StarGateWars Forums

Corran Horn wrote:

Ifrit wrote:Osama Ben Laden use to be on the CIA payroll and he is also one of G.W Bush's best friends, so he is protected, this is why. That is fact and also has been released in media.

Jack wrote:Proof or it's a lie.


Also, the media lies on a daily basis.........

first part is true. osama and his gang were trained and equiped by the cia during the soviet war in afghanistan. they were called "freedom fighters" back then. it's widely known fact.

second part is a lie witout the proof. personally i'd check every information released in the media as this crowd:
1. is lying on a daily basis
or
2. exagerates things to get more viewers
or
3. don't have a clue what they're talking about
or
4. all 3 above together

ok I suppose you know that Osama Ben Laden's brother and Bush are business partners? that the two families are infact very close...

Jack wrote:Wasn't it Saddam and his men that were on the CIA payroll?

Yes. During the Iraq-Iran conflicts of the 80's, 5 billion dollars was given to Iran to aide in that war. 5 billion dollars to spend on weaponry against Iran.

During the Iran-contra conflict, we turned around and sold weapons to Iran as well!!

WTH??

Seems like we just wanted both countries to kill eachother and get it over with!!

bigcakes wrote:everybody is on the cia's payroll
kbye
john

even james bond?

Saturnine wrote:

Jack wrote:Wasn't it Saddam and his men that were on the CIA payroll?

Yes. During the Iraq-Iran conflicts of the 80's, 5 billion dollars was given to Iraq to aide in that war. 5 billion dollars to spend on weaponry against Iran.

With the Iran-contra scandal, we turned around and sold weapons to Iran as well!!

WTH??

Seems like we just wanted both countries to kill eachother and get it over with!!

Um... duh? Why worry about a tyranical dictatorship and a hostile religious council, when they can deal with each other? Two birds with one stone.

PS- Did change the quote a bit. I'm assuming that's what you meant?

PPS- Rereading this, I realize the comments I'm going to get: "Omg, that's awful. How can you encourage such actions?" We are talking about the regime that gassed it's own people and another which overran the American Embassy. I really couldn't care less what happened to either one.

Jack wrote:

Corran Horn wrote:

bigcakes wrote:everybody is on the cia's payroll
kbye
john

even james bond?

No, he's on my payroll.

I knew it!!!!

Ifrit wrote:

Jack wrote:

Corran Horn wrote:

bigcakes wrote:everybody is on the cia's payroll
kbye
john

even james bond?

No, he's on my payroll.

I knew it!!!!

Jack's the king of England?

Phoenix of Terra wrote:

Ifrit wrote:

Jack wrote:

Corran Horn wrote:

bigcakes wrote:everybody is on the cia's payroll
kbye
john

even james bond?

No, he's on my payroll.

I knew it!!!!

Jack's the king of England?

now thats a conspiericy to consider

now. the queen of england is also on jack's payroll. so everything on her payroll is automatically on jack's.

Phoenix of Terra wrote:

Saturnine wrote:

Jack wrote:Wasn't it Saddam and his men that were on the CIA payroll?

Yes. During the Iraq-Iran conflicts of the 80's, 5 billion dollars was given to Iraq to aide in that war. 5 billion dollars to spend on weaponry against Iran.

With the Iran-contra scandal, we turned around and sold weapons to Iran as well!!

WTH??

Seems like we just wanted both countries to kill eachother and get it over with!!

Um... duh? Why worry about a tyranical dictatorship and a hostile religious council, when they can deal with each other? Two birds with one stone.

PS- Did change the quote a bit. I'm assuming that's what you meant?

PPS- Rereading this, I realize the comments I'm going to get: "Omg, that's awful. How can you encourage such actions?" We are talking about the regime that gassed it's own people and another which overran the American Embassy. I really couldn't care less what happened to either one.

Then how about fives supplies to Saddam's opposition and provide them weapons to overtake governement? That's better than what is on now...and YES there was an opposition, on north of Iraq, in Kurdistan. If US supplied them enough they could have overttaken Saddam's power and instaur a new one...ie let people who suffered from Saddam have a chance to get revenge...not like in first Iraq war when US & co troops flee out of Iraq letting the rebels alone without help and being massacred by Saddam.

Legendary Apophis wrote:Then how about fives supplies to Saddam's opposition and provide them weapons to overtake governement? That's better than what is on now...and YES there was an opposition, on north of Iraq, in Kurdistan. If US supplied them enough they could have overttaken Saddam's power and instaur a new one...ie let people who suffered from Saddam have a chance to get revenge...

... and suffer from communism/marxism the kurd rebels would install there? or suffer from a long civil war (that's probably gonna happen anyway when the yanks pull out of there)? what's better? typhoid fever or malaria?

Corran Horn wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:Then how about fives supplies to Saddam's opposition and provide them weapons to overtake governement? That's better than what is on now...and YES there was an opposition, on north of Iraq, in Kurdistan. If US supplied them enough they could have overttaken Saddam's power and instaur a new one...ie let people who suffered from Saddam have a chance to get revenge...

... and suffer from communism/marxism the kurd rebels would install there? or suffer from a long civil war (that's probably gonna happen anyway when the yanks pull out of there)? what's better? typhoid fever or malaria?

Brilliant Pops, you just suggested a plan even more dangerous to regional stability than the US invasion. Because then, not only will Iraq go up into flames, then Turkey and Iran will follow with their Kurd population and suddenly another genocide explodes and when the Kurds come crying to the UN/US for support against "the invading and oppressive governments", Iraq, Turkey, and Iran could claim they were merely working for national security against terrorists with great evidence in such a manner, forcing us to watch the Kurds be crushed by three sides while the bureaucracy of the UN works out the situation. Oh, and then it shows with undeniable evidence that we were trying to overthrow one regime (like nobody will think otherwise) and will make it seem like we were going to overthrow two others (of which, Iran hates us, so who knows how they would spin it; and Turkey is an ally of the US in the region). Brilliant.

Phoenix of Terra wrote:

Corran Horn wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:Then how about fives supplies to Saddam's opposition and provide them weapons to overtake governement? That's better than what is on now...and YES there was an opposition, on north of Iraq, in Kurdistan. If US supplied them enough they could have overttaken Saddam's power and instaur a new one...ie let people who suffered from Saddam have a chance to get revenge...

... and suffer from communism/marxism the kurd rebels would install there? or suffer from a long civil war (that's probably gonna happen anyway when the yanks pull out of there)? what's better? typhoid fever or malaria?

Brilliant Pops, you just suggested a plan even more dangerous to regional stability than the US invasion. Because then, not only will Iraq go up into flames, then Turkey and Iran will follow with their Kurd population and suddenly another genocide explodes and when the Kurds come crying to the UN/US for support against "the invading and oppressive governments", Iraq, Turkey, and Iran could claim they were merely working for national security against terrorists with great evidence in such a manner, forcing us to watch the Kurds be crushed by three sides while the bureaucracy of the UN works out the situation. Oh, and then it shows with undeniable evidence that we were trying to overthrow one regime (like nobody will think otherwise) and will make it seem like we were going to overthrow two others (of which, Iran hates us, so who knows how they would spin it; and Turkey is an ally of the US in the region). Brilliant.

What do you think USA do/did in many other countries lol..Nicaragua, Angola, etc...
And if you follow the news Turkey already started their war against Kurdistan they are in Iraq north border bombing them.
Why did I suggest it? Because in first war they suggested to population to revolt against Saddam and supplied them then ran away from country letting them being massacred, so it wouldn't be best solution what I said, but that would be a "logical" following of past policies...continue what they started.
Bad though rebels are not from right side and Saddam was meant to be a socialist dictator...nothing to do so they sent the troops a second time and they caused a civil war.


Anyway, was it really US's bizness to go put their nose in a country that wasn't a threat to them, and PLEASE, no "we want to spread democracy and freedom thru the world" crap...
If it was really that they wouldnt have ran first time letting people they supplied for revolt without more help and thus being massacred.
My idea isn't good, but would follow PRETTY WELL what they did in past, only problem being, the Kurdistan inhabitants aren't enough "right" to do it.

You know what should have helped?
Do more sanctions against Saddam's country if he doesn't organize free elections, and if international observators aren't allowed to watch and act if it's fake results. Keep candidates menaced by regime out of country or under protection to prevent political murders. But for campaigns, there would be a problem...

Corran suggested socialism, not me. And last time I checked, the US funded rebels you mentioned only threatened one country (Contras were ex-patriots of Nicaragua and don't even know about Angola, but I'm pretty sure the rebels weren't prepared to cede land from three different nations).

As for Turkey's bombings, I really don't blame them. They have hit and run terrorists attacking across the border, and then claiming safety in northern Iraq. I'd probably do the same thing the Turks did, to silence those who have been fighting for decades in that region. As I said, I don't care if they were socialist, but a Kurdish rebellion would not change the Iraqi government. It would lead to an attempt to create Kurdistan, which would influence three major countries in the Middle East and probably end in a Kurdish massacre. That's a way to supply freedom fighters, giving them the ingredients for their own demise.

As for sanctions, you're joking right? The same country which had been under crippling sanctions for over a decade? So desperate it sold oil under the table for food to feed it's people (most of which I doubt made it to the people, but sometimes dictators surprise you). More sanctions would do nothing to a government determined to keep its power and has already shown a willingness to needlessly allow its population to suffer.

So, what's your solution mister?

Good question and one I rightfully deserve, as I've offered so much criticism. And, tbh, I really have no reasoning for how to get into Iraq. I understand and will not deny that this administration was looking for a reason to go to war with Iraq (kind of a Bush Jr showing his old man up on foriegn policy thing), so WMDs seemed safe evidence, even though it was shaky. However, I could lay out a plan to stabilize Iraq. I'll need your willing suspension of disbelief, as 1) I am a moderate military brat who plans to join the military, so I have a different perspective than you on the priorities and such, and 2) I'm not going to claim to be knowledgable on every issue involved. My "plan" may have holes merely because I'm not sure wth I'm talking about. I'll probably mention my lack of knowledge on the issue, but don't razz me to hard on those issues please.

Ok, on to my hopelessly optimistic plan to make up for an even more hopelessly optimistic plan.

*edit* Will do it once I have time. RL is calling me atm. But it is based off a number of assumptions.

1) The Iraqi government needs to be moved into compromise. Solution: Can't really think of anything for that. We can't really take down a government we put up (please, no cynicism pops)

2) Terrorists have two catogories in my mind, simply put as "manipulators" (wants power that they lost, or greedy for power) and "grunts" (join for a number of reasons, most likely falling under Money, Ideology, Compromise, or Ego) I'd also catagorize them as international. Why is this important? Because it separates them, in my mind, from insurgents. Solution: Seal off the borders and make terrorists so unpopular even coercion doesn't gain much support. Very difficult, without...

3) The insurgents, who are basically fighting for themselves and their communities. Solution: Use 'em for civil services to build up their communities. Not one organization dominating any position, such as police, but balancing each other out. My thoughts are that a majority of insurgents are angry men who can't find another way to get their point across. So give them another way, and incorporate them into local and regional governments, without allowing them to dominate and secure power to a point where it can't be removed. At the same time, build up their communities to a level of prosperity that allows their people to move up in the world and be positive additions. This is the corner stone of my thought process. The insurgents are the main opposition militarily atm, and are a pretty large grassroots political block, I would guess. Secure them, secure most of Iraq. Look at the Awakening Councils. They turned and those areas they were in became more secure (not completely, but definitely more so).

4) Get Iran out, as it has merely been attempting to undermine US and new Iraqi governments efforts to secure more regional influence. Once again, solutions are hard to get to without insurgents switching sides. So, I'll have to think about that a little bit.

Now, RL calls me away. Have fun with my fairy tale hopes.