[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Saddam Hussein was a real problem that needed to be handled.
Yet, despite his belligerence and ruthlessness, you had no problem with the guy in the 80’s. In fact, you armed the bastard.
…[/quote]
This is such bullshit. America did very little to arm this bastard and we only worked with him for a short while. When it became apparent he was a monster we stopped.
Criticize Russia, France and Germany for arming this guy, not the US.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is such bullshit. America did very little to arm this bastard and we only worked with him for a short while. When it became apparent he was a monster we stopped.
Criticize Russia, France and Germany for arming this guy, not the US.[/quote]
Revisionist history rules.
[quote]lixy wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
I have a sickening feeling in my gut that this problem is just beginning, that we haven’t seen ANYTHING yet. And while Bush has stirred the pot, he didn’t provide the ingredients. This shit has been in the works for awhile and is just now coming to a head…And if you’re not scared of it, you’re living in ignorance.
International terrorism is a serious threat. But to jump into the scare category is not constructive at all. Worse, it leads to unnecessary bloodshed and irrational behavior (see Irak and how much harder it would have been to sell the war had 9/11 not occurred)
The Americo-British chose to unleash the world’s mightiest war machine on a problem that is the domain of intelligence services and the police.
You’re not the only one Ben-Laden and his followers are after. They’re after anyone that doesn’t ascribe to their dark ideology. That includes me, along with over 90% of Muslims.
Succumb not to fear. It does more damage than good.[/quote]
Interestingly enough, statistics show that over 80% of the muslims in libanon, over 70% of the muslims in the ivory coast… and the list is continuing with quite a few disturbing numbers, think that suicide bombings and terrorist attacks towards civilians is an acceptable mean to defend ISlam.
so the “over 90% of muslims” is largely in your head.
Faith is a bad thing, be that the new version of semitic religions (islam) or the middle one (christianity) or the old one (judaism). Faith breeds tribalism and hate and is the most central problem in our world today.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is such bullshit. America did very little to arm this bastard and we only worked with him for a short while. When it became apparent he was a monster we stopped.[/quote]
Huh? Are you that stupid or are you simply living in denial?
Ted Koppel reported on ABC’s Nightline that “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into [an aggressive power]” and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted �?? and frequently encouraged �?? the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.�??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article136466.ece
I’ll criticize them alright. But until they unilaterally invade other countries under false pretenses, I’ll focus on the one country that acts like it somehow owns the world.
Saddam was primarily a Soviet client:
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
And Saddam was used to hold Iran in check.
But this is old news. What I find odd is that if we take it on face value that dealing with Saddam was wrong, wouldn’t it be a good idea to correct the mistake?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Saddam was primarily a Soviet client:
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
And Saddam was used to hold Iran in check.
But this is old news. What I find odd is that if we take it on face value that dealing with Saddam was wrong, wouldn’t it be a good idea to correct the mistake?[/quote]
Saddam was used to keep Iran in check?
The Iran that the US helped create by overthrowing the democratically elected government and backing a rather unplesant Monarch?
That Iran?
There is nothing in this old news worth thinking about before stirring shit up in that region?
Will you back Syria next to keep Iraq in check?
Or the Turkish military that is not at all happy that a new Kurdish nation is forming as their neighbour because so far they do not even acknowledge that Kurds even exist and might have their own language…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And Saddam was used to hold Iran in check. [/quote]
Right. The Iranians dared emancipate themselves from a US backed dictatorship.
In theory, it’s an excellent idea. However, the implementation which included lying to the public, wrecking the country and causing the deaths of so many people was a blunder.
Plus, if you really cared about correcting your mistakes, you’d start by withdrawing your support to dictatorial regimes such as Mubarak’s or the Al-Saud’s.
So America got away from it’s priciples when dealing with Sadaam. It was a mistake and they corrected it.
It’s easy to talk smack when you are in a country that has not been involved in the world.
Sweden has made it’s own deals with the devil when it seemed in it’s best interest. I’ll give you some examples. Sweden was a major supplier of iron ore to nazi Germany. Also because of a trade embargo Germany couldn’t get industrial diamonds from Africa but “nuetral” Sweden could. Without a steady supply of industrial diamonds from Sweden, German industry would not have been able to keep the nazi war machine going. Swedish railroads were also used to transport German soldiers.
So when the call of history came and your Norwegian brothers were under the Jackboot, you Swedes became Hitlers most important allie. Swedens actions lengthened the war and cost a lot of innocent people their lives.
So it is really hypocritical for someone in Sweden to lecture Americans about their dirty dealings with Sadaam, when Hitler was so much worse.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
So it is really hypocritical for someone in Sweden to lecture Americans about their dirty dealings with Sadaam, when Hitler was so much worse.[/quote]
Lixy likes to lecture Americans while hiding the shame of both his leftist apologism for the most murderous ideologies in the 20th century and his actual cultural heritage of Islamic societies, who are the world’s worst enemies of human rights, modernity, and equality.
That is why Lixy is so zealous - between his radical leftist political ideology and his cultural heritage, he has the shame of billions dead and oppressed to try and make excuses for. He has to try and displace it all by lashing out.
Ouch - a radical leftist and an Arab Muslim. The inferiority complex and shame must be an abyss.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
So America got away from it’s priciples when dealing with Sadaam. It was a mistake and they corrected it.
It’s easy to talk smack when you are in a country that has not been involved in the world.
Sweden has made it’s own deals with the devil when it seemed in it’s best interest. I’ll give you some examples. Sweden was a major supplier of iron ore to nazi Germany. Also because of a trade embargo Germany couldn’t get industrial diamonds from Africa but “nuetral” Sweden could. Without a steady supply of industrial diamonds from Sweden, German industry would not have been able to keep the nazi war machine going. Swedish railroads were also used to transport German soldiers.
So when the call of history came and your Norwegian brothers were under the Jackboot, you Swedes became Hitlers most important allie. Swedens actions lengthened the war and cost a lot of innocent people their lives.
So it is really hypocritical for someone in Sweden to lecture Americans about their dirty dealings with Sadaam, when Hitler was so much worse.[/quote]
So we go on in our medieval ways because nobody has the moral right to critisize anything?
Cool, not only do you assume that someone is merely part of a collective and even shares his ancestors guilt, but also that an ideas value can be determined by who brought it into a discussion.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
So it is really hypocritical for someone in Sweden to lecture Americans about their dirty dealings with Sadaam, when Hitler was so much worse.
Lixy likes to lecture Americans while hiding the shame of both his leftist apologism for the most murderous ideologies in the 20th century and his actual cultural heritage of Islamic societies, who are the world’s worst enemies of human rights, modernity, and equality.
That is why Lixy is so zealous - between his radical leftist political ideology and his cultural heritage, he has the shame of billions dead and oppressed to try and make excuses for. He has to try and displace it all by lashing out.
Ouch - a radical leftist and an Arab Muslim. The inferiority complex and shame must be an abyss.[/quote]
You can notice the fact that lixy ignores me when i point out his flawed use of “90% of muslims”…
he is just… sad:)
[quote]Sifu wrote:
So it is really hypocritical for someone in Sweden to lecture Americans about their dirty dealings with Sadaam, when Hitler was so much worse.[/quote]
Rest assured that if it was the 1930’s, I’d be the first to denounce Sweden’s complacency towards Hitler.
Note also that it wasn’t my intention to "lecture anyone. I just couldn’t let your apologist comment of the Iraq war (i.e: “Saddam was a threat”) slide without providing context. No offense meant.
[quote]SouthernBrew wrote:
Really? I saw some terrorism expert tonight who said something about the bomb being an incendiary device as opposed to an explosive device(?)and would have fucked up anyone in the car but would have a relatively small blast radius as well as small amounts of shrapnel.
[/quote]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/010707exposeshysteria.htm
A very interesting interview.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I’ll criticize them alright. But until they unilaterally invade other countries under false pretenses, I’ll focus on the one country that acts like it somehow owns the world.[/quote]
So, tell me, was it right or wrong to push the Serbs out of Kosovo? Stop the genocide of Muslims there?
You’re right, sometimes we should just mind our own business.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, tell me, was it right or wrong to push the Serbs out of Kosovo? Stop the genocide of Muslims there? [/quote]
While something had to be done, many things have gone wrong in NATO’s handling of the war. I would have preferred involving the UNSC. I also don’t think depleted uranium and cluster bombs were necessary.
More so than you think.
[quote]lixy wrote:
SouthernBrew wrote:
Really? I saw some terrorism expert tonight who said something about the bomb being an incendiary device as opposed to an explosive device(?)and would have fucked up anyone in the car but would have a relatively small blast radius as well as small amounts of shrapnel.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/010707exposeshysteria.htm
A very interesting interview.[/quote]
Sweet–there is definitely no bias in the media. And this guy is wrong, after his description of the propane canister just cracking I doubt if he has ever truly witness one explode. Anyone standing w/in 20 to 30 feet might have an ear ache?? Yeah from the nails imbedded in their skull.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If we wanted to go after terrorists, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan seem to be where they were all hiding.
And when we work with their governments to arrest them we are criticized. Should we invade instead? What are you proposing here or are you just making hollow criticism?[/quote]
Who criticizing you for working with the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to catch terrorists? That’s exactly what we should be doing.
But, if you wanted to invade somewhere to ‘fight a war on terror’, Saudia Arabia would have been the place to be pre-Iraq war Post-9/11. It would have been stupid and childish, but it would have been more logical than a nation that had NOTHING to do with the attacks.
Fuck half the country still thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Cheney said it not a few years ago that he did, but recently our President has claimed that his administration has NEVER claimed Saddam and 9/11 had anything to do with each other.
How anyone could connect pre-war Iraq to the terrorism that was a threat to America is beyond me.
And as for him being below our principals, is it our duty to invade every nation with a government we don’t like? Will China be next? Shall we just spread ourselves all over the globe?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
And as for him being below our principals, is it our duty to invade every nation with a government we don’t like? Will China be next? Shall we just spread ourselves all over the globe?[/quote]
Um, you have spread yourselves all over the globe…
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
But, if you wanted to invade somewhere to ‘fight a war on terror’, Saudia Arabia would have been the place to be pre-Iraq war Post-9/11. It would have been stupid and childish, but it would have been more logical than a nation that had NOTHING to do with the attacks.
[/quote]
Though I am against the war on Iraq, I think it had something to do with Iraq having WMD’s and not cooperating with the UN more than it had to do with 9-11.
The war in Afghanistan was because of 9-11.
As far as invading Saudi Arabia goes…you think we are creating more terrorists because we are in Iraq, maybe Lixy could tell us what would happen if we invaded Saudi Arabia.
Bush is too much in bed with the Saudi royal family to ever have attacked there.
I think we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan and then went after al-qaeda into Pakistan. But, then you’d have people burning the flag and protesting like they did during Viet Nam when we chased the Commies into Cambodia.
Just a couple of thoughts:
Every year in the U.S., there are several, high-profile explosions where there has been a Propane Leak. When this stuff explodes, it takes out whole city blocks. My neighbor works for the Gas Company, and their fear is ALWAYS getting a call about a leak (either Propane or Natural Gas).
Lixy Said:
“…The Americo-British chose to unleash the world’s mightiest war machine on a problem that is the domain of intelligence services and the police…”
He may just be right on this one…
Mufasa