Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You
Click for ZooMed
Click here to visit Classifieds

Same result (more....)

H+E Stoeckl Feb 23, 2004 06:20 AM

Rodmalm wrote about the U.S. helping Saddam to increase power:

Cite:
"Sure we did. If we hadn't, Iran would have rolled over Iraq years ago. At the time, that was considered to be far worse than not helping Saddam."

Thank you for these lines, rodmalm!

You will have a regime of shiit Mullahs at the latest in several years in Iraq. Since the members of both governments (Iran and Iraq) will be Shiits then (who surely cooperate because they are from the same tribe) you will have the same result as if Iran would have been occupied Iraq during the war of both countries.

Only the way to this result is more complicated and plastered with more foreign victims.

So what is your statement to this near-sighted decision of the U.S. government that will lead to the establishment of another western countries hating theocracy?

Replies (1)

rodmalm Feb 24, 2004 04:57 AM

Rodmalm wrote about the U.S. helping Saddam to increase power:

Cite:
"Sure we did. If we hadn't, Iran would have rolled over Iraq years ago. At the time, that was considered to be far worse than not helping Saddam."

Thank you for these lines, rodmalm!

You are welcome for those lines, now don't distort what I said! I said we sold him weapons to prevent him, and Iraq from being crushed by Iran. I never said we did it to try and increase his power. We did it to increase stability in the middle east, by preventing one country from taking over the region. We were selling arms to Iran at about the same time too, so they wouldn't be taken over by Iraq! There is a big difference in what I said, and what you said I said! Providing stability in the region, and helping Saddam increase power, are not the same thing.

You will have a regime of shiit Mullahs at the latest in several years in Iraq. Since the members of both governments (Iran and Iraq) will be Shiits then (who surely cooperate because they are from the same tribe) you will have the same result as if Iran would have been occupied Iraq during the war of both countries.

Only the way to this result is more complicated and plastered with more foreign victims.

So what is your statement to this near-sighted decision of the U.S. government that will lead to the establishment of another western countries hating theocracy?

Wow, you must be psychic! I don't know what will happen in the next several years!

So you think that putting off something that is sure to happen right now, in the hopes that by putting it off, it might never happen, is short sighted? It would be better to let it happen now, than to try and prevent it, or put it off for a number of years? And what makes you think they won't hate us just as much if we do nothing? After all, wasn't it you who said those responsible for 9/11 were Saudis? What have we done to the Saudis to earn their hate? (Other than buy their oil and let them determine their own political fate.) Muslims kill each other on a regular basis, why would you think they wouldn't eventually come after us, if they could, regardless of what we do?

Rodney

Site Tools