http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

http://www.counterpunch.com/green02242003.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8740.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1412.htm

And it wasn't just us, it was also Europe. Mainly I believe France and Germany.

All I am saying is, WE played a part in it. Maybe, in the future, it would behoove us to think twice about whether we should arm and train countries that aren't entirely friendly to us, simply so we can turn a profit, because in the end, that's what it always boils down to, money and greed.

I wonder if, 10-15 years from now, we find ourselves facing off with Iraqi soldiers we trained and armed, because they have decided we are the enemy again, if people like you will finally be willing to look at where some of it is our fault. I'm not saying I think that will happen, only that it might. And if it does, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Iranian president declares his country a space and nuclear power

Maybe that plan didn't work out so well.

I blame you and your belligerence UT.

I blame Bush.

This article suggests Khatami withdrew to support another gent, Mousavi, who might have more ability to stand up to the mullahs.

Mousavi seems to be a much better for everyone, but this is only one article.

We wiped the floor with the Iraqi Army twice in the last 19 years. Uppity states not even the size of Texas don't really stand a chance against our armed forces.
Lots of "if's" in that statement. And I doubt the country as a whole will "decide we are the enemy again" because like it or not, the ones causing trouble are by far the minority assholes whereas the general population wants nothing more than peace.

I know a lot of my opinions are not popular, and I am very opinionated, but all I am saying is that we should be more willing to examine our part in things that happen to us. Our actions in the past helped Saddam gain power, and also Osama bin Laden. Both of those people turned against us. That's all.

There is probably little to suggest that Iraq will "decide we are the enemy again" at least in the short term, but there is much to suggest that Iraq will be much closer politically to Iran than any time in its history.

For all of Sadam's horrific and barbaric acts against the people of Iraq, no can can deny that he provided a counter-force to Iran and the more fundamentalist Islamic interests in the region.

The largest political party in the Iraq Council of Representatives (parliament), the United Iraqi Alliance, is composed primarily of the former Dawa party and SCIRI (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) party, both of which have long standing ties to Iran.

In addition, the fastest growing political movement in Iraq is led by the the extremist anti-American cleric al Sadr.

A stronger Iran in the region and a extremist cleric controlling the fastest growing political movement in Iraq certainly are not in the US interest.

Tell that to Vietnam.

You're right sugar we do need to be more careful about who's enemy's enemy we back in the future because we don't necessarily have the best track record in that field. And @redux, personally I think we should eliminate the domestic need for Arab oil so that we won't even have a real interest in that region's politics in the first place. Not so that we can become isolationist, but so that we are more self sufficient and the only real concern left is human rights among those people. @ tw, different time, different place, different politics, different mindsets and you know that.

:dedhorse:

I know the eact opposite because I learn rather than listen to extremist rhetoric. We are again paying heavily for those lies as we did after Nam. Extremists created Vietnam by saying, "different time, different place, different politics, different mindsets". A $trillion dollar bill must now be paid through American job losses and economic downturn. Show me that military victory. Deja vue Nam.

Meanwhile, "Mission Accomplished" was the cakewalk. Welcome to Afghanistan because same mentalities only understand military strength - not reality.

If Desert Storm was such a victory, then why was "Mission Accomplished" necessary? Fools who advocate military strength as the solution also subverted victory in Desert Storm and Afghanistan. If history lessons do not apply to "different time, different place ..." etc, then why are we refighting wars? Could not happen if military strength translates into automatic victory.

Westmoreland also said, "different time, different place, different politics, different mindsets and you know that." Therefore America was defeated. Those militarily as dumb as Cheney and Westmoreland advocated that "different ..." myth. A myth understood even 2500 years ago because they too learned lessons from history.

'Big dic' mentalities (ie Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc) that subverted Desert Storm means an Afghan war also must be refought. Same mistake made by ignoring lessons from Nam. Ironic would be another Iraqi war only because 'big dics' believe military strength automatically translates into victory.