Pages: 1 2 3

 

2008-05-12 04:02:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6979

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Cameron is just jealous because nobody will buy potatoe guns from Ireland.

Get real Cameron, everyone sells everyone weapons.  If the US stopped selling weapons do you really think it would stop wars in this world.  You look back 30 years all cocky like you are brilliant because you know now what should have been done in hind sight and you think it makes you look smart when you just look like every other dim wit that chimes in after something happens and says " ummm, you shouldn't have done that. ".  Well get over it because you know nothing.  Nobody knew how the cold war would end, what allies they would need, oil reserves in countries were expected to run out decades ago, or which dictators would turn on the guys holding the leash.

You're so full of shit it is hard for me to stomach your stupid posts anymore that are about the same shit that was proven incorrect the week before but you still have to post your old worn out dishonest liberal tag lines like a robot week after week without ever having an original thought of your own.

At least Micheal Moore came up with his own lies to push as fact.
lol. Someone has a bee in their bonnet. You know the thing about hindsight? It is based on fact. That's the thing about hindsight. And what hindsight tells me is that the US government were either incredibly stupid, incredibly greedy or incredibly shortsighted to be arming countries where the predominant sentiment on the ground is 'Death to America'. Slant it how you want or try to make some lame ass excuse but you need to come to terms with the fact that your leaders have been making bad decisions for a very long time. It is evident that you guys either fucked up or have been acting in a misguidedly devious manner: learn to deal with it or learn to run your cars on 'fart power' as you once mentioned. When Halabja happened nobody gave a fuck - they only gave a fuck when Iraq invaded Kuwait. There's western principles for you: cheap-to-run SUVs over Kurdish people.

PS Prediction on your latest tactical fuckup: arming Sunni and Shia militias to patrol their own neighbourhoods will ultimately bite you in the ass.

You seem to have issues hearing facts you don't like and the consequences arising as a result. Take a valium or something.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-05-12 04:11:35)

2008-05-12 04:10:04
PureFodder
Member
+225|6709

FEOS wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No worries Masques.. given the historical standard Iran has at least nine more years of UN sanctions before we see any action. Aside from the occasional military strike that is.
Are those the kind of sanctions which killed thousands of Iraqi children while alienating the west and making Saddam Husein even more powerful?
You mean the ones where the UN cooperated with Saddam funneling money away from food and medicine for his people and into palaces and solid gold toilets? Those sanctions?

Don't blame the sanctions for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Blame the regime that prevented the intended aid from getting to the people it was meant for (that would be Saddam's regime).
Why not? They knew exactly what was going on. Saddam was getting stronger, the populace were dying and the sanctions were continued. If the sanctions weren't working, and Saddam was just getting rich at the expense of the populace why continue them for year after year?

If the only effect of the sanctions were to cause suffering to the populace and they knew it, then those responsable for the sanctions are responsable for the results. Remember, the two people with undoubtably the most knowledge on the subject, Hans Von Sponek and Denis Halliday both said the sanctions were genocidal.
2008-05-12 16:29:09
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6829|North Carolina
So, basically, the message is...  take out dictators and be prepared to rebuild everything, or...  leave them the fuck alone unless they start attacking other countries.
2008-05-12 23:20:31
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7098|Canberra, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

So, basically, the message is...  take out dictators and be prepared to rebuild everything, or...  leave them the fuck alone unless they start attacking other countries.
You're also breaking Geneva Convention IV by going in to a country to change its institutions. Mind you, that may be a problem with the convention as much as with the invaders.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-05-12 23:36:36
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6829|North Carolina
Invasion is more "acceptable" with UN approval.
2008-05-13 00:23:51
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7146|Eastern PA

Turquoise wrote:

So, basically, the message is...  take out dictators and be prepared to rebuild everything, or...  leave them the fuck alone unless they start attacking other countries.
You forgot Door #3: Invade and fuck up everything worse than it was before!
2008-05-13 00:43:58
PureFodder
Member
+225|6709

Turquoise wrote:

So, basically, the message is...  take out dictators and be prepared to rebuild everything, or...  leave them the fuck alone unless they start attacking other countries.
Pretty much. Especially if overthrowing a dictator will cause more harm to the populace than just leaving the dictator there. In cases where a dictator is actually massacring the populace, for example the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to overthrow Pol Pot, I'd say invasion to overthrow a dictator is acceptable, but it shoul dbe done with UN support.
2008-05-13 01:08:51
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7024|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

So, basically, the message is...  take out dictators and be prepared to rebuild everything, or...  leave them the fuck alone unless they start attacking other countries.
Say like Kuwait?..lol

BTW nothing in our constitution allows us to go save Kuwaiti's also.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-05-13 03:00:38
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6835|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

JahManRed wrote:


Are those the kind of sanctions which killed thousands of Iraqi children while alienating the west and making Saddam Husein even more powerful?
You mean the ones where the UN cooperated with Saddam funneling money away from food and medicine for his people and into palaces and solid gold toilets? Those sanctions?

Don't blame the sanctions for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Blame the regime that prevented the intended aid from getting to the people it was meant for (that would be Saddam's regime).
Why not? They knew exactly what was going on. Saddam was getting stronger, the populace were dying and the sanctions were continued. If the sanctions weren't working, and Saddam was just getting rich at the expense of the populace why continue them for year after year?

If the only effect of the sanctions were to cause suffering to the populace and they knew it, then those responsable for the sanctions are responsable for the results. Remember, the two people with undoubtably the most knowledge on the subject, Hans Von Sponek and Denis Halliday both said the sanctions were genocidal.
You are misplacing the problem. The only effect of Saddam's actions was to cause suffering to the populace. It wasn't the sanctions, it was Saddam's own greed and disdain for his people. It wasn't the sanctions that were genocidal, it was Saddam's policies.

So, I guess that if there is a genocidal dictator who is killing off thousands of his people by his actions, the world should just give him what he wants until he stops killing off his people? Chamberlain much?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-05-13 04:11:06
PureFodder
Member
+225|6709

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:


You mean the ones where the UN cooperated with Saddam funneling money away from food and medicine for his people and into palaces and solid gold toilets? Those sanctions?

Don't blame the sanctions for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Blame the regime that prevented the intended aid from getting to the people it was meant for (that would be Saddam's regime).
Why not? They knew exactly what was going on. Saddam was getting stronger, the populace were dying and the sanctions were continued. If the sanctions weren't working, and Saddam was just getting rich at the expense of the populace why continue them for year after year?

If the only effect of the sanctions were to cause suffering to the populace and they knew it, then those responsable for the sanctions are responsable for the results. Remember, the two people with undoubtably the most knowledge on the subject, Hans Von Sponek and Denis Halliday both said the sanctions were genocidal.
You are misplacing the problem. The only effect of Saddam's actions was to cause suffering to the populace. It wasn't the sanctions, it was Saddam's own greed and disdain for his people. It wasn't the sanctions that were genocidal, it was Saddam's policies.

So, I guess that if there is a genocidal dictator who is killing off thousands of his people by his actions, the world should just give him what he wants until he stops killing off his people? Chamberlain much?

PureFodder wrote:

Especially if overthrowing a dictator will cause more harm to the populace than just leaving the dictator there. In cases where a dictator is actually massacring the populace, for example the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to overthrow Pol Pot, I'd say invasion to overthrow a dictator is acceptable, but it should be done with UN support.
Read all the posts before coming out with stupid accusations.

The only way that the sanctions could have worked was if Saddam cared more for his people that for himself. As a dictator well known for killing huge numbers of his own populace, relying on his charitable side seems just a little stupid. The fact remains that we knew that the sanctions weren't working and were just leading to mass death of innocent people. It was utterly within our power to stop it, yet we continued. The UN (mainly the US/UK who were the main instigators of the sanctions) gave Saddam an ultimatum, do what we say or we'll kill huge numbers of your populace. We in effect pointed a gun at the Iraqi populace and told Saddam to do what we say or they start dying. He didn't comply so we began the process of killing. If Saddam was the target of the sanctions, why not tell him to do what we say or we'll start trying to bomb him rather than taking it out on the Iraqi populace?

I'm not absolving Saddam in any way, but you can't absolve the west for imposing mass death upon the innocent Iraqi populace.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard