BF2S Forums A breif, and by no means complete, history of American WMD's

Havazn wrote:

You cant quote something in your quote that you didn't actually say.

Yes i can.. it was just a pronoun.......

Havazn wrote:

Exactly what did I 'pick and choose' from?

how about that quote right there

Havazn wrote:

Well it was in response to the other guy's comment that the US would be able to defeat any country with just conventional weapons.

I said America is capable of fighting with conventional warfare.. you change it to mean something else

Mavzn wrote:

I listed Cuba as en example of US intervention into the political outcoming of a nation, which to the point, may piss off enough people (ie, Castro) to try and obtain nukes (cuban missle crisis) to prevent you from attempting another coup.

Some major misinformation there. Castro never had nukes himself he simply allowed Russians to position thier nukes there. Owned and operated by the USSR. Also the purpose wasnt to defend Cuba and Castro but a response to Americas forward deployment of nukes in Turkey and elsewhere.

Spumantii wrote:

september 11, 1973 the democratic Chilean govt overthrown by CIA backed Augusto Pinochet, a fascist.

Wrong.. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte overthrew Salvador Allende Gossens who was a marxist and a socialist NOT democratic. Also Augusto was NOT a facist or even a dictator but merely the military leader of a junta.

Why bother with this stuff when you can easily just talk about how bad we screwd up in Iran?

"One of Allende's failed initiatives involved not sending death squads to kidnap, torture, and murder his political enemies. This was Pinochet's first policy reversal.

Pinochet handed a list of names to one of his generals and gave orders to have them killed. The general assembled a death squad, jumped into a helicopter, and visited a few towns. He checked off the victims as they were eliminated, 71 people in all. This mission would later become known as the "Caravan of Death."

Thousands of leftists, unionists, and various other troublemakers were rounded up and held in concentration camps for up to three years. Many were interrogated, tortured, and killed. Whereas the Allende government had for all practical purposes given up applying electrical voltage to genitalia, Pinochet brought the country back to its 'core ideals'. "

terrorist?  fascist?  what do you want to call this guy?

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-12 00:11:07)

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Spumantii wrote:

september 11, 1973 the democratic Chilean govt overthrown by CIA backed Augusto Pinochet, a fascist.

Wrong.. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte overthrew Salvador Allende Gossens who was a marxist and a socialist NOT democratic. Also Augusto was NOT a facist or even a dictator but merely the military leader of a junta.

Why bother with this stuff when you can easily just talk about how bad we screwd up in Iran?

Oh really? What is this, your own version of history, or one taught in america? this however offers a bit different view.

edit. Didn't notice that Spumantii already had posted facts about him.

Last edited by PekkaA (2006-07-12 02:03:45)

whittsend wrote:

PekkaA wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Many people have claimed Iraq got weapons from the US, but it isn't so.  Anyone who has been there knows ALL of their military hardware was Warsaw Pact stuff.  So...another hearsay anti-American comment borne of ignorance.

Are you really that ignorant? Newsweek article Guardian article. I could keep posting pages of history about what happened in gulf area during 80s. If you have to post something that ridiculous, use at least some schoolboys website as an evidence.

First of all, I said HARDWARE.  Second, the chemicals provided were DUAL USE.  Do you know what that means?  We are providing chemicals of that type to countries around the world all the time, and so is every other industrial country.  Does it suck?  Sure, but your righteous indignation is really a crock of shit as this is no surprise to anyone, and it is still going on today.

I'm going to stand by my comment that no hardware was provided, and I will go so far as to say no overtly military supplies of any kind were provided.  The Guardian claimed Anthrax was given and Reagan would do anything, but that is typical unsubstantiated Gaurdian drivel and I don't believe a word of it.  You do believe it, I'm sure, but that comes as no surprise either; your standards for acceptance of facts are characteristically low, so long as they make the US look bad.

Oh... It's not about computers. How can you classify weapons to "hardware" and - to what - "software"? That's just ridiculous. Nothing but playing with words.

Only thing you seem to be capable of, is accusing everyone else or their sources liars. Typical answer from you starts with "I don't believe you......blablalbalba". Have you ever actually read anything from guardian?

Havazn wrote:

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

the negative effects of DU are exaggerated by conspiracy theorists who want to villify america.
true wmd's are tools of countries that cant succeed in conventional warfare i.e. not the united states

Then why does the US posses the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons?

We like bright, shiny things.

PekkaA wrote:

I don't agree eith you. Why? Because big companies like Nokia or upm-kymmene are actually in international ownership. But because them are registered here, also their debts are on that list.

What comes to being in trouble, well my country has been decreasing its debt for a last decade, unlike usa that is actually artifically respirated with borrowed money.

*Shrug*  You can disagree all you want, but your opinion on the subject simply doesn't change the fact that private debt will affect your economy.  The Japanese found out the hard way in the '90s.  If all Finns think as you do, you have a hard reckoning coming:  Your external debt is greater than your GDP.  That isn't healthy.  Nothing more to say about it.

This is little late but it deserves to be said; Spumantiii: Lame Plagiarism.  You didn't say it was yours, but you didn't say it wasn't yours, either.  Very disappointing.

Additionally:  If you want to be taken seriously, you probably shouldn't include www.rotten.com among your sources.  It doesn't inspire much confidence.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Twat...

Another debate technique which inspires confidence.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Douglas Hurd, British defence minister during the eighties, came to my school to give a lecture years ago and openly admitted we sold arms to Iraq aswell as you americans. There was even a scandal here called "Arms to Iraq"..

Convenient that; A) He (as a Conservative)  would NEVER admit that openly, and B) You can't prove he said it.  Analysis: Worthless data.

PekkaA wrote:

Oh... It's not about computers. How can you classify weapons to "hardware" and - to what - "software"? That's just ridiculous. Nothing but playing with words.

Only thing you seem to be capable of, is accusing everyone else or their sources liars. Typical answer from you starts with "I don't believe you......blablalbalba". Have you ever actually read anything from guardian?

If you don't know what military hardware entails, you have no business discussing military matters - it is a mainstream term, in general use. 

Several sources used here are unrelaible crap, so I don't accept them; they have an agenda, much as you do, and will say anything and try to pass it off as facts.  Much as you do.  If your facts are reliable, you should be able to obtain them from a mainstream, reliable source.  The Guardian is mainstream, but they seem to have an axe to grind.  Those reports are, as I noted, unsubstantiated, (except by fringe sources which probaly got their information from the Guardian in the first place).  I lived in the UK for three years, and, yes I have read the Guardian.  Not impressed.

Your problem, as with several others here, is that you will say or quote anything which assists you in your goal of portraying the US poorly.  This being the case, I treat your quotes and sources VERY skeptically; althought it would probably be smarter if I treated them not at all.

Spumantii wrote:

Salvador Allende Gossens was elected, a socialist democrat.

taken from your source:

Allende called this the “Chilean Road” to socialism, via peaceful democratic elections and legislation, rather than through violent revolutions

Allende was outspoken anti-capitalist and anti-American. He was a socialist elected in a democracy not a democratic socialist. He ran under the Popular Unity party which is coalition of communists socialists and radicals. His election was funded by the USSR and he was famously friendly with Fidel Castro. There is little question he sought to make Chile communist.

Spumantii wrote:

terrorist?  fascist?  what do you want to call this guy?

I think initially he sought to suppress Allende's supporters in the govt and military and find members of the Revolutionary Left Movement that tried to assassinate him ..thats called self-preservation. It seems it grew into persecuting even sympathizers so id describe him as possibly paranoid or even megalomaniac Its been estimated he killed 2 thousand people that opposed him, I didn't say i approved of him or thought he was Marry Poppins. End result i think is that he did violate human rights with his tortures so if you want to call him a terrorist if you want, I'm partial to calling him asshole. However you can look at Chile even today he has supporters that credit him for staving off communism.

You might want to look up fascist tho he didn't "portray the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it" A core principle of fascism is economic corporatism which he opposed, he deregulated and privatized the economy which opposed fascism.

PekkaA wrote:

Oh really? What is this, your own version of history, or one taught in America?

I'm not really gona respond to you just say that your link doesn't refute a single thing i said. You're just inferring that i approve of Pinochet.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Ok.....another American baiting thread....woo-hoo.....*yawn* zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Exactly, nothing better to do.
I love the comparison to Iraq..lol
When people draw moral equivalence to the US and Saddam Hussein it truly point's out how stupid they are.
Well look at these 2 facts and you can see the US is the same. Oh yea besides the brutal rape, murder, and use of WMD's on their own people. But  none theless it's the SAME thing,..lol

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Lol, the investigative journalist who broke the story was David Jessel, a friend of the family and it was his son who asked Douglas Hurd "If the Saddam regime is so evil why did we export arms to them" to which Mr Hurd replied something along the lines of "The actual arms themselves were extremely low volume, it was the tooling equiptment Parliament was not made aware of aswell as changes in export law..blah blah blah.."

We still sold them weapons, oh and see below...so did you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales … _1973-1990

From your source:

wikipedia wrote:

Despite the fact that the U.S. supplied a negligible amount of arms to Iraq during this period, they have ignited considerable controversy due to later U.S. hostility to the Saddam regime

Let's take particular note of the word 'negligible.'  In case you didn't know, that means so little that it hardly matters...except to people like you who, for political reasons, are clutching at straws.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

...and I love the...

whittsend wrote:

A) He (as a Conservative)  would NEVER admit that openly.

What?..just because he's a conservative...I thought you were too, lol

Why would you think that I am a conservative?  Because I call your arguments worthless?  Anyone who appreciates the truth would do that, regardless of their personal political philosophy.  Just to clear the record, I am not a supporter of the Republican Party, nor do I support the Democratic Party.

Hurd's political affiliation is eminently relevant, because he is unlikely to say something which is going to make a Conservative government (of which he was part) look bad.  This isn't a philosophical concern, it is a political one.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Oh, and...

whittsend wrote:

B) You can't prove he said it.

so mature...this is "Debate & Serious Talk" by the way..you might have carried a dictaphone around with you at school, it'd explain a lot, but I certainly didn't!

Accusations of immaturity from the person who started a post by calling someone a 'twat?'  Woe, you cut me!

In any case, pointing out that your argument is worthless because we have only your word on the matter to prove it is far from immature.  Your argument was, and remains, worthless.