• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why does America need Europe?

Thanks for being a blast from the past but a few meetings between them does not a connection make.

Yes actually it does, it proves that they had high level contacts just as I had asserted.

There was no assistance towards sept 11 by Iraq for Osama by any means and ive never heard of them offering serious material support either.

I never claimed that there was.

Osama has had contacts with alot of relatively anti-american states. Unless you have sources on Saddam and Osama collaborating I say its BS. And wiki directly states Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and gave no material support for the attacks.

Saddam had a collaborative relationship with Islamist terrorist organizations including AQ affiliates. I have never claimed that Saddam had a collaborative relationship with AQ proper nor did I claim he was involved in the 9-11 attacks.
 
These terror connections and their very real threat to us sounds frighteningly real and from a very reliable source, just like the WMDs.:shock::):lol:
 
These terror connections and their very real threat to us sounds frighteningly real and from a very reliable source,

The Pentagon?

just like the WMDs.:shock::):lol:

Generally all 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community tend to be reliable.
 
So did Saddam and Rumsfeldt/USA... ups.



All these claims to allegedly defend freedom and human rights abroad are rather hypocritical, as long as the US have no problems dealing with allies who are tyrannic monsters and genocidal dictators on the basis of the claim that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It were the US who supported islamist radicals in Afghanistan against the Soviets and Saddam against Iran. And, suddenly, a few years later, these bad guys suddenly turn against their former allies -- oops! Who could have possibly seen that coming?

So let's see who may become the next former US ally, who is armed by the US, to turn against the US. Maybe islamofascist Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?
 


All these claims to allegedly defend freedom and human rights abroad are rather hypocritical, as long as the US have no problems dealing with allies who are tyrannic monsters and genocidal dictators on the basis of the claim that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It were the US who supported islamist radicals in Afghanistan against the Soviets and Saddam against Iran. And, suddenly, a few years later, these bad guys suddenly turn against their former allies -- oops! Who could have possibly seen that coming?

So let's see who may become the next former US ally, who is armed by the US, to turn against the US. Maybe islamofascist Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?


My money is on Mexico..
 


All these claims to allegedly defend freedom and human rights abroad are rather hypocritical, as long as the US have no problems dealing with allies who are tyrannic monsters and genocidal dictators on the basis of the claim that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It were the US who supported islamist radicals in Afghanistan against the Soviets and Saddam against Iran. And, suddenly, a few years later, these bad guys suddenly turn against their former allies -- oops! Who could have possibly seen that coming?

So let's see who may become the next former US ally, who is armed by the US, to turn against the US. Maybe islamofascist Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?


Islamofascists?

Isn't Germany Iran's #1 trading partner in Europe, and weren't you the first western country to send your foreign minister to visit Iran after the Islamofascist revolution?
 


All these claims to allegedly defend freedom and human rights abroad are rather hypocritical, as long as the US have no problems dealing with allies who are tyrannic monsters and genocidal dictators on the basis of the claim that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It were the US who supported islamist radicals in Afghanistan against the Soviets and Saddam against Iran. And, suddenly, a few years later, these bad guys suddenly turn against their former allies -- oops! Who could have possibly seen that coming?

So let's see who may become the next former US ally, who is armed by the US, to turn against the US. Maybe islamofascist Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?


FYI your country supported Saddam far more than the U.S., in fact they actually gave him WMD production capability unlike the U.S. who only sold them dual use chemicals. As to Afghanistan yes we supported a legitimate indiginious resistance to an illegal Soviet invasion. We didn't support the foreign mujahadeen.
 
So Rumsfeld was conspiring to attack the U.S. with Saddam?

You wrote..

And yet Bin Laden and Saddam had high level contacts.

And that is no different than Rumsfeldt and Saddam.

Point is, association or even speaking too does not prove any thing what so ever on the contacts between the two and to what depth. So what if Saddam and his regime talked to Al Q and Bin Laden. Saddam was not religious other than to keep his people in check. He feared the religious rabble so much that he either killed them off or exiled them. On top of that, Bin Laden has never been very positive of the regimes in the Middle East, including that of Saddam.
 
FYI your country supported Saddam far more than the U.S., in fact they actually gave him WMD production capability unlike the U.S. who only sold them dual use chemicals. As to Afghanistan yes we supported a legitimate indiginious resistance to an illegal Soviet invasion. We didn't support the foreign mujahadeen.

ROLF. First off Germany and France and Russia are traditional trading partners of Iraq. They were before Saddam and have been after Saddam. You do not just change trading partners over night, nor do you change military suppliers over night. Not to mention US arms were and are expensive junk in the desert as the US learned the hard way during Desert Storm. I remember the A1-tank and the Apache having tons of problems with the sand and dust. Also Saddam was an ally of the US and the west against Iran. Do not deny that the US did not provide tons of intelligence for Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war.

Secondly in Afghanistan you supported foreign mujahadeen.. Bin Laden was there, among the indigenous resistance so hence you supported him and all the others. Where the hell do you think the AL Q fighters and others got their original training that was later used in Bosnia and Iraq? The US effort in Afghanistan against the Russians was in no way selective on who they funded and armed... and even attempting to claim this is a load of revisionist crap. Money and arms were funnelled through the Pakistanis and Saudis who supported anyone who could defeat the Russians.

And lets not forget Iran-Contra.. talk about working with the enemy.
 
Islamofascists?

Isn't Germany Iran's #1 trading partner in Europe, and weren't you the first western country to send your foreign minister to visit Iran after the Islamofascist revolution?

That may very well be true. And I don't think it's wrong per se to have trade relations with unappetizing people. Trade relations may even help to open up a rigid society. So I don't blame the US when they do that.

Delivering weapons, though, and military training, is a different matter. And it's also hypocritical to claim the major goal of foreign policy is promoting freedom and democracy, while your nation is giving military support for horrible dictatorships.

I'm not generally opposed to Realpolitik. But I think if you're doing that, you should at least admit it and be a little more modest when it comes to idealistic rhetorics.
 
FYI your country supported Saddam far more than the U.S., in fact they actually gave him WMD production capability unlike the U.S. who only sold them dual use chemicals. As to Afghanistan yes we supported a legitimate indiginious resistance to an illegal Soviet invasion. We didn't support the foreign mujahadeen.

Here we go again with the "reliable sources" and wild conspiracy theories, on top of a nationalistic dick size competition. Why are you hawkish guys so predictable? :lol:
 
As to Afghanistan yes we supported a legitimate indiginious resistance to an illegal Soviet invasion. We didn't support the foreign mujahadeen.

That is quite simply not true. Not only did you fund and train Arab fighters you did this at the expense of funding genuine Afghan fighters like Abdul Haq and with full knowledge of what these fanatics were like provided to you by him on numerous occasions with the request that you stop funding such fanatics.

The CIA believed their fanaticism would be all the better to fight for the USA.
 
Here we go again with the "reliable sources" and wild conspiracy theories, on top of a nationalistic dick size competition. Why are you hawkish guys so predictable? :lol:

In the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein ordered the creation of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.[21] Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs were assisted by a wide variety of firms and governments in the 1970s and 1980s.[22][23][24][25][26] As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manufacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[27]

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The list in Iraq's 1998/current chemical weapons declaration contains 31 "major suppliers", 14 from Germany. The 1996/current nuclear suppliers list has 62 company names on it, 33 from Germany. As Iraq claims that since 1991 it has not engaged in WMD production, the lists name no post-Gulf War suppliers. Call it old news. So much the sillier that the UN refuses to make them public. But since the BND claims that deliveries did not stop at the end of the Gulf War as well as simply as a matter of record of German complicity in arming Iraq, the issue remains an urgent current concern.

Leading the honor roll of chemical agents and production equipment suppliers (in this case nerve gas precursors and manufacturing) to Iraq is the German firm Preussag, now a subsidiary of Europe's largest travel agent and tour operator TUI - happy holidays! And Preussag has long been a firm dear to Schroeder's heart. In early 1998, when Schroeder was running for re-election as prime minister of the state of Lower Saxony which he had governed for eight years, he had the state buy 51 percent of Preussag's troubled steel division to the tune of US$500 million, claiming that 12,000 jobs were at stake. It was a characteristic Schroeder move: he knew that the Social Democrats would appoint him chancellor's candidate if he won in Lower Saxony. Win he did - first in Hannover, later in 1998 at the federal level to become chancellor. What did he know about the Preussag conglomerate's Iraq poison gas dealings? Don't ask.

Included on the Iraqi suppliers' lists are other world-renowned (eg, Hoechst, Daimler-Benz, Siemens, Kloeckner, Carl Zeiss, Schott Glas, etc) and smaller German firms. Notable are Karl Kolb/Pilot Plant and WTB (Walter Thosti Boswau) who built and equipped Iraq's two major "pesticide and detergent" plants which, said a WTB employee, produce "detergents to exterminate two-legged flies" (Spiegel 4/1989, p 24). The WTB undertaking was supported by a credit guarantee for several hundred million German marks by Hermes, a German government export and credit insurer. Noteworthy also is Rhein-Bayern, which supplied Iraq with eight mobile toxicological labs housed in sand-colored, camouflage-painted Magirus trucks.

Chemical agents? Biological agents? Machine tools and parts and materials for uranium enrichment and missile production? You name them and the Germans delivered them - and not only that: they supplied the plants and know-how for Iraq to make its own "pesticides" ("to protect the date harvest"), "vaccines" ("to eradicate smallpox and other contagious diseases"), and "x-ray machines".

Karl Kolb told investigative reporters following up the Pitts and Associates law suit that it has done business with Iraq for 35 years, but had no connection to its weapons programs. Preussag claimed that accusations it had supplied precursor chemicals for Iraqi weapons were untrue. Schott Glas said it was "a manufacturer of glass and glass components, not of weapons".

If Herr Schroeder had his way, one assumes, then that's where things would end. Happily, with some nasty American trial lawyers on the case, that's unlikely. And happily, though he tried once more in advance of last Sunday's state elections in Lower Saxony and Hesse to rally Germans to his party's cause with anti-Iraq war rhetoric, Schroeder was dealt a humiliating defeat in both states. He should have bought re-privatized Preussag once again. Even the most gullible of German voters saw through his miserable Iraq-war ploy this time around, blamed him for over 10 percent unemployment, and threw his candidates and party into the trash bin.

Asia Times

Thanks for playing.
 
That is quite simply not true. Not only did you fund and train Arab fighters you did this at the expense of funding genuine Afghan fighters like Abdul Haq and with full knowledge of what these fanatics were like provided to you by him on numerous occasions with the request that you stop funding such fanatics.

The CIA believed their fanaticism would be all the better to fight for the USA.

Simply untrue, there is absolutely 0 evidence that the CIA directly funded or aided or intentionally directed money through third parties to the foreign mujahadeen.
 
ROLF. First off Germany and France and Russia are traditional trading partners of Iraq.

And their largest arms and WMD suppliers.

They were before Saddam and have been after Saddam. You do not just change trading partners over night, nor do you change military suppliers over night. Not to mention US arms were and are expensive junk in the desert as the US learned the hard way during Desert Storm.

WTF are you talking about?

I remember the A1-tank and the Apache having tons of problems with the sand and dust.

I remember being the pre-war propaganda which turned out to be absolutely false as U.S. weapons performed wonderfully during the Gulf War.

Also Saddam was an ally of the US and the west against Iran. Do not deny that the US did not provide tons of intelligence for Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war.

More like a marriage of convenience, we didn't support Saddam like Germany, France, and Russia, but we did not want Iran to win so we did provide intelligence, but in terms of material military aid we provided about .5% of the total foreign arms to Iraq consisting exclusively of dual use items weaponized after the fact.

Secondly in Afghanistan you supported foreign mujahadeen..

No we didn't.

Bin Laden was there, among the indigenous resistance so hence you supported him and all the others.

We did not fund or arm any of the foreign mujahadeen.

Where the hell do you think the AL Q fighters and others got their original training that was later used in Bosnia and Iraq? The US effort in Afghanistan against the Russians was in no way selective on who they funded and armed... and even attempting to claim this is a load of revisionist crap. Money and arms were funnelled through the Pakistanis and Saudis who supported anyone who could defeat the Russians.

The U.S. never directly funded the foreign mujahadeen and there is no evidence that the U.S. intentionally directed funds throught third parties to the foreign mujahadeen. The foreign mujahadeen had their own sources of funding and it was those sources of funding which would become the backbone of "the base" after the Soviet-Afghan war IE a large network of rich Arabs and charitable fronts.

And lets not forget Iran-Contra.. talk about working with the enemy.

Ya we supplied them with replacement parts for obsolete aircraft.
 
And their largest arms and WMD suppliers.

Yes and so what?

WTF are you talking about?

Not my fault you dont know about this.

I remember being the pre-war propaganda which turned out to be absolutely false as U.S. weapons performed wonderfully during the Gulf War.

Yes they did.. after they were refitted to deal with the desert conditions. The Apache and the Abrahams tank had to have newly designed replacement filters put on to deal with the desert sand. Google it.

More like a marriage of convenience, we didn't support Saddam like Germany, France, and Russia, but we did not want Iran to win so we did provide intelligence, but in terms of material military aid we provided about .5% of the total foreign arms to Iraq consisting exclusively of dual use items weaponized after the fact.

You simply dont get it.... Iraq has always used Russia, French and German weapons.. you do not.. I repeat do not, change military supplier over night unless you are forced to do it.. Your troops, your whole infrastructure is based on the technology you have. The more you promote this idiotic attempt to slur those countries just because of their military contacts to Saddam, the more stupid it looks.. or rather.. are you jealous? Hell even today, the Iraqies use the Russians, French and Germans as suppliers because their military is use to the material.... not to mention it is a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to maintain.

As for the US ties to Saddam.. dont kid yourself. Saddam was a friend, weather it was of convenience or true friendship.. it does not matter. You bought his oil and you gave him intelligence to strike his enemies with among other things... WMDs. Hell you even bought his oil during his isolation, like the typical hypocrites you are.

No we didn't.

LOL you live in a clear cut black and white world right? Of course you did. You had NO control over where the weapons went for god sake. Most of it was funnelled through 3rd parties like the Pakistanis.

We did not fund or arm any of the foreign mujahadeen.

So you are denying that any US weapons were used by foreign mujahadeen in Afghanistan? That no weapons or funding... even food and water, did not touch the lips of a non Afghani during the war?

The U.S. never directly funded the foreign mujahadeen and there is no evidence that the U.S. intentionally directed funds throught third parties to the foreign mujahadeen. The foreign mujahadeen had their own sources of funding and it was those sources of funding which would become the backbone of "the base" after the Soviet-Afghan war IE a large network of rich Arabs and charitable fronts.

Ahh now you change the scenario lol.. now it is direct funding and not just funding.. Of course not.. the US did not directly fund ANYTHING. They funnelled it through 3rd parties and under the table.

But I love that you suddenly change the whole fundamentals of the discussions.

Ya we supplied them with replacement parts for obsolete aircraft.

Yea.. you supplied your enemy with weapons. Illegally too.. while helping drug lords and South American death squads.. but hey!
 

Just as I thought not one scrap of evidence for the accusation, the links links to another link which asserts that the CIA used the ISI as an intermediary, but provides 0 evidence that the CIA directed the ISI to use the funds it provided to them to fund the foreign mujahadeen. Once again teh foreign mujahadeen had their own sources of funding, AQ was and is first and foremost a fund raising network.
 
Just as I thought not one scrap of evidence for the accusation, the links links to another link which asserts that the CIA used the ISI as an intermediary, but provides 0 evidence that the CIA directed the ISI to use the funds it provided to them to fund the foreign mujahadeen. Once again teh foreign mujahadeen had their own sources of funding, AQ was and is first and foremost a fund raising network.

They were funded by the US, the UK, China and I think Saudi America. This is well known so your pathetic attempts to pretend to say other than that are just that, pathetic. The US had the major funding and training of the Mujahadeen and they left the educating of Afghan refugee children to be funded by the Saudi's with their full knowledge. An education which ignored the basics required for normal life including the history of Afghanistan and instead concentrated on indoctrinating them into becoming fanatical islamists so that they too could grow up and fight for your countryand later go and ruin their own.

However I heard it all from the mouth of Abdul Haq in a documentary mainly created before he was killed by the Taliban when his calls for help resulted in no help from the US. They talk about the documentary at this link

BBC - BBC Four Documentaries - Afghan Warrior


You will also be able to look at what RAWA have to say and of all people they are the ones most harmed by what happened to Afghanistan funded by the US albeit disguised as funding to the ISI and the trained by the US.

The U.S. and the Afghan Tragedy « RAWA News

For the rest. I know the truth. I have no interest to waste my time more with someone who keeps wanting to say black is white. You are getting too much attention for saying rubbish. I seem to remember I discovered you were a good person to ignore before.
 
Not my fault you dont know about this.

I know of the pre-war propaganda that said they would break down in the desert, this was proven to be complete bull****. Only one fatality occurred in an M1A1 during the Gulf War, and 0 apaches were lost.

Yes they did.. after they were refitted to deal with the desert conditions. The Apache and the Abrahams tank had to have newly designed replacement filters put on to deal with the desert sand. Google it.

Prove it, they simply had to routinely clean out the existing filters.


You simply dont get it.... Iraq has always used Russia, French and German weapons.. you do not.. I repeat do not, change military supplier over night unless you are forced to do it..

I understand that but did Germany, France, and Russia cut off their supply of weapons? Why does the U.S. get singled out when the U.S. provided no weapons to speak of?

Your troops, your whole infrastructure is based on the technology you have. The more you promote this idiotic attempt to slur those countries just because of their military contacts to Saddam, the more stupid it looks.. or rather.. are you jealous? Hell even today, the Iraqies use the Russians, French and Germans as suppliers because their military is use to the material.... not to mention it is a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to maintain.

Um he brought up the U.S. supporting Iraq as a condemnation of the U.S., will he now condemn his own country for far more agregious actions; such as, the illegal proliferation of actual WMD production? Something to my knowledge even the Soviets did.

As for the US ties to Saddam.. dont kid yourself. Saddam was a friend, weather it was of convenience or true friendship.. it does not matter. You bought his oil and you gave him intelligence to strike his enemies with among other things... WMDs.

He was on the U.S. terrorist watch list until we saw that he was about to be over run by the Iranians we provided him photos you guys provided him WMD production capacity and billions of dollars in heavy weapons.

Hell you even bought his oil during his isolation, like the typical hypocrites you are.

Ha it was the Europeans making back door oil treaties with Saddam during the sanctions we enaged in the oil for food program which was corrupted by members of the U.N. specifically European members of the U.N.. Saddam offered the U.S. lucractive PSA's if we agreed not to take him out of power.

LOL you live in a clear cut black and white world right? Of course you did. You had NO control over where the weapons went for god sake. Most of it was funnelled through 3rd parties like the Pakistanis.

And where is your evidence that it was a) funneled to the foreign jihadists, and b) done so at the bequest of the CIA. You try to make it sound like the CIA had direct links to the foreign jihadists and that OBL was an asset, that is false.

So you are denying that any US weapons were used by foreign mujahadeen in Afghanistan? That no weapons or funding... even food and water, did not touch the lips of a non Afghani during the war?

I'm stating that if they were (and you have not proved that in any way) that it was not done on the directive of the CIA.


Ahh now you change the scenario lol.. now it is direct funding and not just funding.. Of course not.. the US did not directly fund ANYTHING. They funnelled it through 3rd parties and under the table.

But I love that you suddenly change the whole fundamentals of the discussions.

No we directly funded, armed, and trained the indiginous mujahadeen now provide evidence that the CIA directed the ISI to fund the foreign jihadists.

Yea.. you supplied your enemy with weapons.

Replacement parts for obsolete planes.

Illegally too.. while helping drug lords and South American death squads.. but hey!

South American death squads? Oh you're talking about the Contra's and not the genocidal mass murdering pig sandinistas. :roll:
 
I think if America was on the winning side, we would all join in, but nobody wants to be part of a losing war. I just dont see how this war can be won, already the president of Afganistan is trying to win support among the Taliban, actually his enemy? Its a different culture that we dont understand, so lets leave. The ceiling wont fall down, if America leaves see Vietnam.

By the way, I read that America found gold in Afghanistan and other precious metals, did GWB have a hidden agenda? Im asking, because where did soilders find the time to mine, instead of fighting Taliban soilders?

Got even a scrap of evidence?
 
......We are not anti-american just because we demand to be independent and solve our own problems. ......

Now, see this here is hilarious. You've spent an entire twentieth century proving that you cannot solve your own problems. If you could solve your own problems there wouldn't be so much American blood throughout Europe's soil. Normally, America is criticized for showing up late and with each decade is percieved as having less and less to do with anything over there. But here you "demand independence and the ability to solve your own problems?" If you don't have the ability, which is obvious, don't pretend the U.S. masters your region. We merely deal with your garbage.

As for independent, who colonized you? Last I checked it was your European nations stripping independence away from everyone else and keeping it away as long as possible. It was your own independent decisions that created two World Wars. Today, it is your own independent decisions that struggle through whether or not to support your own nations in this economic crisis. Your EU just criticized the U.S. for not working better with Europe in regards to just about everything. Do you want your emancipation and "independence" or not?

Seems to me that this argument of European identity twists out of place from one crisis to the next.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom