• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • Reminder - We have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding content involving minors, regardless of intent. Any content containing minors will result in an immediate ban. If you see any such content, please report it using the "report" button on the bottom left of the post.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

A Challenge For Pacifists

Strelnikov

4th Level Red Feather
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
1,812
Points
0
I’ll begin this post with a quote from philosopher John Stuart Mill. It summarizes my views regarding the recently concluded war against the Saddamite regime:

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their own free choice - is often the means of their regeneration.”

All right, you pacifists – you who say that violence solves nothing, that war is never justified. Read the article that follows, and then explain to me why your position is a moral one. I’ll be interested to hear your responses.

Strelnikov


*****************************************


Horror Stories
By Timothy W. Maier
Insight Magazine: May 13, 2003 Issue

The war footage of Iraq beamed via satellite to billions of TV viewers around the world showed homes with walls invariably decorated with pictures of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. If he was so hated, why so many pictures? There was little choice: Failure to hang such a picture or display a statue, or even to celebrate Saddam's April 28 birthday, guaranteed a one-way ticket to a torture chamber in which execution often was only a matter of time.

"We had a picture of Saddam to show loyalty," explains Bayanne Surdashi, 27, who was granted political asylum in the United States in 1996 along with some 6,400 Kurds who faced certain death under Hussein's ethnic-cleansing campaign. "We hung that picture to trick them because there was a saying in Iraq that if you put your foot down wrong, you're dead."

Death loomed everywhere in Iraq under the Ba'ath Party regime, which killed some 2 million people, both old and young. Its agents removed the mentally ill and the disabled from the care of their families and shot them dead. Saddam's Republican Guards raped women and children and tortured those suspected of being disloyal to Saddam.

Surdashi recalls from her youth that the stench of death was so overpowering in her neighborhood in Iraq that it prevented children from playing outside, as thousands of dead bodies were dumped in the streets and left to decompose. But for years even Iraqis living in the United States refused to talk about such atrocities. "I was afraid of coming forward to share my story with the public," explains Surdashi, who lives in Virginia. "I feared that the Iraqi secret police had agents everywhere in the world. Saddam was successful in instilling fear in all of us. His thirty-some years of torture and tyranny worked all too well."

The Iraqi exiles were not alone in remaining silent. Even the U.S. government refused to declassify Pentagon reports and evidence that was confirmed after the fall of Baghdad. In fact it was more than a decade after Gulf War I ended before the Pentagon declassified its top-secret file on Iraq under the title "Report on Iraqi War Crimes." The report revealed that U.S. soldiers had discovered at least two dozen Iraqi torture chambers in Kuwait City. Most were located in police stations or sports facilities. Not surprisingly, U.S. troops unearthed similar torture chambers in sports facilities and police stations throughout Iraq after the recent military operations.

The summary of the declassified 14-page report on war crimes committed by the Iraqis in Kuwait offers a taste of what Iraqi Ba'athists did wherever they held power. According to the report, "The gruesome evidence confirms torture by amputation of or injury to various body parts, to include limbs, eyes, tongues, ears, noses, lips and genitalia. Electric shock was applied to sensitive parts of the body (nose, mouth, genitalia); electric drills were used to penetrate the chest, legs or arms of victims. Victims were beaten until bones were broken, skulls were crushed and faces disfigured. Some victims were killed in acid baths. Women taken hostage were raped repeatedly. Eyewitnesses described the murder of Kuwaitis by Iraqi military personnel who forced family members to watch. Eyewitnesses reported Iraqis torturing a woman by making her eat her own flesh as it was cut from her body. Other eyewitness accounts describe Iraqi execution of Kuwaiti civilians by dismemberment and beatings while victims were suspended from ceilings and with implements such as axes."

For years, many Iraqis remained in the dark about what happened to lost relatives who were taken to the torture chambers and never returned. Others were kept wondering whether their loved ones were victims of Saddam's chemical warfare. They slowly are beginning to learn the truth with the identification of unmarked mass graves all across Iraq. The discovery brings some peace to Surdashi, who lost three uncles when the Iraqi regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds. Surdashi's mother, who remained in Iraq, finally may get a chance to bury the remains of her brothers. "My mother has been weeping for the last 12 years," the young woman says, wiping back tears. "She wants to find the graves to pay the respect they deserve. She just wants to see justice. Until she finds the graves, she is not going to rest. We don't know what happened to our loved ones. I lost 40 direct relatives and 150 indirect relatives."

Surdashi is like many Iraqis who have been taking up the challenge that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued when he urged Iraqis here and abroad to share their stories of the oppressive Ba'ath regime that modeled its political machine on that of the Nazis. Now that the regime has fallen, Iraqis have been talking painfully about the horrors to everyone who will listen.

Their stories are not new revelations. For years groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have compiled detailed, firsthand accounts of such abuse with photographs too graphic to print, including pictures of mutilated children tortured to death. But their reports tended to be ignored or reduced to a few inches in the back pages of metropolitan newspapers. Even when the evidence was overwhelming, reporters and editors looked the other way.

Certainly that was the case with CNN. The cable-news network that bills itself as the "most trustworthy" in the world has had to acknowledge that it deliberately withheld information that confirmed torture chambers. The reason? Network executives claim they were scared to tell the truth because they didn't want to endanger lives. Critics point out that CNN gave no warning even when it had advance notice of murders planned by the regime, strongly suggesting that it followed the Saddam line to retain access to Baghdad.

What a difference two weeks of war made. CNN and other media outlets now are starting to report the heartbreaking stories of Saddam's chambers of horror. Every new confirmation of systematic murder and torture begs the question of why the international community remained silent about all of this, doing its best to prevent the United States from acting earlier to stop it.

Even a cursory look inside the torture chambers of one of the police stations elicits horror. When embedded U.S. reporters stumbled on one of these in An Nasiriya, the cameras finally rolled as two Iraqis who narrowly had escaped death there demonstrated for U.S. Marines how friends and members of their family were tortured. One illustrated by pretending to shock another with electrical current. The small police station was in a one-story building that also housed a wooden stockade, a primitive room with an electric chair and countless photos of burned bodies and tons of surveillance equipment. Capt. Pete McAleer, commander of Echo Company of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit whose patrol discovered the room of horrors, told reporters, "It looks a bit too much like Nazi Germany to me." As one Iraqi described these terror chambers, "It was a place of evil."

That may be an understatement considering the torture methods that ranged from ripping out fingernails to taking a saw and cutting off a penis or breast, or playing dominoes on the backs of women who had been systematically raped [see sidebar below]. Their memories of torture and death make it hard for Iraqis to understand the war protesters in the West. "Why weren't they protesting when 350,000 Iraqis were chemically and biologically attacked?" asks Surdashi. "Where is the outrage? Why weren't they on the streets then? We know the price of freedom is going to be high, but two million of my people died under the Gestapo tactics of Saddam."

Consider the story of Uzair Jaff, who survived the chemical attack at Anfal in April 1988, narrowly escaping from a harrowing experience reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Jaff recently testified in broken English before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on Capitol Hill. He recalled when Saddam's cousin, Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majid - better known as "Chemical Ali" - arrived in his village outside of Kirkuk demanding to know which villagers were Iraqi and which were Kurds. They were separated into groups, with infants being snatched from their mothers. A few days later, Saddam's guards rousted them in the early morning, calling as many as 300 names. Those including Jaff were driven toward the western border of Iraq, stopping at the police station to switch guards. The new guards carried shovels later used to dig ditches to bury prisoners they executed along the route. There was little water; guards forced the prisoners to drink their own urine. When the guards came to the truck in which Jaff was sitting they didn't even bother to force their victims to get out, but opened fire into the truck.

Jaff and one other villager survived the shooting by pretending to be dead as the guards dumped the bodies into the ditches. That night Jaff stripped off his clothes so he would not be recognized by Saddam's troops and walked approximately nine hours until he reached a refugee camp. Terrified that his family might face execution if it were known that he had cheated death, Jaff kept silent about his ordeal and never sent word that he survived.

Like the Nazis who committed similar atrocities, Saddam's regime meticulously recorded its crimes and tormented families of victims with reminders that it could happen to them. Everything appears to have been documented. The torture, the deaths and the methods of killing were kept in secret intelligence dossiers that now have fallen into the hands of the U.S. military. Some 18 tons of Iraqi secret-police and intelligence files consisting of 5 million pages were seized by Kurdish rebels and turned over to the United States. The documents "provide a thorough overview of how the Iraqi police state maintained its grip on power," says Joost Hiltermann, who supervised the initial review of such records for Human Rights Watch. "They did include some smoking-gun documents showing Iraqi-government culpability for a great number of atrocities."

The Iraqi regime claimed documents of this kind that were obtained by Kurdish rebels were forged but, considering the enormous volume and attention to detail, experts call it preposterous. The records found in these chambers of horror range from identification cards to photographs of victims including small, badly burned children. A single document dated August 1989 lists the names of 87 people who were executed and a summary of each case. The alleged crimes included trespassing into forbidden zones and teaching the Kurdish language. A record from March 1991 provides instructions from Baghdad Security Headquarters, declaring, "Shoot at demonstrators with the aim of killing 95 percent of them and saving the rest for interrogation." Another of the captured documents directs that a chemical-weapons unit be kept in reserve. Other orders called for executing wounded civilians and razing Kurdish neighborhoods with tanks, bulldozers and shovels.

Why did Iraqis not liberate themselves from so vicious a tyranny without U.S. help? "We tried," Surdashi says, noting they even attempted to use suicide bombers but could never get close enough to Saddam Hussein. "How could we liberate ourselves when Saddam had all the weapons?" Sobbing, she told of a member of the Republican Guards who "put a gun in the mouth of a baby - and shot the baby!"

Another Iraqi, Fatima Faraj, 57, bursts into tears as she describes how her nephews were seized at college by Saddam's agents and sent to prison. Why were they taken? "Because they were Kurds," says Faraj, who left Iraq in 1996 and now lives in Virginia. After nearly two years in captivity, the two nephews, Mahamood, 25, and Ahmad, 28, were killed on Jan. 1, 1988. The Republican Guards demanded that their father pay a fee to Saddam for the cost of executing his children. When he demanded a receipt, the guards balked and eventually turned over the remains.

The father brought the bodies of his sons home in boxes and instructed Faraj not to open them. She did anyway. "The entire bodies - other than their underwear - were places of burn," Faraj sobs. "There were two black spots on their necks. They looked as though they were whipped and kicked throughout their bodies." They could not have a proper funeral because the regime frequently poisoned the food or gassed Kurdish funerals. They couldn't take that chance.

The torture didn't end for Faraj. Another nephew, Muhammad, 34, finally was released from a torture chamber. "He was kicked so bad," she says tearfully. "They took out all his fingernails and toenails. His fingers and feet were all pink. He had a nervous breakdown."

The stories of other friends who were tortured spread throughout Iraq. "One person was so thirsty," Faraj says, "that they fed him his urine. Others had weird skin diseases; some were fed poison."

The unspeakable was commonplace, says Yasmine Baban, who now lives in the Washington metropolitan area. She says children would walk to school and see their neighbors hanging from nooses. "One engineer on our street was executed, one doctor in another home was arrested while his wife was pregnant, accused of being a member of the Free Masons. Another neighbor who was Jewish, her 18-year-old brother was arrested, and then she was asked to come and collect him from the prison many months later. When she went she found him dead, along with many other dead bodies in a room. She took him and had to have a quiet burial and no funeral because it was not permitted." No one could talk about it, she says. "There were new laws every other day, and people were afraid to speak or even to talk on the phone, afraid to express a thought that might get them in trouble or be contrary to what the Ba'ath Party believes in."

The terrible silence that had fallen over Iraq ended when Baghdad was liberated by coalition forces. "Living in Iraq was a chamber of tortures," says Raz Rasool, who currently lives in Virginia and was invited to the White House to speak with President George W. Bush about human-rights abuses. Her cousin was tortured in an Iraqi prison, and at age 12 she personally witnessed the cruel beating of children who refused to celebrate Saddam Hussein's birthday. They were taught to treat Saddam as a second father and to refer to him as "Papa Saddam." But some of the teens dared to express opposition.
"
When we refused to join the rally for Saddam, a military officer gathered us in the school yard," Rasool recalled. "He grabbed a 17-year-old girl by her hair and began pulling it out. When she fell to the ground he began kicking her. He was beating her in front of us" as he ordered the children to celebrate, and then threatened them if they didn't. "I will hang you in the school yard. I don't want education, I want loyalists," he told them.

The officer wasn't bluffing. "They had shot three people in front of the school," Rasool recalls. "The abuse was daily. Either they would take you away with a reason or with no reason. They would kill children and then change the birth certificate so they could record their age as 18. Bodies were found burned, with black lines around the neck, showing they were killed while being tortured."

Eyewitnesses said Saddam's agents would take pictures of the dead and use the photos to intimidate others or torture family members. "I remember a picture of a naked woman on a table where the officers were playing a game of cards over her body," she says tearfully. "They sent the picture to the family to humiliate them."

How did Saddam get his officers to commit such acts? "They got promoted for it," Rasool says. "Saddam loved those pictures."

On April 4, Rasool shared her experiences with Bush, as did several others. "You felt the humanity and passion inside of him," she reports. "He said he was going to help us, to free us. I wanted him to know that we owe our gratitude to you, Mr. President. Our people have suffered under this genocide regime of Saddam. In 35 years, there had been not one demonstration [against these atrocities] among Arab countries and no one was willing to help the Iraqi people. President Bush said he would remove Saddam and he did. He is a hero."

Both Surdashi and Faraj also praise Bush for having the courage to help their country. The two women, who will become U.S. citizens in November along with 6,400 other Kurds who sought refuge here, say the president will get their votes come election time, too. "We want to thank President Bush for our people," Surdashi says. "He liberated Iraq!" proclaims Faraj. "He has saved countless generations."

Prior to the fall of Baghdad "we couldn't even cry in our homeland," Rasool says. "But now we have cried on the shoulder of a new friend. Not only are we saved, but a whole generation of my children and grandchildren will be saved, too. We have a saying: 'We have no friends but mountains.' But now we have a friend and it means a lot."
The saying comes from the fact that Iraq's Arab neighbors did not stand up against Hussein, Sursdashi says. "Our Arab neighbors did nothing, but sat back. We are grateful for what the United States did with allied support." When that statue came down, she continues, "I was so overwhelmed with feelings I was crying. The joy in the street was sincere. The Iraqi people knew nothing about democracy or freedom, but now they know what it is to become free - free of torture - and the fall of tyranny."

Breaking into tears, Rasool adds, "I feel like I am being reborn. When I saw that monument falling down. ... I'm sorry for crying but I never felt like a human being before. Today we are human beings."


Gruesome Methods of Saddam's Madness

The Iraqi Ba'athists patterned their party and their regime on that of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. Insight has compiled a list of charges being made against the regime by many victims, human-rights groups and witnesses, and confirmed by records and confessions. They include the following:
*Electric shock with electrodes connected to body parts.
*Being forced to strip and sit on broken bottles or gas heaters.
*Hanging from a rotating ceiling fan and being struck by pipes.
*Burning with fire and branding with hot irons.
*Burning hands or feet with a soldering iron or boiling oil.
*Using a hammer to break noses and bones.
*Ripping out fingernails, toenails and teeth.
*Amputating limbs with a chain saw.
*Burning rectum with boiling water.
*Crucifixion by nailing ears and hands to cross.
*Dumping live bodies in acid baths or ovens.
*Attacks by wild dogs.
*Nailing tongues to a wooden board.
*Spraying eyes with insecticides.
*Raping and hanging women while forcing children and husbands to watch.
*Using hornets, wasps, spiders and scorpions to sting naked children while forcing parents to watch.
*Using an electric carving knife to cut off penis or breast.

Timothy W. Maier is a writer for Insight.
 
a comment.

that post was waaayyyyyy toooo fucking long.

give us an abridged copy.

is Saddam a hero or a dickhead ??????????
 
If the whole article is too long, just read the last paragraph. And Saddam (if he's still alive) is neither a hero nor a dickhead. He's a monster, like Hitler and Stalin before him.

Strelnikov
 
What counts is... he is a has-been.

One down, six to go.
 
Strelnikov said:
All right, you pacifists – you who say that violence solves nothing, that war is never justified. Read the article that follows, and then explain to me why your position is a moral one. I’ll be interested to hear your responses.

I'd say you could justify war, if you knew for certain that you held the moral right and that your leaders were fighting the war for moral reasons. Every country takes certain "spoils of war" afterwards (such as 2 trillion dollar rebuilding contracts over 15 years) that's only to be expected.

But the anti-war campaign usually goes deeper than "make love, not war". Not always, but most times. Depends really if you've got sensible debators or stoned hippies. 😀
Anti-war campaigners can often give better reasons than that, for their beliefs. One such is that America can hardly fight a war on human rights issues, when it's got the worst human rights record in the developed world. I know some people might find that a very imflammatory remark, but it's true. I've participated in three or four threads where a lot of things have come up, that blind patriots would find very uncomfortable to digest. Some of the peace campaigners would argue that it would be better to "look first to ourselves" before condemning Saddam for torturing children. (Take a deck at the combination of "death penalty and patriotism thread" for an article from the Vancouver Sun about America's treatment of child criminals.)
As well as glass houses and stone throwing, there is also the argument for the war being for reasons other than what we are publicly told. Even if you don't believe in massive international conspiracies, there is a colossal amount of damning evidence of inconsistencies and downright lies from American military figures, and public servants. A lot of these challenge the whole basis for the war happening in the first place. (Al-Qaeda attacked us, Saddam is a buddy of Osama, let's kick Saddam's ass!)


Having said that, given the choice of Iraq or the US for a place of residence, I'd choose the US every time. After all, none of you guys live in Iraq! 🙂
 
Saddam may have indeed been monster and a butcher, but this is not the reason we went into Iraq. Like I said in earlier post liberation is only used for justification and not the reason we go to war. If Saddamn never had oil and was not potential threat with weapons of mass destruction he would still be doing all those horrible things in the above post.
 
A moral position?

Strelnikov said:
All right, you pacifists – you who say that violence solves nothing, that war is never justified. Read the article that follows, and then explain to me why your position is a moral one. I’ll be interested to hear your responses.
Well, aren’t you glad that the US found a posterior justification for this war? After all the obvious and less obvious lies that were presented as the original reasons for war, finally you got the gratification of proving how inhuman Saddam was? And what’s best: this justification sells well in the international public! I won't go into who brought Saddam into power and supported him for over 10 years in the first place, that has been repeated over and over.

I’ve got news for you, Strelnikov: Although that article plays masterfully on the human emotions of Western people, almost identical lists are true for a lot of third-world countries, many of them belonging to the closest allies of the US: Saudi-Arabia, quite a lot of Latin American states, Uzbekistan and Pakistan (allies in Afghanistan), Eritrea and Turkey (in the “Coalition of the Willing”), just to name a few samples of an 80+ point list. Actually I work with amnesty international occasionally, so I know what I’m speaking of. I even spoke to torture victims from Guatemala, Colombia, and Turkey personally.

The USA may not be as bad as those examples, but they actively support the regimes in these countries. And the USA is not lily-white either: BigJim is right, the US has the worst human rights record of all civilized countries. And when it’s opportune, they even send their political enemies to one of the torture-executing countries for “further” interrogation (with "assistance" from the CIA), like they did with one of the political Al-Qaeda members…

So, to quote your own words: “Read… [that], and then explain to me why your position is a moral one.”
 
Re: A moral position?

Hi Hal. Just a few points from me re this topic.

Haltickling said:

Well, aren’t you glad that the US found a posterior justification for this war? After all the obvious and less obvious lies that were presented as the original reasons for war, finally you got the gratification of proving how inhuman Saddam was? And what’s best: this justification sells well in the international public! I won't go into who brought Saddam into power and supported him for over 10 years in the first place, that has been repeated over and over.

You might want to look into who has been supporting him the LAST 10 years, but you won't care for the answers mate! This game of "who brought who" into power is ages old. Every regime around has puppet strings according to the conspiracy gangs. We have illuminati and CIA theories galore, but at some point you have to recognize that these monsters are responsible for their OWN behavior during their reigns. EVERY country has horror in its background and the ascension of governments to power...

I’ve got news for you, Strelnikov: Although that article plays masterfully on the human emotions of Western people, almost identical lists are true for a lot of third-world countries, many of them belonging to the closest allies of the US: Saudi-Arabia, quite a lot of Latin American states, Uzbekistan and Pakistan (allies in Afghanistan), Eritrea and Turkey (in the “Coalition of the Willing”), just to name a few samples of an 80+ point list. Actually I work with amnesty international occasionally, so I know what I’m speaking of. I even spoke to torture victims from Guatemala, Colombia, and Turkey personally.

And none of THAT excuses any of Iraqs behavior. I assume you're not arguing that we should now go in and clean out every one of these regimes as well? This isn't a case of "why them" at this point. It's a beginning and hopefully an example that will serve all humanity well in the future when madmen are considering the consequences of their contemplated actions..

The USA may not be as bad as those examples, but they actively support the regimes in these countries.

Are you speaking of foreign aid and economic programs and depicting them as "sanctioning"?. Once again I assume you aren't calling for isolationism or attacks...and I hope we're not talking the CIA conspiracy mumbo jumbo that gets spouted on certain websites.

And the USA is not lily-white either: BigJim is right, the US has the worst human rights record of all civilized countries.

Only if you decide to "count" the fact that we have the death penalty for certain horrific crimes. It's a choice per state and our current climate has sanctioned it. These people aren't tortured to death. They ARE removed from society though and I know that some groups have no patience with the concept. To equate that with the methods seen in dozens of other countries is a bit strange.

And when it’s opportune, they even send their political enemies to one of the torture-executing countries for “further” interrogation (with "assistance" from the CIA), like they did with one of the political Al-Qaeda members…

Aaah...the CIA. I assume you have a specific case in mind and that there was no other reason to extradite the prisoner. Like to hear it...

So, to quote your own words: “Read… [that], and then explain to me why your position is a moral one.”
I don't think there's much moral high ground to be found in any discussion about evils of this nature. Hopefully we'll see a LOT less in the future from regimes that just noted the demise of Iraq. I'd be happy to have these practices in the history books and be discussing them with perspective while we wait for the new World Government to announce the next Mars colonization effort... Q
 
Re: Re: A moral position?

qjakal said:
Hi Hal.I'd be happy to have these practices in the history books and be discussing them with perspective while we wait for the new World Government to announce the next Mars colonization effort... Q

Hear, Hear!!!
 
The people who have kept Saddam in power is the list as follows:

France: All those naughty deals. Some military equipment. Stuff for nuclear reactors.
Germany: Bunkers R Us. If Saddam is still alive you can thank the Germans.
Russia: Big long list of goodies here. Up to just a month or so ago the Russians were still selling stuff. Anti-tank weapons, night googles, etc. A veritable Wal-Mart for Saddam's regime.
Turkey: Atropine injectors. For nerve agents that don't exist.

So what about the US? Well the grand total of what we have sold him is four Apache helicopters and a bunch of information on Iran. Thats it. Britain I must say is much to be praised. US troops did not find a single item made in Britain over in Iraq. So when you want to know who made Saddam and who kept him power ask the above countries.
 
You forgot China. I don't know what they did, but I know they did something. After all, they did try to stop the war.
 
You are right. China sold him a bunch of stuff as well. Mainly I think Silkworm Missles.
 
One little thing about Russia is that they have sold arms to EVERYONE. Just about every single "evil" regime on the planet posesses a large amount of Russian weaponry and technology. Therefore, just about every war we prosecute will be most likely opposed by them.
 
Thanks, Q, for making most of the points I would have made, far more civilly than I would have done. I'll add another.

The USA, and by extension the West, is at war with Arab Islamists and has been for a generation. Al Quaeda is only one enemy, and the most recent. We have scores to settle with others: Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, to name just three.

Afghanistan was the first real counterattack. Iraq is the second. There will be more, because the enemy is as dangerous and evil as the old USSR ever was. They don't hate us for what we do. They hate us for what we are, and for what we stand for. Like the Soviets, they won't give up until we have defeated them completely and unambiguously.

How do we win? Destroy regimes that provide the enemy with sanctuary (Afghanistan.) Destroy regimes that provide financial, material and operational support (Iraq.) Kill as many enemy operatives as possible, including the "noncombatants" who provide the money and logistic support. The more motivated enemies will be the first to die.

But just as important is the example we've set. The less motivated may decide to reconsider the consequences of an attack against Americans. You'll note that the Libyans have agreed to pay reparations to the survivors of the people they murdered when they bombed an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland. The Syrians will no doubt give a careful and respectful hearing to any "suggestions" Colin Powell may make. The threat of force sometimes makes use of force unnecessary - and now, post-Iraq, that threat is credible.

It would be nice if the Arabs eventually came around to our way of thinking - and they may, someday. Until then, remember the words of the old Roman: "Let them hate, so long as they fear."

Strelnikov
 
Q

Originally posted by Qjakal
You might want to look into who has been supporting him the LAST 10 years, but you won't care for the answers mate! This game of "who brought who" into power is ages old. Every regime around has puppet strings according to the conspiracy gangs. We have illuminati and CIA theories galore, but at some point you have to recognize that these monsters are responsible for their OWN behavior during their reigns. EVERY country has horror in its background and the ascension of governments to power...
Were are not speaking about obscure conspiracy theories here, Q, we’re talking about facts. Fact is that the US favored Saddam for building a secular state and as a counterweight to the Iranian mullahs. The war between Iraq and Iran would not have been feasible without US support, and the chemical weapons Iraq used there for the first time came from US laboratories and arsenals. That was the initial spark which triggered all the following events.
Are you speaking of foreign aid and economic programs and depicting them as "sanctioning"?. Once again I assume you aren't calling for isolationism or attacks...and I hope we're not talking the CIA conspiracy mumbo jumbo that gets spouted on certain websites.
No, I’m not at all speaking about humanitarian help. I’m speaking of personal loans to regime leaders to buy weapons which are often delivered by US as a part of the deal. I’m talking about the largest exporter of anti-personnel land mines to these countries. I’m talking about counter-insurgency training and techniques of the dictatorships’ special forces, largely delivered in CIA training camps (some even in Florida). The Taliban were trained in these camps to fight against the Soviets. Contras were trained to fight against the elected President in Nicaragua. Why is it that the US decides who is a guerilla, a terrorist, or a freedom fighter? Pure hypocrisy with a substantial economic background.

And I’d be grateful if you didn’t use unfair rhetoric to ridicule me into the corner of Illuminati-conspirationists and UFO-believers. That’s called ‘discrediting by mud-slinging’, and I wouldn’t have expected that from you, Q. I’m disappointed.

Another word on this: The use of the expression ‘conspiracy mumbo-jumbo’ sounds rather strange from a corner that believes in all the propaganda lies about a Saddam-Al-Qaeda alliance and Iraqi nuclear weapons, when even the CIA warned the government that no intelligence exists about either. Oh yes, let’s not forget that the ‘Watergate scandal’ and the ‘Iran-Contra-Affair’ were originally considered ridiculous conspiracy theories as well…
 
A bit more...

than I think we should expect. Not sure if having everyone thinking the same way is a worthy goal. I'll settle for not murdering/torturing or repressing their own citizens to such an extent that civil revolt becomes an impossibility. As for Libyas sudden civil behavior, at least they understood the message, which is about all you could have hoped for in this instance. Will their attitude remain so cooperative without our military presence? Doubtful, but we can hope...


Bad kind of war Strel. I miss uniforms and general rules of engagement. Hal/Europe is correct to worry about our conduct. The USA is in unknown territory and we're a bit emotionally charged as well, which presents a dangerous combo. I'm betting we learn as we go and that all out invasion of another country won't be done again for a long time, if ever. Of course it's Sunday morning and I'm feeling optimistic until lunch...lol. Q :zzzzz:
 
Hi Hal...we posted almost simultaneously. Not going to dissect each one, just let me say in general I didn't intend to lump you in with the UFO boys, just wanted more specific info, which you had but didn't post. I'm well aware that our hands aren't clean, believe me. Just don't want these generalizations to make it worse than it is. We've been on both sides of many of the worst episodes, but I think to imply our motives weren't worthy isn't a fair tactic either. Arming a regime against invading Russians who are there to ethnically cleanse the population isn't quite the same as arming suicide bombers to wage war among civilians, yes? Let's both try to keep them "above the belt" and enjoy the discussion, ok? More later...gym time for me, my friend. BUT, I'll be back to respond to whatever you leave...promise! Q
 
kurchatovium said:
So what about the US? Well the grand total of what we have sold him is four Apache helicopters and a bunch of information on Iran. Thats it. Britain I must say is much to be praised. US troops did not find a single item made in Britain over in Iraq. So when you want to know who made Saddam and who kept him power ask the above countries.

I'll be going into quite some detail about the links between Iraq and the US/UK in my Part 3 of 9/11 thread. You don't have to believe in worldwide conspiracies to read this info either. It's all documented and laid down. If you think any part of it is crap, it should be easy for an enquiring mind to duoble check and prove, one way or the other.
 
Strelnikov said:
They don't hate us for what we do. They hate us for what we are, and for what we stand for. Like the Soviets, they won't give up until we have defeated them completely and unambiguously.

Why do they hate us? Same reason we fear them. There's no good reason why the people who make up these nutty organisations should ever do the things they do. They've let themselves be conned into believeing that they're fighting on the side of God and that America is the "Great Satan". Us, we've let ourselves be conned into thinking they're a lot more dangeruos and effective than they are.
 
BigJim said:


I'll be going into quite some detail about the links between Iraq and the US/UK in my Part 3 of 9/11 thread. You don't have to believe in worldwide conspiracies to read this info either. It's all documented and laid down. If you think any part of it is crap, it should be easy for an enquiring mind to duoble check and prove, one way or the other.

Oooooo, I can't wait for this.😀
 
Re: Q

Haltickling said:

Were are not speaking about obscure conspiracy theories here, Q, we’re talking about facts. Fact is that the US favored Saddam for building a secular state and as a counterweight to the Iranian mullahs. The war between Iraq and Iran would not have been feasible without US support, and the chemical weapons Iraq used there for the first time came from US laboratories and arsenals. That was the initial spark which triggered all the following events.

No, I’m not at all speaking about humanitarian help. I’m speaking of personal loans to regime leaders to buy weapons which are often delivered by US as a part of the deal. I’m talking about the largest exporter of anti-personnel land mines to these countries.
And I’d be grateful if you didn’t use unfair rhetoric to ridicule me into the corner of Illuminati-conspirationists and UFO-believers. That’s called ‘discrediting by mud-slinging’, and I wouldn’t have expected that from you, Q. I’m disappointed.

Another word on this: The use of the expression ‘conspiracy mumbo-jumbo’ sounds rather strange from a corner that believes in all the propaganda lies about a Saddam-Al-Qaeda alliance and Iraqi nuclear weapons, when even the CIA warned the government that no intelligence exists about either. Oh yes, let’s not forget that the ‘Watergate scandal’ and the ‘Iran-Contra-Affair’ were originally considered ridiculous conspiracy theories as well…

OMFG!!!!! 😱 😱 :wow: Hal you are gonna LOVE my 9/11 Part 3 thread! I'm going to talk about the background to most of what you just said.
 
HisDivineShadow said:


Oooooo, I can't wait for this.😀

Hrmmm. Well I don't know about that........... 😉


A lot of the info directly relates to how a certain well-known American family *coughcoughSHRUB!!!!coughcough* gained a lot of money and power from dealing arms through various terrorist regimes and sometimes taking payment in hard narcotics that were subsequently peddled onto the streets of America. Whether you believe it or not, it'll be eye-watering.
 
What's New
2/25/26
Check out Door 44 for a large selection of tickling clips!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top