With you in general. However he is an Arab, on trial for crimes committed on Arab soil. Viewing the Middle East through lenses wrought in The West has caused no end of grief already. It is only right that Arabs should decide what to do with an Arab. In fact, it’s probably the only right thing to come out of this whole mess.
Redfury:
That’s a very nice post of yours. Thanks.
Did I ever make an equivalent claim about Iraq? No, I didn’t. But is it relevant?? Of course. If you kill more of the people you came to rescue than were likely to be in danger to begin with, you’ve screwed up, with mortal consequences.
Which, by the way, distinguishes Iraq from both the Civil War and your hypothetical. If you don’t understand how, I’ll explain in small words tomorrow.
I repsonded to your only clear example. In your blond/brunette example, first you say:
then later:
So which is it, 200 or 10,200?
If you can’t write a clear example, but you for some reason expect me to respond to it anyway, kindly go fuck yourself. I’m running out of patience with your bullshit.
Well, OK, if you say so, Red. I’ll agree to vote Scylla off the Straight to the Wall list, but still…a few weeks at the Jane Fonda Re-education and Aerobic Camp won’t do him any harm. Do we need to hear from the Trihsovite Bund? Probably persuade Doggyknees easily enough, he’s likely about half in the bag by now.
By the way, who are you taking to the Trotskyist Ball this year?
Oh of course, as you’re cheerleading the ‘peace movement’ from the hot tub you kindly showed us on SDMB.
As am I not interested in how your head got stuck there.
And? What are you saying here? That because the worlds premier military beat the shit out of Saddams armed forces, that somehow, Saddam, wasn’t a threat to his neighbours during the years he controlled Iraq? Where’s the fucking logic in that?
Since Saddam had been in power, he’d fought two major international wars threatening Middle eastern stability and even when UN sanctions were in place, still put himself in a position where the international community, and the Western powers had to act.
Syrias defensive capabilities against Saddam at the height of his military power wouldn’t of been much to count on. And as for Saudi Arabia, remind me again why US forces were based in that country throughout the 90’s on the Iraqi border? Thanks.
P.S. Iraq fought an 8 year war with its much larger neighbour, Iran.
Red, for someone you’re age, you’re fucking clueless on military capabilites of the nation we’re talking about.
It’s a term from Peter Cook’s ‘Pete and Dud’ cunt kicking cunts, that’s what I was refering too.
Yes Redfury, I’m the biggest scumbag there is, and if you get so emotional over someone like me on this board, I’d hate to see you get this emotional in real life dealing with real situations.
Where did I say this? I was talking about how delusional it was to think that.
Yeah, you’re right, same applies to people who don’t read posts.
You were replying to a post that used accurate figures. You used your own figures. I just went by what you posted. The ignorant shite you’ve spread over the boards over the years hasn’t exactly given me any reason to give you the benefit of doubt when it comes to your historical knowledge or your ability to accurately parse information.
Garbage in garbage out, I suppose.
The “logic” is that it’s true. Do you have any evidence that they considered Saddam dangerous after the first Gulf War ?
No, he didn’t. That’s one of the reasons most people opposed the war; it was unnecessary.
Is Ryan_Liam always this odd?
Here, friend, take a gander upon this picture that I provided earlier.
These no fly zones were set in place by the U.S. after the 1991/92 Persian Gulf War, ostensibly to protect Kurds in the north and Shi’ites in the south. We constantly surveyed these zones, occasionally bombing a target if we didn’t like the way it looked.
Hussein’s armies were rusted, pale shadows of their former strength, and represented no threat to anyone in the Middle East.
IF he was suicidal enough to attempt to rearm himself and attempt another invasion, guess what? The armies and all their logistics would’ve been annihilated; even easier than in 91/92, due to the no fly zones.
This is why so many generals and military strategists were throwing a hissy fit when the idea of invading Iraq was floated. It just doesn’t make any sense.
As for the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s, we fully supported Hussein both politically and with military aid; hell, we even provided intelligence for them, which proved quite valuable. Of course, most major western powers supported Iraq and gave both sides arms under the table…but if Saddam had won, we would’ve been pleased as punch.
But that’s all irrelevant now, anyway, because we had to wreck a country of 20 million people so Wolfowitz could have his little freedom wet dream. I hope it was good for him.
Ryan_Liam,
I’ve no further use for you – not even to vent whatever frustrations I had with moronic neocons of your ilk.
After yesterday’s US elections, Americans have finally woken up and the Tidal Wave of global resentment against imbeciles such as yourself, who swallowed neocon turd sundae after trud sundae and asked for more, has finally washed over the whole of the United States – making small-fry like you even more irrelevant than you were before.
If that’s possible.
It’s a whole New World out there, and even though it’ll take some time, the winds of change couldn’t possibly feel or smell any better.
Which reminds me, time for your monthly diaper change…I can smell your shit all the way way across the ocean. In fact, as I’ll be in Spain as of Sunday, make sure you change that filthy thing. Too close for comfort.
Have you ever seen a better looking 66 year old grandmother than the new House Speaker-elect? I’d be honored if she’ll grant me the opening dance.
After that, I’m so fuckin’ happy, I’d be willing to take The Equine One for a whirl. I mean, don’t get me wrong, if I did so, I might just step on her toes one or ten times…after all, being such a lousy dancer and all.
Powell and Rice both saying that Iraq was contained and no danger.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv
Then a bunch of cunts who had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, flew planes into buildings and the message changed as there was now a chance to do what they didn’t have the mandate to do before.
The neo-con ideologues used the anger and fear to push their agenda. The citizens and politicians who voiced any questions about this policy were shouted down with jingoistic nationalistic bile.
Oh yeah, a protest vote against the Republican party isn’t something to be proud of, tell me Red, where the hells the Democrats coherent policy on something like Iraq?
If that’s possible.
Oh yeah, I see this brave new world now, Democrats gain congress and houses of representatives from a protest vote, force the Prez to push through some legislation regarding Iraq, and set themselves up yet again as the party weak on security, yep, well done dumbasses.
Yeah enjoy it, because they’ve just handed President Bush the ticket he’s been waiting for, both houses controlled by the opposition, and if Iraq goes down the bucket he can happily blame it on them since his party lost out in the midterms.
We, always this collective ‘We’ does that include nations who provided arms to Saddam such as France, Germany, Brazil, Russia and PRC get mentioned as well? Those being the people who supplies 90% of all arms to the Iraqis during their little war with the Iranians?
Besides, since the Iranians undoubtedly had a much larger population than Iraq’s, were rabidly Islamist and wanted to export their revolution to other parts of the Middle East, in realpolitik terms we were right to weaken them both. But even then, Saddam constituted a threat, since it was shown his ambitions weren’t solely confined to his own country.
*In the process, he might raise the question as to why those who later opposed him once supplied him with technical, military and diplomatic muscle.
Two current Western leaders in particular might find their names in the frame - the French President Jacques Chirac and the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
But before considering their role, it is important to remember that Saddam Hussein’s main supplier was the Soviet Union. He was sent its best equipment - Mig 29s, T 72 tanks, artillery, gunboats and Scud missiles.
And he did not pay for it all. Russia, the Soviet Union’s successor state, is still owed billions of dollars. *
Iraq’s primary suppliers of arms
Iraq’s army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviet Union, France,[28] as well as from the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany[29] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain (Explosivos Alaveses), Canada, Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities (see below).
Uh, dipshit, the reason the Dems got all the votes this election is because Iraq alrady went down the bucket. I’m sure some ultra-partisan retards such as yourself would fall for such a blatant line of bullshit if the prez tried to blame the opposition retroactively for the fuckups of his administration/party, but the people who can actually think for themselves and remember past the last Fox News sound bite are going to see through that shit.
British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il
-Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom
Haha, Bush is in the public eye 24/7, constantly demonised, criticised and derided, hence the conclusion that he must be more of a danger than Kim Jong Il, who isn’t the focus of alot of media attention. It also goes to show UK public opinion isn’t worth shit in the course of foreign diplomacy.
Yawn, anyone in the Presidents situation would make it their mission to ensure that if some sort of disaster was their fault, they can somewhat shift the blame onto the opposition. Just like when the Dems cut funding to South Vietnam, which successor Republican generations pounced on.
Bolding mine.
:dubious:
Reading is fundamental.
I agree with you that our support of Iraq during the Iraqi-Iran war was a good idea. So we both agree that using a war that we supported and aided them in 18 years ago shouldn’t have any bearing on a decision to invade them in 2003? Something tells me you won’t agree on that.
So were you concerned that Iraq was going to go on another invasion spree in 2003 with a phantom army under the surveillance of the U.S.? You seem to keep ignoring that line of thought.
Maybe it’ll be easier if I just ask you straight up:
Why did we have to invade Iraq in 2003, Ryan_Liam? Bonus points if you can reconcile that doing so would dramatically sap our strength in the Afghan campaign, their lack of an effective army, the fact we had them contained, the fact that we will have turned a secular country into an Islamic state, and the fact they had no WMD. Please show your work.
Bush is actually dangerous to the rest of the world; Kim is not.
:rolleyes: The UK is a democracy, and a powerful country even these days. The public’s opinion in the UK does matter, because that’s how democracies work - as Bush just discovered over here. Therefore, UK public opinion does matter to foreign diplomacy, because it affects how the UK behaves.
You’d do well in a fascist state you little shit.
Public opinion always matters. Eventually in a democracy public opinion always wins through. It may take a while and many hardships but the will is what democracies are about. Power ignores the people at their peril. They eventually lose.
I’m surprised no one has said Hanging’s too good for him! Burning’s too good for him! He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!
Of course, I’ve said I’m opposed to capital punishment.