UN, Iraq & Al Qaeda links

PuterTutor said:
Right, and if we don't agree, we support terrorists. It's all fuckin clear now.
Click to expand...

Who supported terrorists?
I bet the ones that gave money to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, but it was justified then, right? ;)
 
Luis G said:
Who supported terrorists?
I bet the ones that gave money to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, but it was justified then, right? ;)
Click to expand...

Stop confusing the argument with facts, Luis. It just confuses us. :lloyd:

You forgot about weapons, we gave them weapons too.
 
Luis G said:
Who supported terrorists?
I bet the ones that gave money to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, but it was justified then, right? ;)
Click to expand...

I think they "were" justified, at that time.
I liken it to owning an attack dog, and if it turns on you. You have to put it down.
 
Luis G said:
Who supported terrorists?
I bet the ones that gave money to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, but it was justified then, right? ;)
Click to expand...

My, history has taken a beating since the wall came down.

Oh so much grander our lives would be had Iran & the Soviet EMPIRE been victors.
 
Hmmmm, interesting. Are you saying you recall the Soviet Union as a world assisting powerhouse with good intentions? Your rememberance of Iran (post Shah) was of a peaceful & benevolent nation?
 
How far back should we go?

The Husseins didn't use weapons of mass destruction on the Iraqi Kurds? How about the Iranian military? Kuwait was just panicing when teh Iraqi Army entered their borders? Maybe saddam was using it as a short cut & nothing more. Was that the real history?

The Vietnam War was fought because the French had nothing better to do & Communistic Imperialism wasn't spreading & we had no business in keeping them bottlerd up?

How about Nazi Germany. Did Hitler & Mussolini just want to have a surprise birthday party for the Queen when they got busted? Maybe those 13 million dead Soviets & 6 million dead Jews just refused to fill out another census form. Was that it?

Please inform me where my history book got replaced by a book showing ficticious events so I can catch up with you.
 
I also notice that things always say what you think they say regardless of what they actually say. What Luis said was that:

1. We supported bin-Laden while he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan(using, as Luis correctly points out, terrorist tactics that he now uses against us).

2. Hussein was our ally when he was fighting the Iranians. We gave him money and weapons. He only became our enemy after he attacked Kuwait.

These are historical facts. You questioned their history. No one but you said anything about the Soviets or Iran. Luis simply asked if we were justified in either case.
 
Gonz said:
Hmmmm, interesting. Are you saying you recall the Soviet Union as a world assisting powerhouse with good intentions? Your rememberance of Iran (post Shah) was of a peaceful & benevolent nation?
Click to expand...


I admit to being young but I dont think Iran was peaceful once the Shah was installed as dictator. I could be wrong though since the people who told me of it may have had their own perspectives and all.



Chic: Didnt the US also support other people who used terroist actions? I was thinking of a resistance we helped in South America somewhere
 
chcr said:
I also notice that things always say what you think they say regardless of what they actually say. What Luis said was that:

1. We supported bin-Laden while he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan(using, as Luis correctly points out, terrorist tactics that he now uses against us).

2. Hussein was our ally when he was fighting the Iranians. We gave him money and weapons. He only became our enemy after he attacked Kuwait.

These are historical facts. You questioned their history. No one but you said anything about the Soviets or Iran. Luis simply asked if we were justified in either case.
Click to expand...

Gonz said:
Oh so much grander our lives would be had Iran & the Soviet EMPIRE been victors.
Click to expand...

Since Luis likes to goad me, I was pointing out the reasons we backed those particular people at that particular time. So yes, indeed, the Soviet Union & Usama bin Laden were armed by the US & had we not assisted them we'd be living in a much different world today. I never questioned the historical facts of anything. I pointed out the history we so try to re-write.
 
I see. It means what you say it means, not what it says. The Soviet Union certainly would not have collapsed without our involvement with bin-Laden, and If Iraq hadn't lost the Iran-Iraq war despite our help, the middle east would not be the mess it is today. Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
chcr said:
The Soviet Union certainly would not have collapsed without our involvement with bin-Laden
Click to expand...


Well, if the Soviet Union had gotten Afghanistan they would have certainly inproved their standings in the world oil markets. Not that Afghani oil is worth fighting over (is there any at all?) but their position between Iran & Asia would have been quite advantageous. Pipelines from the Caspians & from OPEC countries, all tied together with the might of the Soviet force & a supply hungry US, Europe & China (the emerging market) woul dhave placed tehm in a position of superiority.
 
The Soviet Union' economy was already collapsing before Afghanistan. It was a last ditch effort to gain control of the situation and it was doomed from the start. It did pretty effectively train bin-Laden and gave Afghanistan to the Taliban. Understand that we probably couldn't have forseen how much trouble that would be but, in hindsight, we did try to rush the soviets into collapse without fully considering the consequences. My main problem with the current Iraq situation is that we're doing something similar there. I think it stems from a lack of continuity in our foreign policy, but I don't really have an answer for it.
 
I thought the Soviets collapsed since their economy was collapsing since it was putting it all into the Arms Race. As far as oil goes I think Afghan is supposed to have some oil. Not as much as Saudi Arabia though
 
chcr said:
I also notice that things always say what you think they say regardless of what they actually say. What Luis said was that:

1. We supported bin-Laden while he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan(using, as Luis correctly points out, terrorist tactics that he now uses against us).

2. Hussein was our ally when he was fighting the Iranians. We gave him money and weapons. He only became our enemy after he attacked Kuwait.

These are historical facts. You questioned their history. No one but you said anything about the Soviets or Iran. Luis simply asked if we were justified in either case.
Click to expand...
1.) What terrorist tactics? Was there children it their military, or did bin-Laden bomb
something in the USSR that I didn't hear about? :confused:

2.) I don't know how much of an enemy our intel considered Hussein to be
before, (I never liked the sob)
but the invasion certainly required action. ;)



chcr said:
I see. It means what you say it means, not what it says. The Soviet Union certainly would not have collapsed without our involvement with bin-Laden, and If Iraq hadn't lost the Iran-Iraq war despite our help, the middle east would not be the mess it is today. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Click to expand...
I don't think many know how much it might have "contributed" to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I certainly don't think it helped their situation. ;)
Iraq lost the war? :confused: So how come Iran didn't claim the land?
 
chcr said:
The Soviet Union' economy was already collapsing before Afghanistan.

Understand that we probably couldn't have forseen how much trouble that would be but, in hindsight, we did try to rush the soviets into collapse without fully considering the consequences.

My main problem with the current Iraq situation is that we're doing something similar there. I think it stems from a lack of continuity in our foreign policy, but I don't really have an answer for it.
Click to expand...

Now that is worthy of further discussion....make that speculation. I still think Ronnie did it.

In hindsight the Cold War was what kept peace in the world. Whodathunk it?

There's no need for me to go into my idea's on Iraq. Let me just say it's do something with a needy area or wait for more bloodshed. Better to try & lose than to sit back & watch it fester.
 
It might have kept the peace but Vietnam and Korea as well as the panic and fear that ensued makes me wonder if it was the right choice to try and scare them into making bigger weapons and threatning them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top