Jump to content

Saddam feared getting AIDS in prison.....


DRUNK

Recommended Posts

Ok, whatever. I've been there and you haven't.

This is where it ends, because for someone who has never been there to assume ANYTHING about a person who has been there, is quite ridiculous.

I'm not really assuming anything,

It's all rather self-evident in what you've said.

Just because you've been there and I haven't doesn't mean you're right, and I'm wrong, it simply means we have different perspectives, and different motivations...

You're over there fighting a war, and from what you've written, that means you've already developed a moral justification for what you're doing

From your writings, and from your military action, it is indicative that you believe your viewpoint, and your nationality, are the superior ones. If you are to fight in a battle willingly, you must believe that you are in the right.

Otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are saying.

Whereas for me, I'm not there fighting, and I do not have to subscribed to any ideology, therefore it allows me the ability to look at things from different angles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Drunk.

Good for you mate, and for them and us as well. And I am beginning to understand what you have achieved out there. So talking on here about your experience's has at least helped me.

I do agree with you about the Iraqi people, they are like many other Arab's and people in general who are from the third world. What we do in kindness they take the wrong way and so hatred is born. But don't forget, these people have never lived life as we have, they have only known conquers. They have had to put up with the Turks, then the British, then Saddam and now the USA-UK alliance in the last hundred years. They don't trust anyone, and who can blame them.

The real trouble will come from the outsiders, Al-Qaeda and the Shia and Sunni militia. Why didnt we shut the Iraqi borders right at the start and at least try to disarm the people first.

I think the guy who was sent over by Bush and the first thing he did was to disband the Army and the Police force is to blame. Bush went about it all wrong in the first place, so did Blair.

Glad you didn't take my attack on the US-UK alliance personal, as it wasn't ment to be.

Keep the posts comming.

Regards, Danny

PS, please post a name as with "DRUNK" we might get the wrong impression!!!

You are correct about a lot of that. The Iraqi people, as well as other Arabs, only know the way of conquerers and brutality, so this is what they have been conditioned to respond to and respect. As strange as it sounds, it was wrong for us to go there and try to win the hearts and minds, but being modern western nations, this is all we know. It made sense, and we assumed they would respond in a positive way. We thought taking out an oppressive, violent dictator would ensure appreciation. That it would expose the people to a better life.

We thought wrong. We continued to try, but what really has turned things around is making a commitment to the fight and never giving up. The Iraqi's assumed we would leave if pressured enough. They saw how our media and many of our own people were opposed, and they thought that we were weak, and that would bow out due to political pressure. Instead, we stayed, and as I said before, they are giving up, and things are getting better.

It should have been easier than all this. There were many mistakes made, no doubt about it, but we have figured out how to win, and we are winning. We are there and we must continue to stay, and resolve the situation, because it can be done. If it really couldn't be done, I would say "we should abandon Iraq". I now admire the leader's(Bush and Blair) patience and insistence on staying the course, because they have turned out to be right. They saw the big picture. There were times when I thought we should leave Iraq. I had frustration and lacked patience, and my morale was hurting. The media was attacking the war. Everyone was unsure of everything. Luckily, no matter how unpopular this war has been, we stayed, and I think if we continue to stay, there will be success.

I don't take any offense. You were respectful, and we have had a good discussion.

I think the war in Iraq will go down as one of the most important situations in modern history, and it is very important to discuss it.

The name was kind of random, but I do drink a lot. It's pretty funny because people don't expect what I write from a name like "DRUNK".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what armchair pontificators do, some more than others.

Yes, the added comfort of an armchair definately helps you to think better.

And I believe Nietsche was a great fan of the armchair...but that's just a rumour...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drunk, it doesn't matter what you saw, it's what HuPo, MoveON, DailyKos, CNN,MSNBC, and most major newspapers wants the american people to belive in. Like Hermit said, you need an objective third party to tell the truth, problem is most third parties are left winged morans who want to sell newspapers and they go by one rule. If it Bleeds it leads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As strange as it sounds, it was wrong for us to go there and try to win the hearts and minds, but being modern western nations, this is all we know. It made sense, and we assumed they would respond in a positive way. We thought taking out an oppressive, violent dictator would ensure appreciation. That it would expose the people to a better life.

We thought wrong.

Yes and the hilarious thing is a lot of first year University political students could've told you that you weren't going to be welcomed as heroes...

It didn't take a lot of brain power to see that one coming...

It's a great pity that the Bush Administration missed that glaringly obvious caveat as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct about a lot of that. The Iraqi people, as well as other Arabs, only know the way of conquerers and brutality, so this is what they have been conditioned to respond to and respect. As strange as it sounds, it was wrong for us to go there and try to win the hearts and minds, but being modern western nations, this is all we know. It made sense, and we assumed they would respond in a positive way. We thought taking out an oppressive, violent dictator would ensure appreciation. That it would expose the people to a better life.

We thought wrong. We continued to try, but what really has turned things around is making a commitment to the fight and never giving up. The Iraqi's assumed we would leave if pressured enough. They saw how our media and many of our own people were opposed, and they thought that we were weak, and that would bow out due to political pressure. Instead, we stayed, and as I said before, they are giving up, and things are getting better.

It should have been easier than all this. There were many mistakes made, no doubt about it, but we have figured out how to win, and we are winning. We are there and we must continue to stay, and resolve the situation, because it can be done. If it really couldn't be done, I would say "we should abandon Iraq". I now admire the leader's(Bush and Blair) patience and insistence on staying the course, because they have turned out to be right. They saw the big picture. There were times when I thought we should leave Iraq. I had frustration and lacked patience, and my morale was hurting. The media was attacking the war. Everyone was unsure of everything. Luckily, no matter how unpopular this war has been, we stayed, and I think if we continue to stay, there will be success.

I don't take any offense. You were respectful, and we have had a good discussion.

I think the war in Iraq will go down as one of the most important situations in modern history, and it is very important to discuss it.

The name was kind of random, but I do drink a lot. It's pretty funny because people don't expect what I write from a name like "DRUNK".

Hi Mate,

The only thing I disagree with you on is your admiration of Bush ans Blair. We the West set Saddam up with all his military might, with the Gas that killed the Kurds in the north and god knows what with his war on Iran.

We went to war because Bush said Saddam had WOMD, and he didn't, and I think they knew that to. Saddam got to big for his boots and invaded Kuwait, which in case anyone forgets was and still is an Iraqi province, taken away at the insistance of the USA and given sovereignty of its self after WW1.

The USA, USSR ,CHINA and the UK have caused so much of the trouble in the world by playing this power game, there is no real freedom in the world today. However much we think we are free our governments limit this just enough so we don't revolt. I believe the only way to stop the trouble in this world is, where there is conflict, segregate the two sides. Just keep everyone who cant get on with neighbour away from each other. And I would start in our own countries first, however unpalatable that may seem.

And on that note, Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you've been there and I haven't doesn't mean you're right, and I'm wrong, it simply means we have different perspectives, and different motivations...

You're over there fighting a war, and from what you've written, that means you've already developed a moral justification for what you're doing

From your writings, and from your military action, it is indicative that you believe your viewpoint, and your nationality, are the superior ones. If you are to fight in a battle willingly, you must believe that you are in the right.

Otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are saying.

Whereas for me, I'm not there fighting, and I do not have to subscribed to any ideology, therefore it allows me the ability to look at things from different angles.

See, you've got it all wrong. I think a lot of this conversation is influenced from your hostility at comments I made in the "gay" thread. Let's be objective here.

Your perspective, appears to be completely derived from media sources. Because unless you have stepped foot in Iraq and seen for yourself, then the media is the only likely source of information you would have.

The media, is notoriously unreliable, and after being in Iraq, and taking part in things that I saw reported on, in international news, I know how the media gets everything completely wrong, for the most part. I learned quite a lesson from that. So, you might be seeing things from a perspective, just like everything else does, but that perspective is based off the information fed to you from controlled sources. So how is that reliable?

My perspective on the other hand, is a direct result of being there and seeing things with my own eyes. Now as a person, you can read what I write and judge me however you want to, but I still state again, than I am extremely openminded, objective, and I go into situations looking at both sides of everything. Just because someone has an opinion that might sound biased to you, or wrong to you, doesn't mean it is.

Even though I have supported the war and Bush, and have defended both on this message board, I am not as devoted as one would assume. Believe what you want, but it would be more helpful to understand me and what I am saying if you accept this.

Developing a moral justification for what one is doing, typically happens, or should happen, before anybody does anything, so I don't understand how going to war makes a difference. Having a moral justification doesn't mean what a person experienced is invalid, nor does it influence what is actually experienced, at least in this case. It is simply a cause. It ensures an affect, which is experience. What ever happens during the affect is it's own thing.

I don't believe my nation or culture is superior to anything, because I don't know. For instance, I do not like Islam, but I also recognize its positives to those people, like the fact that it is a "man's" system. Men are the rulers, women are controlled, and it benefits men entirely. If I were a Muslim, I would probably like that, and would fight off anything that might change it. Why? Because I was born into it, and it makes sense to me! Maybe they have something right, I don't know. It is not what I am used to, and don't like it, but maybe they are superior to us. With their primitive ways, they might outlast the western world. Who knows. I look at both sides of everything, in depth, and whatever I write here is a result of very careful thinking based off personal experience.

As far as war goes, you find yourself over there, and you do whatever you can do to survive. The politics of it kind of disappear. The last thing I was motivated by was dislike for Islam, Iraqi's, superiority feelings, or anything like you've suggested.

The only angle you can look from is the angle the media has allowed you to have. You can imagine looking at things from different angles, but it is imagination because it is based off no real information. Analyzing things and looking from different angles is a good thing, and that should be the process which everyone follows for everything. However, when you are trying to put your imagination vs. someone's experience, it is wrong on your part, and wrong entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and the hilarious thing is a lot of first year University political students could've told you that you weren't going to be welcomed as heroes...

It didn't take a lot of brain power to see that one coming...

It's a great pity that the Bush Administration missed that glaringly obvious caveat as well...

They didn't miss it, they just didn't care. Cheney knew in 1994 that invading would be a major mistake...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, you've got it all wrong. I think a lot of this conversation is influenced from your hostility at comments I made in the "gay" thread. Let's be objective here.

The only angle you can look from is the angle the media has allowed you to have. You can imagine looking at things from different angles, but it is imagination because it is based off no real information. Analyzing things and looking from different angles is a good thing, and that should be the process which everyone follows for everything. However, when you are trying to put your imagination vs. someone's experience, it is wrong on your part, and wrong entirely.

Yes, I was annoyed at your hostile and degrading comments you made in the so-called 'gay thread', comments which I did contemplate notifying the moderators, but I let you have your freedom of speech, despite the fact that they were deeply insulting to gay people :)

The angles I look at are formed by several years of University study and also based on an understanding of cultural dynamics, not from news media ;)

And I'm sorry, but you can't really fool me...

The last post you made you began to back-peddle about how you don't feel superior, which is a load of bullshit, because you spent the other post trumpeting about how the Iraqi's were "not normal", they were stupid, and they were 500 to 1000 years behind your level of thinking...

Please, cut the bullshit...

My analysing of the situation is not based on imagination, however yours is based on simplistic dualities and sweeping generalisations...

You know why?

Because you experience hasn't taught you anything...except to solidify in your mind stereotypes and generalisations...

Your argument is based not on facts, but on your interpretation of the Iraqis attitudes and motives...

And a refusal to see things from their point of view...

Why do you refuse to understand things from their point of view?

because you feel that you are right, and that what you are doing has a moral superiority over them. Therefore you don't need to understand things from their point of view

Only two things can end a war:

Understanding each other's point of view, and then reaching a compromise to end conflict

or:

Completely vanquish the opposition.

If the Iraqi people are opposing you, then you're going to have a long long war, if you're not prepared to see things from their point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The angles I look at are formed by several years of University study and also based on an understanding of cultural dynamics, not from news media ;)

And I'm sorry, but you can't really fool me...

The last post you made you began to back-peddle about how you don't feel superior, which is a load of bullshit, because you spent the other post trumpeting about how the Iraqi's were "not normal", they were stupid, and they were 500 to 1000 years behind your level of thinking...

Please, cut the bullshit...

My analysing of the situation is not based on imagination, however yours is based on simplistic dualities and sweeping generalisations...

You know why?

Because you experience hasn't taught you anything...except to solidify in your mind stereotypes and generalisations...

Your argument is based not on facts, but on your interpretation of the Iraqis attitudes and motives...

And a refusal to see things from their point of view...

Why do you refuse to understand things from their point of view?

because you feel that you are right, and that what you are doing has a moral superiority over them. Therefore you don't need to understand things from their point of view

Only two things can end a war:

Understanding each other's point of view, and then reaching a compromise to end conflict

or:

Completely vanquish the opposition.

If the Iraqi people are opposing you, then you're going to have a long long war, if you're not prepared to see things from their point of view.

Sorry, but your university study and supposed understanding of cultural dynamics doesn't enable you to understand what we are talking about. It might prepare you for filtering media information, but it is still only media information, which is unreliable, and usually wrong. In no way do your supposed credentials, combined with an interpretation of faulty information, equate to a person's actual real lived experience.

I will say I prefer to live in the western world in the 21st century. You must recognize that the progression and advancement of the modern world must be "superior" to that of the Islamic world, which has chosen to stay right where it's at for the past couple thousand years. In that regard, the western world is superior. On the otherhand, I gained an understanding and respect for primitive living, which I can talk about quite a bit, but no one ever seems interested in that part of it, and it is in fact quite irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what we generally talk about when concerning Iraq or Islam in general.

Stereotypes and generalizations............exactly what every liberal fool throws out there when someone offers an opposing view. Well, where there is smoke, there is fire. The reason why stereotypes and generalizations exist is because there is truth behind them. They can be unfair to apply, because of course, not everyone may be like the stereotype of generalization indicated. But, these differences(the unfairness) are typically used when talking about individuals rather than large groups, because when talking about large groups, typically, the stereotypes and generalizations ring true. In the case of Iraq, the people are 500-1000 years behind us, and most of them are stupid, also uneducated (and I could make a lot more 'generalizations'). Call that a generalization, but it is true.

I went to Iraq with no expectations of the people, but of course, these conclusions were able to be made after my experiences there.

There certainly is a moral superiority. Iraqi's kill, rape, mutilate, steal, and do some of the worst evils humans are capable. This is not "some" Iraqi's, but a lot of them, and the others supported that. I witnessed plenty of this sort of thing.

You either listen, or you don't. If you want to make judgments, then go ahead.

Continue to watch your media in your sheltered little world. If you are concerned with what is going on over there, and are willing to listen to someone who has been there, then you can come back and have a discussion. Until then, this is a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I have supported the war and Bush, and have defended both on this message board, I am not as devoted as one would assume. Believe what you want, but it would be more helpful to understand me and what I am saying if you accept this.

Uhh.. are you for real, dude? :blink:

It wasn't all that long ago (a few months maybe) that you said..

(paraphrased.. but fairly close to your actual words, I believe..) -->

"George Bush is a genius. He's fooled you all. It's just that no one is smart enough to recognize it. He's got a long term vision for the middle east that will revolutionize the entire region. History will judge him as the greatest president in American history".

"I'm not as devoted as one would assume",.. you say?

Good god, man, you're a half-step from addressing

him as "Our Father,.. who art in the White House". :rolleyes::P

:lol:

I was in the most dangerous hotspot in Iraq at the time, and now, it is not a hotspot any more. There has been progress in Iraq, and these people are starting to give up, and work with us, because they have realized we are not leaving, and we have drained them of their morale. They know they cannot win, and slowly but surely, they are coming over to our side. We are winning the war in Iraq. We turned Anbar Province, which was the most deadly area in the world, into a place that is self governed, self policed, and where US forces can walk around and not immediately assume somebody will try and kill them. It is amazing to me, and I almost can't believe it, but it is true. In Baghdad, Al Sadr declared a ceasefire, and Baghdad has made a huge turnaround. The sectarian violence has dropped significantly, big time. Baghdad, besides a few bad areas, is relatively calm, and is rebuilding.

We have made significant progress in Iraq, and we are winning the war there my friend. We are outlasting the Iraqi's, and they are giving up. They are finally seeing the light, and the ones that have, are kicking themselves in the ass for not seeing it sooner, because we are there to help them, if they accept it. And we have been helping them.

Drunk.. my friend.. you gotta face stark reality, dude: we are not winning, and will not win a war of attrition against the Iraqis. The Iraqi factions have been fighting each other for centuries; their will to fight will long outlast the will of the American people to continue seeing US troops die for a cause (a unified democratic Iraq) that the Iraqi factions themselves don't seem motivated to achieve.

Of course the level violence dropped with the "surge" of US troops; that's to be expected when the US military floods an area with overwhelming numbers of troops. But the reality is that those troop levels cannot be maintained. And the Iraqi factions know this. And what do you think is going to happen when troop levels are.. as they inevitably will be.. drawn down? The level of violence is going to go right back up again. Hell, the level of violence is already going back up. April was the deadliest month since last September.. for US troops (49 deaths) and Iraqi civilians (968 deaths).

The failure in US policy was not merely a failure to win the hearts and minds, it was

a failure in providing security and stability after the fall of the Hussein regime (there was literally no plan for establishing security and stability) and an abject failure in filling the power vacuum.

You are wrong: Saddam was a really, really bad guy; a brutal, murderous dictator.

But you are right: it was his brutality that enabled him to "maintain stability" in Iraq.

And you are wrong: we are not winning the war in Iraq; we are losing. By all measures we are losing. Violence is up; after 5 years of war there is still no basic infrastructure; the Iraqi government (if you can call it that) has made no progress toward reconciliation/unity; there has been no progress toward an oil revenue sharing agreement; the Iraqi army and police force are nowhere near being able to stand on their own; Al Sadr, a militia leader, is the main power broker in Iraq; and even "the US-fortified green zone" isn't safe and secure. It's mind boggling to me, that you say "we're winning".

Dude,.. Hitler was defeated in less time than it's taken for us to make no

measurable progress in Iraq. How can you possibly say we're winning?

By what measure are we winning, DRUNK?

What indication do you have that "they're giving up"?

Are we even talking about the same war? The war in Iraq, right?

Lemme say it again.. "April, deadliest month since last September".

You think they're giving up? Seriously? :blink:

Tell me, DRUNK,... how will you define "victory" in Iraq?

By what measure will you know we've "won" and we can pull out?

And how many American lives.. and how many trillions of American taxpayer dollars are willing to commit to that cause? [trillions of dollars that could be going to the healthcare system in America.. the education system in America.. the infrastructure and national security of America.. etc, etc].

If we withdraw.. slowly and responsibly.. the loss American lives will not have been entirely in vain. US (and allied) soldiers will have given their lives to give Iraq a chance at democracy.. a chance to which the Iraqi factions have said "no, thank fuck you". US troops have done everything that's been asked of them, and more. They have been heroic and (mostly) honorable in carrying out their mission. But it's clear that the Iraqi factions do not want unity; they have longstanding, unresolved, sectarian "ishews" (resentments, hatred, loathing) with each other and they don't trust each other. Their religious beliefs seem to be rather.. incompatible,.. shall we say. They wanna kill each other.. or at least they wanna control each other. Five years worth of evidence suggests that they simply are not willing to compromise or cooperate with each other.

The bottom line is that we cannot force democracy on Iraq. We could choose sides and help one side defeat the other, I suppose,.. and face the regional (and likely global) consequences of such,.. but that's not a very appealing option, is it? Or we can withdraw and let the Iraqis fight it out amongst themselves.. forcing them to step up and achieve reconciliation and unity.. or not.. as they wish.

There is no "winning" US strategy. It's time to come up with an exit strategy.

Self-aggrandizing national pride is not an acceptable excuse for prolonging this war.

'Saving face' is an unconscionable reason for even one more US troop to die in Iraq.

It was an ill-advised war in the first place; it should never have been fought. A long protracted war was predictable (and was predicted.. by Cheney.. back in 1991). Bush and the neocon's war in Iraq was an enormous mistake. It was unnecessary; it was opportunistic; it was fraudulent. Even so,.. US and allied troops have done everything they've been asked to do. Now its time to bring them home.

Heck.. let's just go ahead and call it a "victory"

..and bring our troops home to their families.

Anyway..

..that's my broadbrush take on it.

Pardon my rambling.. I've been up all night and I'm feeling loopy. I'm going to bed

now so I can get up in a while are start watching the Indiana and NC primary coverage!

Go Obama!! :cheer:

peace. :hippy:

oh, btw..

Iraqi's are not "normal people", and so they are hard to understand. Trying to go there and understand them with a western thinking mind is a mistake, because we are dealing with people that are maybe 500-1000 years behind us in terms of thinking. When we come there to help, they are too stupid to realize it.

you said.. "Iraqis are 500-1000 years behind us in thinking."

and yet you also said.. "I condone all torture for the enemy".

hmmm.gif Hmmm...

Seems to me you're overestimating how far behind you they are, bud. :whistling:

...by about 500-1000 years. :P

and fwiw.. "normal people" don't condone torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stereotypes and generalizations............exactly what every liberal fool throws out there when someone offers an opposing view. Well, where there is smoke, there is fire. The reason why stereotypes and generalizations exist is because there is truth behind them. They can be unfair to apply, because of course, not everyone may be like the stereotype of generalization indicated. But, these differences(the unfairness) are typically used when talking about individuals rather than large groups, because when talking about large groups, typically, the stereotypes and generalizations ring true. In the case of Iraq, the people are 500-1000 years behind us, and most of them are stupid, also uneducated (and I could make a lot more 'generalizations'). Call that a generalization, but it is true.

Wow...

You can't even tell when you're contradicting yourself...

First you say the generalizations are true...

Then you say it's a bit unfair because not everyone is like the generalization (i.e. meaning the generalization is wrong)

Then you say but it really is true...

Holy fuck, are you really this stupid or what?

I mean lets just look at this again...

You say that generalisations are unfair to apply because "not everyone may be like the stereotype of generalization indicated"

right, so that means you agree that not everyone is like the generalization...

Then you make this hysterically bizarre statement:

"But, these differences(the unfairness) are typically used when talking about individuals rather than large groups"

Well, individuals who differ from the generalization, generally disprove the generalisation...

But then you go back to saying that generalisations are true...

And the Iraqis could make a lot of generalisations about you, but i have a feeling you'd be upset about that...

Has anyone ever asked you if your presence in Iraq is to fulfill the role of cannon-fodder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a hostile homosexual. All these things you claim me to be are what you actually are. Hypocrisy at it's worst.

What does his sex have to do with anything?

You can speak your mind without that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say I prefer to live in the western world in the 21st century. You must recognize that the progression and advancement of the modern world must be "superior" to that of the Islamic world, which has chosen to stay right where it's at for the past couple thousand years. In that regard, the western world is superior. On the otherhand, I gained an understanding and respect for primitive living, which I can talk about quite a bit, but no one ever seems interested in that part of it, and it is in fact quite irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what we generally talk about when concerning Iraq or Islam in general.

Stereotypes and generalizations............exactly what every fool throws out there when someone offers an opposing view. Well, where there is smoke, there is fire. The reason why stereotypes and generalizations exist is because there is truth behind them. They can be unfair to apply, because of course, not everyone may be like the stereotype of generalization indicated. But, these differences(the unfairness) are typically used when talking about individuals rather than large groups, because when talking about large groups, typically, the stereotypes and generalizations ring true. In the case of Iraq, the people are 500-1000 years behind us, and most of them are stupid, also uneducated (and I could make a lot more 'generalizations'). Call that a generalization, but it is true.

"..the Islamic world, which has chosen to stay right

where it's at for the past couple thousand years."

That's a pretty broad generalization, DRUNK.

There's been no advancement at all in the Islamic

world over the past couple thousand years, you say,..eh?

..you sure about that, bud?

:whistling:

Welcome to the United Arab Emerites.. an Islamic country:

emirates-office-tower.jpg

Welcome to (Riyadh) Saudi Arabia.. an Islamic country:

001_21575760.jpg

Welcome to the United Arab Emerites.. an Islamic country:

049282E.jpg

What was it you said about "Stereotypes and generalizations.........."?

..sit was omething about "fools", wasn't it? :shifty:

:P

:beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi, and yet where was the outrage towards Saudi Arabia? Do you think for a second if 15 of the 19 hijackers were from North Korea there wouldn't have been a LOT of aggression aimed at North Korea, and that everyone wouldn't be referring to them as the "North Korean 9/11 hijackers"? But no one refers to the 9/11 hijackers as the "Saudi 9/11 hijackers", even though that's what they were.

My point is that if 15 of the 19 hijackers would have been from any other country, we would have looked at the attack as an act of aggression by that country. But because it was Saudi Arabia, and the Bushes are in good with the House of Saud, there was no movement in that direction at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hi-jackers did not act as instruments of Saudi national security policy, they acted as agents of Osama Bin Laden, who in fact seeks to overthrow the Saudi royal family. The attacks stemmed from the United States ongoing military occupation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a presence which is directly thrawting his ambitions to stage a coup for power.

My point is that because the hijackers were from a country we're friendly with, we downplayed the connection and assumed (rightly) that they were affiliated with Bin Laden, and not any one country. But if 15 of them had been from Iran or Iraq, do you think for a second the Bush Administration wouldn't have been out there saying "this was a state-sponsored attack by Iran/Iraq, the attackers were almost all from Iran/Iraq, this is an act of aggression by Iran/Iraq". Of course they would've. They were trying to pin the thing on Iraq with FAR less evidence and circumstantial connections than that. The day of the 9/11 attacks, you had Bush's cronies saying "how can we connect this to Iraq?" You can bet if 15 of the hijackers were from Iran or Iraq, Bush would have been using that as his smoking gun to go after countries we wanted to attack. But because they were from an ally, the connection was barely mentioned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hermit, you cite those horrendously ugly buildings as evidence that the middle east has made some progress. :rolleyes:

Too bad those buildings have been designed by Americans(or europeans) and were paid for by America, indirectly.

They have the money to throw around, but so what? A chimpanzee can spend money......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have that luxury.

We have the luxury to sit here and gather all sorts of information. We have that luxury because we weren't drafted into the military, just like DRUNK wasn't. It was his choice. So don't lecture us on who has luxury.

Gainesbarre is just anti-American, from what I have seen.

You are by far a HUGE idiot. You and the homophobic DRUNK.

That's the way it always is with people like you - someone criticises the war, and instantly they're labeled as "anti-American". Whatever happened to the word "anti-war"?

How can someone be anti-American about a war that wasn't waged by the American people, but it's government? I really dislike people like you. Yeah, you're smart, but you're also an idiot.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that invading Iraq and bombing it's cities causing the deaths of thousands of it's civilians is not the way to go about winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi PEOPLE!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't appreciate how big your head is. You may be a walking encyclopedia, but you're the Wikipedia of walking encyclopedias - your information isn't always right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more accurate to say I am seldom wrong. I also take the initiative to explore and expand what I do know and welcome collaboration with others for no one knows all.

I don't think I've ever seen you welcome any collaboration with others. And you're right, no one knows all, including yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...