DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on February 03, 2010, 09:07:36 AM
-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/pr/haskell-truth-flight253.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/pr/haskell-truth-flight253.html)
Finally giving up on most of its lies and denial, the government finally came clean on one essential point - - they DID allow Mutallab onto the flight which he almost succeeded in blowing up in the air - - so they could "monitor" his activities in the U.S.
Well, it is plausible. Plausible that they allowed him on so he could be monitored later and lead to the arrest of more members of his network. Plausible that they fucked up, not realizing that 253 was his target. Particularly since there was apparently a U.S. government agent on board the same flight to photograph Mutallab probably as part of some surveillance project possibly intended for later use in court. Or to identify other as yet unknown members of the same network traveling separately from but on the same flight as Mutallab, maybe even unknown to him (Mutallab.)
The laxness of supervision however leads to another possibility - - they WANTED Mutallab to blow up the flight and even sacrificing one of their own agents (the guy photographing Mutallab.) Maybe the photographer was for some reason no longer of value to them, or was even someone they needed to liquidate. The loss of an airliner and its (civilian) passengers would certainly be a small price to pay if the government objective - - war hysteria "justifying" an invasion of Yemen, or such lesser steps as they could still afford (military aid, increased drone strikes, more general torture and killing.)
Judging by the length of time the government took in putting this latest "explanation" together, I'd have to say it's meant to conceal more than it supposedly "reveals."
The blanket of silence which the MSM threw over Haskell's story is interesting . Very similar to the blanket of silence the MSM threw over the St. Petersburg Times' story on the fake "surveillance photos" used by the U.S. to justify the use of U.S. forces to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in the First Gulf War.
-
Wow....so now Obama knew and sanctioned the murdering of his own innocent citizens? Who'd a thunk it
-
Haskell is certainly milking his 15 minutes.
Revoking a Visa would be the equivalent of parking cops outside a person of interests door.
***Please note that in the article that follows, I am not claiming that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb or intended to hurt anyone on Flight 253 when the U.S. Government let him board.
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/ (http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/)
-
Why am I not surprised that Tee didn't put in his title thread "Obama KNOWINGLY let Mutallab board Detroit flight". He does represent the "U.S. Government" In fact, I've been told the buck stops with him. Is there any doubt who'd be in the title thread if this occured during the previous administration?
-
<<Revoking a Visa would be the equivalent of parking cops outside a person of interests door. >>
Who gives a shit? Focus, for christ sake. Letting that guy onto the plane would be (and WAS!!!) the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with the lives of hundreds of passengers. On the best possible spin of the facts, these ass-holes were playing with the lives of hundreds of people. On the worst possible spin, they were going to sacrifice those lives for a PR advantage. Where the fuck was Janet Napolitano in all this? Heads should be rolling as we speak, but there isn't a single God-damn repercussion for any of this shit. Un-fucking-believable.
-
Wait... Michael Tee is now using the conspiracy folks at LewRockwell.com as a source? Heh.
-
Yeah, they wanted him to blow up the plane.
Haven't you got some snow, rather then BS, to shovel, Canuck?
-
So out of my either-or proposition, I see that the theory that appears to be winning favour is that the government was playing Russian Roulette with the lives of the passengers, rather than sacrificing them for a casus belli against Yemen. Works for me.
-
Try posting here for awhile, snowblower/asshole/wasteoftime: http://www.discuss-your-dreams.com (http://www.discuss-your-dreams.com)
-
<<Try posting here for awhile, snowblower/asshole/wasteoftime: http://www.discuss-your-dreams.com (http://www.discuss-your-dreams.com)>>
"Address not found."
What was it anyway?
-
We want to invade Yemen right now?
Why?
-
<<We want to invade Yemen right now?>>
I'm not sure "invade" is the right word. Some form of violence, maiming, torture and murder that falls short of a full-scale invasion which you are probably too chicken-shit to try right now in view of what it's cost you to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Some escalation of the violence that is already being brought to bear on that country. A few years ago, the gov't assassinated a U.S. citizen in Yemen with an early drone strike. It's very much a live theatre of operations.
Why? The U.S. seeks bases and "allies" (i.e. dependent and reliably corrupt oligarchies) all over the world but especially in the Middle East. Bases on the Saudi border in case Saudi blows? Bases close to the Horn of Africa in case Somalia blows? A choke point on the Suez Canal at the south end of the Red Sea? There are plenty of credible reasons, only the strategists inside the Pentagon know the real one.
<<Why?>>
Why not?
-
<<We want to invade Yemen right now?>>
I'm not sure "invade" is the right word. Some form of violence, maiming, torture and murder that falls short of a full-scale invasion which you are probably too chicken-shit to try right now in view of what it's cost you to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Some escalation of the violence that is already being brought to bear on that country. A few years ago, the gov't assassinated a U.S. citizen in Yemen with an early drone strike. It's very much a live theatre of operations.
Why? The U.S. seeks bases and "allies" (i.e. dependent and reliably corrupt oligarchies) all over the world but especially in the Middle East. Bases on the Saudi border in case Saudi blows? Bases close to the Horn of Africa in case Somalia blows? A choke point on the Suez Canal at the south end of the Red Sea? There are plenty of credible reasons, only the strategists inside the Pentagon know the real one.
<<Why?>>
Why not?
Ok then , why not?
If we wanted to have a quiet but effectual involvement , why wouod we need a bomber first?
Yemen is where the USS Cole was attacked , an excuse for a smaller action is already present.
That is to say , we know the Al Quieda is present, we can confrount them anywhere and have American public approval.
-
<<If we wanted to have a quiet but effectual involvement , why wouod we need a bomber first?>>
I said an involvement that fell short of an actual invasion and occupation. That is NOT a "quiet but effecutal involvement." I had in mind some form of violence and mayhem perhaps falling short of an invasion but certainly not "quiet."
<<Yemen is where the USS Cole was attacked , an excuse for a smaller action is already present.>>
No, I disagree, USS Cole was too far back. Ten years ago. You can't suddenly explode into rage 10 years after the event. Not even the morons who fell for the WMD BS would fall for that.
<<That is to say , we know the Al Quieda is present, we can confrount them anywhere and have American public approval.>>
You're kidding. You "know" the Al Qaeda is present?" How do you "know" that? The same way you "knew" that Saddam had WMD that could be launched on 45 minutes' notice? People don't give a shit any more what you "know," plane, they've been fooled too many times before. If you need an excuse to start another war, what you "know" isn't going to do it. Blowing a plane out of the sky will do it, though. THAT'S really what your policy makers "need" and maybe the CIA was ready to supply it for them too. Or maybe just scaring you into thinking an airliner was ALMOST blown out of the sky. It's nicer to think they'd be satisfied with the latter. Who the hell really knows? The level of evil that resides in those characters is literally unfathomable.
-
That is interesting, you think that Al Queda has no presence in Yemen?
-
Ladies and gentlemen, progress, progress. Your bothering to respond to Snowblower is moving the discussion in the wrong direction. Backwards. We know what happened on Dec 25th, and we know what it means. Move on.
-
<<That is interesting, you think that Al Queda has no presence in Yemen?>>
Sure they have a presence in Yemen. They have a presence in Germany too and in France and Spain. But the U.S. already has bases in Germany. They probably need bases in Yemen now, that's the region where all their aggression seems to be focused at the moment.
-
Where we can persuede the locals to lock up the Al Queda we need do no more.
Yemen is marginal , they do lock up Al Queda but after a while they let them out again.
There is no particular reason to want a base in Yemen , but if the Al Queda is establishing a shadow government there it is worth doing, rooting them out.
-
Same fundamental mistake, close them up, root them out.
You can't do it. There's a billion of them and every day you're giving almost every one of them another good reason to hate your fucking guts. How are you going to close up and root out a billion people? While you're slowly blowing your brains out on wars that you can afford less and less?
The only policy that makes sense to to cut a deal with them - - you and the ZioNazis stop fucking with them and they stop fucking with you.
-
Ha ha ha.......
Key rist, what a waste of time you are, Snowblower.
-
You can't do it. There's a billion of them and every day you're giving almost every one of them another good reason to hate your fucking guts.
That assumes that all Muslims are members of Al Queda and it also assumes that no Muslim is an innocent bystander.
Is that your position?
-
He wishes
-
Same fundamental mistake, close them up, root them out.
You can't do it. There's a billion of them and every day you're giving almost every one of them another good reason to hate your fucking guts. How are you going to close up and root out a billion people? While you're slowly blowing your brains out on wars that you can afford less and less?
The only policy that makes sense to to cut a deal with them - - you and the ZioNazis stop fucking with them and they stop fucking with you.
Depends on who you want to count.
Al Queda might be 100,000 or so , they are hard to count , but killing each and every is possible .
There are 300,000,000 Americans and about twice that many Europeans , who are all offended more at each Al Quieda killing than even Al Quieda itself is offended by Killing an Al Quieda.
If Al Quieda didn't have the habit of hideing amoung those we don't want to shoot the whole thing would not have lasted a month, consequently Al Quieda has no ability to "protect" any thing but itself.
Al Quieda hides its uselessness and shame behind bravado , what makes them better than a criminal organisation?
-
"Al Qaeda might be 100,000 or so..."
I doubt they have anywhere near that number. I suspect they'd be lucky to have more then a few thousand.
-
<<That assumes that all Muslims are members of Al Queda and it also assumes that no Muslim is an innocent bystander.
<<Is that your position?>>
No, you read a lot into what I wrote. I assumed that "a billion of them" (which obviously referred to the number of Muslims, not the number of al Qaeda) would be interpreted to mean a huge reservoir of people, with a whole spectrum of attitudes, the most extreme being al Qaeda operatives, then al Qaeda passive supporters willing to provide safe houses or sign medical certificates, then sympathizers of varying degrees, then those who don't sympathize but won't lift a finger to stop them, etc. Maybe that was my mistake - - shoulda spelled it out for ya.
My point was that the reservoir is big enough to constantly replenish their ranks no matter how many you kill off. Big enough so that they'll always have their safe houses, their financial supporters, their sympathizers and helpers. al Qaeda is more of an ideal than an army. That idea will always find soldiers of one kind or another. As long as you fuck with them, there will always be young men with nothing to lose who are ready and eager to find martyrdom in fucking with you. And from time to time, they will succeed spectacularly, as on Sept. 11, and inspire millions more to strike the next blow or die trying.
That's why you're on a one-way street that never ends. You gotta find a new course.
-
<<Al Queda might be 100,000 or so , they are hard to count , but killing each and every is possible .>>
LOL. You been trying to wipe out al Qaeda for nine years now and every fucking week there have been stories about how many "top al Qaeda" leaders were killed by drones, air strikes, missile strikes, etc. and dozens of "militants" killed with them but IMHO you're no further ahead than when you started.
<<There are 300,000,000 Americans and about twice that many Europeans , who are all offended more at each Al Quieda killing than even Al Quieda itself is offended by Killing an Al Quieda.>>
Except for the relative handful of psychos in your Special Forces, Navy SEALS etc., who are the equivalent of the al Qaeda militants on the other side, nobody is offended enough to do anything about it. Here's a little secret you may have overlooked - - in a no-holds-barred war between the rich and the powerful against the poor and the weak, there are a helluva lot of poor and weak and a relatively tiny number of rich and powerful. The poor and the weak have many more to recruit from than the rich and the powerful. Their resentment runs a lot deeper, because they know that they are the real "innocent victims," while the rich and the powerful know in their hearts that they are in the wrong, that they are the oppressors and the exploiters, that even the founder of their own phony religion has to admit that money is the root of all evil and that the rich have almost no chance of getting into heaven.
<<If Al Quieda didn't have the habit of hideing amoung those we don't want to shoot the whole thing would not have lasted a month . . . >>
Failure has a thousand excuses, but the one that is the most laughable of all is, "I failed because I am such a good guy." News flash! If you really were a good guy, nobody would want to be fighting you.
<<consequently Al Quieda has no ability to "protect" any thing but itself.>>
That's a laugh. They fly planes into buildings but want to protect themselves? That's one of the secrets of their success - - they don't give a shit if they live or die. They're not concerned with "protecting themselves," they're concerned with sacrificing themselves. It's North Americans who are focused on "protecting" themselves and the assets they have stolen from the Third World. They're so concerned about it they don't have the fucking guts to get down on the ground with the "terrorists" and fight them mano-a-mano. They strike with unmanned - - great word, "unmanned" - - flyers launching bombs or missiles on defenceless villages, killing on a ratio of probably 20 innocent civilians for every "militant" killed - - recruiting probably 10 more al Qaeda for every one that you manage to kill.
Not only are you in a war you can't win, you're going broke fighting it. Obama's a huge disappointment. I really thought he was going to show the ZioNazis and the military-industrial complex the gate, make some moves to appease the Arab masses and get the U.S. on a new course, but that was a stupid pipe dream. You're fucked and you're going to follow the one-way street that you're on all the way to the end. Tough shit. You brought it on yourselves.
<<Al Quieda hides its uselessness and shame behind bravado , what makes them better than a criminal organisation?>>
Criminal organizations take calculated risks with their own lives for money, al Qaeda members will sacrifice their own lives for an ideal.
OK they're still a criminal organization but so what? The U.S.A. itself is a criminal nation. Which, for example, explains why they will not submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court of The Hague. They still haven't paid the fine assessed against them by the World Court for their criminal activities in Nicaragua. You guys are able to get away with the most laughable moral posturing I've ever seen - - that al Qaeda is a criminal organization, for example, when your whole fucking country is an outlaw nation - - because of sheer God-damn ignorance of the facts. You probably didn't know about the World Court verdict, for example; or about the U.S. refusal to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court established by the Treaty of Rome. You don't know because the corporate-owned MSM make it their business that you shouldn't know - - about your own country's lawlessness and criminality. Although they sure as hell have no problem in letting you know of the criminality of others. It's hilarious.
-
Yeah, I'm sure the Muslims really like Al Qaeda. They, Al Qaeda, have killed about 100 Muslims to every one American they've killed. They did nothing in Iraq but kill Muslims. If they hadn't operated out of Afghanistan there'd be thousands of Afghans that would be alive today instead of dead.
Good old Al Qaeda, friend of the Islamic community.
-
Legal or illegal: A) that doesn't mean doctors weren't performing them, and B) have you ever heard of an airplane?
-
Ha, that last post of mine is in the wrong thread.
-
<<Yeah, I'm sure the Muslims really like Al Qaeda. >>
Some do, some don't. Like I said, there's a whole spectrum of Muslim opinion pro and con. They're not a monolith.
<<They, Al Qaeda, have killed about 100 Muslims to every one American they've killed>>
Yeah, shocking isn't it? To think that Muslims would kill one another in power struggles or political struggles or religious battles. How horrible. Why sometimes they act just like Christians!
Grow the fuck up, BSB. Get back to me when you reach Grade 10 level.
-
Ah, so it's about a power strugle within the Muslim world. Not about America at all.
-
The U.S.A. itself is a criminal nation. Which, for example, explains why they will not submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court of The Hague.
So, China and Russia are criminal nations as well?
-
d'oh
-
<<Ah, so it's about a power strugle within the Muslim world. Not about America at all. >>
That's about as stupid as claiming that if the French Resistance executes French collaborators, it's all about a power struggle between Frenchmen and not about the Nazi occupation at all.
Like I said, get back to me when you reach Grade 10 levels of knowledge and understanding, BSB. Till then, grow the fuck up.
-
<<So, China and Russia are criminal nations as well?>>
Probably, but on a smaller scale. The issue is American hypocrisy, not an American monopoly of criminality. America can't commit ALL the international war crimes in the world, can it?
-
Oh, so they killed all those Muslims in Iraq because they're like the French Resistance, and the now dead Muslims were collaborators?
Ha ha.....no one believes that, not even Al Qaeda.
-
Was the French Resistance and or their international allies justified in killing French Collaborators?
-
<<Was the French Resistance and or their international allies justified in killing French Collaborators?>>
Sure, you're either a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem, and the collaborators were clearly a part of the problem.
-
BSB, your last one wasn't even worthy of a response.
-
Sure, you're either a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem, and the collaborators were clearly a part of the problem.
Then there are no innocent civilian casualties of our air strikes.
-
Ah huh, you better keep your mouth shut.
In this thread alone you've drooled, hissed, and spit that: The US Government wanted to have a plane full of Americans blown up on Christmas day for PR mileage. Al Qaeda is the equivalent of the French Resistance. And that the elderly, women, and children, blown up in the markets of Baghdad by Al Qaeda were collaborators.
You're a fool, and a joke.
-
<<Then there are no innocent civilian casualties of our air strikes.>>
Sure there are - - how do you figure that? Even the war criminals who order the air strikes pretend to feel great sorrow at the loss of innocent civilian lives, which they call "collateral damage."
-
Sure there are - - how do you figure that?
Because either you are part of the solution or part of the problem. Doing nothing is not being part of the solution.
Even the war criminals who order the air strikes pretend to feel great sorrow at the loss of innocent civilian lives, which they call "collateral damage."
You believe they really think that or are they just showing false remorse to sway public opinion?
-
I think I was trying to squeeze more mileage out of "You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem." It's a maxim of limited use, applicable I think only when all the factors in the equation are active participants on one side or another. (Classic example: Nazi occupation, French Resistance, French Collabos.)
Doesn't seem on first blush to apply to neutral civilians . But it could be argued in a time of great national trial, there is no "neutral" - - each and every one must take a side. In the Baghdad marketplace, for example, the problem is the American occupation, the solution is the Resistance, the citizens who are not part of the Resistance are a part of the problem. Dubya put it another way, either yer with us or yer against us.
But then you have children - - I guess THEY would be the real "innocents" on both sides. The adults have a role to play. Kids don't.
-
I wouldn't discount children having roles in crisis of state.
Aren't children encouraged to report nonconforming behavior to the authorities.
-
Yeah, so only SOME of the children are "innocent." There's gotta be an age below which they're not considered reliable informants, even by the FBI.
-
Yeah, so only SOME of the children are "innocent." There's gotta be an age below which they're not considered reliable informants, even by the FBI.
How did we avoid this problem during WWII?
Did we evacuate the children of Hiroshima or Dresden before we burned the city?
Al Queda chooses the location of the fight , they bear 100% of the responsibility , after all ,they have the choice of simply stopping , we don't have that choice.
-
"In the Baghdad marketplace, for example, the problem is the American occupation,...solution.....the Resistance...."
Ah huh, the real problem concerning the bombs in the markets of Baghdad was Al Qaeda's need to foster chaos and and civil war because those are the waters they, Al Qaeda, swim in.
Note what's happening in all the places that Al Qaeda has had a prolonged presence. Chaos and civil war. They need it to get a foothold and they need to keep it going to continue having a foothold.
-
<<How did we avoid this problem during WWII?
<<Did we evacuate the children of Hiroshima or Dresden before we burned the city?>>
No, I think we considered the heinousness of the enemy, the general support they and their crimes received from the local population, the relative absence of any real Resistance movements in the population, the atrocities inflicted by them, the threats posed by their still-formidable military if the conflict were to continue and them just decided, Fuck 'em, they don't deserve to live anyway.
<<Al Queda chooses the location of the fight , they bear 100% of the responsibility , after all ,they have the choice of simply stopping , we don't have that choice.>>
You could say that of any enemy - - they can simply stop resisting. OTOH the U.S.A. can stop enabling the dispossession of the Palestinians and the ongoing theft of their land, etc.
al Qaeda lives in the shadows, it still doesn't justify your bombing of defenceless villages. If you don't have the balls to go in after them on the ground, don't sacrifice the lives of innocent children to your own cowardice.
-
<<Note what's happening in all the places that Al Qaeda has had a prolonged presence. Chaos and civil war. They need it to get a foothold and they need to keep it going to continue having a foothold.>>
You got it all wrong. Saddam had brought stability and order to Iraq. The U.S. invasion brought chaos and civil war. Al Qaeda, which was firmly suppressed by Saddam, got its foothold only AFTER the American invasion brought down Saddam.
-
So you like the Bush methods better than the Clinton methods?
I think it is a matter of patience, when our patience fades we are apt to use wholesale methods.
-
Of course we brought out the chaos and civil war in Iraq. It was always there, we just brought it out. Sooner or laer it would have happened anyway. However it was the chaos and civil war that brought Al Qaeda to Iraq. And it was Al Qaeda's need to foster it that led to te use of bombs in the markets of Baghdad.
-
<<So you like the Bush methods better than the Clinton methods?>>
What does that mean?
<<I think it is a matter of patience, when our patience fades we are apt to use wholesale methods.>>
Exactly. Just like al Qaeda. They got impatient with all your bullshit and when their patience ran out . . . Ka-BOOM!!! So you guys aren't so different after all. The U.S. can just make bigger explosions. And - - inexplicably - - hold higher moral pretensions.
-
<<So you like the Bush methods better than the Clinton methods?>>
What does that mean?
Bush put boots on the ground.
-
<<So you like the Bush methods better than the Clinton methods?>>
What does that mean?
<<I think it is a matter of patience, when our patience fades we are apt to use wholesale methods.>>
Exactly. Just like al Qaeda. They got impatient with all your bullshit and when their patience ran out . . . Ka-BOOM!!! So you guys aren't so different after all. The U.S. can just make bigger explosions. And - - inexplicably - - hold higher moral pretensions.
Bush was more likely to use infantry units close in and risky , this does produce better controll of colateral damage , but nothing eliminates it.
Clinton went to war without exposeing Americans to much enemy fire , one of our Pilots was shot down in Bosnia , that was about as good a rate of casualty as you could expect in any war. I see that both philosophys of attack have virtues , in Clintons style of fighting we could sustain an attack absolutely eternally.
I note that robotic attack aircraft are being used more and are being built more , the Obama style of attack might be something really new , something even easyer to sustain and more out of sight than the Clinton style was.
You may be nostalgic for the Bush style in which an American or two actually gets shot every day , but if we can stand a bit more collateral damage we don't need to put up with the loss.
-
What complete and utter nonsense.
<<Of course we brought out the chaos and civil war in Iraq. >>
<<It was always there, we just brought it out. >>
Well, actually "chaos" and "civil war" are conditions that are objectively verifiable. There is either chaos or there is order. There is either civil war or there is not. Under most of Saddam's rule, there was no chaos, and there was no civil war. It's just a total perversion of reality to claim something was "always there" when in fact it was not. It's a ridiculous semantics-based argument akin to arguing that the grenade was always exploding, and pulling the pin "just brought it out." One's as stupid a thing to say as the other.
"Sooner or laer it would have happened anyway."
Kinda like the murderer speaking of the death of his victim - - "Sooner or later it would have happened anyway." Now that's one helluva defence.
<<However it was the chaos and civil war that brought Al Qaeda to Iraq. >>
We're just going back to Square One here - - it was the American invasion that brought the chaos and civil war that brought al Qaeda to Iraq.
<<And it was Al Qaeda's need to foster it that led to te use of bombs in the markets of Baghdad. >>
Well, that's not just al Qaeda, it was also the strategy of the Sunni resistance in Iraq as well. And now it's picking up again, to counter Shi'ite gains made in the ethnic cleansing of the city. Maliki's too fucking dumb and the Shi'ites are too divided to beat the Sunni resistance and the U.S. is caught in a real bind - - if it goes, the Iranians will replace them. If they don't want the Iranians in, they have to stay themselves. The market bombings are just a flexing of Sunni muscle. OTOH, it's hard to see how the Sunni can re-establish their dominance over the nation without the Party. Things are really fucked up now.
-
<<Bush was more likely to use infantry units close in and risky , this does produce better controll of colateral damage , but nothing eliminates it.>>
Thanks. I don't know if those are "Bush" or "Clinton" styles or just the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs in accordance with the exigencies of the particular situations.
I don't favour either one. Sometimes heavy bombing is the only way to go, as in WWII bombing of Nazi Germany, and sometimes you need to spare civilian casualties and it's better to go in mano-a-mano. I favour or disfavour according to the case at hand.
<<I note that robotic attack aircraft are being used more and are being built more , the Obama style of attack might be something really new , something even easyer to sustain and more out of sight than the Clinton style was.>>
Yeah, but I wonder how much you'll still favour them when your enemies learn how to use them against your own cities and towns.
<<You may be nostalgic for the Bush style in which an American or two actually gets shot every day . . . >>
Nope, if anything, I'm nostalgic for the early days of the United Nations, when it was envisaged that countries would not go to war against one another without actual provocation.
-
Well, actually "chaos" and "civil war" are conditions that are objectively verifiable. There is either chaos or there is order. There is either civil war or there is not. Under most of Saddam's rule, there was no chaos, and there was no civil war. It's just a total perversion of reality to claim something was "always there" when in fact it was not. It's a ridiculous semantics-based argument akin to arguing that the grenade was always exploding, and pulling the pin "just brought it out." One's as stupid a thing to say as the other.
The Shah of Iran was simularly orderly , but his holding on the lid caused a build up of pressure .
The potential energy of a grenade is indeed apt , if you mean a grenade that is missing its pin already , only a firm grip keeps the thing calm.
-
Thanks. I don't know if those are "Bush" or "Clinton" styles or just the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs in accordance with the exigencies of the particular situations.
It is the President that is commander in cheif , the joint cheifs are his appointees.
Yeah, but I wonder how much you'll still favour them when your enemies learn how to use them against your own cities and towns.
The Al Queda version of a smart bomb is Mohammed Atta , we don't like it .
<<You may be nostalgic for the Bush style in which an American or two actually gets shot every day . . . >>
Nope, if anything, I'm nostalgic for the early days of the United Nations, when it was envisaged that countries would not go to war against one another without actual provocation.
When was this gilded age?
-
"Well, actually "chaos" and ...........................................................................................One's as stupid a thing to say as the other."
Ha ha...........what a bunch of crap.
If I were you I would be deeply embarrassed to admit that I had such a limited view of the world as you admit to here. It's embarrassing enough just to read it. It's almost criminal in its ignorance.
Saddam Hussein lived in constant fear of being killed, overthrown, deposed, use what ever term you chose, by his own people. He ruled with an iron fist because Iraq was constantly on the verge of chaos and civil war. You can't oppress the majority for decades the way Saddam Hussein did and not have an irruption at some point. Of course Iraq was ready to irrupt when we went in and created a power vacuum. And of course an irruption is exactly what happened. And of course Al Qaeda's goal was to take advantage of it. Al Qaeda doesn't operate anywhere that doesn't meet its prescription for survival. Chaos and civil war.
You're the most dishonest poster I've ever run across on the net, bin Snowblower. I repeat, you're a fool, and a joke. Get an education and stop wasting our time.
-
<<It is the President that is commander in cheif , the joint cheifs are his appointees.>>
True enough, but since neither Clinton nor Bush was a military man, I'm sure that the styles of campaign they adopted were in fact what the Joint Chiefs recommended.
<<The Al Queda version of a smart bomb is Mohammed Atta . . . >>
Not at all, that "smart bomb" cost them the lives of nineteen of their most courageous and successful operatives.
<<You may be nostalgic for the Bush style in which an American or two actually gets shot every day . . . >>
<<When was this gilded age [when it was envisaged that countries would not go to war against one another without actual provocation.]?>>
As I said, it was the early days of the UN, 1944, 45, 46.
-
<<It is the President that is commander in cheif , the joint cheifs are his appointees.>>
True enough, but since neither Clinton nor Bush was a military man, I'm sure that the styles of campaign they adopted were in fact what the Joint Chiefs recommended.
<<The Al Queda version of a smart bomb is Mohammed Atta . . . >>
Not at all, that "smart bomb" cost them the lives of nineteen of their most courageous and successful operatives.
So they are not really very smart ? What is your point?
<<You may be nostalgic for the Bush style in which an American or two actually gets shot every day . . . >>
<<When was this gilded age [when it was envisaged that countries would not go to war against one another without actual provocation.]?>>
As I said, it was the early days of the UN, 1944, 45, 46.
The one time that the UN actually went to war to fight Communism was when ?
47?
Acttual provacation by the Communists in North Korea was quite clear ,and UN action was quite effective , but I did not know you would be nostalgic for that time.
-
<<If I were you I would be deeply embarrassed to admit that I had such a limited view of the world as you admit to here. >>
I'd be embarrassed just to have to resort to an argument like that. But I can't be embarrassed by my own ignorance. In simple terms, I know what I know and I don't know what I don't know. I sure as bitchin hell don't WANT to be so fuckin iggerant and I'm always ready to learn more. Although I'm not so sure that you're the one who can teach me.
<<It's embarrassing enough just to read it.>>
Jeeze, enough with the embarrassment, BSB. It certainly isn't your fault. Hold your head high and proceed as if you had just been reading the wisdom of Socrates. I apologize for my shortcomings. It's embarrassing to me that you were embarrassed. OK?
<<It's almost criminal in its ignorance.>>
Criminal? Did you say criminal? Why not report it to the FBI? Who knows, it could be more criminal than you think. It might endanger your great nation.
<<Saddam Hussein lived in constant fear of being killed, overthrown, deposed, use what ever term you chose, by his own people. >>
Jeeziz Christ. THAT'S a revelation. And in the Middle East, too. Who woulda ever thunk?
<<He ruled with an iron fist because Iraq was constantly on the verge of chaos and civil war. >>
NO! An Arab ruling with an iron fist? In IRAQ?? I am so disillusioned, I think I am going to cry. Next thing you are going to tell me is that Amnesty International was constantly on his back for torturing and murdering his subjects. I'm giving up on those bastards. Time and time again, they have done nothing but let me down.
<<You can't oppress the majority for decades the way Saddam Hussein did and not have an irruption at some point. >>
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Saddam did not "oppress the majority," any more than any Middle Eastern dictatorship does. Mubarak and his clique in Egypt, Assad and his Alawite government in Syria, Hussein and his Hashemite dynasty in Jordan, the Saudi dynasty in Saudi Arabia, the Shah and his clique in Iran. He was a typical Middle East despot, only with a very benevolent socialist program of social benefits, including equality for women.
<<Of course Iraq was ready to irrupt when we went in and created a power vacuum.>>
A total fantasy and of course it didn't "erupt" until the bombing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra in 2006, a small detail which I guess you overlooked.
<< And of course an irruption is exactly what happened. >>
Yeah. Three years after the invasion.
<<And of course Al Qaeda's goal was to take advantage of it. Al Qaeda doesn't operate anywhere that doesn't meet its prescription for survival. Chaos and civil war. >>
You really don't know WTF you are talking about, do you? Al Qaeda operates to expel infidels who invade Muslim lands and kill the Muslim inhabitants. The Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Iraq. Don't make up bullshit as if everyone in this forum is as dumb as you are.
<<You're the most dishonest poster I've ever run across on the net, bin Snowblower. >>
Anyone who can contradict your bullshit with facts is "dishonest," I guess. Thanks for the compliment.
<<I repeat, you're a fool, and a joke. >>
What are you, some kind of fucking moron? You dump a lot of high-school crap on this group, plus a ton of misinformation and you are talking about "fools" and "jokes?" The fool is you, schmuck. The joke is you. Grow a fucking brain. And don't try to fool people who have forgotten more than you'll ever know.
<<Get an education and stop wasting our time.>>
Yeah. right. Thanks for the tip, pea-brain.
-
Just for starters the insurgency started within a few weeks of the fall of Baghdad. The rest is so dumb no one should bother.
-
Just for starters, no one was talking about the insurgency, we were discussing the civil war. The rest of the stuff is so embarrassingly revealing of your total fucking ignorance that I can perfectly understand your reluctance to revisit it.
-
Iraq has been in a state of civil war since the Brits created it. Its never been in any other state. It's still in a state of civil war, and it will be 15 years from. Too much water has gone under the bridge for it to stop within this generation. All this would have been true American invasion or not. Not to realize that is to disagree with every historian on Iraq you can find.
Now, Al Qaeda's purpose?
The reason it was a bad move to invade Iraq is because those who were thinking knew it would alienate the civilian population, and create an opposition to foreign intervention. And, not only in Iraq, but elsewhere. The fight against Al Qaeda was going to be hard enough without adding additional opposition within the Muslim world because of invading another Islamic country besides Afghanistan. I'm taking about the general Muslim community here.
Now Al Qaeda is a different animal. Al Qaeda's purpose is to bring down the West, overthrow Arab regimes, and restore an Islamic caliphate. bin Laden lives in the 13th century, along with many of the Islamic fundies. We are the palace guards that bin Laden needs to get rid of in order to enter the palace.
Pull your head out of your ass.
-
<<Iraq has been in a state of civil war since the Brits created it.>>
That is simply not true. It was a monarchy from the early or mid thirties and had a tribal rebellion on its hands, which the British crushed, then the monarchy functioned till after the war, when it was overthrown by an officer clique which came to be led, eventually, by Saddam Hussein.
<<Its never been in any other state. >>
You're just talking out of your ass.
<<It's still in a state of civil war, and it will be 15 years from. Too much water has gone under the bridge for it to stop within this generation. >>
Yeah and you can thank one man for that: George W. Bush.
<<All this would have been true American invasion or not.>>
Wrong.
<<Not to realize that is to disagree with every historian on Iraq you can find.>>
Name one.
<<Now, Al Qaeda's purpose?
<<The reason it was a bad move to invade Iraq is because those who were thinking knew it would alienate the civilian population, and create an opposition to foreign intervention. And, not only in Iraq, but elsewhere. The fight against Al Qaeda was going to be hard enough without adding additional opposition within the Muslim world because of invading another Islamic country besides Afghanistan. I'm taking about the general Muslim community here.
Now Al Qaeda is a different animal. Al Qaeda's purpose is to bring down the West, overthrow Arab regimes, and restore an Islamic caliphate. bin Laden lives in the 13th century, along with many of the Islamic fundies. We are the palace guards that bin Laden needs to get rid of in order to enter the palace.>>
What complete bullshit. al Qaeda's purpose is to get infidels out of Muslim land - - whether in Saudi Arabia, where the movement began as a reaction to U.S. bases, in Afghanistan (removal of Russians, then Americans) or Iraq (removal of Americans.)
<<Pull your head out of your ass. >>
THAT'S ironic.
-
Name one? Charles Tripp. Iraq has been a mess for close to a century. It was held in check by a line of authoritarian rulers. Only a fool would claim otherwise. Once the iron fist was removed, it fell apart. Not unlike so many of your lovely nations once controlled by the Soviet Union.
And, only a fool would claim that Al Qaeda's purpose is anything other then the overthrow of what they see as western controlled regimes in the area and the return of Islamic rule, as defined by bin Laden as his followers. As I said, they attacked us because we protect the regimes they want to overthrow. Your pipe dream that Al Qaeda is some sort of Islamic French Resistance is just that, a pipe dream.
-
<<Name one? Charles Tripp. Iraq has been a mess for close to a century. It was held in check by a line of authoritarian rulers.>>
You seem to have the attention span of a squirrel - - the issue was whether or not Iraq was in a constant state of civil war, as you so ignorantly claimed. I'm not sure what "being a mess" means, although I suppose it could include civil war. Show me where Tripp (whoever the fuck he is) has stated that Iraq was in a constant state of civil war, even under the Ba'ath Party. That'll be a neat trick, unless Tripp is as big a moron as you.
<< Only a fool would claim otherwise. >>
Well, I'm that fool. Put up or shut up.
<<Once the iron fist was removed, it fell apart. >>
Yeah, after about three years, when the Sunnis decided to ignite a civil war by blowing up shrines and pilgrims. According to your crackpot theory the civil war would have erupted spontaneously as soon as the lid was taken off the pressure cooker, not three years later due to deliberate provocations.
<<Not unlike so many of your lovely nations once controlled by the Soviet Union.>>
Uhh, I wouldn't refer to the post-communist period of Eastern Europe if I were you, unless it's your intention to demonstrate conclusively the benefits of communism and the evils of capitalism.
<<And, only a fool would claim that Al Qaeda's purpose is anything other then the overthrow of what they see as western controlled regimes in the area and the return of Islamic rule, as defined by bin Laden as his followers. >>
The short-term goal is the removal of infidels from specific Muslim lands -- Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Palestine. And then probably some kind of Sharia law.
<<As I said, they attacked us because we protect the regimes they want to overthrow. >>
Better re-read your recent history. They wanted to overthrow the Saudi regime BECAUSE it had permitted infidel troops onto the sacred Muslim soil of Arabia. THAT was their primary motivation.
<<Your pipe dream that Al Qaeda is some sort of Islamic French Resistance is just that, a pipe dream.>>
Yeah, a French Resistance with a manual on how to remove people's eyeballs. You really are some special kind of moron. They're French Resistance like the U.S. torturers of Abu Ghraib are French Resistance.
-
Tripp (whoever the fuck he is)
Professor Charles R. H. Tripp, Ph.D., is an academic and author specializing in the politics and history of the Near and Middle East.
Tripp's main areas of research include the study of state and society in the Middle East, especially Iraq, and Islamic political thought.
As of 2008[update], he lectures on government and politics of the Middle East for both undergraduates and postgraduates at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), a college of the University of London.
Professor Tripp is a world class specialist on Iraq and has contributed as regional expert to media broadcasters including the BBC and NPR, as well as to print media such as Foreign Affairs, The Guardian and the New Statesman. In the run up to the war against Iraq, Professor Tripp was part of a small team that visited 10 Downing Street in order to advise the prime minister, Tony Blair, on the consequences of going to war.
On 19 November 2008, Tripp gave his inaugural lecture as Professor of Politics at SOAS entitled 'The Riotous Politics of the Middle East', in which he was presented by Oxford International Relations professor Avi Shlaim.
Charles R. H. Tripp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._H._Tripp)
-
Yeah, Iraq just happened to erupt in civil war because we were there. Nothing to do with their history. Just like the irruptions in eastern Europe had nothing to do with having been previously held in check by the Soviet Union.
"Muslims who seek to shape the world according to their religious values often confront an obdurate reality"
Charles Tripp
Lots of luck Al Qaeda.
-
"Yeah, a French Resistance........................"
Ha, you're the one who compared them to the French resistance.
-
<<Ha, you're the one who compared them to the French resistance. >>
Obviously, I was comparing their structural roles in a three-sided conflict between occupiers, collaborators and national resistance fighters, not their moral qualities.
And BTW, whoever Tripp is, (thanks, Ami!) I'm still waiting for his quote that Iraq was in a constant state of civil war under Ba'ath Party rule. I can see it'll be a long wait.
-
Ah huh, backing off on Al Qaeda as the heroic French Resistance protecting Iraq from America huh.
I see you also have now admitted that Al Qaeda wanted to overthrow at least one regime. Maybe you'll wake up to bin Ladens purpose after all. Maybe you'll realize he wants all of them to capitulate to his dream and return to a centuries-old Islamic caliphate.
So, from the very get go everyone, and I mean everyone, was afraid Iraq would descend into civil war after our invasion because what? They didn't have a history of being on the constant verge of one? If we invaded Norway would everyone be concerned about them descending into civil war, or would the concern be about a unified effort to remove us? Gee, ya think the latter might be more applicable?
-
Maybe you'll realize he wants all of them to capitulate to his dream and return to a centuries-old Islamic caliphate.
=====================================================================
It is not really Bin Laden's pipe dreams that matter. The question is whether the cause is seen as worthy and feasible enough for people to deliberately kill themselves to make it happen. Miss America wants world peace, too, but she is unlikly to become a suicide bomber to attain it.
If the US and the UK were to cease interfering in Arab Muslim nations, that would defuse Al Qaeda more than anything else. The reestablishment of the Caliphate to Bin laden is akin to the Return of Jesus and His Glorious Reign over All to fundamentalists. Something to say they are hankering for, but that is not really taken seriously.
-
<<Ah huh, backing off on Al Qaeda as the heroic French Resistance protecting Iraq from America huh.>>
No, just backing out of your attempt to put words in my mouth praising al Qaeda as the equivalent to the French Resistance. Morally they're on a par with their American enemies.
<<I see you also have now admitted that Al Qaeda wanted to overthrow at least one regime.>>
I never denied it. We differ on primary motivation. You seem to think they were primarily motivated by the dream of a restored Caliphate, I tend to think the immediate goal was the expulsion of the infidels from the sacred soil. They weren't galvanized into action by the dream of a Caliphate, they wanted the Americans out.
<<Maybe you'll wake up to bin Ladens purpose after all. >>
I know what his purpose is. It's to get those fat infidel asses off all Muslim land.
<<Maybe you'll realize he wants all of them to capitulate to his dream and return to a centuries-old Islamic caliphate.>>
Why are you so focused on bin Laden's ultimate dreams, rather than on the motivation of the Americans and the Israelis to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine? Isn't it kind of like Hitler invading Poland, then France, Belgium and Holland, then attacking England and Russia, all the while raving and ranting about the Jews and Bolsheviks that are trying to enslave the good people of Germany and pollute their bloodstream? Isn't that a classic example of Freudian projection?
<<So, from the very get go everyone . . . was afraid Iraq would descend into civil war after our invasion because what? >>
Who's everyone? You including Cheney and Wolfowicz and Bush and Rice and Perle and Rumsfeld and Feith and . . . ? They ever confide any of those fears to anyone prior to the invasion? They sure must have used the argument after the invasion, once it became apparent that the Tales of WMD were just One Big Fuckin Lie, at that point they had to use "fear of civil war" as the new rationale for being in Iraq, even though civil war never broke out till about three years after the invasion.
<<They didn't have a history of being on the constant verge of one? >>
LOL - - Oh, lookee here! Look who's backtrackin' now. From "constant state of civil war" to "constant verge of one." Nice footwork, BSB. You should be teaching dancing at an Arthur Murray academy.
<<If we invaded Norway would everyone be concerned about them descending into civil war . . . ?"
Why gosh, NO, we wouldn't, BSB. I never realized that. And of course the Norwegians are SO like the Iraqis that it's absolutely uncanny!! So, uhh, let's see if I got this straight - - uh, the absence of civil war in Norway is proof of a civil war in Iraq? Or is it the other way round? Shit, this stuff is complex! Help me out here.
<< . . . or would the concern be about a unified effort to remove us? Gee, ya think the latter might be more applicable?>>
BSB you're on to something! Wow. Invaders tend to be resisted. Holy fuckin shit, who woulda thunk? You're becoming a fucking genius, BSB. Maybe it's due to your long association with Prof. Tripp. It's rubbing off on yiz.
-
Ah huh, so now you're admitting that Iraq was constantly on the verge of civil war, just not actually there yet. Good, you're getting there, slowly, but you're getting there. In case you regress, think about Saddam gassing and bombing his own people. Hummm, kinda like civil war, bin Snowblower?
BTW, this is exactly what I said: "He ruled with an iron fist because Iraq was constantly on the verge of chaos and civil war."
I also noticed you brought up Hitler, Israel, and all your other obsessions. Try and stick to the subject. In case you forgot the subject is whether the US caused Iraq to descended into civil war all by itself, or whether Iraq was on the verge of civil war long before America got there, and would have descended into flat out civil war at some point anyway.
-
<<Ah huh, so now you're admitting that Iraq was constantly on the verge of civil war, just not actually there yet. Good, you're getting there, slowly, but you're getting there. >>
You are a very confused individual. I didn't admit anything. I pointed out that YOU were regressing from a position where there was constant civil war in Iraq to a new position that claimed Iraq was "on the verge" of civil war, whatever the fuck that means, except that it was not actually engaged in civil war as you first stated. A "verge" is an edge or a margin, as alongside a roadway. A verge can be a few inches wide, or it can be ten or twenty feet wide, so being "on the verge" of war is a particularly meaningless observation. Snipers can be taking up positions and foot soldiers rehearsing for an attack the next morning or it can just be resentment growing between two opposing groups.
<<In case you regress, think about Saddam gassing and bombing his own people. Hummm, kinda like civil war, bin Snowblower?>>
Yes, exactly, it WAS a civil war. It came and it went - - Saddam and his national army beat the Kurds and they beat the Marsh Arabs and then after they were beaten down, civil peace resumed. Doesn't really fit your absurd claim of constant civil war in Iraq now, does it.
<<BTW, this is exactly what I said: "He ruled with an iron fist because Iraq was constantly on the verge of chaos and civil war.">>
I'll come back to "exactly" what you said in a moment.
<<I also noticed you brought up Hitler, Israel, and all your other obsessions. >>
WWII is the central event of the past hundred years and references to it are inevitable. I don't know what I said about Israel, but it was probably a very apt example. I will return to that too in a moment.
==================================== "a moment" has passed. So . . .
You claimed that THIS is exactly what you said: <<He ruled with an iron fist because Iraq was constantly on the verge of chaos and civil war.>>
We may be talking at cross-purposes, because HERE is also exactly what you said: <<Iraq has been in a state of civil war since the Brits created it.>> (Reply No. 65) It was this latter remark that I referred to as bullshit. I still refer to it as bullshit.
Here is the other of your asinine blather to which I said I would return momentarily - - <<I also noticed you brought up Hitler, Israel, and all your other obsessions.>>
Yes, I explained the Hitler reference, which as the central event of the past century I believe will serve as a point of reference for many more decades as the politics of this century unfolds. It's familiar to everyone, needs no explication and presents sharply drawn choices and conflicts which few other examples can do with such unmistakeable clarity. It's an apt choice of an example or illustration, and if you're too fucking dumb to appreciate why, that is not really my problem.
I was kind of puzzled by your reference to my "other obsession," Israel, until I remembered that I did mention it as ONE OF FOUR examples of OBL's determination to rid Muslim lands of infidel invaders. For an alleged obsession, it certainly played a very minor role in this thread, but if it pleases you to call it one of my obsessions, who the fuck gives a shit?
-
Debating what on the verge means......ha ha.
Give it up moron, you lost.
-
<<Debating what on the verge means......ha ha.
<<Give it up moron, you lost. >>
Declare victory, hit enter, eh? That was one small point, moron, which you lost along with all the other points you don't see fit to mention. "On the verge" has a somewhat elastic meaning and in any event is quite different from your original claim that Iraq was in a constant state of civil war. Even the "on the verge" quote is wrong.
-
You argued against on the "verge of civil war", and you argued against "constant state of civil war", so, it's irrelevant to me which one you pick. The facts are the facts. Iraq descended into civil war because that was inherent in the fabric of Iraq, not because we invaded them. Our invasion just provoked what was already inherent. And that's not to forgive the invasion. I'm on record in here going back to Sept. of 2002 as being against the pending, at that time, attack. And, I'm on record in here pointing to the chaos, and its risks, that the invasion provoked starting 2 or 3 weeks after the fall of Baghdad. That's about 8 months before Bush and Rumsfeld publicly hinted at its significance.
Give it up bin Snowblower. Your heart may, MAY, be in the right place, but you can't think. That's kind of a handicap in a debate forum.
-
<<You argued against on the "verge of civil war", and you argued against "constant state of civil war", so, it's irrelevant to me which one you pick. >>
Let's try to get our facts right and in the proper order.
You argued for constant state of civil war and claimed that Tripp would back you up. He didn't. The most that you could find in Tripp was that Iraq was "on the verge" of civil war. That's not true either, but it's not as far off as your first statement.
So I DENIED that Iraq was in a constant state of civil war (correctly) and I denied that Iraq was "constantly" on the verge of civil war (which is just plain wrong) and pointed out (again correctly) that "on the verge" is a very elastic term, hardly debateable in fact, since it may mean one thing to one person and something different to another.
<<The facts are the facts. Iraq descended into civil war because that was inherent in the fabric of Iraq . . . >>
Again, you start with the undeniable assertion that "facts are facts" and then (presumably as one of those facts that are facts) try to slip in as a fact, something which is not a fact but an opinion, namely the opinion that "civil war was inherent in the fabric of Iraq," a ridiculous and totally unverifiable opinion, the sloppiness of which you hope to get away with because civil war did in fact break out some three years after the fall of Saddam. That the civil war was deliberately provoked by one of the warring sides is not even a factor in your scenario, because the civil war was simply "inherent in the fabric" of Iraq - - which would render any deliberate provocations irrelevant.
Civil war had in fact broken out and been quickly suppressed by Hussein. Had there been no invasion, the likeliest outcome for Iraq would have been a consolidation of Saddam's power or a coup d’état by a rival clique of Sunni officers, IMHO. In neither case resulting in any gains for either the Kurds or the Basra Arabs. There is no credible evidence that I have seen that indicates further renewal of hostilities either by the Kurds or by the Basra Arabs. As a matter of fact in both cases of the "civil wars" that you attribute to Saddam's reign of terror, both rebellions were instigated by U.S. interference and promises (never fulfilled) of support for the rebels. The promises were reneged on, in the case of the Kurds, because the U.S. could not piss off a NATO ally, Turkey and in the case of the Basra Arabs, because the hard-core rebels were followers of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and their troops plastered his image all over every town they took. Once Saddam had put down these insurrections, the rebels had no further hope of U.S. aid, would not have believed in any more U.S. promises, and were running to cover wherever they could find it, the leaders of the Basra Arabs to Iraq and the Kurdish leaders into their mountain fortresses. This was not a country "on the verge" of anything except kissing Saddam's ass and hoping he wouldn't get mad at you or anyone you knew.
<<Give it up bin Snowblower. Your heart may, MAY, be in the right place, but you can't think. That's kind of a handicap in a debate forum.>>
Everyone in this forum is debating with a handicap of some kind and I don't think mine is any worse than anyone else's. We disagree, fine, but your remarks are patronizing and I don't think they belong in a forum like this. Or like this should be, I guess. Everyone here's entitled to his opinion and entitled to a certain basic level of respect, which does not include having his brainpower insulted. Although I've been guilty of doing so myself sometimes. Oftentimes. Most of the time. Anyway it's never too late to turn over a new leaf and take a new shot at civility. Onward and upward, so to speak.
-
I speak to you the way I do because if you don't shut up and try and learn you're wasting my time, and I haven't got the time. I'm not into mental masturbation. I didn't post that the civil war that broke out in Iraq was more because of the way Iraq is then because of the US invasion because I like to post. I said it because it's true. Further, for anyone who has been paying even cursorary attention that has been patiently obvious for years.
Wasting someone's time is an insult, and it's an insult I don't take lightly. You don't want me to snarl at you when I post, stop wasting my time.
-
As far as the Kurds , the verge must have been narrow.
The Kurds were in militant rebellion the whole time Saddam was in charge and wern't happy earlyer.
Didn't the Shah of Iran irritate Saddam regularly by supporting the militant Kurds ? That isn't recent.
Supression of the Shiite Majority didn't begin recently either.
So what year was Iraq last harmonious?
Lets look at that time.
-
<<Supression of the Shiite Majority didn't begin recently either.>>
That's the whole point. There was no "suppression of the Shi'ite majority" in the sense that it's usually taken to mean.
Saddam was not a religious man, he was an Arab socialist with a socialist program and an anti-religious bias. It's interesting to keep in mind that he did not support such Sunni religious extremist movements as Wahabbism, despite their efforts to gain a foothold in Sunni Iraq.
The Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party subscribed to pan-Arabic beliefs, which were that all Arabs should submerge their religious differences and unite on the basis of their common Arabic culture. These were also Saddam's beliefs.
Kurds, Christians, Shi'ites who subscribed to the principles of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party were welcomed into the Party and could rise in the legislative, executive or judicial branches of the Iraqi government.
At the same time, Saddam trusted almost no one except his family and townsmen, who monopolized the top levels of power in all branches of government. This necessarily excluded top-ranking Shi'ite leaders from the real power centres, from which power flows downward in the form of jobs, contracts, etc. Shi'ite leadership is traditionally religious rather than secular, and because of the religion, many Iraqi Shi'ite leaders had very close ties with Iran. This wasn't something that Saddam would easily tolerate, and a lot of action was taken against Shi'ite religious leaders who were viewed as threats by Saddam. This was NOT a deliberate suppression of the entire Shi'ite population of the country, as would be implied by the phrase "suppression of the Shi'ite majority."
-
So it was an effective and actual supression of the Shiite majority , but not a deliberate suppression of the Shiite majority?
I guess I have a higher opinion of Saddam if he was locking up and slaying those people because he didn't trust them , and not because he was trying to please God.
Effect being equal the quality of the motive gains importance.
-
<<So it was an effective and actual supression of the Shiite majority , but not a deliberate suppression of the Shiite majority?>>
Who are you debating with? Yourself? I don't recognize the source of the contradiction that you are asking about.
<<I guess I have a higher opinion of Saddam if he was locking up and slaying those people because he didn't trust them , and not because he was trying to please God.>>
Well, I certainly agree with you that Saddam was not trying to please God. So we have apparently found some common ground.
<<Effect being equal the quality of the motive gains importance.>>
Uhhh . . . yeah. I guess. I think you're kind of losing me here, plane.
-
<<So it was an effective and actual supression of the Shiite majority , but not a deliberate suppression of the Shiite majority?>>
Who are you debating with? Yourself? I don't recognize the source of the contradiction that you are asking about.
<<I guess I have a higher opinion of Saddam if he was locking up and slaying those people because he didn't trust them , and not because he was trying to please God.>>
Well, I certainly agree with you that Saddam was not trying to please God. So we have apparently found some common ground.
<<Effect being equal the quality of the motive gains importance.>>
Uhhh . . . yeah. I guess. I think you're kind of losing me here, plane.
I am sorry but you were lost to begin with.
I admire your attempt at reforming Saddam , that can't be easy .
But my point was that the Shiite were opressed ,I was not really careing whythey were being opressed.
Do you want to point out what good reason Saddam had for applying gas to his Kurdish minority next?
-
>>I admire your attempt at reforming Saddam , that can't be easy.<<
LMAO!
No that can't be easy plane. Only a demented terrorist fuck could do such a thing. But by all means, tell him how wonderful he is for trying.
Asshole.
-
>>I admire your attempt at reforming Saddam , that can't be easy.<<
LMAO!
No that can't be easy plane. Only a demented terrorist fuck could do such a thing. But by all means, tell him how wonderful he is for trying.
Asshole.
I do want someone around who is willing to speak up for Saddam.
How would your debate about anything work , Rich?
Plane -Boy that Fidel Castro sure is stupid!
Rich- Yep
Rich - I wish we could find another Teddy Rosevelt to elect
Plane- Yep
Plane- Good thing the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution in the second admendment
Rich- Yep
Rich - Hey, the Saints won, Good game.
Plane-Yep
If you think of debate this way, I think you are not clear on the concept.