• 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

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.

You are grasping at straws. The general consensus here, more closely resembles my opinion on this matter than yours. The fact that they are shying away from this topic, is really sad to me, and is why this whole mess has gotten this far in the first place.
 
You are grasping at straws. The general consensus here, more closely resembles my opinion on this matter than yours. The fact that they are shying away from this topic, is really sad to me, and is why this whole mess has gotten this far in the first place.
Ah, so your support is secret. Got it. :rolleyes:
 
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.


Cuba Crisis? Does this say something to you? And do you know how the diplomacy helped to avoid the escalation? I know that the USSR had big financial Issues which also lead to a diplomatic course - and I also know that the western World is supporting Russia financially. Nevertheless it was friendly diplomacy that lead to a shared course to reduce oppositions, nuclear weapons, Russians foreign policies and so on...

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.


So? Why did they shared the US-Course that the Taliban is Evil when they supported the Taliban in the first place? Money, right?

Turkey is not a hostile state.


So? Why is that? I can tell you the difference. The difference is the friendly policy between Turkey and Europe. If Europe would militarely interfere, they also would have Jihadists wanting to kill us, wouldn't they? :boggled:

The UN and NATO were founded for completely different reasons, and last I checked the US was still a prominent member of both.


Yes, they still are members - but they ignored the overall opinion about the Iraq war. Most countries were opposed to the decision, but the current Administration gave ◊◊◊◊.

And I ask you again because you dodged the question: Why is that if not for selfish reasons?
 
Cuba Crisis? Does this say something to you? And do you know how the diplomacy helped to avoid the escalation? I know that the USSR had big financial Issues which also lead to a diplomatic course - and I also know that the western World is supporting Russia financially. Nevertheless it was friendly diplomacy that lead to a shared course to reduce oppositions, nuclear weapons, Russians foreign policies and so on...
Huh, and all this time I thought that JFK sending in the navy to blockade Cuban ports while telling the USSR that any nuclear attack from Cuba or any other ckient state on the US would be considered an attack on the US from the USSR and result in a full nuclear retaliatory strike on the USSR from the US had something to do with it.

No, it wasn't that... it was "friendly diplomacy", which has been kept secret all these years but somehow you have secret knowledge of. :boggled:
 
Huh, and all this time I thought that JFK sending in the navy to blockade Cuban ports while telling the USSR that any nuclear attack from Cuba or any other ckient state on the US would be considered an attack on the US from the USSR and result in a full nuclear retaliatory strike on the USSR from the US had something to do with it.

No, it wasn't that... it was "friendly diplomacy", which has been kept secret all these years but somehow you have secret knowledge of. :boggled:


The effort from the USSR to install Nuclear Weapons in Cuba was to extend their powers. Of course JFK had to react to this threat, no question about it. But finally it was a friendly diplomatic agreement that stopped the threat.

I know this was a secret for a long time but there was an agreement between JFK and Chrustschow thru a "russian" negotiator. I guess it was Andrej Gromyko, but since it's a while ago since I learned about the backgrounds, I might be wrong and it was another negotiator. Maybe someone in here can help me out concerning the facts.

Anyway: It was a friendly agreement to stop the crisis.
 
Cuba Crisis? Does this say something to you? And do you know how the diplomacy helped to avoid the escalation?


The Cuban Missile Crisis?

The one where we initiated a blockade and stated that any attempt to run it would be met with force?

The one where orders were given to intercept a Soviet sub and stop it through the use of explosives, if that proved necessary? Where we went to DefCon 2 for the first time in history?

That Cuban Crisis is your example of peaceful negotiations without the threat of economic or military force?
 
The Cuban Missile Crisis?

The one where we initiated a blockade and stated that any attempt to run it would be met with force?

The one where orders were given to intercept a Soviet sub and stop it through the use of explosives, if that proved necessary? Where we went to DefCon 2 for the first time in history?

That Cuban Crisis is your example of peaceful negotiations without the threat of economic or military force?


Read my last reply. I have to fill up my Refrigerator now and buy some stuff to do so in the meantime... :blush:
 
Read my last reply. I have to fill up my Refrigerator now and buy some stuff to do so in the meantime... :blush:



Then your definition of "peaceful" has no meaning whatsoever.

In picking the Soviet Union, you pretty much ignore the entire cold war, and the selection of the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of peaceful negotiations is crazy.

The only distinction that you seem to make between the use of economic or military threats in one case versus Cuba is that the threats ended up working in the Cuba situation.

When we went to Defcon2, we did it on open channels without using code to let the Soviets know that we would respond to any aggression with nuclear weapons -- about the biggest military threat there was. Kennedy ordered final preparations for a full invasion of Cuba. A naval blockade in international waters, by itself, is not only a severe economic sanction, but has generally been classified as an act of war without anything further. Ships were intercepted and then searched by the military under threat of being sunk.


What makes all of that irrelevant?!



Your definition of "friendly" needs work.
 
Also, Ollie's example of the Cuban missile crisis does contradict his stance that there wasn't a communist threat now does it?

(on the other thread)

Nope, I say it's not a worldwide threat that could destroy our "Way of life". While we all heard about the big threat of Jihadism that is as big as the cold war threat, I think it's an illusion to scare the people.

The cold war propaganda itself was an illusion. There is no evidence that they really wanted to ruin your day by overthrowing the world.

Remember the Communist Paranoia in the US? A hoax.
 
Last edited:
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?
How many children died during shock and awe? Do you know that it was in the thousands?? Were they soldiers or hunkered down on military bases?

The United States is knowingly violating Article 54 of the Geneva Convention which prohibits any country from undermining "objects indispensable to the survival of (another country's) civilian population," including drinking water installations and supplies, says Thomas Nagy, a business professor at George Washington University.
Writing in the September 2001 issue of The Progressive, Nagy cites recently declassified documents that show the United States was aware of the civilian health consequences of destroying Iraq's drinking water and sanitation systems in the Gulf War, and knew that sanctions would prevent the Iraqi government from repairing the degraded facilities.
During the Gulf War, coalition forces bombed Iraq's eight multi-purpose dams, destroying flood control systems, irrigation, municipal and industrial water storage, and hydroelectric power. Major pumping stations were targeted, and municipal water and sewage facilities were destroyed.
Article 54 of the Geneva Convention prohibits attacks on "drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works."
Nagy says that not only did the United States deliberately destroy drinking water and sanitation facilities, it knew sanctions would prevent Iraq from rebuilding, and that epidemics would ensue.
One document, written soon after the bombing, warned that sanctions would prevent Iraq from importing "water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals" leading to "increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."


http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html
 
Last edited:
You know I get a little worked up reading some of this crap, claiming that bombing civilian infrastructure is okay because it's for military use too. In the Vietnam war the US bombed crops because they didn't want the Viet Cong to eat. Well hell, everyone in the country relied on those crops to eat. Three and a half million died in that war, the vast majority, civilians. Iraq is very much the same.
 
You know I get a little worked up reading some of this crap, claiming that bombing civilian infrastructure is okay because it's for military use too. In the Vietnam war the US bombed crops because they didn't want the Viet Cong to eat. Well hell, everyone in the country relied on those crops to eat. Three and a half million died in that war, the vast majority, civilians. Iraq is very much the same.

This a a wonderful argument against all wars, and all and any justification of military battle. Promise me you will stick to it regardless.
 
Also, Ollie's example of the Cuban missile crisis does contradict his stance that there wasn't a communist threat now does it?

(on the other thread)


Of course the nuclear threat was a real threat. But the "Watch out, your neighbour is a Communists!" -Witch hunt paranoia was pretty much exaggerated, wasn't it?:





HILARIOUS!!! :D

Well, that's one of the reasons to laugh about the world-wide Al Qaida conspiracy. :)
 
Last edited:
Then your definition of "peaceful" has no meaning whatsoever.

In picking the Soviet Union, you pretty much ignore the entire cold war, and the selection of the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of peaceful negotiations is crazy.

The only distinction that you seem to make between the use of economic or military threats in one case versus Cuba is that the threats ended up working in the Cuba situation.

When we went to Defcon2, we did it on open channels without using code to let the Soviets know that we would respond to any aggression with nuclear weapons -- about the biggest military threat there was. Kennedy ordered final preparations for a full invasion of Cuba. A naval blockade in international waters, by itself, is not only a severe economic sanction, but has generally been classified as an act of war without anything further. Ships were intercepted and then searched by the military under threat of being sunk.

What makes all of that irrelevant?!

Your definition of "friendly" needs work.


Bwahahaha! :D Are you telling me that the cold war would have happened if the USSR and the USA had friendly relations? :D

Gullible, isn't it?
 
You have provided no evidence for any of these claims.


According to a former senior State Department official, writes Sale, "Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements." Adel Darwish ("Unholy Babylon: The Secret History of Saddam's War," 1997) told Sale that one Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attache at the Egyptian Embassy, was Saddam's "paymaster" and that Saddam's handler was an "Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account."


I did provide evidence. How about you refute it instead of pretending it doesn't exist.


 
By Oliver -Well? Tell me your view of the historical events that ended the crisis.





An overwhelming show of military force, nothing friendly about it.
 
Last edited:
Of course the nuclear threat was a real threat. But the "Watch out, your neighbour is a Communists!" -Witch hunt paranoia was pretty much exaggerated, wasn't it?


That's not what you said. Can't you read your own words?

Originally Posted by Oliver
Nope, I say it's not a worldwide threat that could destroy our "Way of life". While we all heard about the big threat of Jihadism that is as big as the cold war threat, I think it's an illusion to scare the people.

The cold war propaganda itself was an illusion. There is no evidence that they really wanted to ruin your day by overthrowing the world.

Remember the Communist Paranoia in the US? A hoax.
 

Back
Top Bottom