IRAN, IRAK and the US position. - Page 3




 
--
Boots
 
February 16th, 2005  
THE IRANIAN
 
I didn't say I like Saddam. But there are lots of dictators, even worst in the world, and many of them are USA allies. And the famous WMDs that he was reproached to have were WMD that the western countries had given him during the 1981-1988 war... Irak has never had weapons manufactures.
So what makes the difference between the Irak of Saddam and the actual Pakistan?

Why is one of them your ally and the other one your ennemy? Why was Saddam your ally when you were helping him to attack Iran and then your ennemy when he attacked Kowe´t?

Who gives the USA to decide of the future of any country in the world?
Why does it seems like if America is playing chess on teh world map since 50 years?
February 16th, 2005  
rotc boy
 
 
another thing, its IRAQ (with a "q")
sorry, that was ticking me off
February 16th, 2005  
THE IRANIAN
 
Yeah, I could write ERAGH as it's pronounced in arabic. But thanks for the info...
--
Boots
February 16th, 2005  
rotc boy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotc boy
another thing, its IRAQ (with a "q")
sorry, that was ticking me off
and another thing, you need to cool your anti-American jets, Im sure there are some very nice anti-America forums you could find on the internet somewhere....
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
but u got to know, Saddam only kill spearatists, then US press accuse saddam is so inhumane to "test" its weapons. in fact separtists never fare well in ANY country.

right, russia bomb the hell out of chenchya, then US says nothing. why? russia is strong and its not US interest to mess with. why dun the press say russia is "testing" its weapons on chenchya?

intresting thing is, saddam was abusing human rights anyway in the 80s, US didnt say a thing because its pro-US and in US self interest. if US want to remove dictators and bring democracy, it could of done it in 80s which was easier anyway.

US aimply dun want anyone to have nukes then to make an excuse saying it will go to the hands of terrorists, and also seek more oil. that's why they are threatening Iran.

neway, i hope i dun offend anyone, that's my view. seems like ppl are getting abit over the top here.
February 16th, 2005  
CO5060.20
 
So what you are saying is that we should of left Sadaam in power so he could continue to rape and pilage as he sees fit, only to continue to ignore UN policies and erradicating whole races? In that case, crap, we should have let Hitler have France, the rest of Europe, the Middle East, Asia. Dang, what were we thinking? Obviously devouting spoils for personal-use is o.k. by your standards, so why is it that the rest of Iran is not taking advantage of nice freedoms such as that?

And in response to my new friend in Hong Kong, the U.S. in the 80's was waiting for the UN to get off their lazy rear ends and be stern with unlyal members like Iraq, Iran, etc. (atleast then), for this is not the first time Iraq or Iran has dubbed UN policy unfit for their time, while the UN sits there like bumps on logs, waiting for their turn to be attacked. Life is tough and it takes stern men to get through it on top, and the UN has very few.
February 16th, 2005  
THE IRANIAN
 
I'm always facing the same problem: if anyone attacks your government policy, you will systematically conclude that the guy is anti-american.

Explain me why I am speakin with you in your own language if I am anti-American? ... could you do the same in the French?

Sorry to disappoint you broth, I'm not anti-American. I really worry about your government foreign policy's decisions, and I'm not the only one. But it seems I'm loosing my time.
Lots of you seem to follow a simple logic equation that is:
1) America is the best country in the world and it has full rights over the rest of the countries.
2) Its powerful army gives America the capability of doing so.
3) Some countries are to be eradicated and it's America's mission.
4) Bush is God's hand and America's saver.
5) If anyone doesn't accept these rules, he may be an ennemy of America.

6)... that's pathetic.
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CO5060.20
So what you are saying is that we should of left Sadaam in power so he could continue to rape and pilage as he sees fit, only to continue to ignore UN policies and erradicating whole races? In that case, crap, we should have let Hitler have France, the rest of Europe, the Middle East, Asia. Dang, what were we thinking? Obviously devouting spoils for personal-use is o.k. by your standards, so why is it that the rest of Iran is not taking advantage of nice freedoms such as that?
the point is, iraq is in a big chaos, much much worse than when saddam was in place. in fact iraq was a weathy country before 1991 but due to the embargo it caused alll that.

saddam in power only harsh against separatists. hitler and france was a different thing. the situation is more like russia and chenchya.

i am sure US would send its forces to Taxes if that province claim to be mexico.
February 16th, 2005  
CO5060.20
 
Once again Iranian, you make false or unsupported claims. That is not helping. You need to be precise, give facts because I have zero tolerance for inductive reasoning.

I believe the problem with Iranians is that they follow this simple equation:

1.) The United States is only looking out for #1 (i.e. themselves)
2.) The U.S. is unwilling to compromise
3.) Iranians are always correct
4.) Europe and the Middle East are God's gift to the civilized world
5.) That America goes off of the BS you just outlined
6.) Pathetic....
February 16th, 2005  
THE IRANIAN
 
To answer your question Cxxxxx, when the USA attacked Hitler in Europe, it had been asked by General de Gaulle, by Churchill and European people were waiting your help. It's not the same today when american armies go and attack any country of their choice...

I don't say you had to let Saddam. I say : remember who helped him to become Iraq's leader some years before... who gave him all the weapons he had in 1990... who helped the Talibans to grow (against the Communists) in Afghanistan... and then who claims to dream about democracy in the world?

One day you help a dictator because he promises to give you the exclusivity of some oil contracts and the day after you beat him because he is a dictator... okay... great game... but what about all the civilians then? What about all the broken lifes? Yes... they will be refugees in the USA if they have a big brain... is that your plans for the world?