Bill O'Reilly - Europeans are soft because they are weaned on Socialism

[RGBVideo]

OBL wasn't a leader of a country

Technically. You know what I mean, do you?

and Hussein was already in power by Reagan's term.

Fine, I just realised that I talked bs from the part that he was helped to become leader by Reagan -- found out Al-Bakr died already in '79, not in '81, as I falsely remembered. Hussein still would've lost the war against Iran quickly, if he hadn't received support from Reagan -- but that's kinda irrelevant unless you're an idealistic liberal, since if Khomeini would've conquered Iraq, the whole area would've exploded, and that would've destroyed the oil-dependant western economies, and THAT would've made a difference in the cold war, since after the death of Breznev, USSR would've had theoretical chances to win it, one way or another.
[/spam]

Umm, but trying to blame Clinton for not exterminating OBL is still hypocritical rhetoric (original counter-point to Fez's post), isn't it?

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No, you aren't. OBL wasn't a leader of a country and Hussein was already in power by Reagan's term.

We gave Hussein Chemical Weapon to use against Iran in the war they have going. We gave him bioweapons also. The Chemical Weapon and Bioweapon where destory by Iraq in 1992 an that the reason why we cannot find any now. Than this done unber Reagan term in the White House.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
No, but VJ is close. America gave ridiculous amounts of aid to all kinds of whackos in the Middle East, especially in the 1980's.

He's still incorrect. The support given to Iraq in the 80's was to ward off Iranian aggression and fully justified IMO. Also The US only supported the liberation movement already going on in Afghanistan.

[Tripledoc]

Iranian Agression!

It was Saddam Hussein who invaded.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He's still incorrect. The support given to Iraq in the 80's was to ward off Iranian aggression and fully justified IMO. Also The US only supported the liberation movement already going on in Afghanistan.

I HATED TO BREAK THIS TO YOU IRAQ INVADE IRAN IN 1979 FIRST.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Iranian Agression!

It was Saddam Hussein who invaded.

Ruhollah Khomeini, on the other hand, was determined to extend his revolution across the Islamic world, starting with Iraq. By late 1979, Tehran was pushing the Kurdish and Shiite populations in Iraq to revolt and topple Saddam, and Iranian operatives were trying to assassinate senior Iraqi officials. Border clashes became increasingly frequent by April 1980, largely at Iran’s instigation.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75476

[RGBVideo]

Also The US only supported the liberation movement already going on in Afghanistan.

Uhh... getting credible information from the Internet is hard from subjects like this, and I don't want to browse all my history books just because of this. You know any good sites for obtaining actual information about this?

The support given to Iraq in the 80's was to ward off Iranian aggression and fully justified IMO.

That takes a flexible definition of 'justified'... I would've probably taken the same course of action as Reagan took, but because the Iraq-Iran war was a result of FUBAR in US foreign policy during the Carter years (wasn't it?)... grey area, really.

EDIT: Result, not reason.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
is it just me or has no one noticed how being "weak" is sooo negative here. Like if being the tough guy all the time did any good.

If brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough.

[RGBVideo]

Dennis, did you read my PM?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, I believe I responded to it as well

[Tripledoc]

Regarding the Iranian/Iraqi war and who started it. It is practical that two different versions of history can be dug up whenever it suits the strategic interest.

However the argument that Iran started it, would similarily justify Hitlers invasion of Russia. After all the soviet governmnet had supported the German communists with weapons and training.

Also there is a big difference between covert warfare and open invasion.

If not then Iran taking the US embassy hostage would also be justified, since the US had continously meddled in Irans internal affairs.

But the bottom line is that no one is interested in one Muslim state gaining hegemony over the other for reasons that this might impede the cheap supply of oil.

[RGBVideo]

You believed wrong. My inbox is either broken or you haven't sent anything to it. C'mon, take just 3 typical sava comments off -- nobody actually reads a sig as big as that. The lonely "You're young and impressionable" -quote was much more efficient, if you're trying to have some readers to it.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

No, but VJ is close. America gave ridiculous amounts of aid to all kinds of whackos in the Middle East, especially in the 1980's. Including Sodamn Insane and Osama bin Hidin.

Would you care to support your position that America somehow backed OBL with some facts, or like everyone else who has stated this point over the past several years are you going down in flames too?

[RGBVideo]

Uhh... I'm going to sleep now. I hope Kucinich has cleaned his signature a little when I'll be spammin' here next time. Sikander, were you the one who was in Vietnam war? Or were you the one who was working for US army in the early 80's in a burst of Reagan idealism, receiving crappy wage all the time? I can't remember, suffering from memory loss already -- I guess I wasn't protecting my head enough from the various blows, received as a kid.

Funny though, I originally only opened this thread to learn who was Bill O'Reilly, and I still don't know it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No, you aren't. OBL wasn't a leader of a country and Hussein was already in power by Reagan's term.

The US government, particularly the CIA, helped in the rise of the Ba'ath party.