• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Libertarian Hero Ron Paul Blames US for 9/11

thinkingaboutit said:
lol Maybe he's got me on ignore?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you'd like me to retract. The CIA cooperating with Baathists in 1963 in a coup against a government they believed was communist hardly makes them responsible for Saddam's coup in 1979.
 
Considering that the Bathists wouldn't even have been in power and considering that Saddam was a CIA asset I'm going to have to call you pretty stubborn for continuing to try and make that claim. In the context of blow back, this is a classic case.

Not to be overlooked is the US support for Saddam which he enjoyed in an overt manner when he did come to power. Let's not forget all the arms, the culture for biological weapons and the tactical support given while gassing Kurds, from Saddam's good friends, the Americans.

Americans somehow act like it's their right to be ****ing around in all of these other countries. Playing one side against the next. Propping up dictators until they are no longer strategically useful. Anyhow I'm digressing.

You've been debunked. Reread 89 again if you have to (see the end bit).
 
WildCat said:
The Munich agreement in 1938.

Your turn now, and your list is building.
1. Show an example of a non-military target in the shock and awe bombing campaign.
2. Provide an example of "we are bullies and parade around with automatic weapons in civilian cities all around the world night and day."
Click to expand...

I never claimed to have examples did I? I was explaining my position on the matter. The claim was made by my coworker not me. I merely mentioned it because it was an eye opener for me regarding our foreign policy.
 
WildCat said:
The Munich agreement in 1938.

Your turn now, and your list is building.
1. Show an example of a non-military target in the shock and awe bombing campaign.
2. Provide an example of "we are bullies and parade around with automatic weapons in civilian cities all around the world night and day."
Click to expand...


I agree that this was a questionable agreement. But that's not my point. My point is that "Klebold&Harris" are not an example for a general, aggressive Youth. You're trying to make exactly this impression concerning foreign policies by pointing out one single example that went wrong. Why?
 
thinkingaboutit said:
Considering that the Bathists wouldn't even have been in power and considering that Saddam was a CIA asset
Click to expand...
You have provided no evidence for any of these claims. Was CIA involvement necessary for the coup's success? Why would a low-level Baathist thug (which Saddam was in 1963) be a CIA asset?

be overlooked is the US support for Saddam which he enjoyed in an overt manner when he did come to power. Let's not forget all the arms, the culture for biological weapons and the tactical support given while gassing Kurds, from Saddam's good friends, the Americans.
Click to expand...
US companies provided a small fraction of the chemicals and equipment used to manufacture Saddam's chemical weapons. The Netherlands, West Germany, India, Singapore and Egypt were the big suppliers. West Germany provided the equipment used to manufacture them.


You've been debunked. Reread 89 again if you have to (see the end bit).
Click to expand...
Ooooookaaaaayyy... :rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
The Munich agreement in 1938.

Your turn now, and your list is building.
1. Show an example of a non-military target in the shock and awe bombing campaign.
2. Provide an example of "we are bullies and parade around with automatic weapons in civilian cities all around the world night and day."
Click to expand...

1) Hello they bombed electrical power plants and were bombing a city (Baghdad)
 
Oliver said:
I agree that this was a questionable agreement. But that's not my point. My point is that "Klebold&Harris" are not an example for a general, aggressive Youth. You're trying to make exactly this impression concerning foreign policies by pointing out one single example that went wrong. Why?
Click to expand...
Which is why I've been asking you to provide examples of pesceful, friendly negotiations that have worked against a hostile regime, that didn't involve threats of economic sanctions or military action. You claim it is a more effective tactic, I'm just asking for examples of this.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
1) Hello they bombed electrical power plants and were bombing a city (Baghdad)
Click to expand...
The electrical plant obviously had military value, and we didn't blindly "bomb a city", it was specific targets in that city.

Since G4macdaddy has been unable to identify a single non-military target, would you like to provide one?
 
WildCat said:
The electrical plant obviously had military value, and we didn't blindly "bomb a city", it was specific targets in that city.

Since G4macdaddy has been unable to identify a single non-military target, would you like to provide one?
Click to expand...

It is clearly a civilian target. The fact that you deny this does not change anything. In fact, if anything, it solidifies it.
 
WildCat said:
Which is why I've been asking you to provide examples of pesceful, friendly negotiations that have worked against a hostile regime, that didn't involve threats of economic sanctions or military action. You claim it is a more effective tactic, I'm just asking for examples of this.
Click to expand...


Look at Saudi-US-, Pakistan-US-, Germany-US-, Turkey-Europe, Russia-US connections. Not all of them are perfect, but it works because the friendly course of diplomacy. It wouldn't be the same if one of the examples was based on non-friendly diplomatics.
 
g4macdad said:
It is clearly a civilian target. The fact that you deny this does not change anything. In fact, if anything, it solidifies it.
Click to expand...
So the Iraqi military did not use electricity? :confused:

I guess if you're just going to claim that legitimate military targets are civilian targets using a convention unknown to the accepted rules and traditions of warfare we're done.
 
Oliver said:
Look at Saudi-US-, Pakistan-US-, Germany-US-, Turkey-Europe, Russia-US connections. Not all of them are perfect, but it works because the friendly course of diplomacy. It wouldn't be the same if one of the examples was based on non-friendly diplomatics.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but I asked for examples involving hostile nations. Do you have any?
 
Oliver said:
Uhm, you think that Pakistans Taliban connections and Russia weren't former hostile nations? :confused:
Click to expand...
I'd hardly call what happened with the Taliban a success due to peaceful friendly negotiations, and there was nothing but sanctions and threats of military actions against the Soviet Union (sorry, but I misunderstood when you said "Russia").

You still haven't provided an example of peaceful, friendly negotiations (defined by you as carying no threat of economic or military sanctions)working against a hostile regime.
 
WildCat said:
I'd hardly call what happened with the Taliban a success due to peaceful friendly negotiations, and there was nothing but sanctions and threats of military actions against the Soviet Union (sorry, but I misunderstood when you said "Russia").

You still haven't provided an example of peaceful, friendly negotiations (defined by you as carying no threat of economic or military sanctions)working against a hostile regime.
Click to expand...


Sorry for the mistranslation. :"> What I'm getting at is that Russia changed it's course because the friendly diplomatic relations. And I also know that there are also financial issues involved.

Pakistan had a major role concerning the Taliban. Yet they worked together with the US, which is a major conflict down there - but they helped nevertheless because a friendly course with them instead against them. Even if there are many issues that aren't perfect yet.

Good examples are relations like the European Union which leads to a shared course - or to integrate Turkey as a Muslim state into the EU to homologize the different views between the middle-east and western opinions.

Also the Nato and the UN Security Council was an effort to work together. I have no Idea why the current Government broke with these efforts if it wasn't for selfish reasons. :confused:

Can you explain it to me?
 
Oliver said:
Sorry for the mistranslation. :"> What I'm getting at is that Russia changed it's course because the friendly diplomatic relations. And I also know that there are also financial issues involved.
Click to expand...
The economic basket case the Soviet Union and her client states had become was the reason for the "change of course". I really don't see what role diplomacy had in it.

Pakistan had a major role concerning the Taliban. Yet they worked together with the US, which is a major conflict down there - but they helped nevertheless because a friendly course with them instead against them. Even if there are many issues that aren't perfect yet.
Click to expand...
Ther only reason Pakistan supported the Taliban was an attempt to end the endless war and bring stability to a country it shared a border with, before it became an even bigger problem.

Good examples are relations like the European Union which leads to a shared course - or to integrate Turkey as a Muslim state into the EU to homologize the different views between the middle-east and western opinions.
Click to expand...
Turkey is not a hostile state.

Also the Nato and the UN Security Council was an effort to work together. I have no Idea why the current Government broke with these efforts if it wasn't for selfish reasons. :confused:
Click to expand...
The UN and NATO were founded for completely different reasons, and last I checked the US was still a prominent member of both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom