Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Sets His Sights on Iran, Now that Attempted War with North Korea has Backfired

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post
    (...)
    The only reason that Saudi Arabia is considered an ally to many is because of how much oil and gas they supply to the world that's the number one reason what keeps them from being invaded they're holding good cards.
    I suspect it's rather the ungodly amount of weapons they buy from just about everybody to keep their feudal Kingdom afloat.

    Have you seen the grin on Trump's face when he came back from his trade mission over there ?

    KSA delivers about 8% of oil and gas in the EU, not like they can't be replaced, besides whatever comes after will sell oil as well, and probably cheaper, it won't buy as many NATO weapons though...

    And as pointed out above, they serve Israel well as a roadblock against Iran, but so did Iraq..

    Leave a comment:


  • Poor Old Spike
    replied
    Obama gave Iran permission to build nuke reactors, what could possibly go wrong?..











    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    No one in the US cared about the public opinion in other countries (= the Muslim lobby ) :the victims were in the US and not in the other countries .

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    I'd have preferred Iran over Iraq, as we (the US) still owe them a mighty comeuppance for their actions over the last few decades. But Iraq was not innocent in this. They were violating the UN and something had to be done.
    This is your interpretation (and the American and UK administrations' interpretation) at the time.

    It was NOT an interpretation of the Security Council and of the public opinion in most countries. And the reason was very clear: The Blix report showed that despite what some people say here, Saddam was caving to pressure; there was a process of developing genuine cooperation with the UN inspectors and war was not the last resort at the time. It was a choice! Nobody was really interested in abandoned, corroded and ineffective chemical ammunition piles which were more of a threat to the local population than to anybody else. At the same time Syria had (and as you know still has) an effective and active chemical stock
    Last edited by pamak; 08 Apr 18, 16:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowshoveler
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    But, OTOH, KSA needs the support of the US against Iran and ISIS : KSA has been attacked several times by ISIS and fights in Yemen against ISIS that is supported by Iran (or the opposite ) AND US needs KSA :without KSA the ME is lost to Iran .
    If it wasn't for people in Saudi Arabia funding ISIS in the first place they might not have problems that they have now.
    They are an ally that is against Iran's influence at least they're good for that reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    But, OTOH, KSA needs the support of the US against Iran and ISIS : KSA has been attacked several times by ISIS and fights in Yemen against ISIS that is supported by Iran (or the opposite ) AND US needs KSA :without KSA the ME is lost to Iran .

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowshoveler
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    There is no proof that KSA was responsible for 9/11 : OBL was from Yemen .

    After 9/11 US had to attack a country in the ME ,otherwise it would be considered as a coward :the only choice was Iraq . Iran was too big . KSA was an ally, Turkey member of NATO. Iraq was the ideal target .
    The most money is raised in Saudi Arabia for Sunni Muslim terrorists then anywhere else if Saudi Arabia would stop the fundraising for terrorists that would make a huge difference.
    The only reason that Saudi Arabia is considered an ally to many is because of how much oil and gas they supply to the world that's the number one reason what keeps them from being invaded they're holding good cards.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Truth is, Saddam never once threatened America, but if we were going to invade anybody with WMD's, we should have invaded Russia a long time ago. Russia STILL has a ton of WMD's of all descriptions, but we haven't lifted a finger. [/FONT]
    1) That Saddam did not threaten US is irrelevant

    2) No one said that US should invade anybody with WMDs

    3) The difference between Russia ans Saddam is that Russia was less dangerous as US could easily destroy Russia, but that Saddam could sell CW to AQ and ISIS and that there is no possibility to prevent terrorists to smuggle WMD' in the US .

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    There is no proof that KSA was responsible for 9/11 : OBL was from Yemen .

    After 9/11 US had to attack a country in the ME ,otherwise it would be considered as a coward :the only choice was Iraq . Iran was too big . KSA was an ally, Turkey member of NATO. Iraq was the ideal target .
    I'd have preferred Iran over Iraq, as we (the US) still owe them a mighty comeuppance for their actions over the last few decades. But Iraq was not innocent in this. They were violating the UN and something had to be done.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    There were 3 reasons to invade Iraq

    1) Iraq was a threat to the US

    2 ) Iraq violated the armistice conditions

    3 ) US had to invade Iraq : Afghanistan was not enough .Besides, Afghanistan was a bad choice : the voters demanded a quick, short , cheap and big answer .

    The only target that was meeting these demands was Iraq . This is proved by the fact that the invasion lasted a month only with minimal losses .

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    There is no proof that KSA was responsible for 9/11 : OBL was from Yemen .

    After 9/11 US had to attack a country in the ME ,otherwise it would be considered as a coward :the only choice was Iraq . Iran was too big . KSA was an ally, Turkey member of NATO. Iraq was the ideal target .

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Do you expect that the Democrat NYT would support an invasion of Iraq ordered by a GOP president ?

    The motto of the NYT is : the enemy of a GOP president is my ally .

    But Chivers was forced to admit that Saddam had CW and that US army suffered casualties by these weapons .

    Several Democrats also admitted that Saddam had CW and was a threat for the US .

    The facts are

    1) Saddam had CW,which was a violation of the armistice conditions and refused to allow inspections ;these 2 points were sufficient for invasion.

    2 ) Even if the possession of CW and the refusal to allow inspections,were not violations of the armistice ,the fact that he had such weapons was a threat for the US and justified an invasion . After 9/11 (which was applauded by Saddam ) US could not risk an other attack, this time with CW .

    Saddam was an enemy of the US and plotted his revanche (when Clinton was potus, the intelligence services discovered an Iraqi plot to asssassinate old Bush and Clinton riposted by an air attack ).

    It would have been suicidal from young Bush to do nothing and allow Saddam to restore his arsenal of CW .

    On 9/11 3000 people died by an attack with conventional weapons;how many would have died by an attack with CW ?
    You would be correct if the invasion was actually because of the alleged WMD's, but it wasn't. It was in retaliation for 9/11, should have been the invasion and total subjugation of Saudi Arabia, but Lil' Bush had to do something and he couldn't disturb his fellow oil buddies, so he figured he do what his Daddy did and make points in Iraq.

    Truth is, Saddam never once threatened America, but if we were going to invade anybody with WMD's, we should have invaded Russia a long time ago. Russia STILL has a ton of WMD's of all descriptions, but we haven't lifted a finger.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    The UNSC resolution nr 687 from April 3 1991 obliged Iraq to remove and destroy all chemical and biological weapons .

    Iraq failed to do this .

    The concluding paragraph 34 was interpreted as : "Obey or we will force you to by all means necessary ."

    This paragraph was used as an international justification for the 1996 and 1998 air attacks ordered by Clinton .

    If Clinton had the right to bomb Iraq founded on resolution 687, why had Bush not the right to invade Iraq founded on resolution 687,especially after what happened on 9 /11 ?

    Because of domestic political reasons, the Democrats, who had supported Clinton, refused to support Bush and were putting the safety of the people of the US behind their hostility to Bush, who was for most of them not the legitimate potus (who was Gore) but only an usurpator . As not for the first time, the Democrats were putting party before country .If Bush had not invaded Iraq and AQ had done a new attack with CW resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, the Democrats would have been the first to blame Bush ,as they blamed him for 9/11 .

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    You create your own facts. That there were stockpiles of abandoned chemical weapons was known even before the invasion. I GAVE YOU the report of chief UN inspector in which the issue of the chemical stocks is discussed. It also mentioned the more than the 400 unannounced inspections he carried up until Feb 2003! Do you read what I post or do you simply close your eyes?

    This is the quote I posted earlier from the chief UN inspector's report to the Security Council...
    That there were stockpiles of chemical weapons, abandoned or not, was sufficient reason for an invasion . Abandoned CW could easily become operational .

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    Again with those pesky facts that'll do nothing but trigger liberals and send them into a new bout of whinging denial.
    You really are one

    The issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was central to the case put for UK involvement in the 2003 war, but no significant stockpiles of usable chemical or biological weapons were ever found.
    I know it's written in British but try hard to read the post.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X