors were going all over looking for WMDs, and they had no navy, they had no air force and what was left pf their army was impotent Their army had fought and lost two wars, suffering huge losses at the same time. Much of their infrastructures were also shattered in those two wars. They were unable to export enough oil to pay for the re-building of any of this. So, how do you figure they could become a economic or military power again? Like I said, Hussein was contained... fully contained. He was caught in a trap called Iraq, and he could not have done much more than make noise.
Damien435 said:
-President George W. Bush would without a doubt remember that Saddam tried to kill his father, President George H.W. Bush.
I'm not going to make friends with this one, but here goes. The US led the coalition in 1993. Although war was never declared, a state of war existed, and Iraq then withdrew from Kuwait. There was no peace agreement, therefore, a state of war still existed between Iraq and the US. ((and Canada for that matter.) Technically the state of war still exists and will continue to do so until the recognized government of Iraq signs a peace treaty.) Because a state of war existed, Iraq was within its rights to attempt an assasination attempt on the president. They were at war and the president was the head of state of the enemy. It was no more a terrorist attack than were the opening salvoes of Gulf War 2. Those strikes were designed to decapitate the Iraqi government. It seems to me that if an assassination attempt against the president is terrorism, so were the opening attacks of Gulf War 2 and all of the strikes that targeted Hussein. (particularly the restaurant in the middle of a civilian area of Bagdad)
Damien435 said:
Now, about Al-Qaeda. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and was poised to invade Saudi Arabia Osama made an offer to the Saudi family. He would bring his fighters from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia and they would protect Saudi Arabia, without the help of the US. He went to great lengths to say that his fighters could and would take care of Saddam’s Army. This offer was, obviously, rejected by the Saudi’s. They told him that there was no way Osama could do what he said he would, Saddam’s army had just emerged victorious from eight years of fighting with Iran, his army was the most powerful in the middle east and unlike Afghanistan there were not many valleys in Saudi Arabia where Osama’s men could repeatedly ambush Iraqi forces, like they could when they were fighting the Soviet’s.
Good decision by the Saudis. I must admit however, that I never heard of that request by A-Q.
Iraq never beat Iran. If anything, the opposite happened. The Iraqi objective at the beginning of the war was total control of the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway. They took it, then lost it. They never got it back, and Iran pushed all Iraqi troops out of Iran, with the exception of some small pockets near the border. Some people describe it as a stalemate, which I never understood. Iran achieved its objectives. Iraq did not. Both countries were bled dry by the war. It was a long and brutal affair, and I believe that Iraq's army came out worse. Iran did suffer more casualties, but they had more to lose. In the end, both armies were gutted, with the exception of some Revolutionary Guard divisions around Bagdad. They did manage to re-build enough to invade Kuwait, but then again, they could have done that with one division. They could have gone a bit farther into Saudi Arabia as well, due to the fact that Saudi is so sparsely populated. But they could not have rivaled Iran.
Damien435 said:
Osama said that “If the infidels were allowed into the Holy Land they would never leave.” And he kind of has a point, US forces still operate from bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, our support for Israel is another reason.
He made that statement, then he made sure that it would come true. Ironic isn't it?
Damien435 said:
Now, even if Osama is ultimately not responsible for the attacks on the US embassies and Marine Barracks in Beirut Clinton still should not have turned down the offer from Sudan, this was after all after the first attack on the World Trade Center.
Here again, we are in complete agreement. But I think you have the time-line wrong. Bush was President at the time of 9/11, so Clinton could not have known what Bin Laden was up to. 20/20 hindsight is a great revealer of mistakes, and Clinton was very intelligent for a president. However, even he could not see into the future.
Dean, the still unpopular...