I don't know about against the US, but Sadaam was giving money to the families of Palastinian suicide bombers.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Who was the President of Iraq from 1979-2003?



Because national interests and altruism are not necessarily incompatible. The benefits to both Iraq and Afghanistan of having a stable democratic government and civil society are obvious, and it's equally important to the US to have a model of Arab democracy in the first case, and a stable state that does not offer support to al Qaeda in the second. I will never understand why people object to fundamentally good things because they represent a change in policy, or because their original intent was something other than pure humanitarianism.

edit:



That's not entirely true. When Saddam first came to power alongside Bakr, and later when he became President, he launched literacy and modernization programs. He even won an award from the UN. By the time the Iran-Iraq war ended - the one he started - these programs were largely a joke as a result of underfunding and neglect, and partially because Saddam's regime slowly abandoned the Baathist ideology that inspired them. The Gulf War came about partially as a result of Iraq's poor economic situation - his Arab neighbors in the Gulf refused to loan him more money, so he decided to annex Kuwait.

[This message has been edited by Sine Nomen (edited January 15, 2004).]

How would you explain world politics to a kid who has lost its arms/legs/eyesight/friends/parents to war?

------------------
I hate kids.

Explaining it to people on the forums is hard enough - I probably couldn't. Your point?

The US was giving money to criminals and thugs like the northern alliance (or freedom fighters depending on which side of the bullet you're on (like the KLA in Yugoslavia)).

You can't explain it to a child who has lost parents and limbs. I guess the only thing you can do is give him/her some of the cash that this is all about. :/


------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

A lot of people in this thread are grabbing sources that support their point and then either ignore sources that rebut them or make ****ty excuses to make their's seem "superior."

Welcome to any and all Massassi debates, Morf

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

That doesn't hold water. Until he was assassinated three days before 9-11, Ahmed Shah Masood, a dedicated liberal and reformist, was the leader of the Northern Alliance. While there were incidents of Northern Alliance soldiers exacting revenge on Taliban in Kabul, they were isolated, and one of the reasons they were so successful in driving the Taliban from power is that they believed in Masood's cause. A few cases where soldiers got out of hand does not make the Northern Alliance the moral equivalent of the Taliban.

As for the KLA, I can't really disagree but to say this: it's fairly well known that they provoked the Serbs into retaliating, so that NATO would intervene on their behalf. It was a clever manipulation that perhaps we should have seen through, but that's hardly evidence of an endorsement of criminal activity.

Sine:
1. What does it matter? The US is responsible for its own actions. If sanctions had been lifted, then hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children wouldn't have died. If you're trying to shoot someone hiding in a crowd and kill dozens of people, you're no less guilty of their deaths because your target wouldn't stand in front of a concrete wall like you wanted.

2. But Afghanistan doesn't have a stable democratic government and its situation is decaying, though the US interests in the region have been fulfilled. National interests and altruism will occasionally coincide for short periods of time, sure: just long enough for the people in charge to realize that "ease and efficency" invariably splits from "moral". The war in Afghanistan hasn't been a good thing yet and never will be, barring actual altruistic assistance from the US.

3. I'd be interested in sources.

4. A search for "northern alliance abuse" turns up dozens of examples of just that: mostly racially motivated robberies, beatings, and rapes. The Human Rights Watch calls the Northern Alliance's record of arbitrary arrests, torture, and executions during its 1992-96 reign "deplorable", and further condemns its similarly depraved actions during the post-1996 civil war. I'm sorry, but the NA is the moral equivalent of the Taliban.

Morfildor: Examples, if you would. Or an actual valid response, but I won't hold my breath.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited January 15, 2004).]

Itcus, your argument is like the chicken and the egg.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108390,00.html

Not trying to dredge anything up but if you're interested you should know.

------------------
former TACC outcast

That was posted on page 2

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

The zombie thread says: "Raargh! Brains!".

There are even conclusive results: a false alarm, just like the past dozen chemical weapons we've found.

Oh, sorry. I had stop paying much attention to the thread and it seemed to me that it had died before that was released. Oh well, for anyone else's benefit I guess.

------------------
former TACC outcast

Well, originally we were aiding them to fight off the Soviets. It was a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. But that doesn't explain anything given to them sicne the fall of the USSR. *shurg*


------------------
Clarinetists, unite!

-writer of Bloodwing: Fallen Soldier
(no site up yet...)

o/~
Her name was Leia
she was a princess
with a Danish on each ear
laa la lalalaa
o/~

What?

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

No, the quote you pulled from the DoS site says that's what happened. Again, there's no proof that the Iraqis were the ones who gassed Halabja, instead of the Iranians.


-Fox

Pass the weed man... I want to hit that.



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

Oh, it's valid alright. And no examples are needed if you have read this thread. I will not give names to start fights, Ictus.



Again, that is an assumption made by you and others. We have no proof available to us to make an arguement either way.

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited January 20, 2004).]

Morf: I'll just take that as a "no", mmmkay?

Ok, I'm sorry I ever brought this up so I'll close it out. You can treat it how you want, I really don't care what you think. But perhaps you understand this: I'm not one to try and make an individual look bad in front of a large group of people or to try and make them upset in any way. Such case as this is better left without names being said. Now, if you don't agree with or even respect such a decision, then that is your decision. I can only say don't expect too much respect from some people (you still have mine, btw -- very few have lost respect from me but of course, that matters not). You can criticize what I've said all you want, but you're time is just going to waste. As I said before, I don't care so you can assume your posts will not be read if they have nothing to do with the original topic. That being said, let's get back on topic.

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited January 20, 2004).]

Okay, I've read what you've said and understood it. I might be missing something obvious, but I don't see a. intentional baiting or b. public ridicule on my part or anyone else's, at least not to a serious degree. If I have a problem, you can't expect me to fix it based on passive-aggressive snipes. Just say "when x says y, I get ticked off".

[edited for less hostility and more happy]

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited January 20, 2004).]

o/~
Hit me with your rhythm stick
Hit me! Hit me!
It's nice to be a lunatic
Hit me! hit me!
o/~

Concession accepted.


-Fox

Why do you do that? It's crass as hell.

No concession at all, fox. The one thing that has been proven is that you are incapable of accepting that you have lost your argument. So, either continue with the debate with at least one ounce of education or go try to start your flame wars elsewhere. Consider any of your posts that hold no relevance to the topic ignored from this point on.

Lost what argument? I said that there was no proof the Iraqis were responsible for the Halabja massacre, then you said:



Which supports my position.


-Fox

*sigh*

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

At least you're back on topic but no, it does not support your position. You're argument was that there is no proof whatsoever. My argument is that you do not know that the proof does not exist. Therefore, my statement that we do not have proof available to us (us = the public) does not support your position but instead, shoots it out of the sky. So once again, your argument is dead. Accept it and move on.

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited January 22, 2004).]

The whole 'there COULD be evidence but we don't know it' argument is awful.

Hardly. The chances of classified evidence is highly possible and claims have been made. I'm not trying to make an argument that there IS evidence. I'm making the argument that NO ONE can conclude that there isn't and then rightfully label the administration as liars.

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited January 22, 2004).]

That, and the term "liar," means they had to know that it wasn't true, which has no supporting evidence either.

I think the term "liar" is used far too often. People seem to have become unaware of the fact that it is a serious attack on a person's character, and not something to be said lightly.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

No, you're still wrong. Again, I already cited a source that says there is no evidence it was Iraq that gassed Halabja instead of Iran. You claim that there *might* be evidence that proves it was Iraq, but we can't see it? Sorry, that doesn't help your case. At all.


-Fox

I have to disagree, fox. My claim is more than enough. The only reason you think otherwise is that you have the intent of being all against this administration. Don't enter a debate if you are unwilling to consider other facts. If you still refuse otherwise, well, you keep thinking what you do. I certainly can't change your mind.

A claim which reinforces my position more than weakens it.



What other facts? You've conceded that we do not know what happened. I've already said that.


-Fox

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited January 23, 2004).]

Don't start with any of that gibberish, fox. It does no good to try and change what you are arguing far into the debate. I agree that we don't know but:



You stated that that there is no proof, period. The fact is, you can not prove that it does not exist. My claim is aimed to attack that position. In no way does it reinforce it.



[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited January 23, 2004).]

Morf: In absence of any evidence, the negative claim is always assumed to be true.