Saddam did NOT control the actions of the United States of America, therefore it is impossible that he can be held accountable for what he does not control. Saddam is 100% responsible for each and everyone of his own actions, however, including the consequences of his actions.
If you confuse basic accountability, and blend the two parties, rather than hold them fully accountable for their respective deeds, the situation will continue to be distorted, rather than understood.
Again, it is the United States of America, solely, that is responsible for leading the invasion and creating, according to NCfan, "a power vacuum", and the self-evident imbalance that exists to this day.
Saddam did control his own actions and the consequences of this actions as you said above. He was given every opportunity to avoid war, but that meant he would lose his power, and more than likely get murdered or captured for war crimes.
He was given several chances to come clean about his weapons programs, but continually played games - denying inspectors from access to certain locations/facilities and handing over ambiguous documents. He certainly acted like a man who was hiding something.
At the very least, before we invaded Saddam and his sons were given 24 hours to leave the country. If they had done so, the United States would have had much more legitamacy moving in and facilitating a regime change. There would have been no need to disband a military that had not taken up arms against the US. There would not have been a three week war in which created the chaos that led to a loss of power. There would have been a much, much smoother transition - which could arguably avoided the entire mess we are facing today.
So I don't see how you can't pin this on Saddam. Maybe he thought he was right, but it doesn't really matter. He is the one who oppressed his people for 3 decades. He is the one who created the current hatred that is rampant among the different factions in Iraq. If it wasn't for Saddam pitting Sunnis against Shities and Bathist against non-Bathist - none of this sectarian killing would be going on today.
It is just total distortion to blame this war soley on the US. We took the lid off of a boiling pot, but you don't want to acknowledge those who created the boiling pot - you just want to point the finger at us.
Saddam did control his own actions and the consequences of this actions as you said above. He was given every opportunity to avoid war, but that meant he would lose his power, and more than likely get murdered or captured for war crimes.
He was given several chances to come clean about his weapons programs, but continually played games - denying inspectors from access to certain locations/facilities and handing over ambiguous documents. He certainly acted like a man who was hiding something.
At the very least, before we invaded Saddam and his sons were given 24 hours to leave the country. If they had done so, the United States would have had much more legitamacy moving in a facilitating a regime change.
So I don't see how you can't pin this on Saddam. Maybe he thought he was right, but it doesn't really matter. He is the one who oppressed his people for 3 decades. He is the one who created the current hatred that is rampant among the different factions in Iraq. If it wasn't for Saddam pitting Sunnis against Shities and Bathist against non-Bathist - none of this sectarian killing would be going on today.
It is just total distortion to blame this war soley on the US. We took the lid off of a boiling pot, but you don't want to acknowledge those who created the boiling pot - you just want to point the finger at us.
But, why couldn't we have left well enough alone?
Iraq was contained.
And though impoverished to some degree, the violence wasn't running rampant in 2002-2003. It is today. Fundamentalism is back in style: that's what happens in an oppressed society. An occupied society. Saddam's Iraq was much more stable, and liberated before we came blasting in March 2003.
Saddam did control his own actions and the consequences of this actions as you said above. He was given every opportunity to avoid war, but that meant he would lose his power, and more than likely get murdered or captured for war crimes.
He was given several chances to come clean about his weapons programs, but continually played games - denying inspectors from access to certain locations/facilities and handing over ambiguous documents. He certainly acted like a man who was hiding something.
At the very least, before we invaded Saddam and his sons were given 24 hours to leave the country. If they had done so, the United States would have had much more legitamacy moving in a facilitating a regime change.
So I don't see how you can't pin this on Saddam. Maybe he thought he was right, but it doesn't really matter. He is the one who oppressed his people for 3 decades. He is the one who created the current hatred that is rampant among the different factions in Iraq. If it wasn't for Saddam pitting Sunnis against Shities and Bathist against non-Bathist - none of this sectarian killing would be going on today.
It is just total distortion to blame this war soley on the US. We took the lid off of a boiling pot, but you don't want to acknowledge those who created the boiling pot - you just want to point the finger at us.
It's quite obvious you don't see how we can't pin this on Saddam. You're looking in the wrong direction. You're overlooking the only thing the Americans control: their own actions. This is a VERY fatal logical flaw, when determining accountability. You are still 100% accountable for invasion and for the mass deaths of your own people, as well as others*, and for the existing imbalance in the region.
*brought about by US actions.
edit: The American people are not, however, responsible for the direct killing and the deaths that non-American people cause due to the imbalance America has caused in the region, because they do not control the actions meted out by others. Each "side" owns their own role in this, 100% as well as America. And of course, each "side" play roles in the other side's views--each influence one another.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Fundamentalism is back in style: that's what happens in an oppressed society. An occupied society.
Exactly. When we cause someone to withdraw in defense, we cause them to shut down and revert to LOWER stages of development. It's the opposite of creating an environment that serves evolution, growth and health.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's quite obvious you don't see how we can't pin this on Saddam. You're looking in the wrong direction. You're overlooking the only thing the Americans control: their own actions. This is a VERY fatal logical flaw, when determining accountability. You are still 100% accountable for invasion and for the mass deaths of your own people, as well as others*, and for the existing imbalance in the region.
*brought about by US actions.
edit: The American people are not, however, responsible for the direct killing and the deaths that non-American people cause due to the imbalance America has caused in the region, because they do not control the actions meted out by others. Each "side" owns their own role in this, 100% as well as America. And of course, each "side" play roles in the other side's views--each influence one another.
So if a husband beats his wife over and over and over; and then one day she snaps and kills him - then in your view she is the one who is to blame for his death? Where the hell is his accountability?
I just don't see how you can't put any of the blame on Saddam.
So if a husband beats his wife over and over and over; and then one day she snaps and kills him - then in your view she is the one who is to blame for his death? Where the hell is his accountability?
I just don't see how you can't put any of the blame on Saddam.
This is why when women snap and kill their husbands, we hold them accountable. Their lawyers may use all kinds of extenuating circumstances to try to get them out of accountability. In the end, the person who has killed is responsible.
When men abuse their wives, they blame their wives for the beating, such as they 'deserve' it. This is exactly the issue at hand. Abuse, violence, and killing exacted, is ALWAYS the responsibility of the person acting out the violence. Blaming it on the person we are abusing or killing is NEVER, ever acceptable.
I hold Saddam accountable for many things--all of his ugly, horrible, violent and degrading actions. The man has 100% accountability for all the things he's ever done. Just like men who abuse their wives for years--they ARE 100% accountable for any violent and abusive act they perpetuate. 100%, unequivocally.
If this war was in self-defence, basically anyone would understand the need to defend one's self, and the accountability of the US would look VERY different than it does at this point. The situation is very different indeed.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So if a husband beats his wife over and over and over; and then one day she snaps and kills him - then in your view she is the one who is to blame for his death? Where the hell is his accountability?
I just don't see how you can't put any of the blame on Saddam.
how was saddam 'beating us over and over and over'??? pretty much ever major bad thing he did was w/ US approval, in fact daddy bush and his crew vetoed every single sanction agaisnt iraq until he invaded kuwait
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The US got tired of their Saddam puppet so they hanged him...
about as simple and clear cut as it gets...
now they're toasting champagne to fresh crude...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The US got tired of their Saddam puppet so they hanged him...
about as simple and clear cut as it gets...
now they're toasting champagne to fresh crude...
Saddam was never an American puppet. He had U.S. support when fighting Iran, but the Iraqi army still got the vast majority of its weapons and training from Soviet bloc and Chinese sources at that time. He made all kinds of bad decisions (including invading Kuwait) that he would never have made had he really been a "U.S. puppet".
Saddam was never an American puppet. He had U.S. support when fighting Iran, but the Iraqi army still got the vast majority of its weapons and training from Soviet bloc and Chinese sources at that time. He made all kinds of bad decisions (including invading Kuwait) that he would never have made had he really been a "U.S. puppet".
well they sure made him dance nicely from their puppet strings if you will...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Saddam is to blame more than any one person or country, plain and simple.
Saddam is to blame for a lot of things and he certainly shares blame for the current war along with the Americans. angelica is wrong in her simplicity (to borrow her phrase), but I am not convinced that the U.S. invasion had THAT much to do with Saddam per se.
don't worry buddy we got your back on Iran...here's some candy....comes to mind
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Saddam was never an American puppet. He had U.S. support when fighting Iran, but the Iraqi army still got the vast majority of its weapons and training from Soviet bloc and Chinese sources at that time. He made all kinds of bad decisions (including invading Kuwait) that he would never have made had he really been a "U.S. puppet".
maybe an unwilling puppet or led a certain way....
thiink of it in more context:
the cold war was over, congress had cut defense spending b/c there was no big bad commie soviet anymore or anyone close (as us and a few other countries money funded, created and armed groups like al qaeda)....
iraq complaied that kuwait was stealing oil from iraqi oil fields (w/ slanted drilling which was also done on the simpons ) and that they were violating opec quoatas and flooding the market w/ their oil taking away from iraq's....the us said :we do not wish to get involved in arab-arab conflicts"...so they put troops on the border...congress asked the state dept iwhat was goin on, since the adminstration had vetoed every single sanction against iraq would we need to get involved in anything happened...the reply was their was no obligation to do anything....the next day saddam invaded...suddenly there's another big bad boogey man that requires increased defense spending, cutting social programs...they even referenced reports from groups like Amnesty International who they wouldn't even talk to or act on when the reports were presented until....
i guess it comes down to semantics....
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
maybe an unwilling puppet or led a certain way....
thiink of it in more context:
the cold war was over, congress had cut defense spending b/c there was no big bad commie soviet anymore or anyone close (as us and a few other countries money funded, created and armed groups like al qaeda)....
iraq complaied that kuwait was stealing oil from iraqi oil fields (w/ slanted drilling which was also done on the simpons ) and that they were violating opec quoatas and flooding the market w/ their oil taking away from iraq's....the us said :we do not wish to get involved in arab-arab conflicts"...so they put troops on the border...congress asked the state dept iwhat was goin on, since the adminstration had vetoed every single sanction against iraq would we need to get involved in anything happened...the reply was their was no obligation to do anything....the next day saddam invaded...suddenly there's another big bad boogey man that requires increased defense spending, cutting social programs...they even referenced reports from groups like Amnesty International who they wouldn't even talk to or act on when the reports were presented until....
i guess it comes down to semantics....
So you're saying that the US SHOULD have gotten involved earlier in this "arab vs. arab" conflict? I am thinking that no matter what I say, you're going to find some way to blame Americans for the invasion of Kuwait.
And what's the point, really? I've lost sight of the real purpose of this thread now, between Roland's uneducated bluster and this tangent about Kuwait.
The simple answer to the question originally posed in this thread is "no". Iraq is not a noble cause, even if down the road civil war is averted and Iraq becomes the next Saudi Arabia.
Being disrespectful doesn't make you sound any smarter, pal.
disrespectful? you got it wrong dude... that was the US talking to Saddam...lol
I thought you would actually get that...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Notably, insurgents are changing sides because they recognize that foreign terrorists are a big part of the current problem in Iraq.
...
Siding with Iraqi homegrown insurgents... sounds like a good idea, right? But, didn't siding with the Mujahadin to fight the Soviet Union sound good in 1980? And didn't providing Saddam Hussein with armaments and military intelligence against Iran sound lik a good idea in 1985?
I don't know... but, from our past track record... I wouldn't jump for joy about this... I mean... what happens when these 'Foriegn Insurgents' are vanquished? Are these Islamic Insurgents with U.S. military trainning and tactics going to get jobs at Wal-Mart... or turn their trainning against Israel... or our troops that remain in Iraq? Remember... we taught the Mujahadin (now doing business as 'al Qaeda') the Hit and Run tactics that are being used against our troops.
...
Also... in more recent times... we sided with Opium Warlords in Afghanistan in 2002... that's panned out pretty good, didn't it?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
So you're saying that the US SHOULD have gotten involved earlier in this "arab vs. arab" conflict? I am thinking that no matter what I say, you're going to find some way to blame Americans for the invasion of Kuwait.
and i think no matter what i say you will make it into somthing simplistic like 'blame america'....
it depends on what you mean by 'gotten involved' saddam was our friend then, we could've easily prevented the invasion or at least tried...instead we let it happen knowing full well what he was about to do...we let it happen
And what's the point, really? I've lost sight of the real purpose of this thread now, between Roland's uneducated bluster and this tangent about Kuwait.
The simple answer to the question originally posed in this thread is "no". Iraq is not a noble cause, even if down the road civil war is averted and Iraq becomes the next Saudi Arabia.
you said he was never a us puppet, i pointed out how we let him invade kuwait so we could justify increasing the defense spending among other things
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
So you're saying that the US SHOULD have gotten involved earlier in this "arab vs. arab" conflict? I am thinking that no matter what I say, you're going to find some way to blame Americans for the invasion of Kuwait.
And what's the point, really? I've lost sight of the real purpose of this thread now, between Roland's uneducated bluster and this tangent about Kuwait.
The simple answer to the question originally posed in this thread is "no". Iraq is not a noble cause, even if down the road civil war is averted and Iraq becomes the next Saudi Arabia.
Uneducated bluster my ass man,...Saddam got fucking owned...open your eyes...the US played him like a card..
holy...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
This is why when women snap and kill their husbands, we hold them accountable. Their lawyers may use all kinds of extenuating circumstances to try to get them out of accountability. In the end, the person who has killed is responsible.
When men abuse their wives, they blame their wives for the beating, such as they 'deserve' it. This is exactly the issue at hand. Abuse, violence, and killing exacted, is ALWAYS the responsibility of the person acting out the violence. Blaming it on the person we are abusing or killing is NEVER, ever acceptable.
I hold Saddam accountable for many things--all of his ugly, horrible, violent and degrading actions. The man has 100% accountability for all the things he's ever done. Just like men who abuse their wives for years--they ARE 100% accountable for any violent and abusive act they perpetuate. 100%, unequivocally.
If this war was in self-defence, basically anyone would understand the need to defend one's self, and the accountability of the US would look VERY different than it does at this point. The situation is very different indeed.
Here is a better analogy for you. If I run a red light and you hit me, are you responsible for hitting me? I would be the one charged with a crime, not you - even though as you would say - you are the one responsible.
Here is a better analogy for you. If I run a red light and you hit me, are you responsible for hitting me? I would be the one charged with a crime, not you - even though as you would say - you are the one responsible.
It would be a "better" analogy if it applied to the situation at hand. It does not.
In your analogy, you are painting Americans as people who just bumbled into Iraq without forethought, which is completely inaccurate. There was time and numerous decisions made that create the accountability in terms of the US invasion. It was not an "accident" where no forethought existed.
And with forethought, intent and deliberately menacing planning-- "shock and awe"--there's a big price to pay. No matter how many analogies you come up with that portray your desire to deny that existing accountability.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
How far does 500 billion go in developing viable alternative energy solutions is the (ahem) 500 billion dollar question of the day.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It would be a "better" analogy if it applied to the situation at hand. It does not.
In your analogy, you are painting Americans as people who just bumbled into Iraq without forethought, which is completely inaccurate. There was time and numerous decisions made that create the accountability in terms of the US invasion. It was not an "accident" where no forethought existed.
And with forethought, intent and deliberately menacing planning-- "shock and awe"--there's a big price to pay. No matter how many analogies you come up with that portray your desire to deny that existing accountability.
Forget Iraq, this senario shows how your logic is flawed period, and how your reasoning does not take into account all factors in a situation.
In your view, if somebody runs a red light and you hit them - you would hypothetically get out of your car and apologize for running into them. Becuase, as you said, YOU are responsible for YOUR own actions.
Okay now to Iraq - just as you say that Saddam is not responsible for the invasion of his country - the driver of the car that ran the red light is not responsible for you hitting them.
In your view, it doesn't matter what Saddam did to "cause" the invasion - he is ultimately not responsible. Likewise, it doesn't matter what the other driver did that "caused" you to hit them, they are not ultimately responsible.
Again, you overlook the "cause" of an action or at least propose that it will always be trumped by individual responsibility. As you have pointed out time and again, nobody can be held accountable for someone else's actions, only the individual.
I see where you are coming from, but it is just plain short-sighted reasoning.
Forget Iraq, this senario shows how your logic is flawed period, and how your reasoning does not take into account all factors in a situation.
In your view, if somebody runs a red light and you hit them - you would hypothetically get out of your car and apologize for running into them. Becuase, as you said, YOU are responsible for YOUR own actions.
Okay now to Iraq - just as you say that Saddam is not responsible for the invasion of his country - the driver of the car that ran the red light is not responsible for you hitting them.
In your view, it doesn't matter what Saddam did to "cause" the invasion - he is ultimately not responsible. Likewise, it doesn't matter what the other driver did that "caused" you to hit them, they are not ultimately responsible.
Again, you overlook the "cause" of an action or at least propose that it will always be trumped by individual responsibility. As you have pointed out time and again, nobody can be held accountable for someone else's actions, only the individual.
I see where you are coming from, but it is just plain short-sighted reasoning.
The fact remains that the United States of America owns it's actions. No one controls the actions of another. Period. A calculated and carefully executed plan, considered and executed in view of the world speaks for itself.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Here is a better analogy for you. If I run a red light and you hit me, are you responsible for hitting me? I would be the one charged with a crime, not you - even though as you would say - you are the one responsible.
...
Here, let's get this analogy to fit...
You intentionally run the red light in your blatant disregard for what a red light stands for.
Angelica intentionally aims her car at you in order to enforce what the red light is supposed to stand for.
You are both at fault... you because of your blatant disregard and Angelica because she is enforcing the law at her descrection.
...
You analogy is based upon accidental actions... your not paying attention and incidentally runig a red light and Angelica's misfortune of being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Now, fit this into the point you are trying to make.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Here, let's get this analogy to fit...
You intentionally run the red light in your blatant disregard for what a red light stands for.
Angelica intentionally aims her car at you in order to enforce what the red light is supposed to stand for.
You are both at fault... you because of your blatant disregard and Angelica because she is enforcing the law at her descrection.
...
You analogy is based upon accidental actions... your not paying attention and incidentally runig a red light and Angelica's misfortune of being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Now, fit this into the point you are trying to make.
And even though they are both at fault for various things, "Angelica" is the only one responsible for deliberately running into him, and any consequences stemming from her actions, i.e. were he to die.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Saddam did control his own actions and the consequences of this actions as you said above. He was given every opportunity to avoid war, but that meant he would lose his power, and more than likely get murdered or captured for war crimes.
He was given several chances to come clean about his weapons programs, but continually played games - denying inspectors from access to certain locations/facilities and handing over ambiguous documents. He certainly acted like a man who was hiding something.
At the very least, before we invaded Saddam and his sons were given 24 hours to leave the country. If they had done so, the United States would have had much more legitamacy moving in and facilitating a regime change. There would have been no need to disband a military that had not taken up arms against the US. There would not have been a three week war in which created the chaos that led to a loss of power. There would have been a much, much smoother transition - which could arguably avoided the entire mess we are facing today.
So I don't see how you can't pin this on Saddam. Maybe he thought he was right, but it doesn't really matter. He is the one who oppressed his people for 3 decades. He is the one who created the current hatred that is rampant among the different factions in Iraq. If it wasn't for Saddam pitting Sunnis against Shities and Bathist against non-Bathist - none of this sectarian killing would be going on today.
It is just total distortion to blame this war soley on the US. We took the lid off of a boiling pot, but you don't want to acknowledge those who created the boiling pot - you just want to point the finger at us.
But, why couldn't we have left well enough alone?
Iraq was contained.
And though impoverished to some degree, the violence wasn't running rampant in 2002-2003. It is today. Fundamentalism is back in style: that's what happens in an oppressed society. An occupied society. Saddam's Iraq was much more stable, and liberated before we came blasting in March 2003.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
*brought about by US actions.
edit: The American people are not, however, responsible for the direct killing and the deaths that non-American people cause due to the imbalance America has caused in the region, because they do not control the actions meted out by others. Each "side" owns their own role in this, 100% as well as America. And of course, each "side" play roles in the other side's views--each influence one another.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So if a husband beats his wife over and over and over; and then one day she snaps and kills him - then in your view she is the one who is to blame for his death? Where the hell is his accountability?
I just don't see how you can't put any of the blame on Saddam.
When men abuse their wives, they blame their wives for the beating, such as they 'deserve' it. This is exactly the issue at hand. Abuse, violence, and killing exacted, is ALWAYS the responsibility of the person acting out the violence. Blaming it on the person we are abusing or killing is NEVER, ever acceptable.
I hold Saddam accountable for many things--all of his ugly, horrible, violent and degrading actions. The man has 100% accountability for all the things he's ever done. Just like men who abuse their wives for years--they ARE 100% accountable for any violent and abusive act they perpetuate. 100%, unequivocally.
If this war was in self-defence, basically anyone would understand the need to defend one's self, and the accountability of the US would look VERY different than it does at this point. The situation is very different indeed.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
how was saddam 'beating us over and over and over'??? pretty much ever major bad thing he did was w/ US approval, in fact daddy bush and his crew vetoed every single sanction agaisnt iraq until he invaded kuwait
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070601/wl_afp/iraq
Notably, insurgents are changing sides because they recognize that foreign terrorists are a big part of the current problem in Iraq.
about as simple and clear cut as it gets...
now they're toasting champagne to fresh crude...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Saddam was never an American puppet. He had U.S. support when fighting Iran, but the Iraqi army still got the vast majority of its weapons and training from Soviet bloc and Chinese sources at that time. He made all kinds of bad decisions (including invading Kuwait) that he would never have made had he really been a "U.S. puppet".
well they sure made him dance nicely from their puppet strings if you will...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
In what way?
Saddam is to blame for a lot of things and he certainly shares blame for the current war along with the Americans. angelica is wrong in her simplicity (to borrow her phrase), but I am not convinced that the U.S. invasion had THAT much to do with Saddam per se.
don't worry buddy we got your back on Iran...here's some candy....comes to mind
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
maybe an unwilling puppet or led a certain way....
thiink of it in more context:
the cold war was over, congress had cut defense spending b/c there was no big bad commie soviet anymore or anyone close (as us and a few other countries money funded, created and armed groups like al qaeda)....
iraq complaied that kuwait was stealing oil from iraqi oil fields (w/ slanted drilling which was also done on the simpons
i guess it comes down to semantics....
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
*blinks at the cameras, cross-eyed*
See? This right here is proof, America, that we have to go to war!!
Being disrespectful doesn't make you sound any smarter, pal.
So you're saying that the US SHOULD have gotten involved earlier in this "arab vs. arab" conflict? I am thinking that no matter what I say, you're going to find some way to blame Americans for the invasion of Kuwait.
And what's the point, really? I've lost sight of the real purpose of this thread now, between Roland's uneducated bluster and this tangent about Kuwait.
The simple answer to the question originally posed in this thread is "no". Iraq is not a noble cause, even if down the road civil war is averted and Iraq becomes the next Saudi Arabia.
disrespectful? you got it wrong dude... that was the US talking to Saddam...lol
I thought you would actually get that...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I thought it was one of my more vague statements :shrugs:
Siding with Iraqi homegrown insurgents... sounds like a good idea, right? But, didn't siding with the Mujahadin to fight the Soviet Union sound good in 1980? And didn't providing Saddam Hussein with armaments and military intelligence against Iran sound lik a good idea in 1985?
I don't know... but, from our past track record... I wouldn't jump for joy about this... I mean... what happens when these 'Foriegn Insurgents' are vanquished? Are these Islamic Insurgents with U.S. military trainning and tactics going to get jobs at Wal-Mart... or turn their trainning against Israel... or our troops that remain in Iraq? Remember... we taught the Mujahadin (now doing business as 'al Qaeda') the Hit and Run tactics that are being used against our troops.
...
Also... in more recent times... we sided with Opium Warlords in Afghanistan in 2002... that's panned out pretty good, didn't it?
Hail, Hail!!!
and i think no matter what i say you will make it into somthing simplistic like 'blame america'....
it depends on what you mean by 'gotten involved' saddam was our friend then, we could've easily prevented the invasion or at least tried...instead we let it happen knowing full well what he was about to do...we let it happen
you said he was never a us puppet, i pointed out how we let him invade kuwait so we could justify increasing the defense spending among other things
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Uneducated bluster my ass man,...Saddam got fucking owned...open your eyes...the US played him like a card..
holy...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Here is a better analogy for you. If I run a red light and you hit me, are you responsible for hitting me? I would be the one charged with a crime, not you - even though as you would say - you are the one responsible.
In your analogy, you are painting Americans as people who just bumbled into Iraq without forethought, which is completely inaccurate. There was time and numerous decisions made that create the accountability in terms of the US invasion. It was not an "accident" where no forethought existed.
And with forethought, intent and deliberately menacing planning-- "shock and awe"--there's a big price to pay. No matter how many analogies you come up with that portray your desire to deny that existing accountability.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
How far does 500 billion go in developing viable alternative energy solutions is the (ahem) 500 billion dollar question of the day.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Forget Iraq, this senario shows how your logic is flawed period, and how your reasoning does not take into account all factors in a situation.
In your view, if somebody runs a red light and you hit them - you would hypothetically get out of your car and apologize for running into them. Becuase, as you said, YOU are responsible for YOUR own actions.
Okay now to Iraq - just as you say that Saddam is not responsible for the invasion of his country - the driver of the car that ran the red light is not responsible for you hitting them.
In your view, it doesn't matter what Saddam did to "cause" the invasion - he is ultimately not responsible. Likewise, it doesn't matter what the other driver did that "caused" you to hit them, they are not ultimately responsible.
Again, you overlook the "cause" of an action or at least propose that it will always be trumped by individual responsibility. As you have pointed out time and again, nobody can be held accountable for someone else's actions, only the individual.
I see where you are coming from, but it is just plain short-sighted reasoning.
The fact remains that the United States of America owns it's actions. No one controls the actions of another. Period. A calculated and carefully executed plan, considered and executed in view of the world speaks for itself.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Here, let's get this analogy to fit...
You intentionally run the red light in your blatant disregard for what a red light stands for.
Angelica intentionally aims her car at you in order to enforce what the red light is supposed to stand for.
You are both at fault... you because of your blatant disregard and Angelica because she is enforcing the law at her descrection.
...
You analogy is based upon accidental actions... your not paying attention and incidentally runig a red light and Angelica's misfortune of being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Now, fit this into the point you are trying to make.
Hail, Hail!!!
And even though they are both at fault for various things, "Angelica" is the only one responsible for deliberately running into him, and any consequences stemming from her actions, i.e. were he to die.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!