Post: #51

(03-19-2013 05:16 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

Quote:Note that Hitchens, like most chicken-hawks never served in any army in any war. What about you Farmageddon did you deploy to OIF? Were you in the Infantry? Do you have sons, nephews,? Did you persuade them to enlist in combat arms MOS, it would have been the right thing to do.

So you can only argue for or against a war if you have served in one? That's absurd. The case for or against a certain proposition stands or falls on the merits of the arguments presented by either side regardless of the history of the people presenting the case.

Using your reasoning, none of us understand what works in regards to bedding women because we're not actual women. Are you a woman? Have you ever been a woman? Are you a mother, wife, or sister? Then there is no way that you can understand what it takes to bed one of us.

Your reasoning is faulty.

Yeah, I think the war was a bad idea but the argument that you can't be in favor of a war unless you are or were previously in the military is just silly. In addition to women's issues, you see this type of argument used when racial or other minority issues come up. It is the usual "Let's just come up with reasons why I don't have to listen to you rather than have a substantive discussion like an adult."

Post: #52

(03-20-2013 09:15 AM)LostGringo Wrote:  Comparing Lincoln, FDR and Ike to people like Cheney and Romney, does not warrant a thoughtful response.

You are intellectually dishonest, a particularly distasteful trait in an educated individual.

If your knowledge of American military history is remiss, perhaps you might consider joining your local community college for a couple of courses in American history.

My god, Lincoln, who famously struggled with the moral questions of sending young men into battle to die. FDR, who resisted entry into the second world war until the homeland was invaded, and then IKE, a distinguished career officer who actually learned something from his tenure and passed along perhaps the most ominous warning in US history; the unchecked growth of military industrial complex.

Two republicans and a democrat. Three examples of real leadership in difficult times. Chicken-hawks? Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term.

Well done Tenderman.

By the way, I support mandatory military service for all citizens. We all serve, or nobody serves. You being the hawk you are, perhaps its not too late to stop by your local recruiting office for a tour of duty with your local National Guard unit. I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?

And Tenderman gets b*tchslapped again.

(03-20-2013 09:36 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 09:15 AM)LostGringo Wrote:  I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?

Please don't. He'd be shot in the back by his own troops before they ever got boots on ground.

And Tenderman gets b*tchslapped again.

Post: #53

G, don't be so inflammatory. I'd expect that from a hotheaded newb, not a longstanding forum member. Don't make politics into a personal flame war.

Post: #54

(03-19-2013 03:04 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  I was an advocate of removing Saddam Hussein from power, by force if necessary, since the late 1990s. Hearing the debates stemming from Clinton's passing of the "Iraq Liberation Act" prompted me to read "The Republic of Fear" by Kanan Makiya and I was fucking horrified at what life was like for the average Iraqi citizen. People being executed for spilling their drinks on a newspaper with Saddam's portrait, families being forced to attend the execution of their children and then forced to applaud, videos left on the doorsteps of houses with daughters being raped and then killed, straight up genocide in the Kurdish North and Shia South, draining of the wetlands, etc.

This whole save the world mentality is beyond annoying. So you supported the invasion of Iraq because you read a book on how horrifying it is in Iraq. Am I getting this right? Have you ever heard of North Korea? Somalia? The DRC? Burma? Take your pick. Should we 'save' these countries too? You're awfully generous with American life and treasure. We should not be the world's police.

Post: #55

A long overdue +1 to LostGringo.

Post: #56

(03-20-2013 10:33 AM)RandalGraves Wrote:  G, don't be so inflammatory. I'd expect that from a hotheaded newb, not a longstanding forum member. Don't make politics into a personal flame war.

What do you mean "inflammatory"?

This is just a good old-fashioned b*tch slapping.

A guy in his prime stomping on an older guy.

Happens everyday. It's a daily operation.

Post: #57

I think we should only be allowed to go to war through popular referendum.

If you vote yes on the referendum, and you are over the age of military service, you are then eligible to be levied taxes upon to pay for the war. If you vote yes and are of military age, you must serve. No exceptions.

If you vote no, then you are exempt from taxes (or other financial obligations) for the war and exempt from military service. No exceptions.

Think about it.

Post: #58

(03-20-2013 12:13 PM)durangotang Wrote:  I think we should only be allowed to go to war through popular referendum.

If you vote yes on the referendum, and you are over the age of military service, you are then eligible to be levied taxes upon to pay for the war. If you vote yes and are of military age, you must serve. No exceptions.

If you vote no, then you are exempt from taxes for the war and exempt from military service. No exceptions.

Think about it.

So if the quadriplegics come out in force for going to war, we'll have the world's most hilarious military in history?

Post: #59

(03-20-2013 12:13 PM)durangotang Wrote:  I think we should only be allowed to go to war through popular referendum.

If you vote yes on the referendum, and you are over the age of military service, you are then eligible to be levied taxes upon to pay for the war. If you vote yes and are of military age, you must serve. No exceptions.

If you vote no, then you are exempt from taxes for the war and exempt from military service. No exceptions.

Think about it.

I subscribe to a philosophy of war described in All Quiet on the Western Front

Quote:Kropp on the other hand is a thinker. He proposes that a declaration of war should be a kind of popular festival with entrance-tickets and bands, like a bull fight. Then in the arena the ministers and generals of the two countries, dressed in bathing-drawers and armed with clubs, can have it out among themselves. Whoever survives, his country wins. That would be much simpler and more just than this arrangement, where the wrong people do the fighting.

Post: #60

Let's not forget a few key facts about Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
1. The US supported his dictatorial regime long before they opposed it. In fact, the US was largely responsible for his rise to power.
2. Hussein and Rumsfeld: BFFs.
3. Kurdish genocide? Done with US chemical weapons AND the blessing of the US.
4. Iraq's war with Iran? Done at the behest of the US. The only reason Iraq withdrew from that war was because the endless promises we made to Iraq never panned out, and Iraq was largely left bankrupt after 8 years of waging that war.

Hussein was a bad guy? There are a lot of bad people in the world, many who are far worse than Hussein.

Post: #61

Another great loss brought about by this war was the belief in US "superiority".

The higher moral grounds (as opposed to China, Russia, Iran etc.) based on rethorical values such as human/civil rights, freedom, a fair legal system, transparency, the rule of law, democracy etc etc were certainly eroded in the eyes of the world.

The US lost its undisputed edge here, and risks to lose the title of "champion of the free world".

I'd say the schizofrenic stance of US foreign policy may have become more apparent too as it kept working steadily to bring down secular dictators (Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad) while supporting religious freaks who export Jihad and who are at least as potentially harmful and are even more opposed to our Western values (Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Qatar).

If an Islamic Caliphate ever emerges from the mess in the Middle East, the mullahs will have plenty of reasons to thank the US.

Anyway, while trillions of dollars were spent without significant positive results, there was also a great loss in terms of "soft power", which is a fundamental element of leadership.

Post: #62

...when thousands of American troops are dying every day and more are dying maybe even as we speak you tell me: how can you enjoy " the good life? " ROME IS BURNING, SON...

Post: #63

(03-20-2013 09:15 AM)LostGringo Wrote:  Comparing Lincoln, FDR and Ike to people like Cheney and Romney, does not warrant a thoughtful response.

You are intellectually dishonest, a particularly distasteful trait in an educated individual.

If your knowledge of American military history is remiss, perhaps you might consider joining your local community college for a couple of courses in American history.

My god, Lincoln, who famously struggled with the moral questions of sending young men into battle to die. FDR, who resisted entry into the second world war until the homeland was invaded, and then IKE, a distinguished career officer who actually learned something from his tenure and passed along perhaps the most ominous warning in US history; the unchecked growth of military industrial complex.

Two republicans and a democrat. Three examples of real leadership in difficult times. Chicken-hawks? Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term.

Well done Tenderman.

By the way, I support mandatory military service for all citizens. We all serve, or nobody serves. You being the hawk you are, perhaps its not too late to stop by your local recruiting office for a tour of duty with your local National Guard unit. I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?

Hey, all of you can say you "bitch slapped me" or whatever, I could give two shits. I have more brainpower in one CC of my gray matter than most folks on here have in their entire craniums.

The fact is that those who use the term "chicken hawk" are logic challenged because the definition is simply this -- that unless someone actually GOES in harm's way he has NO RIGHT to send others in harms way.

Is that the definition, or not? If it is, then my three examples ARE chickenhawks.

Meanwhile, if Bush and Cheyney agonzied over the deaths of Americans, does that exempt them from this label?

Also, think about scale. Lincoln hitched his wagon to Grant, who was a notorious waster of men. Bush freed 25 million, an entire nation, from a hideous dictatorship, at a much much lower cost.

As for Eisenhower, ever hear of the Huertgen Forest? A complete and total waste of men and treasure to no particular strategic end. And how was the end game of the Battle of the Bulge played out? Instead of simply staying put and letting the surrounded Germans waste away, Ike decided to uselessly slog it out one day at a time to shrink the pocket, as thousands more Americans died. But, hey, that's OK...Ike looked smart in his jacket, even after he fucked Kay Summersby.

Would you bang?



I call bullshit on all you high minded righteous types.

Post: #64

OMG this thread is bringing back memories

Post: #65

(03-20-2013 02:51 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 09:15 AM)LostGringo Wrote:  Comparing Lincoln, FDR and Ike to people like Cheney and Romney, does not warrant a thoughtful response.

You are intellectually dishonest, a particularly distasteful trait in an educated individual.

If your knowledge of American military history is remiss, perhaps you might consider joining your local community college for a couple of courses in American history.

My god, Lincoln, who famously struggled with the moral questions of sending young men into battle to die. FDR, who resisted entry into the second world war until the homeland was invaded, and then IKE, a distinguished career officer who actually learned something from his tenure and passed along perhaps the most ominous warning in US history; the unchecked growth of military industrial complex.

Two republicans and a democrat. Three examples of real leadership in difficult times. Chicken-hawks? Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term.

Well done Tenderman.

By the way, I support mandatory military service for all citizens. We all serve, or nobody serves. You being the hawk you are, perhaps its not too late to stop by your local recruiting office for a tour of duty with your local National Guard unit. I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?

Hey, all of you can say you "bitch slapped me" or whatever, I could give two shits. I have more brainpower in one CC of my gray matter than most folks on here have in their entire craniums.

The fact is that those who use the term "chicken hawk" are logic challenged because the definition is simply this -- that unless someone actually GOES in harm's way he has NO RIGHT to send others in harms way.

Is that the definition, or not? If it is, then my three examples ARE chickenhawks.

Meanwhile, if Bush and Cheyney agonzied over the deaths of Americans, does that exempt them from this label?

Also, think about scale. Lincoln hitched his wagon to Grant, who was a notorious waster of men. Bush freed 25 million, an entire nation, from a hideous dictatorship, at a much much lower cost.

As for Eisenhower, ever hear of the Huertgen Forest? A complete and total waste of men and treasure to no particular strategic end. And how was the end game of the Battle of the Bulge played out? Instead of simply staying put and letting the surrounded Germans waste away, Ike decided to uselessly slog it out one day at a time to shrink the pocket, as thousands more Americans died. But, hey, that's OK...Ike looked smart in his jacket, even after he fucked Kay Summersby.

Would you bang?



I call bullshit on all you high minded righteous types.

"I have more brainpower in one CC of my gray matter than most folks on here have in their entire craniums."

This, from a man of self-proclaimed superior intellect.

Post: #66

(03-20-2013 03:57 PM)LostGringo Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 02:51 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 09:15 AM)LostGringo Wrote:  Comparing Lincoln, FDR and Ike to people like Cheney and Romney, does not warrant a thoughtful response.

You are intellectually dishonest, a particularly distasteful trait in an educated individual.

If your knowledge of American military history is remiss, perhaps you might consider joining your local community college for a couple of courses in American history.

My god, Lincoln, who famously struggled with the moral questions of sending young men into battle to die. FDR, who resisted entry into the second world war until the homeland was invaded, and then IKE, a distinguished career officer who actually learned something from his tenure and passed along perhaps the most ominous warning in US history; the unchecked growth of military industrial complex.

Two republicans and a democrat. Three examples of real leadership in difficult times. Chicken-hawks? Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term.

Well done Tenderman.

By the way, I support mandatory military service for all citizens. We all serve, or nobody serves. You being the hawk you are, perhaps its not too late to stop by your local recruiting office for a tour of duty with your local National Guard unit. I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?

Hey, all of you can say you "bitch slapped me" or whatever, I could give two shits. I have more brainpower in one CC of my gray matter than most folks on here have in their entire craniums.

The fact is that those who use the term "chicken hawk" are logic challenged because the definition is simply this -- that unless someone actually GOES in harm's way he has NO RIGHT to send others in harms way.

Is that the definition, or not? If it is, then my three examples ARE chickenhawks.

Meanwhile, if Bush and Cheyney agonzied over the deaths of Americans, does that exempt them from this label?

Also, think about scale. Lincoln hitched his wagon to Grant, who was a notorious waster of men. Bush freed 25 million, an entire nation, from a hideous dictatorship, at a much much lower cost.

As for Eisenhower, ever hear of the Huertgen Forest? A complete and total waste of men and treasure to no particular strategic end. And how was the end game of the Battle of the Bulge played out? Instead of simply staying put and letting the surrounded Germans waste away, Ike decided to uselessly slog it out one day at a time to shrink the pocket, as thousands more Americans died. But, hey, that's OK...Ike looked smart in his jacket, even after he fucked Kay Summersby.

Would you bang?



I call bullshit on all you high minded righteous types.

"I have more brainpower in one CC of my gray matter than most folks on here have in their entire craniums."

This, from a man of self-proclaimed superior intellect.

I don't see how a superior intellect can be that partisan.

In any case, I was a very young man when the bombs dropped in Iraq and was outraged at the lack of anti-war effort on the part of the Democrats. I was pushed more to the left as a result of the war and became quite an activist.

As of now I view the Iraq Wars as my Vietnam. It was a controversial war that, in the very least, could have been avoided with the 20/20 lens we have now. Whether if it was justified or not will be debated until the end of time.

I know for a fact that my confidence in the U.S. government, politicians, the capitalist system, and American foreign ventures for altruistic reasons has been shattered to the point of non-existence.

Post: #67

You will excuse me for using a quote from Wikipedia, but as this is "term", as opposed to a "word" - a definition from such as source will have to suffice. I find this definition satisfactory for my use of the term "chickenhawk", with the emphasis on "strongly supports war", yet "actively" avoided service. Cheney was a "chickenhawk" (and a pussy) because he was a hawk and draft dodger. (Bush was not a "chickenhawk", as he served in the Air National Guard as a fighter pilot. Flying an F102 is serious shit and I don't look down at anyone who volunteered for hazardous duty whether I agree with his politics or not.)
I have never heard any respected historian refer to Lincoln, FDR or IKE as a "hawk". All of these individuals were discussed in the Basic School, that I attended following commission as a 1st Lieutenant in the Marine Corps. Perhaps you should submit a scholarly effort to the Corps educational command so that their roles in American military history may be reflected more accurately. I would be happy to provide an address for submission of your research efforts. In addition, with regard to "actively" avoiding service, I don't recall these former Presidents being referred to in this manner, but again, perhaps you know more than the Corps does. I also don't recall any of these former Presidents being tagged as "chickenhawks" in the company of a group of highly motivated professional military officers. Trust me, if they were suspect the responses would have been savage.

A few sentences about the Battle of the Bulge is a rather pathetic attempt at describing IKE's FITREP for his tour as Supreme Allied Commander, don't you think?

And, as we are in the company of gentlemen who enjoy having sex with as many women as possible, I'm somewhat perplexed that would assail IKE for banging a nice looking woman in a war zone.

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political term used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action (i.e., aWar Hawk), yet who actively avoided military service when of age.
The term indicates that the person in question is hypocritical for personally dodging a draft or otherwise shirking their duty to their country during a time of armed conflict while advocating that others do so. Generally, the implication is that chickenhawks lack the moral character to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict. Those who avoid military service and continue to oppose armed aggression are not chickenhawks.
[edit]Origin of the term

In political usage chickenhawk is a compound of chicken (meaning coward) and hawk (meaning someone who advocates war, first used to describe "War Hawks" in the War of 1812). The earliest known print citation of chickenhawk in this sense was in the June 16, 1986 issue of The New Republic.[1] An association between the word chickenhawk and war was popularized several years earlier in the 1983 bestselling book Chickenhawk, a memoir by Robert Mason about his service in the Vietnam War, in which he was a helicopter pilot. Mason used the word as a compound oxymoron to describe both his fear of combat ("chicken") and his attraction to it ("hawk"), a slightly different use of the term which nonetheless might have inspired the current usage.[1]
Previously, the term war wimp was sometimes used, coined during the Vietnam War by Congressman Andrew Jacobs (D–Indiana), a Marine veteran of the Korean War. Jacobs defined a war wimp as "someone who is all too willing to send others to war, but never got 'round to going himself".

Post: #68

Hahaha, I love how everyone in this thread is talking about history without mentioning a very important point. America put Saddam Hussein into power in the first place despite knowing that the Ba'ath party was full of dick wads.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/fr...694885.stm

Quote:James Akins, Former US Ambassador to Iraq circa, said "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them."

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often."

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

This happy co-existence lasted right through the 1980s.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran in 1979, America set about turning Saddam Hussein into Our Man in the Gulf Region.

Washington gave Baghdad intelligence support.

President Reagan sent a special presidential envoy to Baghdad to talk to Saddam in person.

The envoy's name was Donald Rumsfeld.

America did some pretty stupid shit back in the Cold War, but putting Saddam fucking Hussein in charge of a country has to take the cake. Well, aside from putting former Nazi party members in charge of the Iranian monarchy back in '53 but that's a different story.

Post: #69

What I find interesting is that back in the 80s when Saddam WAS actually using chemical weapons on Iranians, Kurds, and his own people, when he really did use weapons of mass destruction, what was our response?


WE SUPPORTED HIM.

Um, yeah.

We increased our support. One example is U.S. agriculture businesses that wanted in on Iraq since his use of chemical weapons torched arable land.

They got the okay.

Now all of sudden, flash forward to 2003, Saddam is a bad guy and the U.S. wants him out.

The Bush administration and much of the establishment intelligence community assumed the weapons we sold him were still there and used it as a pre-text to invade.

But dadum, dadum, no weapons. Wolfiwitz, Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, etc were left with their mouths stuffed with feet.

The "surprise" was no surprise since Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei, the former a U.N. Weapons inspector, the latter the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, heavily disputed the claims made by the Bush administration and said there were no weapons of mass destruction. This was documented in numerous articles written by dedicated journalists pre-invasion.

But yeah, the administration didn't give a shit.

They wanted dinosaurs blood. Facts be damned.

I find it funny how so many "pro-war in Iraq" people cite the numerous reasons why it was good for Saddam to be taken out, after the fact that the main argument was shot to shit.

Simply saying someone is a bad dictator is not enough of a pre-text to invade a country. There are atleast half a dozen huge human rights violators who are heads of state we could invade and oust in order to "make the world a better place."

Hell, there are dozens of human rights violators we support that we could make the world a better place by not supporting *coughs Israel*

Oh well, rant over.

As the Jews say, Never Forgive, Never Forget.

Post: #70

(03-20-2013 05:14 PM)Captain Ahab Wrote:  I find it funny how so many "pro-war in Iraq" people cite the numerous reasons why it was good for Saddam to be taken out, after the fact that the main argument was shot to shit.

Simply saying someone is a bad dictator is not enough of a pre-text to invade a country. There are atleast half a dozen huge human rights violators who are heads of state we could invade and oust in order to "make the world a better place," hell, there are dozens of human rights violators we support that we could make the world a better place by not supporting *coughs Israel*

Agreed. And anyone saying that we are lucky that we got him out when we did or he'd still be in power today, and that he would be a serious threat to our nation, is a joke. Saddam was only somewhat of a political threat, but military threat, not a chance. Please, we spend more on our military budget than the next 13 countries combined. Saddam was a threat the same way Kim Jung-Un is a threat. They aren't, they just like to act like they are. If either one of those countries tried to go to war with the united states on our turf, it would be a joke. They wouldn't even make it half way across the Pacific. Do I think Saddam was a mother fucker? Yes. Are there bigger mother fuckers on this planet? Yes. Do I think we should invade their countries? No.

Post: #71

(03-20-2013 02:51 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  Bush freed 25 million, an entire nation, from a hideous dictatorship, at a much much lower cost.

Post: #72

(03-21-2013 12:33 AM)hazara Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 02:51 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  Bush freed 25 million, an entire nation, from a hideous dictatorship, at a much much lower cost.

This is what I was thinking. I went looking for some stats about what the Iraqis thought about the war, and even though most Iraqis were against it (Duh!), still close to 75% said that they thought it was worth going through the war to get Saddam out of power.

Post: #73

What I remember the most from this was what lead up to it. The US sending their lackey Colin Powell into the UN with fabricated evidence. The "Source" CIA used was an Iraqi engineer who had never seen the mobile labs that Iraq was supposed to have, he just simply wanted to get rid of Sadam. But the US, like the jews after WW2, had a cart blanche in the eyes of the world to do whatever they wanted after 9/11 and with the Texan at the steeringwheel he spent his chance well. Price: Thousands of US soldiers dead or seriously injured, Colin Powell/Georg Tenet sacrificed. I still ask myself how Clinton could be impeached for sticking a cigar up a young ladies vagina and lie abt it, while Bush walked away with unjustified blood on his hands leading his nation into a war based on lies.

Ah, and then there is Haliburton and Cheney, the biggest motherfucker in US politics next to Karl Rove. Memories.

Post: #74

(03-20-2013 05:05 PM)Derpface200 Wrote:  Hahaha, I love how everyone in this thread is talking about history without mentioning a very important point. America put Saddam Hussein into power in the first place despite knowing that the Ba'ath party was full of dick wads.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/fr...694885.stm

Quote:James Akins, Former US Ambassador to Iraq circa, said "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them."

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often."

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

This happy co-existence lasted right through the 1980s.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran in 1979, America set about turning Saddam Hussein into Our Man in the Gulf Region.

Washington gave Baghdad intelligence support.

President Reagan sent a special presidential envoy to Baghdad to talk to Saddam in person.

The envoy's name was Donald Rumsfeld.

America did some pretty stupid shit back in the Cold War, but putting Saddam fucking Hussein in charge of a country has to take the cake. Well, aside from putting former Nazi party members in charge of the Iranian monarchy back in '53 but that's a different story.

Go back to my previous post. I mentioned the relationship between Hussein and the US.

Post: #75