U.S. Army: Just serving our country
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2012, 04:22 PM
RE: U.S. Army: Just serving our country
(18-08-2012 04:10 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 04:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Much as I find your avatar disturbing, I quite agree with many of your ideas.Thumbsup

What disturbs you the most? Her beauty or her good looks? ;D

With that avatar, it feels like I'm talking to a tween girl.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-08-2012, 09:18 AM
RE: U.S. Army: Just serving our country
(18-08-2012 03:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is not simply the U.S that is involved in the constant wars in the middle east. The NATO alliance, comprised of almost all of the western world, has their hands in it.

Unless you are completely blinded by ideology, you'd know that foreign policies have only personal interests involved. Politicians attempt to have it both ways, trying benefit their country and the world at the same time. It rarely works that way, but it is something that will be ironed out eventually, for better or for worse.
From what I heard, NATO units serve U.S. forces as a cover, particularly in Iraq, so it doesn't look weird that only Americans are there. Hell, many other nations have units there to make it look diverse. But nobody else there ever had a million soldiers like U.S.

Another rumor that I heard, remember back in 2010 or something how Michail Saakashvili tried to start a war to take a piece of land from the former Russian territory (Gruzia, I think)? Reputedly, he was talked into this by Americans, he got promises of military help from the side of NATO. They used him to test the Russians if they allow this to happen, to test how strong the Kremlin is.

(18-08-2012 03:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  However, the U.S losing its place in the world? That's true. No longer is technological advancement exclusive to the one nation in the west that has all the money. Even in the east, technology is surpassing that of the U.S. Everyone is able to do so now, hell, look at Iran. Nuclear weapons will start pouring out of their ass soon. The only thing that keeps the U.S in its place currently, is its military. Without it, it is forgotten.
Technology maybe, but USA has rating agencies that decide prices of everything. Though one thing I noticed is this local joke we have here in Europe:
Optimists learn English.
Pessimists learn Chinese.
Realists learn to shoot.

(18-08-2012 03:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If no one joins the military, who is going to be the police force in the world? Soldiers join because they believe they are serving their country, and sometimes unbeknownst to them, the rest of the world too.

Kids can join the military at the age of sixteen with their parental permission, so yes, young people do join the military. I would never join it unless something threatened the world, such as a nuclear Iran. Let's all not forget that there are still active threats in the world, and despite the slow progression to peace, we still need those police.

I am personally exhausted of these things we call "countries" and "borders". These labels we have such as race and ethnicity. Who the fuck cares? All people want it for is so they can have their own fucking useless identity. You want a real identity? Make one for yourself. Nations are a dying breed in my eyes, and I always look for a way to quicken its demise.

I'm not against military as such, but against a military that enforces selfish interests. Ideally all military should belong to UN and be used impartially under clear guidelines of peacekeeping. War as a way to accomplish anything must become history. All problems must be solved peacefully, but actively.

16 years y/o soldiers, you say? Daaamn. What the hell. I know the kids often benefit from firm discipline, but with these pricks at the government they can be told to believe anything and fight anywhere. Without being taught how to think and how to disobey bullshit commands and boycott bullshit wars.

I kinda agree with you on the nations and countries. But nations are like living things, like memes in people's heads. They get born, live and die. And have an influence on their people, even give them some statistic character traits and tendencies.
The trick is to re-define nations as a cultural thing. To declare nationality as a pure and valuable cultural heritage from our ancestors that is too precious to be dirtied by political, economic and military bullshit. I'll paraphrase three various people here, with municipalities having the same legal power as the central government, even ethnically diverse groups can live within one state in peace. Basic economic necessities must be available regardless of nations and borders or economic cycles. If they have basic needs, other nations aren't easily swayed into aggression.
If nations have sufficient resources without competition, then different cultures are not a problem, they're an asset. It is a good kind of diversity, unity in diversity. If you for example go to Czech Republic as a tourist, you want to see all things Czech and you'd be disappointed to find another version of America and Americans everywhere. (of course you need to get out of Prague for that)


(18-08-2012 04:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 04:10 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  What disturbs you the most? Her beauty or her good looks? ;D

With that avatar, it feels like I'm talking to a tween girl.
What disturbs me, is that I don't know from which anime that girl is Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 09:30 AM
RE: U.S. Army: Just serving our country
(19-08-2012 09:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  From what I heard, NATO units serve U.S. forces as a cover, particularly in Iraq, so it doesn't look weird that only Americans are there. Hell, many other nations have units there to make it look diverse. But nobody else there ever had a million soldiers like U.S.

That's because the U.S has the second largest military on the planet. Have you ever heard of Libya? NATO was the primary operating force there, the U.S avoided it.

(19-08-2012 09:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Another rumor that I heard, remember back in 2010 or something how Michail Saakashvili tried to start a war to take a piece of land from the former Russian territory (Gruzia, I think)? Reputedly, he was talked into this by Americans, he got promises of military help from the side of NATO. They used him to test the Russians if they allow this to happen, to test how strong the Kremlin is.

Okay? Even if this were true, you and I both know that the Russians are not very trusted.

(19-08-2012 09:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Technology maybe, but USA has rating agencies that decide prices of everything. Though one thing I noticed is this local joke we have here in Europe:
Optimists learn English.
Pessimists learn Chinese.
Realists learn to shoot.

You think that will last? China is now the leading economic power in the world.
There is also a running joke in America:
Mitt Romney

(19-08-2012 09:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm not against military as such, but against a military that enforces selfish interests. Ideally all military should belong to UN and be used impartially under clear guidelines of peacekeeping. War as a way to accomplish anything must become history. All problems must be solved peacefully, but actively.

I partially agree with you on that.

(19-08-2012 09:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  16 years y/o soldiers, you say? Daaamn. What the hell. I know the kids often benefit from firm discipline, but with these pricks at the government they can be told to believe anything and fight anywhere. Without being taught how to think and how to disobey bullshit commands and boycott bullshit wars.

It is their choice on whether or not they want to join. The U.S military relies on volunteers.

(19-08-2012 09:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I kinda agree with you on the nations and countries. But nations are like living things, like memes in people's heads. They get born, live and die. And have an influence on their people, even give them some statistic character traits and tendencies.
The trick is to re-define nations as a cultural thing. To declare nationality as a pure and valuable cultural heritage from our ancestors that is too precious to be dirtied by political, economic and military bullshit. I'll paraphrase three various people here, with municipalities having the same legal power as the central government, even ethnically diverse groups can live within one state in peace. Basic economic necessities must be available regardless of nations and borders or economic cycles. If they have basic needs, other nations aren't easily swayed into aggression.
If nations have sufficient resources without competition, then different cultures are not a problem, they're an asset. It is a good kind of diversity, unity in diversity. If you for example go to Czech Republic as a tourist, you want to see all things Czech and you'd be disappointed to find another version of America and Americans everywhere. (of course you need to get out of Prague for that)

I wish I could agree with you on that, but it is wishful thinking. You either get rid of nations, or you remain separated. You can't have the two together.

(19-08-2012 09:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What disturbs me, is that I don't know from which anime that girl is Tongue

That's because she is not from an anime, though I am thinking about changing my theme to Winry from Full Metal Alchemist soon. I change it about ever 2 months.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 11:18 AM
RE: U.S. Army: Just serving our country
(18-08-2012 02:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The problem is an involuntary presence. For example in my country the U.S. army just bought my politicians and they negotiated the bases against at least 70% disagreement of the nation.

You can't call it an involuntary presence if the government has approved it.

(18-08-2012 02:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In some cases, U.S. army is like someone who comes into a house and destroys all the pillars that hold it up. And then whatever remains, he holds it up himself and cannot go away without all that collapsing. That's what happened in Iraq, for example. In such a case nothing they can do will be right, there'll be no fast and easy solutions.

Sometimes a situation is so fucked up that there is no fast and easy solution. Kudos to America for trying anyway.

(18-08-2012 02:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The solution here is logistics, let's say there's a treaty for protection, a better treaty than NATO, thing like Korean president calls American general and he sends a couple of aircraft carriers to the shore like a policeman would send a car. How fast can that be done? How quickly can one country defend another without maintaining a presence? That's not up to me to answer.

It sounds like you're not familiar with how quickly N. Korea could invade the South. There would be no time to send an aircraft carrier, nor is the military defensive situation conducive to air defense alone.

And I see that you identified no other potential countries to come to the aid of S. Korea.

(18-08-2012 10:15 AM)Jeff Wrote:  Also, if they don't have US protection, a lot more countries would see it as a necessity to develop nuclear weapons, causing a massive proliferation. Is that a good thing?

(18-08-2012 02:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't understand this reasoning. In fact, Iran develops its nuclear program (which was meant to be peaceful) exactly because others have nukes. Namely Israel. It is a perfectly safe thing to exist as a state and not have nukes. My state does not have nukes and I feel totally safe. Nukes are pretty damn expensive. States only get nukes if they are under foreign pressure, or think they are.

I don't see how you're disagreeing with my point. Iran isn't under US protection. States feel less foreign pressure when they know they can rely on a powerful ally.

(18-08-2012 02:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In fact, nukes are epitome of bigotry. Would you allow the insecure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to inspect YOUR country for weapons of mass destruction?

The IAEA (international atomic energy agency) inspects US nuke facilities so I don't get your point.

(18-08-2012 02:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  United States (the greatest nuclear superpower and the only state which actually used them) sent inspectors to scour thoroughly for weapons of mass destruction across all the Iraq including Saddam's buttcrack and they didn't find any. But it didn't do Saddam any good, he wanted to accept all conditions but he was ignored, they wanted his blood... I mean oil. Now Ahmadinejad is convinced the same is going to happen with him, if not from American hands, then Israelites will do the job. Unless he actually has the nukes. Nobody wants to use them, but everybody wants a decent treatment at the international community and the bombs seem the only way how to be heard.

Yes, many military actions have protection of oil facilities as an objective, but the US doesn't take the oil, just ensures that it is available for sale, including to Europe. You might give some thought to what life would be like without oil.

Yes there was the belief that Iraq had developed WMD beyond the WMD that they had already been documented to have used against their own people. Hussein did a good job of creating the impression that he was developing additional WMD and the US bought it.

(18-08-2012 02:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It is not a coincidence that USA protects Israel even if it as a state behaved psychotically. USA vetoed countless sanctions against Israel at the United Nations, probably to be available for doing dirty jobs in that area. So nukes are not the solution. Decent treatment is.

No it's not a coincidence. We support Israel because it's a UN-created democratic state allied with the US. Their behavior isn't psychotic. Their behavior is consistent with a small nation under constant attack with powerful enemies sworn to their destruction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeff's post
19-08-2012, 02:54 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2012 03:00 PM by tnt4philly.)
RE: U.S. Army: Just serving our country
(19-08-2012 09:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 03:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is not simply the U.S that is involved in the constant wars in the middle east. The NATO alliance, comprised of almost all of the western world, has their hands in it.

Unless you are completely blinded by ideology, you'd know that foreign policies have only personal interests involved. Politicians attempt to have it both ways, trying benefit their country and the world at the same time. It rarely works that way, but it is something that will be ironed out eventually, for better or for worse.
From what I heard, NATO units serve U.S. forces as a cover, particularly in Iraq, so it doesn't look weird that only Americans are there. Hell, many other nations have units there to make it look diverse. But nobody else there ever had a million soldiers like U.S.

Another rumor that I heard, remember back in 2010 or something how Michail Saakashvili tried to start a war to take a piece of land from the former Russian territory (Gruzia, I think)? Reputedly, he was talked into this by Americans, he got promises of military help from the side of NATO. They used him to test the Russians if they allow this to happen, to test how strong the Kremlin is.

(18-08-2012 03:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  However, the U.S losing its place in the world? That's true. No longer is technological advancement exclusive to the one nation in the west that has all the money. Even in the east, technology is surpassing that of the U.S. Everyone is able to do so now, hell, look at Iran. Nuclear weapons will start pouring out of their ass soon. The only thing that keeps the U.S in its place currently, is its military. Without it, it is forgotten.
Technology maybe, but USA has rating agencies that decide prices of everything. Though one thing I noticed is this local joke we have here in Europe:
Optimists learn English.
Pessimists learn Chinese.
Realists learn to shoot.

(18-08-2012 03:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If no one joins the military, who is going to be the police force in the world? Soldiers join because they believe they are serving their country, and sometimes unbeknownst to them, the rest of the world too.

Kids can join the military at the age of sixteen with their parental permission, so yes, young people do join the military. I would never join it unless something threatened the world, such as a nuclear Iran. Let's all not forget that there are still active threats in the world, and despite the slow progression to peace, we still need those police.

I am personally exhausted of these things we call "countries" and "borders". These labels we have such as race and ethnicity. Who the fuck cares? All people want it for is so they can have their own fucking useless identity. You want a real identity? Make one for yourself. Nations are a dying breed in my eyes, and I always look for a way to quicken its demise.

I'm not against military as such, but against a military that enforces selfish interests. Ideally all military should belong to UN and be used impartially under clear guidelines of peacekeeping. War as a way to accomplish anything must become history. All problems must be solved peacefully, but actively.

16 years y/o soldiers, you say? Daaamn. What the hell. I know the kids often benefit from firm discipline, but with these pricks at the government they can be told to believe anything and fight anywhere. Without being taught how to think and how to disobey bullshit commands and boycott bullshit wars.

I kinda agree with you on the nations and countries. But nations are like living things, like memes in people's heads. They get born, live and die. And have an influence on their people, even give them some statistic character traits and tendencies.
The trick is to re-define nations as a cultural thing. To declare nationality as a pure and valuable cultural heritage from our ancestors that is too precious to be dirtied by political, economic and military bullshit. I'll paraphrase three various people here, with municipalities having the same legal power as the central government, even ethnically diverse groups can live within one state in peace. Basic economic necessities must be available regardless of nations and borders or economic cycles. If they have basic needs, other nations aren't easily swayed into aggression.
If nations have sufficient resources without competition, then different cultures are not a problem, they're an asset. It is a good kind of diversity, unity in diversity. If you for example go to Czech Republic as a tourist, you want to see all things Czech and you'd be disappointed to find another version of America and Americans everywhere. (of course you need to get out of Prague for that)


(18-08-2012 04:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  With that avatar, it feels like I'm talking to a tween girl.
What disturbs me, is that I don't know from which anime that girl is Tongue

That is not all that true anymore. I served in the military on active and reserve duty, pretty much split in half, from 1981-2008. I have seen a huge shift in the way the military trains it's soldiers. Of course when the shit hits that fan there is one person who calls the shots, but in training mode it is ran as a team where everyone had input on how best to do things. We also had to constantly sit through classes to recognize and learn to deal with unlawful orders. Of course each individual member does not get to pick and choose which wars they can participate in but that would not be a real effective way to run a military anyway. We have branches of Government to decide that whether we agree with them of not.

And the part abou how SH agreeing to all of our terms....that is total BS. That murderin asshole played cat and mopuse wirth us for ten years, ignoring UN sanctions, ignoring the no-fly zone, taking pot shots at our aircraft. I am not going to shed a tear that he is gone from this world and the Iraqi people have better future now that he is gone. And it also bullshit that we wanted his oil. We may wanted it out of his control, but seeing that our gas prices have been much higher since the wars shows that we did not benfit all that much in that area.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like tnt4philly's post
20-08-2012, 12:42 PM
RE: U.S. Army: Just serving our country
(19-08-2012 02:54 PM)tnt4philly Wrote:  That is not all that true anymore. I served in the military on active and reserve duty, pretty much split in half, from 1981-2008. I have seen a huge shift in the way the military trains it's soldiers. Of course when the shit hits that fan there is one person who calls the shots, but in training mode it is ran as a team where everyone had input on how best to do things. We also had to constantly sit through classes to recognize and learn to deal with unlawful orders. Of course each individual member does not get to pick and choose which wars they can participate in but that would not be a real effective way to run a military anyway. We have branches of Government to decide that whether we agree with them of not.
I'm very glad to see that. Pretty much everyone have this image of a screaming sergeant in boot camp insulting and tormenting recruits and the rest of lessons will be taught by the enemy.

(19-08-2012 02:54 PM)tnt4philly Wrote:  And the part abou how SH agreeing to all of our terms....that is total BS. That murderin asshole played cat and mopuse wirth us for ten years, ignoring UN sanctions, ignoring the no-fly zone, taking pot shots at our aircraft. I am not going to shed a tear that he is gone from this world and the Iraqi people have better future now that he is gone. And it also bullshit that we wanted his oil. We may wanted it out of his control, but seeing that our gas prices have been much higher since the wars shows that we did not benfit all that much in that area.
To me it looks like the cat and mouse game was rather two-sided. IIRC, Saddam was a former agent of some American agency, possibly CIA. So he surely had a few tricks up his sleeve. How to protect himself from spies, assassins and so on.
As a long-time dictator he had to learn how to maintain order, that is, keep at bay the religious fanatics and make sure there is water, food, electricity, roads and jobs. So despite his genocidal attempts like mass murder of Kurds I think it was overall better to let him stay in power, he wasn't in cahoots with Al Kaida or anything and I doubt he'd kill anything near a million of his people like the Iraq war did.
I think Saddam's downfall was in how Americans managed to manipulate the information he got and then his public image in the world. I heard they made him think that he can safely pull off the invasion of Kuwait, while he really couldn't.
And in the end he was portrayed in media as a supervillain and no amount of openness from his side was enough.
This is one of reasons why I'm afraid of America's power, it's not just the financial institutions and stock markets, it's the media too. Global media take most of the material from Americans and American or British politicians have a free pass into the media.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2012, 03:36 PM
RE: U.S. Army: Just serving our country
(20-08-2012 12:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-08-2012 02:54 PM)tnt4philly Wrote:  That is not all that true anymore. I served in the military on active and reserve duty, pretty much split in half, from 1981-2008. I have seen a huge shift in the way the military trains it's soldiers. Of course when the shit hits that fan there is one person who calls the shots, but in training mode it is ran as a team where everyone had input on how best to do things. We also had to constantly sit through classes to recognize and learn to deal with unlawful orders. Of course each individual member does not get to pick and choose which wars they can participate in but that would not be a real effective way to run a military anyway. We have branches of Government to decide that whether we agree with them of not.
I'm very glad to see that. Pretty much everyone have this image of a screaming sergeant in boot camp insulting and tormenting recruits and the rest of lessons will be taught by the enemy.

(19-08-2012 02:54 PM)tnt4philly Wrote:  And the part abou how SH agreeing to all of our terms....that is total BS. That murderin asshole played cat and mopuse wirth us for ten years, ignoring UN sanctions, ignoring the no-fly zone, taking pot shots at our aircraft. I am not going to shed a tear that he is gone from this world and the Iraqi people have better future now that he is gone. And it also bullshit that we wanted his oil. We may wanted it out of his control, but seeing that our gas prices have been much higher since the wars shows that we did not benfit all that much in that area.
To me it looks like the cat and mouse game was rather two-sided. IIRC, Saddam was a former agent of some American agency, possibly CIA. So he surely had a few tricks up his sleeve. How to protect himself from spies, assassins and so on.
As a long-time dictator he had to learn how to maintain order, that is, keep at bay the religious fanatics and make sure there is water, food, electricity, roads and jobs. So despite his genocidal attempts like mass murder of Kurds I think it was overall better to let him stay in power, he wasn't in cahoots with Al Kaida or anything and I doubt he'd kill anything near a million of his people like the Iraq war did.
I think Saddam's downfall was in how Americans managed to manipulate the information he got and then his public image in the world. I heard they made him think that he can safely pull off the invasion of Kuwait, while he really couldn't.
And in the end he was portrayed in media as a supervillain and no amount of openness from his side was enough.
This is one of reasons why I'm afraid of America's power, it's not just the financial institutions and stock markets, it's the media too. Global media take most of the material from Americans and American or British politicians have a free pass into the media.

WOW, SH was responsible for killing many more of his own people than the war ever has. Aside from the middle class that he kept us as a buffer in some of the bigger cities, that country was shit hole and people were starving to death on a daily basis. Very few were getting any education....I could go on how fucked up that country was and how horrible the future was for the average Iraqi. I am not sure I ever met a SH apologist before. You can make a good argument that we should have never went into Iraq, but to paint SH as anything less than the evil tyrant he was is…….I don’t even know what to call it. And seriously, we made him think he had a chance of taking Kuwait? How the hell do you sleep with those boogie men sleeping under your bed?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tnt4philly's post
20-08-2012, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2012 07:28 PM by Buddy Christ.)
RE: U.S. Army: Just serving our country
(20-08-2012 03:36 PM)tnt4philly Wrote:  And seriously, we made him think he had a chance of taking Kuwait? How the hell do you sleep with those boogie men sleeping under your bed?

Actually, I had heard that too. Don't know what the source was or of its credibility, but I had read somewhere once that the US actually secretly gave him the green light to invade Kuwait, and then publicly opposed his actions and responded with our military.

Of course, I have also heard that you can eat as much bacon as you want and not gain weight and that Pluto was a planet.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
20-08-2012, 08:36 PM
RE: U.S. Army: Just serving our country
Come on folks - we, the US, did not "green light" Kuwait, but our ambassador in Baghdad was less than stellar and did not provide a direct, no shit response to Saddam when he asked what we'd think...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

He was a shitbag, and deserved to go, but we could have done a much better job of it...

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 10:20 AM
RE: U.S. Army: Just serving our country
(20-08-2012 03:36 PM)tnt4philly Wrote:  WOW, SH was responsible for killing many more of his own people than the war ever has. Aside from the middle class that he kept us as a buffer in some of the bigger cities, that country was shit hole and people were starving to death on a daily basis. Very few were getting any education....I could go on how fucked up that country was and how horrible the future was for the average Iraqi. I am not sure I ever met a SH apologist before. You can make a good argument that we should have never went into Iraq, but to paint SH as anything less than the evil tyrant he was is…….I don’t even know what to call it. And seriously, we made him think he had a chance of taking Kuwait? How the hell do you sleep with those boogie men sleeping under your bed?
I'm not a SH apologist, just so far I had been under impression that there was some semblance of order and infrastructure in Iraq before the invasion and that now it's bombed 50 years back in development. If you say the facts are different, show me some please.

Another thing worth investigating is Libya. Some people say that before the fall of Kaddafi Libya was some sort of African super-welfare state. Articles described free housing for citizens and money they received from the government as a welfare, newlywed gift, student dotations and so on. Reputedly, there were no poor immigrant workers from Libya.
Instead, my country had good relations with Libya during communism, producing little Korans for them, plus airplanes and sending pilots there.
Of course, the revolution brought this all to ashes, making conspiracy theorists wonder if someone wanted the fall of this regime. The same theorists wondering why the Internet cable to all Egypt led through American embassy in Cairo.
What do you think, are such rumors a new tactics of anti-American conspiracy theorists?

(20-08-2012 07:22 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Actually, I had heard that too. Don't know what the source was or of its credibility, but I had read somewhere once that the US actually secretly gave him the green light to invade Kuwait, and then publicly opposed his actions and responded with our military.
Another conspiracy theory, I had read in independent press that Saddam had been accidentally killed during the first days of the invasion. The man later caught near Tikrit in a hole was one of his doubles.
At first nobody believed this excuse and then someone, CIA perhaps, decided to be very persuasive and brainwash him into thinking that he is the real SH. (all it needed was just a lot of sleep deprivation torture) And so the people got their boogey man and everyone was happy.

Similarly, the same source says that Osama bin Laden wasn't himself lately either. Some older news item said that he had kidney problems. The real problem is, in a villa where he was eventually killed nobody found any dialysis machines. A true ObL with failing kidneys would not be able to survive in that house. Instead it was his younger brother who took his place. The true Osama died peacefully in 2006.
Which is possibly one of reasons why U.S. soldiers dumped his body into the sea, that the true identity doesn't get examined. There was a DNA test, but they only proved he belonged among the bin Laden siblings, not that it was really Osama.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: