Thread: What Do You Guys Think About This?

The old adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", although oftentimes politically expedient may not be altogether true. If you think about it, much the same thing happened with Saddam Hussein (although admitted to probably a lesser degree). He was fighting an Iranian Theocracy that wasn't very kind at all to the Shah and his more Western-friendly leanings. Not to mention America's own difficulties as a result. At the time, we were more than willing to buddy up to him as he was a useful asset in a sort of proxy war with Iran. I've always believed that at least on some level, this is how he thought he could get away with invading Kuwait. However, most of the Western world was NOT OK with him controlling a huge chunk of the region's oil by invading Kuwait. Of course, the influence of the Saudi Royal family in the decision was probably huge as well. In any case, from the days of Gulf War I to the day he got his neck stretched, Saddam Hussein was a horrible despot leader and a destabilizing force (if not exactly an enormous military threat) to the entire region. That said, I think Iran's troublesome military build up is likely a direct result of Iraq no longer being a threat to them.

How times have changed. I guess it was fine for England to invade America, Australia, India, etc and control all those assets?

I agree with what you say about Iran, though, and whose got the money (and willpower) to get involved???

Yea, times have changed and it is now called Neo-colonialism, I believe. Give the old girl a new dress and send her back out to work sorta thing. In light of what has happened in the recent past such as WMDs among other things it is pretty hard for me to come up with an opinion with any degree of certainty of just how big a potential threat Iran really is.

Bob

You love the controversial topics don't you. I haven't listened to the broadcast, buti think I get the gist from some of the posts. It made me think of schoolyard politics, two people disagree, one is friends with the biggest kid at school, the biggest kid wades in, his friend wins. Though the winner may not have been in the right.

Originally Posted by edhewitt

You love the controversial topics don't you. I haven't listened to the broadcast, buti think I get the gist from some of the posts. It made me think of schoolyard politics, two people disagree, one is friends with the biggest kid at school, the biggest kid wades in, his friend wins. Though the winner may not have been in the right.

Yes, I do like controversial topics, and I like to say what I think. I also like to wear my heart on my sleeve as they say. When I joined this forum, it was at a time that was pretty distressing for me, and I decided then to not hold back on things too much.

I agree that world politics is just school yard antics on a larger scale, so is 'gang' related stuff; it's all so childish...

It's all generics. The way humans developed. When you find someone who is a stranger or different than you in any way he is your enemy. The more different the more of an enemy. Even here in the U.S it would take very little to start an armed conflict between Americans. Heck, the people in Europe still hate each other when it comes down to it. It takes little to bring that around. It's the thing that defines humans more than anything else difference=hate, war and everything that goes alone with it. it's only when a group faces a common enemy stronger than their hate for each other that they ban together to face it and become great friends until the conflict is over and then they go back to hating each other. Even in families this one hates that one for various reasons.

They say money is the root of all evil but that that's not true it's people.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

The old adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", although oftentimes politically expedient may not be altogether true. If you think about it, much the same thing happened with Saddam Hussein (although admitted to probably a lesser degree). He was fighting an Iranian Theocracy that wasn't very kind at all to the Shah and his more Western-friendly leanings. Not to mention America's own difficulties as a result. At the time, we were more than willing to buddy up to him as he was a useful asset in a sort of proxy war with Iran. I've always believed that at least on some level, this is how he thought he could get away with invading Kuwait. However, most of the Western world was NOT OK with him controlling a huge chunk of the region's oil by invading Kuwait. Of course, the influence of the Saudi Royal family in the decision was probably huge as well. In any case, from the days of Gulf War I to the day he got his neck stretched, Saddam Hussein was a horrible despot leader and a destabilizing force (if not exactly an enormous military threat) to the entire region. That said, I think Iran's troublesome military build up is likely a direct result of Iraq no longer being a threat to them.

I think you might be onto something with the "controlling the oil" comment. There are many poor nations that would probably benefit from their insane leaders being overthrown, but what would there be to gain by taking control of a country with no assets.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

How times have changed. I guess it was fine for England to invade America, Australia, India, etc and control all those assets?

I agree with what you say about Iran, though, and whose got the money (and willpower) to get involved???

I think we had an aquisition disorder :-)

Its interesting to me that this thread is courting less controversy than a workshop thread about discoloration ons razorblade that ended with glen closing it due to the heated nature of the discussion, I found it quite entertaining

It is not that controversial, everybody so far seems to tacitly acknowledge it. The only difference of opinion seems to be what to call it and it's root cause. It is the elephant in the room that can't be ignored but most try to.

Bob