[quote]lixy wrote:
…
Seriously though, I believe peace, free-market and that load of crap was also what Ben-Laden promised the CIA.
…[/quote]
Another lie. Bin-Laden hated the CIA and the US all along, never promised them anything and never worked with them.
Getting back to the OP’s thoughts: I see no problem with backing the enemies of Iran. The Iranians started this terrorism war with the United States by arming and using proxy armies in Beirut and other countries to attack American and other foreign peace keeping troops, who were there to stop the destruction caused by Israel, bail out the PLO, and stop the civil war that was going on.
If the Iranians and their supporters want to cry foul if the Americans use their tactics and proxies against them, well so be it, but remember, they started this terrorism war, we did not.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You have taken my thoughts out of context. [/quote]
Let’s get the others decide shall we:
[b]That was the point I was trying to make following a post detailing what we did to the Vietnamese and others.
Right or wrong we had reasons for doing what we were doing and I defend the decisions my country made.
If people constantly put my country down, and degrade everything it has done since it’s inception, I believe I have a right to defend it.[/b]
That’s better…
Hmmm…so the millions dead don’t matter as long as the Viets (a country that has absolutely no signifance in the grand scheme of things) are your allies now.
Shit! If someone is against you, you bomb them to death? What screwed-up logic!
I preach what I believe in. If it happens to be similar to the discourse of Bush, I’ll continue to preach it. Same thing applies if it’s the same speech as some extremists hold.
What you refer to as propaganda is believed by a lot of very bright Americans, the majority of your neighbours to the South, all the Arab world, the Muslim world and a good portion of Europe. It’s by no mean something that emerged out of Al-Qaeda’s manuals.
I observe and react accordingly. All Arab countries are ruled by US-backed dictators (Mobarak receives in excess of 2 billion $ in aid from Washington). Arab nationalism was terrassed by Western secret services. The same story as Latin America, only with much bloodier dictators.
I know that politics’ a dirty business, but I believe that one must stand for what’s right. Your government seem to stand for what’s profitable no matter what the human cost is. The madness has to stop!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Another lie. Bin-Laden hated the CIA and the US all along, never promised them anything and never worked with them. [/quote]
Rightly so, might I add!
Are you doubting the Mujahideens received US support? Or are you saying that Ben-Laden had nothing to do with the Mujahideens? Enough people from within the governments involved spoke out about the issue that the extent of the CIA’s involvement in the deals are unquestionable.
‘The Afghan Mujahideens were refered to as “Freedom fighters” by Reagan.’
"Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise.”
Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy “to induce a Soviet military intervention.” In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:
"That secret operation was an excellent idea.
It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap…" […]“The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.”"
“Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”
[quote]lixy wrote:
It’s by no mean something that emerged out of Al-Qaeda’s manuals.
[/quote]
There are manuals? Can you post some of these, photocopy some of the pages for us? I would find those fascinating.
You’ll have to translate for us, since most of us don’t read Arabic.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Church and state? And there I was under the impression we’re talking about Muslims.[/quote]
Did it surprise you that a muslim could actually believe in those things or that an American can actually believe a muslim when he/she says them? Either way you’re kicking your own ass.
Okay… kicking your own ass. Either the MEK truly believe in those principles and should be defended and lauded for them or they are lying and need to be annihilated. Iran clearly doesn’t believe in them and would be harder to combat.
The Mujahedeen, on the other hand, at least give the appearance of believing in those principles and would be quite easy to defeat (Hell, the French arrested the leaders and hundreds of members on suspicion of terrorism and released them without charge.)
For someone who purports to be so ‘up’ on the subtleties of life, culture, and religion the middle east you sure did gloss over a lot and generate tons of false implications with that statement. First, you wrote Mujaheedin Al-Khalk,
I presume you mean the MEK and not the Maktab al-Khidimat (also MAK) that he actually founded in the mid-80s, it’s hard to tell with the non-phonetic spelling of Mujahedeen. That confusion aside, the MEK and associated fighters repulsion of Soviet military forces from Afghanistan ('78-'92, i.e. the 80’s) is no less impressive than the battle at Thermopylae.
The difference being the MEK turned their attention to fighting Iranian dictators and soldiers that slaughtered them by the thousands whereas Bin Laden chose to attack civilians in a country that ‘attacked’ (rather supported Israel) ‘him’(rather Palestine) third or fourth hand.
I’m not psychic, but I don’t think it takes one to know that if they were removed from the list you’d criticize Bush for removing a terrorist organization from the list selectively. As it stands, you call them terrorists and they’re on the list.
Their allegiance is to Iran, they aren’t supported by any government (maybe the EU), they aren’t hostile to coalition forces (they surrendered the base at Ashraf without incident), seems like the appropriate classification to me.
The Ayatollah slaughters 30,000, prisoners for possibly being associated with the MEK and you think it’s irrelevant? Funny how the MEK managed to focus their anger against the ayatollah and managed not to slam planes into Austrian or French buildings for supporting or appeasing the Ayatollah (or should I say ‘attacking’ ‘them’).
Okay, I guess if you look passed opening fire on civilian demonstrators and the mass hangings, you might believe the evidence is biased and therefore wrong, but you have to start with looking past an awful lot of bodies. Then you look past the fact that the French arrested many of these people on suspicion of terrorism and then let them go.
Then you look past the flawed methods of the HRW. Then you look past the distinct bias the HRW carries in the first place. And you might believe that someone as high-ranking as the VP of the EU parlaiment might lay his credentials on the line for spurious or heavily biased data.
No the comment was aimed at you. The Iranian policy to internal struggle is suppress and scapegoat, the very policy that you criticize the US for.
I apologize for losing focus, with such great and far-reaching omissions, it is difficult.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is better than letting both overrun you. It would be great if the world fit into your neat little ‘do only good’ mentality where we live in warm and loving peace and no one has to fight and/or die. Unfortunately, peace, when it exists, is very cold.
Because there is no paucity of resource or debate about those issues. Quite a few see Iran as a greater threat, and they are not alone.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There are manuals? Can you post some of these, photocopy some of the pages for us? I would find those fascinating. [/quote]
Figure of speech, dumbass!
I know you were kidding, but I felt like insulting you. Thanks for the opportunity.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There are manuals? Can you post some of these, photocopy some of the pages for us? I would find those fascinating.
Figure of speech, dumbass!
I know you were kidding, but I felt like insulting you. Thanks for the opportunity.
[/quote]
I was interested in your ‘Freudian slip’.
Really, won’t your cell leaders let you post some stuff out of the manuals? We’d find it fascinating!
[quote]lucasa wrote:
lixy wrote:
Church and state? And there I was under the impression we’re talking about Muslims.
Did it surprise you that a muslim could actually believe in those things or that an American can actually believe a muslim when he/she says them? Either way you’re kicking your own ass.[/quote]
It was supposed to be sarcasm. But since you insist on ruining it, I’ll spell it out for ya:
Muslims don’t usually go to churches!
Again, I’m sure someone in the CIA reasoned in that way about Ben-Laden.
[quote]For someone who purports to be so ‘up’ on the subtleties of life, culture, and religion the middle east you sure did gloss over a lot and generate tons of false implications with that statement. First, you wrote Mujaheedin Al-Khalk,
I presume you mean the MEK and not the Maktab al-Khidimat (also MAK) that he actually founded in the mid-80s, it’s hard to tell with the non-phonetic spelling of Mujahedeen. That confusion aside, the MEK and associated fighters repulsion of Soviet military forces from Afghanistan ('78-'92, i.e. the 80’s) is no less impressive than the battle at Thermopylae.
[/quote]
Yeah. I call them Mujahideen Al-Khalk. “El” gives Arabic words a Spanish ring that might confuse the reader.
Note also the “Al” in the Wiki:
Of course I would. Terrorists should be fought!
Might I remind you that Saddam was on Reagan’s list of terrorists up until the US decided to use him to weaken Iran; Iraq was removed from the list enabling weapons to be shipped to him.
Hmmm…I guess we have a misunderstanding here;
I’ll quote what you said then:
They ignore the fact that the Mujahedeen were placed on the list at by Clinton as an appeasement of Iran in exchange for their withdrawal of support for Hezbollah and Hamas as well as opening the door for nuclear inspections.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from the context you probably said that to show that Clinton didn’t consider them terrorists and only put them on the list to please Iran. If so, I think we’ve established that it wasn’t the case or else they would have been removed as soon as Bush was elected and got all belligerent towards Teheran. If not, please clarify what you meant by that sentence.
To the topic at hand it isn’t. Except if your point is that since they’re victims of the Iranian regime, they shouldn’t be classified as terrorists.
Not really funny. That’s an argument that comes up quite often though. I think we could easily establish that Ben-Laden is the “worst of the worst”. I fail to see how comparing other groups to Al-Qaeda is any relevant?
Hint: Iran had nothig to do with 9/11.
[quote]Okay, I guess if you look passed opening fire on civilian demonstrators and the mass hangings, you might believe the evidence is biased and therefore wrong, but you have to start with looking past an awful lot of bodies.
[/quote]
Your logic is stunning! I never said I had any sympathy for the Iranian regime.
Plus, what do the mass hangings have to do with the HRW’s report?
I didn’t read the report but what you presented here does not prove or disprove anything. Circumstantial evidence at best…
Ohhh, now I get it. You’re mad at me for criticizing the US and not Iran.
Listen closely: EVERY country uses one form or another of that “very policy” you’re talking about. But, the US has its troops and bases all over the world. Its record of bombing other countries says plenty about why most of the world are more worried about US attacks than Iranian ones.
I condemn Ahmadinejad and his crazy talk. I just think that he’s much less harmful to others than the US is.
I hope you got my point.
The consequences of the choosing between two evils might be dire (Ben-Laden?).
When you say “letting both overrun you”, what do you mean? Do you think Iran represents a threat to the sovereignty of your country? You are many many times more powerful militarily, why would they take any risk?
Diplomacy is definitely the way to go with Teheran.
Incidentally, I’m not a ‘do only good’ kind of guy. I’m OK with 'do no evil’™!
???
Great threat to what? The world order where no country challenges your dominance? Iran has been “successfully defiant” for decades now and it’s giving ideas to other countries; that’s the only threat emanating from Teheran. Kinda like the Mafia boss wouldn’t allow the butcher not to “pay his respect” for fear of it spreading out.
US military is orders of magnitude more powerful than the Iranian one.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Another lie. Bin-Laden hated the CIA and the US all along, never promised them anything and never worked with them.
Rightly so, might I add!
Are you doubting the Mujahideens received US support? Or are you saying that Ben-Laden had nothing to do with the Mujahideens?
And more crap trying to deflect that he was caught in a lie.
…[/quote]
You knew bin-Laden never worked with the CIA nor made them promises of any kind and yet you claimed he did.
You lie, distort and deceive. You have no interest in real discussion of issues.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
The US is very different than most other countries. Go back to the history books young man.
[/quote]
Are the history books your gospel? History is only relevent to those who write it and proves nothing about the present.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You knew bin-Laden never worked with the CIA nor made them promises of any kind and yet you claimed he did.
You lie, distort and deceive. You have no interest in real discussion of issues.[/quote]
By the very secretive nature of the agency, we can’t be sure whether he worked with it or not.
However, there’s absolutely no doubt that his crew received weapons thru the CIA. I don’t know about you, but in my book, giving weapons to someone is enough to demonstrate the association between the two.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:
The problem is no ones criticizing EVERYTHING.
Hey, beowolf.
You do know that there is a portion of people in the world that are doing EXACTLY that. Actually, you can look no further than this board to find people who are hostile to our very way of life.
They try nice little catch phrases such as “I just object to your government, not your people.”
No one should buy that.
Most people will agree our involvement in WWI and WWII was a good thing. They’ll agree we’ve set up a pretty good government, based off an amazing constitution. They’ll agree we still ahve more rights and freedoms than most of the world. They’ll argue we treat our people pretty damn well.
Agreed. However, some people find those rights dangerous. Some people deny others freedom to further their tyranny.
It’s only our most recent, post-cold war era foreign policy thats been shit.
Not true. We’ve just moved into an era that has far more grey.
We can’t force bin laden to have a ceremony on the USS Missouri and call an end to the conflict.
We are fighting a bad idea with a better one.
And the phrase “My country, right or wrong” is one of the most Un-American pieces of bullshit ever spoken.
Spoken like a true liberal. I’ll tell you what, if you don’t give your own country the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty, and so forth, then you need to spend some time in somalia.
An American Patriot will identify an error in government and work to rectify it.
Money, blood, votes, etc. He/she wouldn’t jump to overreaching conclusions. For example, “All politicians are scum” or “The U.S. Government is only concerned with oil.”
Criticism is the basis for everything American.
As is love of country. Criticism without action, is the lowest form of public discourse.
Our government, our constitution, and our nation is based on the people being allowed to criticize and change the government.
True. However, there are people like jlesk who rebel just to get attention.
I’m not a fan.
A social contract between the people and the government. The Government in America only exists because the people support it. That’s why our nation is special, that is what makes us incredible.
Well put.
When our government fucks up, it SHOULD be criticized. Fully and thoroughly. It’s the American thing to do. And if you believe it didn’t fuck up, then you should voice that opinion as well.
That is the start. The MORE important part is demanding and participating in the remedy.
But don’t defend the US just because you were born here.
Again, that is a LARGE difference between you and I.
I give the American people the benefit of the doubt from the get go. While I may not agree with every policy or decision, love of country has to include an inherent loyalty.
I encourage you to travel overseas.
I’ll bet you change your tune if you spent some time in Cuba.
Or, if you don’t have the finances, go to the coast of Florida.
You’ll see people dying to reach our shores.
I’d be willing to bet that this will change your tune. I’ll bet you become more loyal. Finally, I’d wager that your new found loyalty would make it more likely to participate in actions that improve your community and your country.
JeffR
[/quote]
The problem is some people give much more then the benefit of the doubt. I do love this nation, and I do believe it is innocent until proven guilty. However, that doesn’t mean I’ll accept anything it says without question. I will not defend America because I was born here, I will defend it when I believe it has done the right thing. More often than not, I do believe America does, at the very least, as close as we can to the right thing.
I don’t think all politicians are scum, by the by. Most of them are pretty good people, and honestly want what they believe to be best for our nation (I put George W. Bush, Bush Sr, Clinton (BILL), Obama, Ron Paul, Al Gore, John Edwards and others like them in this category), but there are those who just come off as total scum, looking out for their own personal interests just a bit to freakin much (Hilary, Dick Cheney ect). And of course there are those who just have way to much religion in em. I can do without those.
I know there is a portion of the world which blames us for everything, but that doesn’t mean some of the things they blame us for isn’t somewhat our fault. Obvious, we are not the worlds greatest evil. But we are no where close to being the worlds greatest international good. If you look back in history, a lot of people blamed stuff on GB like they do on us now. And if you look carefully, you’ll find GB fucked A LOT of stuff up way back when. As did Germany, who received a bucket load of blame. Doesn’t mean they were the ultimate evil, just that they made some evil choices.
We are not terrorists. I will not, and cannot compare what we do as a nation to the actions of Islamist extremists. But I will say this; we aren’t fighting for the side of pure good against pure evil. This is not a holy war. We sometimes do unjustifiable things. Does that make us evil? Not necessarily. It just doesn’t make us God’s super chosen nation, like a lot of people like to delude themselves into believing.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You knew bin-Laden never worked with the CIA nor made them promises of any kind and yet you claimed he did.
You lie, distort and deceive. You have no interest in real discussion of issues.
By the very secretive nature of the agency, we can’t be sure whether he worked with it or not.
However, there’s absolutely no doubt that his crew received weapons thru the CIA. I don’t know about you, but in my book, giving weapons to someone is enough to demonstrate the association between the two.[/quote]
He supplied his own crew. He kept his men away from the CIA and CIA supplied equipment. He urged other groups to stay away as well.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Again, I’m sure someone in the CIA reasoned in that way about Ben-Laden.[/quote]
Right, and given the choice of Bin Laden or the Soviets, I think the right decision was made.
Right, better to keep people from confusing Mujahedeen El-Khalq (MEK [or PMOI or NCRI or MKO…]) with Monafiqeen-e-Khalq (MEK) with Mujahedeen Al-Khalq (MAK) and Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK) than to have people mistakenly think the term is actually Spanish. If you were that worried about enunciation and spelling you would’ve corrected mujaheedin to a more phonetically correct term.
[quote]Note also the “Al” in the Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEK[/quote]
You mean the page that starts;
The People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI, also MEK, MKO)
and doesn’t us 'Al-khalk anywhere on the page except to redirect from your poor spelling?
Based solely on whether they appear on the DoD list without regard to how or why they were put there?
And as I said, kicking your own ass; it almost sounds like you’re promoting the lumping of people together regardless of their beliefs or motives. You’re either convincing me that you’re wrong and there are subtleties to the situation that need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis or that we need to hand out American flag patches to everyone in Iraq and shoot anyone who refuses to wear them because they’re a terrorist.
I can go into great detail and long-winded protraction that can be summed up, once again, as the lesser of two evils.
[quote]Correct me if I’m wrong,[/quote] Okay. [quote]but from the context you probably said that to show that Clinton didn’t consider them terrorists and only put them on the list to please Iran. If so, I think we’ve established that it wasn’t the case or else they would have been removed as soon as Bush was elected and got all belligerent towards Teheran.[/quote] Here’s where you’re wrong. Bush’s motivations are completely different to Clinton’s and the reasons why they remain on the list are not the reasons they got put on the list in the first place.
Incorrect, my point (as I said above, repeatedly) is that rather than lumping all Muslims onto the heap as terrorists and then treating all terrorists to the same fate, that finer stratifications need to be made. You justify Chavez and other Central American dictators’ hatred of the United States second-hand coercion of their politics but dismiss out-of-hand the atrocities Iran commits directly on it’s dissidents. The criticism of the US and the MEK, in this case is an argument in favor of a government that would’ve hanged you for speaking out against them.
You drew the association between Bin Laden and the MEK and then tell me you fail to see how the comparison between Al-Qaeda and the MEK is relevant?
Hint: No more than the MEK did.
Your unwavering criticism of the US and outright defense of Iran to the point of being dubious of the EU would indicate, very strongly, otherwise.
If I have to choose to ally myself with Iran or the MEK, I must look at the good and bad of both sides. If I have to weigh the impartiality and validity of the HRW’s views it’d be nice to see their treatment of both sides. As it stands, we’ve got a group purportedly guilty of human rights violations vs. a group guilty of crimes against humanity, in the eyes of the HRW. Not to mention that the one guilty of crimes against humanity is developing nuclear capabilities.
This is politics not a court of law, since they are only allegations in the first place, circumstantial evidence is considerable.
No, I’m criticizing you for your unfailing criticism of the US for the second-hand use of tactics that Iran is blatanly using. If you’re against it all, be against it all not just when the US does it.
This is misrepresentation of the purest form. Do you have a survey, from any source, that a) actually polled and accounts for ‘most of the world’ and b) identifies the US as a greater threat to their personal peace? Or could the results quite simply be that the popular opinion in the EU is that if there is a war anywhere in the world, the US is more likely than Iran to be involved, justifiably or not?
Iran, no. An openly nuclear Iran, not really. A covertly nuclear Iran, yes.
So is Israel, but I’ve heard talk from several leaders of Iran about erasing them from the pages of history. Good question, why would they take the risk? Especially when they can get all the nuclear power they want so long as the IAEA knows about it? Maybe just ‘crazy talk’ like you put it, but then, they do execute their political prisoners in droves…
Europe, China, Japan, India, Mexico… all constantly challenge our dominance any number of ways. We “manage” not to bomb them, they “manage” not to threaten to wipe, say Taiwan, off the map. Most of them “manage” not to kill thousands of their own people. We’ve even beat several of them in war on their own soil or invaders off their soil for them. Just because you think we’re out to make some global hegemony under our constitution doesn’t make it so.
See? Defending Iran. By successfully defiant, you must mean violently defiant. Iran has been ‘successfully defiant’ of the US. Much more recently, to borrow a phrase, they’re defying ‘most of the world’ with nuclear power.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
lixy wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Ah, forget it…
Go back to your relativist world…
When did relativizing become a bad thing?
Uh, when you become so obsessed with seeing the viewpoint of cutthroat, murderous bastards that you lose all sense of right and wrong…
[/quote]
“Let me suffice it to say that a good number of people in the world deserve to have violence visited upon them.”
So long as its not cutthroat, murderous violence… right?
Hey maybe those cutthroats just agree with you, the only difference is that they think its YOU who deserve violence visited upon YOU, and YOU think its THEY who deserve the violence.
But since being a “relativist” is such a terrible thing, you’re totally right and they are totally wrong. Or maybe they are totally right and you are totally wrong.
It couldn’t possibly be that neither of you are totally right and neither totally wrong. Couldn’t be. That would be spineless relativism.
Anyway, what country are we invading today? That is, in a nonmurderous, noncutthroat kind of way…
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Right, and given the choice of Bin Laden or the Soviets, I think the right decision was made. [/quote]
Between the pest and the cholera…
I understand. I’d probably do the same in your position. Not that it makes it any more ethical though…
No sir. It’s actually the page where MEK redirects.
Based on using violence and threatening the stability of the country.
I’d love to hear your take on Bush’s reasons.
Please share.
The self-proclaimed Mujahideens that carry MK-47’s are VERY likely to be terrorists!
That they’re linked to it doesn’t necessarily mean they use the same methods. But I got your point.
Why the hell would you wanna ally yourself with a terrorist group?
Again, Iran isn’t the one with troops in over a hundred countries. It isn’t the one that invades others whimsically…
[quote]This is misrepresentation of the purest form. Do you have a survey, from any source, that a) actually polled and accounts for ‘most of the world’ and b) identifies the US as a greater threat to their personal peace?
[/quote]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5077984.stm
http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html
C’mon! They do some heavily bad stuff to their people compared to the US, no doubt about that. But at the end of the day, they are rational beings that wanna get along with other countries, prosper and live happily ever after.
I don’t wanna get into the whole nuke argument again. It’s been debated ad nauseaum on other threads. The last thing the world needs is more nukes. However, why the $%^#@ didn’t you stop Israel from acquiring nukes in the first place? Don’t you think Teheran feels threatened by so many nuclear powers surrounding it? Add to that the US occupation of Iraq and you end up in a very unstable situation where the “great equalizer” would end up making the region more secure.
I apologize coming out in defense of a monstrous regime such as the one in Teheran and their nuclear craze aspirations but the way I see it, in a neighborhood full of guns, you get yourself some guns to ever have a chance of staying alive.
Thanks for always displaying civility and intelect’ in your posts. I learn a lot from them.
Right, and given the choice of Bin Laden or the Soviets, I think the right decision was made
my feelings as well.
Lixy would have supported the Soviets.
US backed dictators = evil
Soviet backed dictators = good.
Huh?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Right, and given the choice of Bin Laden or the Soviets, I think the right decision was made
my feelings as well.
Lixy would have supported the Soviets.
US backed dictators = evil
Soviet backed dictators = good.
Huh?[/quote]
US backing dictators while claiming to spread freedom and democracy = ? … hypocracy? dishonesty? bullshit?
[quote]cpt wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Right, and given the choice of Bin Laden or the Soviets, I think the right decision was made
my feelings as well.
Lixy would have supported the Soviets.
US backed dictators = evil
Soviet backed dictators = good.
Huh?
US backing dictators while claiming to spread freedom and democracy = ? … hypocracy? dishonesty? bullshit?[/quote]
The Somalian invasion in 1992 puts the lie to every pus pimple on the planet who doubts our commitment to spreading Democracy.
Please tell me GHWB went into Somalia for oil.
You’ll hear me laughing from here.
JeffR