Discussion in 'Diplomacy & Conflict Resolution' started by JohnConstantine, May 14, 2012.
Ok that makes sense. I agree with that.
I should say as well that when the Russian's really did get involved it was reluctantly. They even made several economic concessions to Iran and their initial policy was one of strict neutrality. China turns out to be supporting Iran. I guess really it's a case of America instigating the war in the first place, a war Russia really didn't want, and then Russia being dragged into it towards the end. But the blame for the conflict certainly can't fall on them at all.
No, the official stance of the Soviets was neutrality towards the conflict. And they supplied both sides.
I do not think you quite understand the situation in the world in the early 1980's. The US (Great Satan) was increasingly being used as the enemy in the Middle East, and the Soviet Union (Lesser Satan) was really not much better. And the Soviets were very worried as to what a rising Iran might mean to the "Stans" that belonged to their empire.
So neither one wanted to see a strong Iran. By the same token neither wanted to see a stron Iraq either. So what both the US and USSR did was to help make a ballance. Officially both sides were neutral, and tried to keep the war as much of a stalemate as possible. In this way both Iran and Iraq were concentrating on each other, and not trying to push their ideologies onto other countries.
And sorry, the US provided no training that I was able to find. However, the SOviets provided the Iraqis with both "advisors", but also training in the Soviet Union.
I find it funny that you are still trying to prove something that is false, simply trying to find wording that makes it correct. The US was a minor supplier in the war, very minor.
If you have ever read the book "Charlie Wilson's War", you should get it. It provides an interesting glimpse into the CIA and foreign policy in the region at the time. Many of them for obvious reasons did not make it into the movie. In this non-fiction book, they bring up the reason for supplying both sides:
But continue your fantasy where X=Y, and up is down. No matter what proof is given you will continue to insist that you are right.
Not really. Switzerland has not been anywhere near as "neutral" as most people tend to believe.
Just research the caving in they did to the Germans during the 1940's. Germany could have swept them away in a heartbeat, and the Swiss knew it. So they did their own form of appeasement in order to be allowed to exist. In almost any way they did what Germany told them to do.
Even forcing Allied bombers to land and even shooting them down.
I can't think of any times I have heard of neutral countries shooting down bombers and holding their crews in POW camps (although the Soviets came close a few times).
Exactly. So although they became technically the biggest seller of arms to Iraq their stance was comletely different from Americas for obvious reasons. The American involvment was not minor by any stretch of the imagination. It's not alol about figures, you've got to look at the circumstances. America wanted this war way more than the Russians did. You can't say Russia was Iraq's biggest supporter when they're selling arms to both sides, it makes absolutely no sense. Remember Russian allies in Syria and Libya were selling arms to Iran. Russia in fact tried to sell arms directly to Iran, which was rejected... funny way to support iraq, right?
The soviets didn't want a war. It complicated things for them.
as for training:
Basically the war started without Russian support for Iraq. Russia reluctantly got involved, after supporting both regimes for years and tilted towards iraq in the end. Why are Russian allies supplying weapons to Iran if Russia is Iraq's biggest supporter? - while America's allies, are doing everything to swing it in Iraq's favour?
This is what our federal Congress is delegated the power to do:
By what latitude of construction is there any specifically enumerated power to provide for the general warfare or the common offense, without first declaring War and Taxing the wealthy accordingly?
No the US props up dictators all the time. The invasion had nothing to do with that, anyone who thinks that is absolutely deluded.
There were no weapons of mass destruction. It was based on false intelligence. I'm gonna go with yes.
It wasn't worth not actually solving poverty in our republic instead, as an opportunity cost.
Solving poverty? How does that work, pray tell? Is there some magical way to turn the uneducated and unskilled away from poverty?
Sure. It could even be done with existing infrastructure and existing laws in every State of the Union and the federal districts, merely by being moral enough to bear true witness to a federal doctrine regarding employment at will and State at-will employment laws.
That is complete hogwash.
"At will" basically means there is no contract between the employer and employee. And that either can end the contract at any time. Maybe we should bring back firm contracts? Hey, I got an idea. We can also bring back employer based housing, and special stores that are only open to the employees.
Unemployment compensation should be regulated under at-will employment laws not administrative law.
That is all well and good for those who have or get jobs, but the original problem was eliminating poverty. I don't see how the above solves the problem of unemployment or the problem of the unemployable.
Invading Iraq was Dubya's John Wayne fantasy moment about "gittin' them folks that tried to kill my paw!"
Should we abolish our standing armies since only well regulated militias should be sufficient for the security and domestic tranquility needs of any State that is merely providing for its common defense and general welfare.
It is obvious that you support that ludicrous idea, but what if the general welfare actually hinges on the internal actions in another country? What happens if the internal actions of a foreign land could lead to serious economic or social damage to the United States without an actual invasion? That is what we face in a highly interconnected global world. Instabilities in one small, out of the way part of the world could cause havoc over the entire planetary economic and social order.
SOMEONE has to maintain stability at all costs otherwise we're assured another world wide global conflict. It is called "Hegemonic Stability Theory" and you should read up on it.
Invading Iraq to 'spread Democracy' shouldn't be allowed without a declaration of war by Congress. And isn't all this crap about the executive branch having the power to conduct military actions around the world without the approval of Congress due to the imminent nature of war exactly what the war hawks call a judicial activism, just in a different branch? Additionally declaring war is not the way to spread Democracy.
Invading Iraq due to nuclear/biological capability is not a valid reason either. Merely possessing nuclear weapons doesn't justify a preventive war against you. If so my little island nation might try invading yours. True, Saddam used biological weapons on domestic minorities (with full military support from the same war hawks who orchestrated the Iraq war, might I add), but again, the defense department should be there to... defend US citizens. Not to wage war for humanitarian reasons. It's completely baffling to me that some hawks go on and on about how the founding fathers were so perfect (I may be inclined to agree somewhat in this regard), but ignore that little part about military isolationism.
Ahhh, the President did get the "Authorization of Congress" prior to going into Iraq. Or maybe you never heard of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Public Law Number 107-243. And before anybody says this was all Republican, the Democrats controlled the Senate at that time. And 29 Democrat Senators voted for the Authorization, only 21 voted against it.
So sorry, but this was a law, authorized and passed by Congress. So your entire post is largely meaningless.
Shouldn't States' rights be included in our exportation of democracy product?
Added to all the other stuff I have. During the US-UK dispute with Iran over Prime Minister Mossadegh's popular moves to nationalize the country's energy resources, Adolf A. Berle, an original member of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Brain Trust," advised the State Department that:
After the CIA installation of the Shah dictatorship left U.S. oil companies with 40% of the formerly British concession, the Editors of the New York Times declared on August 6, 1954, that the CIA-orchestrated coup was "good news indeed":
We could be enjoying lower fuel costs if we had not engaged the Middle East in military conflict, on a potentially, for profit basis.
Separate names with a comma.