Someone tell me why Iran can't have nukes.

[LLCS GHOST]

I'm by no means conservative. But if you called me neoconservative, I wouldn't mind.

[Vigilante]

.k

[[H]ard|On]

Someone ban this Judith fucker before he craps on any more threads... DVD software spam incoming

[SamFarber]

Originally Posted by LLCS GHOST

I'm by no means conservative. But if you called me neoconservative, I wouldn't mind.

I'll call you crazy, it is more succinct.

[SamFarber]

Originally Posted by LLCS GHOST

....
Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan all supported their own groups during Afghanistan's civil war. The U.S. supported no one.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance

[LLCS GHOST]

Originally Posted by SamFarber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance

That was created after the civil war was over and the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan. We never aided the Northern Alliance until after 9/11. This was to overthrow the Taliban and not to put the Northern Alliance in power, and control Afghanistan.

[Patriotic Eagle]

Originally Posted by LLCS GHOST

We didn't create Islamic fundamentalism. It's a thing of its own. When the major grievance of a religious death cult lists an infidel base near sacred ground, how could you say we created it? It's the filthy religion that created it. The base in Saudi Arabia was used for good reason.

The only reason Bin Laden and the other bigots opposed the base was because it was run by infidels. It would be like some bigot in the U.S. murdering Saudis because of the ground zero mosque. And then a fool like you would say the Saudis brought it on by daring to put a mosque near sacred ground.

US bases are used for imperialism, that's their self evident nature. It was there to ensure the continual rule of the Saudi Arabian and Gulf aristocrats and to stop the Iranian revolution from spreading (itself largely a reaction to Western imperialism). Supporting client elites is an integral part of imperialism that leads to direct oppression of the masses. Islamic fundamentalism may be a "thing of its own" but it gains or loses support among the masses based on its appeal, being anti imperialist (in its fashion) is a large part of that appeal. You shouldn't reduce complex ideologies and political movements to simple labels, that's in part how the US is so successful in propagandizing the public into supporting its wars.

Originally Posted by LLCS GHOST

Well, I'm glad you've just admitted the conflict with Al-Qaeda was unavoidable and desirable, then.

In the same sense that conflict with the US is unavoidable and desirable.