Victory for Terrorism

by Yerusalyim 135 Replies latest social current

• 

  blacksheep

  "My point was instability and opportunities for terrorism are much higher in Iraq and in the whole Middle-East than they were one year ago. And I think they are."

  Your wording was, not as above, but "who CREATED" that instablity. Any implications there? That's clearly different from your carefully worded statement above (kinda like Kerry claiming he was referring to Sean Hannity, not Bush, when he referened the big bucha crooks and liars...

  "But, of course, the US just cannot stand dictators! They did tolerate a number of them in Europe (including Spain) in the 30's and early 40's. They did promote a number of them in Latin America. And they are still quite polite with a number of them when they are really dangerous (North Korea, China). Don't be silly."

  Now who's evading the point. Hitler was IGNORED by most of Europe until he struck them in their own backyards. When the reality of what was going on became clear, they took the decisive action. This is 2004,not 1930/40. We do not tolerate persistent violation of human rights when we know about it; but we also don't go gunblazing into countries without adequate reason. We've sanctioned Castro (unlike many of the more "liberal" nations). To suggest that because we didn't ransack all despots 60-75 years ago as in any way having bearing upon what's being done today is a vapid, nonsensical argument. What exactly are you trying to prove?

  "By the way, I'm curious what your concept of "democracy" is when you advocate "leadership" against one's people's majority.."

  What exactly, is the "majority?" When we invaded Iraq/Afghanistan, the people, DID, by clear polls support it. If the support goes down a few months later when we actually experience casualities, do you find it to be the sign of a strong leader to withdraw? Is rule governed by polls and popular opinion?
• 

  ThiChi

  ""Were voters to ignore the bombs? Is that what you are saying?"
  

  No, not exactly. My question is did the terrorists influence the election? And what implications to future terrorists actions may take place if this is the case?

  Blacksheep: Good points....I agree.
• 

  Farkel

  narkissos,

  : and who created the instability there?

  If that's your argument, it stinks. Name ONE War that didn't involve instability? If we leave Iraq without finishing the job we started, the terrorists will have won.

  Sadaam was no different than Hitler. In fact Hitler was his hero. If we'd have gone in and taken out Hitler when he annexed Austria, that war (if it would have started at all) would have been much different and many millions of lives would have been saved. It was people like Chamberlain in the UK who swore Hitler would pose no threat if Britain let him snatch a country or two, and it was people like you in the USA who said it was Europe's business, not ours. Chamberlain was wrong, they were wrong, and you are wrong.

  Do you think Hitler would have been satisfied with just Europe and the Soviet Union. If he and the Japanese invaded our shores, we wouldn;'t have stood a chance.

  History has proven that Sadaam wasn't just satisfied with Iraq. He conquered Kuwait and had his sights set on Saudi Arabia. Of course, he killed about 300,000 of his own people along the way for no particular reason.

  We were right to take him out. Otherwise, it would have been only a matter of time where we would be forced to do it and even more lives would have been lost.

  "No weapons of mass destruction" is a lame argument, anyway. Sadaam was his own weapon of mass destruction. That is unless you don't consider 300,000 mostly innocent lives to measure up to the word "mass."

  You just hate Bush. Everything else is a smoke-screen and excuse to hate him. You'd probably vote for Donald Duck if he were running against him. That is, of course, you're old enough to vote.

  Farkel
• 

  blacksheep

  "If polls were really accurate, then why bother having an election?!"

  And if polls were really accurate, who could say with any degree of certainty the collective opionion that Spain held about the war was? What the collective opinion of the US is about the war? How do you think opinions are measured, if not with polls? To suggest they are not accurate, I can agree with. But to suggest somehow that we knew the majority opinion of Spanish people other than through polls.... I'd be curious to know how this was measured.
• 

  donkey

  Is Donald Duck running? I would vote for him - he is better than Bush or Kerry.
• 

  MorpheuzX

  Some people on this board seem to be blissfully ignorant of US history and seem to be trying to make the point that the US stands up to dictators? Well let's just examine that point -- on this thread that's gotten totally off topic.
  

  Pakistan: One of the United States' closest allies in the "war or terror" is run by a military dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf. In October of 1999, Musharraf deposed the democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and imprisoned him. Then in June 2001 he dissolved Pakistan's parliament, because they elected Rafiq Tarar to be President. After that in 2002 he staged a bogus referendum, giving him another five years in office. So, if the United States cares so passionately about democracy, why do we support a military dictator in Pakistan?

  Saudi Arabia: King Fahd has been the head of state since 1982. His family the Sa'ud dynasty has ruled since 1932. How many elections has Saudi Arabia conducted in that time: zero. In 1992 King Fahd created what he called the majlis al-shura or the Consultative Council -- they're now a 90 member body appointed by the King and possessing no power. The Fahd royal family is hated in Saudi Arabia and only exists because the United States government props it up. If we ever took our aircraft carriers off their shorelines, that government would fall overnight. Let's also remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th, were from Saudi Arabia, as is Osama Bin Laden. (whom the US secretly trained, armed and funded in the 1980s during the USSR-Afghani war.)

  Iran: In 1950 the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq assumes power. On August 22, 1953 the Shah of Iran, with lots of help from the CIA, stages a coup d'etat. The US installed Shah goes on a campaign of "modernization" throughout the 50s and 60s, which greatly increases the profits of US and British oil companies and totally impoverishes the people of Iran. So, the Shah establishes the SAVAK, a secret police organization, particularly handy at slaughtering people who oppose him or who advocate democracy. In 1979 after completely losing control of the country he flees and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini assumes power and turns Iran into an Islamic fundamentalist state. Ironically enough, although the US publicly opposes the Ayatollah, in 1985 we sell him missile systems he can use in his war against Iraq (who by the way we were also selling weapons to at the time.)

  Iraq: July 16, 1979 Baathist dictator Suddam Hussein assumes the Presidency of Iraq. September 4, 1980, the Iran/Iraq war begins. After a trip to Iraq from Donald Rumsfeld, the US begins selling weapons systems to Saddam Hussien's Iraq in 1985. March 16, 1988 Hussein uses chemical weapons against the town of Halabjah. August 2, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait, deposing the Emir -- another dictator. March 3, 1991 after running Iraq out of Kuwait the US re-instates the Emir. George Bush decides to leave Saddam Hussein in power, even though Hussein's started two offensive wars in the last decade and is clearly a threat to the entire region. April 14, 1995, under UN resolution 986, Iraq again begins to export oil, supposedly to buy food and medicine for the people of Iraq. Although the UN and US know this is a sham it continues until March of 2003 when Hussein is finally removed from power.

  And if you think this behavior is unique to the region, it's not.

  Chile: in 1970 Dr. Salvador Allende is democratically elected President of Chile and starts a program of socialist reform. September 11, 1973 the United States CIA working under the express orders of Richard Nixon assassinates Dr. Allende and installs Augusto Pinochet as the country's military leader. It's estimated that Pinochet kills roughly 3,000 Allende supporters in the months after the coup. Chile has a population of roughly 5.3 million people, in the three years after the US orchestrated coup, roughly 130,000 of those people are detained.

  If you think I'm making this stuff up, I suggest you go to the CIA's own website and read for yourself:

  http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/#5

  Pinochet's military regime brutally ruled Chile until 1990.

  I could go on and on, but I'm kind of sick of typing. The US not only supports dictators, the US empowers and sustains them.

  Oh by the way, as a post-script the US government gave the Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan 124.2 million USD in 2001 alone. And they gave us back 9/11.

  http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/index.html
• 

  ThiChi

  Circular reasoning at best. Today's Nation friends do and will become tomorrows enemies. That is History. Name one Nation that has not ever been invaded at one time or another. That is History too. So what? Geopolitically, it was the right move at the right time....
• 

  blacksheep

  "Some people on this board seem to be blissfully ignorant of US history and seem to be trying to make the point that the US stands up to dictators?"

  And exactly how does you overblown post address any of the question? You've thrown up all over us on exactly how the US hasn't stood up to dictators. Well, then, maybe it's time we did.

  Your point? Are you for or against fighting terrorism? Or are you just pointing to a slant which suggests we haven't stood up to terrorism in the past? So, even if that were true (which it's not), what's your point? We haven't done it in the past, so we shouldn't do it now?
• 

  MorpheuzX

  Explain how that is circular reasoning and not fact. What's the matter, when you're confronted with the facts that's all you can come up with?
  

  The fact is that the US government's propping up of so many corrupt dictatorships in the middle east was one of the root causes of 9/11.

  And my point Blacksheep, which you will obviously never see is that not only have we often not stood up to terrorrist, in many cases WE'VE BEEN THE TERRORIST. The CIA over threw the governements in Iran and Chile. The US government invade Vietnam in the 1960s and then illegally expanded the war to Cambodia. Maybe you should research some of the firebombing and napalming we did in Cambodia and the after effects it had -- namely the rise of the Khmer Rouge. I suppose that wasn't terrorism, because we did it, right?
• 

  donkey

  http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040129-115023-8966r.htm