|
Muslim 'Moderates' And Terrorism (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
1991- US and allies (mostly Britain) invade Iraq after U.S./CIA supported Sadam Hussein invades Kuwait. 200,000 Iraqis are killed, including over 400 civilians killed by two U.S. missiles in the Al-Amerya air shelter. Over the next 10 years another 400 tons of explosives will be dropped on Iraq killing another 300 civilians, and hundreds of thousands more starved through U.S. imposed sanctions. The U.S. forces Saudi Arabia to allow thousands of U.S. military to remain indefinetely within its boarders.
|
Ok this one bugs me a lot because it's used by the left all the time and is completely exaggerated (minus the sanctions which were hardline but effective).
Lets break it down shall we?
| quote: |
1991- US and allies (mostly Britain) invade Iraq after U.S./CIA supported Sadam Hussein invades Kuwait.
|
Sadam had borrowed several billion dollars from the States after the Iran/Iraq 8 yr. conflict to pay for a ruined economy and a roughly $75 billion debt.
Iraq's arguement for taking over Kuwait was that they had defended them from an Islamic-revolution (which Saddam was afraid of because it was a direct threat to his power), Kuwaiti's refusal of waving a $30 billion loan and jacking up oil prices, and a general refusal that the country truly existed since the borders were drawn up by British colonialism. :rolleyes: (So was Canada, so what the hell was his point? I guess the U.S. should invade us then based on that logic).
In short, Iraq was cash strapped and looking for a desparate way of quick cash. They misused their former support from the West and the Soviets to invade Kuwait putting the world's oil supply in jepordy .
| quote: |
200,000 Iraqis are killed
|
This line is great. Its also been debunked about...2 years ago.
>>Source<<
| quote: |
The U.S. forces Saudi Arabia to allow thousands of U.S. military to remain indefinetely within its boarders.
|
Forces?
How about a list of insurgencies within Saudi Arabia?
>>Source<<
SA was more than happy to allow the U.S. take out it's number 1 conventional threat, Iraq.
It also enjoys defense against Iran which SA is wary of as well.
Why would SA bite the hand that feeds them anyways?
It's a symbiotic relationship that had been in existance for decades.
On a side note, as anyone read about >>King Khalid Military City (KKMC)<<? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
1991- US and allies (mostly Britain) invade Iraq after U.S./CIA supported Sadam Hussein invades Kuwait. 200,000 Iraqis are killed, including over 400 civilians killed by two U.S. missiles in the Al-Amerya air shelter. Over the next 10 years another 400 tons of explosives will be dropped on Iraq killing another 300 civilians, and hundreds of thousands more starved through U.S. imposed sanctions. The U.S. forces Saudi Arabia to allow thousands of U.S. military to remain indefinetely within its boarders.
|
yeah, this annoys me as well.
firstly, innocent people have died in almost every conflict since the beginning of time. war kills people. and its terrible. but you cant always state that collateral damage is an "atrocity". otherwise youd never be able to fight a war at any time.
how many ppl were killed in WW2? untold devastation does not equate with it being a war not worth fighting. the west (esp the US) do a far far better job of minimising non-combatant casualties than any other force in the history of warfare.
ffs, iraq invaded kuwait and there was a MULTIlateral, UN-sanctioned, world-democratic response to this aggression. calling it an act of US imperialism or atrocity is intellectually corrupt.
oh yeah, also, the economic sanctions were part of a UN approach, not just the US. being anti-american is sooooo the new black :rolleyes:
edit: so, we're not allowed to bomb countries, and we're not allowed to enforce economic sanctions. i guess we'll help force change in brutal, undemocratic regimes using diplomatic swear words? |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the west (esp the US) do a far far better job of minimising non-combatant casualties than any other force in the history of warfare.
|
LMFAO
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh yeah, also, the economic sanctions were part of a UN approach, not just the US. being anti-american is sooooo the new black :rolleyes:
|
The UN is a laughable joke. But only a neocon (i.e., those sneering the loudest at the UN) could have the gaul to cite the UN as a proof and in defense of their own actions when it fits their agenda. As if the UN's (read: international community's) will is of any consequence.
Reference Iraq invasion #2: when the UN won't 'sanction,' ignore the UN and act 'unilaterally.'
This conversation is 'intellectually' bankrupt.
-Noble |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| islam is a way to keep the people of the middle east stuck in 6th century arabia. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
as a neocon, i will suport any efforts inside this hemisphere to smash the rise of communism and to protect the integrity of the canal.
Bin Laden, by all rights, followed the exact same suit in Afghanistan. and succeeded.
those cruise missles that were sent by Clinton into Sudan were in retaliation. and was supposed to take out Bin Laden himself and other terroriist leaders that were meeting there. |
why did it hit a pharmaceutical plant then!
Either your pilots and generals are morons... or they are pure evil. Its a double edged sword anyway.. which is expected. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
why did it hit a pharmaceutical plant then!
Either your pilots and generals are morons... or they are pure evil. Its a double edged sword anyway.. which is expected. |
people make mistakes just because they ed up does not mean they did it intentially. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
people make mistakes just because they ed up does not mean they did it intentially. |
yes they did |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
people make mistakes just because they ed up does not mean they did it intentially. |
:haha: Yeah, the US "accidentaly/unintentionally" supports and sponsors terrorism all the time. Israel "accidently/unintentionally" steals more land and kills more Palestinians. Hamas "accidently/unintentionally" blow up. Britain "accidentaly/unintentionally" colonized the globe. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
why did it hit a pharmaceutical plant then!
Either your pilots and generals are morons... or they are pure evil. Its a double edged sword anyway.. which is expected. |
why? b/c your the fool that fell for the propaganda that said it was some sort of high-tech pharmacutical oasis in the middle of the desert that supplied cutting edge life saving meds to all the poor people of the frikken Sudan:rolleyes: morons.
have you seen pictures of the place? ask yourself, was it a phamacutical oasis like Phizer or some or was it just an aspirin factory like everyone else says? or was it an aspirin factory that doubled as a chemical weapons factory? look at the history and motives of Sudan back in the nineties and judge for youself.
i feel like i'm arguing with doped up children:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i feel like i'm arguing with doped up children:rolleyes: |
You are. This place has really gone to pot lately (pun intended).
Perhaps it's that many lack perspective outside of some textbooks. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| yeah. i guess i have some morbid fascination with this palce rigth now |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
You are. This place has really gone to pot lately (pun intended).
Perhaps it's that many lack perspective outside of some textbooks. |
WOW becareful people thats a big boy talking:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
