|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
What did Saddam know?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: marioze53
This post was originally in the wrong forum. Hopefully now its in the right place, the discussion may be a bit more extensive.
I recall having a discussion with a dear friend of mine two weeks ago. The topic? The nievety of totalitarian dictators, particularily Mao tse duong (pardon the spelling). Mao believed that the solution to feeding his people was simple: All that had to be done was to plant crops deeper into the soil (3 feet deep). Doing so would produce enormous crops and surplus food. In an effort to please their master, his inferiors told him thats exactly what would be done. Instead however, they held to more traditional methods.
Come harvest time, Mao was told that a surplus had infact been achieved and that all of his people would be fed. Seizing the opportunity, he told his inferiors to begin exporting the "surplus" grain. Such a demonstration would show the world that communism indeed had its benefits. Unbeknownst to him (at least in the beginning), he was exporting the food needed to feed his own people. As a result, millions starved.
In a case such as this, a horrific ending results from false intelligence. Mao's inferiors lied to protect themselves from his wrath. If this is possible within one totalitarian regime, is it possible that it has happened again? perhaps more recently? The claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction may be far fetched. After all, they have yet to be found. However, what if they did not, but everyone (including Saddam Hussein) believed otherwise? Perhaps the reason President Bush and company believed Iraq to be an immediate threat was because Sadaam Hussein believed it himself.
Posted by: laborat
Personally, I think speculation of any kind on this category belongs with the people who spot UFOs.
The possibilities are: (in my opinion, just my opinion),
1. Saddam knows nothing -- if he did he would have been killed when taken to avoid a trial.
2. Saddam knows something but through whatever brainwashing and torture techniques the Israelis and the U.S. put him through has severed his access to his own memories.
3. Saddam knows a lot, but has insurance in some hidden place to make sure he doesn't get killed for knowing a lot.
4. Saddam is not really not Saddam but someone who was reconstructed to look like him.
5. The U.S. knows the Iraqis have MWD because We gave them to Saddam to use on Turkey or Iran
6. Saddam welched on his oil for weapons deal with international arms dealers who demanded the U.S. take him out and reposess the WMD.
Any of the possibilities above are just as possible an explanation as the truth that will eventually be written in the history books by the victors. The only real facts we know is that There is a captured Saddam, A puppet government of the U.S. is in place in Iraq, We are committed to 140,000 or so troops to help keep enough order for the U.N to come in, and that no WMD have been found. Also the situation is so volatile and uncertain at the moment in Iraq -- what is real or what can become real is a coin toss and that facts can change and fast.
Posted by: redwench
its also quite possible that saddam was actually telling the truth when he said that all WMD were destroyed as per the agreement with the UN. which, IMHO, would be the worst thing for the US and what little reputation we have left.
Posted by: armystud0911
It certainly is a possibility and it would make sense, however I would have to agree with laborat that there are several other speculations with just as much plausibility.
Posted by: redwench
oh sure, theres all sorts of possibilities. that the obvious one seems to be rather overlooked is fairly odd however.
Posted by: laborat
Noted Red...though it appears the MO of conspiracy theorists is to go beyond the obvious...I mean, yes it was obvious that Saddam could have destroyed the WMDs, and was telling the truth when he said so, but my friends on the fringe tell me that the obvious is always what they want you to believe, except when the obvious is fact. Since any layman speculation at this point is moot without real facts, both truth and fiction or fabrication can occupy the same speculative reality with impunity.
Posted by: Null Actor
Saddam may have talked shit, and balked against inspections and many other things, but I think it's pretty obvious at this point that there weren't any big weapons kicking around in Iraq. They would've been found.
Posted by: marioze53
Laborat is right. Any combination of theories/ truths is possible (save those that directly contradict one another). The whole subject in and of itself is pure speculation. But its fun to speculate and infer. Thats why I found this particular theory most interesting. It is consistent with other totalitarian regimes, making it more plausible.
Mr. Null, I think you give US intelligence too much credit (or underestimate Saddam). Keep in mind that Saddam's personal security was the best in the world at one time. We rarely knew where he was since he was always on the move. Whos to say his weapons personnel werent as cautious as Saddam himself? Understand too that Iraq is a desert. If Saddam wanted to conceal weapons (assuming he ever had them post Gulf war), the infinite wastelands of Iraq would provide sufficient hiding places. Why do you think we cant find Osama Bin Laden? Afterall, Pakistan is a pretty big place. Unless weapons are actually found we will never know for certain.
Laborat, why would we want Iraq to attack Turkey?
Posted by: Oldcrocd
I have just listened to our news over here and watched two Senators? explaining that US Intelligence was flawed. What they really failed to say was that US intelligence like British was gained from the Israeli Mossad, who can and do freely operate in Arab countries and pass on intelligence to friendly powers like US UK. Now they do of course have a vested interest in having a fighting force on their doorstep. The French by the way do not trust the Israeli information due to vested interest. Anyway they have their own network of Arab intelligence gatherers throughout the Middle East, this has served them well and was one of the reasons for NOT JOINING in a coalition to go to war.
I think someone said that Pakistan was a large country, Hmm, may I suggest sir that you spend a bit of time with an atlas to enable you to realise that Pakistan is rather a small country.
I also heard on the news that the wall that the Israelis are building to isolate the Palestinians and grab their lad has been declared Illegal by world court reporting to UN. But nothing will be done about this because of their allies.
I pose a question for you, 'If oil was found in Israeli occupied Palestine, would the US invade. After all they do have WMD?'
Before anyone accuses me of being anti semetic, I can supply my heritage which is of the seven tribes. OK it was sometime back in my linage but it is still there.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Finger pointing, as is the usual recourse of those who don't want to accept responsibility for what they did 
The Senate didn't stop to think that, by lambasting the US Intelligence Agency, they are also discrediting one of the critical components for fighting their "war on terrorism" here in this country. They are saying that the CIA's evidence was in error, which brings up a variety of different issues, like its performance predating the events of 9/11, and its participation in the ongoing intelligence gathering on "terrorist cells" within the country.
Then again, I am sure a lot of people already know there are no WMDs in Iraq way before Bush ignored the UN and went ahead with his "vendetta" against Saddam. Is that a sign of normal laymen thinking better than what is touted to be the Central Intelligence Agency?
Saddam may or may not know some things related to this crisis, but he sure is laughing out loud inside his cell somewhere.
Our president doesn't want any blame. It has to be someone else, because our president does not make mistakes. It's a government imploding, if you ask me...
I thought Philippine politics was a circus ... US politics is coming in pretty darn close...
Posted by: laborat
Sooner or later Congress will have to examine the possibility of the Israelis using U.S. for their own long term strategies...There is nothing wrong in this in my view. If we are dumb enough to rely on someone else for our information then we get what we deserve.
The CIA is an entrenched parochial cold war minded bunch of Big Brother wannabees who are so enamored with their high tech toys for gathering information that they fail to realize that the best source for information is sending our people in to get it. That they outsource their intelligence gathering capability is again in my opinion a threat to our national security.
As for the reference to Turkey or why would we want Iraq to attack them is two fold...at one time Turkey was leaning toward the Soviet Union big time and the second part is the Kurds, many of whom fled to Turkey from Iraq and prompted Turkey many times to consider invading Iraq to exterminate the problem.
As to Laggys opinion of US politics as a political circus, I partially agree but think it has deteriorated to small town side shows intead of three rings. Once upon a time we reacted to the rest of the world, now its the other way around and is not as funny. I am starting to feel like the liberals in Germany in the 30's watching my country develop into a conservative nationalistic behemoth.
Posted by: marioze53
Pardon me Oldcrocd, I mispoke. Pakistan is not a particularly large country relatively speaking. However, the terrain is difficult to manage as West Pakistan consists primarily of mountains and caverns. There are so many places for him to hide. Also, do not forget Osama Bin Ladin's favor with the commoners. The people of Pakistan do not understand how he could be responsible for such a horrific crime as 911. He is portrayed as the victim and embraced as such. After all, we are the invaders (of Iraq), and therefore the instigators.
I do find it particularly ironic that the US has relied heavily on foreign intelligence to do the job for them. The United States foreign policy (to my knowledge) has always been do it yourself. We deal with another countries crisis to not only gain a favor in return, but to establish a presence within that given region. Perhaps that is why some were so reluctant to hand over Iraq to the UN after we had done the dirty work. It was ours to govern. The US seems an awful lot like a new Roman empire.
You do pose an interesting question about Israel and WMD. We all know the answer to your question is no. The real question is why not. Israel has always been a special case. Perhaps it stems from the fact that Israel was established by the UK following WWII. There may be a reluctance to attack a nation that we helped to build. It may also come from a heart-felt sympathy for the Jewish people. Havent they suffered enough this past century? Then again, maybe they are little more than an excuse to remain involved in middle eastern affairs. We claim to be their allies not because we are being particularly noble. Rather, as you pointed out, the sole interest is in the oil. If that is infact the case, I can think of no better reason to push for alternative fuel sources (damn auto industry).
At this point however, I would like to think the latter is not the case. Perhaps thats me being a nieve and optimistic American. The scenario you presented with Israel does pose an interesting question; why did we invade Iraq before even considering the fact that Iran and Korea (like Israel) have WMD's?
Laborat, Im still puzzled about Turkey. Perhaps Turkey was leaning towards the Soviet Union at one time (I have never heard that before). However, Im guessing that was during the Cold War? But since then, Turkey has been our ally. Part of the reason probably comes from the fact that we dealt with Saddam (and the Kurd immigrants) by invading Iraq during the Gulf War.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Perhaps it stems from the fact that Israel was established by the UK following WWII. There may be a reluctance to attack a nation that we helped to build. It may also come from a heart-felt sympathy for the Jewish people.
|
Sorry Sir, but the UK never ever set the state of Israel. They ruled the 'Protectorate of Palestine' since the WW I era. It was the infiltration of Jewish settlers into Palestine after WW II when the trouble began. These Jews were terrorists, the killed not only UK soldiers but many civilians as well. Machine gunning cars with women and children in and using explosive in a very similar manner to the Iraqis are now doing. This is unfortunately one of the things that is conveniently swept under the carpet when talking about terrorists. The State of Israel was set up by the UN after enormous pressure from the US who funded the project, and has been doing so ever since. The current problem in Palestine stems from the land grab by Israel of territory that was not allocated to them. The whole trouble in Palestine could very easily be solved by withdrawel to the allocated boundaries and ceasing using weaponry and bulldozers against civilian Palestinians, and opening up Bethlehem to everyone.
You must consider one thing in Palestine. If you were unable to get to work, your house shattered by gunfire and artillery and helicopter gunships and fighter planes, then someone in a bulldozer came and flattened your house barely leaving you time in which to evacuate. You could see no future whatever for you or your neighbours and your only recourse was throwing stone, if you dared as you might well get shot. Do you think you may resort to suicide bombing of the people who were doing this to you?
Posted by: marioze53
[URL=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/balfour.html]
You are correct in that the United Nations officially established the state of Israel. However, it was the Balfour Declaration of 1917 coupled with the holocaust that encouraged the Jewish migration to Palestine in the first place. They left not only to escape persecution, but also to claim the land they had been promised. I do not mean to imply that it was the British who are responsible for the problems of palestine. In fact, the United States is just as responsible. The sudden death of FDR (reluctant to allow the immigration) coupled with his successor Truman's pro-Israel stand made for a very complex situation.
Granted, if I were in the same situation as many Palestinians, I would be outraged. Would I resort to acts of terrorism? Who am I to say? I have been raised in a Christian, American home where such notions as revenge and honorable suicide are looked down upon. Its a cultural difference that cannot be overlooked. However, from a logical standpoint, I would be more inclined to attack Israeli military than mere defenseless civilians. That is undoubtedly another reason for the allies unwaving support of Israel. Modern weapons mean they can fight "fair" whereas the technologically insufficient Palestinians must resort to less traditional (deemed unfair) tactics. Not to mention the fact Israel is surrounded on three sides by bitter adversaries.
Posted by: laborat
Actually Mario, the Christians embrace the same values. Honorable Suicide and Revenge. The Bible is full of instances where Revenge is the main moral of the story. It was thought that passive resistance to the Roman occupation which often led to be put into the colusseum was a form of acknowledging one's faith in God, but actually was honorable suicide.
I guess what I am trying to say here, is that all of the beliefs in the region which go way way back before Christianity are similar since they are based on nomadic peoples who moved from one land to another depending upon available resource and weather. The competition for those lands between the various tribes have been consistant and violent up until present day. Don't think that because there appears to be Civilization on the part of the Isrealis or the Palestineans, that they think in those terms. They don't.
A lot of historians even among the Jews believe that the reason for the survival of the Israelis is that they were the most blood thirsty when it came to eliminating their enemies. They practiced genocide and made it a point to massacre or absorb as slaves those tribes that threatened them. I don't see this a problem given the primitive times. If it hadn't been them it would have been one of the other nomadic tribes roaming the region. But they do stretch things a bit about being victims of the other tribes in the region. They were the top dog for years before the Egyptians came along.
Posted by: b00tz3xor
Sorry, don't mean to go a bit off topic but, it is related as part of our campains over in the middle east have to do with 9/11. Has anyone seen the movie "The Long Kiss Goodnight"? Part of the plot in that movie was a counter terorism / CIA type organization. Organizations such as this (or very close proximity) are known to exist in most countries. When funding is cut or a bill is about to be passed re: the dismisal of an organization of the like, leaves some pretty resourceful persons to making theirselves and their org. too important to dismiss. After Clinton's term the US was left with a thinner defence budgett and I believe he did cut a lot of funding for those organizations.
Not long after that, 9/11, and many people died, our security was comprimised, and we were left an enraged country looking to strike back and point fingers at our enimies. As a result the defence budget rose substanially and a new organization was put into place, Homeland Security, and we rushed out to the Middle East to chase gohsts. Looking at one of the main people involved, Bin Ladin, a terorist we spent years training and working with and providing weapons to. so on and so forth....
Back to the point, it's a known tactic to create a problem or an event to make a person or organization more important then they really ought to be. As of 9/11 our freedom what we have left, was threatened, our country responded by making it very clear that we can't even go to the store to get our favorite Ice cream with out them knowing how much of it we got and what flavor it was. The further on this goes the more "protected" we become and the less our constitution means. I tend to believe that with the amount of control gain by our country over the people in it that there may be a little more behind the lines than just a few words.
What I was trying to get at, before I ranted, was there are many possibilities, but somehow I think none of them had to do with who had the nuke. And it all kinda reminds me of the plot of a few movies I have seen that came out prior to the events... But it's all just talk and a bunch of fiction and I think that reguardless of what may accually be going on we all seem to get a lot of half truths or half lies from the media.
But I think I'm gona be quiet now...
*************************************************************************
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance..."
Does this mean standing at arms pointig our guns outward?
Or does it mean watching the actions of those who would lead us?
**************************************************************************
Posted by: marioze53
Let us first define (at least in my mind) the term "Honorable Suicide". It is the taking of ones life for the advancement of a political or religious movement. I am reluctant to call the martyrs you describe suicides because they themselves did not commit the act, they were killed. Secondly, nothing is for certain. I refer you to the apostle Paul who was taken prisoner by the Romans. He knew the risks involved, that he could very well be killed. Yet, he got off with little more than a beating and death threats. Granted, he was eventually killed, but dont we all take risks with our lives? Do you mean to imply that anyone who takes a chance with their life and loses can be deemed honorably suicidal?
In the case of suicide bombers however, they destroy themselves. The purpose of killing oneself is not necessarily a testement of faith, but rather an attempt to take as many enemies with them as possible (something I have never heard preached on Sunday morning). I would very much like to see one story in the Bible where revenge is the principal theme. Such a theme directly contradicts that which scripture stands for.
I do not mean to imply that Israel or Palestine think differently because they are more or less "civilized". My implication was that Palestinians see no other way to defend their territory than to send suicide bombers. They resort to deemed below-the-belt tactics because there is no other way to wage an affective campaign against the Israeli's. How else can simple nomads fight against a nation trained and supplied by the United States?
You're correct in that Israel has had to remain aggressive to survive. It was that killer instinct that saved them from the Egyptian Airforce in the 60's. However, I had never thought of the tribes as being bloodthirsty imperialists. I see no reason to believe that they were more aggressive than their Assyrian or Babylonian counterparts.
Posted by: laborat
I suppose "eye for an eye" is altruistic. I stand by my remarks. In any event, yes...if one stands up for one's principals against all odds and dies for it, I would call that an honorable suicide. Had the David vs. Goliath for instance gone the other way, then David would be an honorable suicide. Certainly the Palestineans think of the suicide bombers as martyrs. The fact that the rest of us think they are idiots for strapping on a bomb and detonating it on a bus or checkpoint is beside the point.
The notion that if you fight for God you will be venerated in heaven is not unique to the Christians.
Albeit the current conflict is over land/grazing rights eons ago doesn't negate the age old conflict among the tribes, each claiming to have the blessing of God.
Posted by: marioze53
I refuse to believe "eye for an eye..." exhibits altruism. It is one of the most widely abused passages in the Bible. In fact, the teachings of Christ (turn the other cheek)directly contradict the misinterpretation you imply .
Since when must God be fought for? As if he needed me to protect him! Perhaps that is the mistake the Church has been making for so long. We have become so obsessed with defending our faith and the honor of God from liberal ideas that we forget God can take care of things himself. If anything, Im making things worse. We have turned our eyes to accomplishing the goal and have forgotten the reason we set out in the first place.
You're right about the conflict in general. Its been sparked by old feuds amidst the Jews and the Muslims. Is that to say God (or religion) is to blame? I dont think so. When dealing with God, one must keep in mind that he is believed to be perfect in power and truth. Its us flawed humans who keep screwing things up. We are merely seeing the side effects of Adam and Eve as the Jews and Muslims pursue the apple of their eyes.
Posted by: laborat
I could hardly fault President Bush for not going on TV the night of 911 and telling the nation to turn the other cheek and forgive our enemies...impeachment would have been the best thing to have happened to him in that instance. But he didn't. Falwell and his right wing Stepford-Christians actually blamed 911 on liberals and homosexuals. it being God's punishment for the nations collective sins in allowing such abomination. So much for Jesus's teachings.
And yes, Eye for an Eye gets more press than Turn the other Cheek and for good reason. No nations or peoples are here to get sliced and diced by their enemies. And mario, the issues are always what men want not God, they merely moralize their way around genocide and murder by saying it is done with God's blessing. Farthest from the truth in my opinion. The Church i.e. organized religion in general has it's own agenda and it doesn't always follow God's. I have always maintained that power + being closest to the choice between good and evil has led to the downfall of the Church and the resurgence of simpler congregations without the dogma.
Don't confuse the Church's interpretation of God's word as being under attack by liberals. Jesus was a liberal. He died for it. I agree that God is God and that anything the Church says or does without literally the angels coming down and telling it like is, is probably exaggeration, distortion, or outright lies to support their own agendas which in modern times like olden times is power, political and religious.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Sorry, but I most heaartily agree with the sentiments of the last paragraph of Laborat
Posted by: redwench
yes, quite well put. one must separate "god's will", which no one actually knows, from the teachings of various and sundry churches. theyre all different, so either theyre all wrong, or all but one are wrong. the odds are not in your favor, regarless of which doctrine you follow.
Posted by: marioze53
There were many motives for going to war, some of them more honorable than others. Self defense was undoubtedly the principle cause for engagement. Bush wanted to prevent such terrorist attacks in the future (hence the war on terror). Anger, although justified in this situation, is not a proper motive for going to war. We would not have done it had that been our only reason. If anything, it served as little more than a battle cry. At the same time, self defense (as far as a nation is concerned) does not contradict the notion of "turning the other cheek". There are other more important things to consider (i.e. human lives). It is difficult to generalize the Bible and apply it to an entire nation or group of people. It was intended for personal interaction with God as we are judged individually.
I do not defend Falwell or his "Stepford- Christians" because firstly I know nothing of them. Secondly, from the sound of it, they dont sound like Christians to me. Perhaps it is leaders like this who have tarnished your view of the church. For good reason I might add because the Church is filled with them. I am not surprised it is viewed as power hungry and philosophically inconsistent. After all isnt it? Ill say it again. Very rarely is the church worthy of being called the instrument of God. It does not consistently demonstrate the qualities it holds in such high esteem and has been a poor ambassador.
With that said, it is the church that views itself under attack by liberal ideas, not necessarily God himself. Anything that conflicts with the power of the church (right or wrong) is immediately rejected. The same may said of Judaism since Christ was killed for stiring up trouble. But now I am merely reiterating what you have already said.
Its depressing to think that the Church may be so easily corrupted. Perhaps we would have all been better off had God come down from upstairs every once in a while to remind us of his existence. But then, we are human and therefore imperfect. It not an excuse for the terrible acts of the Church, rather a hollow reason.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
There were many motives for going to war, some of them more honorable than others. Self defense was undoubtedly the principle cause for engagement.
|
I think it has been definitively proven by now that it wasn't self defense, Iraq had no capability to attack the US, no weapons of mass destruction, and no ties with Al Queda.
Posted by: TotalRecall
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
At the same time, self defense (as far as a nation is concerned) does not contradict the notion of "turning the other cheek". There are other more important things to consider (i.e. human lives).
|
If what's being done in Iraq is to protect lives, then the US seriously missed the mark. Iraq Body Count estimates between 11,000 to over 13,000 civilian deaths alone.
Posted by: Bishop
that's nothing, you should have seen my last game of CTF-Face
Posted by: marioze53
All of you would be correct if infact we were talking about Iraq. However, Afghanistan was the subject of conversation.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Excuse me, but I have just re-read all the posts and can find no indication of Afghanistan? When and where did this erupt from Mario (You sure you not getting your posts mixed?)
Posted by: laborat
sure sounds like it croc...since the topic is what did saddam know? i thought we were talking about Iraq but looking over everything one more time... it is just as well adapted to Afghanistan as well.
we gave the Afghans their weapons to fight the Russians and they kicked ass. remember Osama ben laden? guess whose side he was on the afghan/russian war? I still want to know why this guy is still at large. It just doesnt make sense that he hasnt been apprehended unless we don't want to catch him, he is dead, or he is more clever than we are. I am not to happy about Pakistan either now that I think about it. All of them, turkey, pakistan held us up for billions just to help us find and eradicate the terrorists responsible for 911 and what do we do? we give them the money and then invade Iraq!!! go figure. foreign policy? what foreign policy? intelligence plan? what intelligence plan?
this country is run by idiots. elected by idiots. selected by idiots.
Posted by: marioze53
Now Im confused. When I said Afghanistan, this is what I was refering to.
Quote:
|
I could hardly fault President Bush for not going on TV the night of 911 and telling the nation to turn the other cheek and forgive our enemies...
|
Thats what my post yesterday (14th) was geared toward.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Laborat
I think the fact that the internet exists, despite various government interference is an absolute godsend. Polititians seem to forget it exists and that communities talk to each other and a great many of the talkers are more intelligent than they are. (Come to think about it most zoos are stocked by more intelligent beings than polititians). Nowadays the populace of the world can generally figure out what is going on before the 'official sources', they just haven't grasped that they are dead in the water and still try and snowball us.
Regarding Why Osama bin Laden has not been found, is due to Muslim countries hiding him. They do have a duty to their religion to assist him as a holy war has been declared. The likelihood of him being turned in is remote, but with the bounty money offered it is still possible. Remember though that he is very rich in his own right, and then made a very very substantial killing on the world stock markets as well!
With Muslim countries you must remember that there first loyalty lies to Allah, not their country, either the one born in or the one they live in. This is a great problem for us in the UK to understand why certain people who are allowed to give speech and stir up trouble, cos they are Muslim, just why they have not been arrested and charged with Sedition, treason or a host of other offences that they are committing. The laws in this country only work one way, against the indigenous people. (But that is another subject)
I suppose and conjecture that the only reason for Muslim countries, or rather the people from them, not posting in forums is the likelihood of being arrested in their own countries for subversion or something else if they give their own version or belief's on any given subject such as those explored on this forum.
But I am an old cynical Bas********* and sometimes should leave things to the youngsters to cut their teeth on and put the world to rights. (Just like I think we tried when I was at college back in the, .............. yer old old days. Trouble is that often history, the greatest teacher of mankind is oft forgotten.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
[QUOTE=marioze53]
Sorry Mario, I still do not see where Afghanistan comes in, are or were they an enemy of the US? If so when and why? They were friendly enough for the US to give them weapons by the shipload to fight the Russians.
They 911 tradegy was instigated by Omsama bin Laden, who is a Saudi national, though he swans about between a lot of countries. So just why did Afghanistan enter the picture. Sorry but I'm having a dense day, it is now 2030 hours and I have been up since 0330 hours and am a little tired, so please forgive the persistance in asking.
Posted by: laborat
My memory is currently fuzzy from too many legal drugs, croc...but I believe that ben laden actually came from Saudi to Afghanistan as a freedom fighter to defend against the Russians. It was there he built up his terrorist network ofttimes using his own fortune to buy weapons through the CIA arms connections.
Posted by: marioze53
Oldcrocd, the whole discussion got a little sidetracked with the issue of organized religion and apparent inconsistencies with the will of God. Perhaps I was wrong, but I thought Laborat was using the invasion of Afghanistan to suppliment his argument against turning the other cheek. I apologize if I mistook Laborats post.
At the same time however, it is a known fact that Afghanistan was a breeding ground for terrorist activities. Yet, the Taliban did little or nothing to prevent it. I see nothing wrong with President Bushes foreign policy pre-Iraq. Understand too that those weapons were given to the Afghan's during the Cold War. It was simply a matter of keeping the Russians (Communists and a world power) in check.
Get some sleep Oldcrocd... it sounds like youve had a busy day.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
The one problem with setting the State of Israel was that nobody consulted the Arabs or Palestinians, they just gave them the land. A bit like the UN giving me say part of Texas to live in, you know how big it is so a little chunk for me is ok surely? Would think that most US citizens would object like all Texans, so now you get the picture of ALL THE ARABS being up in arms since 1948!
As far as the fact that quote 'they were promised the land' This was only in religious books and teachings, not in any other context.
Posted by: Bishop
I wouldn't care if you had a little part of texas. Hell, you could have the whole state.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bishop
I wouldn't care if you had a little part of texas. Hell, you could have the whole state.
|
Great, thanks a bundle, now which part can I have please, suggestions gratefully accepted!!
Posted by: marioze53
By all means have Arlington. Go Aggies!!
It was not necessary to consult the Palestinians. Afterall, they were British subjects! Im hazarding a guess that the UN did consult the British, did they not? Its not the UN's job to take polls in the region and find out what the best alternative may be. The Palestinians got caught in a bad power transfer, undoubtedly a cause (one of many) for todays problems. Oldcrocd, I again refer you to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Jewish Zionists are promised lands within the region of Palestine.
Posted by: redwench
thats nice, but it wasnt theirs to give. people owned that land and lived there. or are you saying britian bought up all the land that is now israel from the people that owned it?
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
It was not necessary to consult the Palestinians. Afterall, they were British subjects!
Im hazarding a guess that the UN did consult the British, did they not?
|
I don't know where you get your information, but I nearly fell of the chair laughing at this ludicrous suggestion of Arabs being British Subjects. (Please see later)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Its not the UN's job to take polls in the region and find out what the best alternative may be.
|
Maybe not but considered opinion of ALL PARTIES concerned is a normal diplomatic approach.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
The Palestinians got caught in a bad power transfer, undoubtedly a cause (one of many) for todays problems.
|
The only cause of todays problems with breaking of promises by both the UK and US on not one but every occasion including the Oslo agreement. This was agreed by both Arab and Israeli and US, but due to US not putting its foot down Israel completely ignored it as other treaties and agreements and did its own thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Oldcrocd, I again refer you to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Jewish Zionists are promised lands within the region of Palestine.
|
I do wish you wouldn't keep quoting something out of context, they were promised nothing of the sort. The Balfour agreement was in direct conflict with the Mcmahon-Hussein agreement of 1915 at Mecca. This was an agreement of breaking up the Ottoman Empire , which they had had in place since the 16th century.
The Balfour Agreement of 1917 gave SUPPORT for a Jewish homeland, PROVIDED that certain safeguards for the 'rights' of non-Jewish communities who live in Palestine. It was a 'declaration of sympathy', 'view with favour'. The wording is "It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of EXISTING NON JEWISH communities in Palestine."
One might also bring in the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, upon which the League of Nations, (Name before UN) acted upon in their MANDATE to both France and Britain who were requested to govern and administer until the region was sufficiently 'au fait' with being able to govern and administer themselves. Not having previously had the experience due to the Ottoman empire having been in place for 400 years, the L of N felt it proper to have two of the older nations 'supervise the area' until the emerging nations were ready to take control of their own destiny. Namely Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon.
The UN partitioned a zone for the Jews (Israel) and a zone for Arabs (Palestine). The UK administered these regions from 1918 until 1948, when the position became completely intolerable and Israel and Palestine were given their respective zones.
The fact that Israel, who are now run by a terrorist Ariel Sharon (Member of Irgun-one of the terrorist groups of the time), keep taking more and more land that belongs to the Palestinians, by dictate of the United Nations, means that they will always have a problem in the region.
Why should a couple of thousand years fighting amongst themselves change now?
The fact that the other religions in the region can live in harmony with the Arabs I suppose does not enter the equation, except that they do not fight each other. The Israelis however are completely intolerant of ALL other Non Jewish groups and force impositions on them at every opportunity. So you will understand that it it not quite as one sided as you imagine.
Laggy sorry its so long but I felt it needed explaining.
Posted by: laborat
long? you think that's long? LOL ask laggy... I get going on something like this its at least a couple of gig before I stop typing...hehe...and BTW I TOTALLY agree with your assessment of the situation.
Certainly, when they start throwing terrorism around in Israel, they should look within first. The Only prime minister who had a chance for making a lasting peace, they killed. to their eternal damnation imho. It is a sad day for the jews. They have become the enemy who would eradicate them.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Laborat
If I had known that I would have continue typing for the rest of the day in making a proper explanation not just a readable edited one.<VBG>
Posted by: marioze53
Sorry about the delay time. Havent been able to get on for a week.
Perhaps I use the word subject very losely. For all practical purposes, the assumed British role as the protectorate of Palestine made the people of that region temporarily British subjects.
Since when has the UN (or in this case the L of N) ever done things diplomatically sound? I do not disagree with you that consulting all parties involved is a fundamental part of the peace process. However, at the same time the L of N and UN consider the well being of its member nations before concerning itself with local disputes. Naturally the British were addressed before the Palestinians.
As for the Mcmahon- Hussein agreement, the terms do not apply to lands that "cannot be said to be purely Arab". Is not that the debate in the middle east right now? Thus, by no means does it directly contradict the Balfour declaration. Perhaps the confusion with the Balfour declaration stems from the fact that it directly contradict itself (at least in my opinion). How can land within the region of Palestine be given to the Jews without violating the civil rights of the Palestinians? What is the declarations definition of civil rights? Perhaps its a technicality, however one that cant be overlooked.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
I think you are probably right in the fact of confusion in that region due to the interpretation of the various agreements. As it has only stemmed for about 3000 years, who and how are the UN or anyone else going to get it sorted.
Your premise of 'British Subject' however short of time does not really gel, Jordanians, and Iraqis were not 'British Citizens' anymore than the people populating Palestine. Nor by the same token were the Lebanese, Syrians ete 'French citizens'.
The MANDATE was issued by the L of N (UN), does that make the Arabs and others of those regions 'Citizens of the United Nations'? Sorry to be obtuse, but it is the only parallel I can make at the moment.
The actual countries, covered by the mandate, involved were in place at the time, which was imposed purely on the ground of experience by older nations to OVERSEE the transition to developing their own statehood in a nearly democratic way, as they had been ruled for over 400 years under the Ottoman Empire, so their was no chance of them being 'British Citizens' they were already Citizens of their own countries, Palestine, Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc.
The controversy attached to all of the agreements in that region, even the modern ones are confusing and all of them have been interpreted differently by different factions, and none of the agreements have been carried out or forced upon ALL the parties involved. But what do you expect when polititions get involved in anything but a complete f.........up.
This is probably why it continues and will always do so so long as no action to implement those agreements is made.
Posted by: marioze53
Alright you win. I guess the British were more babysitting them then assimilating them into the empire.
Ick! Politicians. Since I agree with your assesment of them, when I take over the world Ill give you Arlington to rule as you wish.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Is Arlington a nice place with nice people like you? I don't want some bushwaking place where I've got to rule by the gun?
Posted by: marioze53
Never been there myself. My dad taught at Texas A&M and Arlington was the home of UT, our biggest rival... I guess Im afraid of the terrible things I would do to it if I were left in charge.
I think you would love Texas just as long as you enjoy barbeque. Everything is barbequed.
|
|
|
|
|
