It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iraqi President Jalal Talabani Thanks 'Heroes Who Came to Liberate Us'

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 09:26 PM
Indeed, Vive Iraq! In the future, this will be the turning point. Liberal open secular middle eastern societies. Progressives, not radical fundamentalists versus dictatorships.

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:20 AM

Why did we originally go?

An oldie but still great:

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

It's long, I didn't want to paste the whole thing.

I just really really hope that in a couple of years Mr. Bush is sent to jail for his many crimes against the Constitution of the United States, its' people, and the people of the world. Or that at least he owns up to most of them.

Because your people will be paying for his mistakes and lies for many years to come, financially, socially, and with the ruined lives of your soldiers.

George W. Bush has singlehandedly flushed away any sympathy the USA has in the world. Nobody likes a schoolyard bully, and that's exactly what he is making you look like.

"If you're not with us, you're against us"

It all started with that immature, assinine comment. WHO in their RIGHT MIND says something like this on the WORLD STAGE?

Who says, "Bring 'em on!" to the enemy on a global feed on TV?

A dangerous man, is what I would say.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by Jakomo]

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:30 PM
Dangerous is only one third of the Bush trinity of characteristics---the other two are stupidity and arrogance.

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 04:59 AM
It's All About the Oil

Well Ofcourse he was elected President - after all Talabani si a Kurd and Northen Iraq is VERY Rich in Oil Reserves. Meaning the US had to make Good Friends with the Kurds quickly, and what better way then electing a Kurd for President of Iraq!

Remember Afganistan and President Hamid Karzai?

Several sources, most notably the film Fahrenheit 9/11, have reported that Karzai once worked as a consultant for the oil company Unocal. Spokesmen for both Unocal and Karzai have denied any such relationship, although they could not speak for all companies involved in the consortium.

And not to Mention that...

In 2004, he rejected a US proposal to end the poppy production in Afghanistan through aerial spraying of chemical herbicides, possibly fearing that he may alienate some warlords who are hostile to his administration or support him conditionally.

Such Wonderful Presidents are elected these days in Muslim countires Occupied by US Forces.

Problem is that they have more Corporate connections with the US then they do have popularity at Home.

As Long as Oil Flows Everything is Allright.

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Souljah
Several sources, most notably the film Fahrenheit 9/11, have reported that Karzai once worked as a consultant for the oil company Unocal. Spokesmen for both Unocal and Karzai have denied any such relationship

Since Fahrenheit 911 was a fictional docu-drama, what it states is about as relevant as what the Davinci Code states.

Such Wonderful Presidents are elected these days in Muslim countires Occupied by US Forces.

So you are for or against the aerial spraying of herbicides and anti-poppy plant viruses in afghanistan? And since you are comparing karzai to other islamic leaders, how does he stack up against hussein, khomeni, assad, or Mullah Omar? Who's administration woudl you prefer? The american one in afghanistan with opium farming, or the taliban one without opium farming?

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:15 AM
I know it's a little of topic but here we go ...

Who is Jalal Talabani

Jalal Talabani, widely referred to by Kurds as Mam (uncle) Jalal, is one of the longest-serving figures in contemporary Iraqi Kurdish politics.


A Baghdad University law graduate, he is considered to be a shrewd politician with an ability to switch alliances and influence friends and foes alike.

So USA has Uncle Sam

and Iraq has Uncle Jalal

It's so nice to see when family members love eachother.

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:45 AM
Nygdan, to address your point, if you live in Afghanistan , you most likely do not live under Karzai's government, unless you live in Kabul. It is pretty well-known that his "government" has no power outside the capital city---in the countryside, the warlords he was teamed up with in the rather laughingly titled "Northern Alliance" rule absolutely, with territorial disputes very common and forced opium-production being reinstituted as their means of taxing the populace. Karzai is indeed a puppet, and while he might be marginally better than some of the other middle easters rulers, his sphere of power is very small. Let's not forget the ever-growing resurgent Taliban movement that is hoping to amass enough firepower to oust him, as well. Afghanistan is not a "free" or "democratic" country by any means, it is still very much a powder keg. But hey, we got that pipeline for Caspian oil that the Taliban wanted too much money for---Karzai got placed---err, "elected"---into power and we got it more or less for free. BP,Halliburton, and Unocal couldn't be more pleased.
As a side note, one of the reasons the resurgen Taliban is gaining strength is because many people feel life under the rule of the warlords is even worse than it was under the Taliban!
I do agree with what you said about Fahrenheit 9/11---it was fictionalized, although I come at it from a different angle. I believe it let TeamBush off very easy. No mention of foreknowldege, much less that it may have been an inside job, no mention of the inconsistencies in the official 9/11 story big enough to fly a 757 through, no mention of the CIA's historical involvement in the Afghan heroin trade, no mention of the CIA creating the Mujahideen in the first place, no mention of there being no evidence of any 757 hitting the Pentagon, no mention that many witnesses heard and saw explosives going off in the WTC, no mention of the NORAD stand-down, no mention of the Cheney-run War Game exercises involving hijacked-plane scenarios taking place on the morning of 9/11, no mention of Bush saying twice in public that he watched the first plane hit the WTC north tower live on TV when no such footage was ever broadcast live, no mention of the US informing Pakistan that it intended to invade Afghanistan by October in the June of 2001, no mention of the strong evidence that Flight 93 was shot down, no mention of the witrness statements that the second plane that hit the south tower of the WTC did not appear to be a 757 and had a huge object strapped to its underside---talk about a whitewash! Moore's film is an example of "controlled opposition" at its finest---bury all the real issues under the most easily-proven but least-damning charges so that if people do turn against TeamBush or their policies, they will still be unwilling to accept the idea that these people at the very least knew about 9/11 beforehand, and quite likely were the true masterminds behind it.
On another note, the BBC article was excellent and informative, thanks for posting the link to it.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in