[audiobomber]

How bout Kuwait? They would no longer exist as a nation if it hadn't been for US intervention. You guys think they owe us anything?

Kuwait was rescued by the US and thirty-five other nations. No one was forced to join the coalition, it was voluntary. Does Kuwait owe anything to the rescuers? I assume that a stronger relationship and subsequent oil deals should be enough compensation.

Has is occurred to you that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 is somewhat similar to the US invading Iraq in 2003? A stronger country invaded a weaker country to advance its imperialist agenda. My view is directly opposite to Bachmann's. I think Iraq owes compensation for needlessly invading Kuwait, and the US owes compensation for needlessly invading Iraq.

[séamuis]

How bout Kuwait? They would no longer exist as a nation if it hadn't been for US intervention. You guys think they owe us anything?

no. because if we did what we did to protect them, and help thwart a common enemy then, unless we told them upfront 'our services and protection isn't free' then they owe us nothing. is this really what our modern society has come to? people believing that other people owe us something for helping them when we are capable of doing so? really? those soldiers that fought, they volunteered to be soldiers. they got paid for their job, and have been taken care of in the ways they are guaranteed by their military service. thus they are owed nothing by the people of kuwait or anywhere else. and since we all know that we didn't go over and do it simply out of the kindness of our hearts, then who are we to ask to be repaid? sometimes I really question the simple intelligence of many americans... its quite disturbing. if you think another country owes us for helping them, especially countries that didn't ask for it! then you must believe that we have no business going into any country that doesn't expressly ask us for our help correct? because thats the only sure way to have any real merit for asking to be repaid. so you must be 100% against the Iraq war yes?

[seacapt]

soldiers that fought, they volunteered to be soldiers. they got paid for their job, and have been taken care of in the ways they are guaranteed by their military service. thus they are owed nothing by the people of kuwait or anywhere else

I believe that if you took your camera and covered a few wounded warrior events you might rethink that statement.

so you must be 100% against the Iraq war yes

I'm 100% against any war or police action that is not needed to protect Americans or America's best interest.
I'm 100% against any war / police action that is a no win proposition for America.
I'm 100% against any war / police action where our troops are put in harms way and asked to fight with their hands tied by broke dick politicians.

[GeneV]

How bout Kuwait? They would no longer exist as a nation if it hadn't been for US intervention. You guys think they owe us anything?

That is a completely separate, but interesting question. The government of Kuwait wanted our help and spent millions in public relations dollars to get it. Citizens for a Free Kuwait - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I can see an argument for getting something in return.

However, to ask for Iraq to pay for our invasion of their country based upon reasons presented to the country and to the United Nations which turned out to be utterly false seems like at least serious chutzpah if not total ignorance.

Soldiers, even volunteers, don't pick their wars. I don't think we have given our veterans nearly enough compensation for what they have suffered in this war (and my generation's war, Vietnam). We have young people coming back with half their brains and/or limbs blown away by an AED, and that is even more tragic but no less compensable if the cause is not there.

As to the bit about not backing them up in battle, we don't back them up when we send them into civil wars where today's friend is tomorrow's enemy, and the use of the full destructive force of our military is impossible or counterproductive.

[séamuis]

I believe that if you took your camera and covered a few wounded warrior events you might rethink that statement.

I am all too aware of the general poor care and protection of our soldiers in terms of what they deserve, and I'm all for fixing the very real problem. don't assume I don't know. I live in Savannah, we have a large military base right here, and I work for the savannah morning news. I have covered some of the local citizen fund raising and help that the city has done for the 3rd ID. what I was saying was that the soldiers aren't owed anything by the people of Kuwait for their service. the citizens of THIS country do indeed owe them, no argument, and the last bit of that stamenet could be misunderstood to include america, but I wasn't talking about what we owed our soldiers I was referring to any other country that we have engaged with or otherwise offered military service and help to (or invaded as the case may be). if that want clear, I apologize, but yes I agree we do indeed owe them and need to be doing a better job of helping take care of them.

although Gene brings up a good point concerning the events leading up to the liberation of Kuwait, asking for repayment from the nation in return for our military services in my eyes makes our actions and our soldiers little better than mercenaries. regardless of wether the reasons behind the eventual authorization were fabricated or not, we made a decision to help fellow human beings from what we believed were serious atrocities. you don't go asking for repayment in return for that. maybe I see things very differently, but my family has a long history of military service and I severely doubt any of them would disagree with my understanding on this subject.

I'm 100% against any war or police action that is not needed to protect Americans or America's best interest.
I'm 100% against any war / police action that is a no win proposition for America.
I'm 100% against any war / police action where our troops are put in harms way and asked to fight with their hands tied by broke dick politicians.

amen.

[GeneV]

although Gene brings up a good point concerning the events leading up to the liberation of Kuwait, asking for repayment from the nation in return for our military services in my eyes makes our actions and our soldiers little better than mercenaries.

In point of fact, reparations from the Kuwait invasion were obtained from Iraq, as the invading party. That is usually the way it works, and it is what makes Ms. Bachmann's statements so strange.

[audiobomber]

I'm 100% against any war or police action that is not needed to protect Americans or America's best interest.

Korea, Vietnam and Iraq were clearly wars fought for American interests. But there was no threat to America, no defensive need, just political and economic motives. These wars were wrong IMO.

I'm 100% against any war / police action where our troops are put in harms way and asked to fight with their hands tied by broke dick politicians.

What about ignoring the Geneva Convention, is that OK? Waterboarding and stress tortures seem to have become Tea Party ideology. I find it repulsive, not just the torture, but the fact that America only extend American justice and humane treatment of prisoners, to other Americans. If they rise to power I expect the next Tea Party incentive would be to deny human rights to American prisoners too.

Limiting the number of troops and armaments in an action or area is mainly due to "broke dick" politicians not wanting to bankrupt the budget with unlimitied military spending. The best solution would be not to get involved in needless wars. I would hope though that the US and all nations continue to intervene against organized genocide.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 11-17-2011 at 02:42 PM.

[séamuis]

The best solution would be not to get involved in needless wars. I would hope though that the US and all nations continue to intervene against organized genocide.

thank you for offering the most precise and simply true advice. thats exactly how things should be. it makes you wonder why our government can't figure it out, when it seems so simple.

[stevewig]

Korea, Vietnam and Iraq were clearly wars fought for American interests. But there was no threat to America, no defensive need, just political and economic motives. These wars were wrong IMO.



What about ignoring the Geneva Convention, is that OK? Waterboarding and stress tortures seem to have become Tea Party ideology. I find it repulsive, not just the torture, but the fact that America only extend American justice and treatment of prisoners, to other Americans. If they rise to power I expect the next Tea Party incentive would be to deny human rights to American prisoners too.

Limiting the number of troops and armaments in an action or area is mainly due to "broke dick" politicians not wanting to bankrupt the budget with unlimitied military spending. The best solution would be not to get involved in needless wars. I would hope though that the US and all nations continue to intervene against organized genocide.

The war with NATO in Lybia was an honourable war, in my opinion and all participating Countries fought without obvious or clear self interest even though the self interest part may yet to be played out.

I cannot think of any other war (including the world wars) where the US (or any other country) fought without any self interest - even though the world may have urgently wanted their intevention.

I don't see anything wrong with that I am not offering it as criticism but let us not promote any of these other wars as fought for purely altruistic reasons.

[audiobomber]

I cannot think of any other war (including the world wars) where the US (or any other country) fought without any self interest - even though the world may have urgently wanted their intevention.

I don't see anything wrong with that I am not offering it as criticism but let us not promote any of these other wars as fought for purely altruistic reasons.

There is a world of difference between fighting off an aggressor like Nazi Germany, or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, vs. ideological and economic ventures like Korea, Viet Nam and the Iraqi war.

I would say most Canadian military ventures have been altruistic. http://members.shaw.ca/kcic1/peacekeepers2.html

[jsherman999]

I would say most Canadian military ventures have been altruistic. Canadian Peacekeepers - Listing of all Missions since World War II

Agreed, It doesn't get more altruistic than Dudley Do-Right.



(i kid)

.

[SteveM]

This makes perfect "unsense". It just needs to be explained to the Iraqi people a little better....

See...proper people in the west get rid of governments like that nasty guy Hussein through the glory of Privatization and Deregulation. We couldn't provide you with all of the "flexibility" on our own so ya gotta use the markets. We called on our friends at Xe Services LLC, i.e. Blackwater USA . You remember them.....don't you? Well we have a small issue about a bill from our friends....you understand right?

[stevewig]

There is a world of difference between fighting off an aggressor like Nazi Germany, or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, vs. ideological and economic ventures like Korea, Viet Nam and the Iraqi war.

I would say most Canadian military ventures have been altruistic. Canadian Peacekeepers - Listing of all Missions since World War II

Largely true, I think, though there is some doubts in my mind about the rightness of the Iraqi war - even though I believed in it and trusted GWB's statements at the time.
With the gift of hindsight it was dead wrong!

[Nesster]

Largely true, I think, though there is some doubts in my mind about the rightness of the Iraqi war - even though I believed in it and trusted GWB's statements at the time.
With the gift of hindsight it was dead wrong!

Steve, I can certainly see how you would have.

I didn't believe GWB at all. Perhaps because I'd read the neocon plan to invade and install a democracy before he ever was elected... perhaps because I did not and do not think preemptive war is justified in most cases, and that effective diplomacy can get you more at a lower cost.

Thanks for bringing this up, as now I realize why I had such a dejavu feeling about the debt ceiling fiasco, and now the super committee.

I recall that GWB's sabre rattling was having the intended effect and Iraq was blinking... the UN and USA would have got all the weapons inspection access they wanted. That already, in normal circumstance, would have been a major victory. But GWB was determined to go to war regardless. I found that very depressing.

Same thing now, with the Republicans - they gain what ordinarily would be major political victories, but are seemingly oblivious to the fact. They are determined to carry out 100% of the agenda regardless. Somehow, I don't think the outcome will be much better than with the war.

[GeneV]

I recall that GWB's sabre rattling was having the intended effect and Iraq was blinking... the UN and USA would have got all the weapons inspection access they wanted. That already, in normal circumstance, would have been a major victory. But GWB was determined to go to war regardless. I found that very depressing.

That was my thinking at the time. The President got the inspections, and on the political side, he won his midterms with all that bluster. I was thinking this guy was a genius and had been misunderestimated by everyone. Then he went to war anyway, and I decided I really was a Democrat.