Anaxagoras
Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
|
Vincent, we need to keep the posts at a moderate length because its too time consuming to write answers, that alright? 
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
Thats incorrect - once again you are simplifying the issue. He said he didn't find any, and that there were problems with how Iraq was conducting itself - I posted links to articles where he stated that at the time so you don't have to take my word for it.
No WMDs before the war. No WMDs after the war. All your articles and all your links will not change the facts. I will say it slowly so you can understand . . N O . . . W M Ds.
Thats wrong old boy... and before you ask, I will add that "Google is your friend"! 
Besides which, your friend Blix repeatedly asserted a lot of chemical weaponry was unaccounted for. The allies simply could not have known it was destroyed or had expired (largely dependent on storgae conditions) at that point.
quote:
I am simplifying the issue because it is very simple, and so even you can understand it: No WMDs were found. The Security Council refused to prosecute a war. The Bush/Blair war was illegal. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that 100s of thousands died from an illegal and needless war?
I agree the war was wrong, and that the US was at fault to start it. What I dispute is that it was all the US' fault.
Thus, at a fundamental level we agree on a lot but you keep having to insist that every inch of it was America's fault, even Iran and Syria's intensive terrorism which was 99% aimed at Iraq's civil populace. Thats pretty twisted in my opinion. 
quote:
quote:
If it was all in Bush's mind, how do you think that the text was a particularly harsh one with a starkly worded choice of immediate compliance or "consequences" then?
Because there were no consequences sanctioned by the Security Council. The war was undertaken by rogue nations./quote]
Thats incorrect. The consequences were clearly understood to be military action as there was no other option after sanctions failed. That was understood at the time too. Iraq had already suffered from lengthy intensive air strikes FFS.
quote:
quote:
Stop shillying around and tell me what your point is? Are you suggesting it was all a conspiracy? Are you also a 9/11 Troofer?
LMAO!! You wish. I was trying to explain the public psyche that was vulnerable to the exploitive lies that led to my nation's shameful action. Anthrax scares in Ireland. Anthrax attacks in the US and five dead. Who is it that is shillying around?
So you are suggesting an anthrax conspiracy then?
Bud we have nearly daily bomb scares over here too so there was no shillying around with the anthrax point.
quote:
quote:
So fucking what if he named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil? Had Iran not called the US the "Great Satan" and other pleasantries since Islamist Iran became a reality in 1979?
What a silly comparison! Big difference. Bush was listing a menu of potential targets in the midst of war hysteria here.
How is it silly? Was there not hysteria there with a government controlled media where access to the external world was tightly restricted? Iran had been issuing frequent war-like statements for over two decades, and then you justify their involvement in Iraq because of Bush's "axis of evil" speech! Give me a fucking break! lol
quote:
quote:
Do you know Iran was behind numerous terrorist attacks on the US at a prior stage. It was behind the killing of hundreds of American soldiers in Lebanon in 1983. I know you'll spount on about the Iranian passenger plane that was downed in the 90's but the point is that Iran would have targeted the US no matter the fuck what. Get a reality check bud.
Do you know that US and UK agents toppled the democratic government in Iran and installed the Shah who ruled with torture? But really do we have to replay all of that, bud? When does history begin for you? Only when it is convenient?]
Another common trope. The Shah was responsible for the killing of around 3,000 people which was a terrible thing but post-revolutionary Iran is responsible for inexcess of ten-fold that, including the Basij, which were basically children sent to walk over mines and face machine guns during the Iran-Iraq war armed with nothing other than walking sticks! Excuse me if I laugh when that murderous regime and its many supporters shed crocodile tears over the harm the Shah caused.
quote:
As for the loss of American and French military . . . yeah, it was a shame and probably Iran was involved. But did you know:
Muslim feelings against the American presence were "exacerbated when missiles lobbed by the U.S. Sixth Fleet hit innocent by-standers in the Druze-dominated Shuf mountains. "
[SNIP]
Colonel Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the marines in Beirut during the incident, has said that the Marine and the French headquarters were targeted primarily because of "who we were and what we represented;"[12] and that,
"It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support -- which I strongly opposed -- for a week to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on September 19 and that the French conducted an air strike on September 23 in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision."[13]
Some authors, including Thomas Friedman point to the use of this naval gunfire as the beginning point of the U.S. forces being seen as participants in the civil war rather than peace keepers and opening them up to retaliation.[14][15]
Some analysts believe the Islamic Republic of Iran was heavily involved and that a major factor leading it to participate in the attacks on the barracks was America's support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War and its extending of $2.5 billion in trade credit to Iraq while halting the shipments of arms to Iran
You're being a wee bit selective with the facts yourself there, chappie.
Sorry how am I being selective with facts? I brought the issue up to point to the fact that Iran would have targeted the US in Iraq no matter what. That point stands, and the speculation above does nothing to alter that point. It is speculation because Iran became involved in the politics of Lebanon soon after the revolution. It helped start and train the Islamist group Hizbullah. Thus the terrorist attack on American troops would have come no matter what happened previously.
BTW I think this "chappie" nonsense that you have repeatedly used constitutes a modest form of name calling.
quote:
quote:
I find that explanation a little far-fetched but if Saddam was speaking the truth then it was stupidity on his part, odd considering he was actually supposed to be a rather smart individual. Why would he truly be more worried about Iran?
Oh, so you know Saddam's reality, do you? LOL! Nevermind what he said he feared. Let's go with what you think he should have feared more. Speculating here but maybe Saddam was confident in a veto by a friend on the SC if a war resolution were proposed and maybe it never occurred to him that Bush would act without UN cover. Maybe he thought Harry Truman was still president
No you are just being stupid. I never suggested that I knew Saddam's reality. If all you can do to argue is create strawmen then you should query your own motives. My point was simple - it would be peculiar if Saddam was worried about a vastly smaller and more distant threat then the one he was immediately confronted with by a massive superpower.
quote:
quote:
Its actually your pro-Mullah filter that is giving Iran a pass, and simplifying the reality into a silly leftist caricature. Go write a Marxist interpretation of Middle Eastern history and in the meantime, maybe you should be partaking of Ermoods Muhammadian Kool Aid? I'm sure it'll taste really nice!
OMG, hard to believe you are actually stooping to that old Right Wingnut bromide that I am a Commie because I disagree with you. Are you decendent from that foine Irish lad Joseph McCarthy?
Try as you might you cannot deflect away from George W Bush the catastrophe that fell upon the people of Iraq beginning in 2003. May history forever spit on his grave.
Don't be late for the Comintern meeting tonight
Here's looking at you, kid . . . . [edited out pic]
FFS, if you want me to continue discussing the matter with you, then you should at least raise the bar above your idiocy so far. You cited the notion of Western colonialism to excuse Iran and Iraq. Those are populist left-wing notions. That point has nothing to do with disagreement. The basic issue here is that you object to a more nuanced view of the conflict, where there is some moral culpability on Saddam's part, and latterly on Syria and Iran's part. Grow the fuck up instead of pouring sarcastic ridicule on those of us that see shades of grey where you only see a simple black and white outline.
_____________________________
"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)
|
RE: Iran VS Israel - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread