Yup... we fought Iraq for oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes Henderson, there is a lot of bad.
But for me, the Taliban get first place.
Why Muslims would ever consider supporting them is beyond me since the biggest victims of the Taliban are other Muslims. I guess fighting against America gives you a get out of jail free card regardless of what you do (invade a town, steal all the women and give them to your troops as concubines... sodomize little boys... sodomize goats... shut down the food supply that thousands of Muslims depend on... dragging "guilty" folks by tying them behind a pickup truck as a standard execution method... etc.)
 
Yes Henderson, there is a lot of bad.
But for me, the Taliban get first place.
Why Muslims would ever consider supporting them is beyond me since the biggest victims of the Taliban are other Muslims. I guess fighting against America gives you a get out of jail free card regardless of what you do (invade a town, steal all the women and give them to your troops as concubines... sodomize little boys... sodomize goats... shut down the food supply that thousands of Muslims depend on... dragging "guilty" folks by tying them behind a pickup truck as a standard execution method... etc.)
It's all about propaganda. The Middle East hates the West... The Taliban advocates hating the West, so they support them without a second thought... I bet the majority of Muslims wouldn't even know why they really hate the West if one was to ask them... They don't know why they hate us, they just do, and they accept it because it was engrained since their birth.

I hate the Taliban and their actions just as much as the next guy, but the fact is that similar circumstances take place all around the world... There are concubines in Africa... The Rwandan genocide for example... If a Tutsi member found a Hutu woman or child... God help them...
 
It's all about propaganda. The Middle East hates the West... The Taliban advocates hating the West, so they support them without a second thought... I bet the majority of Muslims wouldn't even know why they really hate the West if one was to ask them... They don't know why they hate us, they just do, and they accept it because it was engrained since their birth.


And their hate lists are deliberately indoctrinated in them through childhood, generation after generation, truth has very little , if anything,to do with it.
 
So you prefer Saddam Hussein over the Mullahs in Iran.
So you do not believe what you previously posted in the topic:

Topic: Iranian Election: Fraud or sour grapes?

"5.56

Your wrong. Iran isnt a full-blooded democracy but its elections up until now have been much more fair then say countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where there are no elections at all. Iran is a authoritarian religious theocracy but its not a total dicatatorship...yet."

and you would prefer Saddam Hussein,
The same Saddam Hussein who orchestrated the genocide of the Kurds in North Iraq.

The same Saddam Hussein who slaughtered Shiites in the south, after they rose up against him after Desert Storm.

Certainly clarifies your views as to why invading Iraq was such a bad decision.

And once again you take something totally out of context and twist it way out of proportion. What I was CLEARLY suggesting was that Saddam was the lesser of two evils. I never said he was a choir boy or that he should be nominated to the Noble peace prize, did I? DID I???? Your deliberate misrepresentations of other peoples post is getting pathetic, and only proves that you are defending a very WEAK argument.

And Yes Saddam was better than the Mullahs. Since the Gulf War Saddam kept his crap mostly inside Iraq, he wasn't exporting Islamic Fundamentalists to cause trouble all around the world like the Mullahs were since 1979. Saddam was a evil man, but he was dedicated to his own survival which meant he was much saner than his next door neighbors. Saddam was a secularist, he played the good Muslim for show, but in truth He hated bin Laden and all the other religious Fundamentalists whom he viewed as a threat to his rule, and murdered almost every fundamentalist cleric he could get his hands including several of bin Ladens followers in Iraq. The man who prevented al-Qaeda from setting up shop in Iraq and who prevented Iran from becoming a regional power was SADDAM.

The fact he never thought of blowing himself up meant he could be dealt with diplomatically to a certain degree. As opposed to some nutjob who thinks he is fighting for God. Just Try negotiating with one of those and see if he doesn't cut your throat at the very first opportunity because GOD told him to.

Thanks to the brillant idea to remove Saddam because he was a "bad guy" your pals at the Heritage Foundation (and the other people whose idea this was) opened a Pandora's box that unleashed a threat far more dangerous than Saddam.

(Slow Clap...)
 
Last edited:
It's all about propaganda. The Middle East hates the West... The Taliban advocates hating the West, so they support them without a second thought... I bet the majority of Muslims wouldn't even know why they really hate the West if one was to ask them... They don't know why they hate us, they just do, and they accept it because it was engrained since their birth.

I hate the Taliban and their actions just as much as the next guy, but the fact is that similar circumstances take place all around the world... There are concubines in Africa... The Rwandan genocide for example... If a Tutsi member found a Hutu woman or child... God help them...

Actually they hate the West because they feel uncomfortable about the looseness of Western society. This I know is true. There's a lot of things that we allow that they at least publicly think is unacceptably horrible (usually the whole having premarital sex, bearing children out of wedlock thing). You are also right in that they also conveniently ignore all the benefits they have gotten through Western influence (more freedom).
Most Muslims I've known would say that they hate America because it is morally corrupt and find it insulting that a country so morally corrupt preaches about morality and tries to impose its views/culture into theirs and therefore contaminate their people's minds with trash.

There is also a us-versus-them sort of mentality. They will hate other Muslims but the instant even the most hated Muslim gets into conflict with a non Muslim, they will back the Muslim. Regardless of who is right or wrong. They think that is being obedient to their faith and to God.

The Taliban have been systematically destroying the many different cultures that used to be in Afghanistan, also killing people of different ethnicities in large numbers. Although it doesn't quite hit the definition of genocide, it's pretty damn close and I personally don't see the big difference between a bunch of dudes who go around doing mass killings regardless of ethnicity and a bunch of dudes who go around targeting a specific ethnicity (except for the fact that the latter has a precedence with the Jews being victims).
Not only that but they managed to twist a religion into their own form. They claimed everything was through Sharia law but that isn't the case. Half the stuff they do is stuff they just made up. It's a blanket oppression of an almost unprecedented scale.

I'm well aware of what happened in Rwanda but I still put that behind Afghanitan. The fact that the conflict in Rwanda is largely over and Afghanistan still seems to have no end in sight is another factor as well.


Mmarsh, very well put.
You know what's funny? People knew about that in the 90's. What happened?
 
Actually they hate the West because they feel uncomfortable about the looseness of Western society. This I know is true. There's a lot of things that we allow that they at least publicly think is unacceptably horrible (usually the whole having premarital sex, bearing children out of wedlock thing). You are also right in that they also conveniently ignore all the benefits they have gotten through Western influence (more freedom).
Well, yes, there's that too... But is premarital sex REALLY enough to want to blow someone up? (Actually... Don't answer that one... LOL)
the_13th_redneck said:
Most Muslims I've known would say that they hate America because it is morally corrupt and find it insulting that a country so morally corrupt preaches about morality and tries to impose its views/culture into theirs and therefore contaminate their people's minds with trash.
An excellent point... But there is a fine line between "morally corrupt" and "open-mindedness" that will always be different for us... But that is no reason to hate... They shouldn't hate us because we see things differently, no more than we should hate them for the way they feel... (I mean obvious things like women being treated like normal citizens is something I would argue to death, but different sets of morals aren't bad... They're just different.)
the_13th_redneck said:
There is also a us-versus-them sort of mentality. They will hate other Muslims but the instant even the most hated Muslim gets into conflict with a non Muslim, they will back the Muslim. Regardless of who is right or wrong. They think that is being obedient to their faith and to God.
It's unfortunate... I'd be interested to see what happened when a Muslim was faced with a peaceful non-believer. Someone who WOULDN'T argue with them. I think that's what Obama's doing. He's trying to talk to them... They're so used to seeing America blow up first, ask questions later...
the_13th_redneck said:
The Taliban have been systematically destroying the many different cultures that used to be in Afghanistan, also killing people of different ethnicities in large numbers. Although it doesn't quite hit the definition of genocide, it's pretty damn close and I personally don't see the big difference between a bunch of dudes who go around doing mass killings regardless of ethnicity and a bunch of dudes who go around targeting a specific ethnicity (except for the fact that the latter has a precedence with the Jews being victims).
Not only that but they managed to twist a religion into their own form. They claimed everything was through Sharia law but that isn't the case. Half the stuff they do is stuff they just made up. It's a blanket oppression of an almost unprecedented scale.

I'm well aware of what happened in Rwanda but I still put that behind Afghanitan. The fact that the conflict in Rwanda is largely over and Afghanistan still seems to have no end in sight is another factor as well.
And that's why as soon as we invaded Iraq, we put ourselves into the biggest black hole we could have... There's no good way to end this thing... I'm just about convinced that the Middle East will have conflict until the end of time... I see no easy way to claim something positive, other than "liberating" Iraq. I don't know... I just don't see any way of justifying any of it... Sometimes it comes down to what's worse, losing American lives or losing Middle Eastern lives? But then I'm ignoring the human plight, and that's against what I think... So I can't do that... But there's some people you just can't convince.... It was just a bad move all around to invade Iraq... It might not have been any better with Afghanistan, but we'll never know....
 
And once again you take something totally out of context and twist it way out of proportion. What I was CLEARLY suggesting was that Saddam was the lesser of two evils. I never said he was a choir boy or that he should be nominated to the Noble peace prize, did I? DID I???? Your deliberate misrepresentations of other peoples post is getting pathetic, and only proves that you are defending a very WEAK argument.

And Yes Saddam was better than the Mullahs. Since the Gulf War Saddam kept his crap mostly inside Iraq, he wasn't exporting Islamic Fundamentalists to cause trouble all around the world like the Mullahs were since 1979. Saddam was a evil man, but he was dedicated to his own survival which meant he was much saner than his next door neighbors. Saddam was a secularist, he played the good Muslim for show, but in truth He hated bin Laden and all the other religious Fundamentalists whom he viewed as a threat to his rule, and murdered almost every fundamentalist cleric he could get his hands including several of bin Ladens followers in Iraq. The man who prevented al-Qaeda from setting up shop in Iraq and who prevented Iran from becoming a regional power was SADDAM.

The fact he never thought of blowing himself up meant he could be dealt with diplomatically to a certain degree. As opposed to some nutjob who thinks he is fighting for God. Just Try negotiating with one of those and see if he doesn't cut your throat at the very first opportunity because GOD told him to.

Thanks to the brillant idea to remove Saddam because he was a "bad guy" your pals at the Heritage Foundation (and the other people whose idea this was) opened a Pandora's box that unleashed a threat far more dangerous than Saddam.

(Slow Clap...)

Took nothing out of context. You just made a stupid statement
 
Took nothing out of context. You just made a stupid statement

Only to you. The intent of my post was clear enough to everyone else. I am not responsible for your lack of basic reading comprehension skills.
 
Last edited:
Open mindedness and moral corruption:
The line between morally corrupt and open mindedness... if you allow it, it means you think it is right and therefore anything questionable must not be allowed at all. To be open minded is to condone moral corruption. I'm sure you get the point. That's how a lot of folks see it.

Peaceful non believers:
Are still infidels and must be either converted or killed. Period. In the case of the Taliban that would be true. As for other Muslims, it really depends on them individually. Others from more open societies don't mind so much but others from more religiously fundamentalist socieities would see that person as the lowest form of life on earth.
Peaceful or not peaceful would be irrelevent.
Actually, being peace loving and non violent is actually seen as a sign of weakness by many.


I'm just about convinced that the Middle East will have conflict until the end of time... I see no easy way to claim something positive, other than "liberating" Iraq. I don't know... I just don't see any way of justifying any of it... Sometimes it comes down to what's worse, losing American lives or losing Middle Eastern lives? But then I'm ignoring the human plight, and that's against what I think... So I can't do that... But there's some people you just can't convince.... It was just a bad move all around to invade Iraq... It might not have been any better with Afghanistan, but we'll never know....

This is a very difficult question and I sometimes think the only answer comes with either success or failure.
Vietnam was obviously considered "the wrong war" but the Korean War which was fought for identical reasons is hardly called "the wrong war." The difference is in Vietnam, the US failed to preserve South Vietnam whereas in Korea, the US and other UN forces managed to save South Korea.
To say that America must stay out means you tolerate oppression wholescale. To say America must intervene, we aren't sure where to draw the line in terms of respecting other people's sovreignty. Is it right to say "We will tolerate all countries as long as they're exactly like us"?
Had America chosen not to intervene in world matters after World War II, I'd probably have starved to death at some point or if still alive, severely malnourished and living a very miserable existence under tyranny.
 
Last edited:
There are lots of tryants, and Saddam was hardly the worst. Iran new resurregence is largely due to the fact there is no Saddam Hussein anymore to keep them in check.

Which do you prefer Saddam or the Mullahs in Iran? Its an easy pick for me: Saddam.

So you prefer Saddam Hussein over the Mullahs in Iran.
So you do not believe what you previously posted in the topic:

Topic: Iranian Election: Fraud or sour grapes?

"5.56

Your wrong. Iran isnt a full-blooded democracy but its elections up until now have been much more fair then say countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where there are no elections at all. Iran is a authoritarian religious theocracy but its not a total dicatatorship...yet."

and you would prefer Saddam Hussein,
The same Saddam Hussein who orchestrated the genocide of the Kurds in North Iraq.

The same Saddam Hussein who slaughtered Shiites in the south, after they rose up against him after Desert Storm.

Certainly clarifies your views as to why invading Iraq was such a bad decision.

Only to you. The intent of my post was clear enough to everyone else. I am not responsible for your lack of basic reading comprehension skills.

First quote was mmarsh statement.
Second quote was my response.
Like I said, "took nothing out of context."

People can easily click on the blue arrow in the beginning of each quote to verify what was said in each post.

The claim of "taking your post out of context" is just a smokescreen to hide your rather misguided statement:

"Which do you prefer Saddam or the Mullahs in Iran? Its an easy pick for me: Saddam."
 
Open mindedness and moral corruption:
The line between morally corrupt and open mindedness... if you allow it, it means you think it is right and therefore anything questionable must not be allowed at all. To be open minded is to condone moral corruption. I'm sure you get the point. That's how a lot of folks see it.
And then you get into hypocrisy. Because there are things I might think are okay that you believe are wrong, and what happens when I'm in the position of power? You can't do anything about it... That's why I believe it would be better to not intervene unless absolutely necessary.

Peaceful non believers:
Are still infidels and must be either converted or killed. Period. In the case of the Taliban that would be true. As for other Muslims, it really depends on them individually. Others from more open societies don't mind so much but others from more religiously fundamentalist socieities would see that person as the lowest form of life on earth.
Peaceful or not peaceful would be irrelevent.
Actually, being peace loving and non violent is actually seen as a sign of weakness by many.
Yes, I know... It's unfortunate that people feel a need to NOT kill as a sign of weakness...


This is a very difficult question and I sometimes think the only answer comes with either success or failure.
Vietnam was obviously considered "the wrong war" but the Korean War which was fought for identical reasons is hardly called "the wrong war." The difference is in Vietnam, the US failed to preserve South Vietnam whereas in Korea, the US and other UN forces managed to save South Korea.
To say that America must stay out means you tolerate oppression wholescale. To say America must intervene, we aren't sure where to draw the line in terms of respecting other people's sovreignty. Is it right to say "We will tolerate all countries as long as they're exactly like us"?
Had America chosen not to intervene in world matters after World War II, I'd probably have starved to death at some point or if still alive, severely malnourished and living a very miserable existence under tyranny.
I just really don't know... There are a lot of factors in the equation... I'll say this... I DO have respect for George W. Bush in one aspect... That's the aspect of his handling of the crap life threw at him... He had one hell of a presidency, and he handled everything well. It may not have been the choice I felt was right, but he did it with conviction and assurance. Either he knew something I didn't, or he had one helluva poker face.
 
And then you get into hypocrisy. Because there are things I might think are okay that you believe are wrong, and what happens when I'm in the position of power? You can't do anything about it...

I guess that's why it matters who governs (sometimes).
As for tolerance and stuff, it's actually not something you can find a lot. It's either their way or the highway.
 
Another unfortunate circumstance in this world we live in... I know I'm quite the opinionated person and feel VERY STRONGLY about the way I feel, but I'm not one to try and make someone change their opinion... I might debate my side and try and show the person why I feel the way I feel, but at the end of the day... They'll believe what they want, and I'll believe what I want... Neither should condemn the other for it...
 
Neither should condemn the other for it...

What if what the other guy does is simply unacceptable in your eyes?
i.e. they use a certain ethnic group and use them pretty much like livestock. Slavery, rape, murder towards them all not only condoned but a regular way of life.
Do not judge?
Or attempt to liberate millions?
Where do we draw the line?
What if we accepted that Germans under Nazism killed Jews and that's just the way things worked over there.
To we tolerate those who tolerate but not those who do not tolerate? Again, that's cultural imperialism as well.

Judging is unavoidable.
Condemning is unavoidable.
Unless you believe in absolutely nothing. At the extreme, you get to a point where murder is the same as sending mail.
 
What if what the other guy does is simply unacceptable in your eyes?
i.e. they use a certain ethnic group and use them pretty much like livestock. Slavery, rape, murder towards them all not only condoned but a regular way of life.
Do not judge?
Or attempt to liberate millions?
Where do we draw the line?
What if we accepted that Germans under Nazism killed Jews and that's just the way things worked over there.
To we tolerate those who tolerate but not those who do not tolerate? Again, that's cultural imperialism as well.

Judging is unavoidable.
Condemning is unavoidable.
Unless you believe in absolutely nothing. At the extreme, you get to a point where murder is the same as sending mail.
There's a difference between judging/condemning and basic humanity.... I think I could probably count the number of people who believe slavery is RIGHT on one hand... Is breaking up a fight still considered imposing one country's will on the other?
 
The definition of basic humanity varies depending on where you are.
If it's difficult to accept or understand, that's okay. But rules do change and they change in ways that can seem unacceptable.
It's all a matter of where we draw the line.
 
There are still basic beliefs held by humans... Every human NEEDS food, clothing, and shelter... Every human has the right to exist in peace.
 
There are still basic beliefs held by humans... Every human NEEDS food, clothing, and shelter... Every human has the right to exist in peace.

Basic needs and basic beliefs are two widely different things. Yes every human needs food, water , shelter for survival. Those are basic needs.

Beliefs are alot different. Beliefs are a learned outlook and a learned system brought about by up bringing and culture as well religion often playing a part in this.

While in your mind every person may have a right to exsist in peace, once again you ignore human nature and divergent cultures and belief systems. It can't and won't be a fuzzy bunny world ever. Not as long as human nature reigns as it has for just about forever.
 
Do you believe any human deserves to die simply for their existence? I'm not talking criminal records, personal beliefs, or anything like that... Do you think any person deserves to die just because they live?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top