Praying for Obama's Defeat

D_Marazion Analdouche

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Posts
979
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
Yes I'm JUST complaining. I didn't realize that's all I was doing. And not offering solid fresh solutions as you are. I'm going to have to retool. Thanks Wartrac.

Anytime.

And I never claimed they were fresh solutions, just a way of perhaps making an old one work. Instead that they were something that isn't in place now. Show me where this approach has been actually tried to a large extent.

So again is tax breaks for the lower and middle class the best way to get people to work towards making themselves better? If so how?

I can keep asking over and over until you answer, this is twice you've dodged the question.
:popcorn:
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,997
Media
3
Likes
23,732
Points
643
Gender
Male
You are aware (hopefully) that it was the lackluster, lackballs, now whiner, President James Carter who pushed Saddam Hussein into many of the misdeeds which he carried out, are you not?

Back in about 1979, Saddam Hussein...

Fast forward to 1980 when Hussein got to be the first ever Iraqi leader to have a sit-down with Saudi Arabia leader Prince Fahd. (note: this was also the first time an Iraqi met so closely with the Saudis)...

No Mr.Carter, was the bad guy in this.

No, Saddam was the worst guy in this. I don't believe the "lackluster, lackballs", lame duck President Carter with 3 months left in office and a snowball in hell's chance of being re-elected, prodded Saddam Hussein into war with Iran.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 caused revolutionary Shi'ite Islam to grow swiftly in the region, particularly in countries with large Shi'ite populations,such as Iraq. Shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini took power in Iran, A.K. called for an uprising against the Saudi government, which he described as "un-Islamic". That threat was realized when insurgents took hostages and staged a dramatic protest at the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The rebels denounced the royal family as corrupt and called for its overthrow. After a three-week siege the Saudi security forces attacked and captured the rebels. Saddam feared these radical Islamic ideas — hostile to his secular rule — were rapidly spreading inside his country among the majority Shi'ite population. Likewise other countries in the region feared that similar revolts could occur.

Saddam decided to invade Iran and it was easy for him to get the support of many Arab states, the United States, the Soviet Union, and Europe as he was viewed as "the defender of the Arab world" against a revolutionary Iran.

I'm not surprised that he would have met with a Saudi Arabian leader in that era as Iran posed a mutual threat to their countries.
 

Northland

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
5,924
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
No, Saddam was the worst guy in this. I don't believe the "lackluster, lackballs", lame duck President Carter with 3 months left in office and a snowball in hell's chance of being re-elected, prodded Saddam Hussein into war with Iran.
Of course you don't. Most Westerners and others outside of Iraq, the Middle East and its environs prefer placing all the blame on Hussein. He sucked as a human being, that much I can give; however, his rise to the top was aided by people such as Carter. Too bad that you believe the propaganda which the media hands you. Having been in Iraq as a person, not as a soldier or advisor or member of the press; but, as a person born there and of Iraqi blood, I have a better understanding and knowledge of what has happened there than those who are not of that region.


-snippity snip snip-.

Saddam decided to invade Iran and it was easy for him to get the support of many Arab states, the United States, the ]Soviet Union, and Europe as he was viewed as "the defender of the Arab world" against a revolutionary Iran.
So a man who has already proven himself a murderer, decides to invade another nation and all these people willingly go along with it; yet, you honestly believe that he (Saddam Hussein) was the only bad guy. Hmm...I suppose you believe in other fairy tales your television has told you as well.

Anyway, you have contradicted yourself-first you tell us that Hussein was the really bad guy-the worst of the lot according to you-then you tell us that Carter had no chance of getting re-elected. Let me ask you, if Carter knew he had no chance, why in the name of all that matters would he have invested all those dollars? Why is it that to this day, he will not (nor you or millions of others) acknowledge what he did? Why does he only point at the two Presidents named Bush? Stop listening to the crap your reporters spew at you and learn the facts. Learn all of the things which you have not been told. Learn who did what and when. Most of all LEARN THE TRUTH!

I'm not surprised that he would have met with a Saudi Arabian leader in that era as Iran posed a mutual threat to their countries.
You should be surprised. Consider if you will all the facts. No Iraqi leader had ever before met with a high ranking member of Saudi Arabia's government. Iraq, even then, and Hussein in particular, were viewed as questionables. There was and is an air of suspicion by many in the area. Iraq as a nation has usually stood alone, as invasions have occurred, Iraq has mostly had to respond on its own. When others have entered in to "help" it has always had a price attached to it. The sad fact that you are not aware of this tells me how little you know of the history of the region. (I mean the real history not the fabrications you find in your local bookstores)
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Of course you don't. Most Westerners and others outside of Iraq, the Middle East and its environs prefer placing all the blame on Hussein. He sucked as a human being, that much I can give; however, his rise to the top was aided by people such as Carter. Too bad that you believe the propaganda which the media hands you. Having been in Iraq as a person, not as a soldier or advisor or member of the press; but, as a person born there and of Iraqi blood, I have a better understanding and knowledge of what has happened there than those who are not of that region.

Saddam was very powerful in Iraq from the time of the Baathists' takeover in 1968. He was the power behind al_Bakr. The United States had little to do with this.
His rise to the top had to do with the fact that he was 1) the obvious number two man, and 2) had an exampled ruthlessness.
Carter had nothing to do with that. No American, president or otherwise, did.
If you have proof, give it. You're being Iraqi doesn't tell us much.
This is a largely American forum, for example.
Do the Americans all think alike about their country, or have the same conception of their history?
Didn't think so.

So a man who has already proven himself a murderer, decides to invade another nation and all these people willingly go along with it; yet, you honestly believe that he (Saddam Hussein) was the only bad guy. Hmm...I suppose you believe in other fairy tales your television has told you as well.

Their support was given on the principle (rather universal though classically Arab) that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Everyone was worried about Khomeini.
Saddam Hussein seemed by far the less odious evil.
(And at that time, he probably was. His most egregious actions against his own people, not to mention neighboring states, did not begin till after the war with Iran. Up to that time, he seemed a praiseworthy modernizer, improving infrastructure and education, and insisting upon secularism and unity in the country.)

Anyway, you have contradicted yourself-first you tell us that Hussein was the really bad guy-the worst of the lot according to you-then you tell us that Carter had no chance of getting re-elected. Let me ask you, if Carter knew he had no chance, why in the name of all that matters would he have invested all those dollars?

Carter thought he had a good chance to be re-elected up until election day. In fact, until very close to the election, many observers thought he might turn the tide against Reagan.
As to why he would invest money to finance ... what, Iraqi action against Iran? ... any weakening of Iran could strengthen his leverage in terms of getting the hostages out, at least in principle.
And since Iran was the international bogeyman at the time, any success against Iran would look well in the light of historical hindsight.
Why would his support of Iraq surprise anyone?
And was he just giving stuff to the Iraqis? Iraq had strong revenues from oil, did it not?

Why is it that to this day, he will not (nor you or millions of others) acknowledge what he did? Why does he only point at the two Presidents named Bush? Stop listening to the crap your reporters spew at you and learn the facts. Learn all of the things which you have not been told. Learn who did what and when. Most of all LEARN THE TRUTH!

Maybe he denies your conception becomes your conception is false.

You should be surprised. Consider if you will all the facts. No Iraqi leader had ever before met with a high ranking member of Saudi Arabia's government. Iraq, even then, and Hussein in particular, were viewed as questionables. There was and is an air of suspicion by many in the area. Iraq as a nation has usually stood alone, as invasions have occurred, Iraq has mostly had to respond on its own. When others have entered in to "help" it has always had a price attached to it. The sad fact that you are not aware of this tells me how little you know of the history of the region. (I mean the real history not the fabrications you find in your local bookstores)

What's the point of this paragraph? Iraq was becoming a stronger player by dint of its improving economy and oil revenues. That's a reason for neighboring countries to take it seriously.
And the Saudis, as you know, have always had a repressive approach to their own Shia minority.
With Saddam Hussein leader of the Arab country neighboring Iran, and inclined to aggression against that country, why would a country such as Saudi Arabia, having common cause in this regard, not be willing to meet him?
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Anytime.

And I never claimed they were fresh solutions, just a way of perhaps making an old one work. Instead that they were something that isn't in place now. Show me where this approach has been actually tried to a large extent.

So again is tax breaks for the lower and middle class the best way to get people to work towards making themselves better? If so how?

I can keep asking over and over until you answer, this is twice you've dodged the question.
:popcorn:

I made three BIG mistakes:

1.) Taking you off my ignore list
2.) Reading your post
3.) Responding to your post

If I want to watch Fox News I'll just turn it on. We can fix this problem by just reversing #1.

Hold on.....
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
I made three BIG mistakes:

1.) Taking you off my ignore list
2.) Reading your post
3.) Responding to your post

If I want to watch Fox News I'll just turn it on. We can fix this problem by just reversing #1.

Hold on.....

Done. #1 has been reversed.

Now if you put me on YOUR ignore list I will be invisible to you. It would be like we don't exist for each other and that is a perfect world isn't it (pssst..don't bother replying as your posts are not visible).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Northland

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
5,924
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Maybe he denies your conception becomes your conception is false.
And with that line, you have successfully negated anything else which you might wish to say on this matter. By deciding that my conception of something is false, you have decided that you are somehow wiser than the rest of the world. Are you an Iraqi? If you are, then state things as one. If not, then you have no real understanding of what is happening in Iraq or what has happened for several years.



(I will respond further in my next post)
 

D_Marazion Analdouche

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Posts
979
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
Done. #1 has been reversed.

Now if you put me on YOUR ignore list I will be invisible to you. It would be like we don't exist for each other and that is a perfect world isn't it (pssst..don't bother replying as your posts are not visible).

I can keep asking over and over until you answer, this is THREE TIMES you've dodged the question.
:popcorn:

And pssssst, I'm not republican.
 

Northland

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
5,924
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
To Senor Rubirosa, Dreamer20, and others:



Have you walked the roads and towns of Iraq as one of its people? Have you felt the hatred from both sides and had to search deeper and ask the people who would accept you, what the history is? Can you ever comprehend the many subdivisions within Iraq? Have you seen the bombings as they begin? Felt the shaking of the ground? Felt the blood of your nephew and his young daughter drain out on the ground around you and then sleep in as much silence as you could with that foul smell of death, while hoping your sister could keep silent too until nightfall? Have you had to leave behind the bodies because there was no way to dig a grave and so you just placed a simple cloth over them and said a final prayer?

Have you stared at the night sky, and known that what is headed towards you are not a dozen or more falling stars; but rather markers of death if they hit you? Have you secretly wished that one would hit you and end the sadness? Have you awoken the next day, surveyed your situation and then been grateful that somehow you did survive?

Did your grandfather risk the sword of death if he refused to do as the British ordered? Did you hear of his brother who had a sword thrust into him for speaking up and not doing as the British ordered? (he lived, although not well)

Do you understand the divisions within Iraq? I mean truly understand them as a native, not as an outsider. Even I have trouble fully holding to an understanding of what the nation has been through-I am half outsider since I was taken away as a child.


Have you lost family, not from natural death; but from the bombings and shootings of all involved. Not just from whichever government has been in power; but from other nations. Nations which then sit back and bemoan their own losses. Guess what-the citizens never invited you cold greedy killers in. Your losses are sad and Iraqis mourn them; but we also mourn our own losses-rarely does anyone outside of Iraq mourn the loss of the men, women and children-including babies less than a few hours old. The loss of livestock, crops, dignity, security, homes, roads... these are what have been lost to us and all in the quest of power and greed. The hunger for power from other nations, not just the latest "leader" in Iraq.


United States history with Iraq prior to Saddam Hussein? It goes back many years. Will you ever understand this? Probably not. You can start by doing a full researching of the country from centuries ago up until today. Even then, much will be missing.

As a person born in Iraq, raised by Iraqis in the United States and of citizenship in the U.S., my connections to Iraq are not those which the media will show you-the media does not desire hearing what the people of Iraq endure. The media does not care about the truth and the reality if it doesn't net them a tidy profit. How can you possibly believe that the small amount which you've been fed is the entire story?


None of you will ever truly understand what has happened in Iraq. You cannot. Unless you are one of the soil, you are standing from a disadvantaged location. You will never hear the truth from those who live in Iraq-over centuries we have learned not to speak to outsiders in anything other than the most limitted of terms. We speak only to family and a few close friends on what has become of a once beautiful (and hopefully again one day beautiful) nation. Some brought about by our own misdeeds and poorly thought out actions, mostly brought to us by others. Iraq has not had true self rule in centuries. Even the current leadership was selected by others-the same ones who at one time encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him. That is not true self rule.

And now that the nation has been brought to its knees and damaged beyond recognition, how can we stand again and start again without the assistance of another? And then they cycle continues as the help we receive comes with a price-giving up freedom of choice. You will allege that we will have it; but, sadly this is not true. How can you understand what you have not felt?


People lay claim to knowing what Iraq is about and they profess to knowing how the current situations came about when they've never been a part of the nation. Those who have not lived it, do not know it. Those who have lived it, often wish they did not know it.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Why is it that to this day, he will not (nor you or millions of others) acknowledge what he did? Why does he only point at the two Presidents named Bush? Stop listening to the crap your reporters spew at you and learn the facts. Learn all of the things which you have not been told. Learn who did what and when. Most of all LEARN THE TRUTH!

Maybe he denies your conception becomes your conception is false.

And with that line, you have successfully negated anything else which you might wish to say on this matter. By deciding that my conception of something is false, you have decided that you are somehow wiser than the rest of the world. Are you an Iraqi? If you are, then state things as one. If not, then you have no real understanding of what is happening in Iraq or what has happened for several years.

If I had decided that your conception of something was false, that would in no way imply that I was deciding that I was somehow wiser than the rest of the world. That is a complete non sequitur, Northland ... and if you don't know that, you should.
Now, if you actually read my statement (something you ought to do if you're going to respond to it), you will see that I wrote this: Maybe he denies your conception becomes your conception is false.
That is not an assertion that you are wrong, though my strong suspicion is that you are.
I don't have doubt that Jimmy Carter would have more than easily tolerated an Iraqi invasion of Iran back in 1980.
Most of the Western world did, after all.
Why should he not? The Iranians were holding 52 Americans hostage; the Iranian government was strongly opposed to Western values; the human rights situation in Iran was dreadful, with mass hangings of people who hadn't had trial, brutal subjugation of women, etc.; and the promise of export of the values animating the Iranian revolution to other Muslim countries brought little comfort to any Arab government.
Not only many Western countries, but virtually all the Arab countries were strongly opposed to Khomeini's project.
Between Iraq and Iran themselves, there had been many border disputes and the oomph the Shia triumph in Iran was giving to the restive and oppressed Shia population in Iraq could only be disquieting to the national government.
Saddam Hussein himself hated the Iranians, some say under the influence of an uncle who had once published a pamphlet entitled Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews and Flies.
Saddam is legendary for his dreams of Iraqi empire, stating on several occasions that he didn't care what people thought of him in his own time, but rather of what they thought of him in five centuries. He thought he might be seen as a latter-day Saladin.
He also had designs on Iranian oil wells and Iranian territory, especially the Shatt al-Arab waterway.
The Iraqi military equipment, apart from some American-supplied helicopters, had come mostly from the Warsaw Pact countries. During the war itself, the USSR, France, Germany, China, and other countries supplied most of the equipment. The chemicals for chemical warfare came from many countries, though a long supply route, including, FWIW, Canada.
The foreign financing for the war came mostly from other Arab countries, with the United States well down the list:
Kuwait - $15 Bn; Saudi Arabia - $9 Bn; Qatar - $ 4 Bn; UAE - $3.8Bn
Russia - $3.5 Bn; France - $3 Bn; Germany - $2.4 Bn; US - $2.2 Bn; UK - $1 Bn.
You make it sound as though Carter was a prime mover behind the war. I see no reason to believe that, though if you have proof to bring forward, I will gladly look at it.
I don't think anyone would doubt that he supported the war, however, and that that support had its importance.
It's important to stress that much of what support the Americans did give came during the Reagan and Geo. H.W. Bush presidencies, long after Carter had left the scene. (He left the White House only a few months after the beginning of hostilities, as you know.)

When you suggest that your experience as an Iraqi gives you more access to the truth on these questions, I find it, frankly, naive.
As a Canadian, I am often hearing things about Canada that are utter surprises to me ... and I never suppose that my not knowing them makes them false. Often, they come from Canadian experts, and I am no expert. And if they come from foreigners, I don't on that account discredit them, because being a resident of a country does not confer any kind of expertise.
In a later post, you say we can have no idea of how life was under Saddam.
I don't doubt that at all. On that question, you, as an Iraqi, do indeed have an expertise that dreamer and I should acknowledge. (Not to say you have the final word, because not all Iraqi accounts will be similar.)
But how that expertise makes you knowing on the questions over which you and I have engaged, is something that remains unclear to me.
People often don't know what's going on between their national government and other states. This is true everywhere, but surely especially so in as closed a state, with as closed a media, as was Iraq at the time of the war we are discussing.
Final point: You suggest that Western media knows nothing about the Iran-Iraq War. Actually, I think many angles have been covered over the years, some of them with withering criticism of the American role.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
As a person born in Iraq, raised by Iraqis in the United States and of citizenship in the U.S., my connections to Iraq are not those which the media will show you-the media does not desire hearing what the people of Iraq endure. The media does not care about the truth and the reality if it doesn't net them a tidy profit. How can you possibly believe that the small amount which you've been fed is the entire story?

I don't think anyone can really appreciate what has become of news in the United States. Laura Logan was on the Daily Show who covers the Iraq War for CBS and she had some very poignant views.

One quote that highlights the state of American news coverage is when she said 'Tell me the last time you saw the body of a dead American soldier. What does that look like? Who in American knows what that looks like? Because I know what that looks like, and I feel responsible for the fact that no one else does'. I would also add there are no pictures of dead Iraqis. It's like 'The Sixth Sense' in reverse...we don't see dead people. The Pentagon is simply 'servicing the target'. And the news is simply not showing graphic violence.

CBS's Lara Logan Slams American Coverage Of Iraq War (VIDEO) - Media on The Huffington Post

During the Vietnam War, World War II, the Korean War all kinds of pictures made it out on what was happening. But this war the Pentagon got smart and the new corporations got greedy. They're all in some sort of collusion to keep the real ugliness of war away from the people lest ratings for the war go down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TinyPrincess

Mythical Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Posts
15,829
Media
2
Likes
31,048
Points
368
Location
Copenhagen (Capital Region, Denmark)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I don't think anyone can really appreciate what has become of news in the United States.

One quote that highlights the state of American news coverage is when she said 'Tell me the last time you saw the body of a dead American soldier. What does that look like? Who in American knows what that looks like? Because I know what that looks like, and I feel responsible for the fact that no one else does'. I would also add there are no pictures of dead Iraqis.

Perhaps the major difference between the American and European public and thus the different views on major topics in the world - the media. Every news source is biased but at least we can choose between sources. In the US you can choose between Fox and Fox light (the rest), there is no real major news source giving information and pictures of the life in Iraq and elsewhere.

Before 9/11 at least CBS tried to take a different stance on some topics, now they are also just a Fox Light.
 

NEWREBA

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
441
Media
4
Likes
18
Points
103
Location
Cali
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
Perhaps the major difference between the American and European public and thus the different views on major topics in the world - the media. Every news source is biased but at least we can choose between sources. In the US you can choose between Fox and Fox light (the rest), there is no real major news source giving information and pictures of the life in Iraq and elsewhere.

Before 9/11 at least CBS tried to take a different stance on some topics, now they are also just a Fox Light.


PBS is a little better than the US cable networks. I also check out the BBC online.
 

Notaguru2

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Posts
1,519
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
123
Location
Charleston, SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You're quoting the johnmccain.com website. Try something objective. If I want to read McSame poopoo... I'll go to his website. Thanks! =)
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
PBS is a little better than the US cable networks. I also check out the BBC online.

Yes exactly. You cannot count on any media outlet in the US that is owned by some big corporation to tell you the news as the rest of the world sees it. PBS is good in that regard and that is precisely why the neo-cons hate them.
 

TinyPrincess

Mythical Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Posts
15,829
Media
2
Likes
31,048
Points
368
Location
Copenhagen (Capital Region, Denmark)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I know PBS is an alternative, but how many actually sees it? How many of your friends pick up information from e.g. the BBC World News broadcasted on PBS?

The majority of my friends usually only change channels when they are looking for the next laugh, next movie or next sport event - not exactly what PBS brings you.
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,997
Media
3
Likes
23,732
Points
643
Gender
Male
The Money $$$
Why isn't Iraq footing the bill? ...the costs for the War. Why is the United States not only paying for the War but for rebuilding Iraq? If the Iraqi people wanted liberation from Saddam and want Democracy that does not come cheap.
Drawing down troops and making the Iraqi Government foot the bill for the military presence and reconstruction is the way to go.
The U.S. military must turn focus on Al-Quaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Iraq needs to repay all the trillions of dollars the U.S. has spent and that money needs to go to releasing our dependency on foreign oil.



Iraq shouldn't pay the costs of the War as the Bush Administration decided to commit the criminal act of attacking Iraq which was neither a threat to the U.S.A. nor a haven for Al Qaeda.
Bush could have easily stood firm against Saddam Hussein by continuing the prior sound policy of containment in concert with the international community. Instead he foolishly engaged the U.S.A. in this war in spite of the explanations by George Bush Sr and Dick Cheney as to why the U.S. should not war with Iraq circa the early 1990's:

YouTube - Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN

http://www.lpsg.org/1553261-post7.html


According to the following article the cost of the U.S. occupation of Iraq as of March 18, 2008 was $1 trillion + $395 billion. This total accrues an additional cost of $435 million for the cost of Iraq war each day.

The Raw Story | Price of Iraq war now outpaces Vietnam

The Iraq government wants the U.S. troops gone by 2011.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US troops 'to quit Iraq by 2011'

I hope that this objective is achieved in an Obama Administration as opposed to the warmongering possibly uncooperative McCain's.