vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:12 am
Iran had a democratically elected leader until he pissed off GB and the US by having the AUDACITY to want Iran to have control of its own oil. For this reason they replaced him with their puppet Shah. What other country would put up with that? Syria was NOT a primitive crap hole before the US decided it would be fun to attack it. Nor was Iraq. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was very tolerant of different religions. He also hated radical islam and kept a very tight rein on it.
I can't get over what a naive, potty-mouthed, little "muppet" you are. You even make me laugh sometimes, that is, until I realise that there are countless thousands of other individuals who probably endorse your views and are eligible to vote in elections in the West. That's not so funny.
Let's deal with Saddam Hussein first. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless, brutal dictator. He murdered an estimated 1,000,000 of his own people in Iraq, most of whom were innocent of any crime. He was also a sadist who (along with his two sicko sons: Uday and Qusay) had thousands of Iraqis imprisoned and subjected to horrifying methods of torture that were so appalling I will spare you the details; as well as this, he and other senior members of the Ba'arth party authorized: campaigns of state terrorism; mass murder/genocide; ethnic cleansing; rape; chemical warfare using nerve gases like "Sarin"; forced disappearances; deportations, etc; between 1979 and 2003. Saddam was a real "Sweet Heart", Veggie. So tell me, what would you think if that kind of shit was going down in New Zealand ?
Saddam Hussein was a VERY secular person. He was a Ba'arthist, that is, a member of the Ba'arth party who were an ANTI-RELIGIOUS, socialist, political, group. Saddam always made it clear that he was, personally, an ATHEIST, (at least, until he thought he might get some traction against the US by rallying pan-Islamic support). Saddam Hussein was NOT a religious person.You might be an Iraqi Christian, a Sunni Muslim or a Shia Muslim or a devotee of some other faith; provided you did not engage in any kind of public, political protest against Saddam and his Ba'art party government, you would basically be left in peace. In fact, from the time he became President of Iraq in 1979 right up to his final demise, Saddam Hussein's closest and most trusted adviser was a Catholic. I am referring to Tariq Aziz who was first, Saddam's Foreign Minister, and then promoted to become Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq. Although he was an Arab nationalist, he was a member of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq. No secret was ever made of the fact as far as I am aware; for Saddam, the fact that Aziz was a Christian was irrelevant - a non-issue. (Though I must say, I am puzzled at how Aziz could have claimed to be a Catholic in good faith given some what what he must have known was taking place in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign as President in terms of human rights violations, etc ? ).
Saddam came from Tikrit - a traditionally Sunni (Muslim) city, and after he came to power as President of Iraq in 1979, he promoted many of his neighbours and relatives, who formed a gang that was inherently quite anti- Shia and disposed to favour Sunni Muslims. Anyway, in short, the fact is that Saddam, in religion, was an atheist; while in CULTURE, he was a Sunni. Saddam did not believe in Allah, therefore Saddam was not a bone fide Muslim (or Islamist of any kind).
THE GULF WAR (1990-91)
You keep on bitching about the US ( and it's "bitch", the UK) being the "bad guys" who fucked up the Middle East by waging war on nations like Iraq. I don't have time to go through all of the US - led military interventions in the Middle East to explain to you how they were justified. I do agree with you though that the US-led invasion if Iraq by George W. Bush in 2003 had nothing to do with any prior intelligence reports confirming Saddam Hussein was manufacturing/harbouring so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" inside Iraq. George W. Bush and Tony Blair lied to the West about this, which I think was (morally speaking) very wrong; but geopolitics is a very tricky business and sometimes, IMO, "corners have to be cut" and "rules bent" in order to avoid what would otherwise be monumental disasters for the West. To cut a long story very short, it only takes two words to explain why it was that the US (and its Western coalition allies) launched military invasions that they have in the Middle East to date: (1) OIL; (2) ISRAEL.That's all you need to know, Vegetable. So, I'll finish off by explaining the rationale of one US invasion of the Middle East, namely, what is generally called "The Gulf War" (1990-1991). This particular conflict was all about OIL, not ISRAEL (at least not primarily; although Saddam did launch lots SCUD missiles at Israel during the conflict which became a cause of tremendous concern for Bush. But let's not go into that, the story is complicated enough as it is). If you wanted me to give you an account of instances where OIL and ISRAEL were a casus belli for the US invasion of the Middle East, I would need to write a separate post.I'm going to presume that the "Gulf War" of 1990-91 was chiefly about OIL.
OK, so what happened was that Saddam Hussein started the whole "Gulf War" off by illegally invading Kuwait in 1990. So, if you want to know who was responsible for all the deaths and damage (and there were lots of both) that Iraq suffered as a consequence of the "Gulf War", there you have it - Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, with the intention of seizing control of Kuwait's rich oil fields. Saddam wanted Kuwait's oil because he had recently chalked up some very big debts fighting the Iran - Iraq war, AND because having control of Kuwaiti oil, would give him tremendous political bargaining power as the global gate-keeper to essentially ALL of the Middle East's oil reserves,
I say, "all" of the Middle East's oil, because no sooner had Saddam invaded and conquered Kuwait ( which he managed with ease due to the superiority of his military power), he then set his sights on Saudi Arabia and began to mobilise his armies toward the Saudi border. You must bear in mind that in 1990 Saddam Hussein had a the world's 4th largest military force; ironically, because the United Stated had supplied Iraq with weapons to help it in its fight against Iran (!)
Thus, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait posed a major geopolitical oil crisis, because if Saddam gained control of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ( and he would, BTW, have easily crushed Saudi Arabia again due to the fact the Saudis were no match for him militarily in term of troop numbers and weapons of war: artillery, tanks, fighter jets, etc.) he would have control of over 20% of world oil reserves and become the world's dominant oil power.
"NO BLOOD FOR OIL !!" - "NO BLOOD FOR OIL !!"
What you don't seem to understand Vegetable is that in 1990, OIL was the life-blood of advanced, industrialised Western nations, like the US and UK. The West needed a CONSISTENT, RELIABLE and AFFORDABLE supply of crude oil to function, and that includes piddly, little, Western nations like New Zealand. In the West in 1990-1, just about EVERYTHING depended on stable, access to reasonably-priced crude oil. Just think Veggie, if the US had not stopped Saddam in 1991, you might not have had any electricity in the evenings to send your bolshy posts to "Philosophy Forum" (if computers and the internet had been invented at the time) ! Imagine THAT !
Without oil, the US (and other Western nations) would, to give you an idea, have had:
* No petrol and diesel to run their cars and trucks
* No jet-fuel (kerosine) to power airplanes
* No lubricant oils and greases essential for the running of of car/boat/truck/jet/motorcycle/helicopter and other engines.
* No paraffin wax which is extensively used in making the packaging for frozen foods.
* No plastics, no PVC pipe or polypropylene/polyethylene plastic containers, no carbon-fibre products.
* No asphalt to construct roads and highways/motorways.
* No way to synthesize many vital prescription medicines.
* No fertilizers, soaps, insecticides, detergents.
* No petrochemical feed-stock.
* No way to grow harvest food crops like wheat, corn, etc; since there would be no way to run the tractors and other agricultural machinery needed.
* No way to manufacture many perfumes.
* No heating for houses in winter.
* No electricity.
To continue. The US sees Saddam in the process of trying to seize control of its oil supply and George Bush thinks to himself: (1) Saddam is an unpredictable, power-mad psychopath (true); (2) If he gets control of the Middle East's major oil "tap" he can open it and close it whenever he wants, that would place nations like us, the US, who are vitally dependent on Middle Eastern crude oil in an extremely vulnerable and undesirable situation; (3) Saddam could then manipulate the price/supply of Middle East crude oil, to use it as a political weapon against America and other nations of the West ( and THAT would be unthinkable).
So George Bush says to himself: "I've gotta stop this crazy p**** now, before things spiral out of control any further." BTW, the use of military force to stop Saddam, was very much George Bush's personal call. Bush was receiving lots of mixed messages about how to handle the crisis from his top advisers in his the White House at the time. Most were counselling restraint and to hold back on the use of military force and try using economic sanctions against Iraq instead.
It's was a big call for Bush to send Americans into war again against a regime in foreign country, because even in 1990-1, the US public was still spooked by Vietnam, and they definitely did not want a replay. So, before long, America's "cognitively challenged" Left a diverse assortment of liberals, progressives, socialists, neo-Marxists and the kind of cultural Marxist "pea brains" who were members of Herbert Marcuse's "New Left" in the early 1970's were out in force. They realised that they had a great excuse now to take to the streets and march and demonstrate and protest. And sure enough, every night on the news you would see thousands of young (late teens - 40's) white Americans chanting: "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!" - "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" and "WE WONT DIE FOR THE PRICE OF GAS; UNCLE SAM GO KISS MY ASS,", etc; and carrying placards that read: " BUSH the BUTCHER of BAGHDAD", and such like. You need to understand, like I say, that was all jolly good fun for these people. This was how they got their kicks - their cheap thrills, this was how they infused "true purpose" into their meaningless lives. The great irony is, of course, that had Bush not stopped Saddam Hussein dead in his tracks, Saddam may well have consolidated his control on the supply of crude oil from the Middle East, and America might well have found itself having to pay inordinate prices for the oil it had to import from Saddam. And guess who would be the first little piggies to scream "blue murder" when inflation and unemployment, etc; started to go through the roof ? Yep, that's right, the loud-mouthed liberal, progressive, neo-Marxist nit-wits. When they can't afford to put petrol in their VW "Beetles", when their electricity bills are so far through the roof they can't play their "Pink Floyd" vinyls anymore, when they're so cash-strapped, (because they lost their jobs due to chronic stagflation) that they can't buy themselves new pairs of Levi's 501 denim jeans any more, or Italian suits, when the price of their favourite Chardonnay or craft beer or cannabis is beyond their means, as are Doc Marten boots, getting another hipster tattoo, having their hair re-died blue or orange and so on. Well, its outrageous, they cry, something will have to be done !! We'll need to organize giant demonstrations and protests in Washington because our freedom is clearly under attack, our human rights are being violated, our democracy is falling apart, etc. Sorry, but I really hate the political left in the West in whatever form it comes: liberals, progressives trendy socialists, you name it. I hate them because their arrogant, loud-mouthed, stupidity/ignorance is actually a very dangerous threat to Western European culture/civilization which is objectively superior to any other high culture that has ever emerged in the 6000 year history of human civilization.
These people are the Americans who would not have a problem with handing Saddam Hussein control the price of the crude oil their own country needed to import from the Middle East in order to survive as a relatively civilised society. They just didn't understand that if Saddam - (a 100% arsehole who absolutely hated America) - were in charge of the Middle East's oil reserves he might - for any number of reasons, - decide to to substantially raise the price of the crude oil for America and keep doing so on a regular basis. These people didn't understand that when the cost of the crude oil that was sold to the US by Saddam to America went up, as it almost certainly would have done, it would automatically result in increased US manufacturing costs, which in turn would lead to increased prices for US consumers at the till. Moreover, as prices rise, so does inflation, and unemployment, and high levels of "stagflation" can put SEVERE pressure on democratic institutions and can also lead to growing political protest, social unrest and potentially violent social conflict/strife. (It was high inflation generated by a socialist, Labour government in the UK during the 1970's that led to a 6% unemployment rate, and, in 1975, resulted in the birth of the "Sex Pistols" punk rock band, and, trust me, THAT was the UGLIEST and NASTIEST piece of anti-culture that England has ever produced ) Finally, falling real living standards can prompt a "Brain-Drain" of some of the country's most mobile and able people, thus leaving the country with a diminished labour force. Also, high inflation can bring an end to progress in reducing poverty.
FINAL REFLECTION : THE US MEDIA WAS THE SAME IN 1990-91 AS IT IS TODAY : LOONY, LIBERAL and LEFTIST
I can still clearly remember the start of the air war in Iraq, it was, in fact, (I just checked the date on Google) the 17th of January, 1991. The day before, Saddam had thumbed his nose at a final UN ultimatum to pull out of Kuwait. On the 16th of that month, George Bush appeared on my television evening news saying pretty much: "That's it, it's on - the war". He looked and sounded like he was totally fed-up and pissed off, but I still thought to myself, "Nah, it'll never happen, even Saddam Hussein's not THAT crazy, he'll back down at the last minute for sure." On the 17th I was glued to my television watching coverage of events in the Gulf and suddenly CNN is beaming us a "night-vision, fluoro green" silhouette of the city of Baghdad. Baghdad looked like it was spotted with lots and lots of bright, white balls of light, some of which were moving. It turned out the lights were a dazzling mixture of: exploding US Navy Tomahawk Cruise missiles; exploding bombs from American Stealth fighter bombers and 1000's of rounds sent up from Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery, trying to score a lucky strike on invading the American F-117a "Stealth" Bombers which could not be seen or heard by the Iraqis as they approached and then unleashed their laser-guided bombs on strategic sites in Baghdad.
The other thing I clearly remember is how a CNN news team approached one of the American Stealth Bombers pilots just after he had returned from his bombing mission that night. The pilot has just gotten out of his F-117a's cockpit and was walking across the tarmac of the landing zone. A female CNN news journalist approached him and asked for a comment; "What was it like ?" (or something similar) she said. This young pilot is obviously still pumped full of adrenalin from the excitement of his first taste of real war, and he shouts: "It was TREMENDOUS (!), it was AWESOME (!), Baghdad was LIT UP LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE !" Ten minutes later CNN had lost the plot entirely - they were in a state of politically correct hysteria, they had a major bee in their bonnet. The young pilot's comment was furiously condemned by the PC "thought police" at CNN who found the comparison between the lights of war (an evil war waged by George Bush) and the lights on a Christmas tree ( a symbol of moral good) absolutely outrageous and appalling. CNN was beside itself with righteous indignation for hours and replayed the "Stealth" pilot's "lit up like a Christmas tree" remark what seemed to me, like 1000 times. As far as CNN were concerned this, was the biggest bomb to explode that whole evening - a "PC bombshell", never mind that US pilots were risking their lives all through that night - lets talk instead about the shocking horror of politically incorrect language ! It goes to show how CNN haven't changed a jot in 30 years, if anything I would say they are even worse now, in terms of the hard leftist-liberal spin they put on their reporting, and the kind of fake news it creates, than they were even in the 1970's.
So, have you learned anything about why the US were forced to invade Iraq in 1991, Veggie ? George Bush wasn't the "bad guy", the real villain was Saddam Hussein.
When I next have time, I'll be happy to continue teaching you about US Foreign Affairs (just let me know) and how America always tried to do the right thing. Mostly, America was successful and you can thank God for that Vegetable; because even though you don't realise it, guys like Ronald Reagan and George Bush, for instance, saved your, little, bitchy, chicken, white, KIWI arse BIG TIME.
Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)