NationStates Jolt Archive

Found this article to be fairly interesting.. It echoes my sentiments regarding the whole "American Foreign Policy" situation.. Sorry if it has been posted before..

================================================

Why the West is Losing
By Eric Margolis – Toronto Sun September 12, 2004

Three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America's politicians and media continue to gravely deceive the public about the so-called war on terrorism.

Now the definitive book on terrorism has appeared that should be mandatory reading for every thinking person. It's called mperial Hubris: Why The West is Losing the War on Terror.

The cover simply identifies the author as "Anonymous," but he's already been widely identified in the American media as Michael Scheuer, a senior terrorism analyst for the CIA.

It is unprecedented that a serving CIA officer was allowed to publish a book, one that is clearly a dramatic rebuke to the neoconservatives who drove the U.S. into two wars.

Scheuer's work is a goldmine of information and brilliant analysis. It breaks taboos and sweeps away the clouds of lies about al-Qaida, Iraq and Afghanistan. He says U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious -- "we are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency -- not criminality or terrorism."

The U.S. has made only "a modest dent in enemy forces."

None of bin Laden's reasons for waging war on the U.S., writes Scheuer, "have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy (as President George Bush claims), but everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world," notably unlimited support for Israel's repression of the Palestinians and the destruction of Iraq.

"For cheap, easily accessible oil, Washington and the West have supported Muslim tyrannies (Osama) bin Laden and other Islamists seek to destroy," Scheuer writes. "The war has the potential to last beyond our children's lifetimes and be fought mostly on U.S. soil."

A coup for bin Laden

Bin Laden, argues Scheuer, is widely viewed by much of the Muslim world, infuriated by American actions in the Mideast, as neither a terrorist or madman but as a skilled warrior, the sole Muslim leader standing up to predatory western powers.

Ironically U.S. and British military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq "are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world," a prime bin Laden goal.

Bush's misbegotten invasion of Iraq was "icing on bin Laden's cake."

The threat today facing America "is the defensive jihad (holy struggle), an Islamic military reaction triggered by an attack by non-Muslims on the Islamic faith, on Muslims, on Muslim territory." Muslims are increasingly fighting back.

The Muslim world believes it is under total attack led by Bush -- a massive effort to crush all who oppose U.S. domination, destroy Islam's inherent political role, eliminate Muslim charities, impose western values on the Islamic world and maintain puppet rulers -- "spreading democracy" in Bush's lexicon. Terrorism is merely the tactics of the poor fighting the rich.

The ultimate taboo

"U.S. military operations in the Muslim world," he adds, "validate bin Laden's contention the U.S. is attacking Islam and supports any country willing to kill or persecute Muslims."

Scheuer, breaking the ultimate taboo, observes of Washington's "one-way alliance" with Israel that "Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to the ... Jewish state and its policies."

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost causes, Scheuer concludes. The U.S. is totally unable to create legitimate governments in either chaotic nation, only puppet regimes, supported by American bayonets.

If the U.S. stays, it will bleed endlessly; if it retreats, it faces political disaster.

Washington, he charges, has no strategy and is merely "winging it."

In one of his most acute insights, Scheuer explains the U.S. cannot, for all of its riches, buy its way to victory in Afghanistan or Iraq.

"Honour is still the currency of value in the Middle East, more so than goods and services."

Blood-links trump all other affiliations or loyalties.

Honour is why the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden to the U.S., a man they regarded as their guest and a war hero, and why he has still not been betrayed in spite of a $25-million US reward in a nation where the annual income is $147.

At least there is one person in Washington who understands the violence surrounding us -- and has the courage and patriotism to tell Americans the truth: Their own arrogance and ignorance are driving them into a no-win war against 1.3 billion Muslims.

================================

Thoughts?

Link to source: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2267

Well, I agree with this statement anyway:

"we are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency -- not criminality or terrorism."

The only problem with this is that he didn't factor in the desire among many, if not most, Islamists to reinstitue the Caliphate and thus reclaim Islam's "rightful" place as a major force in the world.

Well the author is not intirely correct.

Of course I forget the fellows name but I can find it if you like.

He was the influence of Bin Laden and his number 2. He was hung by Nasser. This fellow said the US is the enemy of Islam not because of it's actions, not because of it's support of Israel but because of it's concept of the seperation of Church and State.

The Author probably thinks the Muslim is unbeatable due to the Soviet "adventures" in Afghanistan.

He also either missed or ignored the news blip of Iraqi's in Fullajah(sp) killing Jihaadis. About 6 so far. It seems they don't like the strict Islam beliefs they bring in. It appears the Jihaddis hastle women because they are convered head to toe in black. One Shiite killed one because he would not pray at the tomb of his ancestors.

Finally, yes their are 1.3 billion Muslims. They aren't all going to run to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Hmmm no suggested solutions to the mess mentioned.....

Link to source: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2267
Hmm nice source,
heres a few more gems from the "truthseeker"
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/category.asp?ID=44

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/category.asp?ID=35

Wow, just wow- It should really be called "thebullshitseeker"

Hmm nice source,
heres a few more gems from the "truthseeker"
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/category.asp?ID=44

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/category.asp?ID=35

Wow, just wow- It should really be called "thebullshitseeker"

I realize the bias involved in The Truth Seeker, but that isn't the point.

The article was written by an author independent of The Truth Seeker, and published in a worldwide newspaper also independent of The Truth Seeker.

The guy who wrote that is an idiot. He called terrorism "the means of the poor fighting the rich", I wonder whether any of the 350 children murdered in Beslan would agree with him, or even if any of the 1,000's of Iraqis who've died as a result of attacks in which THEY, not the American troops were the target.

"An attack on Islam" - another interesting phrase, whatever the rights or wrongs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are, I fail to see how removing two tyrannical regimes in an attempt to promote freedom and democracy is an attack on Islam. Only an idiot would think that freedom and democracy are Western values and not universal ones.

Then he goes on a bit about honour - ah yes, the fabled honour of the terrorist, the honour of murdering innocent men, women and children of all races, the honour of using drug money to finance attacks in an attempt to kill as many people as possible, the honour of beheading people and then putting it on the internet, the honour of torture.

It strikes me that if we do not win this "war", then nobody will, because nobody else can. The writer seems to ignore that fact.

Afghanistan and Iraq will be stable, relatively successful democracies within the next 25 years and if this can be called a war then it is one that we will win because we are right and because we must.

"An attack on Islam" - another interesting phrase, whatever the rights or wrongs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are, I fail to see how removing two tyrannical regimes in an attempt to promote freedom and democracy is an attack on Islam. Only an idiot would think that freedom and democracy are Western values and not universal ones.

Only an idiot would still buy the story that the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to promote freedom and democracy.

"An attack on Islam" - another interesting phrase, whatever the rights or wrongs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are, I fail to see how removing two tyrannical regimes in an attempt to promote freedom and democracy is an attack on Islam. Only an idiot would think that freedom and democracy are Western values and not universal ones.

Hmm.. Funny.. It's not the "removing two tyrannical regimes" that we as Middle Easterners oppose, it is the method of removal, and the virtual substitution of two puppet dictatorships for the two former puppets that managed to go astray.

It doesn't matter how much you as Americans want to put the US-Saddam relationship behind you, the fact is, it happened. You can't deny that. Saddam was your puppet. Saddam remained a puppet of the US of A. When he started defying you, you stormed into his backyard and committed genocide in his country.. and you know what is just sick about that??.. You claimed that you did it in the name of freedom, liberty, and democracy.

You still support dozens of despotic regimes in the Middle East.

You have to realize that revolution would only be successful if it came from within. But then again, you're not really after revolution, are you?.. You are just after securing your own interests.

Afghanistan and Iraq will be stable, relatively successful democracies within the next 25 years and if this can be called a war then it is one that we will win because we are right and because we must.

Ehehe.. Ignorance.. You just keep thinking that.. You just keep thinking that..

Bump

ehh, Saddam was never a puppet of the U.S. We supported him, sure, but he's no puppet. Neither were the Taliban for that matter. (I don't think we ever supported that government).

Do we do business with countries with unsavory governments? Yep, just like just about every other country in the world.

Btw, since you're a middle eastener, can you do the honors and name a Middle East country that gives more money to the Palestinians than the US?

As an end, I think it's up to the Afghanis and the Iraqis to determine if they want a legitimate democratic nation or not. The kurds figured it out, now it's up to the shiites and the sunnis to figure it out.

I wonder why anyone debates this anymore. Its said to say, and I’m guilty of it too, that everyone seems to have made up their minds. But perhaps the truly sad thing is that now that everyone has decided all contrary logic is refutable and all corroborative logic is undeniable. The other side is obviously too stupid to see it.

Perhaps even sadder is the fact that wars are now inevitable. The only way we’re going to win is by killing anyone who disagrees with us. So I figure with 25 million in Iraq, about half of them hate the US, so 12.5 million need to disappear.

Now I can’t comment on what the ratio is in Enduring Freedom but in the gulf it was .01. So if we need to kill 12,500,000 Iraqis at a ratio of .01 that makes for 125,000 dead Americans. Is this acceptable?

I realize that this is a gross hyperbole but it goes to show that a compromise needs to be made, somewhere.

ehh, Saddam was never a puppet of the U.S. We supported him, sure, but he's no puppet. Neither were the Taliban for that matter. (I don't think we ever supported that government).

Do we do business with countries with unsavory governments? Yep, just like just about every other country in the world.

Btw, since you're a middle eastener, can you do the honors and name a Middle East country that gives more money to the Palestinians than the US?

As an end, I think it's up to the Afghanis and the Iraqis to determine if they want a legitimate democratic nation or not. The kurds figured it out, now it's up to the shiites and the sunnis to figure it out.

Actually there were some huge protests by the Shiites for democracy, but it involved an exodus of US troops to appease them. So your offending the majority by being there.

As for the Taliban well, you guys did supply Osama bin Laden with stinger missiles to fight against the Soviets. That’s why the reference to the Taliban thinking he was a war hero.

I think what the Iraqis want is self determination. Fine they’ve been freed from their dictator, now educate don’t preach. Step aside and let them figure it out themselves, at some point we need to let these people sink or swim. We’ve taken off the yoke and its their turn to shine.

I don't think it matters whether the Iraqis love us, hate us, or are indifferent. What matters is if they have the wherewithal to create a stable Iraq.

It doesn't matter how much you as Americans want to put the US-Saddam relationship behind you, the fact is, it happened. You can't deny that. Saddam was your puppet. Saddam remained a puppet of the US of A. When he started defying you, you stormed into his backyard and committed genocide in his country.. and you know what is just sick about that??.. You claimed that you did it in the name of freedom, liberty, and democracy.



Can you tell me what "genocide" we have committed in the middle east?

Actually there were some huge protests by the Shiites for democracy, but it involved an exodus of US troops to appease them. So your offending the majority by being there.

Yeah that's sort of my point.

As for the Taliban well, you guys did supply Osama bin Laden with stinger missiles to fight against the Soviets. That’s why the reference to the Taliban thinking he was a war hero.

Even if it were true that we supplied OBL with missiles, the point the author was making was that we supported the Taliban govt, which is false.

I think what the Iraqis want is self determination. Fine they’ve been freed from their dictator, now educate don’t preach. Step aside and let them figure it out themselves, at some point we need to let these people sink or swim. We’ve taken off the yoke and its their turn to shine.

Isn't that what we're doing? If anything, I'd say the US isn't giving them *enough* support (e.g. utilities like water and electricity, housing, jobs, security, etc).

Even if it were true that we supplied OBL with missiles, the point the author was making was that we supported the Taliban govt, which is false. It is true. The US gave money to the taliban so they stopped producers of opium. They did it with mass executions and terror.

Isn't that what we're doing? If anything, I'd say the US isn't giving them *enough* support (e.g. utilities like water and electricity, housing, jobs, security, etc).
Saddam was doing that.

Saddam was doing that.But Saddam killed a lot of people and everything. and he produced weapons. Saddam is EVIL 1!1!oneoneone!1! OMG WTF.

Only an idiot would still buy the story that the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to promote freedom and democracy.


That's irrelevant the fact is that freedom and democracy will be promoted via the incursion even if it was not the reason for invasion. The only thing that stands between a democratic and free Iraqi state are the Islamic fundamentalists who are determined to wreck it.

What would you say the real reason for invasion was then - oil? Interesting because any idiot would realise that the cost of destabilisng the middle East would be a worldwide hike in oil prices.

That's irrelevant the fact is that freedom and democracy will be promoted via the incursion even if it was not the reason for invasion. The only thing that stands between a democratic and free Iraqi state are the Islamic fundamentalists who are determined to wreck it.

What would you say the real reason for invasion was then - oil? Interesting because any idiot would realise that the cost of destabilisng the middle East would be a worldwide hike in oil prices.And that's good for halliburton, isn't it? They now sell their oil double the price. They couldn't handle the competition with Iraq.

As for the islamic fundamentalists, remember Saddam was there to stop them. Now that he is removed, they will rise and rise again. So what's the plan?

Hmm.. Funny.. It's not the "removing two tyrannical regimes" that we as Middle Easterners oppose, it is the method of removal, and the virtual substitution of two puppet dictatorships for the two former puppets that managed to go astray.

It doesn't matter how much you as Americans want to put the US-Saddam relationship behind you, the fact is, it happened. You can't deny that. Saddam was your puppet. Saddam remained a puppet of the US of A. When he started defying you, you stormed into his backyard and committed genocide in his country.. and you know what is just sick about that??.. You claimed that you did it in the name of freedom, liberty, and democracy.

You still support dozens of despotic regimes in the Middle East.

You have to realize that revolution would only be successful if it came from within. But then again, you're not really after revolution, are you?.. You are just after securing your own interests.



Ehehe.. Ignorance.. You just keep thinking that.. You just keep thinking that..

Actually I'm British.

Not that we're innocent here, nor France, nor Russia, nor China - we all have blood on our hands, be it through the support of a brutal dictator, breaking a trade embargo to deal with Saddam, not initially removing him in the first gulf war - I'm certainly not claiming innocence but then neither should you wherever you're from.

Still, there is such a thing called "realpolitik", for me the only thing worse that Saddam Hussein being ruler of Iraq in the 1980s was the prospect of a Soviet backed hardline Islamic fundamentalist regime controlling both Iran and Iraq. I'm sure you will agree that in the modern world, Islamic terrorist organisations pose more of a threat than Saddam Hussein ever could have, then surely the prospect of a real state sponsor of terror (Iran) having that much power and with a regime that is far from intellectually incompatible with Al-Qaeda etc is far more deadly. Supporting Iraq was despicable but that was the alternative.

Lol - I fail to see how kicking up a hornets nest in the Middle East is in anyone's interested least of all the U.S with its dependancy on their oil and the possible consequences for Israel and the Saudis, plus the fact that hundreds of U.S soldiers have died. Surely you'd agree that a stable, democratic successful Iraq is in everyone's interests (including the U.S). That would be in effect the "securing of its interests".

I don't tend to deny stuff, least of all to myself. I know the situation in the Middle East is fucked up, then again it was before just with fewer cameras. Then again people like you seem to enjoy perpetuating pointless cynicism devoid of any substance, the worst part of all being that if anyone makes a comment that is remotely cynical or anti-U.S people seem to accept it without analysis.

Anyway, believe what you wish.

Fact is:

The CIA trained OBL and then sold weapons to him, to fight the Sovjets. In those days OBL was a big fan of the US, because they supported him.

The US helped the Taliban get control, because they were most definitely anti-communist, and did not take any actions against, until after 911

The US supplied Saddam with money and weapons, including chemical ones, to fight the Iranians.

The fact that you might not know this, does not mean it's not true. (if it weren't true, they'd have sued M Moore's behind of, for telling this in Bowling for Columbine).

Also, I heard someone say Beslan. Beslan in not Muslim-extremist terrorism. It's Tsjetjeens (or however you American's write it) anti-Russian terrorism. Very bad thing, but tottaly besides the point.

And obviously Bush didn't realise he was getting himself in this big a war. He saw himself defeating Saddam and then there'ld be peace again. Though there isn't any peace. Bush did it either for the oil or the popularity, but didn't really get what he wanted.

the worst part of all being that if anyone makes a comment that is remotely cynical or anti-U.S people seem to accept it without analysis.
I think it is more about Halliburton and Bush than about the US.

It is true. The US gave money to the taliban so they stopped producers of opium. They did it with mass executions and terror.


Bah, by that logic you'd have to say that Iran and N. Korea are also puppet governments of the U.S.

Saddam was doing that.

Was he? The power plants in Baghdad were in a serious state of disrepair before the war, even though he had plenty of money. The plants are in such poor shape the US might have to rebuild the entire infrastructure.


The US helped the Taliban get control, because they were most definitely anti-communist, and did not take any actions against, until after 911

I'm assuming you mean any military action.

I think it is more about Halliburton and Bush than about the US.

When will that evil Haliburton be brought to justice? Have you heard they make the chemicals that they use to put cute and sweet family pets to sleep?


BTW-They also spray stuff into the eyes of cuddly bunny rabbits!

During the Cold War, both the U.S.A. and Russia operated by using proxies to fight wars in order to limit the risk of a nuclear holocaust that would destroy the world. Hence, Cubans were fighting African "revolutions" in order to install socialist regimes. Both sides were guilty of this. But, when they chose the people to fight for them, they chose the people who were the best at it. When the U.S.A. went to Afghanistan to train fighters in the late '70s, they didn't look for people smoking dope and wearing beads, they looked for the cold-blooded killers. And the most fanatical, the craziest, and the most blood-thirsty were the muhjahadeen (spelling?), including bin Ladin. These same fighters came to power as the Taliban once the Soviets were gone, so in a sense the U.S.A. was responsible for helping put them in power.

The same type of ruthless killers were coming to power all over the Third World. And, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S.A. has been trying to get those same countries to move away from despotic dictatorships to peaceful democracies. But no one is willing to give up the sovereignty that they have gained by shedding their own blood and the blood of others. Which puts the U.S.A. at odds with the same people that they had supplied a few decades before.

As for the islamic fundamentalists, remember Saddam was there to stop them. Now that he is removed, they will rise and rise again. So what's the plan?

If he was in to stop islamic fundamentalists he outlived his usefulness when he agreed to a casual relationship with Al Qaeda.

Cosgrach I’d have to seriously disagree with the money statement. After the gulf war Sadam had to reinstate almost a feudal system. By letting powerful tribes have self government, self education etc they agreed to pick up certain military responsibilities. I think if Sadam actually had the money he would’ve used every cent to keep power centralized and to his self.

As for the support they need, well perhaps they’d feel more like a partner and less like a subordinate if we negotiated. Okay what do you need? What can you give us for it. These people need to make their own minds up and we can put them on a quid pro quo basis. Make them feel like they’re building the country. You and I can argue until we’re blue in the face but our opinions mean jack, it’s the opinion of the very angry, very armed Iraqi at the ballot box that matters. If he sees the government as a puppet does it really matter if it isn’t?

You seem like a smart guy I think we just differ on view points here but I think we can agree that the Iraqis need to be treated as an equal. (Though we can bicker over the definition of equal :D )

Perhaps the best way to do this is by referendum for the first little bit? Get the parties involved down at a table to bang out some proposals and let the Iraqis vote en masse. While I can guarantee we will not like some of the outcomes we need to respect them and that will give us some cred.

Now I don’t see this as cow towing on the part of the US I think I would see this as the behavior of a responsible liberator which, lets face it, the US can still come out of this as being. While you might see this as the intrinsic good, pushing freedom, liberty etc on these people and not caring if they resent America. Won’t they resent your ideals by extension?

I dunno I’ve been up for almost thirty hours now and I’ve begun to ramble. Try not to kill me on the lack of logical though process eh?

I don't think we disagree on much, it's more of different perspectives. For example I'm all for doing things such that Iraqis feel that they are at least a full partner in the restoration of their country. My issue is there are certain things that the US is responsible for and the Bush Administration is failing badly with those responsibilities.

I also think we are giving representatives of the differing factions a chance to speak at the proverbial table (for example the interim constitution was primarily written by Iraqis). The problem is we are losing the propaganda war so some people think it's a waste of time before they even try.

Quote:
Why the West is Losing
By Eric Margolis – Toronto Sun September 12, 2004

Three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America's politicians and media continue to gravely deceive the public about the so-called war on terrorism.

Now the definitive book on terrorism has appeared that should be mandatory reading for every thinking person. It's called mperial Hubris: Why The West is Losing the War on Terror.

The cover simply identifies the author as "Anonymous," but he's already been widely identified in the American media as Michael Scheuer, a senior terrorism analyst for the CIA.

It is unprecedented that a serving CIA officer was allowed to publish a book, one that is clearly a dramatic rebuke to the neoconservatives who drove the U.S. into two wars.

Scheuer's work is a goldmine of information and brilliant analysis. It breaks taboos and sweeps away the clouds of lies about al-Qaida, Iraq and Afghanistan. He says U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious -- "we are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency -- not criminality or terrorism."

The U.S. has made only "a modest dent in enemy forces."

None of bin Laden's reasons for waging war on the U.S., writes Scheuer, "have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy (as President George Bush claims), but everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world," notably unlimited support for Israel's repression of the Palestinians and the destruction of Iraq.

"For cheap, easily accessible oil, Washington and the West have supported Muslim tyrannies (Osama) bin Laden and other Islamists seek to destroy," Scheuer writes. "The war has the potential to last beyond our children's lifetimes and be fought mostly on U.S. soil."

A coup for bin Laden

Bin Laden, argues Scheuer, is widely viewed by much of the Muslim world, infuriated by American actions in the Mideast, as neither a terrorist or madman but as a skilled warrior, the sole Muslim leader standing up to predatory western powers.

Ironically U.S. and British military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq "are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world," a prime bin Laden goal.

Bush's misbegotten invasion of Iraq was "icing on bin Laden's cake."

The threat today facing America "is the defensive jihad (holy struggle), an Islamic military reaction triggered by an attack by non-Muslims on the Islamic faith, on Muslims, on Muslim territory." Muslims are increasingly fighting back.

The Muslim world believes it is under total attack led by Bush -- a massive effort to crush all who oppose U.S. domination, destroy Islam's inherent political role, eliminate Muslim charities, impose western values on the Islamic world and maintain puppet rulers -- "spreading democracy" in Bush's lexicon. Terrorism is merely the tactics of the poor fighting the rich.

The ultimate taboo

"U.S. military operations in the Muslim world," he adds, "validate bin Laden's contention the U.S. is attacking Islam and supports any country willing to kill or persecute Muslims."

Scheuer, breaking the ultimate taboo, observes of Washington's "one-way alliance" with Israel that "Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to the ... Jewish state and its policies."

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost causes, Scheuer concludes. The U.S. is totally unable to create legitimate governments in either chaotic nation, only puppet regimes, supported by American bayonets.

If the U.S. stays, it will bleed endlessly; if it retreats, it faces political disaster.

Washington, he charges, has no strategy and is merely "winging it."

In one of his most acute insights, Scheuer explains the U.S. cannot, for all of its riches, buy its way to victory in Afghanistan or Iraq.

"Honour is still the currency of value in the Middle East, more so than goods and services."

Blood-links trump all other affiliations or loyalties.

Honour is why the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden to the U.S., a man they regarded as their guest and a war hero, and why he has still not been betrayed in spite of a $25-million US reward in a nation where the annual income is $147.

At least there is one person in Washington who understands the violence surrounding us -- and has the courage and patriotism to tell Americans the truth: Their own arrogance and ignorance are driving them into a no-win war against 1.3 billion Muslims.

Found this article to be fairly interesting.. It echoes my sentiments regarding the whole "American Foreign Policy" situation.. Sorry if it has been posted before..

Thoughts?

Link to source: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2267
I find it extremely ironic that I read the above post and agree with it 100% considering that I rarely agree with anything published in the "right wing" Toronto Sun, especially articles by Eric Margolis. :eek:

This article clearly defines the real problem with the current US foreign policy and clearly defines the inherent risks of continuing with such a policy.

The Bush whacking of Iraq, has played right into the hands of the terrorists, and will continue to do so until Bush is gone from the White House and a US exit plan from Iraq is put into place.

1)The guy who wrote that is an idiot. He called terrorism "the means of the poor fighting the rich", I wonder whether any of the 350 children murdered in Beslan would agree with him, or even if any of the 1,000's of Iraqis who've died as a result of attacks in which THEY, not the American troops were the target.

2)"An attack on Islam" - another interesting phrase, whatever the rights or wrongs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are, I fail to see how removing two tyrannical regimes in an attempt to promote freedom and democracy is an attack on Islam. Only an idiot would think that freedom and democracy are Western values and not universal ones.

3)Then he goes on a bit about honour - ah yes, the fabled honour of the terrorist, the honour of murdering innocent men, women and children of all races, the honour of using drug money to finance attacks in an attempt to kill as many people as possible, the honour of beheading people and then putting it on the internet, the honour of torture.

4)It strikes me that if we do not win this "war", then nobody will, because nobody else can. The writer seems to ignore that fact.




1) Terrorism *is* the only way poor people can fight rich countries, they do not have the money to purchase hihg-tech weapons that fight the high-tech weapons of their enemies so they have to use other tactics to damage their foes.
It was a terrible tragedy what happened in beslan, but you must remember that russia is 100x richer and posessed of a military 10x as powerful as that of chechnya.
Also, the russians have killed a great deal more than 350 chechnyan children, so the killing of children does put chechnya on the moral low ground.

2)Bush has many hallmarks of a tyrant: infallibility complex, vast personal power over the individual lives of his subjects, rule without regard to the consent of the governed.

How would you feel if Iran and Saudi arabia formed a coalition that overthrew him and instead put in place a puppet leader?

If middle eastern countries desired western democracy, they would do the exact same thing that western democracies did - have a revolution.

3) As it stands the great torture power in the world today is the USA.
Also, it takes a special kind of courage and devotion to embark upon a suicide mission. I do not believe many westerners, especially americans have the wherewithall of resolve to do such a thing.

4) A war that was a mistake to fight cannot be won. Hitler could not with ww2, america could not win in vietnam, history is filled with examples of wars that should never have been fought and were fueled only by folly or corruption in government.

1) Terrorism *is* the only way poor people can fight rich countries, they do not have the money to purchase hihg-tech weapons that fight the high-tech weapons of their enemies so they have to use other tactics to damage their foes.
It was a terrible tragedy what happened in beslan, but you must remember that russia is 100x richer and posessed of a military 10x as powerful as that of chechnya.
Also, the russians have killed a great deal more than 350 chechnyan children, so the killing of children does put chechnya on the moral low ground.

2)Bush has many hallmarks of a tyrant: infallibility complex, vast personal power over the individual lives of his subjects, rule without regard to the consent of the governed.

How would you feel if Iran and Saudi arabia formed a coalition that overthrew him and instead put in place a puppet leader?

If middle eastern countries desired western democracy, they would do the exact same thing that western democracies did - have a revolution.

3) As it stands the great torture power in the world today is the USA.
Also, it takes a special kind of courage and devotion to embark upon a suicide mission. I do not believe many westerners, especially americans have the wherewithall of resolve to do such a thing.

4) A war that was a mistake to fight cannot be won. Hitler could not with ww2, america could not win in vietnam, history is filled with examples of wars that should never have been fought and were fueled only by folly or corruption in government.

1) I'm certainly not going to defend Russia, their actions in Chechnya have been despicable, although I am going to refute the argument (as someone else on this thread put forward) that they were merely anti-Russian and not part of any wider terrorist network. That was certainly originally the case but I would say that Islamic fundamentalist groups have capitalised on the atrocities in Russia to make the case for their own agenda.

As for terrorism being the poor mans war, perhaps it would be better not to look at this war in terms of rich VS poor but rather objectives, take the immediate situation Iraq or Afghanistan for example. The criteria for the U.S, U.K et al to claim victory would be for a stable, prosperous democratic Iraq to be established the criteria for Al-Qaeda and the like to claim victory would be the destruction of Iraq and a failed state. True the U.S has been responsible for the death of children but that has never been their objective and whilst we could argue about the lengths they go to to avoid such tragedies the fundamental difference in intention still remains.

Whether or not the character of George Bush is any way tyrannical does not detract from the fact that America is a democracy based on the rule of law. One tyrannical person (if that is your opinion of the man does not make a tyranny). Personally if Saudi Arabia and Iran invaded the U.S with the purpose of replacing a corrupt dictatorship that was responsible for the murder and torture of millions with a democratic regime and I believed they were capable of doing it then I would honestly have no real problem with that. Of course the idea is so completely ridiculous even as a hypothetical the comparison is not really worthwhile, and of course the U.S is none of those things. Also the U.S is trying to create elections - not some kind of U.S puppet.

What exactly is a torture power?

The Iraqi people tried to overthrow Saddam after the first gulf war, we screwed them over and they were slaughtered. Besides it's not quite as simple as saying "you know we don't especially care for this Saddam feller, well gee whizz guys I've got an idea, let's overthrow him". Besides "democracy" is nothing more than the ability to choose who you want to govern you, it's not a western thing and it's not like it's in any way rational to say - I don't want to have a say in who governs me.

The "war" on terrorism can never really be won - agreed, but that's because you're fighting against an ideology and in all effect it's not really a war. As for democratising Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe it can be done - I believe that as mankind evolves, capitalism, freedom and democracy come about naturally and in accordance with each other. I agree that it takes a certain amount of misguided courage to fly a plane into a building and perhaps not that many westerners could do it but then again I don't believe the majority of people want to live in a world devoid of freedom, tolerance or peace.

If he was in to stop islamic fundamentalists he outlived his usefulness when he agreed to a casual relationship with Al Qaeda.
What are you talking about? Saddam never agreed to a casual relationship with Al Queda.

Found this article to be fairly interesting.. It echoes my sentiments regarding the whole "American Foreign Policy" situation.. Sorry if it has been posted before..

================================================


================================

Thoughts?

Link to source: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2267
of coursethe ridiculous right is going to flame and call this reality "crazy conspiracy theory" when evey thinking person who has done an OUNCE of research realises this is blatant and obvious fact

of coursethe ridiculous right is going to flame and call this reality "crazy conspiracy theory" when evey thinking person who has done an OUNCE of research realises this is blatant and obvious fact


Yuh huh - so would you care to join in the debate or just make passing generalisations about what passes as "fact".

I take personal offense to phrases like:

"Defensive Jihad" and "Islam is starting to fight back", particularly when uttered by a westerner.

Someone who would say that strikes me as the kind of person who would watch people throwing themselves out of the twin towers, smile ironically to themselves and say "well shit, I guess we had it coming". It's deference to the point of idiocy.

What are you talking about? Saddam never agreed to a casual relationship with Al Queda.


Yes, he did.

Yuh huh - so would you care to join in the debate or just make passing generalisations about what passes as "fact".

I take personal offense to phrases like:

"Defensive Jihad" and "Islam is starting to fight back", particularly when uttered by a westerner.

Someone who would say that strikes me as the kind of person who would watch people throwing themselves out of the twin towers, smile ironically to themselves and say "well shit, I guess we had it coming". It's deference to the point of idiocy.


the FACT is this: the radicali islamists could probably give a fuck less about us if we stopped radical and unwavering support for israel and they would lose alot of support from the general population if we stopped you know KILLING THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES.

and what do you say to us going in and killing their family and friends? they had it coming?

hey maybe they would stop you know trying to kill us if we stopped murdering them

Yes, he did.
i assume you have something to cite for that

Yes, he did.

Is that why Donald Rumsfeld came out recently and stated the exact opposite.

It was one of the conclusions reached by the 9/11 commision. They said that although there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in the attacks, there was evidence of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which involved some training of Al Qaeda members inside Iraq.

There's also a New Yorker article Im trying to track down. ;)

the FACT is this: the radicali islamists could probably give a fuck less about us if we stopped radical and unwavering support for israel and they would lose alot of support from the general population if we stopped you know KILLING THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES.

and what do you say to us going in and killing their family and friends? they had it coming?

hey maybe they would stop you know trying to kill us if we stopped murdering them

The agenda for groups such as Al-Qaeda is a global caliphate, and a global Islamic state characterised by Sharia law and a total lack of freedom or tolerance. The idea that if we stick our heads in the sand they'll leave us alone is utter rubbish, is that why they're beheading Nepalese people, Chinese people who were completely opposed to the war, is that why Indonesia have been one of the worst victims of terrorist atrocities in recent years, or why they target children?

Just so we're clear I do not support the manner in which Israel has dealt with it's security issues, it's heavy handed and indiscriminate, as have been some of the U.S attacks in Iraq. The difference is that these have been attacks intended to kill terrorists and militants whose sole objective in Iraq is to kill as many people as possible and cause all attempts to install freedom and democracy to fail.

You may not have noticed (given the shortage of TV cameras) but Saddam Husseins' regime was responsible for the death of approximately 60,000 Iraqis per year (that's 1.3 million taken over 20 years), it's not like the place with a peace loving utopia before we went in, and it's not about to become one tomorrow.

For me poverty and injustice breed terrorism, I personally think the Iraq war was a mistake (although Afghanistan was certainly not) but I concur with the view that fundamentalist Islamic movements will be hard pressed to succeed in a country where poverty and injustice are not quite so rampant as they are now, or indeed as they are throughout the Middle East.

At the moment the only thing that the U.S are trying to do in Iraq is stabilise the country, improve the infrastructure and living conditions and pave the way for democracy. The reason that people are dying is because many radical Islamists realise that for the U.S to succeed would be devastating for their cause so they respond by killing as many people in possible. The U.S in their attempts to deal with these insurgents in turn launch attacks that unfortunately but inevitably cause some civilian casualties.

I don't know where to begin here. Too much to use a quote tag for, so this will address general ideas running through the replies.

First, the author does not have an understanding of terrorism. Or of Islamic fundamentalism.

Here goes. Terrorism is historically never the poor downtrodden sods rising against the oppressor. Look at the history, in this century, of such movements as the Basque, IRA, Communism (Russia, Cuba, Viernam, China specifically), al-Qaida, Red Army Faction, Action Directe, Shining Path, etc. were founded by comfortable middle-class types who had, more than anything, a burning hate. Hate of what? Everything that keeps them from being the powers in authority. They then attract a second layer of enablers, who feed them the ego stroke they need, and then the spear-carriers, the loyal sods who die. Usama Bin Ladin will never have to drive a truck bomb, or wear an explosive vest, he has willing dupes for that. The ones who die are the poor and downtrodden. The leaders are usually middle class. Bin Ladin is a bit of an exception, as he is actually rather wealthy.

Next, they do not hate us for our support of Israel, our actions to free Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, or any of it. They hate us because we are not ignorant and backwards like they are. We do, we achieve, we strive, we invent, we research, we engage in all the things we do, and they cannot. The breed, corruption really, of Islam they feed the the above spear-carriers says that killing is good because we are not an Islamist nation. And yes, I do mean Islamist, not Islamic.

And, unless we become their slaves, we will never be free of their attacks. We can win this, if Islam is drug into a reform period, and the concepts driving Islamist movements are understood to be against the Quran. Otherwise, we are doomed to fight this war forever.

Bush is dumbest president in the history of US...first he goes lets go get OBL and destroys afghanistan (please read the book The Breadwinner for details about what US has done in Afghanistan) but then out of no where he goes iraq has WMDs let go get them. He attacks Iraq and Saddam gets captured but where are the WMDs???? He says Iraq has nuclear and chemical weapons. He says Iraq has cruise missiles that can target something that is over 500 (not sure of exact figure) km away BUT United States HAS ENUFF NUKES TO OBLITERATE earth SEVEN TIMES but no one gives a damn about that. Also he finished what his father wasn't able to accomplice this wasn't about WMDs it was a personal war. Then there is BS about bringing freedom, peace and democracy..DOES afghanistan have peace...DOES Iraq have peace....U really think after US leaves there is going to be peace...HELL NO...after they leave the meanest, toughest guy will take over just like taliban in afghanistan...BUSH just finished increasing the debt of US over 7 TRILLION DOLLARS but when CLinton was president there was a surplus. Dun say anythin about the war on terror...the truth is Bush is after Oil and thats IT he doesn't give a crap about US or any other country in this world...If it wasn't for him being from texas he would hv bombed them too for oil. BUSh iS THE TERRORIST NOT SADDAM or OBL

American please dun be dumb enough he elect that maniac again and better please check his IQ and get him to mental asylum
:mp5:

Is that why Donald Rumsfeld came out recently and stated the exact opposite.

To be fair, it is true that Saddam did have a few training camps for terrorism. But to be serious, there are dozens of other countries that are more friendly to Al-quaida, including our 'buddies' like the Saudis.



Next, they do not hate us for our support of Israel, our actions to free Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, or any of it. They hate us because we are not ignorant and backwards like they are. We do, we achieve, we strive, we invent, we research, we engage in all the things we do, and they cannot. The breed, corruption really, of Islam they feed the the above spear-carriers says that killing is good because we are not an Islamist nation. And yes, I do mean Islamist, not Islamic.


You my friend are completely ass backwards about that statement. My God quit reading whatever you are and go visit an Islamic forum. You might learn a thing or two. Her's one: http://www.ummah.com/forum/ . The majority of those on there who are opposed to the US are BECAUSE of the US/Israeli ties and the "illegal" war in Iraq. They hate America because they believe we're oppressive, which isn't too far off. And some do want to kill us because we are infidels. But some don't take that theology too seriously. I don't see any American Muslims tryin to kill me, and I know a few Muslims that would beg to differ with that too.

We're not ignorant and backwards? Don't know where you stand on the whole "liberty and independence for Iraq" idea...

But isn't it a paradox to build a free and independent country when the men writing the constitution have a US soldier with a gun behind him watching over him? Or the fact that the US picked the leaders, hmmm. I'd believe the government would be Pro-US. For any of you who don't believe the US would set up puppet governments, go look up the Chiquita banana crisis in Guatemala when the US overthrew a nationalist leader because he wanted to annex some of the 80% of arable land, which belonged to the US company. The US even went as far as to bomb the capital claiming "he was a brutal dictator." Instead we put in a brutal puppet leader named Castillo Armaz and ignored the violence this entailed, including the massacre of over 200,000 people.

America has always used the guise of "promoting democracy" for ulterior motives. Don't think the rich beaurocrats sitting in their lavish mansions really give a shit about the welfare of some Iraqis halfway across the world when a buck is to be made.

And, unless we become their slaves, we will never be free of their attacks. We can win this, if Islam is drug into a reform period, and the concepts driving Islamist movements are understood to be against the Quran. Otherwise, we are doomed to fight this war forever.


I think u hv it backwards...look at the country who waged most war in last 25 years..DUH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...bak in there history when they failed to assimlate there own people they are trying to do the same to other countries...is it there fault they are fighting back?

Honestly look at Kuwait for instance...i agree it was good thing US helped them fight back but why did US help them n guess where the largest exports of Oil from kuwait goes to? and not only that in Iraq couple of corporation are assigned task to help rebuild Iraq and guess wat they are all Oil companies hmm... ring any bell at all about why US is going after those countries. US first found entry into middle east during the Iraq and Kuwait war..now they have gone and taken over iraq. Anyone by now should hv realized by now that it was Bush and his father plan from the beginning to exploit problems in middle east for their benefit and now in last four years bush is following that agenda..

and good knows wat country he'll go after next if he allowed to the return...

American don't be so gaulible and fall for lies Bush is telling you people and remember when u put ur vote in that ballot that at this rate with Bush WWIII is inevitable
Kerry mite not the most courageous president but he is sensible enough to avoid another war
Please I urge you, my fellow Americans please dun allow Bush to ruin our country any further..take control and kick the maniacal Bush out...

American please dun be dumb enough he elect that maniac again and better please check his IQ and get him to mental asylum
:mp5:

And I beg to differ that Bush is just an incredible moron. He just follows the typical American idea that you can determine who is winning a war by body count. I thought that perhaps Vietnam would show that body count means nothing, but that doesn't stop his administration from saying "look we're winning the war on Terrorism, we've killed 5 more high level Terrorists!"

After all, I think one of the underlying reasons for fighting the war in Iraq was to take a fight against Islamic radicals on their turf. While US soldiers and Muslims are dying over there, who is dying on American soil? I think the fundamental flaw is that for every Muslim you kill in the name of 'democracy' five more will realize the US is just trying to fulfill its imperialistic agenda and become a Terrorist.

God I sound so anti-US. Wow I surprise myself sometimes.

The agenda for groups such as Al-Qaeda is a global caliphate, and a global Islamic state characterised by Sharia law and a total lack of freedom or tolerance. The idea that if we stick our heads in the sand they'll leave us alone is utter rubbish, is that why they're beheading Nepalese people, Chinese people who were completely opposed to the war, is that why Indonesia have been one of the worst victims of terrorist atrocities in recent years, or why they target children? the idea that going after them on their home territory and killing them and innocents that get in the way and supporting unwaveringly people they hate is going to hurt them is just as equally insane. of course the more radical of people will hate us but your asinine suggestion that we go after them and kill more and more people will jsut screw us over in that people that didnt originally support them will switch over to their side and sacrifice their lives to kill us. i know its sad to reference a game but the point is quite easy. look up the game "homeworld: cataclysm" read up on the "sleepers"
in NO way am i suggesting we stick our hedds in the sand, i am suggesting we stop pretending our gung ho approach is actually working and helping

Just so we're clear I do not support the manner in which Israel has dealt with it's security issues, it's heavy handed and indiscriminate, as have been some of the U.S attacks in Iraq. The difference is that these have been attacks intended to kill terrorists and militants whose sole objective in Iraq is to kill as many people as possible and cause all attempts to install freedom and democracy to fail.
really have they? is bulldozing PALESTINIAN settlements in areas designated for palestinian settlement and killing anyone who steps in their way to keep them from stoppign the bulldozing is only targeting terrorists and militants? um try again.

You may not have noticed (given the shortage of TV cameras) but Saddam Husseins' regime was responsible for the death of approximately 60,000 Iraqis per year (that's 1.3 million taken over 20 years), it's not like the place with a peace loving utopia before we went in, and it's not about to become one tomorrow.
really 60,000 iraqis per year? i highly doubt you have figures for that, you cant just say im right becausei know so, because i can just say the same. im pretty sure that mgiht have been how many he killed once with bio weapons we GAVE him, and thats no guarantee HE did it. now we have killed 13,000 iraqis in what? 2 years? wow thats really going to convicne them we are all for the iraqis and will sure convicne them not to join the radical islamists who want to kill us!


For me poverty and injustice breed terrorism, I personally think the Iraq war was a mistake (although Afghanistan was certainly not) but I concur with the view that fundamentalist Islamic movements will be hard pressed to succeed in a country where poverty and injustice are not quite so rampant as they are now, or indeed as they are throughout the Middle East.
ROFLMFAO!!! you think iraq will suddenly fly out of poverty and injustice now that the US is in control of it? i think you need to take a look around and realise the ludicrous amount of poverty and injustice in the united states alone, let alone a 3rd world country we are taking over.

At the moment the only thing that the U.S are trying to do in Iraq is stabilise the country, improve the infrastructure and living conditions and pave the way for democracy. The reason that people are dying is because many radical Islamists realise that for the U.S to succeed would be devastating for their cause so they respond by killing as many people in possible. The U.S in their attempts to deal with these insurgents in turn launch attacks that unfortunately but inevitably cause some civilian casualties.

yeah keep listening to bush and cheney and pretend they know more about whats going on than bremer, rumsfeld and every bit of intelligencia in the US

Next, they do not hate us for our support of Israel, our actions to free Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, or any of it. They hate us because we are not ignorant and backwards like they are. We do, we achieve, we strive, we invent, we research, we engage in all the things we do, and they cannot. The breed, corruption really, of Islam they feed the the above spear-carriers says that killing is good because we are not an Islamist nation. And yes, I do mean Islamist, not Islamic. .
maybe, maybe not. but the fact stands that the ignorant saps that become pawns of their hatred DO hate us because of unwavering support for israel agaisnt the palestinians and our killing of them and their families in riaq and afghanistan

im pretty sure that mgiht have been how many he killed once with bio weapons we GAVE him, and thats no guarantee HE did it.
What bio weapons did we give him?

What bio weapons did we give him?

Not only Bio, but also Chem..

Remember Halabja?.. Used by your arse of a president against Saddam when it was Ron. Reagan who gave the latter arse the actual freakin weapons to kill the Kurds?

Which brings us back to the whole genocide thing.. America was partly responsible for Halabja.

Not only Bio, but also Chem..

Remember Halabja?.. Used by your arse of a president against Saddam when it was Ron. Reagan who gave the latter arse the actual freakin weapons to kill the Kurds?

Which brings us back to the whole genocide thing.. America was partly responsible for Halabja.
Show me where Reagan ordered these Bio and Chem weapons to be shipped to Saddam?

1) I'm certainly not going to defend Russia, their actions in Chechnya have been despicable, although I am going to refute the argument (as someone else on this thread put forward) that they were merely anti-Russian and not part of any wider terrorist network. That was certainly originally the case but I would say that Islamic fundamentalist groups have capitalised on the atrocities in Russia to make the case for their own agenda.

As for terrorism being the poor mans war, perhaps it would be better not to look at this war in terms of rich VS poor but rather objectives, take the immediate situation Iraq or Afghanistan for example. The criteria for the U.S, U.K et al to claim victory would be for a stable, prosperous democratic Iraq to be established the criteria for Al-Qaeda and the like to claim victory would be the destruction of Iraq and a failed state. True the U.S has been responsible for the death of children but that has never been their objective and whilst we could argue about the lengths they go to to avoid such tragedies the fundamental difference in intention still remains.

Whether or not the character of George Bush is any way tyrannical does not detract from the fact that America is a democracy based on the rule of law. One tyrannical person (if that is your opinion of the man does not make a tyranny). Personally if Saudi Arabia and Iran invaded the U.S with the purpose of replacing a corrupt dictatorship that was responsible for the murder and torture of millions with a democratic regime and I believed they were capable of doing it then I would honestly have no real problem with that. Of course the idea is so completely ridiculous even as a hypothetical the comparison is not really worthwhile, and of course the U.S is none of those things. Also the U.S is trying to create elections - not some kind of U.S puppet.

What exactly is a torture power?

The Iraqi people tried to overthrow Saddam after the first gulf war, we screwed them over and they were slaughtered. Besides it's not quite as simple as saying "you know we don't especially care for this Saddam feller, well gee whizz guys I've got an idea, let's overthrow him". Besides "democracy" is nothing more than the ability to choose who you want to govern you, it's not a western thing and it's not like it's in any way rational to say - I don't want to have a say in who governs me.

The "war" on terrorism can never really be won - agreed, but that's because you're fighting against an ideology and in all effect it's not really a war. As for democratising Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe it can be done - I believe that as mankind evolves, capitalism, freedom and democracy come about naturally and in accordance with each other. I agree that it takes a certain amount of misguided courage to fly a plane into a building and perhaps not that many westerners could do it but then again I don't believe the majority of people want to live in a world devoid of freedom, tolerance or peace.



I disagree that you can start a war without the intention to kill children. It is a certain consequence of any war of scale that innocent children will be killed, especially when bombs are involved.

Also, bush was selected without regard to the consent of the governed, and his policies of incommunicado detainment without charges subverts the rule of law entirely.

If the United States were seeking to bring about legitimate self rule in iraq it would not have appointed the baathist hitman Ayad Allawi as dictator and then claimed he was iraq's "prime minister." The bush people are so orwellian that they try to construe an attack on their hand-picked thug as an attack on the competence of the iraqis to choose leaders.

If the US truly wanted self determined iraqi leadership they would be unopposed to iraq forming three seperate nations: kurd, shia, and sunni.

Indeed as 'mankind evolves' it may tend towards democracy - but american conquest does not equate to 'manking evolving.' Perhaps when the iraqis rid their country of foreign military overlords they can get to the 'natural' process of 'evolving' into a democracy. This sort of change does not come from above.


P.S. A torture power is a military power that tortures people.
The US recent became one under bush. You (and everyone) ought to read the march 2003 presidential memo where the administration lawyers contrived a legal defense for bush that allowed him to have people tortured. It is available on the website of the Wall Street Journal in PDF format.

At: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/military_0604.pdf

Show me where Reagan ordered these Bio and Chem weapons to be shipped to Saddam?

Sorry, Reagan and Bush Snr.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

America helped make a monster. What to do with him--and what happens after he is gone--has haunted us for a quarter century.

The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment. The once and future Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed "vigorous and confident," according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by Newsweek. Rumsfeld "conveyed the President's greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad," wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries. Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions.

It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons. But it happened..

American officials have known that Saddam was a psychopath ever since he became the country's de facto ruler in the early 1970s. One of Saddam's early acts after he took the title of president in 1979 was to videotape a session of his party's congress, during which he personally ordered several members executed on the spot.


More?

the idea that going after them on their home territory and killing them and innocents that get in the way and supporting unwaveringly people they hate is going to hurt them is just as equally insane. of course the more radical of people will hate us but your asinine suggestion that we go after them and kill more and more people will jsut screw us over in that people that didnt originally support them will switch over to their side and sacrifice their lives to kill us. i know its sad to reference a game but the point is quite easy. look up the game "homeworld: cataclysm" read up on the "sleepers"
in NO way am i suggesting we stick our hedds in the sand, i am suggesting we stop pretending our gung ho approach is actually working and helping


really have they? is bulldozing PALESTINIAN settlements in areas designated for palestinian settlement and killing anyone who steps in their way to keep them from stoppign the bulldozing is only targeting terrorists and militants? um try again.


really 60,000 iraqis per year? i highly doubt you have figures for that, you cant just say im right becausei know so, because i can just say the same. im pretty sure that mgiht have been how many he killed once with bio weapons we GAVE him, and thats no guarantee HE did it. now we have killed 13,000 iraqis in what? 2 years? wow thats really going to convicne them we are all for the iraqis and will sure convicne them not to join the radical islamists who want to kill us!



ROFLMFAO!!! you think iraq will suddenly fly out of poverty and injustice now that the US is in control of it? i think you need to take a look around and realise the ludicrous amount of poverty and injustice in the united states alone, let alone a 3rd world country we are taking over.



yeah keep listening to bush and cheney and pretend they know more about whats going on than bremer, rumsfeld and every bit of intelligencia in the US


I'm not sure from what you deduced my "asinine suggestion" that we should go after "them". What do you mean by "them" anyway, it's rather a vague word. I support the specifically targeted use of force providing it is just that - targeted, I do not support the "gun ho" attitudes of the U.S and Israel in dealing with the problems so lets stop pretending that I do. I am aware of the dangers of that approach and the possibility of alienating vast amounts of Muslims.

That said, the Middle East is a terrible place to live - appalling living standards, rampant poverty, brutal and corrupt dictatorships, a total lack of respect for women, massive unemployment, violence, instability and very little personal freedom or civil liberties. The place is rife with problems (and whilst western attitudes in the past and even some in the present have not been entirely helpful they are certainly not the only cause and the idea that the only reason the Middle East is so messed up at the moment is because of the foreign policies of U.S and Israel is hilarious. Now either we can pretend that everything is fine, or that it's none of our business etc or we can actually try to improve the region. I think Iraq was a mistake, but I still think that with the billions of dollars pouring into rebuilding the country, the prospect of elections and the support of enough soldiers the country with improve. Afghanistan already has - it may be far from ideal and I don't need for you to quote me the list of problems with the country but it's still far better than the rule of Taleban.

The U.S is not "taking over" Iraq, they're actually very keen to get the situation sorted and withdraw as soon as possible. The U.S might want to rethink some of its domestic policies in my opinion but this is a discussion of foreign policy so lets not inflate the issue. Besides poverty is relative and I can assure you that U.S poverty and poverty in the Middle East are very different things. I don't expect Iraq to "fly out of poverty" but it will improve. My statistics concerning the Baathist regime were drawn from the fact that Saddam Hussein killed over 1.2 million of his own people in 20 years so if you divide 1.2 million by 20 then that's what you get. Of course the 13,000 have more of a weighting in peoples' minds because they've received more media exposure than would have occurred under Saddam or maybe people are just too fickle to realise that 1.2 million is approximately 100 times more than 13,000

Merely because 13,000 Iraqis have died in the past two years does not equate to saying that the U.S is responsible for their deaths, however it is portrayed. How many of those have been victims of terrorist attacks.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are idiots and I certainly do not listen to them for reliable news, then again I do not read the Toronto Sun either as the starter of this thread obviously does. I'm aware that the situation on the ground is bad but I believe that it will get better, the problem with the world is that in the era of instant news everyone wants instant results, which are often not forthcoming.

Sorry, Reagan and Bush Snr.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html



More?

So your point is that when forced to choose between a brutal, U.S backed terrorist supporting, secular dictatorship (Iraq) and a brutal, Soviet backed, terrorist supporting, radical Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship (Iran) the U.S chose the lesser of two evils.

It may not be ideal but it's the way the world works - realpolitik.

I'm not sure from what you deduced my "asinine suggestion" that we should go after "them". What do you mean by "them" anyway, it's rather a vague word. I support the specifically targeted use of force providing it is just that - targeted, I do not support the "gun ho" attitudes of the U.S and Israel in dealing with the problems so lets stop pretending that I do. I am aware of the dangers of that approach and the possibility of alienating vast amounts of Muslims.
what we are currently doing is FAR from targeted.

That said, the Middle East is a terrible place to live - appalling living standards, rampant poverty, brutal and corrupt dictatorships, a total lack of respect for women, massive unemployment, violence, instability and very little personal freedom or civil liberties. The place is rife with problems (and whilst western attitudes in the past and even some in the present have not been entirely helpful they are certainly not the only cause and the idea that the only reason the Middle East is so messed up at the moment is because of the foreign policies of U.S and Israel is hilarious. Now either we can pretend that everything is fine, or that it's none of our business etc or we can actually try to improve the region. I think Iraq was a mistake, but I still think that with the billions of dollars pouring into rebuilding the country, the prospect of elections and the support of enough soldiers the country with improve. Afghanistan already has - it may be far from ideal and I don't need for you to quote me the list of problems with the country but it's still far better than the rule of Taleban.
yet you believe if we go in and push our belief system on them and enforce radical change everything will be ok in a couple years? even bush said you cant force democracy on a people, that was while he was ordering american troops to do it. radical change forceed by an outside source will cause more problems than solutions espeically once the outside power leaves

The U.S is not "taking over" Iraq, they're actually very keen to get the situation sorted and withdraw as soon as possible. The U.S might want to rethink some of its domestic policies in my opinion but this is a discussion of foreign policy so lets not inflate the issue. Besides poverty is relative and I can assure you that U.S poverty and poverty in the Middle East are very different things. I don't expect Iraq to "fly out of poverty" but it will improve.
really we arnt taking over? couldve fooled me. i was udner the impression that when an outside power charges into a country, kills or remvoes all of that country's leadership and isntitutes their own puppets, it is taking over if not the equivolent

My statistics concerning the Baathist regime were drawn from the fact that Saddam Hussein killed over 1.2 million of his own people in 20 years so if you divide 1.2 million by 20 then that's what you get. Of course the 13,000 have more of a weighting in peoples' minds because they've received more media exposure than would have occurred under Saddam or maybe people are just too fickle to realise that 1.2 million is approximately 100 times more than 13,000
where did you get said statistics, and maybe its because people expect more of the US than going israeli on civilian areas.

Merely because 13,000 Iraqis have died in the past two years does not equate to saying that the U.S is responsible for their deaths, however it is portrayed. How many of those have been victims of terrorist attacks.
well i was under the impression if you carpet bomb cities and launch missiles into buildings in civilian areas and other explosives in civilian areas, you would be responsible for alot of civilian deaths

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are idiots and I certainly do not listen to them for reliable news, then again I do not read the Toronto Sun either as the starter of this thread obviously does. I'm aware that the situation on the ground is bad but I believe that it will get better, the problem with the world is that in the era of instant news everyone wants instant results, which are often not forthcoming.
like its been getting better since bush declared "victory" ?

well i was under the impression if you carpet bomb cities and launch missiles into buildings in civilian areas and other explosives in civilian areas, you would be responsible for alot of civilian deaths


That would make sense, if you didn't try to inflate those numbers by including civilians killed by terrorists, or are you trying to say the US military was behind this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134041,00.html



Bombs Kill Scores in Iraq — 35 of Them Kids
Thursday, September 30, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A string of bombs killed 35 children and wounded scores of others as U.S. troops handed out candy Thursday at a government-sponsored celebration to inaugurate a sewage plant. It was the largest death toll of children in any insurgent attack since the start of the Iraq conflict.

Grief-stricken mothers wailed over their children's bloodied corpses, as relatives collected body parts from the street for burial and a boy picked up the damaged bicycle of his dead brother.

So tell me, how do attacks like that improve the condition of the downtrodden?




Btw I had someone find that article for me:


http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact

In October of 2002, when Bob Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tenet wrote to him, explaining the C.I.A.'s understanding of the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. It is a curious letter, which begins with a statement that "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW"—chemical and biological weapons—"against the United States." At the same time, Tenet said, Iraq has "provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." Tenet added, "Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression," and he suggested that, even without an American attack on Iraq, "Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase."

Bush is dumbest president in the history of US...first he goes lets go get OBL and destroys afghanistan (please read the book The Breadwinner for details about what US has done in Afghanistan) but then out of no where he goes iraq has WMDs let go get them. He attacks Iraq and Saddam gets captured but where are the WMDs???? He says Iraq has nuclear and chemical weapons. He says Iraq has cruise missiles that can target something that is over 500 (not sure of exact figure) km away BUT United States HAS ENUFF NUKES TO OBLITERATE earth SEVEN TIMES but no one gives a damn about that. Also he finished what his father wasn't able to accomplice this wasn't about WMDs it was a personal war. Then there is BS about bringing freedom, peace and democracy..DOES afghanistan have peace...DOES Iraq have peace....U really think after US leaves there is going to be peace...HELL NO...after they leave the meanest, toughest guy will take over just like taliban in afghanistan...BUSH just finished increasing the debt of US over 7 TRILLION DOLLARS but when CLinton was president there was a surplus. Dun say anythin about the war on terror...the truth is Bush is after Oil and thats IT he doesn't give a crap about US or any other country in this world...If it wasn't for him being from texas he would hv bombed them too for oil. BUSh iS THE TERRORIST NOT SADDAM or OBL

American please dun be dumb enough he elect that maniac again and better please check his IQ and get him to mental asylum
:mp5:

And, given that this semi-literate rant seems to be saying that this was a "war for oil", please explain how it is that oil prices went up? I suppose it's because we are not taking any oil from Iraq. Weird.

Next, Clinton had no surplus, it was a projection for the next 25 odd years, assuming nothing happened to change the exact status quo he sank us to. That is not realistic, and not growth in the economy.

The evidence that Hussien had WMD was presented to the UN, and was the best intel available. If he didn't have any, why block inspections to prove he didn't? Hmm. Also, no one ever said Iraq had nukes. You are confusing Iraq with North Korea.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact
you want me to quote the 2004 findings by the 9/11 commisions and uh everyone else?

good job trying to prove your point by linknig to 2 year old statements by a guy that resigned for screwing up though

To be fair, it is true that Saddam did have a few training camps for terrorism. But to be serious, there are dozens of other countries that are more friendly to Al-quaida, including our 'buddies' like the Saudis.

You my friend are completely ass backwards about that statement. My God quit reading whatever you are and go visit an Islamic forum. You might learn a thing or two. Her's one: http://www.ummah.com/forum/ . The majority of those on there who are opposed to the US are BECAUSE of the US/Israeli ties and the "illegal" war in Iraq. They hate America because they believe we're oppressive, which isn't too far off. And some do want to kill us because we are infidels. But some don't take that theology too seriously. I don't see any American Muslims tryin to kill me, and I know a few Muslims that would beg to differ with that too.

I see. The population of Israel, as of a July 2004 estimate, is about 6 million ( 6,199,008). The population of the bordering nations (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria) is 103,522,715, with 76 million in Egypt and 18 million in Syria. As the only democratic government in the region, surrounded by 16 times their population, almost all devoted to a religion that calls for their death, they need all the help they can get. Since Europe is not helping, that falls on the US to help. Perhaps if they studied history, they would know that the 'Palestine' they talk so much about still exits. It is called Jordan.

But the Palestinians are unwelcome in other countries. That is why they are still there in Israel, no one else will take them. So much for the alms required in the Quran. The 'oppressive' argument is bogus as well. We entered Iraq, true, and that angered many. But what nations or religions were we oppressing? We support Israel, which cannot be the only reason. If it is, then they need to get their collective heads out of their asses and look at the reality. They are not oppressed by anyone but their own religion. We certainly don't tell them to stay poor and ignorant.

We're not ignorant and backwards? Don't know where you stand on the whole "liberty and independence for Iraq" idea...

But isn't it a paradox to build a free and independent country when the men writing the constitution have a US soldier with a gun behind him watching over him? Or the fact that the US picked the leaders, hmmm. I'd believe the government would be Pro-US.

And then there will be held elections. Which will place in power those the people choose. Amazing thing, this freedom.

you want me to quote the 2004 findings by the 9/11 commisions and uh everyone else?



Don't like that one? I have more :p

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126785,00.html

It doesn't contain the actual report, but it's a transcript from the O'Reilly show with two congressman from the 9/11 commision. As I stated earlier, they found a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but no evidence to suggest Iraq was involved with 9/11.

Don't like that one? I have more :p

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126785,00.html

It doesn't contain the actual report, but it's a transcript from the O'Reilly show with two congressman from the 9/11 commision. As I stated earlier, they found a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but no evidence to suggest Iraq was involved with 9/11.
please dont tell me you are expecting me to take you seriousyl saying you arnt quoting the report but are quoting the o reilly show.

I think u hv it backwards...look at the country who waged most war in last 25 years..DUH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...bak in there history when they failed to assimlate there own people they are trying to do the same to other countries...is it there fault they are fighting back?

Honestly look at Kuwait for instance...i agree it was good thing US helped them fight back but why did US help them n guess where the largest exports of Oil from kuwait goes to? and not only that in Iraq couple of corporation are assigned task to help rebuild Iraq and guess wat they are all Oil companies hmm... ring any bell at all about why US is going after those countries. US first found entry into middle east during the Iraq and Kuwait war..now they have gone and taken over iraq. Anyone by now should hv realized by now that it was Bush and his father plan from the beginning to exploit problems in middle east for their benefit and now in last four years bush is following that agenda..

and good knows wat country he'll go after next if he allowed to the return...

American don't be so gaulible and fall for lies Bush is telling you people and remember when u put ur vote in that ballot that at this rate with Bush WWIII is inevitable
Kerry mite not the most courageous president but he is sensible enough to avoid another war
Please I urge you, my fellow Americans please dun allow Bush to ruin our country any further..take control and kick the maniacal Bush out...

I think, because this was spectacurally illiterate, that this refers to the 'war for oil' myth. Which is debunked. So we will move on.

Since we were attacked but Islamofacist terrorists, your argument says we must have attacked them first. When, pray tell, did this happen? Hmm. Let's see. Oh, right. Never.

For most Americans, including our military, the first time we ever heard of most of the MidEast was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. And the following expulsion from Kuwait. This action, being undertaken by Americans and Europeans, infuriated those who now lead al-Qiada and other terrorist groups. Not that we freed Kuwait and returned the government to power and left, but that infidels trod the same nation that has Mecca and Medina, the holy shrines of Islam. And they decided that we were to blame for the inability of Arabs to take care of this themselves.

And so we are to blame for being able to help. For restoring Kuwati self-rule. For not commenting on the lack of freedom in Saudi Arabia. For wanting people to live free and in peace. And this is why they hate us. Because we want what is better for them.

I think, because this was spectacurally illiterate, that this refers to the 'war for oil' myth. Which is debunked. So we will move on.

Since we were attacked but Islamofacist terrorists, your argument says we must have attacked them first. When, pray tell, did this happen? Hmm. Let's see. Oh, right. Never.

For most Americans, including our military, the first time we ever heard of most of the MidEast was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. And the following expulsion from Kuwait. This action, being undertaken by Americans and Europeans, infuriated those who now lead al-Qiada and other terrorist groups. Not that we freed Kuwait and returned the government to power and left, but that infidels trod the same nation that has Mecca and Medina, the holy shrines of Islam. And they decided that we were to blame for the inability of Arabs to take care of this themselves.

And so we are to blame for being able to help. For restoring Kuwati self-rule. For not commenting on the lack of freedom in Saudi Arabia. For wanting people to live free and in peace. And this is why they hate us. Because we want what is better for them.

Ah yes, 'tis true... [/extreme sarcasm]

You keep believing that..

please dont tell me you are expecting me to take you seriousyl saying you arnt quoting the report but are quoting the o reilly show.

I have no need for you to take me seriously :p , but one would think you would take words of the chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission seriously. :rolleyes:

You can always supply your own quotes and links :D

More?
Yes. All you've shown is what everyone always knows and agrees on, something along the line of "The US knew it was going on and did nothing about it" - not that the Reagan and Bush were giving Saddam the biological and Chemical weapons. The closest they came to doing such things were giving them extremely small amounts of anthrax or botulism, which weren't weapons - they were and are things we routinely give out to friendly governments to make vaccines with, and are near impossible to manufacture biological weapons out of because the specimens are very weak (as they need to be to create vaccines) and are too little in number, anyway.

I have no need for you to take me seriously :p , but one would think you would take words of the chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission seriously. :rolleyes:

You can always supply your own quotes and links :D
i wasnt under the impression bill o'reilly was part of the 9/11 commision, nor was i udner the impression he was 2 people

i wasnt under the impression bill o'reilly was part of the 9/11 commision, nor was i udner the impression he was 2 people


LOL you're a bright one. :p If you had bothered to read, you would have seen his guests were the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 commision, and they were talking about the report.

Here, I'll help you out...

BILL O'REILLY HOST: Now for the top story tonight, joining us from Washington, Governor Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission and vice chair Congressman Lee Hamilton...

LEE HAMILTON, 9/11 COMMISSION VICE CHAIR : I think it's very important to point out here that we are not investigating, did not investigate the war on Iraq. We investigated 9/11...But I want to be very clear that our statement with regard to Iraq — the contacts which you mentioned between Iraq and al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden, we think they occurred. We do not think there was a cooperative, collaborative relationship...With regard to 9/11.


So as I stated, they found a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but not a cooperative one vis a vis 9/11.

ehh, Saddam was never a puppet of the U.S.Then why did we gave him all the Chemical weapons?

America (not 'the west') is losing because it isnt fighting to end the things that threaten it, it is fighting to create new enemies.

The war businessmen and their lackeys in politics are making an investment in future conflict to ensure that there is always a ready market for their war finance, war material and fear mongering brand of political idiot-exploitation.

LOL you're a bright one. :p If you had bothered to read, you would have seen his guests were the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 commision, and they were talking about the report.

Here, I'll help you out...



So as I stated, they found a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but not a cooperative one vis a vis 9/11.
contact is not a relationship in the manner you used it

Then why did we gave him all the Chemical weapons?

Not sure how giving weapons and not being a puppet are mutually exclusive ideas. Like I said, if you're going to make the argument that giving aid, equipment, materials, etc to a country means that that country is your puppet, then you have to add countries like Iran, N. Korea, and any African country that's getting part of that $15 billion in AIDs funding puppets too. Heck the whole world is the puppet of the US :D

contact is not a relationship in the manner you used it

Sure it is. The following quote contains the contacts O'Reilly was talking about, and Hamilton was referring to

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126764,00.html

Bill O'Reilly: Page 66 of the 567-page report caught my eye. And it says, "In July [1998], an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden...Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and bin Laden — or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq.

You'll note that this does not contradict the Tenet quote, but rather supports it.

edit: I should point out that, even though we are talking about the 9/11 report and the war in Iraq, the commissions job was never to prove or disprove the reasons for the war, only to verify or reject the notion that Iraq had a role in 9/11. Everyone tries to distort the findings for their own ends though.

Sorry, Reagan and Bush Snr.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

More?
Good work. :D

Yes. All you've shown is what everyone always knows and agrees on, something along the line of "The US knew it was going on and did nothing about it" - not that the Reagan and Bush were giving Saddam the biological and Chemical weapons. The closest they came to doing such things were giving them extremely small amounts of anthrax or botulism, which weren't weapons - they were and are things we routinely give out to friendly governments to make vaccines with, and are near impossible to manufacture biological weapons out of because the specimens are very weak (as they need to be to create vaccines) and are too little in number, anyway.
Yes and of course Iraq and the US were the best of friends?

I guess it wasn't that impossible to manufacture CBM's with the supplied materials?

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

This video describes the "deadly" chemicals and "biological agents" that were given to Iraq by the US. Anything to help Iraq against those nasty Iranians?

Then why did we gave Saddam all the Chemical weapons?
....then you have to add countries like Iran, N. Korea, and any African country that's getting part of that $15 billion in AIDs funding puppets too. Heck the whole world is the puppet of the US :D
:confused:
When did we give Chemical Weapons to Iran, N. Korea, or any African country?

Dude...Im talking about Chemical Weapons...only Chemical Weapons....

Im not talking about AIDS funding...or about earthquake relief...or about food giveaways...not even about free coupons....

Cosgrash...Im just talking about Chemical Weapons....maybe if I put it in Capitals you will get it...Im talking about CHEMICAL WEAPONS....

Yes and of course Iraq and the US were the best of friends?

I guess it wasn't that impossible to manufacture CBM's with the supplied materials?

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

This video describes the "deadly" chemicals and "biological agents" that were given to Iraq by the US. Anything to help Iraq against those nasty Iranians?
I couldn't care less about a flash video from some internet site.

:confused:
When did we give Chemical Weapons to Iran, N. Korea, or any African country?

Dude...Im talking about Chemical Weapons...only Chemical Weapons....

Im not talking about AIDS funding...or about earthquake relief...or about food giveaways...not even about free coupons....

Cosgrash...Im just talking about Chemical Weapons....maybe if I put it in Capitals you will get it...Im talking about CHEMICAL WEAPONS....

Are you and Chess Squares related? LOL let me help you since you're confused:

You quoted me as saying
ehh, Saddam was never a puppet of the U.S.

Then you said:

Then why did we gave him all the Chemical weapons?

Presumably because you think there's a relationship between the two issues.

[note: unlike Kwangistar I didn't debate the issue of whether or not we actually gave any weapons, since it's ultimately irrelevant. If you want to have that debate, I suggest you take it up with him :D ]


My response was (among other things :p):

Not sure how giving weapons and not being a puppet are mutually exclusive ideas.

Maybe if I capitalized it and had it colored you'd get the point? :p

So now I patiently wait for you to show how giving weapons to a country means that country is your puppet. :D