War with Iran

[BrianFromWA]

The only way Iran is going to nuke anyone is if they see it as a last ditch option if they're going to be destroyed. No one wants to set off a world-wide nuclear war, that is endgame for all of us. The results would be catastrophic. It is a bunch of posturing unless things get very, very desperate.

Serious non-patronizing question...do you know the difference between counterforce and countervalue?

 

[huevonkiller]

LOL!
You really don't want to shift over to the Korean war. You're getting your ass handed to you on a topic you wrote 49 pages on, and now you want to ramble over into my neck of the woods b/c you don't care about international law. Fabulous.

You're right...what the hell does international law have to do with foreign policy?

Hey buddy you might want to address the rest of that post.

Also "OMG I AM KICKING YOUR ASS" is not a very wise retort, try again.

 

[huevonkiller]

I didn't say a single word about 1.2B muslims.

"Why do we have to withdraw interests from the middle east? Are you saying that McDonald's can't sell there, that Halliburton can't drill there, that Blackwater can't be used to train their policemen, etc? I can't buy middle eastern oil anymore, that I have to buy from Venezuela just b/c someone says his interpretation of religion says I can't?

To answer the rest of your question, i say "partially." I'm scared that people will then attack for money, or do other stupid shit that impacts our strategic interests. People are not good and nice, and the reason there isn't constant savagery is because a) the grace of God and b) because there are people willing to make sure that bullies don't overrun the rest.

What possible history can you cite to say that if left alone, these places would turn into communal utopias? "

I said that bad people all over do bad things, even if you kowtow to them. You keep attacking me, but you don't seem to have anything to say. Bust out some knowledge from your 49-page treatise, bruh. Tell us uneducated military types why, even when every troop was off Saudi soil, bin Laden didn't say "ok everyone, mission accomplished, let's go home and leave them in peace!" Tell me why he then stated that all Muslim societies now had to get rid of secular rulers, and that the jihad would continue until it did. Tell me why America was targeted, instead of all those other countries. Did bin Laden really get off on the interventionist policies of Niger and Bangladesh?

Does Niger and Bangladesh have 300,000 troops around the world? Didn't you start a war in Afghanistan genius? Lol wtf are you talking about, why is he going to call off a war at that point? Also I am fine with his execution.

Tell me why America propped up dictators in Saudi Arabia against the will of their people? Tell me why Sri Lanka has more terrorists than Iran and Sudan which are more radical muslim nations? Why do you keep getting knocked the fuck out in Egypt after decades of intervention?

They don't want secular leaders in the Middle East, big surprise.

 

[BrianFromWA]

"Why do we have to withdraw interests from the middle east? Are you saying that McDonald's can't sell there, that Halliburton can't drill there, that Blackwater can't be used to train their policemen, etc? I can't buy middle eastern oil anymore, that I have to buy from Venezuela just b/c someone says his interpretation of religion says I can't?

To answer the rest of your question, i say "partially." I'm scared that people will then attack for money, or do other stupid shit that impacts our strategic interests. People are not good and nice, and the reason there isn't constant savagery is because a) the grace of God and b) because there are people willing to make sure that bullies don't overrun the rest.

What possible history can you cite to say that if left alone, these places would turn into communal utopias? "

I stand by all that. Where does that say anything about 1.2B muslims? I think the actual quote was "bad people all over do bad things." Not "bad muslims" or "bad black people" or "bad non-Christians"...

Does Niger and Bangladesh have 300,000 troops around the world?

Nope. But I also submit that there isn't a single base anywhere where the country doesn't want us there. Even Futenma on Okinawa, where I was stationed while people protested, want us off the base b/c they want the valuable land. But they don't want to pay for it. So tell me again...why is it that the US is targeted but those others aren't? There aren't muslim shrines in Korea, Japan, Kosovo or Italy, iirc.

Tell me why America propped up dictators in Saudi Arabia against the will of their people?

What little I know of Saudi history (and I'd be happy to listen to you explain it to me) is that the House of Saud has been ruling since taking Riyadh in like 1900, and the attempted coups in the 70's were by fringe groups that said not to sell oil to the US. Are there large-scale protests (like the ones in Tehran after the rigged election) about the Royal Family going away? Even the ones who would like to see the monarchy go away seem to be because of the lavishness of the lifestyle of the royal family, rather than their relations with the US.

Tell me why Sri Lanka has more terrorists than Iran and Sudan which are more radical muslim nations?

I don't know much about Sri Lanka, but I do know a bit about Sudan. Are you saying that genocide's ok, as long as it's not politicized? Sudan is a place where people are raped to breed Arab blood into the natives. They've been practicing apartheid there for 20 years. The people don't want a muslim government there. And as a fun fact...Amnesty International reported that Chinese and Russians were supplying the Janjaweed forces with weapons against the UN embargo.

Why do you keep getting knocked the fuck out in Egypt after decades of intervention?

Who's "you"? I don't know what you're talking about here.

They don't want secular leaders in the Middle East, big surprise.

Again, who's "they?" The populace? The mullahs? The military? Terrorists?

 

[huevonkiller]

But the question is, does MENA care what you think? This looks like a resounding "no".

President Obama’s policies received less than 10 percent approval in every Arab country surveyed. Compare that to the 60 percent of Lebanese who agree with the policies of Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The first Zogby poll showed Arab approval of the United States in the Middle East has plummeted so drastically under Obama that it is now lower than it was during the presidency of George W. Bush.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zogby-obama-iran-popularity/2011/07/26/id/404933

Looks like they're giving you the finger Brian. By "them", I'm referring to regular people. So you can stop pretending it is just Middle Eastern governments that despise you.

I stand by all that. Where does that say anything about 1.2B muslims?

Right I forgot to mention, you love intervening in all countries not just muslim ones.

Nope. But I also submit that there isn't a single base anywhere where the country doesn't want us there. Even Futenma on Okinawa, where I was stationed while people protested, want us off the base b/c they want the valuable land. But they don't want to pay for it. So tell me again...why is it that the US is targeted but those others aren't? There aren't muslim shrines in Korea, Japan, Kosovo or Italy, iirc.

Sorry but Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Morocco, and Saudi Arabians hate us. I have the polls right in front of me that show their disgust for our foreign policy (not our "freedom"). You can argue till the end of time and these polls will always show that they abhor us.

There are some places where we are more liked. But why can't Japan pay for their own military? The argument looks weak to me.

What little I know of Saudi history (and I'd be happy to listen to you explain it to me) is that the House of Saud has been ruling since taking Riyadh in

like 1900, and the attempted coups in the 70's were by fringe groups that said not to sell oil to the US.

Saudi Arabia is probably the most brutally run country in the entire region (which is why their people hate us). You'd be better off being a woman in Iran. Also half of all Suicide bombers come out of Saudi Arabia. Woops.

Shortly before World War 1, after the Collapse of the Ottoman empire, Europe rushed in and tried to colonize MENA. Britain and France mostly with a dash of Italy. The US didn't start to intervene until after World War II. In the 1960's Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel became part of the US's 3 Pillar strategy. This meant that Saudi Arabia was supposed to "police" the region, among other things. The Oil shock of 1973 was not a big deal either, market equilibrium took care of that.

Are there large-scale protests (like the ones in Tehran after the rigged election) about the Royal Family going away? Even the ones who would like to see
the monarchy go away seem to be because of the lavishness of the lifestyle of the royal family, rather than their relations with the US.

Protests are lite in SA even though Iran is more free in various instances. The National Guard in Saudi Arabia is Sunni, meaning that they will fire upon Shia protestors (unlike the security agencies in Egypt and Tunisia). Also Wahhabi and Liberal protestors argue with each other so demonstrations are not as organized.

Their neighbor, Bahrain, is getting protested heavily though.

I don't know much about Sri Lanka, but I do know a bit about Sudan. Are you saying that genocide's ok, as long as it's not politicized? Sudan is a

place where people are raped to breed Arab blood into the natives. They've been practicing apartheid there for 20 years. The people don't want a muslim

government there.

Military intervention does work, sometimes, but the government has a tendency to fuck it up. For example in Rwanda we could have easily intervened and saved the lives of 800,000 people. But we also intervene in a bunch of superfluous shit that ends up blowing up in our face.

Let the private sector handle it (you can donate to Darfur charities), don't put a gun to my head and make me support random killing sprees.

And as a fun fact...Amnesty International reported that Chinese and Russians were supplying the Janjaweed forces with weapons against the UN embargo.

The reality of "embargos". China and Russia don't give a fuck nor should they.

Who's "you"? I don't know what you're talking about here.

Again, who's "they?" The populace? The mullahs? The military? Terrorists?

See above. Not only do they all dislike you, your wars have no end and everyone can be considered a terrorist.


Stop pointing a gun at my head and making me pay for murder, well-intentioned or not.

 

[Denny Crane]

We are bound by treaties to use our
Military overseas at times. I have no issue with fulfilling NATO or UN or other obligations.

My issues are that we shouldn't be sending far more troops than the other countries combined. And we shouldn't enforce UN resolutions or push for combat under the guise of some treaty organization.

 

[MARIS61]

what I'm saying is that that changed. Originally bin Laden's goal was "troops out of Saudi."He wanted to use his private army to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam.

Nonsense.

I realize you were a few decades younger back then, and probably completely had no access to daily news, but bin laden first achieved fame/infamy for helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan and causing their country's collapse back in the 80's. His message of fighting outside interference in the middle east by ANY country has been consistent from Day 1.

 

[MARIS61]

What possible history can you cite to say that if left alone, these places would turn into communal utopias?

What possible history can you cite to say that our intervention in these places has turned them into communal utopias?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Saddam was brought to justice by his people, under their law and court system. Not ours. There's one example.

You can debate whether thousands of our troops' lives and billions of dollars was worth it, but we DO make the world a better place.

 

[MARIS61]

Saddam was brought to justice by his people, under their law and court system. Not ours. There's one example.

You can debate whether thousands of our troops' lives and billions of dollars was worth it, but we DO make the world a better place.

Iraq is NOT a better place today than it was under Saddam.

It is a pile of radioactive rubble at the mercy of handouts from the US. They have no representative government, no "leader" of any consequence, no military defensive capabilities of their own, and we have destroyed the infrastructure that it took them half a century to build.

They are more divided than ever before as a people and nearly every citizen had family members murdered by our bombs and soldiers.

As for "worth it"?

Our soldiers are paid well to kill strangers and I assume happy to accept the risk for the pay. Their choice entirely.

But it was not worth the mass murder of 200,000-500,000 civilians, angering 1.2 billion muslims, and leaving the US in a more vulnerable state than before we invaded.

 

[MARIS61]

Pick a link, any link:

http://www.google.com/search?source...q+worse+off+now&gs_upl=0l0l0l6485lllllllllll0

 

[jlprk]

I read the thread's last 2 posts. Since everyone on Earth except a couple of people in the American military thinks the Iraq War was evil, I'll save my breath.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Iraq is NOT a better place today than it was under Saddam.

It is a pile of radioactive rubble at the mercy of handouts from the US. They have no representative government, no "leader" of any consequence, no military defensive capabilities of their own, and we have destroyed the infrastructure that it took them half a century to build.

They are more divided than ever before as a people and nearly every citizen had family members murdered by our bombs and soldiers.

As for "worth it"?

Our soldiers are paid well to kill strangers and I assume happy to accept the risk for the pay. Their choice entirely.

But it was not worth the mass murder of 200,000-500,000 civilians, angering 1.2 billion muslims, and leaving the US in a more vulnerable state than before we invaded.

fucking poetry

 

[huevonkiller]

Yeah that was pretty nice. :O

 

[DaLincolnJones]

who are you even talking about? the entire arab world? muslims in general? you cant really be this xenophobic/ bigoted, but i guess fox news can brainwash the eager to fear fairly easily

I knew this would not be too hard to make a point of

I claim that the collective vaule system is 180 from what you try to apply to the entire reigon

You follow up with your quote above

Look at what has happened only from the inception of this post

Iran says several times that it will do bad things
then they say they want talks for good things
then they say they will be good in the straight
then they say they want peace love and fuzzy bunnies
then they test fire missles in the straight and claim they will do bad things again

In the mean time

obummer reaches out to al queeda again and claims of warm friendship abound
rinse and repete
al queeda joins with the taliban to try and persduade the Pakies to fight AGINST us

The Packies are just more of the same say one thing till they have what they want then do another

I have had actual dealings with drinks with and so on, my opinion does not come spoonfed, these guys are not like us what so ever

Here is an idea, and its totally safe, go to the nearest university, befriend a student form anywhere in the reigon, remember these students are the most pro western of the population. Spend some time have a few drinks and pry, your view will change

 

[3RA1N1AC]

clearly a brown person laughed at your penis once, im not really sure what else to say

 

[DaLincolnJones]

clearly a brown person laughed at your penis once, im not really sure what else to say

I guess I should not expect much more than a personal slam..lemme try one on for size..

clearly you have been banging your head on your moms headbord while you fuck yourself obtuce with mindless left wing public opinion...

 

[BrianFromWA]

Iraq is NOT a better place today than it was under Saddam.

It is a pile of radioactive rubble at the mercy of handouts from the US. They have no representative government, no "leader" of any consequence, no military defensive capabilities of their own, and we have destroyed the infrastructure that it took them half a century to build.

They are more divided than ever before as a people and nearly every citizen had family members murdered by our bombs and soldiers.

As for "worth it"?

Our soldiers are paid well to kill strangers and I assume happy to accept the risk for the pay. Their choice entirely.

But it was not worth the mass murder of 200,000-500,000 civilians, angering 1.2 billion muslims, and leaving the US in a more vulnerable state than before we invaded.

I counted 10 inaccuracies/lies in that post, not including the bias you have toward people who do things you cannot at your behest. The question becomes, what in your twisted worldview makes it an agenda point to keep parroting these lies and inaccuracies? What possible good outcome can come from you saying things like "1.2 billion people hate us" and "hundreds of thousands of civilians killed?" Do you think that by parroting those lies ad nauseum something's going to happen that you agree with?

And there's no "choice," involved, unless it's the "choice" of people in LaPine to vote for people who vote to continue sending reservists and National Guardsmen halfway around the world.

How vulnerable are you, Maris? And what metric are you using to say we're "more vulnerable" than before? And how does that coalesce with your naive view of what isolationism/demilitarization would provide?

 

[MARIS61]

I counted 10 inaccuracies/lies in that post, not including the bias you have toward people who do things you cannot at your behest.

Haven't even read the rest of your post yet but STOP THROWING THIS LIE INTO YOUR REPLIES.

I have told you several times I do not support US military involvement in other countries, the killing of people in those countries, or the empire building and corporate profiteering these crimes are committed for.

Quit trying to ease your conscience by blaming me for your actions.

And quit thinking there's something special about killing strangers. Any 13 year-old gangbanger can do it.

What's a lot more difficult, and carries more honor, is living your entire life without killing anyone.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I guess I should not expect much more than a personal slam..lemme try one on for size..

its ok little fella, you dont need to be scared of brown people, they arent going to steal your girlfriend

 

[MARIS61]

I counted 10 inaccuracies/lies in that post, not including the bias you have toward people who do things you cannot at your behest. The question becomes, what in your twisted worldview makes it an agenda point to keep parroting these lies and inaccuracies? What possible good outcome can come from you saying things like "1.2 billion people hate us" and "hundreds of thousands of civilians killed?" Do you think that by parroting those lies ad nauseum something's going to happen that you agree with?

And there's no "choice," involved, unless it's the "choice" of people in LaPine to vote for people who vote to continue sending reservists and National Guardsmen halfway around the world.

How vulnerable are you, Maris? And what metric are you using to say we're "more vulnerable" than before? And how does that coalesce with your naive view of what isolationism/demilitarization would provide?

I never lie. I didn't say you made them hate us, I said you angered them and that's a simple fact. Aside from a tiny minority, Muslims were angered by our invasion and the accompanying slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders. Pretend it's not true if that makes you feel better.

As for whether it was 100,000 or hundreds of thousands, it's all in who you believe.

Pick whatever number seems like a good acceptable christian number to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties

It's an all-volunteer military. The choice they made is the same one I made when I decided to start a new career as a Realtor. I chose less compensation/benefits for a career where I retain 100% personal responsibility for my actions. They opted for more compensation/benefits in exchange for letting others use them as killing machines. It has nothing to do with who voted for who or what wars the US wage. They could have been Realtors or dentists or rabbis or Peace Corps teachers or EMTs or sold tiny classified ads in newspapers. They chose to sell their soul to those who wage war. Don't expect me to feel sorry for them if they are asked to fulfill their contract.

The "choice" I had when I was young was register for the draft or do real hard time in prison. If drafted, the choice became kill for Standard Oil/die trying, willingly go to prison giving up my 2nd Amendment rights, right to vote..., lie and get a religious deferment, or move to another country to live as a fugitive.

As for my vulnerablility? I had little to worry about a decade ago. I live in a country so vast with the best armed civilian population on Earth. No country has a prayer of ever occupying it with or without our military.

But suddenly in the stroke of a pen the other day all my rights have been signed away. The one and only true threat to my country's existence, a military coup, has begun. So that's my vulnerablility. My government has been overthrown but most of the dumbed-down-by-the-media populace won't realize it until they've been interned in a camp or simply interred.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Haven't even read the rest of your post yet but STOP THROWING THIS LIE INTO YOUR REPLIES.

I have told you several times I do not support US military involvement in other countries, the killing of people in those countries, or the empire building and corporate profiteering these crimes are committed for.

There's bias right there. "Military Involvement", including "killing of people" if it's required, are not crimes b/c they're done at the behest of you, by your representatives. Don't lump me in with the consequences of your decision-making or its non-reflection of the rest of society. The fact that you remain unconvinced/ignorant about why the citizens of the US and your representatives send people overseas has little bearing on how I do my job.

Quit trying to ease your conscience by blaming me for your actions.
And quit thinking there's something special about killing strangers. Any 13 year-old gangbanger can do it.

But something that neither 13y/o gangbangers or, as it seems, realtors in Central Oregon can do is be sent by their government overseas to do the bidding of the elected representatives of said gangbangers and realtors. There's a reason that a) they're called "orders", and b) I can't just pick up an M16 and go shoot strangers. I'm sorry that you feel threatened by one of the few civic duties you have, but the fact remains that no one in the military can do a single thing (including get paid, much less killing strangers) without you and your representatives approving it.

What's a lot more difficult, and carries more honor, is living your entire life without killing anyone.

It's not difficult at all. The vast majority of the populace does so. What carries more honor than that is to sacrifice a bit of selfishness and narcissism to serve and attempt to earn some of those privileges that others waste.

I apologize if you've answered this before, but what's your take on our intervention in Europe in December 1941?

 

[BrianFromWA]

I never lie. I didn't say you made them hate us, I said you angered them and that's a simple fact. Aside from a tiny minority, Muslims were angered by our invasion and the accompanying slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders. Pretend it's not true if that makes you feel better.

So, when on Al-Jazeera I watched people all summer begging for US intervention in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran (after the "elections" in 2009), etc...do those people just not count? Or is it that they're probably going to die, b/c they don't have anyone to protect those rights that you say all men have but bad people try to take away? I understand if you say that we shouldn't protect those people b/c they weren't born inside some lines on a map we call the US, but to say that we anger 1.2B people just by having a uniform and a gun and a different name for God on the ground outside our borders is inaccurate.

 

[MARIS61]

Lots of people are on Al-Jazeera, they're not all muslims. And it wasn't just muslims overthrowing governments right and left with our illegal military support and years of CIA covert planning and encouragement.

And if they are a majority they won't need any more help and if they're not a majority they shouldn't succeed anyway. That's democracy in action.

Bottom line is it's not why we have a military and it amply demonstrates the god complex most military and law enforcement people always seem to acquire.

I think you've forgotten who you work for, who pays for your wife's wardrobe and your kid's video games, who you swore to protect and serve or whatever.

Here's a hint: You're on the wrong side of the Earth.

When are you going to step up and save us from the coup at home?

 

[MARIS61]

There's bias right there. "Military Involvement", including "killing of people" if it's required, are not crimes b/c they're done at the behest of you, by your representatives. Don't lump me in with the consequences of your decision-making or its non-reflection of the rest of society. The fact that you remain unconvinced/ignorant about why the citizens of the US and your representatives send people overseas has little bearing on how I do my job.

But something that neither 13y/o gangbangers or, as it seems, realtors in Central Oregon can do is be sent by their government overseas to do the bidding of the elected representatives of said gangbangers and realtors. There's a reason that a) they're called "orders", and b) I can't just pick up an M16 and go shoot strangers. I'm sorry that you feel threatened by one of the few civic duties you have, but the fact remains that no one in the military can do a single thing (including get paid, much less killing strangers) without you and your representatives approving it.

It's not difficult at all. The vast majority of the populace does so. What carries more honor than that is to sacrifice a bit of selfishness and narcissism to serve and attempt to earn some of those privileges that others waste.

I apologize if you've answered this before, but what's your take on our intervention in Europe in December 1941?

I could list the endless string of illegal and secret wars waged without the approval or even knowledge of Congress just in my lifetime, but it's irrelevant to my position.


I have openly and actively opposed US military aggression outside our borders since I was 6. I have marched, I have written letters, I have cast votes for whomever I perceived to be the lesser evil of each election's twin puppets. And it has mattered not who was President or who ruled Congress or how many times I wrote my representatives. They have all waged war. It's all a dog and pony show. They don't serve the voters, or even give a rat's ass about them. They serve the MIC, just as you do. I have clearly established beyond any doubt in my mind that our system is a fraud, a puppet regime of the military industrial complex, and is in the late stages of completely erasing The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

So again, quit saying I told you to kill people.

I can't be any clearer.

STOP WAGING WARS IN MY NAME. IT'S PISSING ME OFF, IT'S DECEITFUL, IT'S COWARDLY, AND YOU'RE REAL LUCKY THERE'S NOT REALLY A GOD TO JUDGE YOU FOR IT.

BTW, if it will help any you have my permission to pass on to any of your bosses or Congress that I said so.

As for WWll, my father lied about his age to serve and wound up as Sergeant of General Eisenhower's Honor Guard accompanying him liberating the concentration camps. They shared a love of fishing the NW and had similar reservations way back then about industry's huge influence on how and where and when wars were waged. I myself remember vividly Ike's speech in '61 and became politically active that year. It's the first non-entertainment TV viewing I remember as a child. So maybe that's a clue for you where my views on this matter developed from.

Comparing our rescue of the "free world" back then to the despicable contract hits we now perform for the MIC is blasphemous, IMO.

 

[BrianFromWA]

For all that rhetoric, you still can't answer the question of who gives me orders. I can't shoot anyone without permission. Hell, I can't fly to Kabul without permission.

And if you are a US citizen, wars are being waged because your country and representatives vote for it. If you get so pissed off by it, do something other than attack people who have a conscience and want to protect others' freedoms, rights and lives.

And who are you to say that some Kurd slaughtered by Saddam isn't as worthwhile to fight for than a Jew in 1941? Who are you to say that a militaristic puppet government who threatens regional peace and trade is not worth stopping in 2012, but it was in 1941? Who are you to say that we should just sit back and a) not honor our alliances and treaties, b) hoard our wealth (which you seem to think goes straight to some vague concept of 1%ers and corporations) and c) not help those who can't help themselves, like tsunami and flood and earthquake victims and people who just need some medicine? I mean, sure it's a valid opinion, but there's an entire country that says differently.

Honestly, I don't know where your utopia of isolationism, the rights offered to you by your country, and your ability to survive on your own can be found on earth.

If you don't want "interventionism", don't go here:
NATO: A contingent of around 150 advisers under the separate command NATO Training Mission - Iraq-(withdrawn 12/11)
United States: 150,000 invasion 165,000 peak-(withdrawn 12/11)
United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 5/11)
Australia: 2,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
Romania: 730 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/09)
El Salvador: 380 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 1/09)
Estonia: 40 troops (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 1/09)
Bulgaria: 485 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Moldova: 24 peak (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Albania: 240 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Ukraine: 1,650 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Denmark: 545 peak (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Czech Republic: 300 peak (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
South Korea: 3,600 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04-withdrawn 12/08)
Tonga: 55 troops (deployed 7/04-withdrawn 12/08)
Azerbaijan: 250 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Singapore: 175 offshore (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 85 peak (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 11/08)
Macedonia: 77 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/08)
Latvia: 136 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 11/08)
Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak (withdrawn 10/08)
Kazakhstan: 29 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 10/08)
Armenia: 46 troops (deployed 1/05-withdrawn 10/08)
Mongolia: 180 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 09/08)
Georgia: 2,000 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/08)
Slovakia: 110 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/07)
Lithuania: 120 peak (deployed 6/03-withdrawn 08/07)
Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/06)
Norway: 150 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 8/06)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 3/05)
Netherlands: 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 3/05)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03-withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
Spain: 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 4/04)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 2/04)
Iceland: 2 troops
or in OEF
1 Afghanistan
2 Armenia
3 Azerbaijan
4 Bahrain
5 Bangladesh
6 Bulgaria
7 Belgium
8 Canada
9 China
10 Congo
11 Cyprus
12 Czech Republic
13 Denmark
14 Egypt
15 Estonia
16 France
17 Georgia
18 Germany
19 Greece
20 Hungary
21 India
22 Ireland
23 Italy
24 Japan
25 Kuwait
26 Kyrgyzstan
27 Latvia
28 Lithuania
29 Macedonia
30 Malaysia
31 Montenegro
32 New Zealand
33 Norway
34 Netherlands
35 Oman
36 Pakistan
37 Poland
38 Portugal
39 Qatar
40 Romania
41 Russia
42 Slovakia
43 Slovenia
44 South Korea
45 Spain
46 Sudan
47 Sweden
48 Switzerland
49 Tajikistan
50 Thailand
51 Turkey
52 Turkmenistan
53 United Arab Emirates
54 Ukraine
55 United Kingdom
56 United States
57 Uzbekistan

and if you toss in "peacekeeping"...

As of March 2008, 113 countries were contributing a total 88,862 military observers, police, and troops.
The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of September 2010 were Bangladesh (10,736), Pakistan (10,691), India (8,935), Nigeria (5,709), Egypt (5,458), Nepal (5,044), Jordan (3,826), Ghana (3,647), Rwanda (3,635), Uruguay (2,489).

Is that Nepalese Military-Industrial Complex running the show against the 99%ers? How about those darn Icelandese...thinking they can just put troops in Iraq willy-nilly? Tonga and Bangladesh are bad, baaaad countries, huh?

Or the other explanation, which you don't seem to buy into...that people all over the world recognize that there are people who need to be protected from other bad people. In the US we do a decent job of that, and allow you to supplement that with your own protection (though even that seems to be eroding). That's why you don't seem to care about anyone outside your home, which is fine. But other people have a global conscience, and have no problem killing bad guys if they're trying to kill or oppress others. I signed up to protect people, and if I'm ordered to protect people in Congo or Tonga or Iraq, then that's what the orders say. You didn't sign up for anything other than personal responsibility, and good for you. I hope you never have to rely on the protection of others. But to spout that no one else should have to worry about it is folly.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

And who are you to say that some Kurd slaughtered by Saddam isn't as worthwhile to fight for than a Jew in 1941?

all of those kurds were killed with US supplied weapons no?

 

[Denny Crane]

all of those kurds were killed with US supplied weapons no?

No. SCUDs, AK47s, MIGs, etc., are not US weapons. They're Russian or Chinese.

In fact, when we first went into Iraq in 2003, there were reports they fired (Chinese) Silkworm missiles at us.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war.

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries.

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.


Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua.

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

is this accurate?

 

[Denny Crane]

Mostly yes, it's accurate. Note that they used GAS on the Kurds and we supplied them with biological agents. The gas was analyzed by a group like Doctors Without Borders from soil samples and they found it was manufactured using techniques used by the Germans and Russians.

We really helped Iraq win the Iraq-Iran war, but it was with satellite intel, not with weapons support. We basically told them where all the Iranian tanks were...