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 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.

why? b/c the CIA never met Osama. the CIA came in and supplied the Afghan Mujahadeen with hi-tech small arms (the Stinger A/A missle), tactics, and intel to counter Russia well before Osama came there from Saudi Arabia.

the whole "CIA and Osama love affair" the left likes to trot out is false. Osama was militant and overly suspicious of America from the very beginning and was a successful and motivating commander (by Afghan standards) without the CIA's help.

quote:

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

I'd even settle for an educated guess and some half decent evidence too support it, but somehow that probably wont develop either.

Sectarian warfare always was going too happen in Iraq, the whole country was basically held together by fear from the top before Saddam was kicked out and so far its politically incorrect too apply the same level of operations that Saddam put in place too keep them from killing each other.
Democracy takes awhile too get a foothold in societies that havent had it, they have too kill each other for a few years until everyone gets sick of it and decides too get on with their lives. Expecting it too be there a few years after its been implented is completely unreasonable, theres no simple solution.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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.

Al-Qaeda is a CIA myth, as they were the ones to coin the term to refer to this non-existant "close nit and cooperative network of terrorist cells" in the first place. And if there really is a "network" with any substantial degree of cooperation now, thank the Iraq War for and the Bush Administration for that.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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.

Are you on crack? Traditional warfare took place on battle fields, not fucking civilian populated areas.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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.

I'm studying for a test right now, so I'm not going to bother digging up the sources (as that will take a while). Modern military technology makes heavy civilian casualties absolutely inevitable. Modern states don't give two shits about civilian casualties, as long as they can get their target in the process. Modern warfare is dirty as hell. Bombing essential infrastructure like power plants, water supplies etc amounts to biological warfare. Add depleted uranium bullets and the highly toxic radiation that will exist for fucking centuries to come. 4.5 billion years (no exagerration) isn't exactly a short half life. Have you seen the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children born with all sorts of hideous birth defects after the first Gulf War? Or the tens of thousands of vietnamese children born with hideous birth defects from Agent Orange? And how the US generously sprayed it over acres and acres of land to "deny the enemy food"?



Or Israel's recent use of phosphorus weapons in Lebanon? That's just a few things off the top of my head. Modern warfare makes heavy use of biological weapons which later generations continue to suffer from too. Hiroshima & Nagasaki, an example which some of you sick fucks even try to rationalize and justify. WW1&2 are also excellent examples of how modern warfare leads to far less civilian casualties right?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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

That IS NOT total arms sales, it's "Conventional Arms" you silly fuck! 99% of the time no one is referrering to conventional arms in context to Iraq, they're referring to biological weapons (WMDS). That doesn't have jack shit to do with that argument. And one way to raise capital for WMD research and development is selling a bunch of shitty old weapons you've stock piled on.

And US support for Saddam is goes much further back and is alot darker than you think. A highly trained and lethal CIA hit man and asset. Where do you think he learned and perfected many of his lovely torture techniques from?

quote:

Exclusive: Saddam Was key in early CIA plot 04/11/03 UPI: Richard Sale U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials. United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report. While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim. In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as "a horrible orgy of bloodshed." According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan. Little attention was paid to Qasim's bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that "freaked everybody out" according to a former senior U.S. State Department official. Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of "real power," according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was "the most dangerous spot in the world." In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument." According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements. Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account. Darwish said that Saddam's paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attach� at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate. The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat. "It bordered on farce," a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. But Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said. Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said. One former U.S. government official, who knew Saddam at the time, said that even then Saddam "was known as having no class. He was a thug -- a cutthroat." In Cairo, Saddam was installed in an apartment in the upper class neighborhood of Dukki and spent his time playing dominos in the Indiana Caf�, watched over by CIA and Egyptian intelligence operatives, according to Darwish and former U.S. intelligence officials. One former senior U.S. government official said: "In Cairo, I often went to Groppie Caf� at Emad Eldine Pasha Street, which was very posh, very upper class. Saddam would not have fit in there. The Indiana was your basic dive." But during this time Saddam was making frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew Saddam, former U.S. intelligence officials said. Saddam's U.S. handlers even pushed Saddam to get his Egyptian handlers to raise his monthly allowance, a gesture not appreciated by Egyptian officials since they knew of Saddam's American connection, according to Darwish. His assertion was confirmed by former U.S. diplomat in Egypt at the time. In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed recently that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy, but a former very senior CIA official strongly denied this. "We were absolutely stunned. We had guys running around asking what the hell had happened," this official said. But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions. Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End. A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them. You ask that they get a fair trial? You have to get kidding. This was serious business." A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed." British scholar Con Coughlin, author of "Saddam: King of Terror," quotes Jim Critchfield, then a senior Middle East agency official, as saying the killing of Qasim and the communists was regarded "as a great victory." A former long-time covert U.S. intelligence operative and friend of Critchfield said: "Jim was an old Middle East hand. He wasn't sorry to see the communists go at all. Hey, we were playing for keeps." Saddam, in the meantime, became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence apparatus of the Baath Party. The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group. This former official said that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran in an attempt to produce a military stalemate. "When I signed it, I thought I was losing my mind," the former official told UPI. A former CIA official said that Saddam had assigned a top team of three senior officers from the Estikhbarat, Iraq's military intelligence, to meet with the Americans. According to Darwish, the CIA and DIA provided military assistance to Saddam's ferocious February 1988 assault on Iranian positions in the al-Fao peninsula by blinding Iranian radars for three days. The Saddam-U.S. intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end at 2 a.m. Aug. 2, 1990, when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy. UPI: Richard Sale

Source: Information Clearing House (Original Source: API)

Oh, and this isn't support at all is it?

quote:

Iraq-Gate How The United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein A Report From Democracy Now, The Journalist Who Broke The Iraqgate Scandal That Involved President George Bush, James Baker And Donald Rumsfeld" How Bush and Baker committed Billions of dollars to assist Saddam Hussein 11/14/02 Democracy Now! With Iraqi President Saddam Hussein insisting that Iraq no longer has weapons of mass destruction we are going to spend the rest of the hour looking at how the United States helped illegally arm Iraq in the 1980s. It was a scandal that took on Tom Clancy-like proportions: It involved a president, George Bush the First; future Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; the current FBI head Robert Mueller and, in a minor role, even Henry Kissinger. Over 10 years ago a reporter for the Financial Times named Alan Friedman uncovered the shocking story. He revealed that: * President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker had committed billions of taxpayer dollars to assist Saddam Hussein. * Bush and Baker allowed the export of U.S. technology that would directly help Baghdad build a massive arsenal of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. The arms were given to help Iraq fight Iran. * The CIA helped orchestrated illegal arms deals that involved Pinochet supporters in Chile, the apartheid regime in South Africa as well as most of the major NATO allies in Europe. All of this was to prop up a man that President Bush and later his son would compare to Hitler. "If the United States and its other allies had not provided a steady and thorough and substantial buildup of Iraq through the 1980s and right through Operation Desert Storm, Iraq today would not be a country with vast mobile missile launchers, good inertial navigation missile technology, rough, crude radioactive potential plutonium, chemical and biological weapons technology, and an assortment of other hardware and arsenal they've had," Friedman told Democracy Now! The scandal was known as Iraqgate. Today it is a mostly forgotten story even though it was a topic of concern of many leading politicians 10 years ago. "Congressman (Charles) Schumer, today Senator Schumer, was on the vanguard of those investigating the illegal arming of Iraq by George Herbert Walker Bush's foot soldiers and by people connected to the Bush administration," said Friedman. "Al Gore knew and knows what happened, Senator Kerry knows what happened. There are a number of U.S. senators and some prominent Democrats and Republicans who know what happened. Why aren't they speaking out today? I'm the guy who broke the story, that's a question for you people in America to answer." As weapons inspectors plan to return to Baghdad next week, we will spend the rest of the hour with Alan Friedman as he unravels what he dubbed the spider's web: the secret history of how the White House illegally armed Iraq. Guest: * Alan Friedman, global economics correspondent for the International Herald Tribune. * Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq by Alan Friedman THE DOCUMENT FILE (New Window) Following Iraq's Bioweapons Trail A Brief History: US-Iraq 1980s Secret Message From James Baker to Tariq Aziz The Teicher Affidavit: Iraq-Gate

Source: Information Clearing House (Original Source: Democracy Now! + others)

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN times and governments and policies change. thats how politics works.

Yeah, when your assets become useless or disobedient.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if youre looking for an unchanging modus operandi,

Same shit, different approach.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN perhaps we should replace democratically elected officials with tyrants, because then we could have some semblance of continuity.

Yeah, because other nations have no sovereignty. It's none of your fucking business.

quote:

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

Becuase they haven't made anywhere near the contribution the US has, and it's not like people aren't critical of other Western governments involved. But it all pales in comparison to the US's overwhelming influence and it's consequences. Now drop your pathetic little argument, which isn't even an argument. "Hey looky, the French made a contribution too!" No shit! We're aware of it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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,

Big fucking contradiction there, which is to be expected from you. You're not even a citizen of this country and you're still so indoctrinated. Shame on you.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but the tired old "US is responsible for all the world's ills" is getting a bit old.

Those are your words, not critics of the US. They only point out the US's overwhelming contribution in that area.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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.

Drop the crack pipe. Do you have any idea how much the media covers the states ass (in any country) during times of war? Do you think all the things I mentioned earlier were reported as they happened? No, more like years, even decades. But historical patterns and the lesson of history are irrelevant in your world view, so I don't expect you to see that. You may not even be aware of it in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont see any of you pointing your finger at iran either.

And how exactly is Iran responsible for any of this?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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.

For the last fucking time:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Becuase they haven't made anywhere near the contribution the US has, and it's not like people aren't critical of other Western governments involved. But it all pales in comparison to the US's overwhelming influence and it's consequences. Now drop your pathetic little argument, which isn't even an argument. "Hey looky, the French made a contribution too!" No shit! We're aware of it.

Ok, perhaps I should have toned it down a bit. I've been up for two days now and just wasted 30-45 minutes which I could really use now (since I need to get some sleep before my test), and that's was pissing me off at the same time two. I just took 30mg of adderall before that so I couldn't help but finish it up (and I actually do have ADHD, I'm not a crack head ). And I don't have the time to edit it right now. So just keep that in mind before you read it.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I just took 30mg of adderall before that so I couldn't help but finish it up (and I actually do have ADHD, I'm not a crack head ). And I don't have the time to edit it right now.

Ummmm Adderall, ummm tasty!!! I want some,,

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Are you on crack? Traditional warfare took place on battle fields, not fucking civilian populated areas.

That's not really accurate. When do you consider that the high civilian casualty era began? Whenever you choose, I'll show you plenty of instances before that which don't conform to your argument. For one thing, even back in the Dark Ages, attacking armies used to cut off supply lines to cities and castles to starve out everyone inside. The same thing applied in the US Civil War (see the Battle of Vicksburg).

Secondly, how do you have war on the battle fields when the enemy won't meet you there because they're embedded into the civilian population and fighting a guerilla war?

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy That's not really accurate. When do you consider that the high civilian casualty era began? Whenever you choose, I'll show you plenty of instances before that which don't conform to your argument. For one thing, even back in the Dark Ages, attacking armies used to cut off supply lines to cities and castles to starve out everyone inside. The same thing applied in the US Civil War (see the Battle of Vicksburg). Secondly, how do you have war on the battle fields when the enemy won't meet you there because they're embedded into the civilian population and fighting a guerilla war?

Well, you're right to an extent. They weren't always fought in battle fields, like being fortified in a giant "city" for lack of a better term, combining offensive and defensive strategies that way etc. But the option was always there to confront armies elsewhere, away from civilian population. But in modern warfare, people just tend to bomb the crap out of everything, regardless of intension (since human life, including innocent civilians, has no value or is atleast way down on the priority list for 99% of world leaders). I mean, biological warfare is obviously going to very severely affect the general population, including generations to come.

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