Did you know that the CIA was planning to fake a gay sex tape with Saddam?

If it were a little boy it would have been normal. Now if it were an adult male...
Nah, the adult men have sex with each other too. I've actually been offered money, cars, and real estate by Iraqis who wanted to trade me for one of my Soldiers on my first tour. My Soldier was about 5'10, blonde hair, blue eyes, and had a face like a male model's. He was, by all accounts, a very "pretty" man, and the Iraqis wanted him. When I told them that they already had other people for that, they told me that it was the guys that they didn't like who were responsible for servicing the rest of the other guys. When you're the low man on the totem pole over there, you literally get fucked in the ass by the guys higher up on the food chain. But when people in power get caught, or if someone talks about it in a public forum, it's treated as homosexuality. But when it's 30 guys who all know each other talking about having sex with other men, it's somehow cool. Makes no damn sense...
 
Never heard of psychological operations?

Besides, I doubt this would have been anything more than simple embarrassing for Saddam. There's so much gay sex in the Middle East, very commonplace.

And what do you mean "if he was such a bad person?" Are you serious? He was a terrible dictator, there's no question about it. It's just that maybe the Iraqi people needed a horrible dictator to keep them from waging endless civil war with one another.

Ahh you mean worse than now?
 
Saddam Hussein, more like Sodom Insane, am I right?

<{CMPALM}>
 
What do you mean?

Was it worse then? or is it worse now? That's it. I'm no Einstein but we all need to wake up, if we interrupt a society maturing than take no more responsibility than if we're ordering a fillet at KFC than we're to blame as well.
 
Was it worse then? or is it worse now? That's it. I'm no Einstein but we all need to wake up, if we interrupt a society maturing than take no more responsibility than if we're ordering a fillet at KFC than we're to blame as well.
So this is a really obtuse question. In some ways, things are better. In others, things are worse. In others, things are just different.

I'm not sure that they were maturing, but either way, that wasn't really our business. They weren't projecting a threat, and the lack of stability in the country has produced a threat for the US. That's really my issue with the invasion of Iraq. As for the future of the Iraqi people, I don't think that we necessarily did them any favors by dismantling a few of their institutions that they used to keep order, such as their army, but at this point, they are responsible for their own future. I do not feel compelled to continue influencing that future until it becomes a significant problem for us.
 
So this is a really obtuse question. In some ways, things are better. In others, things are worse. In others, things are just different.

I'm not sure that they were maturing, but either way, that wasn't really our business. They weren't projecting a threat, and the lack of stability in the country has produced a threat for the US. That's really my issue with the invasion of Iraq. As for the future of the Iraqi people, I don't think that we necessarily did them any favors by dismantling a few of their institutions that they used to keep order, such as their army, but at this point, they are responsible for their own future. I do not feel compelled to continue influencing that future until it becomes a significant problem for us.

So suck that gut in, hitch those strides up and man up. Did we interrupt their natural course ? yes. We owe Iraq that much that we need to stabilise the country to offset the shithole we left it.

If I had any influence with the united nations I'd introduce a bill in which if you invade that costs on you and the cost for the country to stabilise is as well..
 
So suck that gut in, hitch those strides up and man up. Did we interrupt their natural course ? yes. We owe Iraq that much that we need to stabilise the country to offset the shithole we left it.

If I had any influence with the united nations I'd introduce a bill in which if you invade that costs on you and the cost for the country to stabilise is as well..
I will agree that we interrupted their natural course, but I don't see how that commits us to turn their country into "not a shithole," which I would argue is an impossible task. So are we endlessly committed to trying to change something that cannot be changed? No, we should leave the future of Iraq to the Iraqis. It's their country.

UN resolutions are non-binding. Even the ones that they say are binding are non-binding. In fact, the invasion of Iraq was built on a case that said, "Hey, Iraq broke these rules. Since the UN can't actually enforce their own rules because there is no world government, we (the US) are going to do it. Who else wants in?" But even if they were binding somehow, what about what when a country is invaded because a non-state actor is using as a staging ground, such as Afghanistan? Our mission was to go in, kill off the Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership, and then leave? Why should we have the obligation to rebuild Afghanistan? When we put US forces in Somalia in the early 1990's, we were just providing humanitarian relief? Were we committed to turning Somalia into a thriving country? I think we are committed to completing our military objectives and nothing more. We just need to do a better job of defining what those are before we foolishly go jumping into a conflict that has the ability to create very messy problems for us.
 
I will agree that we interrupted their natural course, but I don't see how that commits us to turn their country into "not a shithole," which I would argue is an impossible task. So are we endlessly committed to trying to change something that cannot be changed? No, we should leave the future of Iraq to the Iraqis. It's their country.

UN resolutions are non-binding. Even the ones that they say are binding are non-binding. In fact, the invasion of Iraq was built on a case that said, "Hey, Iraq broke these rules. Since the UN can't actually enforce their own rules because there is no world government, we (the US) are going to do it. Who else wants in?" But even if they were binding somehow, what about what when a country is invaded because a non-state actor is using as a staging ground, such as Afghanistan? Our mission was to go in, kill off the Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership, and then leave? Why should we have the obligation to rebuild Afghanistan? When we put US forces in Somalia in the early 1990's, we were just providing humanitarian relief? Were we committed to turning Somalia into a thriving country? I think we are committed to completing our military objectives and nothing more. We just need to do a better job of defining what those are before we foolishly go jumping into a conflict that has the ability to create very messy problems for us.

I actually like your posts, you have an original opinion and think for yourself. Saying that my "opinion" is if you invade you should be held accountable for the total cost. There would certainly be less invasions by western countries, how many sons and daughters would still be breathing,not just ours but theirs?

I will agree that we interrupted their natural course, but I don't see how that commits us to turn their country into "not a shithole,"

We should just leave them alone. My opinion is international law should state that if you invade you wear the total cost. I'm definitely no do gooder but if you're a man you man up and take responsibility for your actions
 
Hussein family members gave CIA info on Saddam so when they released 'his' gay sex tape under the pretext of fake it wouldn't cast a shadow of gay on themselves. That's more plausible imo.
 
I actually like your posts, you have an original opinion and think for yourself. Saying that my "opinion" is if you invade you should be held accountable for the total cost. There would certainly be less invasions by western countries, how many sons and daughters would still be breathing,not just ours but theirs?

I will agree that we interrupted their natural course, but I don't see how that commits us to turn their country into "not a shithole,"

We should just leave them alone. My opinion is international law should state that if you invade you wear the total cost. I'm definitely no do gooder but if you're a man you man up and take responsibility for your actions
I appreciate the compliment. Thank you. I certainly agree that we should creative incentives to withhold military actions unless all other options have been exhausted. Committing forces in Iraq was a massive strategic error, and committing large forces in Afghanistan was another one. The latter conflict should have been a war fought by special operations units. It should have been Green Berets to train Afghan forces to fight off Islamist warlords and hunt down the Arab fighters like Bin Laden and his foreign crew. Outside of that, it should have been Special Mission Units, Rangers, and SEALs doing direct action missions to hunt and kill the same special targets. Throw in some support assets like mechanics, cooks, and some aviation assets, and you'd pretty much be set. What the hell are tanks doing there in those mountains? I digress. I just think that the way that we conduct our wars is something that we need to keep a very close eye on. Unfortunately, modern civilian society and the military are further removed from one another, so we really can't have a good public discussion on the matter. It's like trying to discuss what stocks to pick with someone that has never had anything more than the barter system.

I agree that we should leave them alone (unless there is a real threat that can be quantified in terms of a clear objective, such as "kill the Al-Qaeda leadership" or "stop Nazi aggression in Europe." Those are legit to me. But when we don't have a clear goal, why are we taking action? And how do we know that said undefined goal cannot be completed through alternative means?
 
I appreciate the compliment. Thank you. I certainly agree that we should creative incentives to withhold military actions unless all other options have been exhausted. Committing forces in Iraq was a massive strategic error, and committing large forces in Afghanistan was another one. The latter conflict should have been a war fought by special operations units. It should have been Green Berets to train Afghan forces to fight off Islamist warlords and hunt down the Arab fighters like Bin Laden and his foreign crew. Outside of that, it should have been Special Mission Units, Rangers, and SEALs doing direct action missions to hunt and kill the same special targets. Throw in some support assets like mechanics, cooks, and some aviation assets, and you'd pretty much be set. What the hell are tanks doing there in those mountains? I digress. I just think that the way that we conduct our wars is something that we need to keep a very close eye on. Unfortunately, modern civilian society and the military are further removed from one another, so we really can't have a good public discussion on the matter. It's like trying to discuss what stocks to pick with someone that has never had anything more than the barter system.

I agree that we should leave them alone (unless there is a real threat that can be quantified in terms of a clear objective, such as "kill the Al-Qaeda leadership" or "stop Nazi aggression in Europe." Those are legit to me. But when we don't have a clear goal, why are we taking action? And how do we know that said undefined goal cannot be completed through alternative means?

This is why I can respect some of you posters, you have an opinion. It seems that in 2017 its a dirty word, I couldn't care less what it is just reason well and back it up. Agree with me? Who cares, just believe in yourself and explain your reasoning well.

The problem with these countries is we're being played yet don't call them on it. We're so caught up in being honourable etc that we leave our pants down and wonder why we're getting butt fucked. Like Vietnam we are so caught up in making sure the voters are on our side we dictate how to fight. I read somewhere compassion is weakness in war and I can't argue with that.

Anyway I'm to bed soon, take it easy mate and next time hammer me as I love a good debate when the times right.
 
<DontBelieve1>


south-park-saddam-devil1.jpg.cf.jpg
 
Back
Top