For discussion: Regarding Iraq

[MVB]

I believe that the ONLY freedom fighters in Iraq are the American Military and the pro-democratic Iraqi military.

I believe that every single insurgent and terrorist is just that -- a terrorist -- and the term "Freedom fighter" cannot in the slightest way be applied to them. They are explicitly AGAINST freedom, and so are uniformly nothing but terrorists and murderers.

Discuss ... in another thread, someone mentioned that not ALL of the freedom fighters were terrorists ... I make the statement there are no freedom fighters at all on that side of the conflict.

[Ummon]

A terrorist cannot be a freedom fighter, by definition: infact he tries to frighten and blackmail someone into acting against his own will. This is the opposite of freedom, and you don't ascend by going down...

[Karmashock]

Sadly, I agree. However, I do so by looking only at the top level of the terrorist command. I'm sure that some of their followers have been duped... thinking that they are fighting for the self rule of their people...


All their side could ever accomplish if it won... would be the total and complete domination of their people... theocracy... or dictatorship... a life in fear under the thumb of merciless masters.

Support them and you support that... there is no other way of looking at it.

Do you support tryanny and brutality?... Or freedom and peace?

We will have no peace till these people are free... Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

Moot discussion.

I have friends that believed in pixies, and I believe they have as much chance of proving they're right, as anyone that proves that EVERY SINGLE person that bears arms against the allies is a terrorist (trying to frighten and using blackmail as Ummon defined).

I personally believe however that it is very unlikely that this is not a single person in Iraq that believes they are fighting against the US is doing so purely out of hatred for the US or purely out of self gain or purely because they like to cause pain and misery.

I think there is a good chance that the majority of people are doing this - but EVERY SINGLE ONE. I strongly disagree.

[JADezimar]

Uh I think Karma just stated that saus o0/ But if its a minority........ that beleives this... and also is probably mislead why do so many people still think Were not wanted in Iraq then o0. Maybe they dont maybe they truly know better and just use that as an xcuse for the states not to be there. Alot of other countries have kicked up a lot of dust about it. And there citizens gripe and bitch. Ill call that political pressure again Ive defined it enough so I dont need to again. I think it basically comes straight down to what benefits those people the most, and the U.S having close links to Iraqi government in no way helps them (im not talking about Iraq)o0 I think thats what this is all about.

[Larsson7]

Shittiest argument ever.

Every citizen in that country has the right to bear arms and remove an invading force.

You have no right being there and forcing your moral righteousness upon a totally different society from your own. We come back again to the argument of the US deciding that it knows whats best for another country.

Perhaps the US should stop meddling in the affairs of the Middle East and devote it's time to its own social problems at home.

[shutupandshave]

Jad, when two people agree in a thread, there is no need to point it out...not that I am sure Karma does agree with me.

I was disagreeing with MVB's implication that anyone that is bearing arms is a terrorist.

What I would find interesting, is how the American people would react if another form of government was found to be more "productive" (for people/education/happiness (by their definition - and could be backed up by agreed)) and the US was invaded in order to change their government structure (yes the leader of Iraq commited far worse atrocities than any recent leader of the US that I can think of, but I am talking about regime change, which is a reason that many people cite for attacking Iraq).

MVB, being a historian will testify (I imagine) that it is unlikey the US will remain to be on top of the world "heap" for an extremly long time...as throughout history different countries have been top dog, and they've always fallen. There will almost certainly come a time when someone has more guns (or develops an anti-nuke shield or something) and gains the upper hand.

So Americans, if for example China developed a new form of government (that, for arguments sake we'll call neo-communism, but could just be a radical form of capitalism) and then decided to attack the US because it was ruled by conservatists that didn't like change - because they knew the US citizens would be happier in the long run... would that be acceptable?

[MVB]

Start a new thread for that question, suas; let's not mix up threads. You just took that on another route entirely.

My statement is that Iraqi insurgents/terrorists fighting AGAINST democracy are not freedom fighters, in any way, shape or form. No more and no less is implied or intended in my statement. Let's try to stick to that in this thread, instead of hopelessly losing another thread on conversation about something else.

Angel, do you think no one should interfere in Sudan, since it's not our business to tell them whether they can go on killing all the non-Muslims in their own country?

[shutupandshave]

Discuss ... in another thread, someone mentioned that not ALL of the freedom fighters were terrorists ... I make the statement there are no freedom fighters at all on that side of the conflict.
and I disagree

I cant see where there is any room for discussion... There is no way anyone intelligent can prove anything to anybody else intelligent.

MVB, I suggest you make a new thread to ask Angel your question - as we dont want to hopelessly lose another thread on conversation about something else. This thread is about whether or not Iraqi insurgents/terrorists fighting AGAINST democracy are not freedom fighters, in any way, shape or form, and not whether or not there should be intervention in Sudan.

[MVB]

Touche

[Larsson7]

Suas - i was about to ask exactly the same question!

I do not believe for one second that, if the USA were to be invaded and conquered by another nation who believed it was "for their own good", that people would not take up arms to repel the invaders.

Would this make them Freedom Fighters or Terrorists?

[Ummon]

Every citizen in that country has the right to bear arms and remove an invading force.

The same is valid for a dictator, every citizen in the country has the right to bear arms and remove a dictator.

But they have chosen to remove the "invading force" which is going to go away in a few months/years, instead of raising against the genocidal, merciless, DANGEROUS dictator.

Besides, they're not citizens, the term citizen implies rights and duties. They've always been subjects, without rights and duties, and never citizens,

That's why in Iraq there are no freedom fighters, just a bunch of fanatics, thieves, and killers. They might be fighting for freedom, but it's the same freedom a criminal resisting conviction fights for, the one without the capital F.

[JADezimar]

AShittiest argument ever.

Every citizen in that country has the right to bear arms and remove an invading force.

You have no right being there and forcing your moral righteousness upon a totally different society from your own. We come back again to the argument of the US deciding that it knows whats best for another country.

Perhaps the US should stop meddling in the affairs of the Middle East and devote it's time to its own social problems at home.

Well What you dont c is the actual in place Iraq government and its Majority of inhabitants, Want the united States there. What you say we are doing is not true wiht the invations. It was sadaam with a few tribes that Took over A people and oppressed them. Sadaam was not a government. ANd him and some bulllies forced his rule over them. There glad to have us there. until there not you Argue A useless argument.

do not believe for one second that, if the USA were to be invaded and conquered by another nation who believed it was "for their own good", that people would not take up arms to repel the invaders.

And Ya Every single American Would come to bear arms to fight off the warring threat. Invading the United States you want to know why? Cuase we arent toruted by our president bush, We arent forced to live here or there, We have things we want, We are proud of our nation and government. We arent killed for saying bush is a moron, etc etc. Theres a huge difference and to compare those analogies is ludicrous. I dont know where either of you get off on making that analogy.

Would this make them Freedom Fighters or Terrorists?

WE wouldnt be targettting civlilianz or our own people. We wouldnt be car bombing useless targets. We wouldnt be asking our 5 year old children to take a gun and point it at someone and shoot. We wouldnt be holding hostages and brutally cutting there heads off. Theres LINE BETWEEN terrorists and freedom fighter and you dont c it angel. I GUESS YOU FEEL the IRA is ok dont you o0. I guess you feel hitler and what Germany was is ok dont you o0.

[shutupandshave]

I dont think JAD, that you can say for certain that some of the American citizens wouldn't do those things you described in your last paragraph. There are nut jobs in every country - including some in the US. Waco type people.

There may or there may not be a higher percentage of then in Iraq (ignoring all the terrorists that have come to Iraq since the war started that just wanted a fight). I suspect there's less in America, however there are certainly going to be some.

[Larsson7]

Well What you dont c is the actual in place Iraq government and its Majority of inhabitants, Want the united States there. What you say we are doing is not true wiht the invations. It was sadaam with a few tribes that Took over A people and oppressed them. Sadaam was not a government. ANd him and some bulllies forced his rule over them. There glad to have us there. until there not you Argue A useless argument.



And Ya Every single American Would come to bear arms to fight off the warring threat. Invading the United States you want to know why? Cuase we arent toruted by our president bush, We arent forced to live here or there, We have things we want, We are proud of our nation and government. We arent killed for saying bush is a moron, etc etc. Theres a huge difference and to compare those analogies is ludicrous. I dont know where either of you get off on making that analogy.



WE wouldnt be targettting civlilianz or our own people. We wouldnt be car bombing useless targets. We wouldnt be asking our 5 year old children to take a gun and point it at someone and shoot. We wouldnt be holding hostages and brutally cutting there heads off. Theres LINE BETWEEN terrorists and freedom fighter and you dont c it angel. I GUESS YOU FEEL the IRA is ok dont you o0. I guess you feel hitler and what Germany was is ok dont you o0.


What YOU fail to realize is that you were not invited to Iraq to free these people - You invaded. You can cover it in all the sugar you like, however, you were the aggressors and the people who do not want you there are fighting back.

You have no right to dictate to the Iraqi people how their Government should be run. You seem to be of the opinion that the US knows whats best for everyone and we should be glad you go and "Kick ass" for all of our benefits.

The fact that you say your countrymen WOULD take up arms to fight off a nation who invaded "For your own good" would make you exactly the same type of people that the Iraqi insurgents are.

You spout this bullshit of "Oh these people have to resort to car bombs and blah blah blah" These people have to fight within their means. They are not equipped with stealth bombers, aircraft carriers or nukes - they have to strike with what they have.

You see JAD - you fail to realise one thing. When you set a precdent that one country can invade another because "They know whats best" you give China a carte blanche to waltz into Taiwan and say they will take over and make it better. You give Russia the go ahead to march into Ukraine and "make their lives better". This precedent is simply unacceptable because your country does not have the right to tell another how they should behave, how they should govern or what they can do at all.

Where does it stop? Should you go down to your neighbours house and put him out of it because YOU don't agree with how he runs his life/treats his kids/loves his wife? You seem to think that its OK to meddle in the affairs of others when gun crime, racial crime nd sex offences are at an all time high in the states.

Yup - you sure are a great advertisement for how a country should be run

[JADezimar]

hmmmz possibly. But Id find that it would be quite rare. PPl like Waco o0 they didnt even fight back. You forget alot of our religious whackos teach violence is wrong...... Where as in the middle east most extremus use religion as a reason for war.

[shutupandshave]

The waco people did fire shots if I remember correctly?
Anyway - the point is that it is a possibility

[JADezimar]

Angel you need to further read all the threads and posts that discuss this. Its been pointed out already that most the terrorists fighters in Iraq are not even its own people. Based in the populace areas. Some of them that are Iraqi is Tribal cheifs, That were sadaams allies. That benefited off of Sadaams ill treatment of the people. Alot of the enemy comes from over the borders. There Terrorists groups that just dont like the states. Alot of this is also funded by and Influenced by outside countries. A small percent of the people we are fighting in Iraq are actual Iraqi populace that were a part of the Civilization and subjects of Sadaa. The truth of the fact is that you blindly dont want to c is that the real POPULATION and PEASANTS OF SADAAM want us there and want to be free. ITS THE POWER HUNGREY TERRORISTS and oppressors of the AFOREMENTIONED that are fighting against the USA. WAS IT WRONG of the United States that INVADED NORMANDY to free france of its new GERMAN GOVERMENT? Its all the same COMPARISON you make these points when they are convenient when in fact you compare elsewhere your view would totally change. AGAIN ILL REPEAT SADAAM was not wanted, as a leader he WAS NOT A GOVERNMENT. And his POPULACE IS GLAD HE IS GONE.
THE PEOPLE FIGHTING are not the Average Iraqi I stated that above now get over yourself and think about it. Sadaam is TO IRAQ as HITLER IS to FRANCE.

And no WE DONT give these countries a forte to go march into taiwan etc etc. AGAIN I REPEAT sadaam WAS A HOSTILE LEADER unwanted by HIS POPULACE which was enslved to his whim COUNTRIES LIKE THE USA and Taiwan, and even china ETC ETC have alot more freedom and are not being xtremely mistreated. YOUR COMPARING apples and oranges.

[Karmashock]

Shittiest argument ever.

Every citizen in that country has the right to bear arms and remove an invading force.
Many of the people we are fighting are not from Iraq... so by your logic... they have no right to be there.

The people you ARE giving a right to fight are mostly the hold overs from Saddam's government... the Sunnis... Considering what they've done in that country, no one will cry for them.
===================================
Suas - i was about to ask exactly the same question!

I do not believe for one second that, if the USA were to be invaded and conquered by another nation who believed it was "for their own good", that people would not take up arms to repel the invaders.

Would this make them Freedom Fighters or Terrorists?

You are blatantly ignoring MVB's point, which is the INTENT of the various factions. Even Suas is doing this to a certain extent by saying that the ‘intent’ is unknowable… which while true in an extremely anal sense is dishonest at heart.

In Iraq we are taking a dictatorship and making a republic. Those locals fighting us generally wish to reestablish Sunni domination of the country. We are offering them freedom and they are demanding tyranny. Therefore, they are not freedom fighters.

The other group are the foreign fighters who actually would prefer Shiite domination of the country and the theocratic code of shria law (sp).

In the case of the US being invaded, we are free right now as is. If we were invaded it would obviously be against our wishes as we are already in control of our own country. That is unless you assume we’re masochistic. If we fought to reestablish our government, then we would be freedom fighters... as our government was free.


THE ONLY WAY YOUR LOGIC HOLDS IS IF ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE EQUAL!… they are not.

Moral relativism annoys me, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

My main problem with that statement - is that to my knowledge (and I am happy to be proven wrong) there are no reliable or even official estimates as to what percentage of the opposing forces are non-iraqi's

[MVB]

Karma basically relates the response I would give Angel.

If our nation is invaded, we WOULD be Freedom Fighters, because we are currently free. They might be offering some OTHER form of freedom, but they would not be fighting for our freedom, b/c we already have it. We, therefore, would have at worst the potential of being both terrorists and freedom fighters, if somehow we were committing heinous acts in attempting to preserve our freedom.

Also, if we were rebelling against the occupation, the occupiers would be denying us our freedom -- namely, denying us our right to national self-determination of self-government.

The rest Karma actually said fairly well; namely, those fighting against us in Iraq are fighting to establish Tyranny, whereas we are fighting to establish freedom -- democracy. We are not telling the Iraqis how to run their government; we are only establishing a government where it truly is the IRAQIS who determine how things run, not a single tyrant or a cadre of tyrants.

[Karmashock]

The rest Karma actually said fairly well;
the subtle gibes hurt... :(

[shutupandshave]

C'mon MVB, you know that freedom and tyranny are completely objective.

[JADezimar]

No thats complete bullshit. Even Iraqi people did not feel free. Ask mothers of Sadaams soldiers, from the first gulf war. Sadaam actually had soldiers put to death cuase they lost the war. Was a story one of my buds brought home.

[shutupandshave]

JAD, 500 years ago we thought we were completely free. 1000 years ago we thought we were as completely free.

In 500 years time I imagine that if a country lives the way that the UK/US lives at the moment it would be considered slavery. (probably to work)

[Karmashock]

didn't you mean "subjective"... because if you meant objective, that would back us up... and you've been on this big "no one can know the minds of all men" kick of about two days now...

[shutupandshave]

I meant that the opinions of each are objective. Subjective could also be used there quite rightly. However I was talking to MVB and so didn't need to clarify myself completely because he's not retarded.

By the way, did you mean "kick FOR about 2 days" instead of "kick OF about 2 days"

[Karmashock]

yep... I did mean for... typos are common and I wasn't laughing at you...

I've cut my attitude towards you completely in the last day in a half... in the interest of actually getting somewhere... you'll pick up on that eventually...

[shutupandshave]

Who said you were laughing at me?

[Karmashock]

clearly you took offence at my correction... ergo you must have thought I was noting it as an insult or a gibe... I wasn't.

Take it any way you'd like. :rolleyes:

[JADezimar]

o0 possibly, But in that sense Sadaam is still way out of line. And the United States and Uk even on there current roads 200 years from now would most likely still be more free than sadaams rein of terror.

I do grant you this I do fear all the power that the Citizen loses over the years. I really dont like it. Its rediculous. Some of the things you can get screwed over on for instance towing. When you actually the right to park there but there aint a damn thing you can do about it if the Owner made a mistake at your expense. etc etc. Gunlaws. (criminals are gonna hvae guns irregardless) etc etc.

[shutupandshave]

I saw this again today whilst trawling through my silly files directory.

http://files.free-collective.com/users/suas/thanks.swf

Before someone blazes off on one - prove bits aren't true as opposed to taking the "I dont agree with this so I am going to belittle it" approach.

[JADezimar]

Pretty interesting. Some of the moves weve made in the pasts >.<. But that still dont make it un justified for last invasion :p

[shutupandshave]

But it begs the question - would Hussein have been the leader of Iraq if the US (if it did) help in the past. Also, would Hussein have stayed in power so long if the US had not helped him out so often (if it did).

[JADezimar]

Hmmz good questions. But even better one, This should be all the more reasoning to clean up our mess :p

[Larsson7]

Pretty interesting. Some of the moves weve made in the pasts >.<. But that still dont make it un justified for last invasion :p

How can you say that? Why are you not invading EVERYWHERE that there is a corrupt or unjust Government?

Do you think you should be allowed to pick and choose which invasions will serve you best in the long run?

If you truly believe this invasion is just then you ought to be canvassing for invasions where the rule of civilised law does not reach every citizen. After all - you are in Iraq to liberate it from tyranny - Andorra, Sudan, Syria, Iran, North Korea, China(to name but a few) are all awaiting liberation from oppression.

Go free em all and you will convert a sceptic.

[JADezimar]

ANGEL YOU REPEATEDLY use that same lame ass argument. AND OVER AND OVER its been replied to you. Quite asking the same question over and over again it just makes you look stupid cuase you cant come up with more material than that. you just continue to argue the same point despite the reply. YOUR LIKE A STONE WALL with I HATE AMERICA AND AMERICANS written on it.

[Larsson7]

ANGEL YOU REPEATEDLY use that same lame ass argument. AND OVER AND OVER its been replied to you. Quite asking the same question over and over again it just makes you look stupid cuase you cant come up with more material than that. you just continue to argue the same point despite the reply. YOUR LIKE A STONE WALL with I HATE AMERICA AND AMERICANS written on it.

Ok - I must have missed the answer. Tell me WHY America is not invading EVERY country where tyranny and oppression occur and I will conceed my argument.

Or do you think that no one, in the entire Planet, should disagree or voice objection to American Foreign Policy?

[JADezimar]

Ok - I must have missed the answer. Tell me WHY America is not invading EVERY country where tyranny and oppression occur and I will conceed my argument.

I feel no need to Re-Answer for the 3rd or more time your repetetive question.

Or do you think that no one, in the entire Planet, should disagree or voice objection to American Foreign Policy?

You have a right to object and have a right of views of opinions. But it is not morallly and lawfully right to Be Racist or biast. You dont have the right to hate, all your arguments come out of the base of hate and there for are biased views. Which would in turn make all your views not valid in any way. Your not just stating an opinion your stating a hatred. Which makes you lower than dirt. HATE IS A CRIME

[Larsson7]

I feel no need to Re-Answer for the 3rd or more time your repetetive question.

No - Tell ME again.

Tell me why you are not liberating ALL countries from tyranny and oppression.

Tell me why the swift arm of US Justice does not extend to all beleagued and victimised countries on Earth.

You guys are all about "Fighting the good fight"

Lets face it, JAD, you actually dont have an answer as to why the US does not involve itself in all countries where tyranny and oppression occurs. You simply dont give a flying fuck until it affects the US Government directly and it did - when Sadaam forbid selling oil to the US after the first Gulf War!

Imagine the fucking irony - You did go there for the oil. Since when did the vast majority of Americans give a fuck about the Middle East? This is a place of polemic customs and ways to your own way of life yet , given your MAMMOTH Middle East population - you had to spend billions to interfere!!

OMG - this is too priceless.

Find me the signatures of 10 people in your entire STATE who actually care (And by care I mean are active in the protection of) the lives of people in the Middle Easts.

To be fair i will give you 12 months.

[Karmashock]

coldwar...

[JADezimar]

Find me the signatures of 10 people in your entire STATE who actually care (And by care I mean are active in the protection of) the lives of people in the Middle Easts.

OK I WILL DRIVE 30 MILES onto the military base, that I am no more than 30 minutes away from which I have clearance to drive onto. And get you those signatures you pathetic moron. (but I doubt that would satsify your ignorance at all)

No - Tell ME again.

Tell me why you are not liberating ALL countries from tyranny and oppression.

Tell me why the swift arm of US Justice does not extend to all beleagued and victimised countries on Earth.

You guys are all about "Fighting the good fight"

ANGEL IVE TOLD YOU TIME AND TIME AGAIN YOUR JUST IGNORING THE ANSWERS and NOT READING THEM you need to frequent the politics section more often. (Dont forget your Key STatement "Tell Me again") Cause that gets rather annoying to repeat myself. Its like talking to a wall.

[shutupandshave]

I think the point is this...There are far worse human rights problems in the world (caused by bad regimes) than there was in Iraq. Why did the US decide to choose Iraq as opposed to one of these far more urgent matters?

[Larsson7]

I think the point is this...There are far worse human rights problems in the world (caused by bad regimes) than there was in Iraq. Why did the US decide to choose Iraq as opposed to one of these far more urgent matters?

WTF?? Don't you already know?

GWB was so broken hearted about them living under tyranny ( and the 4th largest oil reserves on the planet) that he decided, out of the goodness of his own heart, to FREE them!!

Jesus man - where you been living!?

[Karmashock]

I've explained it several times and every time you guys pretend like it hasn't been said.

So I would have to stand with JAD in calling you both mindless parrots.

[JADezimar]

Like I said in the pasts the world is so pissed off cuase... this taps into there oil reserves. I think its funny Angel finds the oil so utterly important to him that he would rather c a people oppressed, So he can get his cheaper oil. What a Dick, He should be putting his head down in shame.

[MVB]

The Hussein swf video breaks down in accuracy in the end, and like Farenheit 9/11, uses individually factual events to attempt to support a flawed conclusion. Plus it has some downright errors as well.

A note, just as an aside:
Israel uses American military equipment, such as F-16's. Iraq uses Russian military equipment, such as MIGs. It does not use American military rifles (or rather, didn't), using AK-47s ... another weapon of Russian or Chinese origin.
When assuming all these statements about US support are true, compare Iraq's military of the time with the military of a known US beneficiary -- Israel. There are next to no similarities.

[shutupandshave]

So the chemical weapons used on the Iranians were not American?

[MVB]

I don't know enough to definitively answer that question, suas, so I won't voice my "belief" on the matter and what I *think* is the case until I've found out more evidence. It was enough for me to doubt that they were directly American, and I'll leave it at that for the moment.

[shutupandshave]

Just because ALL the weapons in Iraq are not US made, it does not mean that some of them aren't.

[Ummon]

Suas, think about it, what you posted above just doesn't make ANY sense.

[shutupandshave]

Just because some of the weapons in Iraq are not US made, does not mean they ALL are not.

Thanks Ummon

[MVB]

What weapons in Iraq are of US make?

[JADezimar]

When Your buying off the black, Market you can pretty much get any nations weapons with the right contacts and enough money. Myself INcluded and I dont have nearly as much money as sadaam.

[shutupandshave]

Apparently US companies sold them (or their ingredients) to Iraq. I dont know how things work in the US, but in the UK - the government has to approve all arms sales. So either US companies sold this stuff to Iraq, or US companies and US government did.

"on July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide -- some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons -- and had shipped it via a CIA contractor."

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
http://eatthestate.org/07-09/ListCompaniesSold.htm
http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/22/content_350599.htm
This last link is different to the last few - because there are no moral issues about the US supplying the NEW government with arms - however it does show that the government approved the order - leading me to believe that the US government does have to approve arms sales.

[MVB]

A CIA contractor is not the CIA, suas. That means a company that the CIA uses as well, more or less.

If an Iraqi national living in the US sends chemicals to Iraq, that is neither US businessmen or the US government doing so.

[JADezimar]

Plus I can admitt the cia in itself is corrupt. Operatives of the Cia can often times be rogue. And many times the Cia itself can do things independant of what the president and the government knows.

[shutupandshave]

MVB, please reply to the post as a whole, instead of singling out why part of a single example may not be true.

You wanted proof that the US sent these things through. In my mind there is sufficient evidence to say that US business did (and with the knowledge of the US government - as it is all documented), and as the US government needs to approve these sales, it is also involved.

[MVB]

It's football sunday ... so I don't have time to read them right now :-)

But I will do my best to respect your view of things and actually read through them as soon as today's games are finished (as well as my daily studies and what-not).

[shutupandshave]

I thought you'd finished uni? How long have you got left?

Anyway - enjoy your football, and let me know what you think when you're done reading through.

[MVB]

I have 20 days until my thesis is due.

I have been in and out doing non-uni work a couple of times. So, I'm older than most of my fellow classmates, but have yet to actually get the piece of paper.

[Karmashock]

Just because some of the weapons in Iraq are not US made, does not mean they ALL are not.

Thanks Ummon
I answered this before... Coldwar.

We backed Saddam to contain Iran... we were fighting the coldwar...

Adversity makes strange bedfellows.


The USSR is dead, so things have changed. If you want to complain about what we did in those times, then consider what losing that war would have meant.

Would you have preferred for the US to fail? I find it unlikely that we could have ever failed in retrospect, but people also thought it impossible for the USSR to totally fall apart. Today we think of the USSR as being a sick degenerate empire. While we were fighting it however it was believed to be at least as strong as the US. We were very frightened of them. We had nuclear bombers circling the USSR 24 hours a day 7 days a week, until we developed the ICBM.

Iran threatened our oil supply while we were in conflict... they also had a relationship with the soviets... This was unacceptable... So we gave Saddam what he needed to quickly and efficiently end the war. There really weren't that many causalities considering what they would have been if Saddam hadn't been backed up at all.

You think what we did there was bad?… If the soviets had gotten close to turning Mexico or Canada against us we would have invaded them.

The shit you are dealing with so heavy that I don’t think you have it in the right perspective. It was a battle to the death between the US and the USSR. We both had guns and both of us were crack shots… we never stuck our heads up to take a shot or get our heads blown off… so one of starved to death first… Which was inevitable… capitalism for all it’s failures will feed you better then any other system… that’s just a fact.


If our past disqualifies us, then Europe should be laughted at whenever it uses the word peace.

[shutupandshave]

Wow - better stop playing DoW so much then!

[Karmashock]

I'm clearly missing something... Likely because I've never really gotten into DoW...