Bush says US to send more troops to Afghanistan

What an idiot. I think Albert Einstein had him in mind when he said that it is lunacy to expect different results, after gettin endless, similar results, global world resistance to this fascism.

What an idiot

Far too kind for a lying, cold blooded killer who should be Impeached and charged with war crimes.

If infernal George were a Shakespearean play he would be Macbeth. He's the realization of the classic hero whose hubris brings destruction.

Me too, I am so sick of Bush and his cronies! Afghanistan should have been our first and only stop in trying to capture Bin Laden. Iraq was a stupid mistake and now we are stuck there and spending billions on another country that will never change!

If they really wanted to capture him ... he is at home in Saudi Arabia, drinking with the bloody dictator oil King.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/baer

"Your enemy is not surrounding your country. Your enemy is ruling your country." President George W. Bush

Is it the fox in the chicken house or the whore in the White House? "We need people who not only make promises..." I can't list the promises broken by this man. How can one person be so wrong? Where do we get the troops? We offer anyone that can walk a signing bonus, up to $30,000. Problem is, if you sign and go to Iraq, (more in Afghanistan) and are wounded, when you come back you will have no pay, no job, no insurance and will have to pay the bonus back to the government with only perfunctory care. The young will get to be the troops. That's where they will come from.

Military officials say security has deteriorated in large part because of the lawless, tribal border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This is the only sentence that is dispositive in the entire article. Until such time as the situation in the FATAs of Pakistan is addressed it matters not if NATO increases its troop contingent in Afghanistan just as it didn't matter that we had 500,000 men in South Vietnam but the North was free to resupply with men and materiel from the Ho Chi Minh Trail which ran through sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia.

Brian Ford asks, in part:

'If we're already overstretched, where will we get the troops to send to Afghanistan...'

From troops already stationed in Europe, some reserves in America, and we'll grab a few more from our already thin National Guard ranks. Even worse, some will undoubtably not be sent home from Iraq, but instead moved a couple of countries over (from Iraq).

Well...going to Afghanistan from Iraq is a little closer to the U.S., anyway. (satire)

Sort of.

Bush is fortunate this is not 1776 again, because his actions often remind me of King George III. And we all know what happened from that.

Except for the first American George it has proven a nemisis name. King George III, George Wallace, George H W Bush and George W Bush. A note to the nation avoid Georges at all cost.

Wow, gar, it's nice to see someone at least admit that it's all about the oil. Not sure you have really thought through what you are saying.

I disagree. Oil is a 20th century commodity and should be done away with. While we are not at that point, that should be our foremost effort. We definitely should not be invading countries to keep up our unsustainable way of life. Humans have lived for tens of thousands of years without it. We do not need it to live.

Well, not to be facetious, but my house is heated by electricity generated by a hydroelectric powerplant down the road. So gladly, no oil there. Also, I said we were not yet there, but there is no reason for us to put it off any longer. This is where Reagan failed. Instead of investing in alternative energies, he doubled down on oil policy. HUGE mistake. As for my car, I own a VW which gets 35 mpg city and 40+ hwy. Just doing my part to decrease demand and conserve. That's what we all should do. The main reason the price of other commodities increase due to oil price increases is because of shipping. By buying local you avoid much of that. Also by buying products in which the company uses bio-diesel for their fleet, you also contribute your share. Change starts from within.

realism is no better than idealism. Pragmatism is what you are talking about.

Saddam was right. This has been, "The Mother of all Wars."

#2 Brian...where will we get the troops to send to Afghanistan,

Blackwater and Dyncorp will supply mercenary forces at about $100,000 per man!!

gar, I think most Americans are fully aware that this war was all about oil from the beginning, despite the incessant lies to the contrary coming from this administration. The difference I have with you is that you seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to invade other countries and depose leaders and fight wars solely for the purposes of keeping our oil "free-flowing". Many of us do not believe we have that right. And I daresay if the shoe was on the other foot and we were the ones with oil under our ground, we would not stand for middle eastern armies marching over here to invade our country to ensure that their oil is "free flowing". It is not right. It is only our short sighted faults that we have gotten ourselves into this mess to begin with, whereby we are so dependent on oil for our very survival, at the moment. That does not give us the right to go half way across the world and invade other countries at will. You seem to agree that the war was all about oil, I just don't happen to find it moral or just.

and if any politician would explain the real facts of the necessity for a continuous oil supply and without it how we will be at the mercy of the middle east, Russia, and China

We are at their mercy as it is, and precisely BECAUSE of our necessity for a continuous supply of oil. See? If we could wean ourselves off of oil, problem solved. Bush just wants to find more oil. And he's lying to the American people in the process. Look at Anwar, he is trying to convince the American people that if Congress would have allowed drilling in the Arctic, then we would not be in this mess. Lie!!!! First of all, it would take years to even develop the oil fields to the point that we were getting oil to the refineries. Some say it would take upwards of 10 to 20 years. So Anwar is NOT a short term solution as Bush would have us believe. Second, it is not even a long term solution because the number of barrels they are talking about getting out of the region is like pissing in the ocean, as regards the US demand for oil, much less global demand. I know, I worked for over 4 years at an oil/gas pipeline company. I used to pump thousands and thousands more oil down the pipe and into shipper tankage on a daily basis than they are talking pumping yearly. It is quite simply like pissing in the ocean. It's a smokescreen, designed to pass the blame onto the congress, away from where it truly belongs. I just received another forwarded email from my grandfather, claiming that the change Americans voted for in 2006, we got in spades, that all the economic problems we are seeing now is solely due to the fact that we voted the Democrats in control of Congress. Bull@!$%#!!! This is more of the same tactics from these Repugnanticans. Blame everyone else, "Ok, they voted Democrats in control of Congress, we will just continue to let the country go to hell in a handbasket and we will blame the Congress." Beautiful plan, really, when you consider that most Americans are ignorant of the facts.

*puts hand up for a high five from phae*

Nice!

gar, I think most Americans are fully aware that this war was all about oil from the beginning, despite the incessant lies to the contrary coming from this administration.

I am well aware that many, if not all, will vote me totally insane for this but I'm going to say it anyway. There is kind of a bizarre devotion of 43 towards 41. When they first mentioned Iraq, my first instinct was that he was going after Saddam because he was still sore over Saddam's attempt to have George I assassinated. The national pandemonium following 9/11 was a perfect backdrop to use as an excuse to settle an old family score.

That was how I felt in 2001 - that we were going for the wrong reasons and we were going without the blessings and assistance of many of our traditional allies. Before that time, before 2001, before the 9/11 attacks, I felt strongly that a world coalition should go into Iraq because of what he was doing to his people. Hell, his two brats were putting live humans feet first into log chippers whenever the whim struck them. Rape squads, vanished women and girl children, later found in mass graves after Saddam's progeny got done "playing" with them.

Iraq has been a most sad comedy of errors, poor timing, poor excuses, not doing what was right at the time it should have been done and for the reasons it should have been done. We, the U.S., are to blame for Iraq Part 2. The rest of the world shares the blame for not having the balls to coalesce and rescue the Iraqi people from the atrocities they had to endure prior to 2002 because of fear it would anger the other OPEC nations and affect oil supplies. Plenty of blame to go around. Ulterior motives abound and they are not confined to just our country. I'm not excusing America, but also not excusing the rest of the civilized world for not addressing those human rights atrocities before 2002, either.

Unless there was genocide, there is no legal right to invade a country to save its people from its government. The proper domain of action is to act through clandestine support for opposition forces inside the country.

The proper domain of action is to act through clandestine support for opposition forces inside the country.

Yet in the past that always seems to come back and bite us in the a$$. Also, he was doing a pretty good job of offing Kurds. Couldn't that be considered genocide?

I would rather get bit in the rear by supporting the wrong people than getting my legs cut off by going to war when we shouldn't.

In 1988 he did a good job of it but that was in 1988 with US help, so unless you want to charge the US with the Genocide as well, then no, it was not... and Sudan's numbers surpassed teh kurds many years ago, further proving that Genocide was not commited.

the Kurds have been pretty autonomous since we obliterated Sadam's millitary in 1991 anyway so using them as an excuse is a play to those who do not bother to be informed.

Absolutely...should have been the first stop.

the reason for not using such a large force was simple history.. Large forces never worked in that country look at the Russians..

Behind My Screen says:

'All I can say is good.

That should have been the war that we dropped 150,000 troops in on.'

BMS, I have a different take on this situation. It's an old quote:

'Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them...'

The Russians sent massive amounts of armor, troops, and aircraft to Afghanistan, and even used rather sordid tactics to 'win'. (an ambigious term there) And they sent a LOT more than 150,000 troops.

They did not succeed, and after ten years they finally departed with their tails between their legs. Sort of like the French in Vietnam, circa 1954, the Americans in Vietnam in 1975, and a few other insurgency-based wars.

This sort of thinking, that is, believing that military force can be used to impose your foreign policy on another country is ludicrous. It's been tried. You always find yourself caught in a Catch-22 situation. You have to (more or less) abide by the general rules of war, while your enemy fights with whatever means at their disposal to stop you. And it's a lot easier to fight a war on your home ground, and an easy motivation to anyone who wants to assist in 'tossing out the foreigners'.

150,000 men to try to control a control a country the size of Afghanistan, against a people who have fighting foreigners for hundreds of years BEFORE the American Revolution? Ridiculous. To them, it's not a war. It's a way of life, the way things are.

Going there accomplishes nothing. And what little you may gain after you pay the price in body bags and fiscal madness, is soon overcome by firmer resistence the next year. It is a never-ending cycle, and it is NOT the way to peace.

Robert B,...Anyone who is a student of American History knows the power of insurgents.
Our Revolutionary War was to the British the colonial insurgency.

Robert B,...Anyone who studies American history knows the power of insurgents. Our
Revolutionary War was to the British the colonial insurgency.

I was being figurative with my numbers in order to draw a line between Afganistan and Iraq. The tactics used were good up until Tora Bora. We should have had our guys blocking the escape routs. After the new government had taken hold, we should have dumped troops on the countryside to chase down the remnents.

The reason we did not get in trouble in Afganistan is because we were allied with a popular group and were seen as helping. Ignoring them after "Victory" was the problem.

You're right. Nobodoy can argue about that. Whoever Nobodoy is.

How about all the people who will die needlessly, is the price of gas your only concern?
Bush is not only a war criminal but a psychopath and a megalomaniac, even worst is his ruthless vice president.
I think the republicans know they cannot possibly beat Senator Obama so they are going to plunge us into an insane war. A war with Iran will not be the same as Iraq, we will lose 50k if not more of our troops and we will probably end up using tactical nuclear weapons on them I would rather pay $25 a gallon than see one American die in vain.

And we all thought "Mad Max" was science fiction.

I can argue.proof anne Mc

Did someone call?

Nobodoy:

Nice!

This president is worthy of a Greek tragedy. His hubris brought him down into the depths of hell. He can only live to understand and regret the ruin of this nation, the deaths of so many and the squandering of wealth. He is a true abomination. The glib Republicans make word play with that word and the Democratic candidate. But this is no longer the stuff of jokes, it is the sorry rape of our nation. He must live in shame.

jade---Excellent.

moonlighter

I tell you what, general. Why don't you tell us how the Soviets did by sending a very heavy force into Afghanistan. The campaign in Afghanistan, for the most part, was executed brilliantly. Despite all the ninnies nattering here there were never any good options for dealing with the Taliban/al Qaeda remnants at Tora Bora. If you cut out the Eastern Alliance of Hazrat Ali and others you don't get any good intel nor do you have a ghost of a chance of covering the hundreds of unknown but to the locals passes and tracks across the Hindu Kush into Pakistan. The altitudes at Tora Bora ranged up to 14,000 feet which is over the effective ceiling for inserting forces with Chinooks. We tried that once in Operation Anaconda in the Shah-i-kot Valley with very poor results.

Bill Harrison Those who do not know history are bound to repeat mistakes of the past

Kpr37

1938, Hitler was already in violation of treaty, published a book saying exactly what he wanted to achieve..

We could have hit him hard and fast and ended WWII before it started.. Thats history...

Dictators like Saddam talk crazy, dont follow agreements and well get there teeth kicked in.. Sadam could have been a good little crazy and played along and would still be in power today kinda like ummm mo mar Qaddafi..

The problem that I have with all too many people on Newsvine is far too many of them haven't taken the time to acquaint themselves with the requisite facts and history surrounding these controversial issues (I doubt .00001% of users could tell me who Hazrat Ali is without "googling" his name). Instead, they parrot some nincompoop blogger who's pretty much operating from the same deficiencies. It's passing sad for a site which has as its motto, "Get smarter here." All too often the exact opposite is true.

This quote from Bush, from the article:

'"We need people who not only make promises, but write checks, for the sake of human rights and human dignity, and for the sake of peace," he said.'

Yeah. Kind of like 'No Child Left Behind'. Our President has a lot of nerve saying this stuff. My friends in Europe say President Bush is less popular there than in the U.S.

No big surprise, I guess.

If you think the UN is comming into the United States to arrest our President you have underestimated the number of firearms americans have in safes..

Get a life just hoping you find the door and move out of America

brett.. seems you have overestimated the number of Americans who would care. If you haven't noticed, his approval ratings aren't so great. I, for one, would give them directions to the White House.

We would have the same feelings that Iraqis or Iranians have about a violation of our territory.

maybe if we were living in the object oppression of Saddam, i would feel liberated.. Jadelog your never going to get it, never going to stand up for anything, dont worry about it because we have done a great thing for iraq and help free a nation and helped free people from fear and terror. we created a democracy and its going to live on for generations. i know you think we had no right but what we had was no right to turn away.. we were committed.. Iraqi's love America, the news wants you to think they dont... they are now able to build a life with the wmd gone, thats right there were wmd's in iraq (the leadership) those were the wmd in iraq.. They used chemical agents on children, they had to be stopped.. Dems are the same anyway i know for a fact that dems would love to go into dafur, you know what put together a multi nation force and lets do it..

brett,...I don't think attacking a country to get control over their oil is a good thing. During the Reagan administration Iraq was our ally. We armed them and supplied them with biological agents. We have meddled in the ME since WWI. I'm more worried about Saudi Arabia, George's oil buddies. The majority of Al Qaeda 9/11 were Saudi; they have the money to pull off all sorts of things. That said, we fell into a trap. Iraq is broken; Afghanistan, Pakistan are on the verge of exploding. The war was ill advised, poorly planned, badly executed and far too costly.

Not much use replying to brett.. Ive already figured that out. He is a troll. He cannot and will not source his arguments, and when confronted with sources that rebut his point, he resorts to personal attacks. I am currently looking for an admin to delete his account.

brett,...I don't think attacking a country to get control over their oil is a good thing. During the Reagan administration Iraq was our ally. We armed them and supplied them with biological agents. We have meddled in the ME since WWI. I'm more worried about Saudi Arabia, George's oil buddies. The majority of Al Qaeda 9/11 were Saudi; they have the money to pull off all sorts of things. That said, we fell into a trap. Iraq is broken; Afghanistan, Pakistan are on the verge of exploding. The war was ill advised, poorly planned, badly executed and far too costly.

The war was important to all the people who are now free to build a free life in iraq.. You would never lift a finger to help anyone.. you all tax the rich and free ride for the lazy but to stand up and do whats right.. you have lost your way

brett,...The problem is that more people are dead or have left the country than those who slog through the foggy deconstruction that is war. I have been a teacher for almost forty years. I take pride in the fingers I have lifted to help students succeed in later life. I live on a fixed income that is probably less than you pay on your SUV and gas. Come to think of it, it's a lot less.

Look brett.. I don't care that you have opposing viewpoints. Plenty of people do. That's what makes this place great. It's that you don't play by the rules. No personal attacks. This is supposed to be civilized debate. Your comments are anything but.

Brett is an ideologue. The fact that he conflates Liberalism with Communism shows this. There is no discussion with such people.

His use of the term "flip" in reference to Obama is funny, as if moderating a view based on the current situation is a flip rather than being smart. McCain has flipped on more things that are core to what he has purported himself to represent, yet does not com under attack for these flips. Ideologues are blind to these because they have to maintain a world view that is consistent and unchanging.

Very true BMS. In other news, Obama held a second news conference in which he stated:

"Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war," Obama said in remarks prior to taking questions. "My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately but decisively."

I have seeded it, but haven't gotten many hits yet. The link is here.

It's always darkest before the D...

Finally a voice of reason. Good post, Brett.

Brett, I completely agree, except for the timely part. This is a serious problem of this administration and just about any other kind of failing organization out there, they wait for the problem to get bad, then they do something about it. We should have taken care of it a while ago.

I think the liberals and polls scare us into not moving fast enough..

I think even most liberals gave the green light on doing what needs to be done in Afghanistan, for a few reasons we just didn't get it done, and hopefully its doesn't end up as another failure the next administration will have to catch up on.

I think the liberals and polls scare us into not moving fast enough..

Man our military and president sure are weak, being cowed by liberals who have no real political power in this country!

At least, that seems to be the gist of your "point," brett.

Pro war folks,...This screw up is in the Neocon's lap. The liberals didn't get to play any role.

As a Viner of over a year I would take issue that this site is a "Democratic cesspool". Yes, the majority of posters are lefties and a good many of them shouldn't be left alone with sharp objects but there are also some very good users here if you just stick around.

Bill not eveyone.. but for the most part the left push more..

Well, the answer to that is to push back with solid arguments and citation to facts to buttress those arguments. That's what I do here every day and more than a few of the Confederacy of Dunces bear the scars attesting to it. ;>0

Bill H,...You ever read the book? I'm not sure that those who don't agree with you are in any way related to characters in the book.

Harvey -

Not all the troops in Afghanistan are combat troops, nor are they all in a 'safe zone.' As it is necessary to engage the Taliban, trainers are not as well protected and are living amongst the Afghans. Tell me why, when we knew there was to be a spring offensive, more troops weren't allocated to Afghanistan to face that occurrence?

I don't hate George Bush. I just have no respect a man who doesn't think things through
to completion, fails to consider the history of a region before committing troops, and didn't anticipate that medical care for returning troops would overwhelm the VA and facilities.

I am a Democrat with a family history of men who served in 4 wars with one KIA, one Purple Heart, one who received the equivalent of a Purple Heart in WWI, four others who were not injured, and one who is in Afghanistan now. I would question ANY president who had led us down this garden path and have.

capitalK,

I don't know why more US troops were sent to Afghanistan previous to Bush's announcement of a troop increase. Maybe it's because previous Taliban 'spring offensives' have been duds; maybe because the areas with the increased Taliban presence is the not an area of US responsibility; maybe Bush expected Canada and the Brits to increase their troop strenghts there;I don't know but the facts are that the US has dealt severely with the Taliban and with an increase will again deal severely with the Taliban. You guys can yell bloddy murder everytime there's a surge in US deaths but this is a war and that is bound to happen from time to time.

I am not being confrontational, but I am curious - What constitutes the safe areas? - Kabul, Kandihar? Which provinces are part of the US responsibility? Are the US troops outside those provinces under NATO?

I am aware that the US dealt severely with the Taliban. My complaint is that they didn't finish the job for any number of political/international reasons. Instead they went elsewhere and we now have 2 wars needing troops, equipment and funding.

The same people on this thread who call it a 'democratic cesspool' and espouse the virtues of spending American lives chasing the Taliban around the hills in Afghanistan are the same folks who thought 'Vietnamization' was an effective foreign policy tool...(Robert laughs)

I don't get my opinions spoon fed to me through the MSM. I am NOT a drone for Democrats.

I'm a U.S. Army vet, among other things. And even I know a useless military effort when I see it.

Did I see back there something how we are 'winning' in Iraq? Sure, we are. And I have some beachfront property in Kansas you might be interested in...

pitokie also says, in part:

'They have ruined the world.
Their Legacy is ZERO RATING as of Today.
The whole world will have to start from square A, I mean from number 1. again when they are gone.
They are WAR Criminals, just like Hitler. Same thing.'

Come on, pitokie...I don't like Bush either, but comparing him to Adolf is a bit much. No one can compare to a guy who slaughtered millions of Jews in death camps and started a war that resulted in the deaths of over 72 million people and untold collateral damage that still has effects more than a half-century later.

scott-a,...Arabia and Yemen are places where it would be easy to blend in. The governments are not too sympathetic to American causes.

There is a misconception in the whole "we are at war" statement. Yes, in Afghanistan the troops are engaged in a war against terrorism...in Iraq, we are providing peace-keeping services while we prepare their country to have their oil hijacked...big difference. Iraq never has been about terrorist, except the ones we helped import and create. Afghanistan is where the people who executed the attacks on us are and have always been.

I'm not going to detail how bad Bush is, I am just hoping that the conventional wisdom that "its always darkest before the dawn" applies to presidencies, too.

MrMajek,..."...the ones we helped import..." You were referring to terrorists. Why is there basically a news black out of Black Water coverage. From the little I read, they are terrorists.

where do people who think like this come from, Do you have a clue what the iraqi's were doing to the people in Kuwait... again we did the right thing, you want to make it all about oil, thats also fine, OIL is close to oxygen and we will defend it like if it was life.. The whole worlds not going to stop because you want to drive a pruis.. Oil is life for the world and it will be fought over.. Oil is the main reason Japan attacked America in WWII.

We are Illuminatti!

OIL is close to oxygen and we will defend it like if it was life..

You'll die without oil? Some priorities you've got there.

The oil is the Iraqi's, not ours to defend.

Oil is the main reason Japan attacked America in WWII.

Well, that's true to an extent, but slightly out of context. Thing is, we had cut off their oil supply. Dean Acheson drew up an embargo in a way as to prevent them from purchasing oil, unbeknown to FDR, who opposed the idea.
According to Wiki, the main reason they attacked:

Japan was trying to expand in Asia. Their population had doubled and they needed raw materials for their emerging industries. The U.S. tried to negotiate with Japan and offered to help them find raw materials if they would stop their expansionist policies. However, Japan refused believing that the U.S. was not in a position to tell them what to do. The U.S. then embargoed several items such as scrap metal in order to make Japan stop. At this point, Japan saw the U.S. as the major factor in trying to halt their quest for more land. Although the Japanese leaders believed that they would eventually have to face U.S. in a war, they believed that attacking Pearl Harbor would give them at least a year before doing so.

gar, we have 18 billion bls off shore....that is not "plenty" that is 2 years worth. Try looking up the facts about the oil in the US before you go spouting off garbage.

Under Colorado, we have 2 trillion bls and willingness by the state to allow drilling yet the oil companies do not drill. Funny huh.

Behind my screen needs to work for the industry as this person knows where and exactly how much oil is where.. how about some lotto numbers..

There are trillions of barrels of oil in the place we want to drill like anwar. we need that oil, its life.. oil is not just gas, its alot of things like plastics.. its life..

uhh... no there are not trillions of barrels. Look Here Are you seriously that uninformed on the issues at hand that you think the ANWAR debate was for anything meaningful? ANWAR will not help, nor will off shore drilling beyond the currently undeveloped leases that the industry has. Oh, yeah, you didn't know the oil industry has millions of acres of undeveloped leases off shore right now that they are free to drill when ever they want?

The oil below Colorado is more than exists in the world right now. IT is not super easy to get to but there should be attempts to get to it. I was inaccurate earlier. Shell has a small operation that is testing a new technique of heating the shale while it is under the ground and using conventional drilling methods to suck the oil out. To me, that seems to be a better use of the oil companies time than to lobby for 18 billion barrels of oil that they can already get to from their current leases.

It is not some magical thinking that tells me how much it off shore and in ANWAR, I read the freaking news reports regarding the deposits that have been found. Yes, they are estimates, but estimates don't go from "2 years worth of oil" to "50 years worth of oil". Off shore and ANWAR are drops in the bucket and will not help us now, or in 15 years when their oil can be refined.

Shell has a small operation that is testing a new technique of heating the shale while it is under the ground and using conventional drilling methods to suck the oil out. To me, that seems to be a better use of the oil companies time than to lobby for 18 billion barrels of oil that they can already get to from their current leases.

I've brought this up before, but was immediately told that those leases may or may not produce oil. You happen to know where there is information on what can be gained from those existing leases, as I'd like to have more information if I'm going to bring it up in the future.

Regardless, I think the offshore and ANWAR topics are simple distractions, but it'd be nice to be able to say that -- on top of the distractions -- they're squandering existing leases.

The issue with those leases is that it is in a shale deposit. they can either mine the shale and extract it through heating on the surface, or they can drill down a thousand feet and attempt to heat it under the ground and extract it using standard techniques.

I googled. The barrels are proven, it is just getting them out.

Because Kuwait was full of Arabs and Arabs have oil. We built this good "coalition" because other Arab countries at that time were also miffed at Iraq so the whole world was ready to roll in there. We find it real easy to build "coalitions" when Arabs are being victimized by others. It's not so easy to build coalitions when Arabs are being victimized by their own leader. (Iraq Part II) Iraq wasn't a threat to any of the Arab states that "mattered" at that point so we weren't able to build a huge coalition like before. It didn't seem to mean so much that Saddam's two brats were allowed to run live human beings through wood chippers feet first whenever the whim struck them. What I mean to say is this: Saddam should have been finished the first time we rolled in there on the basis of human rights violations. The reason the coalition did not take care of business the first time was because they were afraid of offending the rest of Middle East if they continued until the problem was taken care of. The other M.E. nations were only interested in military action against Iraq to the point of their problem being solved and no further. A coalition rolled into the whole Kosovo-Serbia mess. Why? Albanians. Score some brownie points with the M.E. for going to the aid of their Islamic brothers. I'm not saying the actions were wrong. These people were being violated in all these cases and they are human beings. I'm saying the motivation is wrong. I'm saying that if you don't have some connection to the Middle East oil producing countries, the rest of the world is not going to come together to put an end to your travails militarily. This is not just an American problem. Yes, our government does it, too. But the other Western countries are just as guilty. Oil motivates them to go in, but it also motivates them to stay out. Let's not forget all the oil-for-food program abuses some of these other countries were caught engaging in. I still believe fear of international exposure of that little bit of dirty-dealing played a big role in making coalition-building difficult the second time around. It wasn't the only thing, but it was part of it. I did not feel we should go to Iraq the second time for the reasons we said we were going. I was still brewing over leaving the Iraqis at the mercy of a very angry leader we had encouraged them to rise up against during Desert Storm. I felt the world should have been going in there over the horrors this family was perpetrating on their own citizens. The reason the world was not keen to do so was that in this particular case it was not going to score them any points with the other M.E. countries.

Hmmm. That was a floodgate blowing open. I have to tell you, I've been holding that in for a couple of years now. Feels good to vent even if others don't always agree. Please don't take this to mean I dislike Arabs. That is not it at all. I dislike how the whole rest of the world reacts to them just because of the blasted oil. I hate that there are other grotesque abuses of human rights that the rest of the world is not willing to check militarily because, well...What's in it for them if they do?

Do you have a clue what the iraqi's were doing to the people in Kuwait

Like they would have cared if Kuwait had no oil. Like they care in the rest of the world. By the way Kuwait is very democratic or full of people in need...

From Wikipedia:

Kuwait has the world's fifth largest proven oil reserves and is the fourth richest country in the world per capita.
Government = Constitutional hereditary emirate.