World Situation


Status
Not open for further replies.
Draken posted on Jul 18 2006 at 12:49 PM said:
Do you happen to live there?
Part of my life yes.... B)

Yono posted on Jul 18 2006 at 12:54 PM said:
Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with 13 different United Nations resolutions continued though early 2003. There is no reason he should have been left in power.

And OMars, I think you are confused. Sunnis are the insurgents and the minority, and to leave them in power would be a grave mistake.

Darkman, thank you for that excellent post. I found it very informative.
No, my good sir, I can assure you that this fact is not true. If Shi'is were the majority why didn't they start a coup? And the insurgents(not al-quaeda insurgents, just the Iraqi nationalists)are the people who I would compare to the "founding fathers" of America. ;)

P.S. I don't support terrorism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darkman- dont talk such utter garbage about how the Israeli government has done well to build it's economy whilst the Palestinian authority has failed and has left it's people to die.

Maybe the ridiculous amount of aid given by the US to Israel each year might help. And Israel is a relatively small country.

The fact is that the repression of the Palestinian people is financed by the United States.

usaidpy1.jpg


Others may be impressed by you spouting rubbish and pretending to know what you are talking about, but you consistently quote untruths. Just 20% of US oil imported? lol

OMars posted on Jul 18 2006 at 09:00 PM said:
Draken posted on Jul 18 2006 at 12:49 PM said:
Do you happen to live there?
Part of my life yes.... B)

Yono posted on Jul 18 2006 at 12:54 PM said:
Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with 13 different United Nations resolutions continued though early 2003. There is no reason he should have been left in power.

And OMars, I think you are confused. Sunnis are the insurgents and the minority, and to leave them in power would be a grave mistake.

Darkman, thank you for that excellent post. I found it very informative.
No, my good sir, I can assure you that this fact is not true. If Shi'is were the majority why didn't they start a coup? And the insurgents(not al-quaeda insurgents, just the Iraqi nationalists)are the people who I would compare to the "founding fathers" of America. ;)

P.S. I don't support terrorism.
Firstly to Yono- How many UN resolutions are Israel currently in breach of?

Secondly, Shias are the majority in Iraq and were repressed by Saddam Hussein so could not start a coup. They tried at the end of the First Gulf War, but were abandoned by America (they would even arm them)- and left Saddam to slaughter the uprising using the weapons the US had supplied Iraq to fight the Iran-Iraq war with.

from Wikipedia-

A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops.

also check out the following speech by Cheney in 1992 defending their decision to allow Saddam to stay in power. It is laughable considering the circumstances today with Cheney as Vice-President.

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[14]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yono posted on Jul 18 2006 at 05:54 PM said:
Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with 13 different United Nations resolutions continued though early 2003. There is no reason he should have been left in power.

Saddam was a ruthless dictator that ruled with an iron fist. Because of that though no one would fuck around in Iraq as they knew how they were dealt with. That at least kept order there. Now it is a big mess, things are way worse now with the US and Iraquis fighting and blowing each other up daily.

The whole argument that "There is no reason he should have been left in power" because Saddam was an asshole etc is irrelavant. Bush is a huge asshole selling out the US middle class, and looting the treasury for the benefit of big oil and big business all the while spouting all of his "moral value" Jesus BS as a trick. Meanwhile he started a war for the gains of him and his cronies. By the same logic as removing Saddam one could say that it would be just as acceptable then for other countries to invade the US and overthrow Bush, Cheney and his crooked pals in the name of "US liberation". Come to think of it that doesn't sound all that bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
VGballer posted on Jul 17 2006 at 07:38 PM said:
Most of us Americans don't agree with what our government it doing in Iraq, don't blame us. Although we did put bush in power


Hey, don't say "we" I voted Democratic. All Americans aren't that dumb.

It was the rednecks and Jesus freaks in southern states who believed that Kerry wanted to make gay marriage legal, take away their guns, burn flags, and take away their bibles that elected Bush. Well that and the fixing of the electronic voting machines.

Magus 86 posted on Jul 18 2006 at 02:39 AM said:
"he’s still our country's president, and we have to respect him!"

Bull-fucking-shit...


Well just don't bitch VOTE! And if you are too young get those that are old enough to vote (unless they are republican ;) ). If "the slackers" weren't well slackers and got off of their dead asses we wouldn't have that lying, arrogant, thieving, incompetent piece of shit in there now. The only way to put the brakes on the bastard now is to vote democratic this November. This way there will be some checks and balances and the republicans won't just be able to pull their shit at will like they do now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
declaration posted on Jul 18 2006 at 06:22 PM said:
Others may be impressed by you spouting rubbish and pretending to know what you are talking about, but you consistently quote untruths. Just 20% of US oil imported? lol
(Brain malfuction) I think I was thinking at the time, being that we were talking about the middle east, about the fact that only 20% of our imported oil comes from the middle east. The rest of our imported oil comes from the rest of the world.
Imported oil for the US comes from,
Canada 18%
Mexico 15%
Colombia 3%
Ecuador 3%
Venezuela 10%
Angola 6%
Nigeria 12%
Equatorial 1%
Algeria 3%
U.K. 2%
Norway 1%

Middle East=
Kuwait 2%
Saudi Arabia 12%
Iraq 5%

These facts are current as of 2005!
The US also imported crude oil and/or refined products from Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, China (both mainland and Taiwan), Congo (Brazzaville), Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Midway Islands, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, Oman, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Viet Nam, and Yemen.

The US, with 5% of the world's population, consumes 45% of the gasoline produced on earth.

Here are a couple of links on Palestinian Aid!

Foreign Aid To Palestine

Following is a quote from the New York Times!

Timely Help for the Palestinians
December 18, 2004, Saturday
(NYT); Editorial Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 18, Column 1, 366 words
The news that the United States, Europe and Arab countries are considering giving the Palestinians a four-year aid package of $6 billion to $8 billion is like a cold drink of water on a hot day in Gaza. This is an excellent way to build on the positive murmurings...

Another read on Palestinian Aid

The Problem

Part of the Problem

There is more where that came from. Just let me know and I will post. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC posted on Jul 19 2006 at 12:34 AM said:
Yono posted on Jul 18 2006 at 05:54 PM said:
Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with 13 different United Nations resolutions continued though early 2003. There is no reason he should have been left in power.

Saddam was a ruthless dictator that ruled with an iron fist. Because of that though no one would fuck around in Iraq as they knew how they were dealt with. That at least kept order there. Now it is a big mess, things are way worse now with the US and Iraquis fighting and blowing each other up daily.

The whole argument that "There is no reason he should have been left in power" because Saddam was an asshole etc is irrelavant. Bush is a huge asshole selling out the US middle class, and looting the treasury for the benefit of big oil and big business all the while spouting all of his "moral value" Jesus BS as a trick. Meanwhile he started a war for the gains of him and his cronies. By the same logic as removing Saddam one could say that it would be just as acceptable then for other countries to invade the US and overthrow Bush, Cheney and his crooked pals in the name of "US liberation". Come to think of it that doesn't sound all that bad.

Totally agree with DaveC. Why do we only decide to attack leaders of oil rich nations?
To understand the situation today you have to look back a few years. When Bush came into power Cheney held an energy review to investigate America's future energy needs. Minutes from this meeting have never been released. But post 911 the government decided to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. The US now has control of Iraq's oil and also a shiny new oil pipeline through Afghanistan. There is no evidence that Saddam was trying to obtain WMD and it is now clear that there were no links between Iraq and Al Quaeda.
As the worlds hydrocarbon reserves dwindle I can see the mother of all conflicts in the Middle East.
Only question now is when, and on what pretext America will invade Iran?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
darkman- well at least you havent been rude, which is more than I can say. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes.

The fact is that the US gives more aid to Israel than any other country (except for Iraq recently). Israel is one of the richest countries in world. US aid to Palestine pales into insignificance to aid to Israel which is a much richer country.
Israel spends this money on continuing the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and the repression of the Palestinian people. They are in breach of international law and are currently flouting god-knows how many United Nations resolutions.

These are the facts.
 
declaration posted on Jul 19 2006 at 09:18 AM said:
darkman- well at least you havent been rude, which is more than I can say. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes.

The fact is that the US gives more aid to Israel than any other country (except for Iraq recently). Israel is one of the richest countries in world. US aid to Palestine pales into insignificance to aid to Israel which is a much richer country.
Israel spends this money on continuing the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and the repression of the Palestinian people. They are in breach of international law and are currently flouting god-knows how many United Nations resolutions.

These are the facts.

One of the reasons that we may be giving more aid to them might be the fact that we are allies. ;)

Rudeness is not a part of intelligently discussing something. Especially in a forum. :)

Well just don't bitch VOTE! And if you are too young get those that are old enough to vote (unless they are republican wink.gif ). If "the slackers" weren't well slackers and got off of their dead asses we wouldn't have that lying, arrogant, thieving, incompetent piece of shit in there now. The only way to put the brakes on the bastard now is to vote democratic this November. This way there will be some checks and balances and the republicans won't just be able to pull their shit at will like they do now.

The fact is DaveC,
Do you realize that only around 50% of actual registered voters will turn out for a presidential election. In the up coming Nov. midterm elections it will plummet into the 30% range. If the American people continue their lack of interest, it will probability be the same this year.
Take a look. :(
The Sad Facts
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys, I was born and raised in Mosul, Iraq. I can personally tell you that nothing really bad was happening. You are being fed propoganda by Bush and his administration. You how in the 80's, Saddam supposedly bombed a bunch of Kurdish villages?-Well that was actually terrorists from Iran...Do you know why Saddam invaded Kuwait?-Well it used to be one of our states(it was not an invasion, it would a legitimate annexation). Not to mention he only took it in 2 hours and only 100 citizens were killed. ;) Do you know why Iraq hasn't progressed?-That is because Shi'is and Iranis in the Iraqi "government" are stealing all the money that comes from other nations to help Iraq rebuild its self.

None of that crap about "woman not being able to work" or "random people get killed" is true. My mother was a professor of Biology in Iraq, and she didn't even wear a head-dress. Did you know that an Iraqi denar was worth $3.50 US before the first Gulf War? Now it's worth 1/1500 of an American dollar. Iraq is now ruined... <_<

P.S. More people voted(by percentage)in the Iraqi elections than Americans did in 2004. ;)
 
Perhaps one reason our voting turnout is so low can be attributed to the electoral college? I personally didn't vote for example; there was literally no point (look at bush/gore for proof of this). Being a New Yorker, I know my state is going democratic. Dace C's assessment, although a bit crude, is sound; southern states, particularly those in the bible belt, are the main offenders. Bush... oh George Bush. i cannot stress enough how my peers and I lament his election- let alone his reelection! Why... seriously- why did the US invade Iraq?

On another note- I would like to know what you guys think about this statement- "Israel's bombardment of Lebanon is an overreaction."

I believe in this. Don't misunderstand me- the capturing of soldiers is a serious and highly detrimental scenario, but I do not agree with Israel's immensely violent reaction. Perhaps Israel is feeling threatened by the capture of Cpl Shalit, and realized that capturing soldiers, the children of Israel, may become an accepted technique by rival nations. Whatever the case, I just don't feel that two captured soldiers justifies killing 300 Lebanese, the vast majority of whom were civilians, along with the deaths of dozens of Israelis. There will be hundreds more to come as well.

edit: typos
 
triksR4rabits posted on Jul 19 2006 at 01:21 PM said:
On another note- I would like to know what you guys think about this statement- "Israel's bombardment of Lebanon is an overreaction."
To that I would say, "Amen!".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know this might be a long read, but I found it interesting. It comes from an Insight Investing newsletter I get weekly in my email. It might throw some light onto the events now taking place.

Hezbollah - The Players Out Front & Behind The Scenes

The following analysis from Stratfor is very interesting. Stratfor gives us a condensed history on the development of the current players in the Mideast, especially Hezbollah and Hamas. The terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are some very bad people. Plus, Stratfor gives us some concise information on which states are funding the terrorist groups in the region and are therefore pulling the strings (think Syria and Iran). Here we go:

"Hezbollah's decision to increase operations against Israel was not taken lightly. The leadership of Hezbollah has not so much moderated over the years as it has aged. The group's leaders have also, with age, become comfortable and in many cases wealthy. They are at least part of the Lebanese political process, and in some real sense part of the Lebanese establishment. These are men with a radical past and of radical mind-set, but they are older, comfortable and less adventurous than 20 years ago. Therefore, the question is: Why are they increasing tensions with Israel and inviting an invasion that threatens their very lives?

There is a generation gap in Hezbollah. Hezbollah began as a Shiite radical group inspired by the Iranian Islamic Revolution. In that context, Hezbollah represented a militant, nonsecular alternative to the Nasserite Fatah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other groups that took their bearing from Pan-Arabism rather than Islam. Hezbollah split the Shiite community in Lebanon -- which was against Sunnis and Christians -- but most of all, engaged the Israelis. It made a powerful claim that the Palestinian movement had no future while it remained fundamentally secular and while its religious alternatives derived from the conservative Arab monarchies. More than anyone, it was Hezbollah that introduced Islamist suicide bombings."


Hezbollah is primarily supported financially by Syria and Iran (and arguably Russia). Hezbollah's other primary source of income comes from the international drug trade. Hezbollah maintains a large network of processing centers for turning Afghan opium into heroin and operates methamphetamine labs in the Bekaa Valley, with some opium and marijuana produced locally as well. So Hezbollah is a major player in the world drug trade.

With that very distasteful element injected into the picture, let's continue with Stratfor's analysis of how the current Mideast crisis developed and, most importantly, what the likely outcome may eventually be:

"Hezbollah had a split personality, however; it was supported by two very different states. Iran was radically Islamist. Syria, much closer and a major power in Lebanon, was secular and socialist. They shared an anti-Zionist ideology, but beyond that, not much. Moreover, the Syrians viewed the Palestinian claim for a state with a jaundiced eye. Palestine was, from their point of view, part of the Ottoman Empire's Syrian province, divided by the British and French. Syria wanted to destroy Israel, but not necessarily to create a Palestinian state.

From Syria's point of view, the real issue was the future of Lebanon, which it wanted to reabsorb into Syria, or at the very least economically exploit. The Syrians intervened in Lebanon against the Palestine Liberation Organization and on the side of some Christian elements. Their goal was much less ideological than political and economic. They saw Hezbollah as a tool in their fight with Yasser Arafat and for domination ! of Syria.

Hezbollah strategically was aligned with Iran. Tactically, it had to align itself with Syria, since the Syrians dominated Lebanon. That meant that when Syria wanted tension with Israel, Hezbollah provided it, and when Syria wanted things to quiet down, Hezbollah cooled it. Meanwhile the leadership of Hezbollah, aligned with the Syrians, was in a position to prosper, [in] particular after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. [Emphasis added, GH.]

That withdrawal involved a basic, quiet agreement between Syria and Israel. Israel accepted Syrian domination of Lebanon. In return, Syria was expected to maintain a security regime that controlled Hezbollah. Attacks against Israel had to be kept within certain acceptable limits. Syria, having far less interest in Israel than in Lebanon, saw this as an opportunity to achieve its ends. Israel saw Syrian domination under these terms as a stabilizing force. [Emphasis added, GH.]

! Destabilization

Two things converged to destabilize this sit uation. The emergence of Hamas as a major force among the Palestinians meant the Palestinian polity was being redefined. Even before the elections catapulted Hamas into a leadership role, it was clear that the Fatah-dominated government of Arafat was collapsing. Everything was up for grabs. That meant that either Hezbollah made a move or would be permanently a Lebanese organization. It had to show it was willing to take risks and be effective. In fact, it had to show that it was the most effective of all the groups. They moved... The second part of this occurred in Lebanon itself. After the death of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, outside pressure, primarily from the United States, forced a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Now, do not overestimate the extent of the withdrawal. Syrian influence in Lebanon is still enormous. But it did relieve Syria of the burden of controlling Hezbollah. Indeed, Israel was not overly enthusiastic about Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon fo! r just that reason.

Syria could now claim to have no influence or obligation concerning Hezbollah. Hezbollah's leadership lost the cover of being able to tell the young Turks that they would be more aggressive, but that the Syrians would not let them. As the Syrian withdrawal loosened up Lebanese politics, Hezbollah was neither restrained nor could it pretend to be restrained. Whatever the mixed feelings might have been, the mission was the mission, Syrian withdrawal opened the door and Hezbollah could not resist walking through it, and many members urgently wanted to walk through it."


Thus far, Stratfor has walked us through the Syrian involvement with the advancement of Hezbollah. While the Iranians had been involved all along, Stratfor next illustrates how the Iranians became a much larger influence on Hezbollah once Syria stepped back.

"At the same time the Iranians were deeply involved in negotiations in Iraq and over Tehran's nuclear program. They wanted as many levers as they could find to use in negotiations against the United States. They already had the ability to destabilize Iraq. They had a nuclear program the United States wanted to get rid of. Reactivating a global network that directly threatened American interests was another chip on the bargaining table. Not attacking U.S. interests but attacking Israel demonstrated Hezbollah's vibrancy without directly threatening the United States. Moreover, activities around the world, not carefully shielded in some cases, gave Iran further leverage.

In addition, it allowed Iran to reclaim its place as the leader of Islamic radical resurgence. Al Qaeda, a Sunni group, had supplanted Iran in the Islamic world. Indeed, Iran's collaboration with the West allowed Tehran to be pictured among the 'hypocrites' Osama bin Laden condemned. Iran wants to b! ecome the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, and one part of that is to take away the mantle of Islamic radicalism from al Qaeda. Since al Qaeda is a damaged organization at best, and since Hezbollah pioneered Islamist terrorism on a global basis, reactivating Hezbollah made a great deal of sense to the Iranians.

Hezbollah's Position

Syria benefited by showing how badly it was needed in Lebanon. Iran picked up additional leverage against the United States. Hezbollah claimed a major place at the negotiations shaping the future of Palestinian politics. It all made a great deal of sense.

Of course, it was also obvious that Israel would respond. From Syria's point of view, that was fine. Israel would bog down again. It would turn to Syria to relieve it of its burdens. Israel would not want an Islamic regime in Damascus. Syria gets regime preservation and the opportunity to reclaim Lebanon. Iran gets a war hundreds of miles away from it, letting others figh! t its battles. It can claim it is the real enemy of Israel in the Isla mic world. The United States might bargain away interests in Iraq in order to control Hezbollah. An Israeli invasion [of Lebanon] opens up possibilities [for the Iranians] without creating much risk.

It is Hezbollah that takes it on the chin. But Hezbollah, by its nature and its relationships, really did not have much choice. It had to act or become irrelevant. So now the question is: What does Hezbollah do when the Israelis come? They can resist. They have anti-tank weapons and other systems from Iran. They can inflict casualties. They can impose a counterinsurgency. Syria may think Israel will have to stay, but Israel plans to crush Hezbollah's infrastructure and leave, forcing Hezbollah to take years to recover. Everyone else in Lebanon is furious at Hezbollah for disrupting the recovery. What does Hezbollah do?"


This is where Stratfor's analysis becomes most troubling and, frankly, is the main reason I wanted to walk you through this whole exercise.

"In the 1980s, what Hezbollah did was take Western hostages. The United States is enormously sensitive to hostage situations. It led Ronald Reagan to Iran-Contra. Politically, the United States has trouble handling hostages. This is the one thing Hezbollah learned in the 1980s that the leaders remember. A portfolio of hostages is life insurance. Hezbollah could go back to its old habits. It makes sense to do so. [Emphasis added, GH.]

It will not do this while there is a chance of averting an [Israeli] invasion. But once it is crystal clear it is coming, grabbing hostages makes sense. Assuming the invasion is going to occur early next [this] week -- or a political settlement is going to take place -- Western powers now have no more than 72 hours to get their nationals out of Beirut or into places of safety. That probably cannot be done. There are thousands of Westerners in Beirut. But the next few days will focus on ascertaining Israeli intensions a! nd timelines, and executing plans to withdraw citizens. The Israelis might well shift their timeline to facilitate this. But all things considered, if Hezbollah returns to its roots, it should return to its first operational model: hostages."

Where Things Go From Here?
As this is written (and time to hit the "send" button), there is no way to know what will happen next in the Mideast crisis. All kinds of options exist. It is difficult to imagine that Israel will agree to a cease-fire even if Hezbollah agrees to return the captured Israeli soldiers, especially now that Hezbollah has intensified the rocket attacks.

Several Arabic nations that would not normally make such a gesture have joined to condemn Hezbollah, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and others. Thus, Israel must feel that it has an unprecedented window of opportunity to wipe out Hezbollah, or at least render it powerless. At the least, Israel will almost certainly attempt to disarm Hezbollah, what with rockets striking Haifa and other Israeli cities and potentially Tel Aviv.

I look for Israel to put the hammer down in the next few days and weeks. Look for Israel to intensify the bombings. I believe the prior bombings and air campaign have been to clear the way for a ground campaign that could begin any day now. I could be wrong, of course, but this looks like the most likely scenario to me. Stratfor seems to agree. Fasten your seatbelts!

One puzzling aspect to all of this, however, is why the US has not already ordered mandatory evacuations of Americans from Lebanon, given the growing threat of a ground invasion by Israeli forces and the intensifying level of bombing by both sides. Transportation out of Lebanon is being provided for Americans beginning today (Tuesday) but on a voluntary basis, not mandatory.

This has led some to speculate that the US is privy to some inside information suggesting that Israel will not invade, or that some last-minute peace accord is in the works. I find that doubtful, but stranger things have happened. It may simply be that it is taking longer to move the Americans out due to the large numbers and the logistics and safety issues involved in such an operation. In any event, it seems strange that this hasn't happened sooner.

The United Nations, France and the usual suspects are demanding a cease-fire and warning against an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon. But we should not be surprised to see Israeli forces inside Lebanon later this week (or perhaps even as you read this). As such, I expect the Mideast crisis will continue to be a destabilizing force in the markets for at least several more weeks to come. How destabilizing remains to be seen.
edit: typos as usual
 
Go here if you want to know the truth about Israel.

Notice how they treat the Arabs in these videos. Please Darkman, don't respond, you have never lived in the Mideast, so don't tell me your facts and stories. It's quite unfortunate that you are all led to believe that Israel is a friend to the world, when they are commiting crimes as horrible as crimes in WWII.
 
OMars posted on Aug 8 2006 at 11:46 PM said:
Go here if you want to know the truth about Israel.

Notice how they treat the Arabs in these videos. Please Darkman, don't respond, you have never lived in the Mideast, so don't tell me your facts and stories. It's quite unfortunate that you are all led to believe that Israel is a friend to the world, when they are commiting crimes as horrible as crimes in WWII.
I watched exhibit one, and it seemed that the UK corrospondent kept trying to spin the story and wouldn't let the ambassador explain himself. He kept interrupting him throughout the interview. :(

Exhibit 2 seems to be outdated, as Hezbollah are using stronger weapons now. Also, see wikipedia.

I have no comment on exhibit 3, as I have never been to the middle east personally and have no experience with Israeli treatment of others. But don't forget, America is allied with Israel, and will support them.

The fourth exhibit is really a shame. I feel bad about that brutality, but I'm sure not all missions go as poorly as that one.


Those are just my opinions, please do not flame me for them. Thank you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OMars posted on Jul 19 2006 at 06:18 PM said:
Guys, I was born and raised in Mosul, Iraq. I can personally tell you that nothing really bad was happening. You are being fed propoganda by Bush and his administration. You how in the 80's, Saddam supposedly bombed a bunch of Kurdish villages?-Well that was actually terrorists from Iran...Do you know why Saddam invaded Kuwait?-Well it used to be one of our states(it was not an invasion, it would a legitimate secession). Not to mention he only took it in 2 hours and only 100 citizens were killed. ;) Do you know why Iraq hasn't progressed?-That is because Shi'is and Iranis in the Iraqi "government" are stealing all the money that comes from other nations to help Iraq rebuild its self.

None of that crap about "woman not being able to work" or "random people get killed" is true. My mother was a professor of Biology in Iraq, and she didn't even wear a head-dress. Did you know that an Iraqi denar was worth $3.50 US before the first Gulf War? Now it's worth 1/1500 of an American dollar. Iraq is now ruined... <_<

P.S. More people voted(by percentage)in the Iraqi elections than Americans did in 2004. ;)


Well not all Americans like or agree with Bush and his illegal Iraq invasion. Just today encumbant Joe Liebermann was defeated in the Democratic primary by a newcomer. Americans do not equal Bush supporters.

The main reason for his defeat was his support for Bush in the Iraq invasion. I know many of us are sick of Bush and his criminal acts and lies. Bush has fucked the US as well as the middle east.

I NEVER supported this war even before it started, and I never supported Bush. I voted against him BOTH times. It is too bad the other half of America was too busy watching NASCAR and fucking goats to know the truth about that bastard, and vote against him ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The story's pretty much the same over here. Everyone hates Tony Blair (although he's not quite the moron Bush is) and yet he was voted in for a second term, and I don't know why. It was probably one of two things: either to patch things up in Iraq, which he's failed to do, or because of front pages on the newspaper stating things like "If 1 in 5 Labour voters vote Lib Dem, the Tories will get in" or "Vote Labour, there's too much at stake" or even "We're sticking with the guys in red".

Terrible stuff. Everyone in my family is for Lib Dem though, so go them.
 
nickspoon posted on Aug 9 2006 at 10:50 AM said:
The story's pretty much the same over here. Everyone hates Tony Blair (although he's not quite the moron Bush is) and yet he was voted in for a second term, and I don't know why. It was probably one of two things: either to patch things up in Iraq, which he's failed to do, or because of front pages on the newspaper stating things like "If 1 in 5 Labour voters vote Lib Dem, the Tories will get in" or "Vote Labour, there's too much at stake" or even "We're sticking with the guys in red".

Terrible stuff. Everyone in my family is for Lib Dem though, so go them.
It's his third term; he was still considerably popular by the end of his first term and was elected with a second landslide.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yono posted on Aug 8 2006 at 11:29 PM said:
I watched exhibit one, and it seemed that the UK corrospondent kept trying to spin the story and wouldn't let the ambassador explain himself. He kept interrupting him throughout the interview. :(

Exhibit 2 seems to be outdated, as Hezbollah are using stronger weapons now. Also, see wikipedia.

I have no comment on exhibit 3, as I have never been to the middle east personally and have no experience with Israeli treatment of others. But don't forget, America is allied with Israel, and will support them.

The fourth exhibit is really a shame. I feel bad about that brutality, but I'm sure not all missions go as poorly as that one.


Those are just my opinions, please do not flame me for them. Thank you.

You seem awfully supportive of Israel....even after you watched those videos. And I know they switched weapons, but they are still not nearly as accurate and powerful as Israeli weapons. ;) And when I said crimes in WWII, I meant crimes against them, Jews/Hebrews.

DaveC posted on Aug 9 2006 at 12:17 AM said:
OMars posted on Jul 19 2006 at 06:18 PM said:
Guys, I was born and raised in Mosul, Iraq. I can personally tell you that nothing really bad was happening. You are being fed propoganda by Bush and his administration. You how in the 80's, Saddam supposedly bombed a bunch of Kurdish villages?-Well that was actually terrorists from Iran...Do you know why Saddam invaded Kuwait?-Well it used to be one of our states(it was not an invasion, it would a legitimate annexation). Not to mention he only took it in 2 hours and only 100 citizens were killed. ;) Do you know why Iraq hasn't progressed?-That is because Shi'is and Iranis in the Iraqi "government" are stealing all the money that comes from other nations to help Iraq rebuild its self.

None of that crap about "woman not being able to work" or "random people get killed" is true. My mother was a professor of Biology in Iraq, and she didn't even wear a head-dress. Did you know that an Iraqi denar was worth $3.50 US before the first Gulf War? Now it's worth 1/1500 of an American dollar. Iraq is now ruined... <_<

P.S. More people voted(by percentage)in the Iraqi elections than Americans did in 2004. ;)


Well not all Americans like or agree with Bush and his illegal Iraq invasion. Just today encumbant Joe Liebermann was defeated in the Democratic primary by a newcomer. Americans do not equal Bush supporters.

The main reason for his defeat was his support for Bush in the Iraq invasion. I know many of us are sick of Bush and his criminal acts and lies. Bush has fucked the US as well as the middle east.

I NEVER supported this war even before it started, and I never supported Bush. I voted against him BOTH times. It is too bad the other half of America was too busy watching NASCAR and fucking goats to know the truth about that bastard, and vote against him ;)

I know that a lot of Americans don't support what Bush is doing, but I live in Nebraska. <_< Everyone here is a hick and believes that they are "freeing" Iraqis. And there is far too much to explain so I just try to ignore them. Also when I came here gas costed less than a dollar. Now it's around three dollars. Imagine if you have two cars and you drive around the city all day...I don't think you would support Bush after a month of that. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top