The Discovery Channel is conducting a poll to determine who was the greatest American throughout history.
Well, we know who former US ally Saddam Hussein would vote for: His good buddy, the Gip. Ron. Number 40.
It's a shame he'll never become reacquainted with Ronaldus Magnus. What a special friendship they shared. Why, if it weren't for Mr. Reagan, the Butcher would have acquired no WMD at all.
Excuse me. I must go. I...I...
I'M NOT CRYING, DAMMIT! IT'S THE STUPID POLLEN!

You'll have to come up with sources that state the Reagan Administration actually gave WMD to Saddam. Support for Saddam is one thing, giving of WMDs are quite another, so stop crying, eh uh pollen attack, dammit..

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
You'll have to come up with sources that state the Reagan Administration actually gave WMD to Saddam. Support for Saddam is one thing, giving of WMDs are quite another,

Reagan Played Decisive Role in Saddam Hussein's Survival in Iran-Iraq War

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0609-01.htm

(an excerpt)

In February 1982, the State Department dropped Baghdad from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, clearing the way for aid and trade.

A month later, Reagan ordered a review of US policy in the Middle East which resulted in a marked shift in favor of Iraq over the next year.

"Soon thereafter, Washington began passing high-value military intelligence to Iraq to help it fight the war, including information from US satellites that helped fix key flaws in the fortifications protecting al-Basrah that proved important in Iran's defeat in the next month," wrote Kenneth Pollack in his recently published book "The Threatening Storm."

Economic aid poured into Iraq in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of loan guarantees to buy US agricultural products, indirectly aiding the war effort.

Sales of UH-1H helicopters and Hughes MD-500 Defender helicopters were approved by Washington. Though sold as civilian aircraft, nobody objected when they were quickly converted for military use.

A May 9, 1984 memo unearthed by the National Security Archive, a Washington research organization, noted that US policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program also was reviewed.

The memo said its "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

By March 1985, the United States was issuing Baghdad export permits for high tech equipment crucial for its weapons of mass destruction programs, according to Pollack.

US allies also were active in Iraq.

"By 1982, Iraq accounted for 40 percent of French arms exports," wrote Pollack. "Paris sold Baghdad a wide range of weapons, including armored vehicles, air defense radars, surface-to-air missiles, Mirage fighters, and Exocet anti-ship missiles."

"German firms also rushed in without much compunction, not only selling Iraq large numbers of trucks and automobiles but also building vast complexes for Iraq's chemical warfare, biological warfare, and ballistic missile programs," he wrote.

The aid came despite clear evidence as early as mid-1983 that Iraq was using chemical weapons on Iranian forces.

Washington said nothing publicly, but noted "almost daily" Iraqi use of chemical weapons in internal reports.

"We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons," a November 1, 1983 State Department memo said. "We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from western firms, including possibly a US foreign subsidiary."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/052.html

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan—a Middle East version of the domino theory in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as the good guys, in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as the bad guys.

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the human wave attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

So what?

The world was a different place then. There was a cold war with the soviet union. Iran had held US hostages for months and months. This was also before Saddam invaded Kuwait, gassed his people etc. Times change.

All the harping about Saddam was the US ally before is meaningless and irrelevant.

THis is not new news....... I believe the world knew of this in the 80's.
As Drew said it was a different place back then, Iraq was the worst of two evils and so the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Originally posted by DrewM
So what?

?!?!?!?!?!

You are exhibiting extreme intellectual dishonesty here, it seems to me.

I refuse to believe that you (or any other apologist for this government) do not, that you CAN NOT, see the relevance ---the immense relevance-- of the fact that the Reagan Administration provided weapons (both chemical and biological) of mass destruction to Saddam, only to later have this government claim he is a "monster" because he possessed WMDs.........and lead us into a war based on that premise.

It boggles the mind.

Why is it relevant?

It's not relevant to anything. Ronald Reagan was president in the 80's that's a long time ago. The world is a very different place now than it was then.

I fail to see how this well known point is in any way of any kind of importance to anything.

The true reality is you clutch at anything to further your negative and cynical viewpoint.

You truly are a member of the so called "101 fighting keyboardists"

Wow Free thinker thats a pretty black and white view of the world. To completly ignore the situation at the time, and judge the goverment from 20 years later on an act it had no control over in anyway. Maybe we should start jailing convicted killers children.

Originally posted by hayryan
Wow Free thinker thats a pretty black and white view of the world.

I disagree. I think it has nothing to do with *black and white* but with admitting the political realities of the situation instead of glossing it over by quipping --"So what?-- and with acknowledging what this government has perpetrated in the past.



Originally posted by hayryan
To completly ignore the situation at the time, and judge the goverment from 20 years later on an act it had no control over in anyway.

a) I am not ignoring the situation at the time. The fact is that the Reagan government --no matter the lame reasons the apologists for America can come up with--- DID want Saddam to have chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

b) Could you pleae re-phrase and explain the comment -- ""to judge the goverment from 20 years later on an act it had no control over in anyway"" .........???

What *act* are you refering to?

'so what' is not glossing over the situation

There used to be a war in Vietnam - does that mean we should continue to never talk to them now?

There used to be slaves - does that mean we are perpetually in the wrong

There used to be a cold war, Iraq used to be an ally. Does that mean we should never question what they do 20 years later

To repeat.....it is completely irrelevant what happened 20+ years ago with Iraq.

Originally posted by DrewM
To repeat.....it is completely irrelevant what happened 20+ years ago with Iraq.

I disagree. We've all heard the "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it" quote. If we don't look back at what we've done and learn from our mistakes, we will continue to make bad decisions regarding our foreign policy. The sale of chemical and biological agents to Iraq makes the US complicit in their use, and no amount of retroactive political hand-washing will change that fact. The US had no business selling such weapons to anyone, much less an unstable dictator like Saddam. We were, and are, a signatory of several treaties that proscribe the use of chemical and biological weapons, and specifies that the use of these weapons is a war crime. Our desire for an Iraqi victory in the Iran/Iraq War is no excuse for the sale of such weapons, and to suggest that we had no control over how they were used is disingenuous at best, and intellectually dishonest.

so are we to blame for the soviets rule over eastern europe becasue we helped them survue the nazis? are we to blame for the wars agaisnt the communists in vietnam and N korea becasue we ensured the survival of communism and quickly there after had to fight its spread?? like drew said, you cant take away the context of global politics and grand strategy.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I disagree. We've all heard the "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it" quote. If we don't look back at what we've done and learn from our mistakes, we will continue to make bad decisions regarding our foreign policy. The sale of chemical and biological agents to Iraq makes the US complicit in their use, and no amount of retroactive political hand-washing will change that fact. The US had no business selling such weapons to anyone, much less an unstable dictator like Saddam. We were, and are, a signatory of several treaties that proscribe the use of chemical and biological weapons, and specifies that the use of these weapons is a war crime. Our desire for an Iraqi victory in the Iran/Iraq War is no excuse for the sale of such weapons, and to suggest that we had no control over how they were used is disingenuous at best, and intellectually dishonest.

Well, apart from the simplicity of the view - I don't disagree that we should learn from past mistakes.

But, this past history has never been presented as 'lets learn from our mistakes' - it's been presented as more or less 'look how evil the US is'

The people who made those decisions back then are not in power now. They made decisions they felt were right at the time. Today is 20 years later - hindsight is always 20/20. I am sure that as mistakes are made we do automatically learn from them to some desgree and current policy making includes at least some element of past learning. That is not an unreasonable proposition - afterall the US to get where it is today has to have learned something over the past 200 years.

The main point though, which i maintain, is these Iraq actions 20 years ago have no relevance to today (beyond perhaps some academic persuit as you suggest)

The main point though, which i maintain, is these Iraq actions 20 years ago have no relevance to today (beyond perhaps some academic persuit as you suggest) gee thats funny because Bush was the one who was using them as an excuse to attack Iraq.

Originally posted by Travh20
so are we to blame for the soviets rule over eastern europe becasue we helped them survue the nazis? are we to blame for the wars agaisnt the communists in vietnam and N korea becasue we ensured the survival of communism and quickly there after had to fight its spread??

No...but if you'd like to stay on topic for one second, I'm saying we are to blame for selling chemicals and biological agents to Iraq that they used to make WMD.


like drew said, you cant take away the context of global politics and grand strategy.

Ok Trav, assuming that's true...tell me why it was morally right to sell chemical weapons to Iraq, and then 20 years later we decide that their possession by Iraq is so anathema to us as to provide justification for war.

Let me get this straight. You wingnuts are aware that our government gave WMD to Sadamn in the 80"s and you are aware that we toppled Sadamn government and overthrew Sadamns country of Iraq, a soverign nation because it had WMD. And it's just fine with you?

Oh, I forgot. You imbeciles will support the GOP no matter what they do.

Lets give little johny a gun, then lets beat him to a pulp for having a gun and throw all his other toys away while we are at it.

Originally posted by Echo2
Let me get this straight. You wingnuts are aware that our government gave WMD to Sadamn in the 80"s and you are aware that we toppled Sadamn government and overthrew Sadamns country of Iraq, a soverign nation because it had WMD. And it's just fine with you?

Yes it's totally fine. I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. 20 years ago is 20 years ago. Different time, different world situation, different people. What is so hard to comprehend about that simple point?

More to the point, the counter-argument seems to be that if you do something wrong, you just have to sit there and live with it. If we created Saddam, don't we have some obligation to deal with him?

excellent point.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
More to the point, the counter-argument seems to be that if you do something wrong, you just have to sit there and live with it. If we created Saddam, don't we have some obligation to deal with him? I think it has more to do with abandoning one's principles in order to achieve something, and then having it come and bite you in the ass later. Perhaps that's pragmatic and necessary sometimes, but it certainly flushes morals down the crapper.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
If we created Saddam, don't we have some obligation to deal with him?

Don't we have some obligation not to create such people in the first place?

I don't understand the notion that it was ok for us to sell chemicals to Saddam because "the world was different" 20 years ago.

Why don't you understand it?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Don't we have some obligation not to create such people in the first place?

I don't understand the notion that it was ok for us to sell chemicals to Saddam because "the world was different" 20 years ago.
--------------------------------

It is possible that Saddam promised certain things 20 years ago that he did not follow thru on.
Sometimes leaders, especially dictators, go kind of crazy after years of paranoia.
He could have promised changes that sounded reasonable at the time in exchange for aid, then changed his mind.
If this was the case you find alternatives to stop him.
Even then though, chemicals would be a bad choice.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Don't we have some obligation not to create such people in the first place?

Sure, but we already did.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I don't understand the notion that it was ok for us to sell chemicals to Saddam because "the world was different" 20 years ago.

And if we agree that it was a huge mistake, do we just throw our hands in the air and say "oh well?"

Ya gotta love the way these numbskulls think. The GOP makes a mistake twenty years ago and now they are useing that mistake as an excuse for making current mistakes.

They call it flip flopping when anyone else does it.

Nobody is saying that actions 20 years ago were not a mistake (with the benefit of hindsight). The point is simply that - what happened 20 years ago is not relevant when you start to talk about the situation in Iraq today.

We seriously firebombed every Japanese city and dropped 2 atomic bombs on them - killing millions of civilians. That was 60 years ago at a different time. Do those actions 60 years ago make us monsters today?

Originally posted by DrewM
Nobody is saying that actions 20 years ago were not a mistake (with the benefit of hindsight).

I don't think it takes hindsight to realize we shouldn't be selling chemical weapons to anyone, ever.


The point is simply that - what happened 20 years ago is not relevant when you start to talk about the situation in Iraq today.

From your perspective that may be true, but I doubt other countries around the world would agree with you. What happened 20 years ago affects our reputation still, and if we decided to sell WMD's to another country, how are we to be trusted now by anyone?


We seriously firebombed every Japanese city and dropped 2 atomic bombs on them - killing millions of civilians. That was 60 years ago at a different time. Do those actions 60 years ago make us monsters today?

1. We were at war with Japan at the time those incidents occured...how is this even remotely similar to selling Iraq WMD's to use (presumably) on Iran?

2. There's a difference between 20 years and 60 years. You said in a previous post that the decision to sell WMD's to Iran was made by people who are no longer in power, which is not precisely true. Donald Rumsfeld was involved in that transaction, and I would say his influence in our government hasn't diminished since then.

Originally posted by DrewM
Why don't you understand it?

Please explain to me why it was morally right to sell weapons that are banned by international treaties. You keep saying the act was justified...how? Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means?

what exactly did we sell to saddam?

Vile - I didn't say the acts were justified. I just said the world was a different place then vs now. The issue of that being morally correct is a different argument entirely. The point (which I keep repeating & keeps getting ignored) is - it has no relevance to today in Iraq and I do not believe any other country cares about this either.

And, all this assuming we ever did sell them chemical weapons - which I doubt is true anyway.

Good point on Rummy though - he was involved then, but he wasn't a decision maker then. He was just a special envoy.

Nobody is saying that actions 20 years ago were not a mistake (with the benefit of hindsight). The point is simply that - what happened 20 years ago is not relevant when you start to talk about the situation in Iraq today
Yeah who'd've guessed selling chem-bio weapons to a murderous dictator could have turned out bad...

Oh and yeah the fact that the US sold him Chem-Bio weapons 20 years ago has absolutly nothing to do with the US now claiming that we have to invade Iraq because they have Chem-Bio weapons now...

Jesus how detached from reality can you really become?

We seriously firebombed every Japanese city and dropped 2 atomic bombs on them - killing millions of civilians. That was 60 years ago at a different time. Do those actions 60 years ago make us monsters today? They do if we fail to learn from them. Nuclear weapons are a disgusting and murderous weapon. BushCo. is coming up with a new batch of them as we speak. So yes I would have to say the actions from 60 years ago prove that 'our leaders' are still monsters today.

And, all this assuming we ever did sell them chemical weapons - which I doubt is true anyway. Nice to see that you are willing to believe whatever you want rather than well documented international aiding and abeting of war crimes by the US.

Good point on Rummy though - he was involved then, but he wasn't a decision maker then. He was just a special envoy. He had to accept the job did he not? Your right this whole thing was perpetuated by the exact same neo-cons that infiltrated the government 20 years ago when Reagan was in business. Not to mention Bush the First.


Anyone else find it funny that Neo-Conservatives are Neo-Liberals?

Originally posted by Travh20
what exactly did we sell to saddam?


Items sent from the U.S. during the Reagan and Bush Administrations that helped Iraq’s non-conventional weapons programs and that were shipped to known military industrial facilities include:

Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons; machine tools and lasers to extend ballistic missile range; graphics terminals to design and analyze rockets; West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC); the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.

A very interesting read.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html


The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

The list of things we sold Saddam is much longer, and there is a lot of information about it available.

Originally posted by DrewM
The point (which I keep repeating & keeps getting ignored) is - it has no relevance to today in Iraq and I do not believe any other country cares about this either.

I understand your opinion Drew, what I don't understand is why you think that opinion would be shared by the people on whom these weapons were used. Many Iranian soldiers were killed by chemical weapons povided to Iraq by the US and its allies. The survivors and their descendants may have a different view of the relevance of our actions 20 years ago. That makes it relevant today.


And, all this assuming we ever did sell them chemical weapons - which I doubt is true anyway.


All I can say is take an hour and do some reading on the subject...I did and was appalled.

I will read up on it. I do not think it was wise to sell them WMD - but I maintain that to bring this up now in regards to Iraq 2003-2005 is pointless.

People bring this up to make only one point - that the US is underhand and somehow has only bad intent

LMAO....

Echo is such a moron... im sorry but geez she has no arguement and just uses the ol "wingnuts" and " they'll do anything" speech....

hey echo... if all you have to say is your predictable pointless jibberish... then just dont speak at all please.....

As for the topic.... i dont think i would hold the united states accountable for the rise of the soviets, because the WORLD CHANGED..... weird concept huh libbys?

So therefore... no way can you connect the two.... maybe it might have a touch of irony.... but no blame, no responsibility.

Originally posted by Decka
As for the topic.... i dont think i would hold the united states accountable for the rise of the soviets, because the WORLD CHANGED..... weird concept huh libbys?

Here's a weird concept Decka...the topic is Iraq, not the rise of the Soviets.

I guess the next time anyone complains about something that happened in the past, the only excuse neccessary is "the world was a different place then"...:rolleyes:

People bring this up to make only one point - that the US is underhand and somehow has only bad intent The US is completely underhanded. The US gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait then denounced the attack and bombed the shit out of the Iraqi people and their water supply.

Bad Intent isn't really true. It's short-sighted selfishness. The US doesn't give a fuck who they ally themselves with so long as the US interests are in place. Saddam was exeactly the same guy he was in the 80's as in the 90's. The only thing that changed was that the US no longer viewed him as an asset. Pinochet, Salvidorian Death Squads, Plan Columbia, all US interests at the expense of the worlds population.

Americas a self-centered myopic thug focused on greed.

I would love to see moderator vilepagan comment on a liberals posts as neeidng to "cool it" or stay on topic, or anything really.

Originally posted by Travh20
I would love to see moderator vilepagan comment on a liberals posts as neeidng to "cool it" or stay on topic, or anything really.

When anyone uses language like Prae, I do tell them to cool it. Do you have a particular post you wish to complain about, or are you just whining in general? Believe it or not Trav, I don't read every post, so if there's something you'd like to point out please do.


BTW, I wasn't telling Decka to stay on topic, I was correcting him when he wrongly stated what the topic of the discussion was.

If you want to see me jump on a liberal for what they posted, just look around...you'll find some posts out there.

20 years ago Saddam had not invaded Kuwait

20 years ago Saddam had not gassed his own people

20 years ago the twin towers were shining new towers only 10 years old

20 years ago the world was gripped in a nuclear stalemate with 12,000 armed nuclear missiles pointing at major world cities on a hair trigger

20 years ago the middle east was a place that the soviets & the US wanted to exert local influence

20 years ago Iran had declared Jihad on the US and had already held US citizens captive for 444 days

20 years ago Iraq was a country at war with Iran

I still absolutely fail to see how the situation 20 years ago - light years in difference to today is at all relevant to the world situation right now - which is not in the grip of a cold war, it is the grip of a cultural war with terrorism as its key component.

It's perfectly justifyable to have differing views about what should or should not have happened re:Iraq in 2003 - but one thing that is completely irrelevant is to bring up a situation from 20 years ago and say it's relevant to today. It isn't relevant - Period. One can certainly debate the merits of those actions 20 years ago - but you cannot say they are relevant to today or make an assumption that those actions make the US a hypocrite when it comes to Iraq.

Believe it or not - the US government takes actions with one aim - to protect our way of life. Some people seem to forget that. A lot of armchair activists here in the US don't know how lucky they have it. If they were ever in danger they would be the first to go crying to the government for protection - tears streaming down their pathetic faces.

Nice post above Drew.
I wish we could find out what the Soviets were giving to the Iranians. I'm sure freethinker will find some news sight like imajackass.org that has information directly from the KGB that clears the Soviets of any wrong doing but it would be interesting to see.

Originally posted by DrewM
I still absolutely fail to see how the situation 20 years ago - light years in difference to today is at all relevant to the world situation right now - which is not in the grip of a cold war, it is the grip of a cultural war with terrorism as its key component.

It may be light years away in its difference but the people that were living there 20 years ago are still living there today...we still have to deal with them, and it would be good of us not to forget that we sold the Iraqis these weapons...I suspect the Iranians remember.


One can certainly debate the merits of those actions 20 years ago - but you cannot say they are relevant to today or make an assumption that those actions make the US a hypocrite when it comes to Iraq.

I agree, and my intention is not to point out anyone's hypocrisy.


Believe it or not - the US government takes actions with one aim - to protect our way of life. Some people seem to forget that. A lot of armchair activists here in the US don't know how lucky they have it. If they were ever in danger they would be the first to go crying to the government for protection - tears streaming down their pathetic faces.

Some people also forget what history teaches us... some of the men in our government take actions because they are motivated by other things than protecting our way of life.

Originally posted by DrewM
I still absolutely fail to see how the situation 20 years ago - light years in difference to today is at all relevant to the world situation right now - which is not in the grip of a cold war, it is the grip of a cultural war with terrorism as its key component. It's relevant because we're still making the same mistakes today; most recently in the form of the F-16s we sold to Pakistan.

Thank you Jester This is what I've been trying to get across. A New century filled with the same old shit.

20 years ago Saddam had already gassed the Iranians and what did the US do? Normalized trading relations of course and imported all sort of nice chemical and biological "dual use" products.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronfeld.html
"Despite knowing that Iraq had used nerve gas on the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, U.S. officials decide to look the other way, says Washington Post military correspondent Dana Priest, because, "we thought that was the right thing to do in terms of our own national security." Robin Wright, another Post reporter, tells FRONTLINE that the U.S. played an important role in helping Iraq win the war against Iran: "We provided intelligence to the Iraqis, satellite images of where Iranian troops were deployed, that allowed Saddam Hussein to know where and how to target. And in some of those operations, his forces used chemical weapons…. And in one case, involving a major offensive in Iraq eventually launched, we helped effectively plan it."

But then in 1988-9 Saddam did gas "his own people" the Kurds. What did the US do then? They said "it was a bad thing. Would you like to buy some more crap?"

http://hnn.us/articles/862.html

And funny that you didn't denounce things that happened 20 years ago as irrelevant when Bush used them as a justification of war.

The point is that US policy and your endorsement of it is extremely short sighted. I guess it didn't matter 20 years ago that the CIA armed and trained Osama and his buddies to "fight imperialism" is it?
Believe it or not - the US government takes actions with one aim - to protect our way of life Its not the motives that are up for questioning. Its the actions and the outcome there of. Its like shooting someone whos on fire in the face with a fire exstinguisher. Sure the fires out but you just poisoned them and they can't breath. Its stupid and short sighted no matter how magnanimous.
And while were talking about such what says that "our way of life" is so much more important than other peoples way of life? Saddam was a brutal dictator the whole time the US supported him. Are you saying that the American's life is more important than the Iraqi's life?...

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Thank you Jester This is what I've been trying to get across.

This is what you've been trying to get across?....No...this is what I've been trying to get across...

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Are you saying that the American's life is more important than the Iraqi's life?...

Yes, absolutely. The American way of life is definately more important to me. I am sure in Iraq they feel differently.

The reality is 99% of people actually feel the same way but are not honest with themselves. If it takes screwing over another country to maintain our way of life then I don't have much of a problem with it at all.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
This is what you've been trying to get across?....No...this is what I've been trying to get across...

Come on vile... surely the important thing is that the point seems to have gotten through in the end. :)

Originally posted by box19
Come on vile... surely the important thing is that the point seems to have gotten through in the end. :)

True, but it seems that some people feel it's ok to sell poison gas to anyone as long as it's used to further our way of life. If the same attitude is held by our government, and it would seem that it is, it's not hard to understand why we have enemies in the world.

Clearly selling of poison gas is not needed to maintain our way of life, not now nor 20 years ago.

The right or wrong of that is always open to debate. What is not open to debate is 20 years ago was 20 years ago, and the fact that decisions made then were made in a different world. Today is 20 years later.

No matter what the US does - people will hate the US. We are the richest nation on earth & everything we do is visible - even though what we do is for the most part better than actions of many other nations.

Yes, absolutely. The American way of life is definately more important to me. I am sure in Iraq they feel differently. The reality is 99% of people actually feel the same way but are not honest with themselves. If it takes screwing over another country to maintain our way of life then I don't have much of a problem with it at all. Nice of you to admit that you're a nationalist/racist and that you think the 9-11 attacks were A-OK...you can't have it both ways. And it never takes screwing over another country to survive. Just like in day to day life, you don't have to screw other people to survive.

No matter what the US does - people will hate the US. We are the richest nation on earth & everything we do is visible - even though what we do is for the most part better than actions of many other nations. Wow Drew you truely are pathetic. You actually think petty jealousy would cause people to commit murder? I used to think you were pretty rational but I guess the truth comes out sooner or later. I assume you think this because you would just that if you were "disadvantaged." Luckily most people don't believe in Bene-violence.

Our actions are 20 times worse because they affect so many more people. Sure the US's actions are better than Saddam's, however the US put him in power and kept him there therefore we bear a bit of responsibility for his actions.

Heres a list of friends for you that help maintain America's "way of life"
http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm

BTW the US even has it own terrorist training camp right heere in the US. Maybe you'd like to go applaud them for a job well done...
http://www.soaw.org/new/

What is not open to debate is 20 years ago was 20 years ago, and the fact that decisions made then were made in a different world. Today is 20 years later. Except that our government is still doing the same old shit of supporting ruthless dictators and selling arms to unstable countries. And that the same guys who did this shit 20 years ago now occupy the government yet again.

The true disaster is the US's population inability to learn from the mistakes of its 'leaders.'

So I guess 20 years from now it won't matter if some Ex-Gitmo prisoners murder 3,000 Americans?

Thats all quite funny coming from a wacko radical....

Why don't you actually read what I write instead of reading what suits your mindset.

How you assume "nationalist/racist and that you think the 9-11 attacks were A-OK" from my post is totally beyond me. You are one strange weirdo that's for sure.

Oh and 500lb - I assume you believe we should hand the US back to the indians and ship out. Afterall - we did screw them over pretty badly, but of course I doubt you feel the need to right that wrong in any fashion.

Originally posted by DrewM
Nobody is saying that actions 20 years ago were not a mistake (with the benefit of hindsight). The point is simply that - what happened 20 years ago is not relevant when you start to talk about the situation in Iraq today

Not relevant?!?!?!?!?

I second 500lb's comment; just how divorced from reality can you possibly fucking BE???

Let's review.

Nation A sells chemical and biological weapons to nation I. Nation I develops that weaponry and uses it, (albeit on a vastly smaller scale than nation A uses ITS own arsenal of weapons-of-mass-destruction whenever it suits its purposes).

Twenty years later, nation A looks back at nation I, STILL being ruled, BTW, by the SAME leader it was when the chemical and biologiclal weapons were sold to it previously, and concludes --"Gosh, nation I is doing bad things with the chemical and biological arsenal we helped them aquire. Suddenly, we now must wage all out war against them to stop them using the WMDs we sold them. Let's sacrifice 1700+ servicemens lives and a half a trillion dollars to stopping this "monstrous" nation from continuing to use the chemical and biological weapons they possess".

I refuse to believe you are blind to the wrong-headedness ---not to mention the unbelievable hypocrisy-- in such foreign policy on the part of nation A.

All I can assume is you fail to comprehend the point. After 4 pages of your re-hashing the obvious & still refusing to comprehend - the only answer is you are incapable of said comprehension.

The 9-11 nationalist/racist point was based on your comments.

You think that its OK for the US to murder people in other countries just to support our wastefull way of life. This is nationalist/racist. There is no excuse for killing innocent people, ever.

Based on the fact that you think its OK to kill innocent people to 'move ahead' 9-11 then becomes a fair attack. If its OK for the US to do such then its obviously OK for other countries/people to do such right?

Lemmie ask again:
So I guess 20 years from now it won't matter if some Ex-Gitmo prisoners murder 3,000 Americans?

You obviously think it's ok to kill Americans. I never once said it's ok to kill anybody.

This may be blunt - but I honestly think people like you are pretty much nothing but scum. You are a terrorist supporter - you can justify everything they do & on the other hand you think the US is a always in the wrong.

With all due respect Drew, you have made some rather ambiguous comments in this thread regarding defending our "way of life" and the methods that are acceptable to achieve that end. I think I understand a little where you're coming from, but the following comment certainly invites a certain amount of criticism:

The reality is 99% of people actually feel the same way but are not honest with themselves. If it takes screwing over another country to maintain our way of life then I don't have much of a problem with it at all.

I have to say that I think your percentage here might be a bit off, and I certainly don't agree with the concept you posted.

With all due respect - I think if it was a choice between losing your way of life and somebody in another country losing theirs - then your choice would be clear as would theirs. It's easy to say you would prefer self sacrifice but the cold hard reality is very different than useless ideals. Perhaps in such a hypothetical situation you would prefer somebody else make the required action so you could take the benefit with "clean hands". You may well be in the 1% I left for super enlightened selfless beings - but I think 1% is far too generaous a %.

I guess I am just getting very bored with hearing these liberal wacko's spout off about how essentially evil the US is. In their eyes the US is capable of every underhand dealing in the book, yet when it comes to terrorist actions they either blame the actions on the US as a conspiracy, or they find a way to justify it somehow. It sickens me to the core to hear that crap.

Debating the merits of US policy is fair and valid. Assuming and promoting the notion that the US is evil, underhand and dishonest is a different matter. Their views amount to exactly that.

The truth is they sit in their luxury, in their nice surroundings, playing intellectual games, when the God honest truth is if anything in their way of life was even remotely threatened then they would sell out their intellectual moral rightousness in a heartbeat. What if a family member of theirs was on a bus in London that exploded? Would they refer to their loved one as a function of Iraqi deaths? Something like "Iraq = My mother x 10"

These people live in a dream world fueled by conspiracy websites. It gives their lives some kind of meaning.

Originally posted by DrewM
With all due respect - I think if it was a choice between losing your way of life and somebody in another country losing theirs - then your choice would be clear as would theirs. It's easy to say you would prefer self sacrifice but the cold hard reality is very different than useless ideals. Perhaps in such a hypothetical situation you would prefer somebody else make the required action so you could take the benefit with "clean hands".

You may be right, but I don't think we're presented with that clear-cut choice often, and I don't think today we face that choice. WWII may have been the best example of a war that was neccessary to preserve our way of life, and there were few alternatives to war if any. I just don't think we face such extreme circumstances today, and I don't think we did 20 years ago when some men decided we needed to sell chemical weapons to Iraq.


I guess I am just getting very bored with hearing these liberal wacko's spout off about how essentially evil the US is. In their eyes the US is capable of every underhand dealing in the book, yet when it comes to terrorist actions they either blame the actions on the US as a conspiracy, or they find a way to justify it somehow. It sickens me to the core to hear that crap.

Debating the merits of US policy is fair and valid. Assuming and promoting the notion that the US is evil, underhand and dishonest is a different matter. Their views amount to exactly that.

The truth is they sit in their luxury, in their nice surroundings, playing intellectual games, when the God honest truth is if anything in their way of life was even remotely threatened then they would sell out their intellectual moral rightousness in a heartbeat.

These people live in a dreamworld fueled by conspiracy websites. It gives their lives some kind of meaning.

I understand and agree...your points are what I was referring to when I said "I think I know where you're coming from"...:)

Originally posted by DrewM
I guess I am just getting very bored with hearing these liberal wacko's spout off about how essentially evil the US is. In their eyes the US is capable of every underhand dealing in the book, yet when it comes to terrorist actions they either blame the actions on the US as a conspiracy, or they find a way to justify it somehow. It sickens me to the core to hear that crap.


If you read carefully, it isn't the U.S. that we consider evil, it is the dirty politicians running it. Do you believe that the politicians runing this country have the people of the United States of Americas best interest in mind or their own best interests in mind?

Well your timeline for the evil doings of the US runs back several decades.

I think the people running the US have at their core the best interest of the US in mind, but I am also well aware that they are human.

With all due respect - I think if it was a choice between losing your way of life and somebody in another country losing theirs - then your choice would be clear as would theirs. It's easy to say you would prefer self sacrifice but the cold hard reality is very different than useless ideals. Perhaps in such a hypothetical situation you would prefer somebody else make the required action so you could take the benefit with "clean hands". You may well be in the 1% I left for super enlightened selfless beings - but I think 1% is far too generaous a %. Sigh....you obviously haven't been paying attention. The point is that the US doesn't need to screw over any of these coutries.

The US isn't alone in these actions either. Along with the old axiom "Total power, corrupts totally" should be accompanied by "The scum aways rises to the top." Plenty of other countries do corrupt murderous BS all the time as well. Shit the french just got the spotlight for blowing up a anti-nuke greenpeace boat 20 years ago. The thing is yours and my tax dollars go to commit the atrocities in the US. It is our responsibility to make sure that it is used wisely and correctly. Unfortunatly too many people are more content waving a flag, than taking a cold honest look at what their country does with their money/power.

Nor is it that the US is completely evil and corrupt. There are plenty of people who work hard to make a real change and improve the life of people in this country. Unfortunatly 99.9% of them are not in government power positions. Thats where most of the scum likes it. And with all that scum floating around not many do-gooders can stomach staying there very long.

The truth is they sit in their luxury, in their nice surroundings, playing intellectual games, when the God honest truth is if anything in their way of life was even remotely threatened then they would sell out their intellectual moral rightousness in a heartbeat. What if a family member of theirs was on a bus in London that exploded? Would they refer to their loved one as a function of Iraqi deaths? Something like "Iraq = My mother x 10" The truth is you have no fucking clue who I am but see fit to call me a fair-weather liar because I don't agree with killing other people as oppossed to your self-rightous "might makes right" bullshit; so you resort to making assumptuous fantasies to convince yourself that you are right.

What if your family lived in Iraq? What if a family member was in the twin towers? What if a family member was in Haiti? What if a family member was in London? What if a family member was in Afghanistan? What if a family member was in Gitmo? The point is the same. The murder of innocents is unacceptable no matter who commits the act. Unfortunatly you too goddamn blind to see that its NOT OK for the US to do the same shit it/you pretend/s to condemn.

I have never once said I agree with killing other people. Why don't you take the shit out of your mouth - it'll help you speak less shit.

You are right I do not know you, but I know enough of you from reading your posts to get a clear picture of how much of a low intelligence moron you are.

500lb if it isn't clear enough - he let me make it clearer - I don't like you or people like you, who spend all their time dreaming up conspiracy theories, find sympathy for terrorists and only cynical bullshit when it comes to the US. I find your type disgusting and utterly sickening. You are the worst type of people living in this country.

Your thoughts on the Middle East?

the middle east is a big subject - lets just focus on Iraq.

You proudly state
Iraq = London x2000
By this you are saying that the terrorists in London are justified because the US has killed 2000 times more people in Iraq. This view is wrong because

A) The US never purposely attacks civilians - the terrorists do
B) The US is trying to help Iraq create a better way of life - secure and with a future as a modern nation. The terrorists are trying to destroy a way of life. A stable secure Iraq is positive for all civilization. We are there - get over it. We have to do what is needed.
C) There would be no civilian deaths in Iraq if the insurgents laid down their arms and stopped causing mayhem.
D) The insurgents in Iraq clearly are not fighting for a better Iraq - if they cared about Iraq they would stop and allow Iraq to rebuild, let the US leave sooner and they wouldn't blow up their own people. Their motives cannot be justified unless you hate America and want to see it's downfall, even at the expense of turning Iraq into a bloodbath. Apparently you are in that group too.

It's a very different thing all together - so your little equation puts you in the same book as the terrorists. It's a punk high school kid mentality. Grow up. You have no ideas, no solutions, nothing of value to say. All you have is conspiracy, negative thinking and ignorance of complex situations.

As I have repeatedly said - having a view about the merits of invading Iraq is one thing, it's a valid opinion - but you cross the line. You sympathize with terrorists, and every thing you write is about how evil the US is. How everything we do is a lie. To back this up you have conspiracy websites and nothing but bullshit.

If this country has problems - it's created by simpletons like you.

So lemmie get this straight...instead of actually asking what my sig means you just assume the worst possible thing (an interpretation I didn't even think was possible) I've already explained this in another thread. The point is the hypocracy of the world and of the media in that this is called a horrible tragedy while in Iraq worse things have been going on every day for 2+ years now.

A. The US doesn't intentionally target civilians, but it intentionally kills them and there is no difference. They do so through intentionally indesciminate weapons like cluster bombs with notorious failure rates. They do so every time they use a weapon so destructive that it will undoubtably kill anyone in the area regardless of the target. The US murders civilians because its easier than actaully making sure you only kill bad guys. Its easier to level an entire city with bombs (falluja) and murder anyone inside than to go through on the ground to intentionally target fighters. Thats like saying the London terrorists targeted the bus and anyone else killed was an accident.

B. A better way of life hmm? So a 46 year old man has a better way of life after his children and wife are murdered? What place is it of the US to tell anyone what "a better way of life" is? You're a conservative elitist. You proclaim that the US must know better than the avarage Iraqi what a "better way of life" is. Baghdad, Falluja and many others were modern cities before the US laid waste to them. Iraq used to have water treatment plants and was able to minimize preventable deaths before the US came in and bombed it all to nothing then stopped any fixes to such through sanctions. It was the US who gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. He was no longer considered an asset and thousands of innocent Iraqis paid the price.

C. There would be no civilians deaths if every country in the world bowed down to whatever the US demands...lap it slave. Way to blame the victim.

D. Rebuild? rebuild what? Oh You mean all the shit that was working perfectly fine before the US came in and blew it all up? The Iraqis are fighting for their freedom. I suppose you want them to act like the French during WW2 hmm? Unfortunatly you're so indoctrinated that you can't even see that Iraq War 2 is still being fought and it was started over a decade ago.

I have stated time and time again that I am against the killing of innocents in any capacity what so ever. Unortunatly people like you (which up until this point has been mainly Trav) mischaracterize my arguments because you have no real argument against it. You refuse to recognize that the defining trait of terrorists is the murder of innocent people because it would utterly destroy you fragile little nationalist reality

Yeah the terrorists are great, the US sucks. You make your point clear.

Nope - you made it clear for everyone
Unfortunatly people like you (which up until this point has been mainly Trav) mischaracterize my arguments because you have no real argument against it.

The argument I have shown you is extremely clear & relevant. It is based on facts - not fairy tales like you seem to tap into.

US should pull out of Iraq now says former CIA chief John Deutch

WASHINGTON (AFX) - The US should cut its losses, pull out of Iraq promptly and never again use its military might to build a nation according to its own values, former CIA chief John Deutch wrote in The New York Times.

US military presence in Iraq is harming US interests in the Arab world, detracts attention from other 'important security challenges... North Korea, Iran and international terrorism,' and weakens the US military, said Deutch, who before heading the Central Intelligence Agency (1995-1996) was deputy defenCe secretary (1994-1995).

'Those who argue that we should 'stay the course' because an early withdrawal... would hurt America's global credibility must consider the possibility that we will fail in our objectives in Iraq and suffer an even worse loss of credibility down the road,' he said.

'I do not believe that we are making progress on any of our key objectives in Iraq,' he said, adding that even when the Iraqi government appears to be functioning, 'the underlying destabilizing effect of the insurgency is undiminished.'

Deutch's call comes amid plummeting US public support for the war, an insurgency which sees a daily death toll hitting Iraqi civilians and security personnel alike, and some 1,750 US soldiers dead since March 2003.

However, another recent survey shows that a majority of Americans backed US President George Bush's vow to maintain US troops in Iraq until the country can govern and control itself.

Rather than spend years, money and lives in Iraq to achieve 'minimum conditions for withdrawal' -- security and a representative self-government -- Deutch argues that a quick withdrawal now will avoid a lot of grief to come.

'Our best strategy now is a prompt withdrawal plan consisting of clearly defined political, military and economic elements,' including urging Iraq and its neighbours to recognize that it will be in everyone's interest to allow Iraq to 'evolve peacefully and without external intervention', Deutch said.

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2005/07/15/afx2140520.html

I do agree that - withdrawl from Iraq is a valid point that the administration should could consider. It doesn't appear on the surface to be the best option, but at this stage a controlled withdrawl may well further the objectives in the long run.

Of course Bush is incapable of considering much - he gets stuck in a rut like a broken reacord