LIbertarians speak some sense: Cut off Israel
#21
No the catholic in Iraq were forbidden u der saddam to speak their own language in schools along with other Assyrians. Thy were peoteced because they were educated. No because thy were Catholics. Tariq azis a friend? Well playing a lead role in rhe gazing and murder of thousands I would arge a friend like that is t worth keeping. If u need tyrants such as that to peotec u one has to ask protect you against what? Against whom?
We know that don't we. It was the failure od the states to protect chritians granted but it was the murderous mohamadans who r doing the butchery
Reply
#22
My point: Catholics were better off in Iraq than they are today, under SoDamn Insane.  And, he was doing things which jived with US interests, like containing Iran.  And we want Iran contained to protect the Gulf countries, including Saudi, due to oil politics.  Taking him out was a mistake.  If we want to take out all evil dictators, then we will have to launch a world conquest.  Tariq and Saddam will have to answer before God for their actions.

The more interesting point of this story is the behaviour of the press (ignoring 17 Billion in cuts to single out Israeli cuts) and the politicians, dems and repubs, fighting and crawling over themselves to be the first to the microphone to declare they will oppose cuts to Israel, at a time when we are cutting billions in programs for Americans.

Now I am for cutting $1.5 Trillion, but if you have to cut, cut aid to Israel (and other countries) first.

This shows that the US government and press are run by Jews.  The actions of both speak loud enough.  And I don't say this as some sort of conspiratorial dude, I am saying it based on this strange behavior.  Rand is consistent.  He wants to cut everything, which is correct.  Now if a government official had instead said, "well, we need to cut, but $3 Billion is a bit much all at once.  The amount is up for discussion", then that would be reasonable.  But that is not what happened.
Reply
#23
Yes you are correct nxer a secular socialsist regime such as under the saddam and the bathist caholics were better off. One reason for that is the mohamadan islamists didn't have the rom the have now. And saddam was fsr more represive then the Iraqi current power under america. Maybe bi misunderstand but are arguing Catholics should support secular socialis regimes because ctholics have better material lives in them? That is what is sounds like. It matters little if Catholics had better lives Unser a scular socialis murderous tyrant then now. Because time is the factor here yo can't compare livng standards of ne class in syabikt to one class in cvil war. Marwrial live is always better in stability then cval war
yes you have n argument from me there
Reply
#24
Quote: Maybe bi misunderstand but are arguing Catholics should support secular socialis regimes because ctholics have better material lives in them?

Yes, that is the misunderstanding.  No, Catholics should not support it, nor should the USA SUPPORT Saddam, though selling him weapons in a war with Iran would be ok.  I was using this as an example to show it was NOT in the interest of the USA to topple Sadaam.  But it WAS in the interest of Israel.  And furthermore, the chief protaganists in the US were Jews known as neo-conservatives. Kristol, Perle, and Wolferwitz.  Israel now has a US army between them and Iran, as well as Sadaam gone.  What did the US achieve for ITSELF?  Nothing.

Take Khadaffi.  I am not very familiar with Libyan politics, but he is another secular tyrant and I make the assumption that if he were deposed, the crazed Moslems would take over.  We do not take him out, even after Lockerbie,  because he is keeping his country under control, and thus the oil keeps flowing.  But we also don't support him.  We just let him be.  And he is no threat to Israel (or a lesser threat than the alternatives).

That was the policy we should have followed with Iraq.
Reply
#25
We agree for the most part. But I would add if the yaws would of protected the Christians after the conquest then certainly I'd have little ppm toppling vile tyrants such as saddam. I'm not against the co quwst as much as recognize ize the failure of short sightedness in aftermath

Reply
#26
Yeah, if you could topple Sadaam, but end up with a stable, peace loving country that protected Catholics, and opposed Iran, then toppling Sadaam would have been in the interest of the USA.

From the US standpoint, protecting Catholics was secondary, if even a consideration.  The big loss is that Sadaam hated Iran and hated Shiahs. Now you have Shiah's running the place.  You also have a civil war situations with Kurds, Sunnis and Shias all hating each other.  That is not in our interest.
Reply
#27
NO argument here.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)