5 years from September 11, stock take.

[Korgoth]

why does gulag sound so delicious?

 

[kirovman]

Saddam + Spin Doctor = Bush

 

[Absinthe]

why does gulag sound so delicious?

Goulash.

 

[Gunner]

please list the reasons why saddam "had to be taken out" ..specifically when he was at his waekest and not when he was at the height of his power when allied with the west

He was an ally during the Iran-Iraq war; Iran was considered a threat and an enemy. Things changed when Iraq invaded Kuweit. You know this, I shouldn't have to tell you. I don't dictate foreign policy, it's not always about saving lives; it's also about protecting your interests, you can't blame the US for that.

what are you saying? that the entire middle east is a barbaric cesspool? do not the people of rwanda deserve to be saved? or the congo? or ethiopia? or the sudan? they're at the brink of genocide again and NOTHING will be done ..again

No, when you criticize the US and say it's as bad as Iran or Iraq under Saddam, I'm saying you lack perspective. Had you lived in the middle-east in an oppressive dictatorship you would know how wrong you are. And yes, the middle east is a backward cesspool and Islam is to blame for it all. As for Africa, it's beyond salvation at this point IMO, but the UN is still helping. And it's not like the US didn't try in Africa.

and you tell that to the 100,000+ innocents who have died in the 3 short years since the invasion of iraq began. Or how about the people being tortured in gulags across iraq in the name of the west ..isnt that the same thing as what saddam did? at least he had the balls to be an evil bastard instead of pretending to be otherwise

It's called civil war, it was bound to happen. You would rather Saddam had stayed in power indefinitely, till his sons and their sons took control? At least now there's a chance for Iraq to get better, under Saddam there was NO HOPE. And as for people being tortured, if you're talking about Abu Graib; yeah that's ****ed up but it wasn't US policy to make human ass pyramids out of detainees.

 

[CptStern]

He was an ally during the Iran-Iraq war;

in other words they turned a blind eye to his atriocities because it suited their interests

Iran was considered a threat and an enemy. Things changed when Iraq invaded Kuweit.

yes because saddam crossed the line ..he went from "he aint so bad" to "spawn of satan" literally overnight ..all of the sudden his atrocities were thrust into spotlight instead of ignored ..hypocrisy at it's finest. Please read the article to see the extent of how far the US went in ignoring saddam's crimes against humanity and even aided him at every opportunity

You know this, I shouldn't have to tell you. I don't dictate foreign policy, it's not always about saving lives; it's also about protecting your interests, you can't blame the US for that.

when it comes to US foreign policy it's never about saving lives ..and yes I can blame the US. They created this situation from saddam's early years to his downfall[/quote]

No, when you criticize the US and say it's as bad as Iran or Iraq under Saddam, I'm saying you lack perspective.

I'm not saying it's as bad, I'm saying[url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001968744_gao30.html] it's worse ..in fact it's worse than during the sanctions which was far worse than before the sanctions

Had you lived in the middle-east in an oppressive dictatorship you would know how wrong you are.

why am I wrong? is the entire middle east repressive? if you're talking about personal experience well let me ask you this ..would you back to iraq now that saddam is no longer in power?

And yes, the middle east is a backward cesspool and Islam is to blame for it all.

borderline racism, over generalisation but meh it's your opinion ...doesnt mean it's the correct opinion

As for Africa, it's beyond salvation at this point IMO,

lets nuke them and be done with them

but the UN is still helping. And it's not like the US didn't try in Africa.

no they didnt try and they keep preventing the International tribunal from trying leaders for genocide and waffling on support

It's called civil war, it was bound to happen.

torture was bound to happen? it's perpetrated by the americans ..without the invasion = no torture

You would rather Saddam had stayed in power indefinitely, till his sons and their sons took control?

yes because that's EXACTLY what I said ..why is it always the same bullshit "you're either with us or against" crap? that doesnt change the fact that the US invaded iraq illegally that doest justify the lies told that sent 10's of thousands of people to an early grave

At least now there's a chance for Iraq to get better, under Saddam there was NO HOPE.

you see hope now? ...do you watch the news? there is on average 100 people a day murdered in baghdad alone ..that's 3000 a month ..and that's just terrorist attacks that's not including deaths from a break down in law and order. Iraq is easily one of the worst places in the world ..so much so that lDoctors without Borders a volunteer medical group that sets up shop in the worst areas of the world had to pull out because they couldnt ensure the safety of their doctors despite being heavily protected ...it's the first time since their inception almost 40 years ago

And as for people being tortured, if you're talking about Abu Graib; yeah that's ****ed up but it wasn't US policy to make human ass pyramids out of detainees.

actually humilation is US policy

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA Human Res Exploit A1-G11.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA Human Res Exploit H0-L17.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA Kubark 1-60.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA Kubark 61-112.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA Kubark 113-128.pdf

those are US torture manuals


btw you didnt answer any of my statements, you pretty much just repeated yourself

 

[Gunner]

I repeated myself? you're the broken record going on and on about how the US is evil and intentionally ****ed up Iraq. You're making it sound as if it was totally deliberate, as if they planned months ahead on how to best **** it all up and how to ensure complete chaos. I'm not gonna go any further with this, you believe whatever garbage you want.

Hindsight is always 20/20, remember that.

 

[CptStern]

I repeated myself? you're the broken record going on and on about how the US is evil and intentionally ****ed up Iraq. You're making it sound as if it was totally deliberate, as if they planned months ahead on how to best **** it all up and how to ensure complete chaos. I'm not gonna go any further with this, you believe whatever garbage you want.

Hindsight is always 20/20, remember that.

you havent answered anything I've said ..again

and yes the US intentionally ****ed iraq up ..it was TOTALLY deliberate

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6456.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

and it's not my "belief" it's fact ..just because you dont recognise it when you see doesnt mean it's invalidated. Examine the evidence yourself, by all means refute it if you can


what hindsight? it was deliberate ..the only thing they didnt have hindsight on was how long it would take ..even they I suspect they knew but didnt care

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III." - Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml

 

[Max35]

Interesting...I watched a documentary last night called "Osama's Escape" bascically it went into detail that from 1998-2000 something the US Military had several chances to bag Osama. One instance had Osama walking with a prince of Saudi Arabia, but the US didn't want to take the chance of killing the prince because his father was set to buy billions worth of fighter planes from them and didn't want to botch the deal. This was among several opportunities. Also, they said that if there were more troops sent in during the invasion of Afganistan, there would have been a higher possibility to catching him.

They also showed a vid of Osama smiling creepily about fifty times during it, I'm guessing they had a lack of footage on him, or were just plain lazy, or both. It was interesting.

As for Saddam, my perspective (while uneducated) should have been eliminated, BUT the strategy was haphazard and poorly coordinated. And was stated that they helped him in past years, so I condemn the administration for that. In the hands of someone more capable, it could have worked out.

 

[hari66]

Interesting...I watched a documentary last night called "Osama's Escape" bascically it went into detail that from 1998-2000 something the US Military had several chances to bag Osama

I too saw something called 'the path to 9/11' in which the same thing is shown ......though it showed nothing about Laden's father.It basically accused former NSA Sandy Berger for not taking the chance to move in on Laden....due to an alleged friction with Tenet. It also showed how the US basically sold out Ahmed Shah Massood.....the northern alliance commander who was killed a couple of days before 9/11.
Of course one cant take many of the things shown in such documentaries as fact, but it was interesting viewing.

 

[MjM]

There's a difference between sending an unmanned aerial drone into harm's way and killing three thousand civilians. Saddam's Iraq had to go, one way or the other.

Oh and Stern if you speak to any knowledgeable Iranian, they will tell you that Mossadeq was a dick and an illiterate retard who could barely finish a sentence. I'm glad he was thrown out, the direction he wanted to take would have taken Iran back to the stone age, much like the ayatollahs. Under the Shah, Iran prospered and things were going well. The Shah was a softie however, he should've executed all the mollahs when he had the chance.

So America has killed many thousands of civilians in recent warfare and many would say that George Bush is an illiterate retard ...

 

[CptStern]

Oh and Stern if you speak to any knowledgeable Iranian, they will tell you that Mossadeq was a dick

really?

To this day, Mossadegh is one of the most popular figures in Iranian history. Although he is very popular among people and is considered a national hero by most, the now fundamentalist theocratic regime doesn't approve of him and his secularism and western manners.

and an illiterate retard who could barely finish a sentence.

Mohammad Mossadegh? since when did they start handing out phd's to illiterates?

He studied at Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris in Paris and received his PhD from the Neuchâtel University in Switzerland.

I'm glad he was thrown out, the direction he wanted to take would have taken Iran back to the stone age, much like the ayatollahs.

and which direction was that? nationalising it's oil and taking the contracts away from BP and Exxon? creating a western style democratic Iran? creating a secular state not run by islamic law?

overthrowing Mossadegh was a huge mistake

In March 2000 then secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."

you dont have a clue as to what you're talking about ..did you even read the links I gave you on Mossadegh?

Under the Shah, Iran prospered and things were going well.

where are you getting your information from? going well? if you call secret police torturing and killing citizens "going well"

The 5,000-member Iranian secret police force SAVAK has long been Iran's most hated and feared institution. With virtually unlimited powers to arrest and interrogate, SAVAK has tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912364,00.html

The Shah was a softie however, he should've executed all the mollahs when he had the chance.

ya he was a softie alright ...

The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html


gotta love the CIA's justification for regime change in Iran circa 1953:

The document [CIA document] shows that:

# Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.

# The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.

# Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

perhaps you'd care to counter all the evidence I've presented?

 

[gick]

Ouch. Stern wins.

 

[Gunner]

Man oh man, you just google shit and you think you know things. Your whole argumentative logic is based on googling shit.

I'm Iranian and I know the history of my country, I don't need to google garbage to know what happened. All the Iranians in exile will tell you what life under the Shah was like. But you couldn't care less, you don't give a **** about Iran you just want to "win teh internets" by cross quoting and linking articles that backup whatever skewed pov you have.

Oh and welcome to the list, goodbye.

 

[Absinthe]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

 

[Gunner]

really?

Yes REALLY had you ever heard him speak you would know.

Mohammad Mossadegh? since when did they start handing out phd's to illiterates?

He never had a PHD you tool, he just signed up for a few classes at the sorbonnes and never followed through. But you wouldn't know that since you just like to google shit.

and which direction was that? nationalising it's oil and taking the contracts away from BP and Exxon? creating a western style democratic Iran? creating a secular state not run by islamic law?

Nationalizing oil therefor breaking oil contracts led to economic starvation you ignorant ****. He got into power WITH A COUP D'ETAT, by terminating parliament and provoking civil unrest. Western style democratic... you really have no idea what the **** you're talking about.

overthrowing Mossadegh was a huge mistake

That's your dumbshit opinion.

you dont have a clue as to what you're talking about ..did you even read the links I gave you on Mossadegh?

Your links are all garbage, everything you say is garbage. You don't have any real knowledge of Iran or the middle-east. You just like to spend time arguing on forums. You have no thoughts of your own.

Now run off and google some more, please.

 

[DaMaN]

He never had a PHD you tool, he just signed up for a few classes at the sorbonnes and never followed through. But you wouldn't know that since you just like to google shit.

Hmm... and I suppose I shouldn't believe anything from reputable sources on the internet? Shouldn't believe anything on the internet? Well, then I'll choose to not believe you.

Your links are all garbage, everything you say is garbage. You don't have any real knowledge of Iran or the middle-east. You just like to spend time arguing on forums. You have no thoughts of your own.

On the contrary, I would tend to argue that CptStern has provided clearly thought-out, rational arguments, which you have then called garbage and demanded more. And he certainly more thoughts of his own than you do.

Here's a googled link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

 

[CptStern]

thanks DaMaN

Yes REALLY had you ever heard him speak you would know.

you said he was hated and I proved he wasnt ..your statement doesnt address either

but here's me adding the fact that mossadegh wasnt hated as you seem to believe:

In the minds of a majority of Iranians, the late Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh is a shinning icon of independence, democracy, patriotism and the rule of law. While Iranians, like most other nations, have their own differences on the ideal types and examples of social and political leaders, a solid majority of them seem to have developed a consensus on the high and meritorious standing of Mossadegh as a democratic and caring leader.

Indeed, the memory of Mossadegh, as an exemplary leader, is not only cherished by Iranians, but also by a large number of people in the Middle East and other third world countries. To Iranians, the hopes and ideals embodied by Mossadegh resemble those represented by leaders such as India's Mahatma Gandhi (Mossadegh's contemporary), South Africa's Nelson Mandela, and the United States' Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King.

http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/June/MM/index.html

yup you really know what you're talking about

He never had a PHD you tool, he just signed up for a few classes at the sorbonnes and never followed through. But you wouldn't know that since you just like to google shit.

well google tells me that the Institut d'Etudes Politiques (where Mossadegh was a student) and the Sorbonne (University of paris) are two different institutions ...he received his PHD from Neuchâtel University in Switzerland not the Sorbonne as you claim

...so in other words it's like I asked you who won ww2 and you replied by saying that sweden was neutral during ww1

and yes he had a phd (you tool!)

Dr Mohammad Mossadegh was a central figure .....Mr Mossadegh later studied at the Institut d'Études Politiques in Paris for two years, then gained a doctorate in law from the University of Lausanne in [Neuchâtel] Switzerland in 1913

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/iran/irankey.xml

Nationalizing oil therefor breaking oil contracts led to economic starvation you ignorant ****.

I'm ignorant? do you even know what nationalizing oil is? Instead of foreign governments/corporations have their lions share of the profits all profits remain in the hands of the country

At the time, the British were taking 85% of Iranian oil profits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iranian_Oil_Company#Anglo-Iranian_Oil_Dispute


..btw what economic starvation are you referring to? nationalized oil wasnt implemented till 1953 the same year he was overthrown ..oh wait you meant the british embargo that seeked to stop nationalisation when first announced in 1951?

He got into power WITH A COUP D'ETAT, by terminating parliament and provoking civil unrest. Western style democratic... you really have no idea what the **** you're talking about.

do you have any sources or am I supposed to take your word for it? (which at this point isnt worth much because you've been wrong on almost every point about iran and mossadegh)


here's my sources:

"Based on all documented accounts, on May 2nd, 1951, Mossadegh became the most popularly elected prime minister in Iran's history."
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/June/MM/index.html


"Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh (1882-1967) was a lawyer, professor, author, Governor, Parliament member, Finance Minister, Foreign Minister, and democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran"
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/


"the popularly elected Mosaddeq"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm


"Dr. Mossadegh was elected to the Parliament from Tehran"

"In the elections of the 14th Majlis (Parliament), Dr. Mossadegh was surprisingly honored by the nation and elected as the first deputy from the Capital."


I think this is where the confusion lies:

"Despite all the interference and frauds of the Shah during the 16th Majlis elections, the fake ballot boxes were announced expired, and the Royal Court minister was assassinated. In the second round of the elections, Mossadegh and a group of his companions were elected. It was this Parliament that approved the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. A while later, the Majlis elected Mossadegh as the new Prime Minister."

as you can see it was the shah that attempted to twart the elections ..he was elected twice in that same election

http://www.farhangsara.com/mosadegh.htm

That's your dumbshit opinion.

ummm it wasnt just mine ..or did you fail to read the Madeline Albright quote where she thought it was a mistake? ...Madeline Albright of all people ..the same person who thought sacrificing the lives of 500,000 iraqi children was "worth it" ..even she thought overthrowing mossadegh was a mistake

Your links are all garbage, everything you say is garbage.

I've backed up every last one of my statements ..so far all I hear form you is a lot of hot air without a single shred of evidence to back you up whatsoever ..it seems to me that it is you who is full of "garbage"

You don't have any real knowledge of Iran or the middle-east.

and you do? you've been wrong in everything you've said about iran ..for an iranian you sure as hell dont know all that much about recent history

You just like to spend time arguing on forums. You have no thoughts of your own.

you contradict yourself

Now run off and google some more, please.

what for? it's not like you'll try to refute any of it, you'll just use the convenient excuse of "it's wrong because I say it's wrong" <- Highly effective debating tactic

 

[DaMaN]

No prob CptStern!

Well argued!

 

[hari66]

Gunners take on Iran is as reliable as another expat's......Ahmed Chalabi's..... on Iraq.!!!!!

 

[99.vikram]

Sternpwnt :thumbs:

 

[blck_prod]

Your links are all garbage, everything you say is garbage. You don't have any real knowledge of Iran or the middle-east. You just like to spend time arguing on forums. You have no thoughts of your own.

Now run off and google some more, please.

LOL....If you debate in the above way...calling people shit and STFU and whatever. Then I'll go for the opposite party, even if they sell me crap.

Really. Some bad defense there Gunner.
You can't just swear and call names so you can win the argument.

Getting a little mad for having some of your sources and opinions violated?
Plz, CptStern has some great points and he backs it up with great and believable (non republican-controlled) resources.

People are allowed to have other opinions...So are you.
It doesn't make you strong to have an opinion...The real tricky thing is allowing yourself to change that opinion in the light of more knowledgement or an other opinion. That's what a debate and discussion or al about. To share knowledgement. Bad aditude to diss someone else's opinion and sources...

Grtzzz

 

[kirovman]

People normally just get upset like that when they feel their opinion is threatened by overwhelming evidence!

 

[blck_prod]

People normally just get upset like that when they feel their opinion is threatened by overwhelming evidence!

Wich is a bloody f*cking waste of everybody's time and my patience.
I have one on my back in my real life. Never listens, always knows best.
Really stupid and arrogant :flame: