Perhaps the U.S. Should Not Have Invaded Muslim Countries

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

We make lots of money of the American war machine. Do you think that started with Iraq?

So much for saying "No". After the invasion (drum roll please), PM Martin pleaded with President Bush for access to Iraqi oil service contracts and other projects.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

So much for saying "No". After the invasion (drum roll please), PM Martin pleaded with President Bush for access to Iraqi oil service contracts and other projects.

I have already pointed out to you Martin was long since out of office by that time. He was in no position, and nor did he need to plead anything. But Americans do tend toward self aggrandizement it seems.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

So much for saying "No". After the invasion (drum roll please), PM Martin pleaded with President Bush for access to Iraqi oil service contracts and other projects.

I have already pointed out to you Martin was long since out of office by that time. He was in no position, and nor did he need to plead anything. But Americans do tend toward self aggrandizement it seems.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

So much for saying "No". After the invasion (drum roll please), PM Martin pleaded with President Bush for access to Iraqi oil service contracts and other projects.

I have already pointed out to you Martin was long since out of office by that time. He was in no position, and nor did he need to plead anything. But Americans do tend toward self aggrandizement it seems.

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

I have already pointed out to you Martin was long since out of office by that time. He was in no position, and nor did he need to plead anything. But Americans do tend toward self aggrandizement it seems.

You obviously don't understand the timeline or context. It was Martin all right...after all that invadin' was done.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

You obviously don't understand the timeline or context. It was Martin all right...after all that invadin' was done.

Yep I understand the timeline. I have spelled it out but apparently you don't like it. Oh well, it's all water under the bridge.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

Anyway, I know you need to try and dump your guilt on someone, but not us. We said no remember.

Black Dog · May 12, 2014

OGfT: Don't feed the troll.

PIK · May 12, 2014

It became a superpower because it spent many years with black slaves doing all the work and white slave owners making all the money.

At one time muslims did great business selling black slaves. And we will not know for a while if invading Iraq or afghanistan worked in the people favour. But one thing is for sure is saddam and his 2 savage sons are not killing anymore.. IMO we pulled out of afghanistan to early.

jbg · May 12, 2014

No European country should have drawn up any borders regardless of direction. Fortunately for native Africans, the continent was much harder to colonize than ie: North America.

The reason for that is simple, and laid out by Charles Mann in his excellent book, 1491. Africa and Asia are in the same landmass, and as such the resistance to diseases among the various peoples would be similar. The natives of the Americas and Australia had no such resistance and the various diseases fanned out mercilessly, cutting down the people (from contagion from the explorers and their escaped animals) before the bulk of the colonists arrived. The colonists arrived on continents where 95% of their people were dead and the others demoralized and disorganized.

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

The reason for that is simple, and laid out by Charles Mann in his excellent book, 1491.

...and Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. Religion is no match for this dynamic, so Muslims will be dealing with "invading" infidels for a long time to come.

jbg · May 12, 2014

US super power? Baloney. It's a defanged super power that only stands up to small countries that don't have the ability to strike back. N.Korea isn't one of them apparently. And Iran isn't either because it's got it's own socalled super powers with nukes.

Thank dog Russia is back and China is on the rise!

Russia and China should invade countries when...... blah, blah, blah,

I wonder if you value living in a free country. I will tell you one thing; your post, if redirected at NK, Russia or Iran, wouldn't pass muster in those countries. In some cases you'd be lucky to live.

jbg · May 12, 2014

I am a bit astounded that you think this will somehow work where invasion didn't.

If one thing won't work perhaps another will work.

jbg · May 12, 2014

It became a superpower because it spent many years with black slaves doing all the work and white slave owners making all the money.

The only parts of the country that had "black slaves" were backwards. Those parts did not participate in the waves of innovation and investment that propelled the West forward.

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

The only parts of the country that had "black slaves" were backwards. Those parts did not participate in the waves of innovation and investment that propelled the West forward.

Agreed....those parts were destroyed by the North in the War between the States.

jbg · May 12, 2014

Agreed....those parts were destroyed by the North in the War between the States.

Except perhaps for Virginia there wasn't much to destroy.

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

Well, there is plenty to destroy (and protect) in Muslim nations. That's why the U.S. spends hundreds of billions each year to maintain forces that can project power around the world. I think you were first to note that this goes all the way back to the days of the Barbary Pirates and ransom for American ships. "...to the shores of Tripoli" sure sounds like invadin' to me.

Edited May 12, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

jbg · May 12, 2014

I think you were first to note that this goes all the way back to the days of the Barbary Pirates and ransom for American ships. "...to the shores of Tripoli" sure sounds like invadin' to me.

That was more the attack, punish and withdraw mode that I suggest than the "occupy and hold" methodology that was a magnificent flop in Iraq and Afghanistan.

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

That was more the attack, punish and withdraw mode that I suggest than the "occupy and hold" methodology that was a magnificent flop in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe, but depending on circumstances, one becomes the other. Occupation and counter-insurgency ops also goes back to the Philippines expeditionary forces. Many others in the Americas. Nothing special about Muslim nations in this regard vis-a-vis American foreign policy and "gunboat diplomacy". Cruise missiles can't hold and control land.

Big Guy · May 12, 2014

A number of years ago, the West did "invade" the Muslim countries at least 8 times. We took out between 1 and 3 million of them in an attempt to bring them to Christianity or some other excuse. These Crusades did not seem to do much good since they are still Muslim, seem to still be a little pi$$ed at us and do some payback every few years. I thing we are still ahead in the score of who killed the most - for the time being.

monty16 · May 12, 2014

On Guard for Thee, Please don't try to excuse Canada for the first war against Iraq. At this late date, and because we now know the real reason for the second Iraq war, it's painfully obvious that the reason was the same. Oil!

If any of the lies weren't obvious enough to form proof at the time, they certainly are now after another war against Iraq. Incubator baby lies, April Glaspie's greenlight to Saddam to invade Kuwait, Russian civilian satellite proof of no tanks and troop buildup along the Saudi border, and much more.

Canada was duped into that war by the US. We bear that guilt as a country and it's time to stop lying to ourselves about it. Our refulsal (Chretien's) to be duped again is only partial vindicating.

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

Chretien's refusal to engage Iraq had nothing to do with UN approval, as Canada dropped 10% of the bombs during 1999's Kosovo War as part of NATO without a UNSC resolution or vote. This is what helped to make Iraq #2 possible. Thanks Jean !

Black Dog · May 12, 2014

The only parts of the country that had "black slaves" were backwards. Those parts did not participate in the waves of innovation and investment that propelled the West forward.

Slave labour was the engine that drove economic griowth in America. For instance, half all U.S. export earnings pre Civil War were from slave-grown cotton. The slave trade was also an important link in the chain of global commodity circulation that fed the industrial revolution both in America and the old world. So no, slavery was not some fringe thing practiced by backwater hillbillies of no account or importance.

monty16 · May 12, 2014

Yes bush_cheney, we bear the guilt for taking part in Clinton's phony Kosovo war too. But it's really quite a stretch to say that it had something to do with Iraq 2 and Chretien's refusal to let Canada be involved. And fwiw, Harper is on record of supporting Canadian involvement.

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

Yes bush_cheney, we bear the guilt for taking part in Clinton's phony Kosovo war too. But it's really quite a stretch to say that it had something to do with Iraq 2 and Chretien's refusal to let Canada be involved. And fwiw, Harper is on record of supporting Canadian involvement.

You don't understand how Kosovo made the UN irrelevant in such matters going forward, and by extension, other actors working in unison for desired objectives without UN consideration. Canada's "guilt" doesn't mean anything, since it keeps doing it.