why is it that one country, Iraq, who was a secular dictatorship incapable of threatening anyone but for its short-lived invasion of neighbouring Kuwait, is deemd an insideous evil that MUSt be invaded to liberate its people - yet Pakistan, another dictatorship and NOT secular but overtly conservative muslim (and the birthplace of the Taliban) receives support from the US even as it arrests the main contender for pushing democratic reforms as soon as she lands at the airport. Just 5 minutes ago was yet another US official defending Musharrif, saying he's really a good guy.

Pakistan DOES have nukes, is clamping down on dissidents, threatens both India and Isreal, and so on.

I'm not saying someone should invade Pakistan, but all this talk of bombing Iran, and stating the reason for invading Iraq as "freeing the people from a dictator" is inconsistent with how Pakistan is treated.

I wish I knew everything involved with it. It's a weird situation.

Well first you have to throw out the "freeing the poor people talk". We really don't care, nor should we but it's something they do for liberals. To make them feel good. I think it's stupid and we should just tell the truth. You should never be ashamed of defending yourself or make excuses. It's not like anybody buys it. You can't free people. When they're ready to be free any people will do it themselves. But anyway. Musharrif is not a bad guy. He is running a country that if was run by that little bitch would be as bad as Afghanistan was. He's defiantly better than what it could be. That country isn't ready to be free.

As for Iraq there were so many reasons to invade that country. The two that stick out the most were to lift the oil sale sanctions and two because that bastard was taking Afghanistan's place as the refuge for terrorists. After we invaded Afghanistan they were flooding in there like rats. We need them to start selling there oil because when we invade Iran we need, one a place to base it from and two there oil on the market to make up for the loss of Iran's oil.

But you know what's the biggest hypocrisy? The number one reason Muslim extremists want to kill us is the crap coming out of Hollywood and pop culture from the US. They hate seeing their kids turning into sinners and imitating US pop culture. But the people pushing the anti war movement in this country the most are the very people the terrorists want to kill. They’re the face of this country.

As for Iraq there were so many reasons to invade that country. The two that stick out the most were to lift the oil sale sanctions

Why?

and two because that bastard was taking Afghanistan's place as the refuge for terrorists. After we invaded Afghanistan they were flooding in there like rats.

Uh - no they weren't. They were flooding to Pakistan, where some of them originated, to North Africa, and to Saudi Arabia and UAE. They didn't go into Iraq until after the invasion, which left the borders open.

Why?

To make up for the shortage that would come from a conflict with Iran.



Uh - no they weren't. They were flooding to Pakistan, where some of them originated, to North Africa, and to Saudi Arabia and UAE. They didn't go into Iraq until after the invasion, which left the borders open.

Uh yes they were. Al-Qaeda was in negotiations with Saddam to move their training camps to Iraq and prepare for attacks on the US. Saddam was paying $25,000 to Palestinian families of suicide bombers who would attack Israel to lure them into a war that would get everyone in the Middle East fighting. They thought this would be the spark to get the Arab nations to unite against the US and Israel. If left alone he would have been able to start a war that would have seen us bring back the draft and seen thousands of troops killed.

And Palistinian suicide bombers hadn't existed before, and were a direct threat to the US :rolleyes:

No, terrorists weren't flocking into Iraq prior to the invasion, nor was that the reason given to rationalize the invasion. The claims were Saddam was developing WMDs, and to free the Iraqi people from a dictator. I can find article after article that talks about Al Qaeda and ING backed terrorists moving into Iraq post-invasion, and can deluge you in links to same - but none prior to the invasion saying they'd moved in, and so the US must go in and smash them.

You're as factually incorrect as that crap about Saddam starting a war with his army still devistated from GW1. And, assuming he would have / could have, THAT would have brought back the draft in the US? Boy, are you pulling things out of your ass. ANd Saddam starting a war would have lead to the deaths of thousands of troops? I've got me some bad news for you, sunshine: By invading Iraq, thousands of troops ARE dead.


But back on the topic of this thread, which is the propping up of a nuclear power run by a dictator while claiming a weaker, secular nation was a threat because it may at some point in the future develop nuclear weapons, there's still no satisfactory answer.

Calm down. I don't really care what you think you know so chill out. We're just talking here. The fate of the world isn't hanging on our conversation.

We're propping up Musharraf because he is keeping radical Muslims away from the nukes. We're after Iran because Amadenajad is a radical Muslim trying to get nukes.

Interesting side note. Deaths in the military are down since the war started. Prior to the war, peacetime training over the last ten years averaged more deaths per year.

Calm down. I don't really care what you think you know so chill out. We're just talking here. The fate of the world isn't hanging on our conversation.

Come off it - we both know there are far less chill threads on this forum.

We're propping up Musharraf because he is keeping radical Muslims away from the nukes. We're after Iran because Amadenajad is a radical Muslim trying to get nukes.

Oh? Prior to the Iraq war, whenever Pakistan threatened India, they WERE the radical muslims with nukes. Now they're allowing the US a staging area, suddenly they're buddy-buddy... without a change in regime. And they're still the birthplace of the Taliban.

Intentionally or not, you hit the nail on the head. Propping up a non-democratic regime because there's a perceived benefit (a la Saudi Arabia). But when invading other regimes, a stated purpose is to create a democracy. That is the hypocracy, which still isn't addressed.

Interesting side note. Deaths in the military are down since the war started. Prior to the war, peacetime training over the last ten years averaged more deaths per year.

What peacetime? Bosnia? Panama? Rwanda? ;)

Come off it - we both know there are far less chill threads on this forum.

LOL yeah I guess so.



Oh? Prior to the Iraq war, whenever Pakistan threatened India, they WERE the radical Muslims with nukes. Now they're allowing the US a staging area, suddenly they're buddy-buddy... without a change in regime. And they're still the birthplace of the Taliban.

Well it's just like everything else. It's relative.

Intentionally or not, you hit the nail on the head. Propping up a non-democratic regime because there's a perceived benefit (a la Saudi Arabia). But when invading other regimes, a stated purpose is to create a democracy. That is the hypocracy, which still isn't addressed.

Well there is no hypocrisy. The standards you're using to base your hypocrisy on don't exist. As a nation we should be able to influence and get involved in the affairs of any country we want.

Because if you're one of those people who believe if only we would leave people alone they would leave us alone. You're wrong. You're either leading or following.


We don't just give out "liberty and justice for all". There has to be something in it for us and we shouldn't feel guilty for that. I love to do charity work and hand out money to the poor. But if I don't go to work sometimes I can't help anybody.





What peacetime? Bosnia? Panama? Rwanda? ;)

Those don't count.

As a nation we should be able to influence and get involved in the affairs of any country we want.

The very attitude that lead to the rise - and more substantially the fall - of many an empire in the past.

NO NO NO

That would be liberalism and a felling of quilt for being the best. When you have the lead you shouldn't let up. Staying on top is harder than getting there because of complacency.

Fortune favors the bold.

Progress and reform felled more empires than attempts at mercantalism, colonialism, and gunboat diplomacy? Really?

Or are you using the very narrow American definition of "liberalism" meaning pandering to the pussies who think kids should get medals just for showing up, and getting fat from too many big macs makes one "disabled"?

Yes the generations coming after periods of dominance are always a sheltered weaker version of the people who got them there. So people always become victims of their own success. Progress and reform always has a view that their predecessors were harsh and unfair. Creating the feeling of quilt and creating weakness. I guess another way of looking at it is a dollar earned has more meaning than a ten-dollar gift.

But we should be smart enough to see this and avoid it. We should be hard on our kids. Make them work. Giving them the things we didn’t have isn’t always a good thing. Teach them the traditions and respect of the ones who came before us. Yes I use the narrow definition or Liberalism.

Perhaps Iraq has a resource that Israel desires? .........based on the assumption that many Jewish Americans influence who gets elected and what decisions they make.

why is it that one country, Iraq, who was a secular dictatorship incapable of threatening anyone but for its short-lived invasion of neighbouring Kuwait, is deemd an insideous evil that MUSt be invaded to liberate its people - yet Pakistan, another dictatorship and NOT secular but overtly conservative muslim (and the birthplace of the Taliban) receives support from the US even as it arrests the main contender for pushing democratic reforms as soon as she lands at the airport. Just 5 minutes ago was yet another US official defending Musharrif, saying he's really a good guy.

Pakistan DOES have nukes, is clamping down on dissidents, threatens both India and Isreal, and so on.

I'm not saying someone should invade Pakistan, but all this talk of bombing Iran, and stating the reason for invading Iraq as "freeing the people from a dictator" is inconsistent with how Pakistan is treated.

If you become a threat to any nation or person, full attention will be called upon yourself. Depending on who you pissed off, you will be fired, banned, ass kicked, divorced, jailed or killed.

If you become a threat to any nation or person, full attention will be called upon yourself. Depending on who you pissed off, you will be fired, banned, ass kicked, divorced, jailed or killed.

...and?

The question was why was Iraq, a secular country who's missiles couldn't reach it's own borders nevermind beyond, was an "evil dictatorship" that must be stopped whereas Pakistan, birthplace of the Taliban and a military dictatorship, is a friend of the US.

Pakistan threatens India all the time, Pakistanis created the fundamentalist dictatorship that ran Afghanistan and sheltered the Taliban, etc. By your statement, that should have called attention to it and got it "fired, banned, ass kicked, divorced, jailed or killed"... not rewarded.

...and?

The question was why was Iraq, a secular country who's missiles couldn't reach it's own borders nevermind beyond, was an "evil dictatorship" that must be stopped whereas Pakistan, birthplace of the Taliban and a military dictatorship, is a friend of the US.

Pakistan threatens India all the time, Pakistanis created the fundamentalist dictatorship that ran Afghanistan and sheltered the Taliban, etc. By your statement, that should have called attention to it and got it "fired, banned, ass kicked, divorced, jailed or killed"... not rewarded.

Not saying you are misguided by your thoughts, just that I noticed you are bitching about the lack of acceleration to what you precieve as fair. Just sit back and watch the 'ole U S of A. The focus was on Bin. Pak was forgiven momentary for their assistance. If we can hold on to it, Iraq offers another front against Iran. Soon, white people will rule the world. Makes sense?

Dont forget, Iraqi Scud missles did reach Israel

Just sit back and watch the 'ole U S of A. The focus was on Bin.

...until the focus was taken off Bin and put on Iraq. But that's another conversation in itself.

Dont forget, Iraqi Scud missles did reach Israel

Scuds (actually Soviet built R-300 Elbrus missiles of early 60's vintage and based very closely on German WWII era V2s) did get fired at Israel. A little more than 80 missiles in total were fired at Israel and Saudi Arabia. Total casualties? 31 people. 28 of them in one strike on a US compound in Dhahran. That means 3 Israelis killed in a supposedly massive missile attack on Tel Aviv.

Most Scuds disintegrated in flight and very few actually hit targets. I remember watching footage of the war live in 1991, and the US took credit for shooting down scud after scud with patriot missiles - but after the war the GAO noted there was no data for scud intercepts, as closer scrutiny showed that most of Iraqs scuds were in such pathetic condition that they fell apart in-flight over Iraq.

Well you know what I don't understand is why are there so many fucking canadians here with such strong opinions about US laws and foreign policy. Why don't you worry about your own fucked up country?

There's 2 of us? Jeez, get over it.

Well 2 out of 8 or so is kind of a high ratio.

Well you know what I don't understand is why are there so many fucking canadians here with such strong opinions about US laws and foreign policy. Why don't you worry about your own fucked up country?
:blah:

Well 2 out of 8 or so is kind of a high ratio.

win