I'm sorry - I absolutely could not stand Bush, but if you honestly believe that statement, then I would question your sanity.
It's not so much that they have the US behind them, it's that the Americans need the leverage the Saudi's provide in order to keep Oil priced in US dollars (petrodollar). This has been an issue for decades, and something that Putin has slowly been trying to undermine in his development of relationships with China, etc. The US dollar is underpinned by this.... and it gives the Saudi' a lot of leverage. Saudi Arabia has been funneling money it Salafist extremism for a long time (and it will likely get worse). Freedom House recently did a review of the textbooks used in the Saudi Arabian education system, and they promote an ideology of hatred toward people who do not subscribe to the Wahhibi sect of Islam. They teach a lot of conspiracy theories and hatred of all other streams of Islam (including jihad as a religious duty). Thoughts on Obama's Presidential Address today?
Bush was funded by gun lobbyists and weapons manufacturers. This is on top of his family being directly involved in oil and gas. He bombed the shit out of Afghanistan, went after Libya and engineered a war against Iraq claiming nuclear warheads. Nobody else got as wealthy from those actions than Bush and his friends. Saddam kills his countryman and so does Bush one way or another. I dont know what your political bias is but you live in a very right wing province in one of the more conservative countries in the western world. Don't you think the media and the people around you skew your perception of the differences?
Seriously? I think the vast majority of people know those facts - you're not bringing up anything exciting or new from your "underground media".
Actually the vast majority don't; a lot of people prefer to live in blissful ignorance or simply don't care. But this is you we are talking about. So what's the problem? Is it your belief system?
You need to check that condescending attitude. I have a news flash for you - you're not smarter than everyone else. Also, what the heck does my belief system have to do with this discussion (and no I'm not a die hard right wing republican)? And you're wrong, this isn't about you or me, it's about global politics. Yes Bush was basically a war mongerer, but to put him in the same category as Saddam is ridiculous. Last time I checked I don't think Bush had a torture chamber in his personal residence. Anyhow.... back to the topic at hand.
They aren't in the same category? Based on what? A fücking torture chamber? When you say shit like that I can't help but feel smarter. Let's see Bush used Saddams Abu Ghraib prison to do the same things that Saddam did except he did it in Cuba and Afghanistan as well. Bush exposed his troops to uranium just like Saddam gassed Kurds. Saddam stole from the UN, Bush steals from pretty much everybody in the US and lies to them. The 4B earmarked for "rebuilding Iraq" is still unaccounted for. Saddam had no ties to Osama. Bush family did. Oh and Bush helped create ISIS. I mean he has some really strong ties with the Saudis you just condemned in your previous post. The same royal family members who were flown out immediately after 9/11 because of their affiliation with the terrorists who in incidentally had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Since you're so smart I presume you also know that the Afghan invasion really was about natural resources and opium. At least Saddam held elections in Iraq, because Bush didn't after the invasion.
Don't I ********ing love it, when ex commie countries residents are so passionate about Arab dictators?
This will be my last response to you on this topic. Somehow most people on this forum are able to have intelligent debates and disagreements, but any conversation with you turns into some sort of ridiculous obscenity driven rant. You remind me of those kids who sit in the corner plugging their ears and screaming at the top of their lungs.... "lalala I can't hear you". The only issue is, I presume you are over the age of 4. With respect to the "elections" (emphasis added) that Saddam Hussein held in in the 90's and 00's, let's be perfectly clear - he advised the turnout was 100%, and that same 100% also voted to extend his term. That sure sounds like a very democratic election doesn't it! Perhaps he also shot 34 under par in golf as did Kim Jong Il! How in the world you can call that an election boggles my mind. The guy was a psychopathic dictator who ruled by fear and torture..... that is all. Say what you want about Bush (I personally can't stand him), but at the end of the day he won a democratic election. Yes he received ridiculous amounts of money from various lobby groups (as most candidates do), and he used his family and business influences.... however he was still elected by the population. With regards to his foreign policy of war mongering, I agree that it was largely despicable and fueled primarily for the financial concerns of his business alliances. However.... and this is the big however, you cannot blame the entire foreign policy issues of the United States on one single man. The US has been meddling in the affairs of other Nations (especially the Middle East) for decades, and will likely continue to do so (even when they shouldn't). Let's be very clear - the ties between the US and Saudi Arabia are not as friends or allies. In almost every way possible they absolutely can't stand each other, but the relationship exists entirely for the benefit of both economies.
In addition, it is also worth pointing out that Saddam Hussein started the 1st Gulf war (that claimed more lives than the initial invasion of Iraq through Bush; and the Iran-Iraq war that dwarved all casaulities that the entire aftermath of the Second Gulf war (including the Civil War in Syria, which can hardly be blamed on Bush). Not to mention that Saddam used poisonous gas on his own population, slaughtering thousands. No doubt Bush will be remembered as one of the worst American presidents, but comparing him with Saddam is laughable.
@Zarastro This would all be fine if they had a promising future with a lasting economy, democracy and freedom. But they don't have any of that. It has been 4 years now, how much more do they have to wait?! Perhaps they bought the democracy story, but I wonder how many of them would take Gaddafi back instantly... There is no need to continue this argument, we will never convince each other (I respect your opinion of course). Only time will tell whether Gaddafi's death was good for the people of Libya or not. I would love the idea of a strong global force that is trying to do justice and making this life better for all of us. I would love to see real democracy, politics that represents the people not the capital, world peace and happiness. But that is a utopia. We are closer to a nuclear holocaust then that...
You want an intelligent debate, fine. Let's go. Agreed. I think Saddam is one of the most evil men in history. But that doesn't mean Bush isn't. I've never said Saddam is better than Bush. I think they are both extraordinarily evil. One just happens to speak the same language as you, live in a country with the similar society and traditions as you and perhaps you guys share the same skin colour and ancestral background. Did you not know that that the 2004 elections were rigged? Purging, suppression..... I mean this was widely acknowledged. And in 2000, an independent investigation uncovered a vast amount of irregularities targeted against democratic voters. So no, he has never won a "democratic election" because he cheated.....both times. This is your opinion, not fact. When 2 countries support each other economically, forgive or promote transgressions of their respective citizens then that's not exactly "can't stand each other". Saudi Arabia and Iran cannot stand each other. Israel and Palestine cannot stand each other. South and North Korea cannot stand each other. America and Saudi are best buds. Saudis behead people every day.....in public. People like mothers, fathers, rape victims. Does the mainstream media in the states EVER condemn that? Ever? Frankly, I'd bet the US would rather cut ties with Canada to maintain their relationship with Saudi if it ever came to that.
Ah you're referring to socialism in Argentina? Big difference. You're comparing apples to oranges. Socialism here in Germany is more left than socialism here in Argentina. I don't get it. Why can't I hate Saddam and Bush equally when I see the facts laid out? Is it because Bush is a white christian American whereas Saddam is an muslim Arab? Let me guess Hilter is less evil than Saddam because he didn't have a torture chamber in his room, right?
Guys, believe me, the extreme left and extreme right won't win a thing for the future of any nation. The middle guys make thinga happen most of the time. Ideologiacally driven agenda looks good, but ends up in systems such as N. Korea or even present day Russia. Moderation in everything is good, including politics. Speaking of moderation. How would you like an ex Army officer to rule your country for 30-40 years' with absolute control and ruthless vendetta for any opposition or even opposing views of a few.
It's a lot more once you add up the Russians, Germans, Polacks. It's unbelievable how he was able to convince so many people to murder their fellow citizens.
I am not sure if even Saddam belongs in the category of "evilest men in history", considering he'd have to compete with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al. What Bush did seems like childs play compared to what those guys did. There is also imho a difference between voluntarily causing death and involuntarily making things worse. The initial invasion of Iraq was relatively bloodless, things only turned ugly when the Shia's and Sunni's started to kill each other (which there were already preparing to do while under Saddam's rule) something the USA certainly did not intend. And again, the war against the Iran killed more than 1.000.000 people several times as many people who have been killed since 2003. Things could have been so much better if the USA had sticked to Afghanistan, even a fraction of the ressources that went to Iraq could have seriously increased the chances of a lasting success in Afghanistan.
Because in Arab countries "democracy" clearly doesn't work at all. And in Yugoslavia (Slovenia was a part of it and and most rich and advanced republic) we had marshall Tito. He was a dictator on the paper. And people were allowed to go everywhere. There was no opposition yeah, but things went well until his death... I don't mind if we had a capable "dictator" now. We have "democracy" now for the rich. Brussels dictates everything, its a shitty democracy when few rich pull the strings in their favor and majority of people suck d*ck. So yeah, I would rather have Tito and our sovereignty back!
can we talk about Bayern Munich? there is no one on the Bayern forum, and they won't invite me to their new forum