If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The Muslims might have a point, y'know...
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I cant help but feel taht the Muslim countries have a point when they think that the USA is out to get them. Things always seem to be insitgated by the USA, and it always seems to be attacks against Arab nations. Be it Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan. And not forgetting the problems in Palestine, all caused because the US Government is so dependent on Jewish votes that itll let Israel get away with mass murder- literally.
Saddam Hussein hasnt actually done very much wrong- sure, he ignored a UN resolution, but theyre not worth the paper theyre written on. I mean, hell, even the USA conveniently forgets the treaties its signed when theyre no longer convenient- Kyoto, anyone? Sure, hes a dictator, but countries such as Saudi Arabia are feudal, and no-one seems to complain there. Its my impression that Saddam Hussein is just a convenient scapegoat, as Colonel Gaddafi and Slobodan Milosevic were before him. It was like this under Clinton- bomb Iraq or Serbia to divert attention from which intern hed laid that week, and its the same under Bush. Its bombing for the sake of political mileage, and its not the people who Bush is aiming to destroy who are getting the brunt of it. Its the subjugated masses hes supposed to be helping. Its no fucking wonder the Arabs are pissed off.
And as for the troubles in Israel...with the Israelis as friends, you ahve the rest of the world as enemies. Isreal are terrorists as much as Al-Qaeda are, its just legitimate in the eys of the US because the US is so dependent on Jewish votes in domestic elections. Its ridiculous what the Israelis are allowed to get away with- its not self-defence, its murder. And then they wonder why the Palestinians get so worked up about it.
However, I thinmk the Muslims shouldnt be so paranoid. Its not a special treatment that the USA are dishing out to them, the USA do it to everyone. The EU banned imports of bananas from plantations owned by US companies because they are proven to be pumped full of cancer-causing chemicals, so the US Government bans imports of Cashmere from Scotland, killing the industry. And we still support them- George Michaels video is so true, the UK is nothing more than a puppy-dog of the US. Its time to face facts that the US foreiogn policy cares for noone but maintaining itself, fuck the environment and fuck the people killed because of its stubborness and rashness and cynicism.
Its embarassing to have to agree with Steelgates standpoint, although at least I understand whats going on and dont just read it out of "Socialism for Dimwits".
Saddam Hussein hasnt actually done very much wrong- sure, he ignored a UN resolution, but theyre not worth the paper theyre written on. I mean, hell, even the USA conveniently forgets the treaties its signed when theyre no longer convenient- Kyoto, anyone? Sure, hes a dictator, but countries such as Saudi Arabia are feudal, and no-one seems to complain there. Its my impression that Saddam Hussein is just a convenient scapegoat, as Colonel Gaddafi and Slobodan Milosevic were before him. It was like this under Clinton- bomb Iraq or Serbia to divert attention from which intern hed laid that week, and its the same under Bush. Its bombing for the sake of political mileage, and its not the people who Bush is aiming to destroy who are getting the brunt of it. Its the subjugated masses hes supposed to be helping. Its no fucking wonder the Arabs are pissed off.
And as for the troubles in Israel...with the Israelis as friends, you ahve the rest of the world as enemies. Isreal are terrorists as much as Al-Qaeda are, its just legitimate in the eys of the US because the US is so dependent on Jewish votes in domestic elections. Its ridiculous what the Israelis are allowed to get away with- its not self-defence, its murder. And then they wonder why the Palestinians get so worked up about it.
However, I thinmk the Muslims shouldnt be so paranoid. Its not a special treatment that the USA are dishing out to them, the USA do it to everyone. The EU banned imports of bananas from plantations owned by US companies because they are proven to be pumped full of cancer-causing chemicals, so the US Government bans imports of Cashmere from Scotland, killing the industry. And we still support them- George Michaels video is so true, the UK is nothing more than a puppy-dog of the US. Its time to face facts that the US foreiogn policy cares for noone but maintaining itself, fuck the environment and fuck the people killed because of its stubborness and rashness and cynicism.
Its embarassing to have to agree with Steelgates standpoint, although at least I understand whats going on and dont just read it out of "Socialism for Dimwits".
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Sorry to tell you, but I am not sure that I will give your sources more credit than Steelgates...
Yeah, but theyre still as trustworthy as George Dubya Bush *shrug*
Your post is nothing like those of Steelgate; you've set out a rational and considered argument based on the situation as you see it.
No doubt the Americans will be here later to declare you no better than Steelgate and call you an idiot for expressing free thought. I see Jacq's already started.
Well, I just want you to know that I agree with what you posted, and you have my support.
I agree with you that the US has been quite stupid with its foreign policy in the last few, erm...forever.
However indirectly i see it as necessary that we intervene in the Middle East, although there is the niggly thought that if we'd left them alone in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.
The only country to have used nuclear (Japan) as well as chemical (Vietnam) weapons on civilians and currently owning the biggest stockpile of WMD on earth somehow believes it has the right to attack, invade, impose sanctions or isolate other countries that are trying to acquire them (India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq). Whilst at the same time providing the technology to Israel, which have had the Bomb for decades and is a bit too trigger happy for comfort.
The country that now screams "Saddam gassed his own people!" conveniently forgets that much of that gassing happened in 1988, when the dictator was a great buddy of the West and such matters were conveniently overlooked.
The country that campaigns to set free and democratise countries around the world helped Augusto Pinochet remove the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile, and saw the General installing himself in power and presiding over one of the most murderous and cruel regimes ever seen.
It’s no surprise so many countries take the U.S. foreign policy with a pinch of salt.
[Edited for grammar.]
*cant think who*
Actually, many countries have used chemical weapons, and used them on civvies, too. Iraq, for one.
Which was sort of relevant.
Edited to add:
Did anyone see that thing on Channel 4 tonight? 'The War on Terrorism on Trial.' 74% of the studio audience voted against bombing Iraq. Not sure how "representative" a sample it was though - could have been highly biased.
As a matter of fact, in one of Sky News daily polls last week viewers were asked who was a bigger danger to world peace: Saddam Hussein or G.W. Bush. Guess who won...
Sky is not exactly a left-wing channel, which makes the result even more interesting
In a nation with laws against personal self-defense measures?
Would not surprise me to think that 74% would be against an attack if Iraqi tanks were approaching London... or nuclear weapons were aboard trains headed for the UK.
Exactly WHAT do you think Hussein has been doing with those billions of dollars from smuggled crude oil sales? Instituting a socialist state with all the basic needs of the Iraqi public paid for out of Hussein's pocket?
You will not be convinced that Hussein has the capability until he has already used it upon you, and then you will plead for adopting a French affectation and negotiate an unconditional surrender...
Given the fact that whilst he may be despotic, Saddam is also a staunch self-preservationist, it is far more unlikely that he would attack any foreign power with such WMD's, knowing full well that such use would galvanise the entire western world against him and sign his own death warrant.
Since you cannot show any evidence of Saddam's use of such weapons since the gulf war only further discredits your claims that he is massing for any pre-emptive attack. He WOULD however, no doubt use whatever he allegedly still possesses should the US come roaring toward Baghdad.
It is the sign of a fool to assume that the enemy would constrain himself to rational thoughts/measures.
Like Hitler, Hussein does not prove himself to be completely rational.
However - by your words - you prove yourself to be the fool...
And by what path did you come to that conclusion? That isn't what his psychological profile says, or what his previous actions indicate.
We have only your word that it even exists and that it is in any way credible.
Actually, there are a number of public sources with similar evaluations. The one I posted the bit of happens to be rather complete. As far as I know, it is not available on the 'net.
So, let's look at his actions instead.
Invades Kuwait. Told to get out by other Arabs. Says no. UN says get out. Says no. Coalition forces mobilize to Saudi Arabia (took 6 months remember?) as well as beginning air bombardment. He continues to say no (remember the "Mother of all Battles" comment?). Coalition forces attack and destroy his Army and Air Force virtually at will. His Generals surrender.
Those are the actions of a self-preservationist? More like the actions of an egotistical maniac. Oh yeah, like the profile described...
I think this discussion may have gone off the point a little, so I'm gonna try and drag it back...
Lets look at those countries shall we?
I'm not sure that is the whole reason, but I do agree that US policy towards Israel isn't condusive towards peace in the region.
If you mean that developing WMD isn't something wrong, then fair enough.
Each of them generally nice guys, right?
How? Explain the similarities...
Call me harsh, but isn't that precisely what the US Govt is supposed to do? Look after the interests of its voters?
Don't you think that many Arabs would like Govts who look after their interestes first. I'm pretty sure that the people of Iraq would like Saddam to look after them even once.
Ooops forgot, that would mean a democratic Govt, and there aren't many of those in the Middle East, are there?
Is there proof of Hussein developing WMD? I havent heard of it, other than George Dubyas word for it.
Not nice, never the question. If were gonna go round imposing the flawed democratic system, lets do it fairly eh? Lets start with, say, China, and move on though Singapore, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia et al. And granted it was in the past, but where were the US when General Franco was beating the shit out of the Spaniards?
Bombing innocent children and women for purelpy political gains seems to be the major similarity there, MoK, between Israel and Al-Qaeda.
US Govt policy is supposed to be self-satisfying, yes, and if George Dubya was honest and said he wanted to bomb Iraq because he doesnt like them Id have more respect for him. All his babble about Hussein is nonsense- other than attacking weaker nations, Hussein would do nothing. Like Hitler in that respect, the key difference being that, despite what the papers want to believe, theres only really Kuwait that is weaker in the Middle East. If he tried attacking Saudia Arabia or Iran hed have his arse kicked all the way back home.
And as for where Iraqs moneys gone...never heard of a Swiss bank account? Why waste money on WMD hes never gonna be able to use, when he can spend it on cementing his own position in Iraq and spending it on goodies. Hes a megalomaniac, sure, but like all good megalomaniacs hell only attack when hes got a chance of winning. Theres yet to be a dictator in history who attacks places he has no chance of beating, and I somehow doubt that hell crack the entire might ogf the US with a jet and two missiles (proverbially).
This 'attack' reeks of political capitol, and nothing else. A lot like the Falklands war really, in that innocent lives will be destroyed just so the republicans can win an election.
Really? Ever hear of Tojo?
Just a couple of comments on your points - personally I think there should be a comment about attacking Afghanistan. Afghamistan did not attack the US, but they were chosen as the enemy because someone needed bombing. Now I know the argument is that they were harbouring Bin Laden, but I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you make out.
America has more of the weapons in question than anyone in the world. This is okay? (Slightly different issue obviously!) More to the point, Saddam has banned the weapons inspectors etc for many years. Why act now? It seems a politically motivated decision to me, plus the fact that Sept 11th last year appears to have given the US a freer reign to act in this way. I'm not saying Saddam shouldn't be taken on, just that the reasoning behind doing it at this time is slightly concerning. There seems more to it than him breaking the UN resolutions. As far as I can see the same situation was in place 2 or 3 years ago, with the same reasons existing, so why didn't it happen then?
An issue with Gadaffi is that no, he's not a nice guy. So how exactly has he come to the position he has in the UN. He's head of some peace thingy (can't remember exactly what). It all stinks basically.
Also (its been said before), the US complains about Iraq not complying to UN policy. The US is does not follow US policy.
They seem to think that its OK for them to, but no-one else is allowed them, and they get this view from the deep seated belief that they are the "good guys".
What they don't realise is terms like "good guys" are completly meaningless in a multi-cultural world society. In fact the nearest thing i can think of to being one of the "Good guys" is not interfering with anything outside your own country, which is a very long way from the US foreign policy.
If the world wanted the USA to be its policeman it would have asked.
Huh?
You didn't notice?
And, as far as i know, the world has not asked the USA to gaurd the world from anything the USA considers to be a threat.
Tell me when this occured and i'll appologise.
This does not mean "country X asked for help in situation Y" because a lot of countrys ask for a lot of things in various circumstances, and the conditions of this help are normally worked out AT THE TIME.
1950...