Bush and God's will... - Page 2

"However, we were talking about how the war is justified and no one can argue that Saddam did not violate the ceasefire."
You don't react to something years after the act. But all this is besides the point. Legitimacy is decided by whether or not the war is short and victorious. I won't be. It will long and bloody with many Iraqi patritos like the American-Phillipine war.

"First off if an attack against our nation can be prevented then it should be by all means."
Because Iraq was an imminent threat? Iraq was contained and cornered and completely harmless. You might argue North Korea is dangerous. But Iraq? Please, that view has been discredited so much that every reasonable person can understand that the Iraqi state was weak and rickety.

"Thirdly, we were attacked on 9/11 and Iraq is an essential part of the war on terror."
Replace 'Iraq' with 'Saudi Arabia' and you have a point.

" Israelis attacked Iraq in the 80s? What about our war with Spain? There are as many examples of preventive wars."
The first was a reaction to a real (and not imaginary) weapons program, the second was the most flagrant example of American imperialism which lead to American imperial rule and oppression in Cuba and the Phillipines.

"The point that Bush understands so well, thank God, is that in the nuclear age we can not wait until we are attacked for if we do then millions of Americans or our allies will be dead."
Because Iraq had nukes, or even hade a nuke program running? Open your eyes. Pakistan, a country just about ripe for overthrowing their own corrupt pro-American dictator, has nukes.

"It isn't the lack of freedom and liberty? It isn't the brutality of their own dictators?"
Absolutely. Terrorists fight their dictators. Then they attack the nation who is supporting those dictators.

"Creating them? Which one did we create?"
Letsee. The US maintains Saudi Arabia, created the repressive Shah until his overthrow and created Saddam Hussein until he decided to not take orders from Washington.

"Its amazing how you blame us first and not their own evil mentalities or leaders or backwards lifestyles or poverty etc."
Who put their leaders there? Who is insuring that they remain poor?

U - S - A

" It was not nationalist but practiced genocide against its own people and great brutality against the Shiites that represented the vast majority of its people."
And you finally reveal your ignorance. Do you even know what Ba'athism stands for? Attempted genocide and colonization is, obviously, a symptom of extreme nationalism. The reason it was sunni dominated was not for religious, but practical reasons, Ba'athists originated in Sunni Syria, and hence most Iraqi Ba'athists are sunni.
"Also what I said had nothing to do with my country right or wrong. Try reading it again!"
You say your country was right. Then you provided absolutely no argument except that you used vague emotionally charged words like "freedom" and "democracy" without any references to reality.

My country, wrong or right.

"But, other than learning from past mistakes, your list has nothing to do with the issues of today It truly is not relevant."
The point was that the USA has shown itself to be wrong before, and can certainly be wrong again.

Let me reassert my arguments:
- hostile ideologies arise from American support (and creation) of corrupt dictatorships as is the case in Saudi Arabia and as happened in Cuba and Iran
- they hate us because we support Israel's ethnic cleansing of the West Bank
- Carrot-diplomacy in Morroco and Turkey is working
- American policy in Iraq today seems comparable to American policy in Cuba and the Phillipines after the American-Spanish war
- Europe has not faced terrorist attacks
- No terrorists were coming out of Iraq, Iraq was not dangerous, Iraq was secular, socialist and nationalist

The US was never an arms source for Al-Qaeda, talk about conspiratorial bs! Where did you get such garbage? Your secret files? And please don't bring up America's aid to Afghan freedom fighters during the Soviet occupation - Al Qaeda did not exist at that time.

As for Saddam, America was one of his smallest arms sellers and did so only to balance the influence coming from the USSR - in fact France sold him far more than we did. However I am sure you have forgotten the cold war again nor have even the slightest understanding about the implications of that war.

Which Saudi backs terrorists and is treated like a family member?

You want some names of free countries because of us, ok. France, England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, Japan, S Korea - in fact all of Western Europe and most of Eastern Europe.

As for the relevance of past mistakes my point is that it has little to do with what we are talking about and, furthermore, nothing is as simple as your mere accusations. Each issue can be debated ad infinitum and both sides can show how both good and bad was accomplished. But unless you are prepared to put those incidents in the proper context of the cold war then there is no point in debating them. Why? Because your motives for attacking US foreign policy cant be trusted nor can your objectivity.

What, because the Soviet Union exists we're allowed to destroy democracy in foreign countries?

"Because your motives for attacking US foreign policy cant be trusted nor can your objectivity."
WTF is this?? I have a hidden agenda?

Obviously because I am not with Bush, I am the enemy, I'm probably a terrorist.

I suppose your motives for defending US foreign policy can be trusted?

God I don't know what the hell your saying. I'll set the record straight: DumbTeen is not a terrorist bent on destroying America, raping American women and roasting their babies. I am DumbTeen and I approve this message."

>>>You don't react to something years after the act.

I agree. Clinton was a horrible President and should have reacted. By failing to do so he only emboldened our enemies, which lead to further terrorist attacks. However, I can not blame Bush for Clinton's failings and under Bush's watch Saddam violated the ceasefire and thus got what he asked for.

>>> But all this is besides the point. Legitimacy is decided by >>>whether or not the war is short and victorious. I won't be. >>>It will long and bloody with many Iraqi patritos like the >>>American-Phillipine war.

So long and bloody wars never have a legitimate result? As for Iraq, it is already one of the least bloody wars ever fought and with elections today the war is moving at an historically impressive speed.

>>>Because Iraq was an imminent threat? Iraq was >>>contained and cornered and completely harmless. You >>>might argue North Korea is dangerous. But Iraq? Please, >>>that view has been discredited so much that every
>>>reasonable person can understand that the Iraqi state
>>>was weak and rickety.

When did I say Iraq was an imminent threat? Iraq was such a good choice because it was far simpler than say Iran or N Korea and because the consequences are so beneficial. For one Iran is now surrounded and all nations have no delusions about our determination and abilities. However, don't be so naive - Iraq was not completely harmless nor did anyone believe AT THE TIME that it was. A small vile of cyclosarin in the hands of some Al Qaeda agents could have done horrors.

Saudi is also an essential part of the war on terror however you can not seriously compare the two leaderships, can you? And again what are you suggesting - that we attack the Saudis? PLEASE explain what you propose we do about them!!!

>>>The first was a reaction to a real (and not imaginary) >>>weapons program

So was the latter! And you know it and everyone knows it and NO ONE can deny it nor can anyone claim that Iraq had an imaginary program after the fact! Quit revising history - its not honest!

>>>Because Iraq had nukes, or even hade a nuke program
>>>running? Open your eyes. Pakistan, a country just about r>>>ipe for overthrowing their own corrupt pro-American
>>>dictator, has nukes.

Because this war isn't just about right now dumb teen but about the next 50 years. Open your eyes and try, please try, to see the bigger picture. And what in the hell is your point about Pakistan? That we should attack them? That we should have attacked them? Please be more clear. As for their corrupt pro-America dictator he only became pro-American after we threatened attacking them before Afghanistan and you can thank Bush for his conversion - during Clinton years he was the Talibans good friend.

>>>Then they attack the nation who is supporting those >>>dictators.

You are completely ignorant about what drives the ideology behind the terrorists. It is Israel and their utter hatred for it. And don't think the terrorists want democracy and freedom for their people - they want power and weapons. These are not freedom fighters or the good guys - these are evil backwards tyrants - why do you sympathize with them so much?

>>>>Who put their leaders there? Who is insuring that they remain poor?

>>>U - S - A

You are an utter fool! You are worse than a fool! Try reading a history book.

>>>And you finally reveal your ignorance.

Wow took me quite some time - I must be good, lol.

>>>The reason it was Sunni dominated was not for religious, >>>but practical reasons, Ba'athists originated in Sunni Syria, >>>and hence most Iraqi Ba'athists are Sunni.

Do you even know what nationalism means? The Sunnis in Iraq are a minority - do you understand that - how is it practical that the minority uses nationalism to destabilize the will of the majority? They weren't nationalists - they were totalitarian and Saddam used religion when and how it benefited his complete control of Iraq. It was not some secular socialist state that your ignorantly pretend it was.

The fact that the US is the most powerful and wealthy country in the history of the word and has used that power and charity to the benefit of others is not debatable. I have nothing to prove - its a fact.

>>>hostile ideologies arise from American support (and >>>creation) of corrupt dictatorships as is the case in Saudi >>>Arabia and as happened in Cuba and Iran

False! Its so sophomoric its funny. Every major nation has relations with the Saudis. Re: Iran - the people did not rise in revolt because they viewed the Shaw as too American but because they viewed him as corrupt. Your simplistic blame game always ignores the actual real source.

>>>they hate us because we support Israel's ethnic
>>>cleansing of the West Bank

WRONG! Man you are so naive. They hated the idea of the Jews being given a partitioned Palestine in 1947 - and their hatred for Israelis hasn't changed one iota.

Turkey is a success because of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. You give Europeans and not the Turks the credit. How amazing.
You love that transfer of responsibility and credit game.

>>>Europe has not faced terrorist attacks

I don't know what to say except you are an utter fool. What planet do you live on? WTF do you think just happened in Spain?

>>>No terrorists were coming out of Iraq, Iraq was not dangerous, Iraq was secular, socialist and nationalist

I've already defeated your nonsensical babble regarding Iraq's political system so lets concentrate on the first part. Did Saddam finance terrorism, yes or no?

I'm sorry if I add any wrong details such as perhaps weapons but the training and CIA aid is not false. My secret files, don't be an arrogant ass, try the governments files.

"As for Iraq, it is already one of the least bloody wars ever fought and with elections today the war is moving at an historically impressive speed."

What numbers are you getting and using for this statement? Do you get a telegram of the death toll of all human casualties? Last I noticed that wasn't clear information to much of anyone.

"Saudi is also an essential part of the war on terror...."

In what way are you referring? For or against?

As for your history books and view on history, if it excludes CIA than its probably a half truth at best.

http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

To belittle the significance of this organization and the others like it is to buy into propaganda and lies. You should at least be willing to accept that as a possibility for the simple fact that their activities are generally highly classified and therefore cannot assume anything.

Past that, when you have CIA members saying they caused, aided, or influenced this or that coup or terrorist organization (or freedom fighter) then perhaps you should give it more thought.

Notice how when America aids a dictator or terrorist group they become rebels and freedom fighters or just the lesser of two evils, but when we disagree they are terrorists and evil tyrants again. To the point where you even call Americans who stand up to all the bullshit for a change terrorists as well. Thats just lovely. What's next, are you going to jail yourself just incase?

"By failing to do so he only emboldened our enemies, which lead to further terrorist attacks."
This is nonesense. Terrorists are suicidal, THEY DON'T FEAR RETALIATION. US policy of Iraq is quite independent of whatever Al-Quaeda decides to do.
"So long and bloody wars never have a legitimate result? As for Iraq, it is already one of the least bloody wars ever fought and with elections today the war is moving at an historically impressive speed."
Pathetic. The only reason its fast is because 1/4 of the Iraq can't vote and all the non-Kurdish are going to brave death as collaborators if they vote.

"When did I say Iraq was an imminent threat?"
You said breaching another's nation's sovereignty and the use of war are good if America is in imminent danger. That was not the case.

"Saudi is also an essential part of the war on terror however you can not seriously compare the two leaderships, can you?"
Yes you can. One represses women to the extreme, is extremely corrupt, has handed education over to wahabi mullahs, meanwhile Saudi citizens rich on oil-money fund terrorism and indoctrinated Saudi children become the next generation of terrorists.

" And again what are you suggesting - that we attack the Saudis? PLEASE explain what you propose we do about them!!!"

You are incredibly black and white minded. War is not the only answer. How about we stop propping up their regime by not buying their oil? We won the Cold War without war, we can certainly lots without war today.

WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR WITH ALL OUR ENEMIES.

Read about the Cold War, idiot.

"So was the latter! And you know it and everyone knows it and NO ONE can deny it nor can anyone claim that Iraq had an imaginary program after the fact! Quit revising history - its not honest!"
Iraq had one. It stopped after Guld War 1. Then Bush decided to destroy Iraq anyway.

"Because this war isn't just about right now dumb teen but about the next 50 years. Open your eyes and try, please try, to see the bigger picture.

" And what in the hell is your point about Pakistan? That we should attack them?"
IDIOT. God, how about we start funding democratic elements in Pakistan instead of getting all rosy with Musharraf's military dictatorship?

WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR TO PUSH FOR DEMOCRACY.

Idiot, again and again, you say "WAR", yet we destroyed the Soviet Union without war.

"You are completely ignorant about what drives the ideology behind the terrorists. It is Israel and their utter hatred for it."
Exactly! They oppose Israel's ethnic cleansing of the West Bank.

"these are evil backwards tyrants - why do you sympathize with them so much?"
I'm sympathizing? There were no terrorists in Saddam's Iraq. The terrorists are in Saudi Arabia. I'm sorry if you love that Islamic corrupt theocracy, all because it gives you the oil for your SUV.

You are soft on dictatorship. You are supporting dictatorial regimes in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia,

"You are an utter fool! You are worse than a fool! Try reading a history book."
I have. I have read about America's replacement of the democratically elected leader of Iran with a corrupt King because he would give us Iranian oil. I know we the Saudis fat and rich because they too give us oil, and we don't mind them oppressing their women, having their mullahs educate their youth or having their oil tycoons fund terrorism abroad.

"Do you even know what nationalism means? The Sunnis in Iraq are a minority - do you understand that - how is it practical that the minority uses nationalism to destabilize the will of the majority?"
Idiot. Sunni Arabia is not a nation. There is an Arab nation, nation overrides religion (just like germany has a catholic and protestant half).

To educate yourself on Ba'athism I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party

Of note: "The Arabic word Ba'ath means 'rebirth'. Ba'athist beliefs combine Arab Socialism, militarism, nationalism, and Pan-Arabism. "

"It was not some secular socialist state that your ignorantly pretend it was."
Read it and weep, you cannot ignore their ideology. Your simply ignoring reality. Do as you will.

"The fact that the US is the most powerful and wealthy country in the history of the word and has used that power and charity to the benefit of others is not debatable. I have nothing to prove - its a fact."
I think the people of Batista's Cuba, the Shah's Iran, Pinochet's Chile, the Phillipines, Nicuragua, Liberia, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam would agree.

America supports freedom and democracy when it suits American interests.
"Shaw as too American but because they viewed him as corrupt. Your simplistic blame game always ignores the actual real source."
That's NOT THE POINT (and false besides, why do you think they occupied the American Embassy?). America DESTROYED IRANIAN DEMOCRACY and replaced it with a CORRUPT MONARCHY.

And now Iranians are supposed to believe that America wants democracy in Iraq? Please.

"I don't know what to say except you are an utter fool. What planet do you live on? WTF do you think just happened in Spain?"
Islamic terrorism. Of course we get some relatively small Basque or Irish stuff. But we haven't pissed off the Arab world.

I'm sorry to say your not in touch with reality. You share this nonesense idea that Saddam's ideology had anything to do with Islam. I suggest you read up on America's vast support for Saudi Arabia, Israel's (continuing) history of ethnic cleansing in Palestine, America's consistent destruction of democracies hostile to it in Iran, Vietnam and Chile, America's European-style imperialism after the Spanish war.

Once you read up, you will understand why no one believes America really wants to spread democracy this time. What's the saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

Hey DT, its safe to say in your books that USA can be easily be replaced or added upon with the initials CIA when referring to American illegal overthrows, is it not?

And yes, I do realize there are more organizations both foreign and domestic often with initials that are generally involved as well, including Pakistani ISI, especially in respect to Taliban and even Al-Qaeda.

I'd hate to be pigeon-holed as a conspiracy theorists by such as McTex and all.

Yes, a nation-state's secret service is only an extension of that state. America is responsible for the acts of the CIA.

Well ya, but the point being that he and those with the same argument just say that they do nothing and Clinton cut their budget. And therefore did not do these things even those most before Clinton, but indeed during and after as well.

The tripling of budget both after Oklahoma and 9/11 must have passed him by. Let alone the absurd amount it always was to begin with.

>>>>By failing to do so he only emboldened our enemies,
>>>>which lead to further terrorist attacks."
>>>This is nonesense. Terrorists are suicidal, THEY DON'T
>>>FEAR RETALIATION. US policy of Iraq is quite
>>>independent of whatever Al-Quaeda decides to do.

Of course it is not nonsense. Of course terrorists, being human, fear retaliation. And of course terrorists who are being retaliated against have fewer resources and time to plan attacks. It is far better to have your enemy fear you than believe you weak and unresolved - read Sun Tzu.

"So long and bloody wars never have a legitimate result?

Hmmm, no response??? lol

>>>The only reason its fast is because 1/4 of the Iraq can't
>>>vote and all the non-Kurdish are going to brave death as
>>>collaborators if they vote.

No the reason it is fast is because so many Iraqis are working for their freedom and for the right to have a democratic govt. Wasn't long ago that blacks had to brave death to vote in this country - being a patriot doesn't mean that there are no sacrifices. I'm not surprised you spit on America since you have taken for granted all your freedoms when past generations braved death so that you could have those freedoms.

>>>You said breaching another's nation's sovereignty and
>>the use of war are good if America is in imminent danger.
>>>That was not the case.

Yes I did and I also didn't say that was the case in Iraq. As I said Iraq violated their ceasefire agreement with us and shot missiles at our planes and we were justified in resuming the war. I also said that it served the war on terror by starting the process to change the nature of the middle east.

>>>One represses women to the extreme, is extremely
>>>corrupt, has handed education over to wahabi mullahs,
>>>meanwhile Saudi citizens rich on oil-money fund terrorism
>>>and indoctrinated Saudi children become the next
>>>generation of terrorists.

I agree with you on all counts. However the Saudi leadership did not attack their neighbors, start wars, commit acts of genocide and use WMDS nor are they anti-American in any way comparable to Saddam.

" And again what are you suggesting - that we attack the Saudis? PLEASE explain what you propose we do about them!!!"

>>>You are incredibly black and white minded.

Thank you - the truth usually is cut and dry.

>>>War is not the only answer. How about we stop propping
>>>up their regime by not buying their oil?

Wow you actually offered a solution. I'm shocked. Not a very bright one but hey its a start. Like I've said many times we already buy very little oil from the middle east. If we stopped buying Saudi oil it would have absolutely no effect on the royalty's control or authority. It would simply anger them and turn them to openly oppose American interests. It would also bind them closer to other nations that desire to diminish Americas superior status.

>>>We won the Cold War without war, we can certainly lots >>>without war today.

OMG you are naive. What do you call Korea or Vietnam?

>>>WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR WITH ALL OUR
>>>ENEMIES. Read about the Cold War, idiot.

Never said we have to, but your little boycott proposals are so inconsequential and potentially detrimental to American interests (especially during the Cold War) that I am hoping you will offer some remedy with substance. So far you have not.


>>>Iraq had one. It stopped after Guld War 1.

Wrong! Shortly before the UN was kicked out they had documented the number of stores of weapons. Maybe Iraq wasn't building new weapons - maybe they were but the UN stated that they had not destroyed their stores as Saddam had agreed to do. Every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam still had his WMDs storehouses and were convinced he was still creating new weapons. If they were wrong we only know that after the fact.

>>>Then Bush decided to destroy Iraq anyway.

Saddam destroyed Iraq moron. Bush destroyed Saddam and will help create a free and democratic Iraq that will ultimately help to transform the whole region and could possibly prevent a major war with Iran as well as promote the security of Israel.

>>>how about we start funding democratic elements in >>>Pakistan instead of getting all rosy with Musharraf's >>>military dictatorship? WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR >>>TO PUSH FOR DEMOCRACY.

Yes we could do that and we could also send them love letters with boxes of chocolate and tell them how pretty they look in the morning. You are in la la land. Please tell me how many democratic elements are currently working openly in Pakistan and even if we gave them a shitload of money how that would have any impact towards changing their political system.

I>>>diot, again and again, you say "WAR", yet we destroyed
>>>the Soviet Union without war.

You really are the idiot. You are worse - you are a fool. Tell that to all the soldiers that died in Korea and Vietnam.

>>>I'm sympathizing? There were no terrorists in Saddam's
>>>Iraq. The terrorists are in Saudi Arabia. I'm sorry if you
>>>love that Islamic corrupt theocracy, all because it gives
>>>ou the oil for your SUV.

You are one dumb teen. No terrorists in Iraq - wtf do you call Saddam, who paid suicide bombers? Al Qaeda was in Iraq - Read the 911 report - Osama was invited to live in Iraq by Saddam himself. WTF do you call Abu Nidal? Man you are ignorant!

And I do NOT drive an SUV!!!!

I drive a Cadi.

lmao

>>>You are soft on dictatorship. You are supporting
>>>dictatorial regimes in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia,

No actually you do by opposing the war in Iraq. It is my side that is laying the seeds for their destruction.


>>>I have read about America's replacement of the
>>>democratically elected leader of Iran with a corrupt King
>>>because he would give us Iranian oil.

You moron - if that's all you learned in that book then you should expand your reading material. You have such a simplistic understanding on every issue that makes America look bad. Are you saying that Premier Mossadeq of Iran was a good guy? The man was insane and was seen as being a procommunist ally of the Soviets. It was believed AT THE TIME that taking him out was essential to winning the Cold War. Right or wrong that was the rationale.

>>>I know we the Saudis fat and rich because they too give
>>>us oil, and we don't mind them oppressing their women,
>>>having their mullahs educate their youth or having their oil
>>>tycoons fund terrorism abroad.

Those who want to end that know the best way is to bring democracy to the region and Iraq was the most obvious and justifiable starting place! By opposing the war you are actually helping to strengthen Saudi Arabia and help them to continue their tyrannies for decades to come. Like I have said and like I heard the brilliant Christopher Hitchens say last night on Washington Journal - why the fuck do you think the Saudis opposed the war???

>>>Idiot. Sunni Arabia is not a nation. There is an Arab nation,
>>>nation overrides religion (just like germany has a catholic
>>>and protestant half).

Huh? You are babbling and I think drooling too. WTF are you trying to say??? Iraq is not an Arab nation but an Arab, Chaldean, Kurdish and had been a Jewish nation. There were more Jews in Baghdad 50 years ago than in Jerusalem until they were deported. The Kurds are Sunni, did you even know that? The Arabic Sunni minority used totalitarianism to maintain control. That's the facts jack!

"The fact that the US is the most powerful and wealthy country in the history of the word and has used that power and charity to the benefit of others is not debatable. I have nothing to prove - its a fact."

>>>I think the people of Batista's Cuba, the Shah's Iran,
>>>Pinochet's Chile, the Phillipines, Nicuragua, Liberia, Saudi
>>>Arabia and Vietnam would agree.

Cuba and Iran contains some of the most pro-Ameican supporters of all nations in the world. Chile is one of the most democratic and prosperous countries in S America. The S. Vietnamese surely agreed and one of the greatest crimes America ever committed was abandoning them during Fords admin. when the dems refused to enforce our treaty. The Nicaraguan freedom fighters who battled the soviet puppets surely agreed.

>>>America supports freedom and democracy when it suits
>>>American interests.

You are damn right. Americas only priority is to maintain its existence and that is done through actions that are believed will serve its interests. This is the modus operandi of all nations. Are you really so naive?

>>>>"Shaw as too American but because they viewed him
>>>>corrupt. Your simplistic blame game always ignores the
>>>>actual real source."

>>>That's NOT THE POINT (and false besides, why do you
>>>think they occupied the American Embassy?). America
>>>DESTROYED IRANIAN DEMOCRACY and replaced it with
>>>a CORRUPT MONARCHY.

THAT IS THE POINT! The Shaw's corruption lead to their revolution. The embassy was occupied because the Iranians rightly associated the corrupt Shaw with us. I am not denying that we fucked up but what I am trying to get through that thick skull is the motives behind our involvement.

>>>And now Iranians are supposed to believe that America
>>>wants democracy in Iraq? Please.

OMG don't be such a nerd. The Iranians are apparently smarter than you. Of course they know that's what we want which is why they are scared shitless.

"I don't know what to say except you are an utter fool. What planet do you live on? WTF do you think just happened in Spain?"
>>>Islamic terrorism. Of course we get some relatively small
>>>Basque or Irish stuff. But we haven't pissed off the Arab
>>>world.

Huh? The terrorist murders in Spain had nothing to do with the Arab world? The Arab world loves Europe?

>>>I'm sorry to say your not in touch with reality. You share
>>>this nonesense idea that Saddam's ideology had anything
>>>to do with Islam.

I never said that - man you are daft. Instead of rushing off to argue with every point I make try opening your mind and reading exactly what I say. Saddam used Islam when it suited him and helped him maintain his totalitarian control. Just listen to his fucking interview with Dan Rather and how he continuously used Islamic rhetoric.


>>> I suggest you read up on America's vast support for
>>>Saudi Arabia, Israel's (continuing) history of ethnic
>>>cleansing in Palestine, America's consistent destruction
>>>of democracies hostile to it in Iran, Vietnam and Chile,
>>>America's European-style imperialism after the Spanish
>>>war.

I have a vastly superior knowledge regarding all of those subjects because I know both sides and have a much more balanced and objective understanding. I am able to place each of those issues in their proper context. You, however, have a very juvenile understanding that has come from reading one sided propaganda that has one aim, which is to shit on the United States.

>>>Once you read up, you will understand why no one
>>>believes America really wants to spread democracy this
>>>time. What's the saying? "Fool me once, shame on you,
>>>fool me twice, shame on me."

Tell that to the Germans and Japanese and Poles and Romanians and Italians and Ukrainians and on and on etc etc etc

OHHH tell that to your neighbors and their grandparents!!!

"Of course it is not nonsense. Of course terrorists, being human, fear retaliation. And of course terrorists who are being retaliated against have fewer resources and time to plan attacks. It is far better to have your enemy fear you than believe you weak and unresolved - read Sun Tzu."
Sun Tzu is great, but his thinking is thousands of years old. How can SUICIDAL people fear retaliation? Understand this, the fact that if they attack us there is no return adress, and you understand the war on terror.

"No the reason it is fast is because so many Iraqis are working for their freedom and for the right to have a democratic govt."
Most Iraqis don't seem to give shit. They want stable gov and order, like the Russians (and arguably Americans today), they want security not democracy.

If, hypothetically, Bush had cheated in the election. Suddenly, China decides to invade California to topple Bush's militaristic regime, do you think California Blue-Stater's would accept this? Of course not, and those who would work with the Chinese would be murdered as the traitors they are.

" Wasn't long ago that blacks had to brave death to vote in this country - being a patriot doesn't mean that there are no sacrifices. I'm not surprised you spit on America since you have taken for granted all your freedoms when past generations braved death so that you could have those freedoms."
OK, prove America's intentions are better then after the Spanish American war, or the elimination of the democratic government of Iran. I frankly do not see why America would change.

>>>You said breaching another's nation's sovereignty and
>>the use of war are good if America is in imminent danger.
>>>That was not the case.

"Yes I did and I also didn't say that was the case in Iraq."
Then obviously that particular way of legitimizing a war isn't relevent to this discussion.
"I agree with you on all counts. However the Saudi leadership did not attack their neighbors, start wars, commit acts of genocide and use WMDS nor are they anti-American in any way comparable to Saddam."
EXACTLY. You love their Islamic Saudi Ass because they are pro-American and keep your SUV running. Guess what, the Shah's Iran was pro-American until it exploded, 90% of 9/11 terrorists were Arabs from pro-American states. Supporting corrupt dictatorships because they are pro-American is weak and has never worked in the past (see Batista's Cuba, South Vietnam).

You've just about admimtted that dictatorship is OK so long as its "Our kind of asshole". I think American intentions in Iraq can be rightly questioned.

"OMG you are naive. What do you call Korea or Vietnam?"
Because those wars lead to our victory? Arguable Afghanistan did, the other two are simply not relevent and deal with two far off countries on small peninsulas with no relevence to the Soviet Union's fall.

"Saddam destroyed Iraq moron."
How so? Because he had WMDs or was plotting to make them?

Please.

" Bush destroyed Saddam and will help create a free and democratic Iraq|"
Why should ANYONE BELIEVE THAT? No one seems to care if Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or, in the past, the Shah's Iran or Pinochet's Chile were democratic. It seems far more likely that America will install a pro-American dictatorship.

"promote the security of Israel."
I do not see why we should support racist regimes who practice ethnic cleansing.

"You are one dumb teen. No terrorists in Iraq - wtf do you call Saddam, who paid suicide bombers? Al Qaeda was in Iraq"
And you read up, its been established that the Iraq-Quaeda link was weak at best.
" You have such a simplistic understanding on every issue that makes America look bad. Are you saying that Premier Mossadeq of Iran was a good guy? The man was insane and was seen as being a procommunist ally of the Soviets. It was believed AT THE TIME that taking him out was essential to winning the Cold War. Right or wrong that was the rationale."
You can fight for democracy, or you can fight for capitalism. I see which fight you have chosen.

"Like I have said and like I heard the brilliant Christopher Hitchens say last night on Washington Journal - why the fuck do you think the Saudis opposed the war???"
The same reason Jordan joined the 6 day war. Because it makes the regime look better if it does what 95% of its people want it to do. Especially when condemning something is cheap and harmless.

"There were more Jews in Baghdad 50 years ago than in Jerusalem until they were deported. The Kurds are Sunni, did you even know that? The Arabic Sunni minority used totalitarianism to maintain control. That's the facts jack!"
Nationalism is when you support one ethnic group (Arabs in this case) more then others and (often) consider them superior. It often calls for the unification of a nation.

IRAQ IS NOT A NATION IT IS AN INVENTION OF BRITISH IMPERIALISTS. God, basic stuff.

"You are damn right. Americas only priority is to maintain its existence and that is done through actions that are believed will serve its interests. This is the modus operandi of all nations. Are you really so naive?"
All I am saying is that today, America doesn't want democracy in Iraq. It wants the same thing there is in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, the Phillipines, the Shah's Iran or Pinochet's Chile, a corrupt pro-American dictatorship.

"THAT IS THE POINT! The Shaw's corruption lead to their revolution."
And who put this corrupt dictator there? Thereby the Brits and Americans are the root cause, you install a dictatorship to oppress the Iranian people and after 20 years they fought back against American oppression. This may well happen in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as well.

"Huh? The terrorist murders in Spain had nothing to do with the Arab world? The Arab world loves Europe?"
As in, non-pro-American Europe. Those who aren't flagrantly disobeying their people and being Bush's bitch. Those nations are safe.

I think the the real point of dispute is. Why would America want a democracy in Iraq? We all know America is vastly unpopular in the Arab world (indeed in Europe and much of Asia). Why would they vote for a pro-American government? They would undoubtedly vote for an anti-American government.

It seems far more likely that America will install a puppet dictatorship, one which will open up its markets and oil exports, just like the Shah's Iran and Pinochet's Chile and Cuba. Get a grip, when has America supported democracy if democracy clashed with American interests?

"As I said Iraq violated their ceasefire agreement with us and shot missiles at our planes and we were justified in resuming the war."

Firstly thats not efficient reason for war either, especially when you purposely fly in restricted air space to purposefully antagonize a country, as we are doing with Iran now.

Pissing someone off them blaming them for retaliating is something you know well and obviously endorse, its also a rediculously corrupt tactic, and of course America is a master at it.

Out of curiosity, have you ever listened to Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, he said they weren't thrown out, they inspected, demanded destruction, they complied, destroyed, and were done, so left.

So somebody is lying.

You say that every intelligence agency in the world knew or thought that Saddam had shit, the weird thing is I mainly only heard Bush say that, not the agencies, yet I've seen mulitiple reports and articles on just about every major intelligence agency including our own warn of 9/11 yet hear nothing of the sort from Bush.

And how did Saddam destroy Iraq? The main reason Iraq was destroyed by Saddam that I understand is from his endless desire to invade other countries to further expand Iraq, and while not an expert and never having been there I have heard as we have mentioned that being secularist the restriction on women wasn't as bad as in Afghanistan were at least more women could be schooled.

Iraq was growing under Saddam, albeit under despotic and torturous rule (that I do not condone), but the destuction of Iraq falls flat at the feet of, yes Saddam for bringing war, but really to America and European sources for illegally aiding Saddam, causing more problems, and then directly with us bombing the shit out it in Gulf 1, then further descimating it with sanctions, then bombing it some more, then finally bombing it some more as we invaded and further destroyed it and continue to destroy it, physically especially.

So, I guess it depends on what you mean by destroying Iraq.

The fact that Saudi Arabia hasn't attacked neighbors is great, however it does not diminish the terrorism which attacks neighbors, so first don't be naive yourself, you don't have to do the dirty work yourself to still do it. And second, Bush was quite clear on aiding and harboring terrorism, we do both by allowing Saudi's to, as well as a myriad of non Saudi related instances of our own for decades.

Are you saying we should attack Saudi Arabia, uh no, Bush did by his statement but just pointed to Iraq instead fluffing bullshit claims of Al-Qaeda connections. And don't insult yourself by bothering to quote the 9/11 commission, and if you don't know what a conflict of interest is and its importance to an "independant" inquery then yes, this means nothing to you.

Why exactly do you feel Premier Mossadeq of Iran was crazy? I've read of plenty of his fighting communism in Iran even when the wanted to ally with him. Was he crazy because he was Time's man of the Year, Wouldn't surprise me since so many other "evil" people have made that cover.

And to try to dismiss the oil issue is lunacy. That was Mossadeq's main platform for reforming the country from foreign subversive rule.

And then you at least admit a fuck up with the Shaw but again act as if it has little meaning or significance, as if it were an isolated incident.

There is hardly an evil dictator to be found in the past hundred years of history that wasn't put into power or helped there by America and or our European allies.

Stop acting like that doesn't matter, the rest of the world in our crosshairs knows it matters and knows they are perfectly reasonable for fearing our intervention.

You speak of freedoms fought and died for in our country yet our current president has done more to curb and threaten and build legal ways of stripping those freedoms than anyone.

WIth your idea of pre-emption based on skewed propaganda you love the idea of domestic and foreign terrorism policies that promote Guilt untill not bothering to prove innocence.

I hope I am putting words in your mouth now, because they better reflect the acts behind your words.