[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Lixy would have supported the Soviets.
US backed dictators = evil
Soviet backed dictators = good.
[/quote]
No. I would have minded my own business. Of course, the CIA’s Mujahideens’ training camps were operating well before the Soviets invaded. Out of the Wiki:
[i]"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.”"[/i]
If the US don’t put their noses into everything, the will of the local populations would ultimately prevail. Now, THAT is what I call spreading democracy. Doing it with lawyers, guns and money never worked and never will.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Lixy would have supported the Soviets.
US backed dictators = evil
Soviet backed dictators = good.
No. I would have minded my own business. Of course, the CIA’s Mujahideens’ training camps were operating well before the Soviets invaded. Out of the Wiki:
Crap that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was part of a secret US plot.
…[/quote]
Wiki has been totally hijacked by the cyber jihadists.
Based on using violence and threatening the stability of the country.[/quote]
When they were just protesters, the Ayatollah opened fire on them and or imprisoned them. And as I said, if Bush did the same, I might be forced to take up arms as well.
[quote]I’d love to hear your take on Bush’s reasons.
Please share.[/quote]
I’m most likely not fully aware of Bush’s reasons. Their placement on the ‘watchlist’ was done out of a political policy of appeasement. Their being kept on the list was/is probably done out of safety, precaution, and (I know you’ll jump at this one) possibly even machismo, most likely a combination.
As I said, the MEK is not an enemy of the US army, nor are they a government-aided army. I understand the best description to be, guerrilla fighters or a militia. IMO, unless you believe them to be apt to turn around on the field of battle and open fire on you they are an ally in combat. That does not make them a political ally.
Assuming we don’t have time to stop every muslim man in an olive drab uniform carrying an AK-47 and ask him whether he’s a terrorist or not, what’s your solution? Shoot them all? Only if they’re firing on you? Only if they’re attacking civilians? It’s rather nice of them to all wear uniforms and not fire upon Americans unless fired upon, somebody should write some rules like that.
I’ve already explained this multiple times over.
The US invasion of Iraq was unpredictable to you? Maybe not exact time or place, but you were as surprised as ‘Baghdad Bob’ to see coalition tanks in the streets of Baghdad?
A majority of people in 10 of the 14 countries outside the US surveyed said the war in Iraq had made the world a more dangerous place.[/quote]
1.) This isn’t what I asked for, I asked for the actual survey, not secondhand media regurgitation of the data. But…
2.) This is exactly what I expected and what I was talking about. 51% of Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Kuwait, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco, Iran… is completely different than 95% of Germany, France, China, Britain…
Moreover, the threat to their actual peace is completely different than peace anywhere in the world. To the point that the respective former situations completely disagree with your sentiments of ‘why most of the world are more worried about US attacks than Iranian ones.’
Also, not to claim that they’re lying or falsifying sources, but funny that no survey between Mar. 31st (the claimed start of the study) and June 14 (the publish date of the story) exists;
NOTE: This is an unscientific, informal survey for the interest and enjoyment of TIME.com users and may not be indicative of popular opinion.
Might as well use American Idol votes to determine approval for the US.
One would like to think that, but Mahmoud is obviously nowhere near rational, and if they absolutely required nuclear power for peaceful purposes you think they’d cooperate openly.
I agree, it’s been beat to death. As beaten to death as a nuclear Iran is, nuclear Israel is about 100X that. Suffice to say that, if Iran developed nuclear power openly, Israel openly threatened to wipe them from the pages of history, and Iran made weapons in defiance of sanctions/NPT/resolutions. I would describe their actions as just. I’d prefer a less murderous Iranian regime, but the ‘moral weighing’ of Iran and Israel in this hypothetical case would come out pretty equal.
Surprising talk from a self-proclaimed pacifist.
I dunno about “always”, but it’s a decent goal for everyone anyway. This was surprisingly civil considering some of the past vitriol you’ve (probably we’ve) spewed.
Uh, when you become so obsessed with seeing the viewpoint of cutthroat, murderous bastards that you lose all sense of right and wrong…
“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]
Flying planes into buildings full of innocent people going to work…cutthroat , murderous bastard move.
Sawing off a journalist’s head on video simply because he is jewish…cutthroat murderous bastard move.
Going to war with these 7th century fucks, making every effort to spare civilian populations with our precise way of fighting and making it very clear that barbarism among our troops will not be accepted…very different than the cutthroat murderous bastards.
If you idiots did any amount of homework about the jihadists, you would know their goal is the spread of their virulent oppressive style of Islam. Nothing else. Not Israel. Not oil. None of your other buzzwords.
Stop pretending there are two equally valid viewpoints in this war. Its absurd.
Uh, when you become so obsessed with seeing the viewpoint of cutthroat, murderous bastards that you lose all sense of right and wrong…
“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…
Flying planes into buildings full of innocent people going to work…cutthroat , murderous bastard move.
Sawing off a journalist’s head on video simply because he is jewish…cutthroat murderous bastard move.
Going to war with these 7th century fucks, making every effort to spare civilian populations with our precise way of fighting and making it very clear that barbarism among our troops will not be accepted…very different than the cutthroat murderous bastards.
If you idiots did any amount of homework about the jihadists, you would know their goal is the spread of their virulent oppressive style of Islam. Nothing else. Not Israel. Not oil. None of your other buzzwords.
Stop pretending there are two equally valid viewpoints in this war. Its absurd.
[/quote]
How many Iraqis dead, now?
Its also nice how I’ve read letters from actual soldiers who have actually been in Iraq who have said that their commanding officers have told them to shoot anyone who looks suspecious to them, because they’d rather fill out paperwork than risk soldiers dying. I’m not saying thats right or wrong, but its simply, and OBVIOUSLY, the opposite of “making every effort to spare civilian populations with our precise way of fighting”.
But I’m sure you know much better than a soldier who has been there.
And if any of you ignorant armchair generals could use half of your brian (arent immature insults fun? we should do this more often!), you’d understand that America is far from the helpless and halpless victim of sinster comic book evildoers who (whats the creed again?) “hate justice and freedom and all that is good MUHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!”.
See, thats where people like you all fall in line: You are very right, and anyone who disagrees with you must be either evil (the terrorists), crazy (the liberals), weak (the moderates), or stupid (all three of the aforementioned as well as any else who doesnt fit anywhere else).
So the terrorists? Couldn’t possibly be other human beings who, for their own reasons, have a different viewpoint. They must be evil and want only to spread their mindless evil.
Anyone who can look at the situation and not take your side? Crazy, weak, or stupid (such as idiots like me).
Anyway, just go back to believing that anybody who doesn’t fall in line with you is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! I’m done.
“That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap…”
How would we know beforehand that Afghanistan would be a “trap”?
I do not know where this information came from, but I don’t believe it for a second.
[…]“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.”"
This quote is from the day the Soviets invaded.
And “keep your noses out of muslim countries’ business” is a paraphrase right out of one of Bin Laden’s speeches.
Arab backed freedom fighters against Israeli oppression = good.
US backed freedom fighters against Soviet oppression in the 1980’s = evil.
US backed freedom fighters against Iranian oppression now = evil.
I feel sorry for Islamic extremists because they can never take responcibility for their actions, everything is America’s fault, or Israel’s fault.
If you go back far enough in history you will see that America was “discovered” by Europeans, because they needed spices and other things from Asia. The Asian silk road was occupied by the hostile Ottoman Empire which had it’s sites on Europe. The Europeans had to find another route to the east, and sailed to America by mistake.
The discovery of America was a direct result of hostile Muslims aggression toward the European nations.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So the terrorists? Couldn’t possibly be other human beings who, for their own reasons, have a different viewpoint. They must be evil and want only to spread their mindless evil.
[/quote]
I’m almost(almost…not quite) shocked that someone could say such an asinine thing. The Nazis had a viewpoint different from mine too. I guess their viewpoint and world view is just as valid as any other?
I was kind of wondering why some of the more sensible guys in this forum have allowed tripe like this to fly around without attacking it. Then it came to me that they realize what a waste of time it is arguing with this such insanity.
Its also nice how I’ve read letters from actual soldiers who have actually been in Iraq who have said that their commanding officers have told them to shoot anyone who looks suspecious to them, because they’d rather fill out paperwork than risk soldiers dying. I’m not saying thats right or wrong, but its simply, and OBVIOUSLY, the opposite of “making every effort to spare civilian populations with our precise way of fighting”.
…[/quote]
This is complete horseshit. I have friends that served in that hellhole and they tell the opposite stories of men withholding fire when they should have fired.
I have read countless accounts of the same.
If the US had a “kill them all attitude” there would not be anyone left.
The overwhelming majority of civilian casualties is due to the jihadists terrorizing the Iraqi population and sectarian murders, not due to US troops indiscriminately killing.
You should be ashamed of yourself for posting crap like this.
Why don’t you just spit on our boys and call them baby killers?
[quote]40yarddash wrote:
No man they’re ALL evil. None of them should be supported. They can and will easily turn on us once they decide they don’t need us anymore. [/quote]
I know what you are saying.
I was mocking the islamic extremist point of view.
They constantly bitch about America, and “how evil we are”, but always expect us to fight fair, while they fight with no rules.
I think it’s a double standard.
Iran, who started using terrorist tactics, are now pissed because we are using terrorist tactics against them.
Not saying it’s right or wrong, moral, immoral, or amoral just ironic.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Flying planes into buildings full of innocent people going to work…cutthroat , murderous bastard move.
Sawing off a journalist’s head on video simply because he is jewish…cutthroat murderous bastard move.
Going to war with these 7th century fucks, making every effort to spare civilian populations with our precise way of fighting and making it very clear that barbarism among our troops will not be accepted…very different than the cutthroat murderous bastards. [/quote]
I’m gonna have to agree with most of what you said.
However, and correct me if I’m wrong, Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda or 9/11. So it seems you got a bit disoriented on the way…
And, oh, the beheading of US citizens in Iraq was a response to the 2003 invasion. It did not predate it.
Now, if you’ll only want to fight the murderous bastards that are Ben-Laden and his crew, you’ll have my full support. Instead, what you’re doing is giving them more reasons to recruit others by radicalizing and alienating the global Muslim population.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Wow, the US must have a time machine.
“That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap…”
How would we know beforehand that Afghanistan would be a “trap”?
I do not know where this information came from, but I don’t believe it for a second.[/quote]
Ha! That came from Brzezinski himself in an interview he gave to “Le nouvel observateur” dated from the 21st January 1998. It’s one of the leading French magazines. I have a copy of the historical piece back home.
So…? Even a crazy murderous bastard gets must get something right once in a while. Heck, even Bush utters insightful things once in a while.
Use your brains: How the fuck would you like it if a militarily superior entity interfered with your domestic issues? Wouldn’t you resist it with all you got?
I’m amazed at how out-of-touch you people are with reality…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is complete horseshit. I have friends that served in that hellhole and they tell the opposite stories of men withholding fire when they should have fired. [/quote]
I believe Brad61 served in said “hellhole”. Care to ask him his opinion?
[quote]lixy wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Flying planes into buildings full of innocent people going to work…cutthroat , murderous bastard move.
Sawing off a journalist’s head on video simply because he is jewish…cutthroat murderous bastard move.
Going to war with these 7th century fucks, making every effort to spare civilian populations with our precise way of fighting and making it very clear that barbarism among our troops will not be accepted…very different than the cutthroat murderous bastards.
I’m gonna have to agree with most of what you said.
However, and correct me if I’m wrong, Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda or 9/11. So it seems you got a bit disoriented on the way…
And, oh, the beheading of US citizens in Iraq was a response to the 2003 invasion. It did not predate it.
Now, if you’ll only want to fight the murderous bastards that are Ben-Laden and his crew, you’ll have my full support. Instead, what you’re doing is giving them more reasons to recruit others by radicalizing and alienating the global Muslim population.[/quote]
We DID NOT KNOW that Iraq was not a major threat.
Do you blame a driver who hits a kid who darted out from behind a tree? The driver is doing the speed limit and the kid appears. Is the driver supposed to be a mind reader or a future prognosticator?
Savages blame those who are faultless, because they have a warped view of reality.
I read that in Muslim countries, if you kill someone accidently with your car, the dead person’s family swarms the car to kill you — after all, you killed one of them.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Flying planes into buildings full of innocent people going to work…cutthroat , murderous bastard move.
Sawing off a journalist’s head on video simply because he is jewish…cutthroat murderous bastard move.
Going to war with these 7th century fucks, making every effort to spare civilian populations with our precise way of fighting and making it very clear that barbarism among our troops will not be accepted…very different than the cutthroat murderous bastards.
I’m gonna have to agree with most of what you said.
However, and correct me if I’m wrong, Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda or 9/11. So it seems you got a bit disoriented on the way…
And, oh, the beheading of US citizens in Iraq was a response to the 2003 invasion. It did not predate it.
Now, if you’ll only want to fight the murderous bastards that are Ben-Laden and his crew, you’ll have my full support. Instead, what you’re doing is giving them more reasons to recruit others by radicalizing and alienating the global Muslim population.
We DID NOT KNOW that Iraq was not a major threat.
Do you blame a driver who hits a kid who darted out from behind a tree? The driver is doing the speed limit and the kid appears. Is the driver supposed to be a mind reader or a future prognosticator?
Savages blame those who are faultless, because they have a warped view of reality.
I read that in Muslim countries, if you kill someone accidently with your car, the dead person’s family swarms the car to kill you — after all, you killed one of them.
Savages.[/quote]
We also DO NOT KNOW that Saudi Arabia is not a major threat, or Iran, or Pakistan, or any of the other Islam controlled nations.
We KNEW Al Quada was a threat. We KNEW that Al Queada was hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We did NOTHING.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We DID NOT KNOW that Iraq was not a major threat.
Do you blame a driver who hits a kid who darted out from behind a tree? The driver is doing the speed limit and the kid appears. Is the driver supposed to be a mind reader or a future prognosticator?[/quote]
Your analogy is so bad, it’s a downright insult to critical minds.
First of all, the invasion of Iraq is nothing like an accident. It was perpetrated in cold-blood and full willingness.
Second, intelligence reports from around the world warned the US that Saddam is no threat to the outside world at all. Matter of fact, even Israel acknowledged that Saddam is pretty harmless. Analysts were warning that going into Iraq will only embolden Al-Qaeda and give them ever more ground.
Finally, you don’t need to be a Ph.D. in geopolitics to reach the above conclusions; it’s mere common sense. The millions of people on the street to protest the war before it even began attest to that. It’s only in the US that people were mislead into believing an attack on Baghdad will make the world a safer place.
Faultless??? What are you smoking? It was such a gigantic and obvious error of judgement that very few people still buy into the “good faith” theory. Rather, it makes a lot more sense that the supposed threat was used as a justification to get a foot-hold in the region.
Yeah, and I read Bush orchestrated 9/11 and that Jews drink the blood of babies…
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If you go back far enough in history you will see that America was “discovered” by Europeans, because they needed spices and other things from Asia. The Asian silk road was occupied by the hostile Ottoman Empire which had it’s sites on Europe. The Europeans had to find another route to the east, and sailed to America by mistake.
The discovery of America was a direct result of hostile Muslims aggression toward the European nations.[/quote]
Please, reductionism is necessary, but aren’t you overdoing it? Europeans didn’t need that stuff from the orient, they wanted it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We DID NOT KNOW that Iraq was not a major threat.
Do you blame a driver who hits a kid who darted out from behind a tree? The driver is doing the speed limit and the kid appears. Is the driver supposed to be a mind reader or a future prognosticator?
Your analogy is so bad, it’s a downright insult to critical minds.
First of all, the invasion of Iraq is nothing like an accident. It was perpetrated in cold-blood and full willingness.
Second, intelligence reports from around the world warned the US that Saddam is no threat to the outside world at all. Matter of fact, even Israel acknowledged that Saddam is pretty harmless. Analysts were warning that going into Iraq will only embolden Al-Qaeda and give them ever more ground.
Finally, you don’t need to be a Ph.D. in geopolitics to reach the above conclusions; it’s mere common sense. The millions of people on the street to protest the war before it even began attest to that. It’s only in the US that people were mislead into believing an attack on Baghdad will make the world a safer place.
Savages blame those who are faultless, because they have a warped view of reality.
Faultless??? What are you smoking? It was such a gigantic and obvious error of judgement that very few people still buy into the “good faith” theory. Rather, it makes a lot more sense that the supposed threat was used as a justification to get a foot-hold in the region.
I read that in Muslim countries, if you kill someone accidently with your car, the dead person’s family swarms the car to kill you — after all, you killed one of them.
Yeah, and I read Bush orchestrated 9/11 and that Jews drink the blood of babies…
Moron![/quote]
Lixy,
Sometimes, you display intelligence. This is NOT one of those times.
Where do you get all this stuff? Bush showed the ‘Intelligence’ to our Congress, most of whom agreed that Iraq was a major threat. They then voted for Bush to hit Iraq.
Our Congress does NOT simply attack others for the fun of it. Your argument is simply beyond ludicrous.
My analogy is perfect: We did NOT know Saddam was blustering. He deceived everyone and got killed for it. Accept reality.
And I’m still waiting to see some of those manuals…