BF2S Forums Why Should America's Freedom

You really don't like America do you?

No other country has killed MILLIONS since WW2, tell me who else has???

there is the Iraq/Iran conflict but who gave the chemical weapons to Saddam to use on the Iranians????

Last edited by rammunition (2008-04-20 11:19:25)

rammunition wrote:

I think the silence tells alot

You mean that no-ones listning to you?

Yes, it does.

rammunition wrote:

No other country has killed MILLIONS since WW2, tell me who else has???

there is the Iraq/Iran conflict but who gave the chemical weapons to Saddam to use on the Iranians????

French, look up Mao as well on that millions thing.

rammunition wrote:

can we please stick to the question and not go off topic, thanks

Who's going off topic?  People are attacking the validity of your claims.  That's debate.

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot probably all hit the million figure. Saddam's attack on Iran and other crimes probably topped the million dead mark. Idi Amin, Suharto, wars in Rawanda and Sudan all easily hit the hundreds of thousands and there's undoubtably more. If you look at atrocities in terms of percentage populace killed then there are several smaller countries that have had some pretty aweful events and leaders.

Us Brits massacred more than our fair share back in the day and are not free from such actions today. I guess one difference between the US and old British empire is that we tended to go massacre other people a long way away, the rest tended to massacre their own people or direct neighbours.

Britain helped give chemical weapons to Saddam.

rammunition wrote:

there is the Iraq/Iran conflict but who gave the chemical weapons to Saddam to use on the Iranians????

The Brits did as well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/06/uk.iraq
Iraq's anthrax source traced back to Britain

The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.

Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium. Swiss companies aided in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade. Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program by supplying natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w … 0s_-_1980s

Many other countries contributed as well; since Iraq's nuclear program in the early 1980s was officially viewed internationally as for power production, not weapons, there were no UN prohibitions against it. An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare. Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and 1982. Niger provided yellowcake in 1981

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

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.

lol @ McCain ad on the bottom of the page..

d4rkst4r wrote:

I wonder what a U.S. government official would think if they took a peak in this forum.

He/She would maybe learn a bit as well as

rammunition wrote:

I ask this as whenever you ask people, especially Americans, why are they in Iraq or why they decided to bomb a country their immediate answer is "to protect America's freedom". If i remember Iraq was not a threat to the U.S nor the world and america, I read, has tried and/or done so overturned about 30-40 DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leaders around the world in the name of "America's freedom". Read this link of the MILLIONS slaughtered in the name of "American freedom", some were killed because they were leaders America didn't like and others killed and overturned for disobeying orders from America.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p2032818

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IHmYheDNKlk



so why should America's freedom be other countries suffering???

-In answer to your question, I think I need to seperate it into two parts...first is Iraq and secondly is all the other countries you've listed:

Iraq-
Although poorly executed, the goal of Iraq was to create democracy/capitalism in the area. The idea was that of the reverse-domino theory, whose doctrine dominated Cold War thinking. The doctrine was that if one country became communist, the countries in the area would become communist as well. When it came to Iraq, the thinking was that if it became a succesful secular democracy, then other countries in the area would follow suit (look up "project for a new american century"). That's why the Bush administration was adamant about going into Iraq with no provocation, because they know it was the most likely candidate for it. It was rich enough (oil wealth) and was secular enough already for the plan to work (if it was about oil etc... then they would have gone into iran, who are ideological opponents, fund and support terrorists ie ramzi yousef and have more oil). Unfortunately, they lied about going in and rebuilding the country was the world's most poorly executed effort. Iraq was supposed to become free, not out of the goodness of the American's herat, but because free democracy's wouldn't pose a threat to national security and would be valuable trading partners. It is beneficial for country's such as the United States to create freedom in other countries such as Iraq...American freedom and the world's freedom are not mutually exclusive....but again you had George "Einstein" Bush running the operation so it didn't end well.

Other Countries:
First of all, the other countries your listing were countries from the Cold War, America was getting rid of their Communist regimes (see domino theory above) because they didn't want communism to spread their only option was authoritarian regimes. While the claim that these governements were "democratically elected" is true (in most cases), its notable that after being democratically elected, they got rid of democratic freedoms (only the authoritarian branch of communism has ever existed in practical sense). In the end this was probably good, because I'm sure you can understand that as bad as the Americans were, Communist regimes were and are far worse. Mao, Stalin, Kim Jon-Il, Castro etc... come to mind.  I encourage you to look at both sides of the issue, as acknowledging imperfect American actions and ignoring the atrocities of others is at best closed minded

Last edited by pierro (2008-04-20 18:12:02)

Oh look, it's Mr. America hater.

I'd say something involving Captain America ripping your head off and shitting down your neck Duke Nukem style, but he's dead.

rammunition wrote:

No other country has killed MILLIONS since WW2, tell me who else has???

there is the Iraq/Iran conflict but who gave the chemical weapons to Saddam to use on the Iranians????

Um. China? Russia? Cambodia a la Pol Pot style?

pierro wrote:

Iraq-
Although poorly executed, the goal of Iraq was to create democracy/capitalism in the area. The idea was that of the reverse-domino theory, whose doctrine dominated Cold War thinking. The idea was that if one country became communist, the countries in the area would become communist as well. When it came to Iraq, the thinking was that if it became a succesful secular democracy, then other countries in the area would follow suit (look up "project for a new american century"). That's why the Bush administration was adamant about going into Iraq, because they know it was the most likely candidate for it. It was rich enough (oil wealth) and was secular enough already for the plan to work (if it was about oil etc... then they would have gone into iran, who are ideological opponents and have more oil). Unfortunately, they lied about going in and rebuilding the country was the world's most poorly executed effort. Iraq was supposed to become free, not out of the goodness of the American's herat, but because free democracy's wouldn't pose a threat to national security and would be valuable trading partners. It is beneficial for country's such as the United States to create freedom in other countries such as Iraq...American freedom and the world's freedom are not mutually exclusive....but again you had George "Einstein" Bush running the operation so it didn't end well.

Other Countries:
First of all, the other countries your listing were countries from the Cold War, America was getting rid of their Communist regimes (see domino theory above) because they didn't want communism to spread and so put in authoritarian regimes. While the claim that these governements were "democratically elected" is true, its notable that after being democratically elected, they got rid of democratic freedoms (only the authoritarian branch of communism has ever existed practically). In the end this was probably good good, because I'm sure you can understand that as bad as the Americans were, Communist regimes were and are worse. Mao, Stalin, Kim Jon-Il, Catro etc... come to mind.  I encourage you to look at both sides of the issue, as acknowledging imperfect American actions and ignoring atrocities of others is at best closed minded

Or not.....


A lot of the US backed regiemes, (El Salvador, Guatemala, Phillipines, Suharto, Colombian paramillitaries, Pinochet, Diem, Saddam, the Shah etc, etc, ) were some of the worst fuckers to ever to live, many of the so called 'communist' regiemes were pretty decent places in comparison. To put it bluntly, I'd rather have lived in Poland under the Soviets than in El Salvador under the US supported dictatorship.

The reasons are the same as the rest of the rich and powerful nations. Desire for more wealth and power and disinterest in the populace of their own country or anyone else's. The US/UK invaded Iraq to take control of the vast oil wealth there.