Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by caveman_uk, Apr 1, 2003.
The original can be found here
Talk about dealing with the devil. You'd think the politicians would know better.
How can you do business with mofos and not expect to get burned?
Just common street smarts.
A bit flame-ish but I'll bite. Firtsly, war is war and in war you help your interests. For whatever reason, the Iraqi's were where our better intrests lied. Now, a legit war against another warring nation is completely different then one aggressor raging against non aggressors. Irag/Saddam just got too big for his britches and word got out. Then he attacked a neighbor, then he sponosred terrorists who later attacked the US. Their are more reasons I'm sure, but this happens all the time where a nation sells waepons to another only to have it bite them in the ass later down the line.
Look what we did for Osama.
maybe we shouldnt let puppets fight a war for us. we need to be more responsible about who we give power to. you would think if "this happens all the time" then we would find some other way instead of enabeling a tyrant.
Let me ask a question. If you keep feeding dogs and all they did was bite you in the ass perhaps it's about time you gave up feeding dogs?
if you can prove that, bush, the FBI, the CIA, the pentagon and the NSA would _love_ to see your evidence.
There is no flame bait here. Just some facts that don't paint the Reagan and Bush administrations in very good light. Every administration has shady deals. It's just that these happened to be illegal, immoral and mostly indefensible.
See sections 1 and 5 of tired war arguments.
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
reagan and co. were concerned that, after the revolution, the iranian style of islam would spread to other middle eastern countries. so they more or less persuaded iraq to start a war w/ iran.
but it gets a little tricky. the iran-contra affair armed iran w/, among other things, TOW anti-tank missiles. the iraqis got a little suspicious once their tanks started getting destroyed, wondering who the US was supporting after all.
there was the attack on the stark, the israelis taking out a work-in-progress iraqi nuclear reactor, that odd downing of the iranian passenger plane, et. al.
it's all very complicated, grey areas, secret deals. a long history -- i'm assuming you're unfamiliar with it. but don't worry, the enemies of today will be the friends of tomorrow, then enemy, then friend. you know, whatever suits the administration in the short term.
in supporting the war, perhaps you are unknowningly doing nothing more than supporting this administration's short term plans. how many times are you willing to believe the adminstration every time they change their story?
I'm curious how many of those sources are credible, or simply confused.
Don't get me wrong, I have no love of "da dub" or his father. Like any independent person, I question things. Certainly some of those sources are goin to be biased. Some are going to be out of context. Others might be all out lies.
I think most of those sources are just the first ones someone found. There is a long and detailed, redundantly reported history of the US supplying arms and aid to Iraq.
The author of the article certainly injects his point of view and draws conclusion that are biased, but the facts are verifiable.