TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-Il
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ...but isn't that a referendum on the mentality and menace of fascist Islam as a whole? if this is what can happen in the cradle of Arab civilization when peaceful people can't take a dump without wondering whether their entire families could be vaporized for fear of a religion or a murderous secular dictator then what the hell are other moderate countries willing to do about it? what the hell are you willing to do about it?

+1
And somehow, its the US's fault.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not arguing iraq here. but whilst we're here, there was nothing wrong with the invasion of afghanistan. completely justified. im saying that even if someone was conducting a legitimate war, they are, by default, a threat to "peace".

Actually there was. If any country should have been bombed the shit out of, it should have been Saudia Araba & Pakistan (I'm guessing you know where the alleged hijackers were from and ISI's funding/training of al-Q, and Mohammad Atta's million dollar, or whatever sum it was, wire transfer from head of ISI, under CIA orders). And the tactics, technology, and means used by the modern states in modern warfare causes far too many civilian causalties to say the least, if not utter disregard for civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. Cowards bomb civilian/public infrastructre in order to hurt the enemy, not people with ethics, morals, and guts.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX +1 And somehow, its the US's fault.

You really should have said that, since it is. CIA funding & training of Taliban, US support for Saudia Arabia (which translates to supporting Wahabis, the fucking nuttiest extremest out there), US installing and arming Sadaam etc. makes it rather obvious who's responsible.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN link

What exactly are you trying to prove? That Sadaam was a horrible evil dictator (which he was) so the US is somehow doing the Iraqis a favour now? Don't forget who brought him into power and gave him the arms and training that allowed him to commit his heinous crimes in the first place. And have you forgotton about the Shitte uprising against Sadaam that was crushed with help from the US? The Shias would have taken him out if the US wasn't interested in keeping him there.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z You really should have said that, since it is. CIA funding & training of Taliban

Funding for the Afgan resistance ceased in 1989 when the Soviets cleared out, the Taliban came about around 1993 or so, if you can prove otherwise I'm interested in seeing unbiased documentation.
Not really sticking up for the US, they have backed people like you said, which came around and bit them on the bum on a few occassions.
But thats politics and people, they tend too do that.

Re: British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-Il

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html Also, among America's other allies and neighbors: - Only 1 in 4 Israelis thinks Bush has the made world "safer" - The majority of Canadians and Mexicans think he has made the world more dangerous

I'm another Brit who thinks Bush is more dangerous than KJI.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Funding for the Afgan resistance ceased in 1989 when the Soviets cleared out, the Taliban came about around 1993 or so, if you can prove otherwise I'm interested in seeing unbiased documentation. Not really sticking up for the US, they have backed people like you said, which came around and bit them on the bum on a few occassions. But thats politics and people, they tend too do that.

I thought the U.S. gave the Taliban like 20 million in 2001.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no. the fact that they've now been given the potential to be one of the greatest success stories in the history moderate Arab democracy, maybe all democracies justifies the use of military force. thats nothing new given the entire last century of new democracies.

They would have been given that potential if the current administration had not completely fucked up the entire operation. They had one goal in mind, and that was to go to war, and they didn't give a rats ass about the aftermath. They thought the Iraqis would do it themselves, that after decades of living under a totalitarian regime they would just pop up as supporters of a democratic government. They believe they owe nothing to the Iraqis, since they have given them "freedom".

The cause to free Iraq and make it a forward thinking nation in the ME is a noble one, but you're dellusional if you think that is the goal of the people who have gotten us into this mess.

Re: British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-Il

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd SOURCE:

Lol, I love Bush's picture. I wonder how they got some one who usually looks like a bumbling country boy to look some what sinsister.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN link SADDAM Hussein's conviction for the massacre of 148 Shiites in 1982 in the Iraqi village of Dujail was the first in an expected series of such trials. It was also only one small episode from the former Iraqi tyrant's blood-soaked years. ...

That by no means justify the war in Iraq. Everybody knows that US and Britain were supporting Sadam's regime in the past, I bet they knew at that time that he is not the holiest man on earth.

The UN is responsible to take any measurements against such regimes.

This war was just the US invasion to the Iraq with one goal to conquer this land. It's quite the same as A.Hitler did invading Europe and Russia in during WW2.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis They would have been given that potential if the current administration had not completely fucked up the entire operation. They had one goal in mind, and that was to go to war, and they didn't give a rats ass about the aftermath. They thought the Iraqis would do it themselves, that after decades of living under a totalitarian regime they would just pop up as supporters of a democratic government. They believe they owe nothing to the Iraqis, since they have given them "freedom". The cause to free Iraq and make it a forward thinking nation in the ME is a noble one, but you're dellusional if you think that is the goal of the people who have gotten us into this mess.

What is the fucking criteria of forward thinking nation ???

What would if some crazy fuck will wake up tomorrow realizing that his own ideology is the right one and invade the US or Europe because he thinks he is freeing up people from the democracy ??

Who gave you the right to decide for other people ? Did Iraqis vote for the democracy ? They didn't even know what is that, they are living with a completely different life.

It reminds me all these church sayings, if you don't pray if will be in hell, if you do that you will be in hell if you do that you will be punished.

Who decides what is the right or wrong ?

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Funding for the Afgan resistance ceased in 1989 when the Soviets cleared out, the Taliban came about around 1993 or so, if you can prove otherwise I'm interested in seeing unbiased documentation. Not really sticking up for the US, they have backed people like you said, which came around and bit them on the bum on a few occassions. But thats politics and people, they tend too do that.

Osama was trained by CIA to lead the insurgency against Russian forces. He kept money in the bank. That's simple.

Nobody will show you unbiased documentation on this matter, and you know why.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan +1 on that brotha.

Yes, thank you for the quagmire that is Iraq Mr. Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Osama was trained by CIA to lead the insurgency against Russian forces. He kept money in the bank. That's simple. Nobody will show you unbiased documentation on this matter, and you know why.

So if nobody will show "unbiased documentation on this matter", then it comes down to your opinion vs. mine.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Actually there was. If any country should have been bombed the shit out of, it should have been Saudia Araba & Pakistan (I'm guessing you know where the alleged hijackers were from and ISI's funding/training of al-Q, and Mohammad Atta's million dollar, or whatever sum it was, wire transfer from head of ISI, under CIA orders).

no way. al qaeda's stronghold and base of operations was afghanistan. osama controlled part of that country in conjunction with the taliban. the nationality of the attackers or the financiers isn't as relevant as where the outfit trained or had its HQ.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z And the tactics, technology, and means used by the modern states in modern warfare causes far too many civilian causalties to say the least, if not utter disregard for civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. Cowards bomb civilian/public infrastructre in order to hurt the enemy, not people with ethics, morals, and guts.

by that rationale nobody should ever go to war with anyone. and i think you will find that modern means of warfare cause far fewer civilian casualties than ever before. collateral damage is a (very) unfortunate part of waging a war, but you cant say that no wars should be fought based on that fact. i think the deliberate targeting of non-strategic infrastructure is the exception rather than the rule.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller That by no means justify the war in Iraq. Everybody knows that US and Britain were supporting Sadam's regime in the past, I bet they knew at that time that he is not the holiest man on earth

this isnt an argument, and im really quite tired of hearing it. wheres the rule that government cannot change their foreign policies and whom they ally or support? should we not ally ourselves with the germans because they used to be our enemy? of course not.

and as for "support", the fact that the US' role accounted for 0.5% of total arms sales to iraq 1973-1990 shows that they were hardly the major source of "support" source

times and governments and policies change. thats how politics works. if youre looking for an unchanging modus operandi, perhaps we should replace democratically elected officials with tyrants, because then we could have some semblance of continuity.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What exactly are you trying to prove? That Sadaam was a horrible evil dictator (which he was) so the US is somehow doing the Iraqis a favour now? Don't forget who brought him into power and gave him the arms and training that allowed him to commit his heinous crimes in the first place. And have you forgotton about the Shitte uprising against Sadaam that was crushed with help from the US? The Shias would have taken him out if the US wasn't interested in keeping him there.

see above for the reality of arms supplies to saddam's iraq. why aren't any of you pointing your fingers at the french?

however, my post was merely highlighting that saddam being gone is a good thing, even if the US has made quite a mess of everything else. im not a US lackey here, but the tired old "US is responsible for all the world's ills" is getting a bit old.

yes, the US has fucked lots of things up, but at the moment its not US forces that are blowing up civilians across the country. i dont see any of you pointing your finger at iran either. this constant attack of the US, though somewhat justified, becomes disingenuous when you are unwilling to acknowledge the influence of other players in the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN this isnt an argument, and im really quite tired of hearing it. wheres the rule that government cannot change their foreign policies and whom they ally or support? should we not ally ourselves with the germans because they used to be our enemy? of course not.

I am not at all tired of this argument, because many Americans don't know about it. If you ask the average American if they know that Rumsfeld and Saddam ever shook hands, they'll look at you like you're crazy. I mean hell, most Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11. In 2003, when the war started, there was only 1 (count 'em, 1) article in the American media about the US-Iraq relationship in the 80s. Just fucking one.

By the way: Governments can change their support, but what you're missing here, is that even America's initial support was corrupt. Maybe you would've been correct, if America had supported a truly good person who then turned bad. But America turned a blind eye to what it knew was happening. It did that which suited its interests... disregarding any morality or ethics. When the wind changed, so did the flag on the ship.

What does all this say about Americans.. that they are cowards, hypocrites.. when they need you they will shake hands with you and be-friend you.. and when right time comes they will just back stab you.. invade your house, ransack everything and than kill you. Americans call it freedom.. thats what its all about, you see it on streets there..freedom... and you see the same act on broader scale by the people in power at American Govt.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd I am not at all tired of this argument, because many Americans don't know about it. If you ask the average American if they know that Rumsfeld and Saddam ever shook hands, they'll look at you like you're crazy. I mean hell, most Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11. In 2003, when the war started, there was only 1 (count 'em, 1) article in the American media about the US-Iraq relationship in the 80s. Just fucking one. By the way: Governments can change their support, but what you're missing here, is that even America's initial support was corrupt. Maybe you would've been correct, if America had supported a truly good person who then turned bad. But America turned a blind eye to what it knew was happening. It did that which suited its interests... disregarding any morality or ethics. When the wind changed, so did the flag on the ship.

yes, but is the US' previous support of iraq reason enough not to go to war with him? there are so many other good reasons against the 2003 invasion, and i dont really think this is one of them.

unfortunately, apparent or supposed hypocrisies is part and parcel of global politics. times change and enemies become friends and visa versa.

for arguments sake- had iraq not degenerated into a sectarian conflict, would any of you anti US people look back and support the invasion, in the same way that i look back now and criticise it?

No had iraq not degenerated into a sectarian conflict, I would say great job you theifs, now you got puppet Hamad Karzai in place and all oil you will ever need..

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller What is the fucking criteria of forward thinking nation ??? What would if some crazy fuck will wake up tomorrow realizing that his own ideology is the right one and invade the US or Europe because he thinks he is freeing up people from the democracy ??

I believe in human rights and that democracy is better than tyranny. Most people in western countries agree with me. I am against war ( and for the most part against this one), but you CANNOT deny that getting rid of Saddam is a good thing.

quote:

Who gave you the right to decide for other people ? Did Iraqis vote for the democracy ? They didn't even know what is that, they are living with a completely different life.

Democracy is about CHOICE. They have no choices whatsoever under a tyrant. In a democracy the people (are supposed to) decide. Who gave Saddam Hussein the right to choose dictatorship for the Iraqis? If you adopt this attitude of yours then why should anyone give a fuck about anyone or help anyone? Do you support what happened in Rwanda since the US did not intervene?

quote:

It reminds me all these church sayings, if you don't pray if will be in hell, if you do that you will be in hell if you do that you will be punished. Who decides what is the right or wrong ?

To me its not about deciding for someone its about opening the door to choice. Democracy lets people decide through government, tyranny leaves no choice up to the people.

Now THAT said. I am vehemently against the way the Bush government handled the war, from the rush to get Saddam with little to no serious thought about the huge task they were about to under-take. I dont think the war was necessary, and I dont think we are any safer because of it. I am glad Saddam is gone, but the alternative is not much better at all, and this is due entirely to the administration's incompetence...

quote:

Originally posted by Purple What does all this say about Americans.. that they are cowards, hypocrites.. when they need you they will shake hands with you and be-friend you.. and when right time comes they will just back stab you.. invade your house, ransack everything and than kill you. Americans call it freedom.. thats what its all about, you see it on streets there..freedom... and you see the same act on broader scale by the people in power at American Govt.

Haven't you ever had a friend who's changed, making them hate your or vice-versa? Better yet, a girlfriend. Or maybe you've heard the term "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Unfortunately, once your first enemy disappears, you're still left with the "friend" who's not as bad, but still would have been an enemy without the worse enemy.

Oh, and btw, pkc for President based on this thread. Some of you retards either really don't understand the complexity of the international diplomatic process, or are just so biased that you're willing to take whatever shots you can at whichever countries you don't like. Actually, come to think of it, most of you do, at least subconsciously, recognize "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy, because the fact that some of you support Hussein, bin Laden, and Kim Jong Il should be appalling to anyone opposed to what you condemn Bush for. If for one second you think that those three would do less than Bush has done with the same firepower that he has under his belt, you're fucking insane.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Haven't you ever had a friend who's changed, making them hate your or vice-versa? Better yet, a girlfriend. Or maybe you've heard the term "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Unfortunately, once your first enemy disappears, you're still left with the "friend" who's not as bad, but still would have been an enemy without the worse enemy. Oh, and btw, pkc for President based on this thread. Some of you retards either really don't understand the complexity of the international diplomatic process, or are just so biased that you're willing to take whatever shots you can at whichever countries you don't like. Actually, come to think of it, most of you do, at least subconsciously, recognize "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy, because the fact that some of you support Hussein, bin Laden, and Kim Jong Il should be appalling to anyone opposed to what you condemn Bush for. If for one second you think that those three would do less than Bush has done with the same firepower that he has under his belt, you're fucking insane.

The problem is that, on a message board, its hard to get into complexities and alot easier to just make stupid blanket statements like Purple did. I'm guilty of it too though so I usually just ignore those comments. Sooner or later its pretty easy to tell who has a clue what they're talking about and who doesn't. What I am against is lumping extremely large groups of people into one pile of shit like he did.

i just think its too easy to blame the US for all and everything, which seems to be the trend of late. and what this does do (imo) is weaken the legitimate criticisms of the US government. yes, the US shouldn't have gone into iraq. but we're there now. the US has failed to secure the country, yes that's their fault. but its not their fault that foreign fighters are blowing up iraqi civilians, nor that countries like iran have used the power vacuum to hamper the US efforts for stability. just because america is the enemy, does not mean there aren't other enemies out there.

is there any doubt in anyone's mind that direct civilian casualties are higher from insurgent terrorism/resistance than by the US invasion?

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis The problem is that, on a message board, its hard to get into complexities and alot easier to just make stupid blanket statements like Purple did. I'm guilty of it too though so I usually just ignore those comments. Sooner or later its pretty easy to tell who has a clue what they're talking about and who doesn't. What I am against is lumping extremely large groups of people into one pile of shit like he did.

I think the problem is that Purple is just a moron, as shown by 75% of his posts in the PD forum, and I'm not just talking about his anti-America posts.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i just think its too easy to blame the US for all and everything, which seems to be the trend of late. and what this does do (imo) is weaken the legitimate criticisms of the US government. yes, the US shouldn't have gone into iraq. but we're there now. the US has failed to secure the country, yes that's their fault. but its not their fault that foreign fighters are blowing up iraqi civilians, nor that countries like iran have used the power vacuum to hamper the US efforts for stability. just because america is the enemy, does not mean there aren't other enemies out there. is there any doubt in anyone's mind that direct civilian casualties are higher from insurgent terrorism/resistance than by the US invasion?

Preach on brotha...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.