Regardless, America participated in the overthrowing of the Iranian government. Yes? Yes. End of story.
Education is on the decline, our politicians don't pay attention to history, they don't analyze economic or foreign policies. Our kids can't point to Iran on a map and have no inkling of the last 50 years of history. I know this because I came up through the educational system within the last 10 years, and let me tell ya buddy, they aren't teaching any of this stuff in public schools, and what they do is heavily biased towards pro-American revisionist history. There was one chapter on the Indian extermination and it makes the Whites look like heroes.
I've had to go out and do all my own reading to find out the details of our foreign meddling in the last 50 years
Wait, I have an agenda because I question the government/medias explanation for the 9/11 attacks? That doesn't follow. Besides, we've both got an agenda - to get people to see things from our point of view. Surprise surprise.
Additionally, Al-Qaeda aren't the only terrorist group who claimed responsibility for the attack. Right after the attack every prominent terrorist group in the middle east had a party and claimed they did it. Big surprise. You can be further surprised and amazed that the media only focused on Al-Qaeda claiming responsibility for the attack because it lined up with their story
Additionally, the US IS hiding something and that's a fact, not an opinion, not a random outburst. There are 3 civilian rooftop video cameras that observed the plane crashing into the pentagon (not to mention the other video cameras on site at the pentagon. Out of those 3 civilian rooftop videos, only one has been released, and 5 frames from one camera onsite at the pentagon have been released.
You said it, not me, and I have no idea how the US did it. I don't even know what you are talking about.
Throughout this whole conversation you have failed to put together a cohesive argument. All you've done is create a strawman and attack me. You aren't fooling me and I don't think you are fooling anyone else. You haven't adequately refuted even one of my original points, those being:
America is responsible for the mess we are in now in the middle east. You responded by basically saying, "but Britain is too!" Which doesn't refute my statement.
The American educational system and America in general isn't getting educated about history and applying it to our foreign and domestic policy. You responded by calling me anti american and pro middle east, which doesn't refute my statement.
I suggested that we aren't getting the whole story from the government and the media on 9/11, which you haven't refuted.
If you want to debate the topic at hand, be my guest, but pointless bickering while you straw man my points and call me anti American isn't something I'm interested in participating in.
I think you are missing the fact that the original suggestion was Al Quida wasn't really responsible for 9-11 and that it was some kind of US conspiracy.
Furthermore, the US didn't corrupt the Saudi royal family. You may want to look up the Truman doctrine. It was basically a deal where the US provided for the continued security of the Saudi royal family in exchange for favorable oil prices. This is hardly the US corrupting a foreign government.
As for overplaying the threat from Iran, I don't think you have any grasp of the situation at all. Iran wants Iraqs oil fields like nobodys business. This is why we can't leave Iraq and honestly why we shouldn't have dismantled the Bath party in the first place. If Iran gets Iraqi oil fields it will tip the power balance in the Middle East. Iran will have the revenue to become a nuclear power and that will make the whole India/Pakistan wild card look like nothing. Saudi will as a result DEMAND to become a nuclear power and then you will see some real problems.
We should have removed Saddam and left, but George Bush tried to make Iraq some kind of "happy oasis of democracy" in the Middle East. And it worked out about as well as everyone (except for Bush) expected it to. And now we are stuck there until Iraq is strong enough to defend itself from Iran.
Again, I could easily say the same thing about you.
You are hilariously entertaining. If you were to take your own advice you would discover there has been quite a bit of provocation coming from the Middle East.
Hey if one liners and lame zingers are all you have, stick with it. Worked great in Junior High.
It would be if that was your original point. However the ORIGINAL POINT was the suggestion that the US was the country responsible and no other country was being held accountable. Certainly nobody was criticizing the UK for the fact that THEY were the most responsible party.
But if your point is that the US assisted the UK in their effort, that is historically accurate.
Funny history books work just fine here. In school, decades ago, we learned about how the US treated native Americans and we even learned about things like Project Ajax, especially during the hostage crisis.
You clearly have an agenda if you question who was responsible.
Lame. I can claim it was really North Korea who landed on the moon in 69. Doesn't make it a credible claim.
Well if you would use your brain you would figure out that ALIENS were actually bringing Elvis back and those images were caught on camera, and of course they need to keep that classified.
Not surprising.
No you are wrong. England is responsible. But America was involved.
That was never one of your original points (unless you mean calling us retarded) but it is not accurate. I learned about all these things in school, including Ajax.
I know things remain classified for varied reasons. It isn't always a conspiracy. I didn't refute this because it doesn't need to be. Sometimes it's a cover up, sometimes it isn't. I don't know, and you certainly don't know.
Wait, who was it that said...Blah blah blah straw man straw man straw man?
Yeah that is some serious debate and addressing points right there.
"and we get all surprised when (if they even did) they fly airplanes into our buildings"
This is YOU suggesting Al Quida might NOT have been responsible for 9-11.
"I have no idea who did it or why."
This is YOU doing it again.
"Additionally, Al-Qaeda aren't the only terrorist group who claimed responsibility for the attack. Right after the attack every prominent terrorist group in the middle east had a party and claimed they did it."
And here is YOU doing it a third time, only this time you are willing to allow it may have been some other terrorist group.
And here is YOU suggesting the US is involved in some sort of cover up or conspiracy. The implication being they were somehow involved.
"All I'll say on this subject, since you wanted to go there, is that the U.S. government is obviously hiding something due to the way they conducted the investigation on the twin towers"
And that makes MY statement...
Originally Posted by SteyrAUG:
"the original suggestion was Al Quida wasn't really responsible for 9-11 and that it was some kind of US conspiracy."
On March 8, 2002 five video frames captured by a security camera at the Pentagon were leaked. Only the first frame preceded the impact: this frame shows what may be an object heading for the Pentagon. On May 16, 2006, the security camera footage was released as part of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request.[56][57] However, due to a low number of frames per second, the videos are also inconclusive, thus keeping the "No Boeing" theory alive. Security camera footage from a nearby Citgo gas station, from a local Doubletree Hotel, and from the Virginia Department of Transportation, was swiftly confiscated by the FBI. The footage from both the gas station and the hotel were later released following successful FOIA Requests, but neither captured the impact.
You seriously are lacking in the history department if you can't figure out that the many American administrations (along with the big multi-nationals and the defense industry complex not to mention the oil business) have had vested interests in the Middle East and South Asia and have no qualms about achieving their goals by destabilizing democratically elected governments and supporting minor dictators (Pakistan) or by leaving power vaccuums by providing weapons but no infrastructure after proxy wars (Afghanistan) or for that matter propping up dictators and doing business when it suits them but when it no longer suits them they dredge up phony connections to weapons of mass destruction (Iraq). Perhaps you're simply not aware of Americas track record in Iran. The list of countries America manipulates could go on... and back... it's been going on for just about ever. It's the way of government on the international level... even more so at the super-power level. To think it's not is naive in the extreme.
You're not the first to come on MAP bleeding red, white and blue... and I'm sure you won't be the last.
Yeah because your dialogue merits so much more than jr. highschool effort.
Well first things first. There were no phony connections to weapons of mass destruction. It was a proven FACT Saddam had them, just ask the Kurds. The question was "Did he still have any left?" After 9-11 this became in important question as it was demonstrated you don't need a ballistic missile to deliver attacks to the US. All he need do is provide them to a terrorist organization.
So we sent in UN inspectors to find out if he STILL HAD weapons of mass destruction (otherwise known as NBC) and he played a shell game. We had to gamble on IF he still had any or not and IF he would provide them to terrorists groups. There has NEVER been a question of IF Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, the question was did he still have them.
Oh I think we've covered it quite well. Especially the part where we ASSISTED the UK when THEY WERE THE ACTUAL PARTY INVOLVED. But what a lot of folks want to overlook is the history of provocation from the Middle East, especially following our alliance with Israel. It's not like Iran was just living peacefully minding their own business and we decided to screw with them so they'd jack up the price of oil.
Personally I'd PREFER that we had left the Iranian government in place. What they had was much more preferable to the current Islamic theocracy. But the UK decided to act like their old colonial self and invited us along for the ride and here we are. I just don't see you blaming England very much for what they did.
And you are hardly the first person to blame America and give radical Islamic states a pass. Perhaps we shouldn't have invaded Normandy, we are always pushing peaceful people around. If only they gave Neville Chaimberlain another chance I'm sure he could have worked out something amiable with Herr Hitler.
Furthermore, every country can play the blame game. Russia screwed us in Vietnam, we screwed them in Afghanistan. England screwed with the Iranian government and the US supported the Shah and they took American hostages in our Embassy. The East and West have gone at it since the Crusades and before that when the Persian Empire tried to conquer all of Greece.
You go back far enough eventually everyone is the bad guy. So the thing to do is the deal with the present. And CURRENTLY the President of Iran is a completely radical nutjob who wants to make Iran a nuclear power and destroy the west. Granted the current President of the US isn't exactly a brilliant leader but at least he isn't insane and saying stuff like "The holocaust never happened."
And here is the important part, if Iran doesn't pose a threat to the US, the US sure as hell isn't gonna attack Iran. We are actually kinda busy trying to clean up the current mess we have going in Iraq. We'd prefer to NOT have to fight a war with Iran. But if Iran poses a direct threat, we will have to deal with it.
It's kinda like if you and I were in a room and I kept pointing a gun at you. If you deal with the threat and I complain that you are always "attacking me" that doesn't make you the bad guy. By the same token, if UN inspectors were able to determine that Saddam DID NOT still have NBC weapons, we wouldn't be there today. But he played a game and we couldn't accept the risk.
Now you will probably dismiss all of this as "chest puffing" or "bleeding red, white and blue" or some similar nonsense. But those are the facts, and they are easy to find with any kind of genuine search for information.
So the justification for this whole sham of a war was to save the Kurds from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? That's as laughable as it uniformed. If that's the case why hasn't the US stepped in now the Turkey is going after the Kurds with ground forces in Kurdish held territory inside of Iraq?
The premise of WMD as a reason for the war is as fake today as it was yesterday. The current US administration and those that are too busy yammering about apple pie and Yankee Doodle Dandy to follow the facts tend to vassilate between WMD/Threat to world freedom/Saddam-weapons supplier to Islamic radicals as some sort of holy trinity of reasons for the debacle in Iraq.
What's more laughable is who do you think sold him the training, the materials and the ability to make the forms of chemical weapons in the first place? Oh that's right... Rummy et. al. That's how they knew what to look for. Only they never have found WMD on any level even remotely near what they pitched the whole 'Iraq is a threat to world freedom' of a war on.
Yeah that's it... America went to war because it cared so much about the Kurds. Or better yet... the classic old chesnut... Saddam was behind 9/11. Sweet Jesus help us.
That you think Saddam was in the business or had any interests in supplying radical or militant Islamic terrorists with WMD only reveals just how little of your homework you've done on the regime and the dictator. Saddam wasn't in the business of supplying radical Islamists with weapons. He didn't have time he was too busy fighting the longest and costliest war of the 20th century with Iran. Look it up if you don't believe me. He hardly had time to be supporting Islamic regimes who would have held him as target number one anyhow. His makeup as a dictator clearly ruled out him arming any groups that might turn against him. It just wasn't his modus operandi. Never had been. This is why his Ba'ath party was installed largely by the US... it's also why he became the perfect client state for a time for the US.
Wrong again. WMD the likes of which the war was predicated on have never shown up. Why? Because they didn't exist. WMD and the phony connection to Islamic terrorists was nothing more than a for America to get into Iraq. There never was and never has been a connection with Saddam and radical Islamic groups. Seriously. Do some reading. Not FoxNews lite... but actually do your homework and you'll see why the premise of Saddam supplying weapons of any kind to Islamic terrorist is woefully ignorant.
Apparently you must think I'm British. You keep bringing up the UK for some reason.
Right... because America only got involved in the middle east because of Israel.
Right... America only meddled in Iran's affairs because of Israel.
Err... you do realize the current Islamic theocracy was a direct response to America becoming heavily involved in Iranian matters in the first place. Again... back to the history books... it will sort out a lot of misconceptions you hold.
Again... you are under some misunderstanding that I'm English or British. Not really sure what gave you that idea. Everyone on this forum clearly knows that I'm American.
While you're working on your history... you'll want to hit your reading comprehension as well. If that's what you got out of what I've posted then you really have piss poor reading comprehension. Furthermore go back and read many of my posts here at MAP on the subject... you'll find that I don't give radical Islamic states the pass. Seriously... are you even reading the same thread?
Nice bit of rhetoric. But it's really got nothing to do with what's being discussed.
The difference is that some of us are willing to look at our own governments critically and not just swallow every patriotic load they blow while trying to sell the people on wars that have done more harm than good for all parties involved.
REST OF RESPONSE POST TO COME PENDING RESOLUTION OF MAP FORUM TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
Are you reading impaired? I never said that. I said the Kurds were PROOF Saddam had these weapons. You do know he used WMDs on the Kurds right?
Wow, talk about not knowing history. You don't seem to know Saddam did have and did use WMDs on the Kurds.
Everyone knows, France. And to a lesser extent Russia. The US provided weapons to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war but our treaties with the USSR prevent us from supplying NBC weapons and we never did.
No wonder you don't know anything. I never said we went to war for the Kurds. I said the Kurds were PROOF Saddam had and would be willing to use NBC weapons aka WMDs. Try R-E-A-D-I-N-G next time.
It must be blissful to be as uninformed as you.
1. Saddam DID have these weapons, everyone seems to know this.
2. Saddam DID NOT like the US (especially after that whole Persian Gulf War thing).
3. Saddam DID support terrorists groups hostile to the US such as Hezzbolla.
The math isn't all that hard. It isn't an unlikely scenario that Saddam would supply NBC weapons to such a terrorist group. It is hardly unlikely that they would use them against the US.
Once again.
It is a FACT that Saddam DID have WMDs (also known as NBC weapons). He used them against the Kurds, don't take my word for it, this is easy stuff to look up.
Again, the question after 9-11 was did he STILL have any.
No, this is another error on your part. But you and others keep wanting to blame America for a British effort. For all I know you are Japanese, makes no difference. You "want" America to be the bad guy and are blaming them for something England did in Iran. You should be blaming England.
Again, you can't read, that isn't what I said. Here it is again, try reading it this time.
"But what a lot of folks want to overlook is the history of provocation from the Middle East, especially following our alliance with Israel."
Also it was ENGLAND, who meddled in Iranian affairs, again you are blaming the US for what ENGLAND did. They asked us to help, and we did, but it was ENGLAND who did it.
Actually it was ENGLAND. And congratulations, you have told me exactly what I have been stating all along. This is why I said..."Personally I'd PREFER that we had left the Iranian government in place. What they had was much more preferable to the current Islamic theocracy." And then you come along and tell me the same thing as if I didn't already know and you are gonna educate me.
Classic.
Again, I am under no such impression. I am merely correcting you because you are blaming the US for a UK operation.
Perhaps the funniest thing I've ever read on the internet.
LOL.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and go re read my thread you replied to. You may discover that you didn't understand one single thing and in fact repeated a few things back to me as if I didn't already know them.
It does, but you'd have to be a person who is read enough to make the connection.
What a load.
Yeah, I never admitted to knowing about Project Ajax. Here's a brain buster for ya...who was the FIRST PERSON on this topic the mention and discuss Project Ajax?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has courted further controversy by explicitly calling the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry a "myth".
"They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he said.
Mr Ahmadinejad's latest declaration echoes comments he made last week, in which he said territory should be "provided" in Germany or Austria to establish Israel "if European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II".
The president sparked international outrage in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map".
Nice try but your reading comprehension sucks again. This supposed proof that you're talking about wasn't the same standard of proof that the war in Iraq was predicated on. The attacks on the Kurds wasn't worth one single American life and you know it. So please stop the BS. The amount of chemical weapons used on the Kurds was nowhere near what the Bush administration the quantity that the Bush administration was selling the war on. As for knowing anything about the Kurds... don't make me laugh. I suspect you've never left the continental US... much less been around Kurds or in any Islamic country. Puhleeeze. Come back and lets talk when you have.
Really your rhetoric is sad. Our whole conversation has been predicated on the issue of Saddam and WMD's and their relationship to the Kurds. So then you come in and try act as if you're dropping big science on the conversation. Silly at best... outright stupid at worst.
I think you need to go back and do some better reading as to what Rumsfeld et al sold to Iraq. Obviously your FoxNews has failed you.
Hmmm... maybe it's you who should try understanding what's being discussed and less time trying to be cute with your hyphen key.
If the current administration was using the attacks on the Kurds as 'proof' of WMD then yes the Kurds were the catalyst for the war. It's bad enough you don't understand what others post... but how sad when you can't even understand the ramifications of what you yourself type. Honestly.
Wrong. Again... they've never found any sort of WMD on the magnitude that they were using to sell the war to the American public. End of story.
This is exactly why the current administration has become the laughing stock of the international community with it's inability to have WMD on the scale that they pitched the war on materialize.
Didn't happen. Hasn't happened. So sorry.
Gee... did you figure that out all by yourself? Of course he didn't... again... rhetoric.
Let's see your citations on this on. Seriously. You do realize that Hezbollah has always had close ties with Iran right? The same Iran that Iraq went to war with... You do realize they're Shi'ites right? You do realize they're not Sunni's and were not particularly interested in a Sunni dominated dictatorship run as a secular government... especially when it was one that went to war with it's major host right?
I suspect you won't come back and post much credible to back this one up. More rhetoric yes... but credible... I'm not going to hold my breath. But hey if you think you have something... post it up.
Hmm... for those that understand the why's and hows of the Ba'ath regime in Iraq... then yes in general it doesn't make it all that likely that Saddam was really all that interested in being a major supplier of WMD's to radical Islamic groups. It doesn't follow his MO one bit. Seriously take a closer look at how Saddam ran his regime. He wasn't put in place by radical Islamic groups... his power base nor that of the Ba'ath party wasn't established on links or supported by radical Islamic groups. Seriously... this is like first year Iraqi history stuff.
Sigh... once again reading comprehension is your friend. Or not.
Were the attacks on the Kurds the sole reason that the war on Iraq was sold hard and heavy in the US? No. Had 99% of Americans ever even heard of the Kurds before that time? No. Could 99% of Americans today even point out Iraq or any Kurdish held territories for that matter today?
Not likely.
That you're still using Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath shows that your main source of info on all of this is Fox News. You'll have to better than that. Lame insinuations that Saddam was somehow linked to 9/11 are just as unfounded and ludicrous today as they were when they first appeared. Those who have taken the time to actually educate themselves on the subject understand just how silly that type of insinuation is. Those who swallow the patriotic load that the present administration blasts out on a regular basis don't. You make the choice where you stand.
And again... why would it matter what happened to the Kurds anyhow? The US certainly hasn't stopped Turkey from running into Iraq and using ground forces on them now have they? Nope. Not one bit.
The Kurds are just minor players in a bigger battle and have pretty much all but been forgotten at the present moment. Mention Kurds to the average American and they'll say they like cottage cheese.
So really how sad is your pitch?
The number of body bags that have come home from Iraq at this point far outweighs the number of Kurds killed in the attacks by Saddam... the Kurds are still being routed by the Turks... and America is still in a quagmire that is costing billions. Hope your grandkids are willing to foot the bill... you might want to chill on buying guns and shiny Rolex watches... you've got bills to pay. LOL!
I posted one link to Al Jazeera. And considering that you couldn't reply to the content, I don't think you have the right to criticise the source.
Sorry, my bad. I was thinking about the time he visited Columbia (?) University.
However, Ahmadinejad can say what he wants, it's the Ayotollah (the one who holds final say on matters) who is the real authority. And guess what? He recognises the Holocaust.
The media snapped that one up hook, line and sinker. It's funny how this was spread around but the Ayotollah who firmly rebuked Ahmadinejad's statement ("the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country") did get any coverage.
There is a difference of opinion regarding what Ahmadenijad said, Western media reported "wipe off the map". However, it could be read as "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."
And under what pretext should Israel be given the right to exist?
Ok I know I'm a wee bit late this thread. But is this crap really the sort of thing that gets votes in the US? Maybe Clinton should hold a referendum to see who the American people hate the most. Sort of a "Who do you want us to NUKE" vote. Clearly it would need to be multiple choice so that the presidential candidates could understand it.
ummm.... just my opinion, but.... about the "israel should be wiped off the map" thing: if i understand this correctly, and heavily paraphrasing, what the guy said was "give the jews space in europe instead of among us, since the europeans are the ones that massacred them."; the wiping off the map comment, IMO, referred only to the fact that they took middle eastern land to make them a country. he means wipe off the map as in don't give them their own geopolitical borders, instead let those who killed them surrender THEIR land to them. doesn't mean i agree with it, though, it's just how i see the comment...