NationStates Jolt Archive

We know the war wasn't about WMD, cos that was a lie.

We know the war wasn't about some mysterious link between Huseein and al Qaeda, cos that was a lie.

And we know the war wasn't about bringing "democracy" to Iraq.

Who lied the US into war, and why?

What was the real reason?

Before you vote, observe the following document. This was a report prepared for Israeli PM Netanyahu in 1996, by a number of analysts at the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem. Three of the co-authors (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser), currently have influential roles in the Bush adminstration!

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm)

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam."

Maybe Syrian will be next?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10497

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10497

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10497

:roll:

Who the hell voted for the first two?

There should be a combination option, of the oil and Israel.

Lovely little bit of bigoted propaganda AT... you just never give in... that is somewhat admirable that faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your racist bullshit, you ignore all and blugeon forward...

Bah!

Ah yes the oil argument. I love hearing this.

Lovely little bit of bigoted propaganda AT... you just never give in... that is somewhat admirable that faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your racist bullshit, you ignore all and blugeon forward...

Bah!

What evidence? Come on, Zion boy. Give me your best shot!

Too bad there isn't a 'We're just ten years late' choice. *bleah*

I think it is a combination of the last free answers and plus add to that a little bit of idiocy, sick pride and incompetence.

We know the war wasn't about WMD, cos that was a lie.

We know the war wasn't about some mysterious link between Huseein and al Qaeda, cos that was a lie.

And we know the war wasn't about bringing "democracy" to Iraq.

Who lied the US into war, and why?

What was the real reason?

Before you vote, observe the following document. This was a report prepared for Israeli PM Netanyahu in 1996, by a number of analysts at the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem. Three of the co-authors (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser), currently have influential roles in the Bush adminstration!

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm)

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam."

Maybe Syrian will be next?

Does it matter?

We know the war wasn't about WMD, cos that was a lie.

We know the war wasn't about some mysterious link between Huseein and al Qaeda, cos that was a lie.

And we know the war wasn't about bringing "democracy" to Iraq.

Who lied the US into war, and why?

What was the real reason?

Before you vote, observe the following document. This was a report prepared for Israeli PM Netanyahu in 1996, by a number of analysts at the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem. Three of the co-authors (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser), currently have influential roles in the Bush adminstration!

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm)

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam."

Maybe Syrian will be next?

Does it matter?


Yes, it does matter. You gotta diagnose the disease in order to apply the cure.

i wasn't aware george bush was a microscopic organism which classified as a pathogen.

i wasn't aware george bush was a microscopic organism which classified as a pathogen.

Now you know. :D So make sure you wash your hands thoroughly from now on.

yes, millions of presidents could be on them :P

i wasn't aware george bush was a microscopic organism which classified as a pathogen.

I'm speaking metaphorically, of course. :wink:

Errr... :?

You know, I agree with you the justification for the war on Iraq is a pile of stinking lies. But its not that our military is Israel's military (that is ridiculous, the US is far too arrogant to be Israel's mercenaries), it's just that the interests with money in the US and in Israel have more in common with each other than with their respective citizens. And they're acting just atrociously in harmony with each other. Israel is good business to the US; and if you're good business, then nothing can touch you.

Errr... :?

You know, I agree with you the justification for the war on Iraq is a pile of stinking lies. But its not that our military is Israel's military (that is ridiculous, the US is far too arrogant to be Israel's mercenaries), it's just that the interests with money in the US and in Israel have more in common with each other than with their respective citizens. And they're acting just atrociously in harmony with each other. Israel is good business to the US; and if you're good business, then nothing can touch you.

I fail to see how the relationship between America and israel is anything but parasitic.

Well that would be somewhat biased being you claim that Jews are parasites (Zion boy?), and the Holocaust was a hoax eh? You sicken me, you never respond to questions of your sources intergrity, or overwhelming proof against you. Yet you claim all mainstream media is owned by the Jews, and all lies, while you're neo-Nazi sources are gospel.... haha, its almost laughable...

BTW; What religion do you think I am?

I fail to see how the relationship between America and israel is anything but parasitic.

Why would this be bad? Survival of the fittest and all.

Option 2. I think that Saddam was a horrible leader (personally) and the best justification was Option 2.

And anyone who says the war was for oil...well, I don't like you.

Yeah, Truth hurts.

I agree Xexo :shock:

I know, I know. Dont get excited.

You dont start A war without a scheme. Afterall, starting a war is a scheme in itself. if your gonna go that trouble you may as well maximise your profit from it. Thus the war i iraq was probably designed to aichive multiple simultaneous goals. One being oil, and there are others.
I say Its an odd mix of the last four options.

Bush is a puppet (in my eyes) and so he believed his own rhetoric. Of course those pullng the strings did not. There was also oil of course, and strategic and domestic interests to be gained.

We know the war wasn't about WMD, cos that was a lie.

We know the war wasn't about some mysterious link between Huseein and al Qaeda, cos that was a lie.

And we know the war wasn't about bringing "democracy" to Iraq.

Who lied the US into war, and why?

What was the real reason?

Before you vote, observe the following document. This was a report prepared for Israeli PM Netanyahu in 1996, by a number of analysts at the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem. Three of the co-authors (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser), currently have influential roles in the Bush adminstration!

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm)

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam."

Maybe Syrian will be next?

Who cares what America does? I say we let them attack all the third world countries they want. Does it really matter anyway? And get your soldiers OUT of Europe. I say we kick out all Americans and Arabs.

I fail to see how the relationship between America and israel is anything but parasitic.

Yes, well, you fail to see a lot of things, but that doesn't stop you from your paranoid rantings...

Social Darwinism is bullsh*t.

eh-wha?

if only i wasnt drunk...... was the war right and justified? Yes the reasons for american involvment? who care's? iraq has more freedom now under the US then Saddam isnt that enough

wittelsbach is bullsh*t.

if only i wasnt drunk...... was the war right and justified? Yes the reasons for american involvment? who care's? iraq has more freedom now under the US then Saddam isnt that enough

Well they dont really. They just ahve a differnt dictatorship.

Please explain how Iraq has more freedom now, when the Iraqis are still not allowed to vote or partake in democracy and are now under martial law? At least under Saddam they were oppressed by 'one of their own' rather than by a foreign invaders army.

Look, Bush didn't do it for the Jews, or for Israel. He did it for a variety of reasons, all of which is slowly slipping away from him. However, if you really think that the Israelis were behind it, consider this: What good has it done for Israel? All the war did was focus attention on that region even more, and thusly Israel can't get a break from stupid European leaders who go head over heels about suicide bombers. Also, Iraq doesn't border Israel, but Syria does. If Israel was in charge, they would have taken Syria out in a hurry FIRST, and THEN taken out Iraq. Easy.

But of course, Bush doesn't do it right, and instead fumbles it away in the endzone for a turnover.

Please explain how Iraq has more freedom now, when the Iraqis are still not allowed to vote or partake in democracy and are now under martial law? At least under Saddam they were oppressed by 'one of their own' rather than by a foreign invaders army.

That's not better, just different.

Look, Bush didn't do it for the Jews, or for Israel. He did it for a variety of reasons, all of which is slowly slipping away from him. However, if you really think that the Israelis were behind it, consider this: What good has it done for Israel? All the war did was focus attention on that region even more, and thusly Israel can't get a break from stupid European leaders who go head over heels about suicide bombers. Also, Iraq doesn't border Israel, but Syria does. If Israel was in charge, they would have taken Syria out in a hurry FIRST, and THEN taken out Iraq. Easy.

But of course, Bush doesn't do it right, and instead fumbles it away in the endzone for a turnover.

You havnt seen my conspiract theroy thread have you?

I'll bump it.

if only i wasnt drunk...... was the war right and justified? Yes the reasons for american involvment? who care's? iraq has more freedom now under the US then Saddam isnt that enough

Well they dont really. They just ahve a differnt dictatorship.

give them time to set up a democracy, sure its not perfect [even a puppet] but its better then before.

give them time to set up a democracy, sure its not perfect [even a puppet] but its better then before.

Excuses are like assholes. Everyone has one, and no one wants to hear from them.

Well that would be somewhat biased being you claim that Jews are parasites (Zion boy?), and the Holocaust was a hoax eh?

I didn't say the holocaust was a hoax.

You sicken me, you never respond to questions of your sources intergrity, or overwhelming proof against you.

The overhwheliming majority of my sources are from jewish, us govt or mainstream news sources. You have not provided any 'overwhelming proof' for anything.


Yet you claim all mainstream media is owned by the Jews

Mass-media is dominated by jews; and this is an easily verifiable fact.


BTW; What religion do you think I am?

I don't care.

Look, Bush didn't do it for the Jews, or for Israel. He did it for a variety of reasons, all of which is slowly slipping away from him. However, if you really think that the Israelis were behind it, consider this: What good has it done for Israel? All the war did was focus attention on that region even more, and thusly Israel can't get a break from stupid European leaders who go head over heels about suicide bombers. Also, Iraq doesn't border Israel, but Syria does. If Israel was in charge, they would have taken Syria out in a hurry FIRST, and THEN taken out Iraq. Easy.

But of course, Bush doesn't do it right, and instead fumbles it away in the endzone for a turnover.

According to the strategic plan, many Zionists wanted Hussein's regime to be toppled (and an israel-friendly one established) so that Syria's regional ambitions would be foiled.

Israel attacked Syria a few days ago, by the way.

Well that would be somewhat biased being you claim that Jews are parasites (Zion boy?), and the Holocaust was a hoax eh?

I didn't say the holocaust was a hoax.



http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60423&start=220&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


Let's read that Holocaust thread you've been so active in recently... start at page 11

You are a liar... plain and simple, in addition to being a bigot and a fool.

I win...

Ah yes the oil argument. I love hearing this.

Yes, they can never expain why we didn't take it the first time.

Liberals, Nazis, and Arabs, united in their Hatred of the Jews!

Liberals, Nazis, and Arabs, united in their Hatred of the Jews!

And Catholics (jk)

If there were no WMDs then why did the Iraqi forces all have chemical and bio suits? Style?

I guess they thought the U.S., a country that hasn't used WMDs purposefully (not counting Agent Orange) since Hiroshima, was going to suddenly decide to infect them all with smallpox.

Well that would be somewhat biased being you claim that Jews are parasites (Zion boy?), and the Holocaust was a hoax eh?

I didn't say the holocaust was a hoax.



http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60423&start=220&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


Let's read that Holocaust thread you've been so active in recently... start at page 11

You are a liar... plain and simple, in addition to being a bigot and a fool.

I win...


No, you are a liar. Nowhere in that thread did i say the holocaust was a hoax.

I guess they thought the U.S., a country that hasn't used WMDs purposefully (not counting Agent Orange) since Hiroshima, was going to suddenly decide to infect them all with smallpox.

What about all the 'daisy cutters' they used in Afghanistan?

Option 2. I think that Saddam was a horrible leader (personally) and the best justification was Option 2.

And anyone who says the war was for oil...well, I don't like you.

Bush did it for the oil. I support it for the liberation of the Iraqui people

If there were no WMDs then why did the Iraqi forces all have chemical and bio suits? Style?

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons."

“Iraq is six months away from having a nuclear weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." George W. Bush, September 2002.


Given that the bush administration were so adamant that Iraq already posessed these weapons, how is it that they were unable to direct the UN inspectors to them, or even their own handpicked team? How have they missed this nuclear weapon?

Have they checked down the back of Saddam's sofa? Kitchen cupboards? Under the stairs? Whatever that place is where I always lose my car keys? Or could it possibly be that these weapons don't exist and it was all a lie? That they lied about weapons, lied about links to Al-Qieda, lied about nuclear weapons, lied about buying uranium, lied about mobile weapon labs and, of course, the sublime "45 minutes" claim?

Bush quote of the day:

"I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/10/wirq110.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/10/ixnewstop.html

Bush quote of the day:

"I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/10/wirq110.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/10/ixnewstop.html

:lol: classic

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." is a goodie, mind you. Possibly ill-advised that one :wink:

http://www.peterhansen.com/ENDOFREASON.htm

We know the war wasn't about WMD, cos that was a lie.

We know the war wasn't about some mysterious link between Huseein and al Qaeda, cos that was a lie.

And we know the war wasn't about bringing "democracy" to Iraq.

Who lied the US into war, and why?

What was the real reason?

Before you vote, observe the following document. This was a report prepared for Israeli PM Netanyahu in 1996, by a number of analysts at the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem. Three of the co-authors (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser), currently have influential roles in the Bush adminstration!

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm)

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam."

Maybe Syrian will be next?
I have a reason that isn't any of them. It is to lure terrorists into Iraq, and fight them there. This will destroy what is left of al-Qaeda. Moreover, if we can get a stable democracy in the region, it'll have a ripple effect, and destroy the tyrannies that breed behavior to destroy us. WMDs were a cover used by the administration since the American people wouldn't readily support a war for that reason alone. And since Iraq has a head start, I believe it can be as economically powerful as Germany or Japan. You know, though, I haven't thought of the possibility of it being a counterweight for Chinese dominance. It wouldn't work, though. China needs only the control of parts of Asia and Russia to geo polictically become a superpower. The Middle East won't matter too much.

What about all the 'daisy cutters' they used in Afghanistan?
Daisy cutters are conventional weapons.

I guess they thought the U.S., a country that hasn't used WMDs purposefully (not counting Agent Orange) since Hiroshima, was going to suddenly decide to infect them all with smallpox.

What about all the 'daisy cutters' they used in Afghanistan?
There was only one used for show, in a remote area where it killed very few people, except maybe some al-Qaeda hiding in their caves. Would you'd prefered a MOAB?

What about all the 'daisy cutters' they used in Afghanistan?
Daisy cutters are conventional weapons.

They are still weapons of mass destruction, aren't they?

No, they're not. A single daisycutter cannot kill 1000+ people. Maybe if we carpetbomb with them.

What about all the 'daisy cutters' they used in Afghanistan?
There was only one used for show, in a remote area where it killed very few people, except maybe some al-Qaeda hiding in their caves. Would you'd prefered a MOAB?

Well, they used at least two in Iraq.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2003/apr/03iraq6.htm
The use of two Daisy Cutters is an indication that the US has stepped up attacks on the Iraqis.

They contain 6,804kg of fuel-air explosives, a variation of the deadly napalm [meant to destroy targets with high temperature flame], which the US deployed with destructive effect in Vietnam.

The plane carrying the device has to fly above 6,000feet to escape being destroyed by the blast.

The bomb detonates three feet above the ground, spraying tiny droplets of fuel-based explosive into the air where they create a massive 'air burst', a huge explosion, marked by a mushroom cloud.

The blast is so powerful that it kills everything within a 600-metre radius. Anything close to the blast is incinerated, while people farther away die when the air is sucked from their lungs.

No, they're not. A single daisycutter cannot kill 1000+ people. Maybe if we carpetbomb with them.
It depends on density. If a daisy cutter was droped in the middle of a city, the results would be catostrophic. Then again, it'd be the same with any weapon.
The special trait about WMDs is that they leave damage after they've been used. Chemical and biological agents spread, except bio weapons have the capacity to take out human life. Nuclear weapons leave a radioactive fallout that produces problems for millenia (Japan still has the highest cancer rate). Daisy cutters don't leave a thing.

Dude, you're making me look bad, you take my half-coherent just-woke-up posts and add logic to them.

What about all the 'daisy cutters' they used in Afghanistan?
There was only one used for show, in a remote area where it killed very few people, except maybe some al-Qaeda hiding in their caves. Would you'd prefered a MOAB?

Well, they used at least two in Iraq.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2003/apr/03iraq6.htm
The use of two Daisy Cutters is an indication that the US has stepped up attacks on the Iraqis.

They contain 6,804kg of fuel-air explosives, a variation of the deadly napalm [meant to destroy targets with high temperature flame], which the US deployed with destructive effect in Vietnam.

The plane carrying the device has to fly above 6,000feet to escape being destroyed by the blast.

The bomb detonates three feet above the ground, spraying tiny droplets of fuel-based explosive into the air where they create a massive 'air burst', a huge explosion, marked by a mushroom cloud.

The blast is so powerful that it kills everything within a 600-metre radius. Anything close to the blast is incinerated, while people farther away die when the air is sucked from their lungs.
I heard. One was used at a border installation. The other was used on a tank covoy.

Dude, you're making me look bad, you take my half-coherent just-woke-up posts and add logic to them.
Relax, logic works better than ranting. We'll win in the end, trust me.

Dude, you're making me look bad, you take my half-coherent just-woke-up posts and add logic to them.
Relax, logic works better than ranting. We'll win in the end, trust me.
The truth is the same in any language, even half-coherent ranting. =)

I have a reason that isn't any of them. It is to lure terrorists into Iraq, and fight them there. This will destroy what is left of al-Qaeda.

This is one of the stupidest things i have ever heard. I really doubt that all the al-qaeda operatives will be lured to iraq. They are not that stupid.

And would you really want them there, killing more Americans? More than 300 Americans have already died in this insane war. How much more blood will it take?


Moreover, if we can get a stable democracy in the region, it'll have a ripple effect, and destroy the tyrannies that breed behavior to destroy us.

Do you really think the Iraqis want a 'democracy' enforced on them by a foreign invader?


WMDs were a cover used by the administration since the American people wouldn't readily support a war for that reason alone.

You got that right. Lies and deceipt are all in a days work for Bush and his cronies.


And since Iraq has a head start, I believe it can be as economically powerful as Germany or Japan.

Oh no, not a World War 2 analogy! :cry:

I have a reason that isn't any of them. It is to lure terrorists into Iraq, and fight them there. This will destroy what is left of al-Qaeda.

This is one of the stupidest things i have ever heard. I really doubt that all the al-qaeda operatives will be lured to iraq. They are not that stupid.

And would you really want them there, killing more Americans? More than 300 Americans have already died in this insane war. How much more blood will it take?


Moreover, if we can get a stable democracy in the region, it'll have a ripple effect, and destroy the tyrannies that breed behavior to destroy us.

Do you really think the Iraqis want a 'democracy' enforced on them by a foreign invader?


WMDs were a cover used by the administration since the American people wouldn't readily support a war for that reason alone.

You got that right. Lies and deceipt are all in a days work for Bush and his cronies.


And since Iraq has a head start, I believe it can be as economically powerful as Germany or Japan.

Oh no, not a World War 2 analogy! :cry:
The only reason you don't like any of this is because it supports Israel, which, in your view, shouldn't be respected as a nation.
As for a democracy in Iraq. We occupied Japan for seven years. If our troops are in there for a longer period of time than that, I will protest. There are large elements of the Iraqi population who want an Islamic republic, much less stringient than Iran's. It also won't have those aylotollahs, just not a separation of mosque and state.
As for luring al-Qaeda, they've been lured into Iraq already, thanks to Ansar al-Islam, and general resentment among fundementalist circles. It'll clear them out, and then, we can do the really hard work: get rid of the dictatorships and Wahabiism that breed this stuff.

You call me a liar? You, the man who claimed that there were no gas chambers at Auschwits? That they were a lie made up by the "jewish media"? hahahaha

By the way, Ted Turner (creator of CNN) doesn't seem like a jew to me, BBC-publically funded by the British government isn't run by the Jews, Fox-News obviously isn't run by the Jews.. please, tell me again how the Jews control the media?

The only reason you don't like any of this is because it supports Israel, which, in your view, shouldn't be respected as a nation.

I don't see how israel deserves any of my 'respect', but i don't advocate its destruction if that's what you are implying. I would not support this murderous, filthy war for any reason!

As for a democracy in Iraq. We occupied Japan for seven years. If our troops are in there for a longer period of time than that, I will protest.

Japan attacked America. Iraq didn't do anything to America.

It took two atomic bombs to subdue Japan. What will it take before Iraq becomes a nice, submissive puppet?


There are large elements of the Iraqi population who want an Islamic republic, much less stringient than Iran's. It also won't have those aylotollahs, just not a separation of mosque and state.

So basically, your idea of Iraq 'democracy' is an Islamic regime? How ironic that the US will be helping to build such a thing.


As for luring al-Qaeda, they've been lured into Iraq already, thanks to Ansar al-Islam, and general resentment among fundementalist circles. It'll clear them out, and then, we can do the really hard work: get rid of the dictatorships and Wahabiism that breed this stuff.

So all of al-qaeda have been lured into iraq? That's what you seem to be implying.

Why is it America's responsible to be global policeman, 'fixing the world' to make it kosher?

Such arrogance :x

You call me a liar? You, the man who claimed that there were no gas chambers at Auschwits? That they were a lie made up by the "jewish media"? hahahaha

I'd prefer to discuss gas chambers on the holocaust thread, rather than here if you don't mind. They were lie made up by the Allies actually, to deflect attention away from the gulags and Soviet atrocities.

By the way, Ted Turner (creator of CNN) doesn't seem like a jew to me, BBC-publically funded by the British government isn't run by the Jews, Fox-News obviously isn't run by the Jews.. please, tell me again how the Jews control the media?

You will find all the information you need below.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66966&highlight=

Soviet Atrocities? Really, well, considering we were at odds with the Russians by 1946, and being that the Russians were the ones who liberated the worst camps in Poland, I find that a bit hard to believe...


Somehow, you're bull just keeps coming in waves, why is it you loathe the Jews so much?

Soviet Atrocities? Really, well, considering we were at odds with the Russians by 1946, and being that the Russians were the ones who liberated the worst camps in Poland, I find that a bit hard to believe...

The Soviet Communists participated in the Nuremberg Trials. Because the British and Americans had allied with the Bolsheviks all throughout the war, they wanted to justify it by presenting a story that the Germans had used their insecticide pellets to murder millions of Jews. By minimising the crimes of the Bolsheviks and exaggerating the crimes of the Third Reich, they could try and justify what they did to the German people and who they allied with in order to do it.


why is it you loathe the Jews so much?

Loathing isn't the right word. I don't loathe a poisonous snake but i recognise that it is a potentially harmful being that i should avoid and warn others about.

Soviet Atrocities? Really, well, considering we were at odds with the Russians by 1946, and being that the Russians were the ones who liberated the worst camps in Poland, I find that a bit hard to believe...

The Soviet Communists participated in the Nuremberg Trials. Because the British and Americans had allied with the Bolsheviks all throughout the war, they wanted to justify it by presenting a story that the Germans had used their insecticide pellets to murder millions of Jews. By minimising the crimes of the Bolsheviks and exaggerating the crimes of the Third Reich, they could try and justify what they did to the German people and who they allied with in order to do it.


why is it you loathe the Jews so much?

Loathing isn't the right word. I don't loathe a poisonous snake but i recognise that it is a potentially harmful being that i should avoid and warn others about.
So you compare Jews to poisonous snakes? I don't think most Americans think of Islam that way.
Anyhow, what the Soviets did were no less atrocious. But what happened in Germany happened. We have testimony to prove it. Most importantly was Hans Frank, Minister of Eastern Holdings of the Third Reich. He testified about the Nazi death camps.
Then there was Heinrich Himmler, comander of the SS. His testimony was very valuable.
Also, Jews were not the only people to be gassed. Three million Slavs were sent to gas chambers. There were about a million gays, disabled, Gypsies, and blacks also sent to chambers. The rest were political prisoners. However, the priests and ministers weren't sent to death chambers. Instead, the Nazis prefered to work them to death.
There were also a lot of identical twins sent to Dacchau. The Nazis preformed expirements so horrible I can't describe them. Werner von Braun also told us that Hitler loved to strap POWs or one of his prisoners onto rockets, and blow them into the stratesphere. Also, don't forget the countless testimonies by Jews and captured Slavs. None of them said the Holocaust didn't happen.
And actually, there was a biline in The New York Times printed in 1942. It said that some Nazi boasted about killing more than a million Jews. Sadly, this didn't find its way to the front page.

Well since we have scientific proof (the leuchter report) that zyklon b was never used in the Auschwitz 'gas chambers' it makes any claims of gassing, regardless of the reasons or numbers involved, suspicious.

btw, i agree with Aryan tribes on this one, this thread is about Iraq. If people want to debate the holocaust then they should either create another thread or use an already exisiting one. Cheers

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Well since we have scientific proof (the leuchter report) that zyklon b was never used in the Auschwitz 'gas chambers' it makes any claims of gassing, regardless of the reasons or numbers involved, suspicious.

btw, i agree with Aryan tribes on this one, this thread is about Iraq. If people want to debate the holocaust then they should either create another thread or use an already exisiting one. Cheers
Archaeological evidence shows buildings that were half furnace, and not used for much else. Was that building at Aushwitz intended to be a giant sauna? If so, why weren't there concentration camps in Finland?

No flaming or baiting please. Please be more careful.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

These don't make sense. First off, why would we want an imperial colony. Secodly if we wanted there oil, why aren't we taking it. We are leaving it for iraq. Thirdly, You don't even know why we support israel. We feel obligated because we felt we had to place them there to protect them from another holocaust. Besides we are pushing for peace, not violence. Besides why is EVERYTHING that the U.S. does is supposbly linked to Israel. If we even go near the Middle East, they think we are trying to make israel dominate

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/leuchter-faq-22.html

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/

Thank you. Will everyone who has an opinion please click on these links and read them.

These don't make sense. First off, why would we want an imperial colony. Secodly if we wanted there oil, why aren't we taking it. We are leaving it for iraq. Thirdly, You don't even know why we support israel. We feel obligated because we felt we had to place them there to protect them from another holocaust. Besides we are pushing for peace, not violence. Besides why is EVERYTHING that the U.S. does is supposbly linked to Israel. If we even go near the Middle East, they think we are trying to make israel dominate
Exactly. It is just general resentment of Israel, and I think it mostly stems from the fact that the Arabs can't win. They are in as much soul searching over that as some Americans are about Vietnam.

BUMP

These don't make sense. First off, why would we want an imperial colony.

Mercantilism. There is a fixed amount of wealth in the world. He who controls the most resources controls the most wealth.

Secodly if we wanted there oil, why aren't we taking it. We are leaving it for iraq.

I'm assuming that you aren't away of Haliburton's contract to construct oil pipelines through Iraq. First things first, I guess.

Thirdly, You don't even know why we support israel.

Because we need an ally in the region.

We feel obligated because we felt we had to place them there to protect them from another holocaust.

You've got to be kidding me. We don't give a Christ about anyone, and American foreign policy from 1945-present illustrates that fact.

Besides we are pushing for peace, not violence.

No, we aren't. If we were pushing for peace, we should have seriously scorned Sharon for bombing Syria like the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD, yet we were noticably silent. If we were pushing for peace, we'd stop selling instruments of warfare to Sharon, who in turn uses them to murder 10 Palestinian civilians for every 1 Israeli civilian who dies in a Palestinian attack.

Besides why is EVERYTHING that the U.S. does is supposbly linked to Israel.

Because their news sources and their politicians tell them that. Just like when Bush told the US that Iraq had WMD, 60% of the country believed him. I think you can step off your soapbox now. Kinda sucks to be human like everyone else, doesn't it?

If we even go near the Middle East, they think we are trying to make israel dominate

If we took a stance against Israel every now and then, (say, when they murder Palestinian children. This happens a lot, so there is ample opportunity) then they wouldn't be inclined to believe as such. It may not be entirely accurate, but our treatment of Israel as a 51st state doesn't make your position seem credible to these people.

These don't make sense. First off, why would we want an imperial colony.

Mercantilism. There is a fixed amount of wealth in the world. He who controls the most resources controls the most wealth.

Secodly if we wanted there oil, why aren't we taking it. We are leaving it for iraq.

I'm assuming that you aren't away of Haliburton's contract to construct oil pipelines through Iraq. First things first, I guess.

Thirdly, You don't even know why we support israel.

Because we need an ally in the region.

We feel obligated because we felt we had to place them there to protect them from another holocaust.

You've got to be kidding me. We don't give a Christ about anyone, and American foreign policy from 1945-present illustrates that fact.

Besides we are pushing for peace, not violence.

No, we aren't. If we were pushing for peace, we should have seriously scorned Sharon for bombing Syria like the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD, yet we were noticably silent. If we were pushing for peace, we'd stop selling instruments of warfare to Sharon, who in turn uses them to murder 10 Palestinian civilians for every 1 Israeli civilian who dies in a Palestinian attack.

Besides why is EVERYTHING that the U.S. does is supposbly linked to Israel.

Because their news sources and their politicians tell them that. Just like when Bush told the US that Iraq had WMD, 60% of the country believed him. I think you can step off your soapbox now. Kinda sucks to be human like everyone else, doesn't it?

If we even go near the Middle East, they think we are trying to make israel dominate

If we took a stance against Israel every now and then, (say, when they murder Palestinian children. This happens a lot, so there is ample opportunity) then they wouldn't be inclined to believe as such. It may not be entirely accurate, but our treatment of Israel as a 51st state doesn't make your position seem credible to these people.
In defense of Israel, I have to say they don't murder, per se. For fairness, the Palestinians, not all of them, at least, are mindless murderers. Israel is retaliating against Palestinians. Their objective is obviously to drive them back into the sea. Israel must defend against that. I'm not a fan of Sharon, since I think that some of his decisions instigate violence. However, something needs to be done. It'd be no different if it were Ehud Barak, or Yitzak Rabin.
As for American foreign policy. We have committed some serious wrongs since 1945. However, look at the result. Due in part to these shameless acts, good came out of it, ironically. Nearly a billion people were liberated from the USSR, in part due to our foreign policy.
And it shows some good, especially recently. A battalion of National Guardsmen supplied two villages in the mountains of Albania with food when they needed it most. We didn't have to stay in Japan after our occupation ended. The Soviets or Chinese would try to bring it under their influence. Instead, we stayed. It provided a reasonable tripwire to whatever these countries thought.
As for Latin America, even eventual liberation is no excuse for what we did. However, we have learned from our mistakes. Proxy wars don't work, and neither do dictatorships. Democracy works. Spread it, in any way possible. You'll point to Afghanistan, and the warlords there. I'll say that the major cities are secured by us, and under the power of the AIA. Soon, the main highway from Kabul to Khandahar will also be under AIA control.

This is my choice "Bad Boys..Bad Boys...What you gonna do when they come for you"

In defense of Israel, I have to say they don't murder, per se. For fairness, the Palestinians, not all of them, at least, are mindless murderers.

Thanks for the divination, but if I were ito mysticism I'd stick with Aleister Crowley. His crystal ball is bigger than yours.

Israel is retaliating against Palestinians.

I'm sorry, but I am not as stupid as you wish I were. I can manage simple mathematics, and 10 Palestinians to 1 Israeli does not equal retaliation. It equals mindless revenge, i.e. murder.

Their objective is obviously to drive them back into the sea.

Obviously, Ms. Cleo. I was under the impression that the Palestinians wanted a country to call their own, but hey, if Anthrus says otherwise...

Israel must defend against that.

By tossing rockets into refugee camps filled with women and children? I have a piece of sound logic for you, because you don't seem to be in touch with the real world. Every time an Israeli kills an innocent Palestinian, another suicide bomber is born. You can't scare people who have nothing into submission. It didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work in Israel.

I'm not a fan of Sharon, since I think that some of his decisions instigate violence. However, something needs to be done. It'd be no different if it were Ehud Barak, or Yitzak Rabin.

Wow. It must be pretty cool to be omniscient. I mean, making calls on how the world would be were certain people still in it. Regardless, the fact that Rabin had a workable peace-plan that was accepted by Palestine seems to elude you. So does the fact that he was murdered by an Israeli, not a Palestinian. That says something about how willing Israel is to embrace peace as well.


As for American foreign policy. We have committed some serious wrongs since 1945. However, look at the result.

Brutal puppet dictatorships have been set up all over the world and thousands have died as a result, yet your wording is leading me to believe that in the next couple of lines you are going to toss out some BS "the end justifies the means" crap.

Due in part to these shameless acts, good came out of it, ironically

Cha-ching.

Nearly a billion people were liberated from the USSR, in part due to our foreign policy.

And partly due to Solidarity, economic ruin, and, ironically, the Catholic Church. Among former Red Army brass, it is widely regarded that Reagan sped up the fall of the Soviet Union by a week to ten days.

But, to get back on track, you've now got a huge hole to dig yourself out of. Thousands died, millions are now oppressed, and you are justifying it through using the "liberation" (it's not really liberated, as now they live under the fist of the Russian Mafya) of the Soviet Union. Are the Russians more deserving of life and liberty than, say, the Guatamalans? The Chileans?

And it shows some good, especially recently. A battalion of National Guardsmen supplied two villages in the mountains of Albania with food when they needed it most.

I guess you're right. It's an excellent thing that thousands died in Chile so that we could get to Albania a few hours faster!

We didn't have to stay in Japan after our occupation ended. The Soviets or Chinese would try to bring it under their influence. Instead, we stayed. It provided a reasonable tripwire to whatever these countries thought.
As for Latin America, even eventual liberation is no excuse for what we did. However, we have learned from our mistakes.

Um, two questions: Afghanistan? Iraq?

Proxy wars don't work, and neither do dictatorships. Democracy works. Spread it, in any way possible. You'll point to Afghanistan, and the warlords there. I'll say that the major cities are secured by us, and under the power of the AIA. Soon, the main highway from Kabul to Khandahar will also be under AIA control.

Yes, that's right. Convert the heathens!

I'm sorry, but there's no way I can agree with that. Marching into someone's country and ordering them all, at the barrel of a gun, to change their whole system because "We said so", is not what democracy is all about.

Political change is a natural process of sorts. People are self-determined, and when the time comes they will demand a new system. It is up to them, not you.

Lastly, I have a little ditty for you to consider. The worth of a nation is not judged by how many countries it invades, but how it treats its lowest class of citizens.

Do you not know? The Chileans are now free. Free because they overthrew their government. We didn't help Pinochet because he turned out to be a disastor for our foreign policy. Those were the dirty days of American foreign policy. The only reason you want to shine Afghanistan and Iraq in a very bad light is because a president you don't like is at the helm of this.
As for Israel, you can hate it all you wish. But that won't stop people like myself from supporting it. I disagree with quite a bit with what they do. But wherever Jews go, they seem to be oppressed. The prime example is the Holocaust. If you don't believe it (as many anti Zionists don't), then there are the Gulags, the Crusades, the Arab invasions, Roman persecutions. The list is endless. They aren't safe even from people like myself. They need their own country, since no matter where they go, or what they do, people hate them. At the very least, now, they have their own nation to defend themselves with.

In defense of Israel, I have to say they don't murder, per se

Killing non-jews isn't murder?

In defense of Israel, I have to say they don't murder, per se

Killing non-jews isn't murder?
All I'm saying is that the intent matters. If it is killing a person for personal reasons, it is murder. If they turn out to be an unfortunate victim of cross fire, or happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, it was unintended, as was a killing. There is a difference, and this doesn't just apply to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Compelling evidence, Aryan Tribes. I'm sure that Bush foreign policy is dictated by a 7-year old document which the president probably wouldn't understand even if he were to read it. And I suppose he cites the Magna Carta when trumpeting executive-Congressional cooperation. And the Act of Supremacy when touting faith-based initiatives.

Tell me this -- if the U.S. government was acting as a proxy for the Israeli cause, why wouldn't it simply eradicate the Palestinians as did your ideological progenitors did to the Jews six decades ago? Why not even Syria first, which poses a much greater immediate threat to Israel than Iraq in the days of Saddam? If the Jews wield as much power as you contend, which is hardly a novel contention at that, why would they take such wishy-washy actions toward the pursuit of their goals? I'm sure that if you wielded such power, you'd not dither in the execution of your nefarious designs.

If you're going to broach conspiracy theories in the future, as you're wont to do, at least make them credible -- like the oil cronyism in the administration, or a family vendetta. By lambasting the Bush administration, your efforts to curry favor with Leftists in the pursuit of your pernicious dogma become increasingly transparent. Real leftists who seek truth and justice will not be easily moved, but I cannot speak for those with a blind anti-American and anti-Israeli bent. It is an expedient alliance against a common scapegoat, I suppose, but destined to crumble before the ethnic cleansing you advocate comes to fruition.

In defense of Israel, I have to say they don't murder, per se

Killing non-jews isn't murder?
All I'm saying is that the intent matters. If it is killing a person for personal reasons, it is murder. If they turn out to be an unfortunate victim of cross fire, or happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, it was unintended, as was a killing. There is a difference, and this doesn't just apply to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.


Murder is the killing of a human being, as far as i am aware. Your claim that the Israelis don't engage in murder is patently false, and i am surprised you don't see that.

Gee why would Israel be on this Flame bait Hate Thread.


Some things never change.

What Israel is up against (http://avpv.tripod.com/terror-groups.html)

1970
http://cporadio.home.texas.net/Fatah-70.jpg

2000
http://cporadio.home.texas.net/fatah-49.jpg

These ain't Palestinian Boy Scouts.

P.S. Notice they aren't photoshopped propaganda items.

The Abu Nidal group, once defined by the US State Department as “the most dangerous terrorist organization in existence,” has not been active in the past decade. This is due to lessened support from Iraq and later of Libya, as well as the serious illness of its leader Sabri Khalil al-Bana (a.k.a. “Abu Nidal.”). In the period of 1973-1994 the group
carried out numerous terrorist operations, in which more than 200 people were killed and about 700 wounded.

Over the years, Abu Nidal has received considerable support, including safe haven, training, logistic assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria in addition to close support for selected operations. The targets of this group included Israel, Jewish individuals and institutions,
Arab individuals and institutions, Palestinian leaders and foreign individuals... in other words, Israel and Jews or those Arab/Palestinians who have not been vigorous enough in killing them!

Abu Nidal or Sabri Khalil al-Bana was found in IRAQ by U.S. forces.

HAMAS was formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the "Muslim Brotherhood." The ultimate goal of HAMAS, as with all the other Palestinian terror groups, is the elimination of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic Arab Palestinian State. HAMAS uses both
political and violent means, including terrorism, to pursue this goal. HAMAS is loosely structured.
Some elements working clandestinely while others working openly through mosques and social service institutions to recruit members, raise money, organize activities, and distribute propaganda. HAMAS's strength is concentrated in the Gaza Strip and a
few areas of the West Bank. To gather a semblance of "legitimacy," HAMAS also has engaged in peaceful political activity, such as running candidates in Gaza and West Bank elections. But their goal is the same... the violent destruction of Israel.
Sheik Ahmed Yassin has long been the spiritual leader of this hard-line terrorist group.

HAMAS receives funding from Palestinian expatriates, Iran, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other "moderate!" Arab states. Some fundraising and propaganda activities take place in
Western Europe and North America.

And apparently, some propaganda efforts on NS as well.

In defense of Israel, I have to say they don't murder, per se

Killing non-jews isn't murder?
All I'm saying is that the intent matters. If it is killing a person for personal reasons, it is murder. If they turn out to be an unfortunate victim of cross fire, or happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, it was unintended, as was a killing. There is a difference, and this doesn't just apply to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.


Murder is the killing of a human being, as far as i am aware. Your claim that the Israelis don't engage in murder is patently false, and i am surprised you don't see that.
I'm not saying they don't murder. There have been instances of murder by all powerful institutions. But each Palestinian death is not murder, as unfortunate as it is. A few are, like the murders of those powerful HAMAS militants. But not every case.

In defense of Israel, I have to say they don't murder...

...I'm not saying they don't murder.

In defense of Israel, I have to say they don't murder...

...I'm not saying they don't murder.

I meant that I'm not saying they don't murder in isolated incidences.

Compelling evidence, Aryan Tribes. I'm sure that Bush foreign policy is dictated by a 7-year old document which the president probably wouldn't understand even if he were to read it.

I didn't say Bush's policy was dictated by that document. Three of the authors happen to have prominent roles in the Bush administration right now. It has been well noted that 'neocons' were behind the push to war with Iraq, and the leading neocons are Zionist Jews.

The War in Iraq-Conceived in Israel (http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm)

Ten Lies about Iraq (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16274)

IRAQ IS THE 'FLYTRAP'
– and U.S. troops are the bait. (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j091203.html)




Tell me this -- if the U.S. government was acting as a proxy for the Israeli cause, why wouldn't it simply eradicate the Palestinians as did your ideological progenitors did to the Jews six decades ago?

Um....because that would erase almost all worldwide support for the US government?


Why not even Syria first, which poses a much greater immediate threat to Israel than Iraq in the days of Saddam?

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm



It is an expedient alliance against a common scapegoat (http://www.israelofgod.org/azazel.htm), I suppose, but destined to crumble before the ethnic cleansing you advocate comes to fruition.

I haven't advocated any ethnic cleansing, thank you.