Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
Why exactly was the government corrupt? Again, I know little of this subject..
The Salvador option...
- Thread starter Little Raven
- Start date
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
rmsharpe said:
We also sent aid to Sadam. What's your point?
Sorry Rm were just running around in circles here. Were skirmishing over the same old ground. EDIT: lets go back to the topic at hand
Seriously I dont think the term DEATH SQUADs would be a good idea. What we need is the REPUBLICAN GUARD
.If you look at British coin operations and use of local milita forces instead of the US death squads. I would support the idea.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Please show me.FriendlyFire said:
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
The usual reasons. Accepting bribes, 'miscounting' votes, etc. The main thing was its unwillingness to do anything to help the large portion of the population who was living in abject poverty. And as proof of that, they still live in the same situations. Even in San Salvador, the poorer sections of the city do not even have clean water, while the richer sections have nearly all the amenities you would find in an American city.
Of note is the fact that Salvador now uses the US dollar as its currency, as their government managed to get to the point where this was required to save their economy. According to the people I spent some time with there, corruption is still a serious problem with their government, and many of the same problems exist that were there before the civil war.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
rmsharpe said:
I would have thought it was common knowledge. But If you must here are some irrefutable facts
National Security Archive collection,
The declassified documents posted last week include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats.
Congressional Record.
transfer to Iraq of biological agents including anthrax, bubonic plague and many others, and placed supporting documentation in the Congressional Record.
AVN
Deity
eyrei said:
So you have a problem with the name of the operation.
Does that mean that you agree with the operation itself, especially with the knowledge you have why it was wrong in Salvador ?
AVN said:
I think that supporting these groups will lead to a similar situation as it did in Salvador. While I think it might work, I think the horror of it will just make the entire region less stable in the long run. It will also further undermine the moral integrity of the US. Our actions in El Salvador were not nearly as well known (I don't think most of our country has any clue what happened there), but the entire world is watching our every move in Iraq.
AVN
Deity
eyrei said:
What happened in Salvador was known here. Although I don't claim that I have the same detailed knowledge as you have.
Therefore I wonder if the American public will be (and is) informed correctly when this "Salvador method" is used in Iraq.
Do you have the feeling that the American public is informed correctly nowadays about what 's happening in Iraq ?
BTW : I will also give my own opinion (with the following quote).
FredLC said:
I agree with this. I couldn't have said it better.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Don't say irrefutable just yet.FriendlyFire said:
So far, I don't see any aid or assistance. All I see is the U.S. dictating terms to Iraq on which it can be allowed to do business with us.
That's Robert Byrd, who has had an axe to grind with George Bush since his election. He only changes his tune when there's a Democrat in the White House.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
rmsharpe said:
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis.
During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program, and its "preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities" [Document 57].
etc etc
As the only senator (not 100% sure) to speak out against the Iraq adventure prior to invasion. He had a lot of guts to do so and has my respect.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
First, you admit that any materials were sold and not given to him. We did provide intelligence on Iranian troop positions and I'm glad we did.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident
that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons..."
Robert Byrd in 2002.
To add a little more:
"The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance,
the administration needs to act sooner rather than later."
Robert Byrd in 1998.
"We stand today in the swirl of unanswered questions about this
administration's intent with regard to an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack
against the sovereign nation of Iraq. Perhaps the White House has the answers
to the questions people are asking about why we may soon send our sons and
daughters to fight and perhaps die in the sands of the Middle East."
Robert Byrd in 2003. His tune sure changed quickly, eh?
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident
that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons..."
Robert Byrd in 2002.
To add a little more:
"The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance,
the administration needs to act sooner rather than later."
Robert Byrd in 1998.
"We stand today in the swirl of unanswered questions about this
administration's intent with regard to an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack
against the sovereign nation of Iraq. Perhaps the White House has the answers
to the questions people are asking about why we may soon send our sons and
daughters to fight and perhaps die in the sands of the Middle East."
Robert Byrd in 2003. His tune sure changed quickly, eh?
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
eyrei said:
I think that if that is true that means some serious questioning of those involved is in order, in the very least. The USA isn't supposed to be doing evil things like that. Why would anyone in the US Government authorize something like that? It doesn't help the US in any way, it hurts us in fact.
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
If there is any justice, the questioning will start with Kissinger. That one of the twentieth century's worst war criminals was awarded a Nobel Prize for Peace is bad enough, but the fact that he's still on advisory boards with power in America is unfathomable.
And yes, "questioning" must go on with regard to half of the countries in Central and South America, as well as in Indochina. Unfortunately, I suspect some evil deeds will never go unpunished.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
So far, everyone but the real war criminals here are being labeled "war criminals."
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
rmsharpe said:
Mission Accomplished in Iraq.
There is no gurellia war
No more additional troops are needed
I get your drift / point thou.
Hes support for Stikes against iraq under clinton and hes opposition against Bush adminstration Invasion. (your probably right here though)
The Gust of hes speech to congress against the invasion can be summed up with hes conclusion. "Let us guard against the perils of haste, lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that is both blind and improvident". He opposition to the invason was almost spot on with why the invasion of Iraq is failling. Hes objections to the invasion all seem to be validated.
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
Thats very true sadly RM...the UN seems to hand Nobel Peace prizes to anyone it seems...almost like Burger King does with those crowns(I am in no way comparing the UN to Burger King...hail Whopper!)
Peri
Vote early and vote often
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,261
No. Even though the US started an ilegal war based on a lie, has been responsible for the deaths of countless innocents and is using torture as a matter of routine only enemies of the US are guilty of doing wrong.
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Bronx Warlord
Squad Leader
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
I have no problems with this policey, as long as it's highly supervised and the " death squads " all have US personal among them observeing them and making sure they stick to there jobs and not settleing personal scores. I've said it many times on this forum, C-I is dirtty work and I'm not sure any of you can handle the realities of combat if you tried. That is not a crack against you lefties nor is it a statement for you right wingers, it's a simple fact.
