posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:11 PM
Yes, we did win the 1991 war with Saddam; we drove him out of Kuwait and didn't go farther. War over. That war caused a lot of gloating over how we
had kicked the "VietNam Syndrome," no more fear of using our troops overseas in a war. BTW I remember one of Saddam's reasons for wanting to invade
K, slant drilling by K and his belief K was really part of Iraq; but I also remember the feeble attempts by Bush I to justify the war to the American
public--the economy, then jobs, then finally ok it's oil, then off they went.
Iraq I involved over a half million troops, and there was no police action by our troops afterward. Fast forward to the failed idealist plan of
conquering Iraq with a quarter of the troops; My God, we sent 50,000 Guard after Katrina, and these idiots launched a war with only 100,000 more?!
This time we invaded I but are now doing occupation work there. People like to say that, well, we occupied Germany and Japan; but those nations
formally surrendered, and I don't believe Saddam formally surrendered--a big difference.
Haven't heard screw the pooch in years, but very apropo today.
Kim, the only thing about this Iraq war that makes sense to me is that we went in for oil (our "way of life", our "national/strategic interest" we
had to "defend"), we wanted to do it wthout help, except Great Britain (hence laughable coalition and no UN troops), and we wanted to stay there.
Once again a country has a war, sending troops to their death for control of natural resources. Nothing new. But what is so very tragic is that none
of this should have happened, if, as the great nation we say we are, we had a different energy policy.
I've seen billboards decrying spilling used motor oil on the ground, with its environmental concerns, but where are the billboards decrying the
spilling of blood for oil?
[edit on 4-6-2006 by desert]