VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:23:22 09/18/02 Wed
Author: *
Subject: Re: Iraq?
In reply to: T 's message, "Re: Iraq?" on 14:07:34 09/18/02 Wed

"some support"?

not in my words then, i'll cut and paste from a site http://www.wagingpeace.org/pdfs/AfghanistanFactSheet2.pdf

you'll see its far more than some support.

"Between 1980-85 the CIA funds the recruitment and traing of thousands of volunteers from three dozen muslim countries to fight in Afghanistan. Among these "Afghan Arabs" is Osama bin Laden...."
"President Raegan says that "the Resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence."

hello? the mujahidden who will form the taliban? freedom and independence?

"Through the 1980's the US channels $2-3billion in weapons and supplies through the CIA and ISI AS PART OF THE LARGEST US COVERT ACTION PROGRAM SINCE WORLD WAR II".

"By 1987, the US is sending more than 65,000 tons of arms ANNUALLY to the Mujahideen"


"Mujahideen use of stinger anti-aircraft missiles helps turn the tide of war..."

some? some? hah! i think not. and these are the official figures, what about the countless secret operations and shipments that went on. I think its fair to say that without US backing them wholeheartedly and without limit, the Taliban would still have been fighting for power in the foothills, and Bin Laden would be a rich nobody happily inheriting his family fortune without any special military training and cunning. So since it was ENORMOUS US aid which led the Taliban to power, the US did in effect install them.

"not basically true" indeed.

and forgive me "anonymous" for being cynical but i can't help that especially with the ultimatum Bush gave Saddam about letting UN inspectors in or prepare to be bombed and when at Saddam does agree to this, they say its not good enough and forge ahead with plans for war anyway. the bottom line is the US will not be content until either Saddam steps down and accepts western intervention in his country in forming a new REGIME or they bomb the hell out of iraq and force saddam off. i use capital case for the word regime because the US, promising democracy tot he country have until publicly used the word regime when asking "what sort of regime will replace Saddam".

A regime is the opposite of democracry. i dont think i need to point out to you where the flaw is.

Maybe Saddam got it right for once when he explained his refusal to comply with the US by publicly asking why should he do what the US says when the US is intent on removing him whatever he does. Bush's refusal to back off in the light of recent events reinforce this to a certain extent.

the removal of saddam i feel is not a bad thing at all, but its the means of achieving it which worries me. Despite what i have said in attack of the war, if it can be proved that saddam is a threat to the world and has means of mass destruction, he has to be dealt with. WHEN IT IS PROVED. but not till then, and not till the public is allowed to see the proof.

I also agree that the US monopoly of nuclear weapons etc is not a bad thing, but they dont have a monopoly. because they sold the technology to other countries. And the US does not have right now to dictate who should be allowed to keep their weapons (India and Pakistan) and who shouldn't (iraq). Double standards.

if i'm still a retard thats fine. i'm not a foul mouthed childish, bigoted and intolerant fool who rubbishes anything he doesnt agree with, not with intellectual points but with crude terms.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.