IRAN, IRAK and the US position.

03USMC said:
Wow nice manifesto. Boy I tell ya what.

1800's and 1900's. That has alot of bearing on this discussion right ( ooops did it again...meant left) But hey spin twist spin reach twist. ;)

Why not remove Saadam in the 90's? could have been because our Arab Allies did not want us to. ;)


And gee willikers there Gingerbread. The Iraqi's had an election and man the that has apparently won was not favored by the US. But by the Iraqi people hmmm. Does that mean that the US didn't control it . :shock: Wow.

Elections don't make a democracy. Well you should know huh. Whens the last time China had free elections? They may not make a democracy but it's a good start.

again, i seriously doubt liberating iraqis is the top objective of U.S's mission in iraq, or at least they didn't plan to do that....
 
Sexybeast: Oh yeah, one marine looks to another and says "gee... do you realise we just released the Iraqi people from Saddam's brutal authority?"

No, we knew they were going to be liberated, it was even in the damn operation name. You can say all day long that it wasn't our goal, and you're right, because that's singular. It was apart of many goals that removing the bathist regime accomplished.

Gingerbread: I don't get your point, the USA isn't an angel- but it's probably the most righteous nation around. You appear to be striving to equalize America's vices with the likes of bathist Iraq. That's quite simply inane
 
is liberating Iraq the top objective for going into Iraq??
ask ur own ppl , ask ur own president and ask ur own congress..

for me, i ve heard U.S and UK were roaring about how Saddam support terriosts and how he have so much WMD ,

now U.S's own commission says saddam has no connection with Laden, and he has no WMD....

explain plz
 
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
rOk said:
Sexybeast said:
perhaps u can say U.S invaded iraq or doing other "horrible" stuff in the world....but i think U.S government does that for their own ppl's safety and prosperity......

You see that's the whole point of all of this...they want to ensure the safety and prosperity of their own people(which of course is understandable...I'd have the same goal) while assuring the rest of us they are doing this for democracy.
I don't think Bushy, Rummy and Condy give a f**k about the Iraq population...it's just an excuse...or an investment, depending how you look at it.

Prosperous!? How is this war prosperous!? Billions of dollers spent on the military, on rebuilding, etc. Not to mention human loss. The oil infrastructure has been sieged, and continues to be on siege. Gas prices have never been higher. This war has done nothing but make America bleed, in terms of economy.

You'd be a fool to believe it merely "didnt work out as planned", even if no insurgency had occured, it still would have cost America much coin.

Even after 5 years, it still wouldn't be benificial to America economically, but boy, you know, must be that master plan to ensure American prosperity. Lord knows that's our legacy when we've used our military.

Chocobo...you think small...5 years is nothing...think 15, 20 when a lot of the oil reserves are depleted oil companies will still have fresh fruit to sell.
 
Sexybeast said:
is liberating Iraq the top objective for going into Iraq??
ask ur own ppl , ask ur own president and ask ur own congress..

for me, i ve heard U.S and UK were roaring about how Saddam support terriosts and how he have so much WMD ,

now U.S's own commission says saddam has no connection with Laden, and he has no WMD....

explain plz


Ahhhh the Convienance of selective reading , hearing and comprehension.

The UN inspectors could not confirm ethier that Sadaam had destroyed his WMD's or manufacturing capabilities. They were hasseled and barred from sites ....remember.
The coalation had every reason to believe , from intel sources that it was probable that WMD's were present.
And it's not like he hadn't used WMD's in the past on Iran and his own people ;)
 
Hey Ginger..while you are posting every bad news article worldwide, don't leave out my Uncle Seth's prize coondog got run over Saturday. The wake will be at Podunk town hall Wednesday night. :cry:
 
I don't know about the rest of you but this makes me just want to pack up and move to China right now! Such a free nation so willing to comfort the downtrodden. I mean, weren't they so compassionate to that guy with the grocery bag in Tiananmen Square? And look how they liberated Tibet and stayed on to help them for the last 55 years! Oh and Gingerbread says they're not really communist now too! I can hardly wait! And I won't need to worry about gasoline either since China has no interest in oil production. :twisted:
 
gingerbeard said:
so right, let's twist the facts, what does china relate to this? china isnt even democracy. right i guess u have a gd sense of humour, twist, spin, twist, left. :lol: nice joke! :D

favoured by the iraqi ppl? what about the sunni minority? i guess u still need to know what democracy means.

when did ur arab allies didnt want u to? this already shows US is not working for human rights then.

but hey, just believe what u believe. i dun see the point disccusing with u as u like to deny every facts that shows US dun follow the standard but liek to impose on others.


Well lets see how does in my comment concern Red China? Hmmmmmm. It was meant to show that with all of Red Chinas expierance with Democratic Elections. That they are known to hold .....that you should know all about the process :roll:

As far as understanding what a democracy is well yeah I understand stand that pretty well there Gingerbread. Ya see I live in one as opposed to living in a Totalaterian Communist governed Nation. To understand democracy you must first understand the Democratic Process so hop up on Uncle 03's knee and let me splain it too ya. (And if ya want ya dont have to wear yer hat with the silly red star on it)

First you schedule elections, generally every four years. And people with different ideas run for offices, like President, senator, mayor and dog catcher things like that. These people we call canidates they make speechs and have debates and try to garner the support of the citizens. You see GingerBread these citizens are voters all of them as long as they are 18 and registered. They get to vote for who will lead them all of them can vote. Not just members of a certain Party or class.

So a certain day called Election day these people go and cast their votes . And when the votes are counted the canidate with the majority of the votes recieved is elected to the office. Operative word being Majority not minority. Sabes?
 
THE IRANIAN wrote:
I was expecting a reaction as I was perfectly aware that what you are tought is very far from the reality. Try not to be addicted to FOX NEWS, stop being the slave of a "ready to go" brain-system supplied by your government. Try to learn the respect of other countries, which were there a long time before America's creation. That's my message. Sorry if you cannot stand it guys.

I just want to tell you all something about the Red part of this message :)

With all due respect to all opinions, but I have noticed something quite unike with Fox-News chanel. I got channel 8 and in the mornings and after Bloomberg there is something there that is called news. Fox-News - Fair and Balanced indeed. -If you look at any other news Chanel as BBC or CNN- I can smell a clear presence of -quote: slave of a "ready to go" brain-system. I have never seen such good news as the Fox-News have presented for me. I just want to say that Fox-News is probably the best News program that I have ever watched because all the other news chanels are all the same and they seem to have one and the same message, like - dislike or hate W. Bush- just as they were Michel Moores own puppets or something. They are the farthest from fair and balanced thats for sure. And I am a news "addict" since child hood. :lol:

Sorry about this message guys but I just had to remove this feeling from my heart. If you want to know what the US is planning for Iran and Iraq I sincerly recomend you to take some minutes or maybe a couple of hours to watch Fox-News. And then look trough all the other news chanels that are in many eyes ,over here in Sweden, - the fair and balanced ones. EEEEEEeeee- Wrong - there you have the answer if you share my point of view. And by the way - one of the most interesting programs that you can watch is the O-Reilly factor. There you have someone that is Fair and Balanced if someone can be called that. :D

I can only say that I am grateful that there are some news left in this world like Fox-News. There might be alot of ppl around the world who points a finger at them and thinks that they are Aliens or something. *lol* But they aren`t robots that always reports the same news and cheers the same point of vision as the others. Iran/Iraq issue Libanon/Syria and Iran US issues you get it all fair and balanced from Fox-News with a few exceptions that is. ;)

Who is the fool? The fool or the fool that follows him?

-Obi-Wan-Kenobi-
-Star Wars-

Have a nice evening:
Doc.S
:viking:
 
Most of the FOX broadcasts that I watch always presents both sides or at least invites anyone with an opposing view on the show. Hannity & Colmes is a good example.
 
THE IRANIAN said:
Okay. one by one then.

So, I will start with Iran's case as it seems to be THE actual America's problem and that I have some good reasons to speak about this country.

Brief History (tell me if I forget something broth):

1935: After the loss of regions like Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan... because of English pressure, the last part of the Persia Empire becomes offcially IRAN (which litterrally means "the country of the Arians" ---> Iranians have european origins).

An army general, Reza Chah Pahlavi, supported by the USA and England, proclames himself Imperator or "Shah". He is a dictator, but he loves Iran and modernizes the country.

After the 2nd World War, Iran becomes the 1rst American ally in the Middle East, and the only country not to be communist.

After his death, his son becomes Shah. He is very close to President Carter and he forgets that his country is not France, nor America.
He makes 3 big mistakes:
- He introduces the mechanization in the Iranian Agriculture, without concertation. Thousands of people loose their jobs and become communists.
- He forbidds the hidding of hair for women.... in a muslim country!
- Fearing the communist evolution, he diminishes the number of universities.

1956: Riots make the Shah escape to the USA.

Mossadegh installs a democracy, based on the french model.

The first law adopted by the regime is the oil nationalization. Soon Egypt and Irak do the same. The OPEP is created.
That means that Western countries will have to buy their oil, no more free oil.
America, the 1rst Iran's partner, withdraws its capitals, as an answer to the Mossadegh government decision. The iranian economy faces a crisis.
The law is adopted. And nobody could do nothing against it as slowly all the oil producers adopt the same policy.
But the whole iranian economy is based on America's exchange and the loss of this partner takes the country down to its knies.

1959: The Shah comes back. Again dictatorship.

1979: Iran's revolution.

In competition background between Europe and the USA, France and England propose Ayatollah Khomeyni to replace the Shah (he arrives in Iran in an Air France plane, with the French Foreign Minister, announced by the BBC).
Khomeyni promises the creation of a Democracy adapted to Iran: the model of the ISLAMIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.

A few months later, 30000 communists are being assassinated by the SAVAC, the Iranian secret services.

Khomeyni proclaims the martial order. He suppresses all the political parties and declares his intentions to create the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC and his wishes to expand the model to the other muslim countries.

IRAK was a 14 million inhabitants country.
IRAN was a 68 million inhabitants country, 4th army of teh world.

facing the Islamic republic, and all the problems of terrorism it creates, Europe and the USA help Saddam Hussein to attack Iran. A resolution of the UN makes an embargo on IRAN.

1981-1988 : 7 years of war.

1989: At the end of the cold war, Iran's army is 60km from Bagdad.

But Russia is no more Iran's ally and Gorbatchev government wants to be closer to the USA.

The UN proposes Iran to come back to its 1981's borders. Iran accepts and signs an armistice with Irak.

Saddam has lost 2 million men in this war. His country is totally out of order. But he's got lost of Frenc-German weapons (the famous SCUDs) and American F16 aircrafts.

1990: Saddam attacks Koweït, a very small country between Irak and Iran.

You know what happened to Saddam then. And of course, the Islamic Republic became more and more powerful since then. And now Irak is following the same model.

How can I trust Mr Bush when he says he want democracy in these countries then?
When I was watching Foxnews last year, I was really shocked to see how they could transform Saddam Hussein in "a big devil" while he was USA's ally only 10 years before... teh poor man had not understood your manners....

Let me clear some points here!

IRAQ had the 4rth largest army in late 1980s (instead of IRAN, since they used human-wave tactics to counter enemy but there regular troops were close to 500000)

Europe and USA did not prepared SADDAM to attack IRAN. It was SADDAM's goal to take control of oil-rich "Shat-ul-Arab" region located on the border of IRAN and IRAQ. So he invaded IRAN for the purpose but later on the tides were slowly turning in favour of IRAN and that USA did not wanted it to achieve victory (due to opposition to government of Khomeini)

At the end of the war, you are mistaken that IRAN's army was 60 kms near baghdad. heck both of the countires gained very little.

SADDAM did not lost 2 millon men in this war either (seems to me that you under-estimated his capabilities). In-fact Iranians lost huge number of men due to employing human-wave tactics that did achieved some of there goals but at higher cost.

I don't think SADDAM got F-16's either but he did get Mirages from France and SCUDS from Russia!

USA only supported SADDAM in IRAN-IRAQ war situation but some take it as a partnership deal. In fact during COLD-WAR scenario, the two super-powers wanted to extend there partnerships to as many nations as possible so it was just the part of this big game.

And of-course removing a dictator from power and holding elections in a country does seems like transit to democracy to me ;) !

In the case of IRAN, it is clear that USA opposes the use of Nuclear technology for the fear of development of nuclear weapons because Isreal is then under real threat!
 
03USMC said:
Sexybeast said:
is liberating Iraq the top objective for going into Iraq??
ask ur own ppl , ask ur own president and ask ur own congress..

for me, i ve heard U.S and UK were roaring about how Saddam support terriosts and how he have so much WMD ,

now U.S's own commission says saddam has no connection with Laden, and he has no WMD....

explain plz


Ahhhh the Convienance of selective reading , hearing and comprehension.

The UN inspectors could not confirm ethier that Sadaam had destroyed his WMD's or manufacturing capabilities. They were hasseled and barred from sites ....remember.
The coalation had every reason to believe , from intel sources that it was probable that WMD's were present.
And it's not like he hadn't used WMD's in the past on Iran and his own people ;)

u r slapping ur own face with ur own hand...

so r u telling me i should not trust the commisson appointed by ur congress?
 
No there Sexy Breast. I'm saying that the intel available prior to the war indicated that there was a high probability that Saddam possessed WMD's.
That the UN inspectors who had not been allowed to make complete inspections could not state for fact that Sadaam was not in possession of WMD's.

No Intelligance service had solid agents on the ground in Iraq. Due to the fact that Sadaams regieme was quick to execute anyone they even suspected of being an assett.

As far as a study complied well after the fact by politicians (many of whom voted in favor of the war) well thats typical Politcal 20/20 hindsight.
 
I wonder if the contention that because Saddam would execute humint operators is correct.

In the time of the Cold War, USSR was equally ruthless if not more and even now the Chinese are also sharp operators. Yet, the humint was and is operative and rather well too.

Even the unclass Senate Annual Reports on Russia and China of now are real eyeopeners and very exhaustively detailed. It is not merely the assemblage of info from electronic and other means, but a good deal from humint.
 
03USMC said:
No there Sexy Breast. I'm saying that the intel available prior to the war indicated that there was a high probability that Saddam possessed WMD's.
That the UN inspectors who had not been allowed to make complete inspections could not state for fact that Sadaam was not in possession of WMD's.

No Intelligance service had solid agents on the ground in Iraq. Due to the fact that Sadaams regieme was quick to execute anyone they even suspected of being an assett.

As far as a study complied well after the fact by politicians (many of whom voted in favor of the war) well thats typical Politcal 20/20 hindsight.

agree that one,

and dont misunderstood me that, I truly believe getting rid of saddam is a good thing

but, i dont think WMD is a convincing excuse to go into there
 
Back
Top