Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

stokes234 said:
Just to be clear here - and i'm not a bin laden supporter or sympathiser - but are you saying that a countries domestic policy should never be interfered with by people from other countries? Because a certain Gee Dubya Bush would most certainly disagree.
Click to expand...

Er...no. I was merely ridiculing bikerdruid for having had "'some sympathy' for his cause, insofar as it was demonstrating his anger at american intervention in the middle east."

Get it? bikerdruid, having sympathy for an interventionist because of the interventionist's anger at american intervention.

Hint: It is feckless to seize upon a statement, drag it out of context, and then re-interpret the de-contextualized statement in a desperate bid to bash Bush again. Because I can then simply restore the context and make you look like someone who is desperate for any excuse, however contrived, to bash Bush, who has been out of office for years. Let go of your hate, Luke...
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
strange, most of the oil went to the Chinese, not the Americans, contrary to Chomsky's version of events. I don't recall how this would benefit Exxon Mobil or Texaco.

And it was only a matter of time before the sanctions were lifted and Saddam would rearm. That, or one of his psychopathic sons gets into power and be far worse.

And most of the Iraqi deaths were due to the "resistance" blowing up car bombs in m marketplaces or outside mosques.

Anyway, Bin Laden was of the sort that would not be caught alive. He'd have blown himself up or gone the way he did.
Click to expand...
.
And Afghanis and Pakis, and Spaniards and Englishmen and Indonesians are killed by Muslims killing Muslims... and everyone else within shrapnel range.. no regard at all for a specific limited target.
 
Virus said:
Edit: NSW Sentryman got there first but anyway;

If you're talking about Iraq it was an attempt to liberate the population from a genocidal fascist regime and replace it with a democracy. Done and done. Hundreds of thousands of civilians weren't killed by coalition forces. Most casualties came from Arab terrorists sponsored by Syria, Iran and wealthy Saudis. There were no resources taken. That is a pure lie.
Click to expand...
.
There's many of those around the world.
None sit on oil fields though.
And attempting the replacing of usual the genocidal fascist regime typical of the Middle East with "democracy", a word that has no existence or history in Arab culture was stupid and naive, showing no sense at all with what the culture could handle.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
What were we doing to him on September 10th 2001, then?



They said the same about George Bush Sr. the day after Desert Storm ended and his approval was at 95%.
Click to expand...
.
And some of us were pissed at the early halt, leaving Saddam alone.
That was dumb!
 
stokes234 said:
A genocidal fascist regime that had already been prevented from committing genocide and with no evidence that further genocide was planned.

Bombs dropped everywhere, state infrastructure dismantled, an entire army disbanded and sent home with their guns, most of the public sector shut down to make way for a private sector which in some cases wasn't even employing iraqis, torture of prisoners, and a transfer of oil contracts into american hands. And yet, you don't think america is responsible for the deaths that occurred following the invasion? Fascinating.
Click to expand...
.
There was no end-game planning for the invasion war.
No Marshal Plan for the recovery of the country.
Nothing, but then, look at who was running the invasion.
Little more than war criminals.
My whole family moved to West Germany in 1950... 5 years after WWII.
And lived and moved around the country unthreatened by anything at all.
Thousands of us did.
Because there was an end-game plan.
The Iraq invasion had nothing.
And today, only a lunatic would think of going to Iraq as a civilian, much less takes wives and children, as was done peacefully in West Germany.
 
bikerdruid said:
i said i had 'some sympathy' for his cause, insofar as it was demonstrating his anger at american intervention in the middle east.
feel free to try and prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

And who made Osama bin Laden king of the Middle East?

US forces were in Saudi Arabia at the request of the host nation as they wanted to kick Saddam Hussein's Iraq out of Kuwait. Other Arab nations also participated in the liberation. If OBL didn't like it then tough. You think that earns him sympathy?
 
stokes234 said:
Just to be clear here - and i'm not a bin laden supporter or sympathiser - but are you saying that a countries domestic policy should never be interfered with by people from other countries? Because a certain Gee Dubya Bush would most certainly disagree.
Click to expand...
.
If/when that countries internal policies get exported, then surrounding countries have an interest in the modification of those policies.
Iraq was never a threat to the US.
To the people of Iraq, yes, but they've been living with that for centuries, and it seldom slops over into neighboring countries...especially those 6000 miles away.
It's their problem, they work on it.
 
I Ratant said:
.
There was no end-game planning for the invasion war.
No Marshal Plan for the recovery of the country.
Nothing, but then, look at who was running the invasion.
Little more than war criminals.
My whole family moved to West Germany in 1950... 5 years after WWII.
And lived and moved around the country unthreatened by anything at all.
Thousands of us did.
Because there was an end-game plan.
The Iraq invasion had nothing.
And today, only a lunatic would think of going to Iraq as a civilian, much less takes wives and children, as was done peacefully in West Germany.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Most of the conditions were different, though. WWII was, for Germany, a six year total war in which millions of its fighting men were killed in combat. There probably wasn't very much fight left after a surrender that had legitimacy in the eyes of its population. The country itself was exhausted and when the war was declared over most people simply went back to work.

One of the major problems in the US occupation is that so many were made unemployed by the de-Ba'athification and the disbanding of the military. On top of that a misguided attempt to fast-track Iraq to a free-market economy led to a lot of others being made unemployed. In other words conditions for resentment were unnecessarily created and exacerbated.
 
Marginally related, Hitchens new essay on bin Laden. It will cost you $1.99 (u don't need a kindle)


I Ratant said:
.
There's many of those around the world.
None sit on oil fields though.
Click to expand...

I have always wondered, when people say "Of course they invade those countries, they want the oil!" But isn't it just as intuitive to think that the oil wealth combined with totalitarianism makes those countries more dangerous and likely to go rogue and invite an invasion?
 
Joey McGee said:
Marginally related, Hitchens new essay on bin Laden. It will cost you $1.99 (u don't need a kindle)
Click to expand...

He's really started to whore himself out. I suppose he's doing so on the basis that he doesn't have much time left and needs to make as much money as possible.

I have always wondered, when people say "Of course they invade those countries, they want the oil!" But isn't it just as intuitive to think that the oil wealth combined with totalitarianism makes those countries more dangerous and likely to go rogue and invite an invasion?
Click to expand...

Serves them right for having resources? No, I don't think you can make that argument with a straight-face if you want to taken seriously. Quick! Invade that country before it even thinks of becoming a threat to others!!!!

:eek:
 
angrysoba said:
He's really started to whore himself out. I suppose he's doing so on the basis that he doesn't have much time left and needs to make as much money as possible.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
Serves them right for having resources? No, I don't think you can make that argument with a straight-face if you want to taken seriously. Quick! Invade that country before it even thinks of becoming a threat to others!!!!

:eek:
Click to expand...

No, the idea is that perhaps they have become a threat to others because of that combination of elements so it appears like totalitarian oil-rich nations are targeted for resources when really they just tend to become evil.
 
Joey McGee said:
:rolleyes:


No, the idea is that perhaps they have become a threat to others because of that combination of elements so it appears like totalitarian oil-rich nations are targeted for resources when really they just tend to become evil.
Click to expand...

Nope. Nobody invades anywhere purely because they are totalitarian oil producers. Saudi Arabia hasn't been invaded. Kuwait was invaded but not because Saddam Hussein thought Kuwait was a totalitarian menace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom