MoesTavern
Member
Registered: 19th Jul 07
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Pepper
quote:
Originally posted by John
You aren't very good at reading.
I specifically said if they hadn't bombed the towers, America wouldn't have been able to use that as an excuse.
.
Saudis were responsible for 9/11 ... who were trained in Afghaniston and hidden by the Taliban. Iraq was not involved, no one is saying they were, not even America has claimed this, although it is something that is widely alluded to on fox news and believed to be true by a stupidly high percentage of fox news viewers. America didnt use 9/11 as an excuse for war with iraq - what are you on about?
If your going by this logic then lets go further back than 9/11 .... if America hadnt of been funded by israeli money, and aming and protecting israel and its interests .... even when that involves ethnic cleansing of muslims - then maybe saudi, muslim terroroists would not have flown planes into the twin towers.
Maybe if america and britain had not supported, armed and worshipped people like saddam and gaddafi when they were doing our dirty work, then we wouldnt have had to go in and remove these people when they inevitably go completely barking mad with a load of western weapons to use on their own people
Go back further still ... maybe if america hadnt of armed and trained the taliban to fight for american interests against the russians then they wouldnt have produced such capable killers as bin laden and the 9/11 terrorists.
History didnt just start with 9/11....stuff happened before that
Anyway - you think its ok that america goes to war based on an excuse - doesnt that strike you as madness?
[Edited on 11-09-2011 by Dr Pepper]
Links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda were alluded to by W. Bush repeatedly so it's not suprising the connection was taken for granted by a large number of people, it very definately was used as one of many excuses for the invasion of Iraq, implicitly anyway.
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
whetehr everythign you just said is true or not, im not going to say but its history plain and simple, in the past. i will however say that iranians are mental bastards and im sure the yanks sided with them in part due to cold war connotations - the very same reaosn why they supplied the mujahadeen (aka todays taliban) in afghanistan with weaposn to defeat the russians
there was a time when people would not step foot behind the iron curtain yet today we trade with them everyday so you can discount wht hapopend in the past. hussein was still a monster and the world is better off wiothout him as are the Iraqi people. they could have never foreseen the arab spring and whether a libya.gaddafi style uprising would ahve happened there who knows so they took the opportunity to take down someone like hussein. im sure they would ahve doent he exact same thign to gaddaffi if there was any in
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
whetehr everythign you just said is true or not, im not going to say but its history plain and simple, in the past. i will however say that iranians are mental bastards and im sure the yanks sided with them in part due to cold war connotations - the very same reaosn why they supplied the mujahadeen (aka todays taliban) in afghanistan with weaposn to defeat the russians
there was a time when people would not step foot behind the iron curtain yet today we trade with them everyday so you can discount wht hapopend in the past. hussein was still a monster and the world is better off wiothout him as are the Iraqi people. they could have never foreseen the arab spring and whether a libya.gaddafi style uprising would ahve happened there who knows so they took the opportunity to take down someone like hussein. im sure they would ahve doent he exact same thign to gaddaffi if there was any in
Robbo ....the only reason Saddam /Gaddafi had such long spells in power was due to them receiving western support- you cant just say that doesnt matter because its in the past - its crucial to understanding why you have such a big amount of anti western feeling in these countries.
There are mi6 papers all over Gaddafis compound where we have given him infomation on his enemies so he can have them killed or torutured....we sent the SAS over to train gaddafis special forces ... we armed him, we traded with him, we defended him and dealt with his henchmen when we knew they were responsible for atrocities.....We did the same thing with Saddam and Iraq.
Yes Iraq would be better off without saddam, yes Libya could have done without the colonal ...but both those countries could have really done without us proping these guys up - then bombing them into the third world when we realised we had lost control of the region .... both these countries would have overthrown these dictators without the support the west gave to them.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
How do you know they'd have managed to overthrow them?
NATO bombing seems to have helped them massively, how exactly would they have achieved the same with some sticks?
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
Because Dr Liberal knows.
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
Because Dr Liberal knows.
thats another one for the post count - well done, you really add a great deal to these kind of threads. Being against American foreign policy doesnt automatically make you a liberal by the way.
[Edited on 12-09-2011 by Dr Pepper]
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
How do you know they'd have managed to overthrow them?
NATO bombing seems to have helped them massively, how exactly would they have achieved the same with some sticks?
I dont 'know' that - its just a theory that a lot of experts on this region have, I ve read a far bit about our involvement in this area and its a theory which comes up again and again. We could have quite easily put our support behind the rebels in iraq or libya decades ago .... we could of armed them, given them weapons training and intelligence...we didnt do this because we felt saddam and gaddafi were better for us from an economic viewpoint...we were worried they would be replaced by a anti western, muslim, extreme government ...one that wouldnt work with us for the exchange of weapons and intelligence ...we are still scared of that happening now.
- but I do know it would have been much easier to overthrow saddam or gaddafi - if Western countries hadnt of been arming them with chemical weapons, tactical weapons, planes, training the special forces who protected these men or by supplying them with intelligence on the where abouts and actions of their enemies.
Do you not agree?
[Edited on 12-09-2011 by Dr Pepper]
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I agree that the West clearly only do these things when it benefits them, however, it's nowhere near as clear cut as you make out.
There has to be coming and going in these relationships with these mental dictators, you win some, you lose some.
The world unfortunately doesn't smell of roses and the world leaders, although I regularly disagree with them, don't exactly have an easy job.
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
I agree that the West clearly only do these things when it benefits them, however, it's nowhere near as clear cut as you make out.
There has to be coming and going in these relationships with these mental dictators, you win some, you lose some.
The world unfortunately doesn't smell of roses and the world leaders, although I regularly disagree with them, don't exactly have an easy job.
Yeah - but when Donald Rumsfeld goes to Iraq and shakes hands with people he is supplying with chemical weapons to drop on civilians ..I think they are making a hard job a wee bit harder than it should be....thats my only point .... Im not saying the middle east wouldnt be a horrific fucking mess without western intervention ...they are more than capable of fucking it up themselves ...we have just decided that we need to constantly pick a side that benefits us the most and throw our weight behind it .... we cant then be suprised when people start burning american flags and flying commuter planes into buildings ...the things are related
Its the same as if you look at the history of africa or palestine or egypt before western intervention and after ... a similar trend appears.
[Edited on 12-09-2011 by Dr Pepper]
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
People can burn flags all they want, they should expect to, and the law should have power to, severely reprimand them, irrelevant of why they are doing it, especially Muslims on the anniversary on 9/11, in what is at the end of the day a Christian country which has also been severely affected by Muslim extremists, which the thread is about.
|
Butler
Member
Registered: 2nd Jun 05
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
I really wish they would all die. It was the same story on Armistice day. Quite happy to live in this country, with absolutely no respect. It pisses me off.
|
Eddx14xe
Member
Registered: 12th Jan 10
Location: Hertfordshire
User status: Offline
|
Havent read the whole thread but this isnt just some people burning a flag. Its muslim people, who are the 'group' of people that knocked down the towers. Burning the american flag on the anniversary of 9/11 to disrespect the people who died.
Its not as simple as 'burning a piece of cloth', it may only be a flag but its the meaning behind them doing it.
|
