Reply With Quote
Yeah that's why not a single one of you called out has been able to even come close to backing up what you have said...
Why don't you tell me which books I should read to get the information I am seeking?
Is this proof enough enough?
Yeah that's why not a single one of you called out has been able to even come close to backing up what you have said...
Why don't you tell me which books I should read to get the information I am seeking?
Neither have any of you neocandanistas. Not ONE!!
NO TIES to 9/11. NONE! NO WMD!! NONE!!
Look in the mirror before you talking stupid like Dubya.
Pathetic.
Is this proof enough enough?
Actually tool, it isn't...
Do you know when that photo was taken and what Rumsfield's occupation was at that time and why he was sent there?
What do yo mean no ties to 9/11?
What is supposed to be tied to 9/11
Stop babbling like an idiot and make a semi coherent accusation.
Ooops.NONE! NO WMD!! NONE!!
Plenty of people thought Saddam had WMD...
Had he not kicked the UN weapons inspectors out he might not have gotten his ass kicked.
Then he again...since he had been in violation of the Gulf War cease fire agreement since 1993...he still might have.
You type well for a guy with terrorist down his throat and up his ass...Look in the mirror before you talking stupid like Dubya.
Pathetic.
The picture: Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.
So see Doofus..your great one Reagan began this .
Rummy laughing it up with Saddam
I know Wimbleton is over but you just got SERVED!!!
There goes that conservative phobia again...and you type well for a guy with his lips on Dubya's sac!
Alright, Whottt. Here you go. I would have responded sooner, but I've been working.
In regards to the Shah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
I know Wikipedia isn't a great source, but it's one on the net with basic information. If you want to address each of those points and their validity, go right ahead.
In regards to the support of Kuwaiti and Saudi royal families you don't really need a link do you?
And as for our Israel and their human rights violations:
that and a lot more at:In June, the Physicians for Human Rights in Israel (PHR) pe ioned the Supreme Court to end what it termed the Israel Prison System's (IPS) "systematic abuse of prisoners" in the Sharon Prison. In July, the court decided to close the case after prisoner complaints ended with the appointment of a new prison warden. At year's end, PHR continued to investigate the complaints and had received relevant files from the police.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm
I applaud you providing a link...
Now why don't you tell me when Iraq's first use of chemical/biological weapons against Iran occurred?
And then explain to me how that picture cons utes proof.
The only thing it proves to me is that Reagan knew the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism even back then(IE it's worse than Saddam)...if not what Saddam was going to turn into.
Last edited by whottt; 07-14-2005 at 03:32 PM.
Oh, and don't reply back with "Liberal presidents did it" because I don't care if they were communist presidents. My point is that things America has done and the way they are percieved in that point of the world have a lot to do with what is going on today.
Isn't it common knowledge that the U.S. provided weapons and aid to Afghanistan when they were being invaded by Russia?
I assume this is talking about at the point of the Islamic revolution and the Shah's ouster, because we most certainly had not been his primary backer for several decades by 1953.
This is a very superficial analysis of what took place.
#1. Ajax was for all intents and purposes a failure and it was the Iranians themselves that deposed Mossadegh.
#2. If the Shah was intent on being a dictator then how in the was Iran an emerging democracy with a reformist PM in 1953? Seeing as how he had been the monarch of that country for a decade at that point.
#3. The British were the true architects and instigators of subversive activity in IRan.
#4. The Ayatollas and Mossadegh are not the same, at all.
#5. 5What turned the Shah into a dictator was the continual attempts to overthrow and assasinate him when he was trying to establish a powerful cons utional democracy.
But mainly...and this is my ultimate point here...
We had nothing to do with the Shah coming into power. We had nothing to do with the Saudi Family coming into power.
This concept of propping up puppet monarchs who stay in power via tyranny is not of America's doing or Americas creation and I get sick of hearing it attributed to us...
That is the single biggest misconception that there is.
Appointing puppet monarchs who stay in power via tyranny is and always has been the European concept of dealing with those "savages"...and it still is to this day.
Are we guilty of subversive ing around in the middle east? Of course...along with every other country in the World.
But the intent is not now, nor has it ever been, to enslave the middle easterners under the iron heel of a dictator, because we somehow have a preference for dictatorial and terrorist regimes and care nothing for the individuals within those countries...it's always been to have position against external threats to those countries.
The worst thing you can accuse us of is keeping the pro western ones in power, WHILE pressuring them for Democratic Reform, and maybe not pressuring them hard enough.
A failure to trade one dictator out for another is not = to us being the cause of all the evils in the World and all the problems in the middle East.
The problems we face now in the middle east are all the responsibility of Europe and the UN.
This is the reality.
Here is a more deatiled account of the US history in Iran...it's not near as cut and dried or malicious as it is portrayed to be.
Link:
Oil Nationalization
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/m...d_rezashah.php
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/historic_periods.php
And BTW...Taking out Saddam was very similar to taking out the Shah...why is everyone ing now?
Actually I do...I need a link to show that we are the only people that support them...In regards to the support of Kuwaiti and Saudi royal families you don't really need a link do you?
Sure we liberated Kuwait...and so did Iran and Saudi Arabia... if that's what they are pissed off about they ought to live Israel since Israel was about the only country that didn't participate in the liberation of Kuwait.
As for Oil imports? We import more Oil from ing England than we do Kuwait.
Europe and Japan are the countries most dependent on mideast Oil...we do have a stake in protecting the oil supply there...not just for our economy, for the entire worlds economy.
As for Kuwait and Saudi..
These countries are ing sand...if people don't by Oil from them you will see a humanitarian disaster greater than what is going on in Africa...they are totally dependent on Oil sales...and in the case of Saudi it's still not enough to support their backwards ass culture.
The two sources of income Saudi Arabia has are Oil Sales and investment in our economy...
The Golden Era of Saudi civilization was discovered and paid for by Americans...it's not our fault that the idiots have a backwards ass culture still rooted in the 17th century and don't know how to manage their population and finances...
Secondly...our military was there to defend Saudi Arabia from Saddam...not Islamic Fundamentalists...Saddam wasn't an Islamic Fundamentalist, he was a ing Socialist.
Saddam's gone from Saudi and so are we...wasn't that one of the things Usama was ing about? Weren't the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people something he was ing about? Well those two conditions no longer exist.
I never denied Israel has human rights violations...I just denied that we support them doing that...we don't support any countries human rights violations, nor do we create them...it just so happens that 90% of the countries outside of the US and Europe have a problem with them...And as for our Israel and their human rights violations:
that and a lot more at:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm
Are we supposed to go overthrow every backwards ass country and install a puppet regime?
I thought that's why we are hated in the first place.
The funniest thing is everyone one acting like we should declare war on the Saudis...
These ers were charter members of the UN, they were in it before we were and by and unlike 99% of the other Arab Countries they don't have a totally warlike history in modern times.
Yeah? And how exactly does helping the muslims fend off an invader count as a justification for terrorist headedness?
A Democratic President nuked Japan.
A Democratic President created the CIA.
A Democratic President was in office at the time project AJax was thought up...
A Democratic President let the Fudamentalists take Iran.
You wanted us to not interfere in the internal politics of country...I give you Iran....and 40% of it's population living below the poverty level.
And Jimmy ing Carter was the straw that broke the camels ing back with Iran.
It was when we allowed the Shah refuge here that they went ing insane.
Yeah? And Bush and the "neocons aren't the cause of it...because I don't care if they were communist presidents. My point is that things America has done and the way they are percieved in that point of the world have a lot to do with what is going on today.
I agree with you strongly on one point...it is all about perception...and the perception they have of us is a false one...
When they talk of Imperialism and Colonialism...and they stick Americas name on it...guess what? We never did it...Europe did...we tried to stay out of it in the first two world wars and they drug us ing into it...
This is why when I hear liberals saying we need to follow the lead of Europe on this...I say ya'll are ing crazy...they created this situation. Ya'll are ing suicidal.
When we got to war and win? The country ends up doing pretty ing good...they are not are colonies or puppets(unless puppets can tell their masters to off like France and Germany just told us to do).
Like it or not...when they say West...the actions they attribute to us are those of the Europeans, and what the Europeans did to them....We are not their to colonize their land and install puppet regimes, we may have supported ones that were already in place...but we did not create them, nor do we at the end of a war...and if the Elections in Iraq don't prove that I don't know what will.
This time we are doing it our way...and the only way we ease this is to alleviate the problems created by the European concept of the middle East...Iraq was step 1 and hopefully it will be the last time we have to use military force to implement the change.
We split the muslims here...the Shias are more progressive and I am certain they see what we are doing...it's not us murdering and targeting their children..it's us that freed their majority from a tyrant and are giving them the opportunity for true self government for the first time perhaps ever.
Last edited by whottt; 07-14-2005 at 06:55 PM.
You don't understand that I am not blaming Republican policies for what got us here I am blaming AMERICAN actions. I'm not interested in turning this into a partisan debate because as far as I'm concerned they are both full of .
Yeah? And Bush and the "neocons aren't the cause of it...
I agree with you strongly on one point...it is all about perception...and the perception they have of us is a false one...
When they talk of Imperialism and Colonialism...and they stick Americas name on it...guess what? We never did it...Europe did...we tried to stay out of it in the first two world wars and they drug us ing into it...
This is why when I hear liberals saying we need to follow the lead of Europe on this...I say ya'll are ing crazy...they created this situation. Ya'll are ing suicidal.Y'all? When have you ever seen me say we should do it the European way? Godamn, can you stick to the conversation we are having and not lump me into a group I don't belong to?
You never addressed a damn thing about a few things that we've done that happend in the past 50 years that have to do with the current feelings.When we got to war and win? The country ends up doing pretty ing good...they are not are colonies or puppets(unless puppets can tell their masters to off like France and Germany just told us to do).
Like it or not...when they say West...the actions they attribute to us are those of the Europeans, and what the Europeans did to them....We are not their to colonize their land and install puppet regimes, we may have supported ones that were already in place...but we did not create them, nor do we at the end of a war...and if the Elections in Iraq don't prove that I don't know what will.
This time we are doing it our way...and the only way we ease this is to alleviate the problems created by the European concept of the middle East...Iraq was step 1 and hopefully it will be the last time we have to use military force to implement the change.
We split the muslims here...the Shias are more progressive and I am certain they see what we are doing...it's not us murdering and targeting their children..it's us that freed their majority from a tyrant and are giving them the opportunity for true self government for the first time perhaps ever.
1. Support of Israel when Israel does some ty things.
2. Support of Iraq in the 80s
3. Letting Afghanistan become what it did in the 80s
Well, you can't change the past, Manny. How 'bout quitting all the historical hysteria and tell us all how we put the toothpaste back in the tube without killing all the Islamo-fascist pricks.
Who don't we support? We support ing Arab countries that do ty things to...In fact...I'd say every country that needs our support does ty things...I think the two go hand in hand actually...if they weren't a ed up country they wouldn't need our support.
Everyone supported him...we were giving a new regime a chance to join the world community...the fact that he hated Iran was a bonus...since they hated us. And once he revealed his true intentions we stopped supporting him.2. Support of Iraq in the 80s
Some of the Iraquis supported him as well...
Just like many Iranians supported the shah and mourn the day he lost power...
Why don't they kill each other over that...oh wait...they are.
Um...we helped in Afghanistan and tried to let them rebuild themselves...because we didn't want to hear a bunch of liberals complaining about us setting up a puppet regime in Afghanistan...3. Letting Afghanistan become what it did in the 80s
We helped the Afghanis fend of a Soviet Invasion...I fail to see what we did wrong there...
We didn't want to be too supportive of then...because you know, they had a ty record on human rights
The bottom line is that pennyanny dictators and Mullahs who still wipe their asses with sand, are not capable of running these countries with large populations and nothing but sand to ing farm...and this is easily proved by looking at the quality of life in every one of those large countries...these ers have no concept of a modern economic model and their people will continue to suffer until they modernize their cultures...What makes it our problem is that they blame us for their problems and their backwards leadership...and they envy our success...we'll I am not going to go back to wiping my ass with sand just because they can't evolve...I'll just say em before that happens. Nature weeds out failing organisms and cultures....it's only by the grace of our humanity that these people still exist with the quality of life that they do.
It's the 21st century...what worked 600 years ago will not work in this world...especially when you have a population of 30 million people. One idiot having ultimate power will not work.
Dude, you keep giving me excuses for why we did what we did. That doesn't change the fact that what we did has an effect TODAY with those actions.
Anyhow, my last post in this thread will be summed up by Ty Fairman"
But former FBI agent, Ty Fairman, who has over 20 years experience with the world's most renowned terrorists has a different point of view. Mr. Fairman's investigative analysis has led to the capture of Abu Zubayda, second in command to Osama bin Laden, as well as to the indictment of the kidnappers of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and even to those involved in the Egypt Air 990 plane crash.
One of his lectures at the 15th World Conference on Disaster Management was "Conscious Assimilation: Understanding the Terrorist Mind."
"The terrorist mindset is that the United States is trying to destroy Islam and implement capitalism and religious freedoms in their society in order to control their resources," says Mr. Fairman, referring to Osama Bin Laden's 1996 Al-Qaeda 12-page manifesto.
"Most Americans believe that America is going out to do good, to bring civilization and democracy to other parts of the world," says Mr. Fairman. "But the terrorist mindset is: 'if you really want to help, then help.' But if you do it, you are doing it to gain economic power, to gain access to our oil resources, to get a stronghold in our area," says Mr. Fairman.
Mr. Fairman admits the process does involve the United States having access to a country's resources after a war but that it comes coupled with helping that country develop its economic and social structure. "The process does involve getting a percentage of their gross domestic product," says Mr. Fairman. "It's not quid pro quo."
"They [terrorists] want their resources to come back to their countries. They want to get a percentage of their gross domestic product the way Kuwait does.
I don't condone terrorist actions but some of their motivations do carry some weight," says Mr. Fairman. "Why else would someone want to kill himself? So we have to pay attention. We have to stop just saying that [terrorists] are bad and we have to see what is really going on."
Whottt are you really this stupid? I didn't say anything about justification for them being terrorist. But weren't you ing about people "claiming" we supported the Middle East before and not now?
Afghanistan is not in the middle east.
Whottt...that can apply to the U.S. as well. When you have religious idiots wanting the country to be the way it was in the 18th century.
He's right about capitalism and religious freedoms in their society...
Because that's the only they will survive in this world with the resouces and diverse populations they have.
Damn straight that's what we are trying to do and they're going to do it whether they like it or not...because Islamic nations produce individuals that blow up buildings and consider children military targets.
He's wrong about destroying Islam...I mean how can we simulataneously be striving for religious freedom while at the same time trying to destroy it.
And what makes them idiots is the failure to realize we already have a stronghold in their area. What we are doing now is trying to take away the miserable living conditions and lack of humanity that will get one our cities nuked."Most Americans believe that America is going out to do good, to bring civilization and democracy to other parts of the world," says Mr. Fairman. "But the terrorist mindset is: 'if you really want to help, then help.' But if you do it, you are doing it to gain economic power, to gain access to our oil resources, to get a stronghold in our area," says Mr. Fairman.
They need to worry about the survival of their people and their own quality and not whether or not we are making money off of things...altruism costs money.Mr. Fairman admits the process does involve the United States having access to a country's resources after a war but that it comes coupled with helping that country develop its economic and social structure. "The process does involve getting a percentage of their gross domestic product," says Mr. Fairman. "It's not quid pro quo."
So basically they are the ones that want money and oil..so much for their religious righteousness..and they will do nothing with it except create more terrorists and point their anger at those that don't wipe their asses with sand."They [terrorists] want their resources to come back to their countries. They want to get a percentage of their gross domestic product the way Kuwait does.
I agree.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
