4 ms·

I'm sure those million dead people in iraq are glad the fifth fleet is protecting trade or that America didn't actually directly steal their oil. The same goes

I'm sure those million dead people in iraq are glad the fifth fleet is protecting trade or that America didn't actually directly steal their oil. The same goes for the countless lives and futures ruined for the people still living with the consequences of the Gulf War. This is absurd and sounds exactly like a chinese nationalist rhetoric about what Mao did in the great leap forward. Hey, millions died, but think of how stable/prosperous everything was after that! Plus, our side had good intentions*. Two sides of the same coin. (By the way, the US profits immensly from a stable gulf trade. Oil doesn't have to be exported to the US for america to profit from trade in the area. It's a commodity, and stable trade means stable prices internationally, which is extremely important to american interests. China might profit, too, but it's even more essential to American hegemony, which I agree can have its upsides)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jasmer 4y ago
Yes, it's unfortute that Saddam invaded Kuwait. Thankfully Iraq has some semblance of governance and has valuable Oil assets that it can export, courtesy of US taxpayers. Iraq benefits far more from it's exports than the US gains from protecting them.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  You should tell kuwait that they were invaded in 2003.
  - jasmer 4y ago
    ? Kuwaitis are absolutely the most grateful people of the American re-constitution of the war that started in 1993. They would have been the first to tell you that the 'war never ended' and that Saddam, then even nuttier than before, remained a threat, with ongoing military operations in the 'no fly zone' for years - were you willing to listen. The 'mistake' was less the invasion as much as it was the handling of the aftermath.
    - mardifoufs 4y ago
      We are talking about two different wars. And no, being "a threat" isn't a reason to invade a country. Iraq in 2003 had no means, and no intentions to invade Kuwait. The first gulf war was iraq's fault for sure, but that's obviously not the war I was talking about.
unity1001 4y ago
> protecting trade or that America didn't actually directly steal their oil "Protecting the trade of Iraqi oil in dollars to prevent them from moving to euro and other currencies" - thats 'protecting' alright. And apparently its ok if the theft is not 'direct'. Just printing dollars like a banana republic by forcing Iraq to sell their oil for dollars is ok. Of course its ok - its much better than actually robbing it since it allows printing an unspecified amount of dollars in return. > This is absurd and sounds exactly like a chinese nationalist rhetoric about what Mao did in the great leap forward If there is nothing wrong with the American nationalism that you blatantly exhibit, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Chinese nationalism or the nationalism of every other country. > By the way, the US profits immensly from a stable gulf trade... ...in dollars. Too bad that its not happening anymore, as countries move to trade in Yuan, Ruble and other currencies and the inflation skyrockets in the US as unused dollars flow back to the US. Which is precisely why the us attacked Iraq to prevent them from moving off of dollar... > it's even more essential to American hegemony, which I agree can have its upsides What an unrepentant display of jingoist imperialism. This is not even mere 'nationalism'. So, the US bashing the heads of small countries in and forcing them to trade their commodities for dollars so it can print unlimited dollars is 'having upsides'. Im sure 1 million dead iraqis will rest in peace, knowing that how they died to make that 'upside' happen. ... Its amazing how the comments objecting to my original criticism just 'disappear' the 1 million people that have been murdered but talk about delirious things like 'upsides'. Amazing social study opportunity on the topic of how people avoid cognitive dissonance.
- jasmer 4y ago
  Because 1 million people were not 'murdered' it's a fabrication on your part.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jasmer 4y ago

Yes, it's unfortute that Saddam invaded Kuwait. Thankfully Iraq has some semblance of governance and has valuable Oil assets that it can export, courtesy of US taxpayers. Iraq benefits far more from it's exports than the US gains from protecting them.

mardifoufs 4y ago
You should tell kuwait that they were invaded in 2003.
- jasmer 4y ago
  ? Kuwaitis are absolutely the most grateful people of the American re-constitution of the war that started in 1993. They would have been the first to tell you that the 'war never ended' and that Saddam, then even nuttier than before, remained a threat, with ongoing military operations in the 'no fly zone' for years - were you willing to listen. The 'mistake' was less the invasion as much as it was the handling of the aftermath.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    We are talking about two different wars. And no, being "a threat" isn't a reason to invade a country. Iraq in 2003 had no means, and no intentions to invade Kuwait. The first gulf war was iraq's fault for sure, but that's obviously not the war I was talking about.

unity1001 4y ago

> protecting trade or that America didn't actually directly steal their oil "Protecting the trade of Iraqi oil in dollars to prevent them from moving to euro and other currencies" - thats 'protecting' alright. And apparently its ok if the theft is not 'direct'. Just printing dollars like a banana republic by forcing Iraq to sell their oil for dollars is ok. Of course its ok - its much better than actually robbing it since it allows printing an unspecified amount of dollars in return. > This is absurd and sounds exactly like a chinese nationalist rhetoric about what Mao did in the great leap forward If there is nothing wrong with the American nationalism that you blatantly exhibit, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Chinese nationalism or the nationalism of every other country. > By the way, the US profits immensly from a stable gulf trade... ...in dollars. Too bad that its not happening anymore, as countries move to trade in Yuan, Ruble and other currencies and the inflation skyrockets in the US as unused dollars flow back to the US. Which is precisely why the us attacked Iraq to prevent them from moving off of dollar... > it's even more essential to American hegemony, which I agree can have its upsides What an unrepentant display of jingoist imperialism. This is not even mere 'nationalism'. So, the US bashing the heads of small countries in and forcing them to trade their commodities for dollars so it can print unlimited dollars is 'having upsides'. Im sure 1 million dead iraqis will rest in peace, knowing that how they died to make that 'upside' happen. ... Its amazing how the comments objecting to my original criticism just 'disappear' the 1 million people that have been murdered but talk about delirious things like 'upsides'. Amazing social study opportunity on the topic of how people avoid cognitive dissonance.

jasmer 4y ago
Because 1 million people were not 'murdered' it's a fabrication on your part.