Getting Political with Iraq

[No Limit]

oh god im trying to think of those newyork times scandals, i cant think of the specific names, but they have cited incorrect sources, and didnt there CEO or head honcho guy leave because of these scandals?

I'm sure they had their problems with lies as Fox and others did; I am not trying to defend that. I want him to disprove what has been posted in this thread from the NY times.

 

[redhollowpoint]

no all media sources have bia's the funny thing is we all have to chew off a piece of the skewd vision we want, left right, were all the same in the end. Were all lied to, its sad.

 

[No Limit]

no all media sources have bia's the funny thing is we all have to chew off a piece of the skewd vision we want, left right, were all the same in the end. Were all lied to, its sad.

You sound familiar for some weird reason. :stare:

 

[seinfeldrules]

oh and kerberos you may want to read the "shaking hands with saddam" link, it's chock full of factual goodness tallying up all the little dirty deeds the US was involved with saddam ..oh and did I mention it's from the national security archives ...it's indisputable

You ignore the Anfal campaign. People like you were out protesting the war to remove Saddam from Kuwait. It is people like you who egged him onwards. People are trying to relate the situation 25 years ago to that of 2005, it is a relation that cannot be made.

That 150,000 figure is disputed; the number is closer to around 25,000. The following article states around 40,000 but I think that is still a little over what it really is

I'm sorry, but I tend to believe the testimony from the Joint Chiefs of Staff over a civilian newspaper.

 

[CptStern]

The New York Times IS a liberal source. It and Los Angeles Times are the broadsheets for the loony left now.

:upstare: about as "left-leaning" as is possible for corporately owned news sources. You must think sources like informationclearinghouse and media mattars as in league with red commies

And as for Syria not invading any1, 'like the US' - how about Lebanon. Or how about, when all the Arab nations invaded Israel in 1947 and in 1973. Or Syria firing rockets down into Israel from the Golan heights. Its not like America invaded Sweden. They invaded the country run by a murderous dictator who killed 100s of thousands of people. And yet still people defend Saddam.

who? who defends iraq? the only "friend" iraq had for 20 odd years was the US

Im surprised that the loony left is not seeking for a new UN Declaration on the Rights of Genocidal Dictators

come again? when the UN tried to bring saddam to trial for crimes against humanity the US vetoed the vote

'Whereas the people of old Europe agree, that a dictator who has by his own political skill, managed to subvert the rule of war and democratic participation, SHALL be left alone in quiet enjoyment, to commit acts of genocide, breach international treaties, murder 100s of 1000s of people. And whereas, the French and Russian Government will become most annoyed at said invasion of dictator, because it may mean there loans t such a regime will not be paid off. Dictators are people too. Give them a chance to fulfill their dreams of murdering 100s of 1000s of innocent people, using chemical weapons on them, invading neighbouring countries and pursuing atomic weapons. If you were a dictator, wouldn't you want that special chance? Support the rights of murderous tyrants the world over, who should always be left alone..oh, unless they are Nazis in which case....USA PLEASE COME AND SAVE US!!!!'

please, I can give you figures that proves saddam is mother theresa in comparison to US foreign policy

 

[seinfeldrules]

please, I can give you figures that proves saddam is mother theresa in comparison to US foreign policy

Who defends Iraq? You.

 

[CptStern]

please try to make sense

 

[CptStern]

just because we supply weapons to countries, doesnt mean were responsible for them, iraq (saddam) did not have to implement the chemical weapons, your trying to place the responsiblity on the US, when saddam and his people are soley to blame, I however dont agree with the US sending chemical weapons to saddam or any third world country, I do however see the line between the US's responsiblities, and Saddams responsiblities.

did you read the document? or is this a "gut feeling"?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

read that and get back to me

 

[seinfeldrules]

please try to make sense

You never fall into the trap of actually condoning Saddam, but you constantly blame his actions on the US. Furthermore, you claim the US is the more 'evil' country. This is perposterous. You can twist articles all you want, but such a comparison is sheer foolishness in reality.

 

[clarky003]

Id really like to see you try and explain 'why' you think a 'comparison' based against historical events is foolish. Capitalist gain through war as a motive is one of the main reasons wars happen, now if you dont see anything wrong with that, then you dont see really see how immoral the whole proccess is, (being jaded by patriotisim and bitterness, and lust for revenge is as low as the human physche gets, unleashing the worst in people, it may seem like a strength to some, but its infact a human weakness which people should be striving to overcome). Its power and profit gain for the elite at the expense of lives. It's not right, it never will be, humans are more than this, although some dont act like it. If everyone realised that its all futile at the end of the day, and all we are doing is killing our selves, our kin. Then perhaps we would all be better off.

 

[KoreBolteR]

yup, saddam's antics, were HIS own fault, not the americans.

he made all the decisions.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Id really like to see you try and explain 'why' you think a 'comparison' based against historical events is foolish. Capitalist gain through war as a motive is one of the main reasons wars happen, now if you dont see anything wrong with that, then you dont see really see how immoral the whole proccess is, (being jaded by patriotisim and bitterness, and lust for revenge is as low as the human physche gets, unleashing the worst in people, it may seem like a strength to some, but its infact a human weakness). Its power and profit gain for the elite at the expense of lives. It's not right, it never will be, humans are more than this, although some dont act like it. If everyone realised that its all futile at the end of the day, and all we are doing is killing our selves, our kin. Then perhaps we would all be better off.

Because they are two different time periods. Back in the 80s, our main goal was to beat the USSR. Today, the USSR doesnt even exist. In the 80s we had a huge problem with Iran because of the hostage situations and other aggressions. Our friends 25 years ago arent necessarily our friends now.

 

[burner69]

Id really like to see you try and explain 'why' you think a 'comparison' based against historical events is foolish. Capitalist gain through war as a motive is one of the main reasons wars happen, now if you dont see anything wrong with that, then you dont see really see how immoral the whole proccess is, (being jaded by patriotisim and bitterness, and lust for revenge is as low as the human physche gets, unleashing the worst in people, it may seem like a strength to some, but its infact a human weakness which people should be striving to overcome). Its power and profit gain for the elite at the expense of lives. It's not right, it never will be, humans are more than this, although some dont act like it. If everyone realised that its all futile at the end of the day, and all we are doing is killing our selves, our kin. Then perhaps we would all be better off.

Seconded.
Quite often arguments about the wests responsibility in these issues fall under straight away simply because people think it 'silly' to even try and argue it, despite mounting evidence that the west more often than not have a large amount of blood on their greedy paws.

EDIT: And yet, seinfeld, we still continue to sell weapons to over militarised, unstable regions. Look at Palestine and Israel. We give Israel millions of dollars in aid each year, and yet we sell 80% of the Palestines weapons to them. That's called fuelling war buddy.

 

[seinfeldrules]

EDIT: And yet, seinfeld, we still continue to sell weapons to over militarised, unstable regions. Look at Palestine and Israel. We give Israel millions of dollars in aid each year, and yet we sell 80% of the Palestines weapons to them. That's called fuelling war buddy.

I'd like to see where we sell Hezbola (sp) and Hamas weapons.

 

[burner69]

I'd like to see where we sell Hezbola (sp) and Hamas weapons.

The U.S. justifies the nearly $3 billion in annual military aid to Israel on the grounds of protecting that country from its Arab neighbors, even though the United States supplies 80 percent of the arms to these Arab states. The 1978 Camp David Accord between Israel and Egypt was in many ways more like a tripartite military pact than a peace agreement in that it has resulted in more than $5 billion is annual U.S. arms transfers to those two countries. U.S. weapons have been used repeatedly in attacks against civilians by Israel, Turkey and other countries. It is not surprising that terrorist movements have arisen in a region where so many states maintain their power influence through force of arms.

Source

 

[seinfeldrules]

yet we sell 80% of the Palestines weapons to them.

United States supplies 80 percent of the arms to these Arab states.

Palestine isnt every Arab state, especially not Hezbola and Hamas.

PS Find me a non partisan site.

 

[burner69]

Palestine isnt every Arab state, especially not Hezbola and Hamas.

PS Find me a non partisan site.

But it is these states that attack Israel.

And I prob can't find you another site (there might be one, I dunno, it's late and...erm... i need to feed the cat) but I think that sites reasonably reliable, if you don't agree though I can't argue I suppose

 

[Calanen]

I like the figure US supplies 80 per cent of the arms to the Arab states....hmm theymay supply some, don't doubt that. But, whenever I see Arabs on the news or anywhere, they have AK47s or AK74s or RPGs. America does not make Russian military weapons...... If they had AT4s and M-16s, and SAWs, I might go hmm, came from the US. But Russian weapons?

 

[Calanen]

My own understanding of where money for Palestinians came from, was from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia predominantly. The Palestinians also, again, have ex-soviet weaponry. You can buy a lot of guns with Saudi donations. So where is this bold claim of 80 per cent of weapons held by Palestinains being provided by the USA?

 

[Nofuture]

In the 80s we had a huge problem with Iran because of the hostage situations and other aggressions. Our friends 25 years ago arent necessarily our friends now.

You mean the Iranian Revolution? Then the USA had eventually get out of this country.

What other aggressions?

 

[Nofuture]

Btw, seinfeldrules, did you know about this?:

1988
U.S. Navy Mass-Murder of Civilian Iranian Airline Passengers
Known civilian deaths: 290 people.
By Steve James

On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy warship the Vincennes was operating within Iranian waters, providing military support for Iraq in the ongoing Iran/Iraq war. During a one-sided battle against a small number of lightly armed Iranian gunboats, the Vincennes fired two missiles at an [Iranian] Airbus, which was on a routine civilian flight. All 290 civilians onboard were killed.

This act of mass murder by the U.S. has never resulted in any court case. The captain and crew of the Vincennes were militarily decorated. Attempts by relatives of the victims to bring legal action against the American government were rejected by the US Supreme Court in 1993. Despite the fact that the vast majority of victims were Iranian, the US paid $2.9 million in compensation only to non-Iranian victims of the shooting.

“I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.”

— President George Bush, Sr.
referring to the mass-murder
of Iranian civilian people
by the U.S.S. Vincennes

:flame: :flame: :flame:

Isn´t it disgusting?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Where are you yanking this from? Source please?

 

[Tr0n]

Where are you yanking this from? Source please?

I am wondering the same.

Nofuture we need a linky.

 

[CptStern]

it's true

 

[K e r b e r o s]

According to US government accounts, Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian airplane as an attacking military fighter. The officers identified the flight profile being flown by the A300B2 as being similar to that of an Iranian Air Force F-14A Tomcat during an attack run.

Ah, okay.

Well that clears it up.

 

[clarky003]

lol, how the hell do you mistake that for an F-14, let alone explain the mistake .. jumpy, and utterly careless?

 

[CptStern]

In the 80s we had a huge problem with Iran because of the hostage situations and other aggressions. Our friends 25 years ago arent necessarily our friends now.

no, actually the US had very good relations with iran starting with the coup of 53. When the shah was finally overthrown in 79 Komenini's followers abducted american hostages out of outrage that the US had sheltered the shah. ..the shah was responsible for decades of ruling with an iron fist meted out by the brutal and murderous secret police SAVAK (trained by cia) They wanted to negotiate a trade of the shah for the americans.

Now that iran had reverted back to an fundamentalist state ruled by an ayatollah the US was shut out of iranian oil contracts and other lucrative businesses. The US did retain their arms contracts with iran (iran-contra affair) up until the mid 80's as the iraq-iran war was too sweet a plum to leave unpicked

 

[K e r b e r o s]

lol, how the hell do you mistake that for an F-14, let alone explain the mistake .. jumpy, and utterly careless?

Hey, the source stated it was still off for debate -- so that means nethire side won.

Now that iran had reverted back to an fundamentalist state ruled by an ayatollah the US was shut out of iranian oil contracts and other lucrative businesses. The US did retain their arms contracts with iran (iran-contra affair) up until the mid 80's as the iraq-iran war was too sweet a plum to leave unpicked

Iran-Contra? Sounds interesting ... and I mean that.

Source? (No, I'm not being my usual rigid self Stern)

 

[CptStern]

what?????? you dont know about the iran-contra affair? ollie north? my god it dominated the media for a few years. it was reagan's watergate. The gist of it: the US secretly sold weapons to iran during the iran-iraq war (ya I know, the US was supplying iraq as well) and then used the money to aid the Contras (terrorist group that targeted civilians) against the democratic left-leaning sandinistas

 

[Calanen]

The Vincennes took down the airliner by mistake during a battle, which is regrettable. But to try and say it was some form of US terrorism - is loony lefto nutso land again.

 

[CptStern]

The Vincennes took down the airliner by mistake during a battle, which is regrettable. But to try and say it was some form of US terrorism - is loony lefto nutso land again.

bull, the Vincennes had been in pursuit of gunboats not fighter planes

"At the time of the incident, Vincennes was within Iranian territorial waters, following an attack on and pursuit of Iranian gunboats."

 

[burner69]

The Vincennes took down the airliner by mistake during a battle, which is regrettable. But to try and say it was some form of US terrorism - is loony lefto nutso land again.

But it's bad, yeah?

Or am I just looney?

 

[seinfeldrules]

But it's bad, yeah?

Nobody here is claiming it is not bad. As mentioned, this was a horrendous mistake. However, a mistake doesnt equate to genocide or many other evil deeds performed around the globe. Nobody claims the US is perfect.

 

[bliink]

Nobody here is claiming it is not bad. As mentioned, this was a horrendous mistake. However, a mistake doesnt equate to genocide or many other evil deeds performed around the globe. Nobody claims the US is perfect.

“I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.”

Come on... they can't say sorry about it though?

 

[Korgoth]

it can't be perfect what with all of us "looney lefto nutso people"... Wait a second, I thougth you guys said we were the ones who resorted to name calling, hmm oh well.

 

[seinfeldrules]

“I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.”

We need to see the full context of this.

 

[bliink]

We need to see the full context of this.

AFAIK, a reporter asked for comment at a press conference.
I'm assuming that it was a question in that realm

 

[seinfeldrules]

AFAIK, a reporter asked for comment at a press conference.
I'm assuming that it was a question in that realm

I would need to see the full quote though.

 

[Korgoth]

Would it really matter? Really? If that is the entire quote, exactly in its context, you would still find a way to explain it away, and forgive him for it without ever acknowleding a mistake on his part anyway...

 

[seinfeldrules]

Would it really matter? Really? If that is the entire quote, exactly in its context, you would still find a way to explain it away, and forgive him for it without ever acknowleding a mistake on his part anyway...

.......

Nobody claims the US is perfect.