|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 16:43:55 GMT -5
You bring up America's involvement with the Mujahadeen and with Saddam. In both cases you are correct. But there is a larger picture. The US was at war with the Soviet Union since the 1950s. The war was fought everywhere on the globe, and the shooting occurred by proxy. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, Honduras, Nicuragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan War with the Soviets, Iran - Iraq War... all of these were wars between the US and the USSR. Make no mistake. so in this way you can say that it is very normal that Iran supports "freedom fighters" against US and Israel,same as US supported "freedom figthers" against Soviets. and now it can be normal if Russia looks for revenge and support "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. Most of the terror groups in the Middle East (Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida) and other groups such as the Kmer Rouge, Bader Meinhoff, and other fringe groups were developed by the USSR to attack US interests. Yes, there are other factors at stake but the USSR was smart enough to recognize tha the enemy of your enemy can be your friend. So the USSR funded these groups, trained them, equipped them, and used them. Hizboullah and Hamas are the represantatives of a large part of their nation.you call them "terror" groups while their public calls them their heroes.btw Hamas was founded by Israel against Arafat terrorist countries such as Israel is committing international war crimes against the civillians and unfortunately terrorist state Israel is equipped by USA. The US did the same thing with the San d'Anistas, the Mujahadeen, and other rebel groups. We found people who had a common interest in hating the USSR and we used them. Muslims majority considered Mujahadeen as FREEDOM FIGHTERS same as US did back then against Soviets,and Muslim majority still considers Mujahadeen as FREEDOM FIGHTERS.in this subject only change is with US. Very dirty stuff. But that is war. It is called the Cold War, but it was a real war and anyone who thinks it did not involve killing millions of people is very naive. The US and the USSR fought a global war against each other for 50 years. It continues today at a very low level. Russia still funds Iran and Hezbollah. Shepherds in Iraq didn't figure out how to blow up IEDs with cell phones by themselves. When you see rebels in Africa using Russian AK47s that is no accident. Those guns didn't come from Walmart. true as we often are surprised to see western weapons with PKK terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 16:48:07 GMT -5
kinda reminds me of Gods prophecy of Ishmael saying he would be a wild man and his hand would be against every man and every mans hand would be against him-----------to me it seems this has held true all the way down through history which prophecy? this prophecy?; Jeremiah 8:8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 16:58:08 GMT -5
good statement it seems that Russia couldnt destroy this country but its being destroyed from within it is not being destroyed from within.Russians could not destroy Afghanistan and that is why Communism ended and Soviets collapsed.it just proved that a super power could not defeat against people who fought for their independance. also remember,even Rambo helped them by killing hundreds of Russians by himself ;D do you think now Afghans are losing the war? is that how you are told by zionist media? i would try to find objective sources as you may be disappointed.and think that those people whom US used to call "freedom fighters" have been fighting for near 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Aug 25, 2010 17:00:30 GMT -5
No disagreements here with your earlier post, Engin.
But you miss the point of my entire post.
What all of these have in common is the Cold War. All of these dirty deals and conflicts are not isolated incidents. They are chapters in the history of the war between the US and the USSR. Decisions have consequences. Did the US create our own enemies? Yes, that's also a fair statement. But at the time it was more important to confront the immediate threat from the Soviet Union.
The US and Soviet Union came very close to annihilating the world. That is real. On several occasions both sides were ready to launch nuclear warheads at each other. Compare that threat to a low-grade war. By the way, Communism did NOT fall because the Soviets could not control Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a drain on their financial resources, which is how the USSR was defeated. They died economically. The US is facing this cold reality ourselves right now.
Decisions that affect the entire world have to be made sometimes. The decisions are not always good decisions when you look back in hindsight. But at the time the fate of millions is at stake and doing nothing is not an option.
If you carry that resonsibility on your shoulders, then supplying some goat herders with rockets seems like a good idea if it means drawing your enemies attention and resources away from something more important at the time. When they shoot you with your own rockets 15 or 20 years later it sucks, but that is the way it works. You can only confront the threat you have in front of you. Sometimes you do bad things that haunt you later.
Is it right? I guess that depends on the outcome. If a nuclear war had happened and billions of people were vaporized and the rest left to die of atomic radiation poisoning, then a half million people killed by bullets over a fifty year span is a good alternative.
Ugly. But true.
|
|
|
Post by John Byerley on Aug 25, 2010 17:04:07 GMT -5
One comparison between how GW and Obama operate would be this:
Who allowed or allows their own personal religion to affect them moreso while president.
AS FAR AS I KNOW - GW didn't claim to be a part of any church CONGREGATION. Yes he was an outspoken "Christian" but that doesn't mean anything at face value. I believe he was at one point a part of the United Methodist church, but the UMC refuted his membership as they did not agree with any of GW's stances on social issues - executions, homosexual issues, etc.
He did nominate very conservative judges to the supreme court as expected. Obama nominated very liberal judges to the court, as expected.
Obama does things on a daily basis that coincide DIRECTLY with his personal beliefs - and does so through words, policies, and decisions. So many people talk about separation of Church n State, where is the uproar here?
His "personal" Christianity - is tied to the successes or failures of African-Americans in this country. He's quoted on many audio and videos as saying that his, "Personal salvation rests with collective salvation of [his people]."
He believes strongly in distribution of wealth WHICH IS ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS of Liberation theology...his policy stances on this foundation are in everything he has done so far.
Any answers?
|
|
|
Post by John Byerley on Aug 25, 2010 17:07:48 GMT -5
The problem is that Liberation theology is closely tied with Marxism and Socialism.
So liberals - who are moreso at times either socialist thinking, leaning, or sympathetic to the socialist ideology - don't have a problem with Obama pushing it down the legislative throats of America because its a part of their own way of thinking, regardless of their own religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
Its twisted the way its all tied together. And only people who are able to step outside of themselves and see the big picture will be able to see it.
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 17:24:32 GMT -5
The big difference is that US Law is secular. Unlike Jewish or Muslim nations where the law is derived fundamentally from scripture, US Law does not. Therefore, voters in the US tend to be issue-voters. Even within religious groups the vote is fractured. Turkey is a Muslim country but not under the Islamic rules. John Byerly made the best point so far: The US is a nation of 350 million people divided up into 50 states. You cannot compare us to any country. It is more accurate to compare the US to Europe where there are multitudes of ethnicities, political interests, and regional differences. i wrote 80% Turks but in fact this is the percentage of the people who consider themselves as a Turk,same as Americans saying "i am an American". here are the list of the ethnic groups in Turkey (these people have been living together for centuries and none of them are considered as immigrants); Turkish Tribes : Avsar, Yoruk, Manav, Turkmen, Tahtacý, Kýpcak, Tatar, Nogay, Cerit, Kýrgýz, Karapapak, Terekeme, , Azeri, Uzbek, Harzem, Cepni, Oguz, Kýrýmçak, Karacay, Balkar,Yiva,Begitli,Bugduz,Bayat,Yazýr,Eymur,Karaboluk,Alkaevli,Igdir,Ureir,Tukirka,Ulayundlug,Tuger,Cavuldur,Carukluð,Cuvas, Kumuk, Karakalpak, Uygur, Ahiska ( Ferit's tribe),Gagavuz, Salurlu, Yerli, Pallýk,Aydýnlý,Abdal,Ucok, Sýrac, Nalci, Caylak, Teber, Beydili, Barak, Karabagli, Saman, Samli, Torbes, Dodurga, Bayindir, Kinik, Ortakci, Amuca, Bedrettinli, Karamanli, Kirim Tatarý, Kazan Tatari, Baþkirt, Yakut, Hazar, Karakecili, Sarýkecili,Torlak,Kýzýlbas,Pecenek,Cýtak, Eybek,Sancakli, Dobrucali,Kýbrýsli. Bosnian Tribes: Bosnali, Sancakli, Muslim Serbs Gacal Patriyot Makedonyalý Muslim Greeks. Macir Albanian: Siptar, Toska and Gega. Makedonian Zaza: Zaza, Dimili, Georgian: Acar, Kartveli, Kart, Melasvili, Gurian, Ýngilo Cerkez: Abhaz (tribes: Asiwua, Askariwua, Apsuwa) , Adige (tribes: K'emguy,Yegerukay, Abadzeh, Sapsýg,Hak'uc, Hatukay, Natuhay, Kabardey, Besleney, Mahos,Mamhig, Bejdug, Jane), Ubih, Dagestani(tribes: Avar, Lezgi, Dargi, Lak), Chechnian, Ingus, Oset ( Ossetians such as Arsen,Zoloev ..) Suryani: Turoyo, Qiltu, Mlahso Roman (Gypsies): Rom, cingene, Posa Yezidi: Ezidi, Ýzdi, Azidi, Ýzid, Izdi, Darsin, Rasni Kurt: Kurmanc, Sorani, Gorani Arab Pomak Laz Hemsinliler Daglilar Armenians Jews: Sephardiz, Askhenazi Greek Nasturi Keldani Bahai Sudan Polish Malakan Persian Hakkani Halitat Durzi Zerdusi Mansuri about the religion; 100,000 people following religions other than Islam,mainly Christians, mostly Armenian Apostolic, Assyrian Church of the East and Greek Orthodox (64,000 people) and Jews, mainly Sephardi (26,000 people).
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 17:44:35 GMT -5
Bush used the UN Resolution from the first war because it was still in effect. It was a resolution. The UN Security council voted on it, what.... about 100 times before we went in? Congress gave the President authorization to go in. Since only Congress has the authority to declare war, that ship has sailed. They could call it whatever they like to pretend they didn't authorize war, but it was just that. Proof? Only Congress can approve funding for the war. They funded it every time it was asked for. They continue to fund it. i checked all the UN resolutions from first gulf war and none of them gave US right to re-attack Iraq.it was all about Iraq to stop its invasion on Kuwait and stay within the borders that UN determined.they also used embargo on Iraq. "During 2002, Bush repeatedly warned of military action unless inspections were allowed to progress unfettered. In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Iraq reluctantly agreed to new inspections in late 2002. The weapons inspections did not uncover any WMD in Iraq. Shortly before the invasion Hans Blix, the lead weapons inspector, advised the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating with inspections and that the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved in a short period of time if Iraq remained cooperative." here is explained in much better way than i can explain www.commondreams.org/views02/0820-04.htm
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 17:47:10 GMT -5
Since Obama has basically done zero to change course. In fact, he was the one screaming that it was dumb to go into Iraq because the real war is in Afghanistan. and some do not believe when i say that he is not a Muslim,just because he is using a nicer terminology
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 18:06:53 GMT -5
No disagreements here with your earlier post, Engin. But you miss the point of my entire post. What all of these have in common is the Cold War. All of these dirty deals and conflicts are not isolated incidents. They are chapters in the history of the war between the US and the USSR. Decisions have consequences. Did the US create our own enemies? Yes, that's also a fair statement. But at the time it was more important to confront the immediate threat from the Soviet Union. The US and Soviet Union came very close to annihilating the world. That is real. On several occasions both sides were ready to launch nuclear warheads at each other. Compare that threat to a low-grade war. By the way, Communism did NOT fall because the Soviets could not control Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a drain on their financial resources, which is how the USSR was defeated. They died economically. The US is facing this cold reality ourselves right now. Decisions that affect the entire world have to be made sometimes. The decisions are not always good decisions when you look back in hindsight. But at the time the fate of millions is at stake and doing nothing is not an option. If you carry that resonsibility on your shoulders, then supplying some goat herders with rockets seems like a good idea if it means drawing your enemies attention and resources away from something more important at the time. When they shoot you with your own rockets 15 or 20 years later it sucks, but that is the way it works. You can only confront the threat you have in front of you. Sometimes you do bad things that haunt you later. Is it right? I guess that depends on the outcome. If a nuclear war had happened and billions of people were vaporized and the rest left to die of atomic radiation poisoning, then a half million people killed by bullets over a fifty year span is a good alternative. Ugly. But true. come on John,it was not only about Afghan-Soviet war.US gave WMD to Iraq to use against Iran as well.if you try to create a reason to justify for every wrong action then it will look like it was not only the politicians' mistake.it reminds me the "defense" of sending atomic bomb on Japanese civillians. John, you and i both believe in judgement day in our ways,so i am not going to go into who is right-who is wrong debate as i leave that to GOD. my biggest problem is labeling Muslims with being evil or terrorists in a general way by professionally organised campaigns.i mean as you said that countries act according to their benefits and can call something "white" no matter if they called the same colour as "black" before. so they act dishonest to justify what they do and this makes me sick.or at least try not to generalise 1.5 billion people who are a great fact of this world with untruthful accusations. once again,a Muslim is ordered to have no problem with anyone except for defensive reasons.are there no exceptions? of course there are but are they the only wrong doers? of course not! then no need to bring the subject into a holywar as Bush did.a group to declare a holywar and US to declare a holywar are different things.this way US created enemies to itself.almost every Muslim that i know of felt as Bush wanted to kill every single Muslim on earth.this creates a defensive reaction. i dont know if you guys are taught about everything about the Crusaders but i have studied their actions even by the western sources.i do not blame the Christianity because of their guilt,so Americans also better leave Muslims alone before their hate becomes mutual and it becomes a problem between the publics.
|
|
|
Post by kyledarby on Aug 25, 2010 18:34:07 GMT -5
Well I'm not some big Bush supporter but I'd rather weather something you can predict than the radical socialist demon we are facing with this administration. War is war. It isn't love, fair, kind, forgiving, acceptable, fair, it's by any means necessary. Nothing was done this go around that hasn't occured in the past. The objective is to win. Like the means or not war is savage. I personally haven't met one person that mourns Saddam's death. So was it really that bad?
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 18:45:18 GMT -5
I personally haven't met one person that mourns Saddam's death. So was it really that bad? can you show me one word on this thread where it says it was really bad? you probably missed the point,the point is Saddam was supported by US even with WMDs.and with these WMDs Saddam killed Persians and Kurds.then Saddam was hunged by US for using WMD on Kurds.the only problem is hypocricy Saddam was an evil dictator and i wrote this many times.it was just interested Saddam to be punished by his crime partner,for the crime that were commited with US assistant. if you still did not understand please do not hesisate to ask.i will gladly explain in different ways with more sources & informations. today Iraq is worser than how it was before Saddam,with millions of death Iraqies.millions of orphans around and big trauma is in the public.it was terrible but now is worser.Iraqies found freedom in graves,by the operation Iraqy freedom. i do not have to choose a better one,same as choosing between Bush and Obama
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 19:01:21 GMT -5
. War is war. It isn't love, fair, kind, forgiving, acceptable, fair, it's by any means necessary. Nothing was done this go around that hasn't occured in the past. The objective is to win. Like the means or not war is savage. ? see,this is what i wanted to hear.this is honesty! no need to create stupid excuses to bomb & invade other nations.just say "we are strong,we need energy sources and this is why we will do it" and "we are controlled by zionists as they own media,holywood and other big things to elect whoever they want as a president and we need to fulfill their ideals,even if we needed to close our eyes for USS liberty type of scandals that costed American lives". no need to write all those scenarios (they are experienced since they own holywood) to label muslims with evil names. did you guys know that one of the crusades started with a vision of a sheppard boy? ;D
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Aug 25, 2010 19:08:00 GMT -5
In my post I never defended why horrible things are done. I just explained why those decisions are made.
To ignore reality is to lie to yourself. Likewise to defend evil is also evil. The US had no business giving WMD to Saddam. That was evil.
But it is misguided to treat all warfare as terror. Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was horrible but it saved countless American lives. It ended the war. More Japanese and Germans were killed with napalm fire bombs than with both atomic bombs. Fact.
True evil is happening all over Africa as we speak. This week 200 women and infants were raped and murdered. If we arm the victims to fight back will we be called criminals in ten years?
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 19:20:37 GMT -5
this was my point John.
Jesus: "no one is good ,except GOD alone!"
|
|