IMMINENT THREAT???????

[Ethereal]

acutally how can iraq be a threat to its neighbor? it doesnt have US backing as it did before

I wasn't aware that Saddam had U.S. backing when it invaded Kuwait in 1990 for the sole purpose of destroying oil reserves.

10 years of sactions turned the country into a third world nation.

Saddam Hussein maintained the sanctions and turned the country into a "third world nation" himself. He had a choice to resign and have the sanctions lifted, but he chose to stay in power and bank off Iraqi exports while children suffered. Take a look at why the sanctions were placed and what the purpose of their implimentation was.

Nobody in the region consider him a threat. We all saw the fight his army put up.

You have to look at what his army was fighting against to get a clear picture on how strong they were. They would have looked much more powerful against a country like Iran or Kuwait.

 

[nefar559]

They would have looked much more powerful against a country like Iran or Kuwait.

you dont even know what you talking about

 

[Ethereal]

you dont even know what you talking about

Really let me see.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and occupied the country.

The U.S. invades Iraq and they get shut down.

At least elaborate if you are going to make such a broad statement to me. Saddam actually thought his forces would defeat the U.S. upon invasion. He was in distraught when he realized how quickly he was defeated.

 

[nefar559]

Really let me see.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and occupied the country.

The U.S. invades Iraq and they get shut down.

At least elaborate if you are going to make such a broad statement to me. Saddam actually thought his forces would defeat the U.S. upon invasion. He was in distraught when he realized how quickly he was defeated.

LOL, you gotta be kidding!!!! Saddam was being backed by the US, how can he believe he was going to beat the US?

this is how i ssee it.

YOu say all these statements, but you have yet to provide a source. You come up with this hilarious statements, and arguments that i have yet to be said by the right, or left. What the fuck are you reading?!?!?!?

not even mcnugget pulls this type of shit.

Really let me see.

shit i ddint know i was talking to a historian.

 

[Ethereal]

LOL, you gotta be kidding!!!! Saddam was being backed by the US, how can he believe he was going to beat the US?

So let me get this straight. In this invasion of Iraq (to find WMD) the United States was backing up Iraq? No sir, YOU have got to be kidding ME!

YOu say all these statements, but you have yet to provide a source.

A source; you mean those lazy articles that you guys throw into every post like its some grail type shit? If thats what you want I can find a few for you, just let me know.

You come up with this hilarious statements, and arguments that i have yet to be said by the right, or left. What the fuck are you reading?!?!?!?

Thats because I'm neither left nor right, genius. It is people like you that think this world has to be devided into the left and the right, republican or democrat. Your following in the same footsteps of every American leader that has furthered the destruction of America. These statements have yet to be said from the left or the right; that is the smartest assessment that I have ever seen you make, but at the same time, it has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read from you. Have fun with that one. I could write a book on why it's pointless to associate yourself with either side, but it wouldn't help someone in your position.

shit i ddint know i was talking to a historian.

Hey, now you know.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I wasn't aware that Saddam had U.S. backing when it invaded Kuwait in 1990 for the sole purpose of destroying oil reserves.

This is outrageous! His sole purpose was to destroy the oil reserves?!?!?! Sorry comrade, please try again.

Saddam Hussein maintained the sanctions and turned the country into a "third world nation" himself. He had a choice to resign and have the sanctions lifted, but he chose to stay in power and bank off Iraqi exports while children suffered. Take a look at why the sanctions were placed and what the purpose of their implimentation was.

lol This is a very interesting way of puting it. How about blaming the ones who placed the sactions in the first place?

 

[Ethereal]

This is outrageous! His sole purpose was to destroy the oil reserves?!?!?! Sorry comrade, please try again.

No thanks, I'll stick with my first attempt. I might have went to far with "sole purpose", how about the "main reason". In any case, they invaded Kuwait because of oil.

lol This is a very interesting way of puting it. How about blaming the ones who placed the sactions in the first place?

The United Nations Security Council? How about blaming those that caused the sanctions to be placed. How far do you want to go with this?

 

[nefar559]

A source; you mean those lazy articles that you guys throw into every post like its some grail type shit? If thats what you want I can find a few for you, just let me know.

there articles, by scholars, intellects, historians, etc. People who know what they're talking about. Not some fools that posts whatever come into there mind.(you)

Thats because I'm neither left nor right, genius. It is people like you that think this world has to be devided into the left and the right, republican or democrat. Your following in the same footsteps of every American leader that has furthered the destruction of America. These statements have yet to be said from the left or the right; that is the smartest assessment that I have ever seen you make, but at the same time, it has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read from you. Have fun with that one. I could write a book on why it's pointless to associate yourself with either side, but it wouldn't help someone in your position.

Amounts of evidence back all statements i make. In your case, some stupid assertions.

 

[Ethereal]

there articles, by scholars, intellects, historians, etc. People who know what they're talking about.

Or they could be considered articles written by random people who support your beliefs. It's easy to say they are scholars or intellects when they agree with you. Anybody can do the same without much work at all.

Amounts of evidence back all statements i make.

You mean: Amounts of online articles that I google back all statements i make.

Not some fools that posts whatever come into there mind.(you)

So someone who thinks for themselves and doesn't look to find something saupporting what they believe on the internet is a fool? What if I posted an online article backing up everything I just said, how would you feel then? Just name something specific and I'll gather up an article for you kiddo.

 

[nefar559]

Or they could be considered articles written by random people who support your beliefs. It's easy to say they are scholars or intellects when they agree with you. Anybody can do the same without much work at all.

you make it sound like you're doing a lot of work by talking out your ass. You believe that they are random people!? Look up Edward Herman, Edward Said, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Stephen R. Shalom ....those are just a few people who write articles at zmag.org You know if you were a scholar researching in some university, you would be backing your statements up. Anybody can talk out there asses, without much work at all. (jajajaja, it doenst work the other way buddy)

So someone who thinks for themselves and doesn't look to find something saupporting what they believe on the internet is a fool?

You can't cite a lot of material thats on the net, you should know better than that. One of the first things that a professor will tell you.

What if I posted an online article backing up everything I just said, how would you feel then? Just name something specific and I'll gather up an article for you kiddo.

When you trying to 'convince' someone you should back your statements, other wise the other person will never see you eye to eye. I can see it coming, Nitro citing articles from geocities.com...LMAO

 

[Mcleanhatch]

there articles, by scholars, intellects, historians, etc. People who know what they're talking about.

then why do you call PhD. Condi Rice an "illiterate bitch"??? because she doesnt agree with you???

It's easy to say they are scholars or intellects when they agree with you.

 

[nefar559]

then why do you call PhD. Condi Rice an "illiterate bitch"??? because she doesnt agree with you???

listen retard, here is goes again, maybe you'll get it this time


did you notice the word illiterate in quotations? do you think that has a meaning?

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1162

Rice “illiterate”

Chavez called Rice “illiterate” and invited her to “learn the language of people’s dignity”. Chavez criticized the US support for the April 2002 coup d’etat against his government, and reminded people that Condoleezza Rice had cheered on the coup. When rebel military generals removed Chavez from power, the US State Department declared that Chavez had provoked his own removal and praised the Venezuelan military for its role. After the coup, the US Ambassador to Venezuela met with the new dictator, who had dissolved Venezuela's Congress and the Supreme Court, fired all elected state governors, the Attorney General and other officials. Shortly after Chavez’s return to power, Condoleezza Rice said that Chavez needed to "respect the constitutional processes”, and that “just because Chavez was elected doesn't mean he exhibited democratic values”.

"It is beyond me to understand why anybody who believes in democracy or wants people to believe that they believe in democracy would want to have anything in that regard to do with Fidel Castro," said Rice at a press conference ahead of next week's Summit of the Americas in Moterrey, Mexico.

Chavez asked why Rice has not expressed any concerns about the elections in which George W. Bush resulted president of the US, “which will go on to history as a doubtful election.”

“I have the video tape of this advisor lady [Ms. Rice] -who praises herself of being a defender of democracy- applauding the fascist coup d’etat here,” said Chavez. The President said it would be a good idea to play that video on a big screen at the Monterrey meeting so people can see Ms. Rice making statements in supporting the coup.

"When I call her illiterate, I meant that she does not know how to read the reality of our people," later said Chavez.

:dead: :dead: :dead:

 

[Mcleanhatch]

Look up Edward Herman

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2003w29/msg00374.htm
Marxism
mailing list archive
My Very, Very Allergic Reaction To Brad Delong On Chomsky
by Edward S. Herman
July 24, 2003

WOW, A COMMIE, WAHT A SURPRISE

Look up Edward Said

THIS GUY IS MORE EXTREME THAT YASSER ARAFAT!!!!!!!!
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/debunking.htm

Said, a professor at Columbia University for most of his academic career, was consistently critical of Israel for what he regarded as mistreatment of the Palestinians. He prompted a controversy in 2000 when he threw a rock toward an Israeli guardhouse on the Lebanese border.

Columbia did not censure him, saying the stone was not directed at anyone, no law was broken and that his actions were protected by principles of academic freedom...........

His outspoken stance made him many enemies; he suffered repeated death threats and in 1985 he was called a Nazi by the Jewish Defence League and his university office was set on fire.

After the signing of the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), Said also criticised Yasser Arafat because he believed the PLO leader had made a bad deal for the Palestinians.

In a 1995 lecture, he said Arafat and the Palestinian Authority "have become willing collaborators with the (Israeli) military occupation, a sort of Vichy government for Palestinians."

Look up Howard Zinn

FROM THE HARVARD SCHOOL NEWSPAPER. SOME QUOTES FROM A SPEECH HE MADE THERE
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=356645
Zinn did not restrict his attacks to American presidents—he also blasted University President Lawrence H. Summers for his support of the military.

“I was about to say that people at Harvard have always responded well [to social issues] from the president on down but that’s not so,” he said.

Zinn wrapped up his argument by accusing the U.S. government of exhibiting “a whiff of fascism.”

“Bush, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, they are all terrorists,” he said. “I want a country that has a peace with the world.”

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_zinn.html
BILL MOYERS: If you were convinced that Saddam Hussein has or is about to get nuclear weapons, would you change your mind?

HOWARD ZINN: I wouldn't change my mind about waging war. No. I'm not surprised at the thought that Saddam Hussein may be concealing his weaponry and so on. What is-- ironic to me is that-- we think that Saddam Hussein, who may possibly have a nuclear weapon, is such a threat as to require an immediate war. When-- and here, what I'm going to say really comes from the CIA. And I don't usually say things that come from the CIA.

BILL MOYERS: Is your conclusion that we should not fight wars then because there will be civilian casualties?

HOWARD ZINN: Yes. (LAUGHS) Yes.

Look up Noam Chomsky

^^^^^^ KNOWN ANTI AMERICAN

 

[nefar559]

WOW, A COMMIE, WAHT A SURPRISE



THIS GUY IS MORE EXTREME THAT YASSER ARAFAT!!!!!!!!


^^^^^^ KNOWN ANTI AMERICAN

woooow talk about bias, and unsupportive facts to mcleanbatch's arguments. btw, good pbs article on Zinn

 

[Ethereal]

you make it sound like you're doing a lot of work by talking out your ass. Anybody can talk out there asses, without much work at all. (jajajaja, it doenst work the other way buddy)[/

Talking out of my ass? What brings you to that assumption? The simple fact that I didn't provide an online article to back up my statements? Most of the things I talk about on this board are things I already know and believe; I don't go searching for articles to go against peoples views on life, thats why I don't always post them.

When you trying to 'convince' someone you should back your statements, other wise the other person will never see you eye to eye. I can see it coming, Nitro citing articles from geocities.com...LMAO

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, that is damn near impossible. For one to be convinced of something he/she must be willing to listen to and attempt to comprehend things outside of logic, which you are not. You just take eveything the government does and says and go against it, thats why in a post I made all about Saddam, you started talking about the United States and not saying anything to the likes of "Damn I hope we get this guy". Geocities? Your right that is funny, because I have used geocities on many occasions, correct? (SARCASM ALERT!!!)

Iraq invaded Kuwait because of oil. OIL OIL OIL. Kuwait was dipping into Iraqi oil fields; Kuwait exports were hurting Iraq's oil sales. There is more than this, but without these two being true, there would be no invasion. That is my opinion, I don't need a fucking article to say the same.

free·think·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frthngkr)
n.
One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

You can tell me that you disagree, or that you don't believe what I am telling you is what really went on, but don't tell me I'm making shit up.

 

[nefar559]

Talking out of my ass? What brings you to that assumption? The simple fact that I didn't provide an online article to back up my statements? Most of the things I talk about on this board are things I already know and believe; I don't go searching for articles to go against peoples views on life, thats why I don't always post them.



I'm not trying to convince you of anything, that is damn near impossible. For one to be convinced of something he/she must be willing to listen to and attempt to comprehend things outside of logic, which you are not. You just take eveything the government does and says and go against it, thats why in a post I made all about Saddam, you started talking about the United States and not saying anything to the likes of "Damn I hope we get this guy". Geocities? Your right that is funny, because I have used geocities on many occasions, correct? (SARCASM ALERT!!!)

Iraq invaded Kuwait because of oil. OIL OIL OIL. Kuwait was dipping into Iraqi oil fields; Kuwait exports were hurting Iraq's oil sales. There is more than this, but without these two being true, there would be no invasion. That is my opinion, I don't need a fucking article to say the same.

free·think·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frthngkr)
n.
One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

You can tell me that you disagree, or that you don't believe what I am telling you is what really went on, but don't tell me I'm making shit up.

you won dude, congratulations man. (end of argument for me)

Saddam actually thought his forces would defeat the U.S. upon invasion. He was in distraught when he realized how quickly he was defeated.

LOL, i still laugh at that statment.

 

[Ethereal]

LOL, i still laugh at that statment.

I really don't understand why you are laughing. I mean, come on, lets analyze the statement shall we.

"Saddam actually thought his forces would defeat the U.S. upon invasion."

You bolded this part, so I'm guessing this is what's so funny. This however, is far from an opinion. I don't need an article, magazine, or a book to back this up. Did you not watch Saddam give his speech over world wide (I think it was world wide..) network television? I saw, with my own eyes, Saddam say that his forces would prevail over the invasion (not in those exact words). Now I will say that the only room for error is that the translater was falsifying the words of Saddam, this is possible, but is it a reality? I doubt it. Saddam was dressed up in military fatigues when he gave the speech for cryin' out loud.

Can someone else confirm this, I know I wasn't the only person who watched him say this shit.

"He was in distraught when he realized how quickly he was defeated."

I got this from a few articles I read. I believe it was reported while he was still in hiding, at a meeting where he spoke in anguish and dissapointment saying that he didn't understand why his forces didn't put up a better fight.