[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Nope. Try to keep up here.
How many did AQ murder in Iraq? How many were killed by sectarian violence incited by AQ’s bombing of mosques?
I’m following perfectly, I was just giving you a chance to correct yourself. Remember, Saddam was a murderous tyrant who maintained a type of order that, while not the same as what we enjoy in the west, would ensure the likes of AQ could not get away with what they are doing now.
You may never see how destroying a countries native army (while bold, brutal, and unjust) creates a void that will be filled by those who have something to gain. But it’s pretty clear to me that the order under Saddam was an order that no longer exists there.[/quote]
You need to do a bit of research on the order that Saddam kept. That type of order should never exist anywhere at any time. He was right up there with Hitler.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Saddam killed tens of thousands (or more) of his own.
I know a few Kurds that would oppose being associated to Saddam in any way, shape or form. Not quite “his own” by their definition.
It is worth noting though that as the brutal tyrant was gasing villages, the White House vetoed sanctions passed by Congress. And as soon as he was done with that, Washington gave him a loan of a billion dollars.
And I’m not even going into the West’s sponsorship of Saddam when he invaded Iran in a blatant act of aggression.
It now supports a variety of left-wing causes. The newspaper also takes an important role in the organisation of the 2001 Porto Alegre World Social Forum. After the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Second Gulf War starting in 2003 under the George W. Bush administration, Le Monde diplomatique continues its position of criticizing the US policy of violent intervention in the Middle East and the neoconservative’ project to reshape the so-called “Greater Middle East” region."[/i]
Quit reading garbage, less you be misinformed.
What are you? Stupid?
The bits of info I paraphrased Le Diplo on (Bush’s veto and the billion dollar loan) are public domain.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
You need to do a bit of research on the order that Saddam kept. That type of order should never exist anywhere at any time. He was right up there with Hitler.
[/quote]
Every time someone brings Hitler into an Internet discussion God kills a kitten.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
I don’t get too fired up because we all benefit from the tremendous sacrifice our men and women have made.
One of the world’s most brutal dictators is dead. [/quote]
Yes. The one good thing to come out of this. But did it warrant those piles of bodies? I think not. If killing Saddam was the goal, a targeted assassination could have been pulled off with minimal loss of human life. Heck, the man was not able to travel freely in his country. He was restrained to certain regions and had plenty of body doubles. There were frequent attempts on his life.
The plan was to get US troops on the ground. WMDs, freedom, democracy and such were mere justifications.
Are you for real?
Where, in the name of all that is Holy, do you see any stability in Iraq? A chick just blew up a dozen people along with herself no later than today.
As for oil prices, they are quite volatile. The blame can, to some extent, be laid on Washington’s belligerence on the world scene.
Agreed. But turn the we in “we need” into a “they”.
While you’re at it, can you please get your government to stop supporting tyrants all over the world? Plenty of people are trying to overthrow dictators but get shot with Washington Bullets.
And just to make sure you’re not mistaken, any Arab country with fair and transparent elections will yield a victory for, if not an Islamist government, then an anti-US one. Same holds for Latin America and Africa to a lesser extent.
True. But it is a bit of a generalization. Terrorist organization will definitely have a harder time recruiting in a prosperous land, but it doesn’t mean they’ll wither the next day. There’s plenty of accumulated hatred to go around.
You need to do a bit of research on the order that Saddam kept. That type of order should never exist anywhere at any time. He was right up there with Hitler.
[/quote]
We should have let him get nukes and over run the whole middle east. Then everyone could bitch about the US doing nothing.
Cause their gonna bitch regardless of what we do. They project the problems of their culture onto us.
[quote]lixy wrote:
While you’re at it, can you please get your government to stop supporting tyrants all over the world? Plenty of people are trying to overthrow dictators but get shot with Washington Bullets.
[/quote]
While your at it, tell your people to stop supporting islamic terrorists.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We should have let him get nukes and over run the whole middle east. Then everyone could bitch about the US doing nothing.
Cause their gonna bitch regardless of what we do. They project the problems of their culture onto us.[/quote]
Yes, they should have waited until he was close to getting the nukes. He wasn’t and most of the world knew and accepted it.
One thing is true, whoever did anything was going to get bitched at. The fact that the US seemed to be the major influencer in the start of this war is why the US is viewed so poorly about it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
I don’t get too fired up because we all benefit from the tremendous sacrifice our men and women have made.
One of the world’s most brutal dictators is dead.
Yes. The one good thing to come out of this. But did it warrant those piles of bodies? I think not. If killing Saddam was the goal, a targeted assassination could have been pulled off with minimal loss of human life. Heck, the man was not able to travel freely in his country. He was restrained to certain regions and had plenty of body doubles. There were frequent attempts on his life.
[/quote]
Agreed. terribly mishandled.
so why did we go in there? please don’t say war profiteering.
What democracy was created with no blood and overnight? Saddam had to be addressed soon or later. Did we wait too long? yep. Did we go about it wrong? yep.
“we” as in all of us. as in the entire world.
wish i could. I highly recommend “Legacy of Ashes”. History of the CIA and much of our international bungling. From WWII to Clinton at least. One of the best books I have ever read.
Sometimes. Takes time to combat generations of propaganda. A free election and free society is a good start. People will eventually figure out who is really responsible for their poor quality of life.
that’s why i said “in general”. There is no magic bullet. Any good solution has several facets. Not sure what your point is here?
fair enough. I don’t have many pictures on this pc. Plus it keeps the wife from thinking i’m trolling for women.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
so why did we go in there? please don’t say war profiteering. [/quote]
It’s quite simple really. If you read PNAC’s mission statement, you can figure it all out in a breeze. There’s the advantages an additional military foothold in the region gives you. That is, restore Western control over the flow of oil from the second richest oil country.
Did you follow oil prices lately? Despite the Al-Sauds being best buddies with whoever occupied the White House, Bush had to formally approach the king to ask for increased oil output. In Iraq, it was all behind the scenes.
Saddam was a nasty SOB. I very much agree. Did he constitute an immediate threat to the US? I don’t think so.
He wasn’t about to destroy the universe. In fact, at the peak of his power, and even with the help of the West (with the US of course!) plus the communist block, he couldn’t take Iran: a country that had just undergone a fundamental revolution. How, after two bloody wars and a decade of sanctions he was suddenly hailed as the ultimate evil is beyond comprehension.
No, sir! You and me have no more to tell other people how to live their lives than they do telling us how to live ours.
How would you like it if some superior military force bombed the fsck out of your country?
[quote]While you’re at it, can you please get your government to stop supporting tyrants all over the world? Plenty of people are trying to overthrow dictators but get shot with Washington Bullets.
wish i could. [/quote]
Fair enough.
Interesting. I’ll check it out.
[quote]And just to make sure you’re not mistaken, any Arab country with fair and transparent elections will yield a victory for, if not an Islamist government, then an anti-US one. Same holds for Latin America and Africa to a lesser extent.
Sometimes. Takes time to combat generations of propaganda. A free election and free society is a good start. [/quote]
No. You don’t quite get it. This has nothing to do with propaganda. I can’t stand Islamists and their bigoted regressive ways, but would vote for them any day of the week. Why? Because they’re the only ones to propose democracy in the Arab world.
They got themselves to blame for that. Their forefathers as well.
[quote]True. But it is a bit of a generalization. Terrorist organization will definitely have a harder time recruiting in a prosperous land, but it doesn’t mean they’ll wither the next day. There’s plenty of accumulated hatred to go around.
that’s why i said “in general”. There is no magic bullet. Any good solution has several facets. Not sure what your point is here?[/quote]
My point, was that terrorism as we know it today will decay very very slowly. The cat’s out of the bag.
[quote]P.S: That avatar is a bit douch-ey, dickey
fair enough. I don’t have many pictures on this pc. Plus it keeps the wife from thinking i’m trolling for women. [/quote]
It’s quite simple really. If you read PNAC’s mission statement, you can figure it all out in a breeze. There’s the advantages an additional military foothold in the region gives you. That is, restore Western control over the flow of oil from the second richest oil country.[/quote]
Agreed. Protecting american interests. Contraversial, maybe, but one of the few things the Federal Gov’t is SUPPOSED to do. Obviously you can only do this if there are some other moral grounds.
The same thing will happen in Iraq. Just give it time. The Al-Suads were living in tent before we started sucking oil out of the ground over there.
you don’t “think” so? Not very reassuring from a national security standpoint. You also have to understand the CIA’s track record here. They have severly underestimated the Nueclear progress in Iraq before and were severly critized for it. Do you think they were going to let that happen again?
He was a mad man that slaughtered his own people. He tourchered the rest into submission. If the CIA is telling me he has WMD, I’m a little nervous. The reality is that he had been a pain in worlds ass for some time. The guy was a maniac and it was a matter of time before someone found a reason to take him out.
I would like that at all. Big difference is that I choose to live here and am not being tortured for participating in this thread. We were not attacking the Iraqi people or their way of life. If we were they wouldn’t have sent Saddam to the gallows.
Your right, I am not quite sure what you’re getting at. Islamic Democracy is still a democracy and would be spectacular. I can’t recall any democracy run by a mad man gassing contituents. If they were and also had (we thought) WMD they would be a threat that would have to be delt with in some manner.
Muslims have a right to live however they see fit, but no one has the right to gas them and torture them. When they start slaughtering gays and Christians, and raping women it becomes an problem. This is distusting but doen not constitute a world threat and therefore is handled much differently.
It’s quite simple really. If you read PNAC’s mission statement, you can figure it all out in a breeze. There’s the advantages an additional military foothold in the region gives you. That is, restore Western control over the flow of oil from the second richest oil country.
Agreed. Protecting american interests. Contraversial, maybe, but one of the few things the Federal Gov’t is SUPPOSED to do. Obviously you can only do this if there are some other moral grounds. [/quote]
Good. You don’t rosy it up or anything. You believe your interests should be protected whatever the cost to others, and that’s a tenable position. What isn’t, is the idea that a majority of Americans would have backed the invasion of Iraq if presented with the actual motive. Hence, we cannot rule out lies and deceit from the White House on this issue.
[quote]Did you follow oil prices lately? Despite the Al-Sauds being best buddies with whoever occupied the White House, Bush had to formally approach the king to ask for increased oil output. In Iraq, it was all behind the scenes.
The same thing will happen in Iraq. Just give it time. The Al-Suads were living in tent before we started sucking oil out of the ground over there. [/quote]
I see that you’re not quite following the news. Iraq opened up bids for the exploitation of its oil as seen in the OP’s story. That conveniently coincided with skyrocketing oil prices and attempts by the world’s powers to get OPEC pumping more oil.
It’s got little to do with “national security” and you know it. I think it’s pretty much evident that the White House cooked up as many excuses as it needs to convince the domestic population, and hammered them down their throats with the help of the media.
The role of the CIA in all this is conjectural at best. The agency’s secretive nature ensures that.
Again, I would rather people stopped using this “his own people” as an argument. First, because the Kurds as a people would never associate with him in a million years. Then, because a human life is a human life. I don’t care what race, nationality, color or faith the fallen innocents are to condemn it.
This is not much of an argument either. Washington had and still has plenty of BFFs among the worst tyrants the world has ever seen.
OK.
But does it make you nervous enough to spend a trillion+ dollars, waste 4115 American lives, cause the death of countless Iraqis, maim many more, wreck their country, boost Islamist movements worldwide, and become hated by loads of people?
Next time, it may be wise to demand evidence solid instead of taking their word for it.
I totally agree and supported assassinating the man.
[quote]No, sir! You and me have no more to tell other people how to live their lives than they do telling us how to live ours.
How would you like it if some superior military force bombed the fsck out of your country?
I would like that at all. Big difference is that I choose to live here and am not being tortured for participating in this thread. We were not attacking the Iraqi people or their way of life. If we were they wouldn’t have sent Saddam to the gallows.[/quote]
Saddam deserved what he got. Nobody’s arguing this point. What I am riled up at is the carpet bombings, use of depleted uranium, atrocities (e.g: Abu-Ghraib, Mahmudiya, etc.), massive foreign military presence and permanent bases.
Iraqis choose to live in Iraq too, you know.
[quote]No. You don’t quite get it. This has nothing to do with propaganda. I can’t stand Islamists and their bigoted regressive ways, but would vote for them any day of the week. Why? Because they’re the only ones to propose democracy in the Arab world.
Your right, I am not quite sure what you’re getting at. Islamic Democracy is still a democracy and would be spectacular. I can’t recall any democracy run by a mad man gassing contituents. If they were and also had (we thought) WMD they would be a threat that would have to be delt with in some manner. [/quote]
I’m not getting at anything. I just stated that any fair and transparent election in an Arab country would see Islamists win.
And do Nazis need to be dragged out in every single discussion???
Allow me to ask you a question. Where do you stand on the whole “attack Iran because of their civil nuclear program”?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
lixy wrote:
Where do you stand on the whole “attack Iran because of their civil nuclear program”?
LOL @ Iran’s “civil nuclear program”. C’mon Lixy. even you have to know that’s bullshit… [/quote]
You’re clearly not familiar with Washington’s position on this.
The US opposes Iran’s "civil nuclear program. Admittedly, since the NPT was drafted, it’s gotten easier and easier to fork a civil nuclear program into a military one, although it still takes years to do that.
It’s not about having WMDs. It’s about a country’s ability to acquire them.
So, please let grown ups have a discussion and go have yourself some ice-cream.
[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
lixy wrote:
Where do you stand on the whole “attack Iran because of their civil nuclear program”?
LOL @ Iran’s “civil nuclear program”. C’mon Lixy. even you have to know that’s bullshit…
You’re clearly not familiar with Washington’s position on this.
The US opposes Iran’s "civil nuclear program. Admittedly, since the NPT was drafted, it’s gotten easier and easier to fork a civil nuclear program into a military one, although it still takes years to do that.
It’s not about having WMDs. It’s about a country’s ability to acquire them.
So, please let grown ups have a discussion and go have yourself some ice-cream.[/quote]
Wrong. Washington is opposed to Iran’s dual use reactors and is opposed to Iran refining uranium. If you recall Iran rejected the prospects of Russia refining their uranium for them.
Irans’s programs has all the signs of weapons development.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wrong. Washington is opposed to Iran’s dual use reactors and is opposed to Iran refining uranium. If you recall Iran rejected the prospects of Russia refining their uranium for them.
Irans’s programs has all the signs of weapons development.[/quote]
I tend to believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They are well aware of the number of countries who have them that have been invaded in the last few decades.
What an absurd, naive view towards Realpolitik the OP has. You want goodwill? Go to the fu#$in Olympics. This is about money. If you want power and to STAY in power, you need to control the money. Their model is Saudi Arabia. Saudi leads us around by the nose because they NATIONALIZED their oil and profits a long time ago. Colonialism in the truest sense, IS DEAD.