SBDMT wrote:

SBDMT wrote:

This pretty much explains everything, and it's the most objective thing I could find not in Arabic.



Snipped for the retarded "...the USA put him in power...." faggotry people love to spin about:

By extending warfare to the Gulf states' shipping, he managed to involve the US in the conflict - against Iran - in the name of protecting oil shipping lanes.

Oh, guess he was already in power. Whoops! We seemed to be forced in a situation where we could preserve the flow of a crucial energy source by siding against insane, kidnappy-Islamic motherfuckers. Would we do it all over again, with hindsight being 20/20? PROBABLY!!1!


Find me motherfucking proof that we sponsored ANY of his coups, attempted or successful. Donald Rumsfeld meeting with him briefly in 1984 under those particular circumstances isn't good enough, sorry.

BBC wrote:

1991 April. He accepted the UN ceasefire resolution which stipulated that UN sanctions against Iraq would be lifted only after Iraq had been divested of its non-conventional arms and medium-range missiles.


1995 April. Fearing famine in Iraq, Saddam accepted a UN oil-for-food plan which allowed Baghdad to sell limited oil for purchase of food and medicine. Aug 1995: Defection by his son-in-law, Hussein Kamil al Majid, minister of industry and military industrialisation, led him to declare the full extent of his biological and nuclear arms programme.

Saddam is the ultimate April Fools prankster. Seriously, those were fucking UN mandates, people. Now you want to attribute those repercussions to the very people who now claim that the UN is irrelevant and doesn't effectivly enforce it's own resolutions?. Suck it down, that's what you fucking get for voting for Nader.

What's even spookier is what's in the near future. Keep in mind, this is just a pattern I've noticed, which is compatible with the whole "domino theory" thing roaming about. Strategically, toppling Iraq makes a fuckload of sense in the War on Terror(tm). Just to clarify, I'm not saying that justifies it, I'm just saying it works toward the same end. Will occupation of Arab land result in more terrorism? Most probably, but you could also argue that being a western culture or siding with Isreal is reason enough. Al-Queada will hit us as soon as we leave them an opening, so what is one to do, strategically, about all these middle-eastern terrorist types? Take the battle to the middle-east.

We can agree that terrorism is born of hate, poverty, repression, those sort of things. I believe terrorism flourishes in places that don't discourage it, such as Iran and Afghanistan, and places that state motherfucking sponsor it, such as Syria and Yemen. Iraq was long overdue an asswhuppin' as a matter of international law, but it much more usefully serves as a message to the region to tighten the fuck up, because we mean business. Postulate all you want about the legitimacy of force in the face of a shame-based culture, it's already having some sucess in Iran and N.K. I understand people arguing the morality of it, but not the logic. Ask yourself: How many times had we been attacked prior to 9/11? More importantly, how were our responses perceived?

Hard to orchestrate an attack on a country that is currently bombing the fuck out of your terrorist camp while toppling the government that allowed it to exist or even funded it, and even harder to get a new one going when that same country has a democratric, western-friendly government in being installed. Still, the ultimate success in this strategy lies in the long run, and I really do hope that if this is indeed the route we take that we fucking follow through. I think what scares the far-left the most is that a right-leaning president, considered moronoic by much of the country, stands on the threshold of creating peace in Isreal and Palestine, all in a four-year term. And he wasn't even elected.