Page 1 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Jkid
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 487
Location: College Park,MD

07 May 2008, 10:15 am

Saddam was a great example of what it's called as "blowback".

Essentially the US installed Saddam for a purpose and supported him. But Saddam did something that was not in America's interest, so they cut him off and treated him as another enemy of America.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

07 May 2008, 10:42 am

CityAsylum wrote:
qgambit wrote:
I personally don't take anybody's word for anything - the facts are before you. The US has repeatedly trained and armed foreign fighters only to have them turn our own weapons upon us, and we are are always so surprised at their betrayals. :roll:

Bin Laden's many supporters aren't stupid, and they were, for example, more than happy to take US Dollars to help 'find' Osama bin Laden, and then surprise, surprise, helped him escape. After making deals like this over and over again, to a man, they all deny taking aid from the US.

Also, bear in mind that Saddam's properties were absolutely stuffed with American money. Business is business, and when it comes to bucks, our dollars suit the Arab world just fine.

This administration, and ones before it, can't seem to get that they are fighting a culture they do not understand.


There was no reason to support the Arabs in Afghanistan, and there was no reason for bin Laden to accept US aid. Who were the Northern Alliance? Do you not believe that the US might have financed those who were to later form this group, or would you sleep better believing the US supported bin Laden & Co?

Saddam was an asset in the area. The US surely wasn't going to support Iran.

How many people actually understand each other's culture? How many care about it? One look to the east and you'll know our policies are not compatible. There will always be conflict.



CityAsylum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,190
Location: New York City

07 May 2008, 11:09 am

oscuria wrote:
There was no reason to support the Arabs in Afghanistan, and there was no reason for bin Laden to accept US aid. Who were the Northern Alliance? Do you not believe that the US might have financed those who were to later form this group, or would you sleep better believing the US supported bin Laden & Co?

Thank you for your concerns about my sleep, but nothing about your theories on my own personal beliefs changes the reality of what the idiots 'leading' our country did when they whipped the pre-existing mess in the Middle East into a giant bloodsucking hell.

oscuria wrote:
Saddam was an asset in the area.

No kidding. Now that our brilliant leaders are learning about the tribal cultures the hard way, they are beginning to realize that Saddam's iron rule might have occurred for a reason. But Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al., thought it was smart to oust Saddam and unleash chaos by leaving the country without ANY structure or leadership.

oscuria wrote:
How many people actually understand each other's culture? How many care about it? One look to the east and you'll know our policies are not compatible. There will always be conflict.

If a country is going to deliberately, and against all reason, start a war that destroys a country and destabilizes an entire region, it had better damn well know something about the culture! :roll:

The World can only hope that the next election delivers an American president with an IQ that actually reaches 3-digits.



polarity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 502
Location: PEBKAC

07 May 2008, 11:16 am

oscuria wrote:
I don't think drawing border lines created hostility. There wasn't an idea of Arab nationalism. It was all tribal.


Yes tribal, like the Kurds, who when their tribal lands ended up in several different countries, each of which had other tribes as a majority, were displaced and forced to fight.


oscuria wrote:
There was no reason to support the Arabs in Afghanistan, and there was no reason for bin Laden to accept US aid. Who were the Northern Alliance? Do you not believe that the US might have financed those who were to later form this group, or would you sleep better believing the US supported bin Laden & Co?

Saddam was an asset in the area. The US surely wasn't going to support Iran.


OMG. Go away and come back when you have at least a basic grasp on the history of the Middle East.

The Arabs in Afghanistan (the Taliban) were funded, and supplied with weapons by the U.S. during the cold war, in order to fight against the U.S.S.R., keeping the area out of control of that power, and amenable to the U.S., because of the huge oil reserves in Afghanistan. That's a simple FACT.

Iran had a leadership that the U.S. supported, then they had a Revolution and the Ayatollah took over, then they had a war with Iraq + Saddam, because they wanted to liberate the Iraqi people, and the U.S. backed Iraq wanted to get control over the Iranians again. Another simple FACT.

All throughout the history of the Middle East the world's superpowers have been supplying alternate sides with weapons, and trying to sway influence to get their hands on the Oil. Whoever has it can give their economy a huge boost by supplying it to their transport and energy infrastructure. They also use it to fuel their military power (because ships, planes, tanks, hummers, etc. all use one hell of a lot of oil to get around, as they aren't made to be efficient, just powerful. Explosives are made from oil too).

Go and play some Real Time Strategy games, you might learn something about empires and resources.


_________________
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.


polarity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 502
Location: PEBKAC

07 May 2008, 11:18 am

CityAsylum wrote:
The World can only hope that the next election delivers an American president with an IQ that actually reaches 3-digits.


There's always the possibility though, that it will be a decimal point, used to make a 2 figure IQ look marginally more impressive.


_________________
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.


CityAsylum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,190
Location: New York City

07 May 2008, 12:10 pm

^ :lmao:



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

07 May 2008, 1:08 pm

polarity wrote:
oscuria wrote:
I don't think drawing border lines created hostility. There wasn't an idea of Arab nationalism. It was all tribal.


Yes tribal, like the Kurds, who when their tribal lands ended up in several different countries, each of which had other tribes as a majority, were displaced and forced to fight.



What about the Kurds? And now what of the Chechnyans? The Turks? None of them are indigenous to the Arab lands. All people had to be assimilated into a new country. BUT they would have still been fighting amongst each other even without a "border". To think otherwise would show stupidity in your part.



Quote:

OMG. Go away and come back when you have at least a basic grasp on the history of the Middle East.

The Arabs in Afghanistan (the Taliban) were funded, and supplied with weapons by the U.S. during the cold war, in order to fight against the U.S.S.R., keeping the area out of control of that power, and amenable to the U.S., because of the huge oil reserves in Afghanistan. That's a simple FACT.

Iran had a leadership that the U.S. supported, then they had a Revolution and the Ayatollah took over, then they had a war with Iraq + Saddam, because they wanted to liberate the Iraqi people, and the U.S. backed Iraq wanted to get control over the Iranians again. Another simple FACT.

All throughout the history of the Middle East the world's superpowers have been supplying alternate sides with weapons, and trying to sway influence to get their hands on the Oil. Whoever has it can give their economy a huge boost by supplying it to their transport and energy infrastructure. They also use it to fuel their military power (because ships, planes, tanks, hummers, etc. all use one hell of a lot of oil to get around, as they aren't made to be efficient, just powerful. Explosives are made from oil too).

Go and play some Real Time Strategy games, you might learn something about empires and resources.


:roll:

Where is proof that the Arabs were funded by the US? Don't give me this conspiracy theory crap. "Oh where's the plane that landed into the Pentagon!! DURR DURR ENSAID YOB!!"

It makes sense to keep a country that has oil reserves friendly to America or to democratic nations. I'm sure you'd love a Taliban-like regime if it came into power of a country that has oil. People are hypocrites. "Leave them alone! You've no right to tell them what to do" they shout while turning a blind eye to the regimes horrific actions.


Iran lost its support after deposing Shah Reza and removing Bakhtiar. Why would the US support Khomeini afterwards? The Iran/Iraq war was over Khuzestan (and certainly other factors before the regime came to power). Saddam believed Khuzestan was a part of an Arab homeland. In Iran, Khuzestanis were killed in the belief that they were supported by Iraq. Saddam thought that by attacking Iran, the Khuzestanis and Sunnis would be in support failed. The Iranians believing the Shi'as in Iraq would support them failed.


It is strange that you claim the middle east throughout its history was influence by OIL. We should rewrite our history books. Mesopotamia wasn't built because of its ability to create a fertile land, but because it had wealthy reserves of OIL. The Crusades was over OIL. Salauddin kicked out the Knights because he wanted back his OIL. The Mongols pillaged Baghdad over OIL, makes sense. Baghdad had plenty of oil. The Ottomans wanted OIL.


I don't play games. You might. Go have fun.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

07 May 2008, 1:13 pm

CityAsylum wrote:
oscuria wrote:
There was no reason to support the Arabs in Afghanistan, and there was no reason for bin Laden to accept US aid. Who were the Northern Alliance? Do you not believe that the US might have financed those who were to later form this group, or would you sleep better believing the US supported bin Laden & Co?

Thank you for your concerns about my sleep, but nothing about your theories on my own personal beliefs changes the reality of what the idiots 'leading' our country did when they whipped the pre-existing mess in the Middle East into a giant bloodsucking hell.

oscuria wrote:
Saddam was an asset in the area.

No kidding. Now that our brilliant leaders are learning about the tribal cultures the hard way, they are beginning to realize that Saddam's iron rule might have occurred for a reason. But Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al., thought it was smart to oust Saddam and unleash chaos by leaving the country without ANY structure or leadership.

oscuria wrote:
How many people actually understand each other's culture? How many care about it? One look to the east and you'll know our policies are not compatible. There will always be conflict.

If a country is going to deliberately, and against all reason, start a war that destroys a country and destabilizes an entire region, it had better damn well know something about the culture! :roll:

The World can only hope that the next election delivers an American president with an IQ that actually reaches 3-digits.



1) It would have happened either way. The Bush administration messed up. Rumsfeld was ignorant of the situation.


2) Would you prefer that the US put on an Iron Fist? That would solve plenty of things in the region.


3) Because when a nation attacks and occupies another nation it is sympathetic of the defeated people's culture.



MR_BOGAN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2008
Age: 123
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,479
Location: The great trailer park in the sky!

07 May 2008, 4:00 pm

oscuria wrote:
MR_BOGAN wrote:
qgambit wrote:
Who is say how history would have turned out if America didn't back Iraq against Iran? It's all speculation at this point.


No difference really.:? Iraq lost the war with Iran with Americas support.
Iran never invaded Iraq, so history would not have been any different. Just the war would have been shorter.

All America did was help turn him into what he became.


Ask any Iraqi and he will tell you "Lost? We won the war!"


Now, should we blame Brit/France for creating Hitler?




What did Iraqi achieve from attacking Iran? :roll: Nothing!! ! That is why Saddam attacked Kuwait, he had to have something to show for it.

Since when did Brit/France support Hitler? :lol:


_________________
Dirty Dancing (1987) - Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU8CmMJf8QA


CityAsylum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,190
Location: New York City

07 May 2008, 4:02 pm

oscuria wrote:
1) It would have happened either way. The Bush administration messed up. Rumsfeld was ignorant of the situation.

2) Would you prefer that the US put on an Iron Fist? That would solve plenty of things in the region.

3) Because when a nation attacks and occupies another nation it is sympathetic of the defeated people's culture.

1. Of COURSE they messed up, they are idiots!! ! (Duh #1) :roll:

2. If you are actually interested in what I personally would prefer 8O , well then, thank you very much for asking: I, along with millions of other Americans and non-Americans, would have preferred that a bunch of jerks like Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld had not started a pointless and destructive war. (Duh #2)

3. Attacking, defeating and occupying another nation is not the best way to show that you are sympathetic with its culture. (Duh #3)

Are you arguing or agreeing, and if so, with whom?
It's certainly difficult to follow your point, if there is one. :wink:



JerryHatake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,025
Location: Woodbridge, VA

07 May 2008, 4:06 pm

MR_BOGAN wrote:
oscuria wrote:
MR_BOGAN wrote:
qgambit wrote:
Who is say how history would have turned out if America didn't back Iraq against Iran? It's all speculation at this point.


No difference really.:? Iraq lost the war with Iran with Americas support.
Iran never invaded Iraq, so history would not have been any different. Just the war would have been shorter.

All America did was help turn him into what he became.


Ask any Iraqi and he will tell you "Lost? We won the war!"


Now, should we blame Brit/France for creating Hitler?




What did Iraqi achieve from attacking Iran? :roll: Nothing!! ! That is why Saddam attacked Kuwait, he had to have something to show for it.

Since when did Brit/France support Hitler? :lol:


The Treaty that end WWI pointed the finger at Germany to pay for the damages and by 1923 4.2 trillions marks of German currency marks equal 1 dollar due to hyper inflation which lead Hitler to power. The British and French didn't even put up a fight when Hitler annexed Austria and the present day Czech Republic. So we are at fault for the rise of Hitler as well along the British and French, Mr Brogan.


_________________
"You are the stars and the world is watching you. By your presence you send a message to every village, every city, every nation. A message of hope. A message of victory."- Eunice Kennedy Shriver


MR_BOGAN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2008
Age: 123
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,479
Location: The great trailer park in the sky!

07 May 2008, 4:34 pm

JerryHatake wrote:
MR_BOGAN wrote:
oscuria wrote:
MR_BOGAN wrote:
qgambit wrote:
Who is say how history would have turned out if America didn't back Iraq against Iran? It's all speculation at this point.


No difference really.:? Iraq lost the war with Iran with Americas support.
Iran never invaded Iraq, so history would not have been any different. Just the war would have been shorter.

All America did was help turn him into what he became.


Ask any Iraqi and he will tell you "Lost? We won the war!"


Now, should we blame Brit/France for creating Hitler?




What did Iraqi achieve from attacking Iran? :roll: Nothing!! ! That is why Saddam attacked Kuwait, he had to have something to show for it.

Since when did Brit/France support Hitler? :lol:


The Treaty that end WWI pointed the finger at Germany to pay for the damages and by 1923 4.2 trillions marks of German currency marks equal 1 dollar due to hyper inflation which lead Hitler to power. The British and French didn't even put up a fight when Hitler annexed Austria and the present day Czech Republic. So we are at fault for the rise of Hitler as well along the British and French, Mr Brogan.


Yes I agree with that, the Treaty of Versailles did create a climate that helped Hitler to come to power.

But it wasn't like Britain and France directly supported Hitler.


_________________
Dirty Dancing (1987) - Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU8CmMJf8QA


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

08 May 2008, 5:16 pm

MR_BOGAN wrote:
What did Iraqi achieve from attacking Iran?


Image


Quote:
Since when did Brit/France support Hitler? :lol:


Playing semantics.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

08 May 2008, 5:18 pm

CityAsylum wrote:
1. Of COURSE they messed up, they are idiots!! ! (Duh #1) :roll:

2. If you are actually interested in what I personally would prefer 8O , well then, thank you very much for asking: I, along with millions of other Americans and non-Americans, would have preferred that a bunch of jerks like Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld had not started a pointless and destructive war. (Duh #2)

3. Attacking, defeating and occupying another nation is not the best way to show that you are sympathetic with its culture. (Duh #3)

Are you arguing or agreeing, and if so, with whom?
It's certainly difficult to follow your point, if there is one. :wink:


What do I have to lie about? Why would I? The government had a disastrous war plan. The generals should have been listened to.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

08 May 2008, 7:54 pm

Jkid wrote:
Saddam was a great example of what it's called as "blowback".

Essentially the US installed Saddam for a purpose and supported him. But Saddam did something that was not in America's interest, so they cut him off and treated him as another enemy of America.


i think the main problem that people see with this is that during the events described above they demonised him by referring to actions that largely took place while he was still receiving support from them.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

08 May 2008, 7:57 pm

MR_BOGAN wrote:
oscuria wrote:
MR_BOGAN wrote:
qgambit wrote:
Who is say how history would have turned out if America didn't back Iraq against Iran? It's all speculation at this point.


No difference really.:? Iraq lost the war with Iran with Americas support.
Iran never invaded Iraq, so history would not have been any different. Just the war would have been shorter.

All America did was help turn him into what he became.


Ask any Iraqi and he will tell you "Lost? We won the war!"


Now, should we blame Brit/France for creating Hitler?




What did Iraqi achieve from attacking Iran? :roll: Nothing!! ! That is why Saddam attacked Kuwait, he had to have something to show for it.

Since when did Brit/France support Hitler? :lol:


this may be nonsense, but i distictly remember reading something a number of years ago that suggested iraq attacked kuwait as the kuwaitis were drilling oil reserves that actually lay under iraqi territory.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith