The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Okay. A short lesson in history. I have to leash out a bit.
You all got used to the new timescale. Before we said "before Christ" and "after the birth of Christ". Today we say "before the terror attacks" and "after the the terror attacks".
The date alone has been etched into the collective mind of the world. Back to 9/11... 1973...
9/11/1973 Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile -for some dumb reason a socialist- was removed by the CIA. 3000 killed democrats. You have to admit they made a dumb error: They thought they could democratically elect a socialist. They were not aware this is not allowed in the USA.
The "removal" was started by the assasination of the Allende's head of intelligence. Ordered by Henry Kissenger.
He was replaced by a America friendly fascist military dictator named Augusto Pinochet. Today we would say an expert in human rights.
The american view of the world is very simple: "we are the good ones". If you know who the evil one is the day has structure. For decades this was clear: the realm of evil is in the east.
During the cold war everywhere in the world bullwarks against communism were created. For an example in Persia (Iran) impersonated by a sympatic, talented, young dictator: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Schah of Persia.
In any case America armed him till he got the fifth largest army in the world. To secure America from the red flood and to get them access to the cheap oil of Iran. To be able to support his army he (in good tradition of human rights) opressed his population till they started a revolution.
In their desperation the choose a religious leader: Ruhollah Chomeini. Sympatic is not the right word here. You probably can imagine the ammount of desperation needed, compareable to you choosing the pope as your leader.
But back to Chomeini: You can say about Chomeini what you want but he organized a peaceful revolution. The Schah ordered his army and intelligence service to fire on demonstrants (and they did) but there came even more demonstrants. In the end there were a million civillian demonstrants facing the army.
"You have to kill us all, we won't leave!"
And the army realized: the demonstrants were serious. They were ready to die for their freedom. And they went back to the barracks. Maybe have you seen pictures from 1979.
So the Schah had to move into exile in the USA, sentenced to death by whirlpool.
Chomeini has exiled the Schah of Persia and the Persians were angrry because the AMericans supported the Schah. And the Americans were angry because all of the nice oil and weapons were in the hands of Chomeini. A religious fundamentalist. A muslim. Muslims, people who take their religion SERIOUS. Unimaginable for Christians.
Come on, do you really think the foreign policy of the USA is in harmony with Christian rules? "Take all you possesions and give it to the poor" or "if somebody hits you show the other cheek"?
But back to Chomeini. The Iran turned overnight from a bullwark versus evil to the realm of evil itself. Americans decide that on a day by day basis. So the Iran had to be fought.
So the Americans asked themselves who could do it for them. And they came up with another sympatic figure: Saddam Hussein, a talented dictator of his time.
The Americans said: "Hussein, we are doing splendid business for years. We know you are a souvereign dictator. We keep arming you and you invade Iran. You stop Chomeini with his Schiit god state and can keep the oil wells as a reward."
Chomeini planned already back then to make a Schiit god state in the gulf. In Irak the Sumit population opressed the Schiit mayority. Everyone was afraid. So the Saudi, Kuweyti and USA lend Hussein money so he can invade Iran. And Hussein attacked. But he would not get far. The dumb Persians defended themselves.
The war raged for eight years. 1980 till 1988: war in the gulf. With American support. We Germans were neutral. We supplied both sides with weapons. "Nomore war without germany" or something like that. I have to look it up again. But it was something about employment, i am pretty sure about that.
After eight years war and one million dead Hussein rethreated. But he wanted his reward. And the Americans laughed him in the face and asked if he had conquered anything. So hussein became stroppy. The war had cost him 160 million dollars. He was totally in debt.
So he thought about how he would get around this. He decided to get the oil wells from Kuweyt. But then the Americans became stroppy:"Hussein, wich land you invade is still our decision".
"Hussein, shooting Persians and gas Kurdes. Nobody has a problem with that. You get all the gas you need. But invading Kuweyt, there the fun ends."
Hussein had no idea what went wrong. What did he do wrong? From his criminal point of view? How do you explain a bank robber wich bank to rob and wich to leave alone? What did Hussein with the attack on Kuweyt other than with his attack on Iran? Had he changed something? No. He just turned around.
But by night Saddam Hussein changed from a guardian of the free world to the evil madman of the century. The new Hitler was born. How practical.
It was autumm 1990. The UDSSR began to dissolve. Gorbatschov said: "we can't keep up anymore". The arms race was over. "You can beg as much as you like we can't afford it anymore".
You might laugh about that but the American arms industry was in total chaos. The enemy simply dissolved itself. Without warning. How to justifiy the bloated military budgets? You need an enemy.
So the americans bloated Hussein to the new Hitler. Of course he was an asshole, we do not have to discuss that. He was a natural ally of the USA. But he was never a threat to the world.
But Mr. Bush made the Americans so crazy... 70% of the Americans belived his missiles can hit the USA. There is WATER between the continents.
Mr. Bush sent a grand army to the Persian Gulf. And they are still stationed there wherever oil wells are. As Kissenger said: "oil is to important to leave it to the Arabs". You can get a nobel prize of peace for that if you are interested.
What do the Americans down there? Protect human rights? Can we have that joke in color? Guantanamo Bay? What the American government thinks about human rights we all understand at this point. They ratified torture of prisoners of war in the congress. Humans like animals in cages? For five years. No accusations, no evidence. Of course no human rights for beasts. That are no humans, it are beasts, ain't that right? The cells are constantly lit. After five years you confess anything.
And then my foreign minister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble claims he is not aware of any violation of human rights in Guantanamo. Well, we could help him. I suggest here officially to lock up Mr Schäuble in such a cage. And if he still claims after five years to know nothing about the violation of human rights we take everything back and he is free to go. Of course.
Human rights, stop that. Its not about human rights. Its about mining rights. Its about oil.
In january 2006 Jack Shirack openly admitted it. You have to be thankful for that. After the great sucess with the democratisazion of the Irak the model is to be reused in Iran. The Iranians are terribly glad about it there.
Now the Iran made an error, you have to admit that. The Iran signed the nuclear weapons ban contract. Since then the Iran is inspected by the nuclear control administration. Israel, as an example has not signed the contract and are not inspected. Thats no big deal. Israel has nuclear weapons. Thats common knowledge for twenty years. the Iran signed it (like we Germans besides) and has oficially to refrain from the building of nuclear weapons or spread this technology. And for that they may enrich uranium for peacful applications in nuclear power - everything we Germans do as well. Now you can do evil things with enriched uranium. We all know that. For Germans thats no problem we have proven over the centurys we are thrustworth, of course. But the Iran is known for starting world wars and attacking peaceful neighbours.
Now the estern world tells Iran to stop enriching uranium. To completely stop that: "We won't talk about anything further until this is settled". Of course they can buy enriched uranium from us meanwhile.
And then the Iran (under Mahmud Ahmadinedschad) said in december 2005: "we have signed the treaty and you are going to forbid that? then there will be no more oil". As we just learned you can break contracts one sided.
And Jack Shirak (France) said in january 2006: "I am ready to bomb rogue governments with nuclear weapons if the strategic supplies of the West get endangered".
This means: of course the Iran can get nuclear bombs. Mr. Shirak will deliver them personally. And we have only to clarify what Mr. Shirak meant by "strategic supplies of the West".
What do you think? Croissants?
Oil. Of course. The whole economy depends on it. Where would we go to if we allow the people who own the oil to dictate its price?
And to get Germany ready to play with our allies there have to be some changes. Germany's army is a defensive Army. Absolutely usless. Sixty years after the end of WWII you have to accept nobody wants to play war with us if we do not start. Yes, thats depressing. But the world is bad.
Now they want to fight everywhere. And now they are everywhere. The green pacifists wich wanted to dismeber from NATO managed to send the soldiers farther than their fathers ever managed. A grand success. Ninethousand soldiers. And now the Bundeswehr can't send anymore. They can't take another mission. They are logistically and financially at their limit. Yo can see it at those Tornados. 30 years stacked, 14 days used and the first bug-wheel breaks. And thats getting me very nervous. We have 280000 man under arms. And when ninethousand are actively pursuing duty they are financially at their limit. If the Russians knew this...
Ant they were do long not in foreign counties that they have no idea how to behave there. In Afghanistan. What did they do? Raping women, shooting children? No. They made pictures. People were offended by motives. The Bundeswehr proclaimed this will change imedantely. Next time they will shoot children too, so nobody complains. This would be self defence.
The NATO states we can dispatch troops if our resources are threatened. So we can protect what we like to have. If the Führer had lived to see the day...
But back to Hussein. America attacked Hussein twice and won twice easily. The first time in january 1991. Four weeks bombarding. From five kilometres high. They can not build a machine wich counts votes but bombing from five kilometes height with chirurgical precision is no problem. And then followed a ground attack. February 1991. The biggest tank battle in history. Gas masks were sold out.
Germany and America were afraid that the gas missiles wich we Germans sold him could be fired at Germany or America. Only to proove that the Germans are not less stupid than Amercans.
But all of those were intended for Israel. And thats where Hussein fired those. He was always a fair customer. Never attacked his arms dealers.
Mahmud Ahmadinedschad is a primitive anti-semitist. "Israel has to be destroyed" is primitive anti-semitism. Of course. But thats Arab rethoric since forty years. "The Jews have to be driven into the sea". Hussein said that too. And when he did Germany (under Helmut Kohl) told him to be more quiet and asked him what kind of weapons he likes to buy.
The German government under Kohl ratified the sale of poison gas missiles from Germany to Irak. We have armed the sworn enemy of Israel with posion gas missiles. And then we sat in february 1991 with gas masks in fron of our TVs and watched Israeli sitting in their bunkers getting blasted with poison gas missiles from Germany.
What is that? Intelligent anti-semitism? "Ahmadineschad is only talking, Kohl did at least something"?
Thats worth a nobel prize of peace, isn't it?
In the biggest tank battle in history seventeen american soldiers died, gentelmen. That are tank battles today. Seventeen dead. In every car accidend on a highway covered in fog there is more action. What kind of war is that? In both wars VS Hussein 150 american soldier died. All the dead were in the time of occupation. In the "war" 150 casaulties were reported. Half of that killed by friendly fire.
On Irak side 170000 casaulties were reported. They were shot like rabbits. Now you can guess who wins such a war. You can also let loose the world champion in boxing on a three year old and tell him to watch his knee.
But Hussein had WMD. But where are the WMD? Putin has a nice quote on that: "if i were America i would find WMD".
And Mr. Bush was clever. He allowed to Hussein to stay in government the first time. An asshole in the closet. If anything goes wrong, financial crisis or the secretary has issues... turn to the asshole in the closet.
After the 9/11 America was shocked. Rightfully shocked. A terrible crime.
But Mr. Bush insisted on doing something. Americans do always something: revenge.
But Revenge on who?
Thats the issue with sucide assasins...
So they decided to bomb something: Afgahnistan. Bin Laden was supposed to be there... terrorist bomb lotto in Afgahnistan. Only with some efford they could hold him from attackin Afghanistan with ships. Sad. I would have let him try. So they bombed Afghanistan for four weeks.
A grand commercial for international terrorism. You have to leave him that.
What about Bin Landen? They couldn't catch him because the CIA trained him well.
What to do now? Well, they had an asshole in the closet. Is he in any way connected to 9/11? No, but they knew where he was. But what is Bush doing? Clears the closet. Now Irak is the recruiting area for Al Quaida wich it was never before. There is civil war now. Every day hundrets die and Syrians fear they have to go into the closet. One always has to go in the closet.
Its all about freedom.
Afgahnistan was occupied by the evil Russians. The Americans wanted the Russians to leave. So they armed Bin Laden to expel Russians from Afgahnistan. This was the birth of AL Quaida. The CIA recruited (with the help of Saudi Arabia) thousands of fundamentalistic religious fanatics. And after fifteen years of terror attacks against the Russians (payed by the US) the Russians left. That is terrorism, isn't it?
Then civil war errupted in Afgahnistan. The Taliban becam the major poer in the region as a result. They wanted to free Tschetschenia from the evil russian occupation (as they were trained). But they were too late. Because the USA switched sides again. They allied with the Vladimir Putin. Ethnical cleansing in Tschtschenia. How VERY democratic.
The difference between Putin and Hussein is not in the number of murdered humans. Putin has all those weapons Hussein always was accused to have. Had Hussein really had those weapons he would have never been attacked! Are you insane? He would still rule there today. He would be invited to our chancellors sixtyst birthday. He would be our strategic partner and woul hold speeches about fighting schiit and kurdic terrorism in his country.
And now think about why some Iranians prefer to have nuclear weapons. From a totally neutral viewpoint.
Do you think they want to attack Israel? Even if they know Israel has nuclear weapons too?
Do you belive that? Do you belive they want to attack the West with nuclear weapons?
Or could it be that nuclear weapons are the only assurance vs attacks from the USA?
I like to remind you all what Mr. Bush accused Hussein of being guilty.
Today we all agree he was an evil dictator who had to be removed.
But back then the issue was another one:
"Hussein give your WMD to us. We know you have it, we got sattelite pictures"
It was never an issue that Hussein should leave the government of Irak.
And Hussein always allowed inspectors in Irak. Do you know why?
Because he (as we know today) was speaking the truth.
He never possesed WMD.
On that basis the war was started.
And now we are all threatened by the islamic terrorism. And the islamic terrorism is here to stay. The USA will never again allow that an enemy simply vanishes.
And now we need security.
Of course. We in Germany have an anti-terrorist database now. You get a shitload of problems if you make an terroristic attack without logging in the database first. Thats Germany, alright. You can't simply go terrorizing here freely.
Maybe i didn't get it. Maybe its like logging supicious people. Point system. Religious belifs are not the only criteria they said. As catholic or evangelic you are fine i guess, but as Muslim... pray in the wrong Moschee... or praying to fast. Thats always very suspicious.
And if you got enough points in the database you can be expelled of the country. I guess you get a free crash course about christian ideals in Guantanamo Bay.
And we get fingerprints in our ID. Data privacy is less important, national security is more important. They said thats a good sheme already tried in Spain. Thats right: under rule of generalissimo Franko. It seems they did not want to offically appoint to Adolf Hitler. Under Hitler we also had fingerprints in ID. It was removed after the war, like in Spain by the way.
Ladies and gentlemen the 9/11 terror attacks were disgusting.
It was a terrible murder.
But WHEN do you start wondering why we have so FEW terrorist attacks?
Yeah, America's foreign policy since World War II seems to have been one case after another of "Nice Job Breaking it Hero". Every action they took seems to have come back to bite them, be it five, ten, twenty or fifty years after the fact.
It isn't. The americans are proud of it, you find it in your history books. You need no conspiracy theories here. FACTS, sir. Deal with it.
When facts get thrown around in America, the common reaction is to make accusations of conspiracy theory. You get used to it.
Know who liked to use facts?
Hitler.
Mixing in fact doesn't make something not crazy. The guy's comparing the current state of Germany to Franco run Spain. At least I think he's talking about Germany towards the end. Though making assumptions because I'm American is also wonderfully discriminatory.
ACSIS, I agree that America's postwar foreign policy has pretty consistently been self-interested and essentially imperial.
Are you implying something else, though? If you are, come out and say it. The above claim isn't controversial and most people here would agree, I imagine.
ACSIS, I agree that America's postwar foreign policy has pretty consistently been self-interested and essentially imperial.
Are you implying something else, though? If you are, come out and say it. The above claim isn't controversial and most people here would agree, I imagine.
It looks like he's implying that America is fabricating stories of terroristic activity so that our arms companies can continue to manufacture weapons to feed into the great alien lord XR-745s private bank account.
Well ok that last part I just assumed since it's ACSIS, but it does look like he's saying that really there is no threat ever and America is hoping to steal everyone's liberty and start killing Jews out of a manufactured threat to support the arms industry.
I wonder how he'll explain that our military spending is in fact not geared towards fighting off terrorist attacks, but instead geared against an all-out war, which is why the spending is so ass-backwards, and why we have things like the F-22.
I wonder how he'll explain that our military spending is in fact not geared towards fighting off terrorist attacks, but instead geared against an all-out war, which is why the spending is so ass-backwards, and why we have things like the F-22.
Its more expensive to sell you military equipment geared for an all-out war? Just a guess here i am totally blind
I wonder how he'll explain that our military spending is in fact not geared towards fighting off terrorist attacks, but instead geared against an all-out war, which is why the spending is so ass-backwards, and why we have things like the F-22.
Its more expensive to sell you military equipment geared for an all-out war? Just a guess here i am totally blind
So why are we using the threat of islamic extremists as the incentive that will mysteriously never go away if we're gearing our military the other way?
It's a completely inconsistent argument.
Khavall on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
Well, you can't fight off terrorist attacks. That's not how it works. That's like saying, "I'm going to fight off Burglary by bombing poor neighborhoods. Because that's where crime comes from."
You can defend against terrorism though, and that doesn't take much in the way of weapons or armies. Good police work is a start, there. The sticky point with that is we live in a nation where a lot of us value our Civil Liberties more than our safety, as far as America goes. I figure most people in the world are like this too. I believe that our Civil Liberties can remain intact while we also successfully defend against legitimate terrorist threat. That's what I got out of ACSIS' post. That a lot of Civil Liberties are under threat and useless, unsustainable warmongering is going on since 9/11. And not just in America, but across the NATO nations.
Now, if ACSIS has some kind of other agenda he's historically pushed on PA, I'm not aware of it.
Also, for the record, I do not consider terrorism an existential threat to the United States. It's carried too high of a priority for far too long.
It was never an issue that Hussein should leave the government of Irak.
And Hussein always allowed inspectors in Irak. Do you know why?
Because he (as we know today) was speaking the truth.
He never possesed WMD.
That's funny, because he never denied having WMDs. The whole fucking issue was that he was acting like he had WMDs, which was intentional because he was scared of Iran learning that his military was toothless. Before the war I don't even remember anyone claiming that he didn't have WMDs, not even the anti-war people.
Your whole post isn't even conspiracy theory, it's facts embedded in a stupid little narrative your mind constructed.
That's funny, because he never denied having WMDs. The whole fucking issue was that he was acting like he had WMDs, which was intentional because he was scared of Iran learning that his military was toothless.
Iran KNEW he was toothless after eight years of war. Plus he really denied it. And opened the country for inspections. It was no use. Of course he was a mad murderer but the government of my or your country is not much better. Thats how it works in power politics. If you prefer to ignore it... alright.
He didn't open his country up for inspection, dummy, he didn't have a fucking choice there. And he made an intentional effort to make the inspectors think he was hiding something, despite the fact that they will obviously find nothing. Jesus, I don't even remember the inspectors claiming they believed that there were no WMDs in Iraq, just that they would find them if further inspections were allowed.
Anyway, here is something backing what I'm claiming, how about you do the same. Cite where he denied having WMDs.
He didn't open his country up for inspection, dummy, he didn't have a fucking choice there. And he made an intentional effort to make the inspectors think he was hiding something, despite the fact that they will obviously find nothing. Jesus, I don't even remember the inspectors claiming they believed that there were no WMDs in Iraq, just that they would find them if further inspections were allowed.
Anyway, here is something backing what I'm claiming, how about you do the same. Cite where he denied having WMDs.
Yeah, well... if you stare into the abyss long enough it stares back... ain't that right?
Since a lot of you guys remember me still i won't do it. Promised. No sweat.
I am sure there is as much evidence to support a denial as there is stating the contrary.
But you have to admit allowing inspectors to enter the country is a statement on its own.
Yeah, well... if you stare into the abyss long enough it stares back... ain't that right?
Since a lot of you guys remember me still i won't do it. Promised. No sweat.
I am sure there is as much evidence to support a denial as there is stating the contrary.
But you have to admit allowing inspectors to enter the country is a statement on its own.
No need to discuss this further.
Yes, it's a statement of "Come into my country and look where I permit you", rather than "I don't have WMDs".
Being sure you are right about something adds up to a hill of beans in a debate unless you have something to back it up.
Yeah, well... if you stare into the abyss long enough it stares back... ain't that right?
Since a lot of you guys remember me still i won't do it. Promised. No sweat.
Or you could bring up actual sources. Refusing to continue really shitty arguments and actually argue them because people remember the last time you tried to bring up shit arguments without any evidence isn't really the way to make points
As we learned from the last "experiment" no evidence is hard enough for people refusing to accept evidence. Therefore i save you and me the trouble of wasting lots of time ^^
As i said: he allowed the inspectors.
And allowing inspectors searching whilst claiming "i have WMD" is a bit strange, no?
We can therefore safely assume he denied having WMD (at this point the inspections start making sense),
saving us a lot of time dragging out dusty text passages arguing if forged or real.
Apply some logic. If you can. I know thats difficult. Patriotism comes into the way all along. Fortunately for me i am german, so patriotism is not an issue *g*
Karzai has been in power for nearly 5 years, management hasn't changed, the company has just re-branded.
I just wish they could stay on The Farm.
Maybe I took the analogy a little far..
Anyway what I mean to say is that regardless of the American generals intentions and changing tactics, if the men who run the country want it to stay the same (they will as they're doing extremely well off it) then it probably will.
I think what we are doing in Afghanistan is seeing if new management can turn things around.
What do you mean? New government for Afghanistan? Or a new C&C for American forces?
I mean the Obama administration.
I don't think there is really any hope for turning things around in Afghanistan as long as we continue with occupation.
Time will tell I guess.
The Americans certainly aren't pulling out before 2011. At that point, Obama will either need to have things on the upswing or wind things down and get out before the 2012 election.
I just hope he lays out a clearly defined mission before sending yet more troops. I have no idea what our goals are there, and I don't think anyone else does either.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
1. Disrupt terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan.
2. Monitor effectiveness of Pakistani COIN ops aimed at clearing extremists from towns and villages.
3. Monitor foreign assistance/support to Pakistan and UN coordination of those efforts.
4. Measure level of insurgent-related violence in Afghanistan by looking at changing populations in areas under extremist control, those undergoing clearing operations and those that have been stabilized by US/NATO forces.
5. Defeat extremists.
6. Secure the Afghan people.
7. Train Afghan security forces to fight with reduced US assistance.
8. Classified.
What besides these are you looking for?
Hoz on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
I still don't understand how someone can be an "Insurgent" while resisting the occupation of their nation by a foreign power. Isn't "Partisan" the word we should be using? Or are we just that far into the doublespeak.
1. Disrupt terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan.
2. Monitor effectiveness of Pakistani COIN ops aimed at clearing extremists from towns and villages.
3. Monitor foreign assistance/support to Pakistan and UN coordination of those efforts.
4. Measure level of insurgent-related violence in Afghanistan by looking at changing populations in areas under extremist control, those undergoing clearing operations and those that have been stabilized by US/NATO forces.
5. Defeat extremists.
6. Secure the Afghan people.
7. Train Afghan security forces to fight with reduced US assistance.
8. Classified.
What besides these are you looking for?
An end state. And not vague unachievable goals like "defeat extremists."
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
You're just going to have to use a little reading comprehension to tell the difference between the end goals in the list and the interim goals while we happen to be there.
If we "Secure the Afghan people" and "Train Afghan security forces to fight with reduced US assistance", we're probably not going to stick around with the large force we have now just to "Monitor effectiveness of Pakistani COIN ops aimed at clearing extremists from towns and villages". But we will probably have some left over force for a long while, just like Germany and South Korea.
Hee, without provocation. Without justification sure, but we sure as hell have provoked the Muslim world to not like us very much.
We've attacked countries for less.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Also: maintaining forces in Afghanistan permanently like in Germany or South Korea is a stupid idea. Empire + Afghanistan = death.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Freedom Fighters was good enough for Reagan, wasn't it?
But that isn't my point. My point is that the language we are using is dishonest.
Yeah, Freedom Fighters was good enough until we were attacked without provocation.
And it would be dishonest if we actually controlled their government, we don't; we just support it.
Historically speaking, America has been in the business of controlling Governments for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised to find the same in this situation. Considering the allegations of election rigging that have come out of Afghansistan lately, I'd be surprised if we weren't controlling things politically in Afghanistan. This sort of thing is the CIA's bread and butter.
Historically speaking, America has been in the business of controlling Governments for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised to find the same in this situation. Considering the allegations of election rigging that have come out of Afghansistan lately, I'd be surprised if we weren't controlling things politically in Afghanistan. This sort of thing is the CIA's bread and butter.
There is a difference between controlling and influencing, maybe not to a nutter like you, but yeah there is.
I'm really interested to find out when the CIA has ever rigged a foreign country's election. And as far as this election goes, the Taliban was resisting long before it, and I doubt the US gives a shit which one of the anti-Taliban politicians gets elected.
Posts
oh god, I just had milkshake come out of my nose.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH THIS HURTS?!
You all got used to the new timescale. Before we said "before Christ" and "after the birth of Christ". Today we say "before the terror attacks" and "after the the terror attacks".
The date alone has been etched into the collective mind of the world. Back to 9/11... 1973...
9/11/1973 Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile -for some dumb reason a socialist- was removed by the CIA. 3000 killed democrats. You have to admit they made a dumb error: They thought they could democratically elect a socialist. They were not aware this is not allowed in the USA.
The "removal" was started by the assasination of the Allende's head of intelligence. Ordered by Henry Kissenger.
He was replaced by a America friendly fascist military dictator named Augusto Pinochet. Today we would say an expert in human rights.
The american view of the world is very simple: "we are the good ones". If you know who the evil one is the day has structure. For decades this was clear: the realm of evil is in the east.
During the cold war everywhere in the world bullwarks against communism were created. For an example in Persia (Iran) impersonated by a sympatic, talented, young dictator: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Schah of Persia.
In any case America armed him till he got the fifth largest army in the world. To secure America from the red flood and to get them access to the cheap oil of Iran. To be able to support his army he (in good tradition of human rights) opressed his population till they started a revolution.
In their desperation the choose a religious leader: Ruhollah Chomeini. Sympatic is not the right word here. You probably can imagine the ammount of desperation needed, compareable to you choosing the pope as your leader.
But back to Chomeini: You can say about Chomeini what you want but he organized a peaceful revolution. The Schah ordered his army and intelligence service to fire on demonstrants (and they did) but there came even more demonstrants. In the end there were a million civillian demonstrants facing the army.
"You have to kill us all, we won't leave!"
And the army realized: the demonstrants were serious. They were ready to die for their freedom. And they went back to the barracks. Maybe have you seen pictures from 1979.
So the Schah had to move into exile in the USA, sentenced to death by whirlpool.
Chomeini has exiled the Schah of Persia and the Persians were angrry because the AMericans supported the Schah. And the Americans were angry because all of the nice oil and weapons were in the hands of Chomeini. A religious fundamentalist. A muslim. Muslims, people who take their religion SERIOUS. Unimaginable for Christians.
Come on, do you really think the foreign policy of the USA is in harmony with Christian rules? "Take all you possesions and give it to the poor" or "if somebody hits you show the other cheek"?
But back to Chomeini. The Iran turned overnight from a bullwark versus evil to the realm of evil itself. Americans decide that on a day by day basis. So the Iran had to be fought.
So the Americans asked themselves who could do it for them. And they came up with another sympatic figure: Saddam Hussein, a talented dictator of his time.
The Americans said: "Hussein, we are doing splendid business for years. We know you are a souvereign dictator. We keep arming you and you invade Iran. You stop Chomeini with his Schiit god state and can keep the oil wells as a reward."
Chomeini planned already back then to make a Schiit god state in the gulf. In Irak the Sumit population opressed the Schiit mayority. Everyone was afraid. So the Saudi, Kuweyti and USA lend Hussein money so he can invade Iran. And Hussein attacked. But he would not get far. The dumb Persians defended themselves.
The war raged for eight years. 1980 till 1988: war in the gulf. With American support. We Germans were neutral. We supplied both sides with weapons. "Nomore war without germany" or something like that. I have to look it up again. But it was something about employment, i am pretty sure about that.
After eight years war and one million dead Hussein rethreated. But he wanted his reward. And the Americans laughed him in the face and asked if he had conquered anything. So hussein became stroppy. The war had cost him 160 million dollars. He was totally in debt.
So he thought about how he would get around this. He decided to get the oil wells from Kuweyt. But then the Americans became stroppy:"Hussein, wich land you invade is still our decision".
"Hussein, shooting Persians and gas Kurdes. Nobody has a problem with that. You get all the gas you need. But invading Kuweyt, there the fun ends."
Hussein had no idea what went wrong. What did he do wrong? From his criminal point of view? How do you explain a bank robber wich bank to rob and wich to leave alone? What did Hussein with the attack on Kuweyt other than with his attack on Iran? Had he changed something? No. He just turned around.
But by night Saddam Hussein changed from a guardian of the free world to the evil madman of the century. The new Hitler was born. How practical.
It was autumm 1990. The UDSSR began to dissolve. Gorbatschov said: "we can't keep up anymore". The arms race was over. "You can beg as much as you like we can't afford it anymore".
You might laugh about that but the American arms industry was in total chaos. The enemy simply dissolved itself. Without warning. How to justifiy the bloated military budgets? You need an enemy.
So the americans bloated Hussein to the new Hitler. Of course he was an asshole, we do not have to discuss that. He was a natural ally of the USA. But he was never a threat to the world.
But Mr. Bush made the Americans so crazy... 70% of the Americans belived his missiles can hit the USA. There is WATER between the continents.
Mr. Bush sent a grand army to the Persian Gulf. And they are still stationed there wherever oil wells are. As Kissenger said: "oil is to important to leave it to the Arabs". You can get a nobel prize of peace for that if you are interested.
What do the Americans down there? Protect human rights? Can we have that joke in color? Guantanamo Bay? What the American government thinks about human rights we all understand at this point. They ratified torture of prisoners of war in the congress. Humans like animals in cages? For five years. No accusations, no evidence. Of course no human rights for beasts. That are no humans, it are beasts, ain't that right? The cells are constantly lit. After five years you confess anything.
And then my foreign minister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble claims he is not aware of any violation of human rights in Guantanamo. Well, we could help him. I suggest here officially to lock up Mr Schäuble in such a cage. And if he still claims after five years to know nothing about the violation of human rights we take everything back and he is free to go. Of course.
Human rights, stop that. Its not about human rights. Its about mining rights. Its about oil.
In january 2006 Jack Shirack openly admitted it. You have to be thankful for that. After the great sucess with the democratisazion of the Irak the model is to be reused in Iran. The Iranians are terribly glad about it there.
Now the Iran made an error, you have to admit that. The Iran signed the nuclear weapons ban contract. Since then the Iran is inspected by the nuclear control administration. Israel, as an example has not signed the contract and are not inspected. Thats no big deal. Israel has nuclear weapons. Thats common knowledge for twenty years. the Iran signed it (like we Germans besides) and has oficially to refrain from the building of nuclear weapons or spread this technology. And for that they may enrich uranium for peacful applications in nuclear power - everything we Germans do as well. Now you can do evil things with enriched uranium. We all know that. For Germans thats no problem we have proven over the centurys we are thrustworth, of course. But the Iran is known for starting world wars and attacking peaceful neighbours.
Now the estern world tells Iran to stop enriching uranium. To completely stop that: "We won't talk about anything further until this is settled". Of course they can buy enriched uranium from us meanwhile.
And then the Iran (under Mahmud Ahmadinedschad) said in december 2005: "we have signed the treaty and you are going to forbid that? then there will be no more oil". As we just learned you can break contracts one sided.
And Jack Shirak (France) said in january 2006: "I am ready to bomb rogue governments with nuclear weapons if the strategic supplies of the West get endangered".
This means: of course the Iran can get nuclear bombs. Mr. Shirak will deliver them personally. And we have only to clarify what Mr. Shirak meant by "strategic supplies of the West".
What do you think? Croissants?
Oil. Of course. The whole economy depends on it. Where would we go to if we allow the people who own the oil to dictate its price?
And to get Germany ready to play with our allies there have to be some changes. Germany's army is a defensive Army. Absolutely usless. Sixty years after the end of WWII you have to accept nobody wants to play war with us if we do not start. Yes, thats depressing. But the world is bad.
Now they want to fight everywhere. And now they are everywhere. The green pacifists wich wanted to dismeber from NATO managed to send the soldiers farther than their fathers ever managed. A grand success. Ninethousand soldiers. And now the Bundeswehr can't send anymore. They can't take another mission. They are logistically and financially at their limit. Yo can see it at those Tornados. 30 years stacked, 14 days used and the first bug-wheel breaks. And thats getting me very nervous. We have 280000 man under arms. And when ninethousand are actively pursuing duty they are financially at their limit. If the Russians knew this...
Ant they were do long not in foreign counties that they have no idea how to behave there. In Afghanistan. What did they do? Raping women, shooting children? No. They made pictures. People were offended by motives. The Bundeswehr proclaimed this will change imedantely. Next time they will shoot children too, so nobody complains. This would be self defence.
The NATO states we can dispatch troops if our resources are threatened. So we can protect what we like to have. If the Führer had lived to see the day...
But back to Hussein. America attacked Hussein twice and won twice easily. The first time in january 1991. Four weeks bombarding. From five kilometres high. They can not build a machine wich counts votes but bombing from five kilometes height with chirurgical precision is no problem. And then followed a ground attack. February 1991. The biggest tank battle in history. Gas masks were sold out.
Germany and America were afraid that the gas missiles wich we Germans sold him could be fired at Germany or America. Only to proove that the Germans are not less stupid than Amercans.
But all of those were intended for Israel. And thats where Hussein fired those. He was always a fair customer. Never attacked his arms dealers.
Mahmud Ahmadinedschad is a primitive anti-semitist. "Israel has to be destroyed" is primitive anti-semitism. Of course. But thats Arab rethoric since forty years. "The Jews have to be driven into the sea". Hussein said that too. And when he did Germany (under Helmut Kohl) told him to be more quiet and asked him what kind of weapons he likes to buy.
The German government under Kohl ratified the sale of poison gas missiles from Germany to Irak. We have armed the sworn enemy of Israel with posion gas missiles. And then we sat in february 1991 with gas masks in fron of our TVs and watched Israeli sitting in their bunkers getting blasted with poison gas missiles from Germany.
What is that? Intelligent anti-semitism? "Ahmadineschad is only talking, Kohl did at least something"?
Thats worth a nobel prize of peace, isn't it?
In the biggest tank battle in history seventeen american soldiers died, gentelmen. That are tank battles today. Seventeen dead. In every car accidend on a highway covered in fog there is more action. What kind of war is that? In both wars VS Hussein 150 american soldier died. All the dead were in the time of occupation. In the "war" 150 casaulties were reported. Half of that killed by friendly fire.
On Irak side 170000 casaulties were reported. They were shot like rabbits. Now you can guess who wins such a war. You can also let loose the world champion in boxing on a three year old and tell him to watch his knee.
But Hussein had WMD. But where are the WMD? Putin has a nice quote on that: "if i were America i would find WMD".
And Mr. Bush was clever. He allowed to Hussein to stay in government the first time. An asshole in the closet. If anything goes wrong, financial crisis or the secretary has issues... turn to the asshole in the closet.
After the 9/11 America was shocked. Rightfully shocked. A terrible crime.
But Mr. Bush insisted on doing something. Americans do always something: revenge.
But Revenge on who?
Thats the issue with sucide assasins...
So they decided to bomb something: Afgahnistan. Bin Laden was supposed to be there... terrorist bomb lotto in Afgahnistan. Only with some efford they could hold him from attackin Afghanistan with ships. Sad. I would have let him try. So they bombed Afghanistan for four weeks.
A grand commercial for international terrorism. You have to leave him that.
What about Bin Landen? They couldn't catch him because the CIA trained him well.
What to do now? Well, they had an asshole in the closet. Is he in any way connected to 9/11? No, but they knew where he was. But what is Bush doing? Clears the closet. Now Irak is the recruiting area for Al Quaida wich it was never before. There is civil war now. Every day hundrets die and Syrians fear they have to go into the closet. One always has to go in the closet.
Its all about freedom.
Afgahnistan was occupied by the evil Russians. The Americans wanted the Russians to leave. So they armed Bin Laden to expel Russians from Afgahnistan. This was the birth of AL Quaida. The CIA recruited (with the help of Saudi Arabia) thousands of fundamentalistic religious fanatics. And after fifteen years of terror attacks against the Russians (payed by the US) the Russians left. That is terrorism, isn't it?
Then civil war errupted in Afgahnistan. The Taliban becam the major poer in the region as a result. They wanted to free Tschetschenia from the evil russian occupation (as they were trained). But they were too late. Because the USA switched sides again. They allied with the Vladimir Putin. Ethnical cleansing in Tschtschenia. How VERY democratic.
The difference between Putin and Hussein is not in the number of murdered humans. Putin has all those weapons Hussein always was accused to have. Had Hussein really had those weapons he would have never been attacked! Are you insane? He would still rule there today. He would be invited to our chancellors sixtyst birthday. He would be our strategic partner and woul hold speeches about fighting schiit and kurdic terrorism in his country.
And now think about why some Iranians prefer to have nuclear weapons. From a totally neutral viewpoint.
Do you think they want to attack Israel? Even if they know Israel has nuclear weapons too?
Do you belive that? Do you belive they want to attack the West with nuclear weapons?
Or could it be that nuclear weapons are the only assurance vs attacks from the USA?
I like to remind you all what Mr. Bush accused Hussein of being guilty.
Today we all agree he was an evil dictator who had to be removed.
But back then the issue was another one:
"Hussein give your WMD to us. We know you have it, we got sattelite pictures"
It was never an issue that Hussein should leave the government of Irak.
And Hussein always allowed inspectors in Irak. Do you know why?
Because he (as we know today) was speaking the truth.
He never possesed WMD.
On that basis the war was started.
And now we are all threatened by the islamic terrorism. And the islamic terrorism is here to stay. The USA will never again allow that an enemy simply vanishes.
And now we need security.
Of course. We in Germany have an anti-terrorist database now. You get a shitload of problems if you make an terroristic attack without logging in the database first. Thats Germany, alright. You can't simply go terrorizing here freely.
Maybe i didn't get it. Maybe its like logging supicious people. Point system. Religious belifs are not the only criteria they said. As catholic or evangelic you are fine i guess, but as Muslim... pray in the wrong Moschee... or praying to fast. Thats always very suspicious.
And if you got enough points in the database you can be expelled of the country. I guess you get a free crash course about christian ideals in Guantanamo Bay.
And we get fingerprints in our ID. Data privacy is less important, national security is more important. They said thats a good sheme already tried in Spain. Thats right: under rule of generalissimo Franko. It seems they did not want to offically appoint to Adolf Hitler. Under Hitler we also had fingerprints in ID. It was removed after the war, like in Spain by the way.
Ladies and gentlemen the 9/11 terror attacks were disgusting.
It was a terrible murder.
But WHEN do you start wondering why we have so FEW terrorist attacks?
So?
I don't. I already know why. It doesn't require a giant conspiratorial screed.
It isn't. The americans are proud of it, you find it in your history books. You need no conspiracy theories here. FACTS, sir. Deal with it.
When facts get thrown around in America, the common reaction is to make accusations of conspiracy theory. You get used to it.
Know who liked to use facts?
Hitler.
Mixing in fact doesn't make something not crazy. The guy's comparing the current state of Germany to Franco run Spain. At least I think he's talking about Germany towards the end. Though making assumptions because I'm American is also wonderfully discriminatory.
Are you implying something else, though? If you are, come out and say it. The above claim isn't controversial and most people here would agree, I imagine.
It looks like he's implying that America is fabricating stories of terroristic activity so that our arms companies can continue to manufacture weapons to feed into the great alien lord XR-745s private bank account.
Well ok that last part I just assumed since it's ACSIS, but it does look like he's saying that really there is no threat ever and America is hoping to steal everyone's liberty and start killing Jews out of a manufactured threat to support the arms industry.
I wonder how he'll explain that our military spending is in fact not geared towards fighting off terrorist attacks, but instead geared against an all-out war, which is why the spending is so ass-backwards, and why we have things like the F-22.
Its more expensive to sell you military equipment geared for an all-out war? Just a guess here i am totally blind
So why are we using the threat of islamic extremists as the incentive that will mysteriously never go away if we're gearing our military the other way?
It's a completely inconsistent argument.
You can defend against terrorism though, and that doesn't take much in the way of weapons or armies. Good police work is a start, there. The sticky point with that is we live in a nation where a lot of us value our Civil Liberties more than our safety, as far as America goes. I figure most people in the world are like this too. I believe that our Civil Liberties can remain intact while we also successfully defend against legitimate terrorist threat. That's what I got out of ACSIS' post. That a lot of Civil Liberties are under threat and useless, unsustainable warmongering is going on since 9/11. And not just in America, but across the NATO nations.
Now, if ACSIS has some kind of other agenda he's historically pushed on PA, I'm not aware of it.
Also, for the record, I do not consider terrorism an existential threat to the United States. It's carried too high of a priority for far too long.
Your whole post isn't even conspiracy theory, it's facts embedded in a stupid little narrative your mind constructed.
Iran KNEW he was toothless after eight years of war. Plus he really denied it. And opened the country for inspections. It was no use. Of course he was a mad murderer but the government of my or your country is not much better. Thats how it works in power politics. If you prefer to ignore it... alright.
Anyway, here is something backing what I'm claiming, how about you do the same. Cite where he denied having WMDs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml
Asking ACSIS to cite something.
Ahahahahahahaha
Yeah, well... if you stare into the abyss long enough it stares back... ain't that right?
Since a lot of you guys remember me still i won't do it. Promised. No sweat.
I am sure there is as much evidence to support a denial as there is stating the contrary.
But you have to admit allowing inspectors to enter the country is a statement on its own.
No need to discuss this further.
Yes, it's a statement of "Come into my country and look where I permit you", rather than "I don't have WMDs".
Being sure you are right about something adds up to a hill of beans in a debate unless you have something to back it up.
Then fucking find them. Honestly what is wrong with you that you think "I'm sure there's evidence out there" counts as a legitimate argument?
What do you mean? New government for Afghanistan? Or a new C&C for American forces?
I mean the Obama administration.
I just wish they could stay on The Farm.
edit:
I don't think there is really any hope for turning things around in Afghanistan as long as we continue with occupation.
As i said: he allowed the inspectors.
And allowing inspectors searching whilst claiming "i have WMD" is a bit strange, no?
We can therefore safely assume he denied having WMD (at this point the inspections start making sense),
saving us a lot of time dragging out dusty text passages arguing if forged or real.
Apply some logic. If you can. I know thats difficult. Patriotism comes into the way all along. Fortunately for me i am german, so patriotism is not an issue *g*
I guess if you're unwilling or unable to actually support the points you're making, you're not really "discussing." Just "repeatedly asserting."
Yelling arglebargle into cyberspace doesn't really demand a response.
Maybe I took the analogy a little far..
Anyway what I mean to say is that regardless of the American generals intentions and changing tactics, if the men who run the country want it to stay the same (they will as they're doing extremely well off it) then it probably will.
edit: quote fail.
Time will tell I guess.
The Americans certainly aren't pulling out before 2011. At that point, Obama will either need to have things on the upswing or wind things down and get out before the 2012 election.
What besides these are you looking for?
I haven't heard the word "partisan" used anywhere but the balkans.
An end state. And not vague unachievable goals like "defeat extremists."
Freedom Fighters was good enough for Reagan, wasn't it?
But that isn't my point. My point is that the language we are using is dishonest.
You're just going to have to use a little reading comprehension to tell the difference between the end goals in the list and the interim goals while we happen to be there.
If we "Secure the Afghan people" and "Train Afghan security forces to fight with reduced US assistance", we're probably not going to stick around with the large force we have now just to "Monitor effectiveness of Pakistani COIN ops aimed at clearing extremists from towns and villages". But we will probably have some left over force for a long while, just like Germany and South Korea.
Yeah, Freedom Fighters was good enough until we were attacked without provocation.
And it would be dishonest if we actually controlled their government, we don't; we just support it.
We've attacked countries for less.
Historically speaking, America has been in the business of controlling Governments for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised to find the same in this situation. Considering the allegations of election rigging that have come out of Afghansistan lately, I'd be surprised if we weren't controlling things politically in Afghanistan. This sort of thing is the CIA's bread and butter.
There is a difference between controlling and influencing, maybe not to a nutter like you, but yeah there is.
I'm really interested to find out when the CIA has ever rigged a foreign country's election. And as far as this election goes, the Taliban was resisting long before it, and I doubt the US gives a shit which one of the anti-Taliban politicians gets elected.