Unimaginable Horror In Tehran Today (Baharestan Square Massacre)

Lerxst said:

You fail.

Blah blah blah. And you still failed.

You fail once again.

You fail yet again.

Epic fail.

Fail.

Yeah so?

Click to expand...

Do you never tire of sounding like you are in third grade?

Lerxst said:

You're insane. Hitler held western Europe with substantially less forces than he fought with on the Eastern front. He actually shifted western front resources off to fight the Russians because he had overextended his lines of supply and his offensives were stalling out and being pushed back. His troops in Normandy were under equipped and almost devoid of air cover. It was only because of the eastern front that we could even mount a D-Day offensive, not the other way around. The Soviets had the Germans on the run after Stalingrad and Kursk. The eastern front had collapsed on the Axis and they were being steadily destroyed and pushed back before allied troops ever stepped foot on the beaches of Normandy. Nothing Germany could do would have stopped the Red Army from taking the Rhineland and ending the war. The only thing D-Day did was speed up the surrender of Germany and insure the French weren't speaking Russian. Over 70% of German casualties were at the hands of the Red Army. Stalin didn't get his second front until after he had decimated German forces on the eastern front and began his drive to Germany.

Click to expand...

Once again we have a lot of OPINION laced with a lot of “because you say so” with little substance or historic fact to back it all up.

Do some reading and become “informed” rather than sound like a childish know-it-all. Here are some facts:

“It took the Soviet troops three months to force the Finnish government to agree to Stalin's original demands. Although the world was now aware of Stalin's shrewdness in foreign affairs, Finland's small army of 200,000 men had exposed the Soviet Union's poorly trained and equipped army.”

“Stalin was still highly suspicious of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt and was worried about them signing a peace agreement with Adolf Hitler. The foreign policies of the capitalist countries since the October Revolution had convinced Stalin that their main objective was the destruction of the communist system in the Soviet Union. Stalin was fully aware that if Britain and the USA withdrew from the war, the Red Army would have great difficulty in dealing with Germany on its own.

At Teheran, Stalin reminded Churchill and Roosevelt of a previous promise of landing troops in Western Europe in 1942. Later they postponed it to the spring of 1943. Stalin complained that it was now November and there was still no sign of an allied invasion of France. After lengthy discussions it was agreed that the Allies would mount a major offensive in the spring of 1944. “

Joseph Stalin

“Stalin's troops struggled to hold the Eastern front against the Nazi forces, and the Soviets began pleading for a British invasion of France immediately after the Nazi invasion in 1941. In 1942, Roosevelt unwisely promised the Soviets that the Allies would open the second front that autumn. Although Stalin only grumbled when the invasion was postponed until 1943, he exploded the following year when the invasion was postponed again until May of 1944. In retaliation, Stalin recalled his ambassadors from London and Washington and fears soon arose that the Soviets might seek a separate peace with Germany.”

U.S.-Soviet Alliance, 1941-1945

“From the Soviet viewpoint that would be only slightly less disastrous
than being defeated by Germany. Stalin wants the Germans defeated, but he is perfectly willing to make a separate peace with the Germans as long as that peace puts the Soviet Union back at its pre-German invasion borders. The Germans aren't willing to go along with that, partly because they don't think they need to, and partly because they don't trust the Soviets not to reenter the war after the Germans and the Western Allies have exhausted each other. The Russian people have suffered enough at German hands that the idea of a separate peace with the Germans would not be popular, but Stalin has the tools to make public opinion irrelevant.”

“If it looks like the western allies are going to get too much of the fruits of victory, some sort of short-term deal could be arranged with the Germans--either a tacit agreement to stop offensive operations for a while so the Germans can concentrate on the allies, or a separate peace. Either way, the Soviet Union needs victories, and it needs them now.”

http://www.alternatehistory.com/shwi/Nazis Take Moscow, 1942.txt

Lerxst said:

So? They kicked the **** out of the Wermacht and it's allies. You're clueless about World War II.

Click to expand...

No, they lost 20,000,000 men and were still well within Russia.

Lerxst said:

False, we had cut off oil and steel exports to Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, which they considered an act of war. They attacked Pearl Harbor because they had to take the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies in order to sustain their empire and they believed our fleet in Hawaii was the only thing that would stop them. That in no way forced us to send troops to Europe.

Click to expand...

You can claim everything is false till you are blue in the face, but right up until the attack on Pearl Harbor, America was perfectly fine selling it’s steel and resources to the highest bidder in an act of neutrality.

Without the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war on us, Americans would have been content with sitting this one out. Many even sympathized with German efforts and there was a lot of talk of lucrative trade with Nazi Germany.

Lerxst said:

I have already shown how you are woefully ignorant of World War II history. My intellect doesn't have to be all that high to put you in your place.

Click to expand...

No, what you have shown once again is that you are woefully inadequate to the task of forming a coherent point of view that even has a relevant point and wandering off onto incoherent tirades which make little sense.

Carry on.

paris said:

ROFL!

What was the point of the French Revolution aside from removing the Monarchy?

It was a great success and it is still celebrated here each 14th of July!:2wave:

Click to expand...

It was a democidal reign of terror. It led to dictatorship not republic, it did not succeed in fomentinga republican constitution, it did not succeed in any of its objectives outside of removing the monarchy, all it did was replace one dictator with another costing thousands upon thousands of lives to the hands of the mass murderer Robespierre who will go down in history as the precursor and inspiration to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Agent Ferris said:

It was a democidal reign of terror. It led to dictatorship not republic, it did not succeed in fomentinga republican constitution, it did not succeed in any of its objectives outside of removing the monarchy, all it did was replace one dictator with another costing thousands upon thousands of lives to the hands of the mass murderer Robespierre who will go down in history as the precursor and inspiration to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Click to expand...

Excellent post.

Lerxst said:

We didn't enter the EUROPEAN conflict until after Germany declared war upon us. It doesn't matter that they didn't want to go to war with us, they did. They initiated it, we responded. Those are the facts.

Try again.

Click to expand...

Germany declared war on us right after Japan did. We had not declared war at all yet, so of course we were second. Correlation does not prove causation. Simply because Germany declared first, that does not mean that Germany's declaration was the reason we declared war. Those may be facts, but you have convienantly left out those facts that do not support your argument. We commited to help the allies in Europe first, in exchange for them helping us with Japan later. Russia was an ally of Hitler before he betrayed them after conquering most of Europe. Hitler didn't declare war on Russia until after the Battle of Britain. Russia can hardly be counted as the savior of Europe considering they occupied a large portion of it for years afterwards. Stop trying to discredit the valiant sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen by claiming we did not save Europe. Stalin would have occupied all of Germany's conquests had he been the sole victor. It does not matter that saving Europe was not the only motivation of the American Army. We still did save the world. Any real historian would grant that point and move on.

Laila said:

Oh please god. Not the US saved the world line ...

US came in late in the game.
It was Britain and its commonwealth which intiated the operation on D Day in France and not to mention it was Russia who arguably played the most important role. If it wasn't for the Russians, we'd be speaking German.

Click to expand...

Britain and Russia would have been crushed without Lend Lease.

Agent Ferris said:

Britain and Russia would have been crushed without Lend Lease.

Click to expand...

How does any of this apply to what happened in Baharestan Square?

celticlord said:

How does any of this apply to what happened in Baharestan Square?

Click to expand...

You would have to go back a few posts. We started talking about how Europe shouldn't be able to criticise any potential U.S. response, because U.S. armed response was what saved them in WWII. Apparently, some people find that debatable...

wbreese91 said:

You would have to go back a few posts. We started talking about how Europe shouldn't be able to criticise any potential U.S. response, because U.S. armed response was what saved them in WWII. Apparently, some people find that debatable...

Click to expand...

Ah....so the correct and concise answer is "nothing".

Thanks!:2wave:

celticlord said:

Ah....so the correct and concise answer is "nothing".

Thanks!:2wave:

Click to expand...

No, it does have something to do with it.

In the event of a possible, but highly unlikely U.S. military response in Iran (not advocating, simply hypothesizing) the U.S. would in all likelyhood take flak from Europian nations, many of which owe their own freedom and democracy to similar U.S. action. It is perfectly valid to discuss this to some extent in this tread.

Truth Detector said:

Do you never tire of sounding like you are in third grade?

Click to expand...

You don't listen so well do you kiddo?

Once again we have a lot of OPINION laced with a lot of “because you say so” with little substance or historic fact to back it all up.

Click to expand...

Can you disprove anything I said? No. You can't.

Do some reading and become “informed” rather than sound like a childish know-it-all. Here are some facts:

Click to expand...

This will be fun!

“It took the Soviet troops three months to force the Finnish government to agree to Stalin's original demands. Although the world was now aware of Stalin's shrewdness in foreign affairs, Finland's small army of 200,000 men had exposed the Soviet Union's poorly trained and equipped army.”

Click to expand...

So? The Finns just had higher morale at the time and were on the defense in good terrain. The Red Army had just experienced a major purge and lost many, many leaders. The Russians still got what they wanted and eventually beat Germany as well. Your original point had no relevancy whatsoever to begin with, but I appreciate your continued harping on a non-issue.

“Stalin was still highly suspicious of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt and was worried about them signing a peace agreement with Adolf Hitler. The foreign policies of the capitalist countries since the October Revolution had convinced Stalin that their main objective was the destruction of the communist system in the Soviet Union. Stalin was fully aware that if Britain and the USA withdrew from the war, the Red Army would have great difficulty in dealing with Germany on its own.

Click to expand...

What is your point here? Stalin was paranoid sociopath. He saw conspiracies behind every curtain and killed or imprisoned his own soldiers by the thousands. He didn't trust Churchill or FDR. Who didn't see that coming? Stalin's pleadings to Churchill and FDR were well in advance of his victories on the eastern front. The second front wasn't opened until after the Red Army had the Germans on the run and fighting defensive actions.

At Teheran, Stalin reminded Churchill and Roosevelt of a previous promise of landing troops in Western Europe in 1942. Later they postponed it to the spring of 1943. Stalin complained that it was now November and there was still no sign of an allied invasion of France. After lengthy discussions it was agreed that the Allies would mount a major offensive in the spring of 1944. “

Click to expand...

And Stalin had already broken the Axis advance and was steadily pushing westward before that promised 1944 offensive ever came into being.

What.

Is.

Your.

Point?

“Stalin's troops struggled to hold the Eastern front against the Nazi forces, and the Soviets began pleading for a British invasion of France immediately after the Nazi invasion in 1941. In 1942, Roosevelt unwisely promised the Soviets that the Allies would open the second front that autumn. Although Stalin only grumbled when the invasion was postponed until 1943, he exploded the following year when the invasion was postponed again until May of 1944. In retaliation, Stalin recalled his ambassadors from London and Washington and fears soon arose that the Soviets might seek a separate peace with Germany.”

Click to expand...

Of course they struggled, until they started kicking the hell out of the Axis powers and pushing them back towards Germany. Well before D-Day occurred. Let me show you something.

Here is a map of German advances in 1941...


Now here is the Soviet counter offensive from 41 to 42...


Here is the continuation of the counter offensive from 42-43...


And here his the Soviet rolling the Germans back from 43-44...

“From the Soviet viewpoint that would be only slightly less disastrous
than being defeated by Germany. Stalin wants the Germans defeated, but he is perfectly willing to make a separate peace with the Germans as long as that peace puts the Soviet Union back at its pre-German invasion borders. The Germans aren't willing to go along with that, partly because they don't think they need to, and partly because they don't trust the Soviets not to reenter the war after the Germans and the Western Allies have exhausted each other. The Russian people have suffered enough at German hands that the idea of a separate peace with the Germans would not be popular, but Stalin has the tools to make public opinion irrelevant.”

“If it looks like the western allies are going to get too much of the fruits of victory, some sort of short-term deal could be arranged with the Germans--either a tacit agreement to stop offensive operations for a while so the Germans can concentrate on the allies, or a separate peace. Either way, the Soviet Union needs victories, and it needs them now.”

Click to expand...

Really, if you are going to cut and paste like this, offer the context to the argument you are trying to make.

No, they lost 20,000,000 men and were still well within Russia.

Click to expand...

And they beat the **** out of the Wermacht as evidenced by the maps above. Did or did not the Red Army begin a full on advance against the Germans and start driving them back west prior to D-Day? Yes or no? Please answer the question.

To be continued....

You can claim everything is false till you are blue in the face, but right up until the attack on Pearl Harbor, America was perfectly fine selling it’s steel and resources to the highest bidder in an act of neutrality.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Again. Source.

After January 1940, the United States combined a strategy of increasing aid to China through larger credits and the Lend-Lease program with a gradual move towards an embargo on the trade of all militarily useful items with Japan. The Japanese Government made several decisions during these two years that exacerbated the situation. Unable or unwilling to control the military, Japan's political leaders sought greater security by establishing the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" in August, 1940. In so doing they announced Japan's intention to drive the Western imperialist nations from Asia. However, this Japanese-led project aimed to enhance Japan's economic and material wealth so that it would not be dependent upon supplies from the West, and not to "liberate" the long-subject peoples of Asia. In fact, Japan would have to launch a campaign of military conquest and rule, and did not intend to pull out of China. At the same time, several pacts with Western nations only made Japan appear more of a threat to the United States. First, Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy on September 27, 1940 and thereby linked the conflicts in Europe and Asia. This made China a potential ally in the global fight against fascism. Then in mid-1941, Japan signed a Neutrality Pact with the Soviet Union, making it clear that Japan's military would be moving into Southeast Asia, where the United States had greater interests. A third agreement with Vichy France enabled Japanese forces to move into Indochina and begin their Southern Advance. The United States responded to this growing threat by temporarily halting negotiations with Japanese diplomats, instituting a full embargo on exports to Japan, freezing Japanese assets in U.S. banks, and sending supplies into China along the Burma Road. Although negotiations restarted after the United States increasingly enforced an embargo against Japan, they made little headway. Diplomats in Washington came close to agreements on a couple of occasions, but pro-Chinese sentiments in the United States made it difficult to reach any resolution that would not involve a Japanese withdrawal from China, and such a condition was unacceptable to Japan's military leaders.

Click to expand...

Source.

Why did Japan attack the United States? This is a more complicated question. Japan knew the United States was economically and military powerful, but it was not afraid of any American attack on its islands. Japan did worry however, that the Americans might help the Chinese resist the Japanese invasion of their country. When President Roosevelt stopped U.S. shipments of steel and oil the Japan, he was doing exactly this: the Japanese are dependent on other countries for raw materials, for they have almost none on their own islands. Without imports of steel and oil, the Japanese military could not fight for long. Without oil, the navy would not be able to move after it had exhausted its six-month reserve. Roosevelt hoped that this economic pressure would force Japan to end its military expansion in East Asia.

The Japanese military saw another solution to the problem: if it could quickly conquer the British and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia and gain complete control of the oil, rubber, and other raw materials it needed, then it could defend its interests in China and Indochina against those Europeans who were now busy fighting a major war in Europe against the Germans and Italians. The only force that could stop the Japanese was the American Pacific fleet--which was conveniently gathered close to Japan at Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii. Knowing that many Americans did not want to fight a war against Japan, the military thought that if it suddenly destroyed the U.S. fleet, America would simply give up and allow Japan to consolidate its grasp on East Asia.

Click to expand...

Without the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war on us, Americans would have been content with sitting this one out.

Click to expand...

No kidding? WOW! It only took Japan attacking us and Germany declaring war upon us to get us involved in World War II? That's it?

Truth Detector said:

I am always baffled when you repeat the OBVIOUS;

Click to expand...

:rofl

Many even sympathized with German efforts and there was a lot of talk of lucrative trade with Nazi Germany.

Click to expand...

Relevance?

No, what you have shown once again is that you are woefully inadequate to the task of forming a coherent point of view that even has a relevant point and wandering off onto incoherent tirades which make little sense.

Click to expand...

What??? My eyes just shot blood from this sentence. Nothing about my commentary was incoherent, it was in fact easily understood and made perfect sense. You've not disproved a single point I've made as of yet. You typed...err, cut and pasted...a bunch of text but offered little to no context. Further what you posted didn't really address the points I made.

I've now substantiated my case that Soviets were on the offensive and driving the Germans backwards well before D-Day ever occurred and I've proven you wrong regarding your assertion that we were happily selling them steel up until they attacked Pearl Harbor. You sir, are ignorant of fact on this subject matter.

Carry on.

Click to expand...

Yay!

wbreese91 said:

You would have to go back a few posts. We started talking about how Europe shouldn't be able to criticise any potential U.S. response, because U.S. armed response was what saved them in WWII. Apparently, some people find that debatable...

Click to expand...

It's very debatable.

Lerxst said:

It's very debatable.

Click to expand...

To you maybe.

Red Army occupation would have been disasterous for Europe.

You know it.

I know it.

American involvement saved Europe from it.

The end.

Hey, wadda ya know? I didn't even need to use pretty pictures to prove my point.

]

Laila said:

Oh please god. Not the US saved the world line ...

US came in late in the game.
It was Britain and its commonwealth which intiated the operation on D Day in France and not to mention it was Russia who arguably played the most important role. If it wasn't for the Russians, we'd be speaking German.

Click to expand...

All Allied countries contributed honorably to WWII. That having been said, the only reason you didn't have to fight the Germans AND the Japanese is because America was taking them (the Japanese) on almost single-handedly.

People seem to forget that America was fighting two super-powers simultaneously.

wbreese91 said:

Germany declared war on us right after Japan did. We had not declared war at all yet, so of course we were second.

Click to expand...

Okay.

Correlation does not prove causation. Simply because Germany declared first, that does not mean that Germany's declaration was the reason we declared war.

Click to expand...

True.

Those may be facts,

Click to expand...

They are the facts.

but you have convienantly left out those facts that do not support your argument.

Click to expand...

No, not at all.

We commited to help the allies in Europe first, in exchange for them helping us with Japan later.

Click to expand...

Please provide a citation for this.

Russia was an ally of Hitler before he betrayed them after conquering most of Europe. Hitler didn't declare war on Russia until after the Battle of Britain. Russia can hardly be counted as the savior of Europe considering they occupied a large portion of it for years afterwards.

Click to expand...

Nobody declared them the savior of Europe. But they were absolutely responsible for creating the setting for which D-Day had occured. If Russia had not dealt the Germans such horrible defeats and put them on the run on the eastern front there would have been much more armor, air power, and infantry in western Europe. This is an undeniable truth.

Stop trying to discredit the valiant sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen by claiming we did not save Europe.

Click to expand...

Stop being so melodramatic. It just makes you look silly. We didn't save Europe from the Germans, we actually saved western Europe from the Russians. That was my point. Go back and read. Had we not launched D-Day the French would be speaking Russian because the Red Army would have defeated Germany. The Rhineland was running out of military aged men to put in uniform and had made a major series of strategic and tactical errors.

Stalin would have occupied all of Germany's conquests had he been the sole victor.

Click to expand...

So you agree, Russia did not actually need our troops to defeat Germany.

It does not matter that saving Europe was not the only motivation of the American Army.

Click to expand...

Okay?

We still did save the world. Any real historian would grant that point and move on.

Click to expand...

No, any "real historian" would not grant that point because it's not that simple nor is it realistic.

Ethereal said:

That having been said, the only reason you didn't have to fight the Germans AND the Japanese is because America was taking them (the Japanese) on almost single-handedly.

Click to expand...

Not at all. China was tying down a major portion of Japan's military resources.

wbreese91 said:

To you maybe.

Red Army occupation would have been disasterous for Europe.

You know it.

I know it.

American involvement saved Europe from it.

The end.

Hey, wadda ya know? I didn't even need to use pretty pictures to prove my point.

Click to expand...

Do you even know what the discussion was? It was about Truth Detectors claim that we were responsible for rescuing Europe from Germany in World War II and that Russia was somehow not that big of a factor. That's absurd. At THAT TIME Russia was our ally against the Axis, we were not invading to save western Europe from Russia...but that's what we did in all actuality. I've already made the case at least twice if not more. Get it? Or do you just like being argumentative? If you are going to attack me over a point I'm making, how about you actually address a point I've actually made and not one you are fit to manufacture. :roll:

Who cares?

Haven't you guys heard?

Michael Jackson died! :shock:

Iran is like, soooo last week. :doh




5.0

Lerxst said:

Not at all. China was tying down a major portion of Japan's military resources.

Click to expand...

When I say "taking them on" I mean actually defeating and advancing against them -- the Chinese got their butts whipped.

The US, on the other hand, achieved victory over an entrenched and fanatical fighting force that fought to their last drop of blood; they don't call Marines "devil dogs" for no reason...:mrgreen:

Ethereal said:

When I say "taking them on" I mean actually defeating and advancing against them -- the Chinese got their butts whipped.

The US, on the other hand, achieved victory over an entrenched and fanatical fighting force that fought to their last drop of blood; they don't call Marines "devil dogs" for no reason...:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Point well made, point taken.

Laila said:

What is there to be proud of?
If we are mentioning humanitarian reasons for our actions in Iraq, why shouldn't i mention other countries which ARE more worthy of US and UK help? Why aren't we helping stop a genocide but we went nuts about invisible weapons?

We did not go to Iraq because of a dictator. We didn't care when we was funding weapons and helping him murder his own people.
Hell, US and UK refused to condemn the actions Iraq had took against Iran in the UN, chemical weapons because he was our "friend"
We sure as hell didn't care he was a oppressive, murderous dictator then did we? We brushed aside human rights and democracy as if it was nothing then.
Why was it so different in 2003?

Click to expand...

Would you rather Saddam the butcher of Baghdad still be in power?

You act as if your country is not complicit in this monsters reign. We were complicit though less so than the Soviets, French, and Germans, but the U.K. and U.S. had their dealings with Saddam. We are not complicit in Sudan, we are complicit in Iran as well to about the same degree as we are in Iraq. We not only have the means but we have the responsibility to help these people achieve popular sovereignty.

Lerxst said:

Point well made, point taken.

Click to expand...

Not that I'm into these America v Europe pissing matches concerning WWII (okay, maybe a lil), but I feel like America's contribution in the Pacific Theater goes somewhat overlooked. The Marines saw absolute hell over there -- they deserve to be remembered and remembered well.

Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone:

At Guadalcanal, he was ordered to hold back 3,000 Japanese troops attempting to capture Henderson airfield. With only 15 men (12 subsequently killed) he held the line for 72 battle-filled hours - firing machine guns, fixing machine guns, and crawling through Japanese lines to obtain ammunition. A full Japanese regiment had been almost wiped out.

MOH citation:

For extraordinary heroism and conspicuous gallantry in action against enemy Japanese forces, above and beyond the call of duty, while serving with the 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division in the Lunga Area. Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands, on 24 and 25 October 1942. While the enemy was hammering at the Marines' defensive positions, Sgt. Basilone, in charge of 2 sections of heavy machine guns, fought valiantly to check the savage and determined assault. In a fierce frontal attack with the Japanese blasting his guns with grenades and mortar fire, one of Sgt. Basilone's sections, with its guncrews, was put out of action, leaving only 2 men able to carry on. Moving an extra gun into position, he placed it in action, then, under continual fire, repaired another and personally manned it, gallantly holding his line until replacements arrived. A little later, with ammunition critically low and the supply lines cut off, Sgt. Basilone, at great risk of his life and in the face of continued enemy attack, battled his way through hostile lines with urgently needed shells for his gunners, thereby contributing in large measure to the virtual annihilation of a Japanese regiment. His great personal valor and courageous initiative were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.



[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Basilone]John Basilone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Wait, this happened a few days back?

Agent Ferris said:

Would you rather Saddam the butcher of Baghdad still be in power?

Click to expand...

Pretty much yeah.
I'd rather we didn't invade Iraq at all and focused entirely on Afghanistan.

You act as if your country is not complicit in this monsters reign. We were complicit though less so than the Soviets, French, and Germans, but the U.K. and U.S. had their dealings with Saddam. We are not complicit in Sudan, we are complicit in Iran as well to about the same degree as we are in Iraq. We not only have the means but we have the responsibility to help these people achieve popular sovereignty.

Click to expand...

What you mean we didn't give Saddam weapons and support?
Oh thank God, that has taken a load off my mind

So we have the responsibility to help others achieve soverignty and we chose Iraq and not the countless others which may want it?
Why would US wish to give democracy to the ME when its own neighbours has not experienced that gift?
I mean, i'm sure Cuba would appreciate it when we pat them on the head and tell them it was for their own good ....