Jump to content

How to destroy a Country


buffycat

Recommended Posts

Oh no they weren't watch ' The lies that led to war" The US sold those chemicals and never admitted that they had been used against the Kurds.

If buy "United States' government you are totally wrong. If you mean that US companies sold components you are correct but so did Asian and European countries. No one sold Saddam 'chemical weapons.' That is absolutely false. Leftwing crap that passes as 'journalism' these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You may need more evidence:

"...President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague...

link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If buy "United States' government you are totally wrong. If you mean that US companies sold components you are correct but so did Asian and European countries. No one sold Saddam 'chemical weapons.' That is absolutely false. Leftwing crap that passes as 'journalism' these days.

Correct....hell, Canada sold the USA and UK all the uranium needed for a fine collection of fission and fusion bombs and still sells depleted uranium for US armor piercing munitions used you-know-where.

Canada's own Gerald Bull engineered Saddam's Project Babylon "Supergun".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The know-how and material for developing CW were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign firms.[10] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie Ltd.) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[11]

The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips. Both companies have since undergone reorganization and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum and now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and energy company while Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc.[12]

On March 12, 2008, the government of Iraq announced plans to take legal action against the suppliers of chemicals used in the poison gas attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Graphic/map of suppliers http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif

http://www.gfbv.de/pressemit.php?id=1210&a...89b60627a8f9498

Thiodiglycol is found in your ball-point pen...you'd better confess to having nerve gas precursors. That's what US companies supplied. Blame Singapore and the Kim Al-Khaleej company (Arab) for the bulk of Saddam's supplies.

----------------------------------------------

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

---President Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like a handshake with Dumsfelt, like the gassing of the Kurds with Reagan watching.

I'm pretty sure American leaders have shaken hands with an awful lot of people they loathed, and I doubt Reagan had much awareness of what was going on in Iraq even after it happened, much less before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may need more evidence:

"...President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague...

link

The US - and the rest of us - had a major interest in stopping the crazed Iranians from taking over the middle east. A lot of countries were helping prop up Saddam because of that. As for dual-use materials, they were supposed to be intended for non-military use, ie in the Iraqi ministry of health and other research facilities. Such things are sent around the world all the time for scientists to research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestiingly, destroying a country and getting off scott free is exactly what Clinton and Obama have in mind. They want to wash their hands of it.

Sorry guys, you broke it you buy it.

Realistically, a civil war in Iraq was inevitable. Saddam prevented it by crushing all opposition, but after Saddam, either you were going to have another brutal dictator or a civil war. Everyone knew that. The presence of US troops has at least served to keep the bloodletting down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US - and the rest of us - had a major interest in stopping the crazed Iranians from taking over the middle east.

Fair enough, but why does your nose get so out of joint when so many people over there feel their major interest is to stop the (fill-in-blank) ______ Americans from taking over the middle east? You must think America is the only country in thw world with an interest that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but why does your nose get so out of joint when so many people over there feel their major interest is to stop the (fill-in-blank) ______ Americans from taking over the middle east? You must think America is the only country in thw world with an interest that matters.

The US does not want to take over the middle east. All the US wants in that area is stability so its oil supplies will not be endangered. A real empire would have taken over the lightly populated oil producing nations long ago so it could have its oil for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US has always put its nose in every countries business since WW2. The CIA can be found sooner or later mixed up with interferring with other countries business and at times starting wars for US. Iraq is so broken, its going to take at least trillions of dolllars to put it back and whi will benefit from the world and the reconstruction... the US and the Bush and Cheney families.

Agreed Topaz about the US, but so has Russia, China, France, etc. Your point? If it was just the US I might have a different response. To me there are so many nations interfering with others for their own political needs I must ask, why is it when the US does it, its different and requires a different standard?

Its just a question out there Topaz and not necessarily directed at you. I may be on the other side of the debate with you but I concede your comments above. They are fact, up to a point. Its not every country-just those the US felt strategically necessary to involve itself with the same reason China, Russia and everyone else does-to advance self-interests.

Is it wrong? Imagine a world with no country interfering with another. Is that possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US does not want to take over the middle east. All the US wants in that area is stability so its oil supplies will not be endangered. A real empire would have taken over the lightly populated oil producing nations long ago so it could have its oil for free.

That is precisely the point. If the US was such a Borg empire, it wouldn't be paying out the wazoo for its oil. If the US is evil then so are the rest of us for the exact same reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but why does your nose get so out of joint when so many people over there feel their major interest is to stop the (fill-in-blank) ______ Americans from taking over the middle east? You must think America is the only country in thw world with an interest that matters.

Actually it may not be the case. See on one level that is what you hear and what many would like you to believe. But there is another level of political reality. It is the one where young Muslims are influenced by Coke and Nike, and Rap Music and American concepts of democracy and its not going away and it perculates in their universities and in the underground.

For example there are many Iranians who do not hate America or its culture. They can't exactly say that out loud at the moment for obvious reasons.

This concept where all Muslims uniformly hate Americans is too simplistlc. The world is not that easy to divide into black and whites.

Do not underestimate the power of satellite radio, television, the web, and people travelling and sending money back home. Its not all American evil being sent back through these avenues. A lot of it is positive.

Coke is not just about dental decay. It symbolizes something else that is infiltrating Eastern culture and causing turmoil and the older generation trying to resist Western culture but how long do you think that can go on. The reason why it now has to be maintained by terror and secret police in these countries is precisely because its not popular. If Muslim countries did not have oppressive police forces and armies and brutal regimes, you think half of what you see would be going on?

I say this from speaking with Muslims who came to Canada to get away from such shit. They are not all screaming anti-Americans nor do they hate me because I am Jewish. They are just shmucks like me trying to make a living in peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US does not want to take over the middle east. All the US wants in that area is stability so its oil supplies will not be endangered. A real empire would have taken over the lightly populated oil producing nations long ago so it could have its oil for free.

Stability, that's what America wants? :lol:

This might be a usefull read Jihad vs McWorld for anyone willing to accept a more nuanced meaning of the word "empire" or the phrase "take-over".

The tendencies of what I am here calling the forces of Jihad and the forces of McWorld operate with equal strength in opposite directions, the one driven by parochial hatreds, the other by universalizing markets, the one re-creating ancient subnational and ethnic borders from within, the other making national borders porous from without. They have one thing in common: neither offers much hope to citizens looking for practical ways to govern themselves democratically. If the global future is to pit Jihad's centrifugal whirlwind against McWorld's centripetal black hole, the outcome is unlikely to be democratic—or so I will argue.

An empire as we traditionally understand it might behave the way Argus describes but this is the 21st century and empire building is more an economic venture than a military one now. Its not about free oil its about profiting from selling oil for $100 a barrel. Empire building is about...placing profits before virtue...before everything in fact.

I agree the concept that Muslims uniformly hate American's is too simplistlc. Unfortunately though America is the face of McWorld and not just in the ME.

Democracy has nothing to do with Coke, Nike or the marketing of rap music. These are all about capitalism which as China is proving, doesn't reqiuire democracy. If anything China may actually be demonstrating that democracy could be an impediment to capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything China may actually be demonstrating that democracy could be an impediment to capitalism.

Please don't go holding China up as a shining beacon of the way forward, they are anything but that. Sure its working for them right now, but at what cost. People tend to forget the totalitarian nature of China. People forget the Human Rights abuses, the lack of concern for worker safety and their abysmal record for such. If China is a model of Capitalism then I'll gladly skip it. For me the prospect of coming home from work alive every day far outweighs any perceived or imagined benefits to the kind of society China has.

Anyone up for running over a few students with a tank? How bout a few back room executions with a bullet through the head? Maybe we could have more fun chaining baby girls into little high chairs and letting them starve to death.

Yup, China, just non stop fun for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice properly formatted links.

Why thank you Dancer, I'm happy to oblige :)

Perhaps you should read them! ;) Both of these nice, properly formatted links contain the blueprints to what is happening now!! All the policy you would ever want to carry out the carnage, otherwise known as 'bringing democracy' to the ME.

Enjoy!

;)

Edited by buffycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why thank you Dancer, I'm happy to oblige :)

Perhaps you should read them! ;) Both of these nice, properly formatted links contain the blueprints to what is happening now!! All the policy you would ever want to carry out the carnage, otherwise known as 'bringing democracy' to the ME.

Enjoy!

;)

Perhaps you could paste a descriptive paragraph from them and add a comment about why you find them insightful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US does not want to take over the middle east. All the US wants in that area is stability so its oil supplies will not be endangered. A real empire would have taken over the lightly populated oil producing nations long ago so it could have its oil for free.

stability is what America wants???

that is hilarious, just hilarious!!!

I do have to come here for my daily chuckle.

If that was even remotely true, which it isn't why did the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that were defintely far more stable prior to invasion, then now???

I'll ask that again why did the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that were defintely far more stable prior to invasion, then now???

what the US infact thrives on is the instability, it creates and uses to it's advantage.

btw: the us doesn't want oil for free, get that idea out of your head.

It's some kind of delusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll ask that again why did the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that were defintely far more stable prior to invasion, then now???

Iraq, yes, Afghanistan though was not stable prior the the invasion. They were in the middle of a civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq, yes, Afghanistan though was not stable prior the the invasion. They were in the middle of a civil war.

Destroy a country and get of scott free? Excellent idea...first you have to go back about 60 years and sell booze or opium or weapons...then send your grandchildren to law school and get them a degree in economy - secondly you train the sons and decendants to hold humanity in utter contempt - THEN - you take over every buisness that you can...T H E N - You cut a deal with your counterparts in England - who cut a deal in China and India - in order to get the cheapest slave labour you can ---- THEN - you close every north american manufacturing facility you own....THEN...the nation (family) is totally destroyed..and YOU are totally successful and have total power for powers sake and you deal with the population with a sense of sadism...seeing that is that your last pleasure and you are at this point totally nuts and without spirit or purpose - THAT'S HOW YOU DESTROY A NATION!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually mdancer, Afghanistan was far more stable , prior to the US invasion, then it is now.

Wether one likes the Taliban or not, they had done more to stabilize the country, reduce the drug trade, etc., certainly far more was accomplished prior to , then has been, since then by the US.

Afghan violence has grown steadily over the last two years to the highest level since U.S.-led forces ousted Taliban rule after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001, despite the presence of 43,000 NATO-led troops.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...lBrandChannel=0

therefore Afghanistan and Iraq were both more stable nations prior to the attacks by the US, which has made both countries incredibly unstable!!! Just the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W(h)ether one likes the Taliban or not, they had done more to stabilize the country, reduce the drug trade, etc., certainly far more was accomplished prior to , then has been, since then by the US.

Do you like the Taliban?

The opium trade has enjoyed a resurgence under both corrupt warlords AND the Taliban who have since lifted their 'ban on opium growing' (read: driving up the price to provide higher profits and taxes). NATO found much to its chagrin that if they take on the drug trade directly it merely increases insurgency. Nothing makes a farmer grab a gun quicker than plowing his crops under. The true crime is that opium goes for $6000 an acre while grain earns the average farmer something like $25 per acre. A few NATO troops aren't going to make a difference in that sort of market...no more than a few RCMP can drive out the meth and crack cocaine business here in Canada.

And seriously....do you like the Taliban?

--------------------------------------------

...pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computer, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards.

---Partial list of items banned by the Taliban

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll ask that again why did the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that were defintely far more stable prior to invasion, then now???

1. Because they were so "stable" .....American interests were threatened.

2. Because surrender provisions were violated.

3. Because UN and NATO Charters were invoked (A-stan)

4. Because it was consistent with past US foreign policy for the region.

5. Because it could.

Any questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...