Honey...I enriched the uranium...

[Baal]

Yeah...wouldn't it be terrible if all these people actually got to think for themselves or have a say in the running of their government?

Yeah imagine - I'm guessing they'd still **** us for quite some time - but at least they'd have other outlets and the freedom to protest about everything else thats fucked up with their lives - it might take the edge off a bit. Still, invading and replacing their regimes with puppet govs is not a good idea either - we talk a lot of **** about the iranians, the syrians, and the palestinians but notice how all these wahabbi assholes come from rich, authoritarian pro-western "monarchies" that are even more oppressive then the above mention - sure we buy them off and turn a blind eye to the way the gulf arabs treat their people and as a result, the islamonuts that cant get a word in against their government, are molded into taking pot-shots at us, I said this after 9/11 like a lot of other people, we encouraged this kind of behavior and look where it got us. If we had nuts, the day after 9/11 we would have said, FUCK YOU - were done with the oil biz and we dont care what it does to the economy - YOUR CUT OFF Oh and you cant invest here anymore either - hehe...

Too bad that those who claim to fight ****** are the same greedy assholes in the whitehouse who promoted the conditions for ****** for so many years.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

Personally, this scares the hell out of me. Irans president has already said that Isreal should be wiped off the map. If that is not an asshole thing to say i don't know what is. I don't know how this issue should be dealt with other than diplomacy and economic sanctions. There has been proof that Islam and Christianity can coexist in peaceful relationships. The problem is with religious, and dictatorial governments have too much to lose by cooperating with the west. Mainly their power over their people. That is one of the reasons why the US government was set up the way it was to prevent such ****** of power.

What Israel is? Isn't it's policy same as other countries like Iran? Think of Palestinians. One fine morning after 2nd world war, they found that they are foreigners in their own country.

I just found this interesting...not just this link, but the entire site. Please check it out, it's really interesting and informative.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n-timeline.htm

Don't you find US two-timing the world by patting India in one hand and talking war regarding Iran?

 

[Member2019]

Don't blame the US for Israel ...

What Israel is? Isn't it's policy same as other countries like Iran? Think of Palestinians. One fine morning after 2nd world war, they found that they are foreigners in their own country.

And today, you have the Iranian leader spewing such rhetoric in "defense" of Palestine?
Understand that the only reason Palestine -- a nation of all faiths (including Christians) -- is supported by Arab states is because they are a thorn in the Israeli's side.
If Israeli is gone tomorrow, Palestine would be the next target.

And if nuking Israeli happens to hit Palestine as well, that's an "oh well" from the Iranian leader's viewpoint!

Don't you find US two-timing the world by patting India in one hand and talking war regarding Iran?

Actually, the US avoided support of Israeli until the late' 60s and early '70s.
Yes, the US recognized the state, largely as an appeasement to other European states, but we didn't support them.
Early support came from France and Soviet Union (the latter ready to purge itself of those of Jewish faith).

Despite what everyone may think, there are far less wars in the Middle East once the US got involved.
It was our use of SR-71 Blackbirds that brought much of the Arab and Israeli world to the negotiation tables.
We gave the UN U-2's as a result.

Yes, the US has futzed around with the Arab world, both after WWII through today.
But we did not start our aid to Israel much later, for various reasons.
Yes, some are selfish -- but you have to give the US credit -- after 25 years of Israeli existence, we have brought down the number of incursions and counter-incursions between Arab-Israeli states.

All while encouraging Israeli to give up border territories they gained as a result of Arab attacks (not Palestine).
You don't keep starting wars if you're going to get your butts kicked, and Israeli did that to invading Arab nations with French and Soviet hardware well before the US ever gave them any!
Palestine? They are just caught in the middle -- a pawn for Arab rhetoric. Because once Israel is gone, they're next!

 

[alexios]

Don't you find US two-timing the world by patting India in one hand and talking war regarding Iran?

Contrary to Iran....India is a fully-functional democracy. India is NOT a state sponsor of terrorism. India is not threatening to wipe a country off the map. India is splitting nuclear technology between civilian and military uses. Finally, India has learned that you can't advance from the outside, and if you want to succeed, you have to play by the rules of the game.

 

[alexios]

Re: Don't blame the US for Israel ...

And today, you have the Iranian leader spewing such rhetoric in "defense" of Palestine?
Understand that the only reason Palestine -- a nation of all faiths (including Christians) -- is supported by Arab states is because they are a thorn in the Israeli's side.
If Israeli is gone tomorrow, Palestine would be the next target.

Thank you. I'm so glad that you pointed this out. I would also like to add to this argument.

If the Arab world REALLY cared about the Palestinians, why don't they fund them?

If the Arab world REALLY cared about the Palestinians, why don't they ever try to negotiate a lasting peace with Israel?

If the Arab world REALLY cared about the Palestinians, why wouldn't they try to help the Palestinians stabilize and grow instead of relying on terrorism?

If the Arab world REALLY cared about the Palestinians, why didn't they all open their borders to Palestinian "refugees" after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war?

If the Arab world REALLY cared about the Palestinians, why did they let the Palestinians bear the brunt of the past wars?

Face it, like the Cossacks to the Imperial Russians, and the Gypsies (or Roma) to many different leaders, the Palestinians are being used, and the truth is that the Arab world didn't want them, need them, or care about them until it was realized that the Palestinians could be a problem for Israel.

 

[member2686]

Here's a new twist... There's some rhetoric here I'd not seen before this article...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/15/peres.iran/index.html

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

Contrary to Iran....India is a fully-functional democracy. India is NOT a state sponsor of terrorism. India is not threatening to wipe a country off the map. India is splitting nuclear technology between civilian and military uses. Finally, India has learned that you can't advance from the outside, and if you want to succeed, you have to play by the rules of the game.

When truth be told, it should be told in full, not in part.

Ask Pakistan, they point the finger to India regarding the turmoil in Sind.

I'm no India hater, far from it. But with 43% people being below the poverty line and illiteracy rate going higher of that figure, what do you think happens in the poll in the biggest democratic country of the world, that is India?

India produced Nuclear weopon long time back. Just because it is going to rival China in the market-size and low-cost labour strength, USA is patting its back now, for getting in to the market and make it a viable opposition to China in the region.

But the question is, "Would you like to loose your country one fine morning and called an out sider on your own soil?" Ask the refugees of the India-Pakistan partition, who had gone through the same agony.

You can try to justify anything, like "Israel" was not supported initially by USA. But go back to that time and think, was it possible to relocate Jews in gulf without the consent of USA.

US was always motivated by their own market ***** and they have two-timed the world enough number of times. Role reversal of US w.r.t Pakistan and India is another in that line.

 

[Member2019]

When truth be told, it should be told in full, not in part.

I try to give the full story as best as I can.
In fact, people complain about the length of my posts.

Ask Pakistan, they point the finger to India regarding the turmoil in Sind. I'm no India hater, far from it. But with 43% people being below the poverty line and illiteracy rate going higher of that figure, what do you think happens in the poll in the biggest democratic country of the world, that is India?

India and Pakistan are a perfect example of how Imperalism purposesly sets peoples against each other.
The key to India and Pakistan co-existing was for them to remain the same country.
Something the Imperalists hated, but Ghandi very much wanted.

If anything, it's the one thing we (the US) do not share in our view with our UK ally.
We believe peoples should work together in union, and not separate based on assumed identity/nationality.
Wilson argued this after WWI, FDR-Truman after WWII, and no European nation listened.

In fact, most of them had their own, selfish desires (especially France after both).
Ironically enough, even the Soviet Union understood this better -- but their solution was just incompatible with our views on individual rights. ;->

India produced Nuclear weopon long time back. Just because it is going to rival China in the market-size and low-cost labour strength, USA is patting its back now, for getting in to the market and make it a viable opposition to China in the region.

And the US has been pretty stupid at times in this arrangement, yes.
I also thought it was bad for the US to recognize India as a nuclear power, because it set a precendent.

But the question is, "Would you like to loose your country one fine morning and called an out sider on your own soil?" Ask the refugees of the India-Pakistan partition, who had gone through the same agony.

Agreed.
Ghandi predicted a lot of the problems with a separate India and Pakistan.

You can try to justify anything, like "Israel" was not supported initially by USA.
But go back to that time and think, was it possible to relocate Jews in gulf without the consent of USA.

Yes! I'd be really interested in finding out where you got your info?!?!?!
The US had nothing to do with the creation of the state of Israel -- in fact, Truman tossed and turned over recognizing the state.

US was always motivated by their own market ***** and they have two-timed the world enough number of times.
Role reversal of US w.r.t Pakistan and India is another in that line.

It wouldn't surprise me if the US intentionally fed nuclear technology to Pakistan once India detonated a bomb.
Deterrence in duality is everything.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

India and Pakistan are a perfect example of how Imperalism purposesly sets peoples against each other.
The key to India and Pakistan co-existing was for them to remain the same country.
Something the Imperalists hated, but Ghandi very much wanted.

Gandhi was against partition. It was Jawaharlal Nehru, who wanted partition so that Jinnah doesn't become the premier of the entire the then India.

And the US has been pretty stupid at times in this arrangement, yes.
I also thought it was bad for the US to recognize India as a nuclear power, because it set a precendent.

Rightly said.

Agreed.
Ghandi predicted a lot of the problems with a separate India and Pakistan.

Yes! I'd be really interested in finding out where you got your info?!?!?!
The US had nothing to do with the creation of the state of Israel -- in fact, Truman tossed and turned over recognizing the state.

That was the problem. Us always tossed & turned just before WWII & just after, to see which side the bread is buttered. Look at the history closely and you don't have to ask where from I got the information.

It wouldn't surprise me if the US intentionally fed nuclear technology to Pakistan once India detonated a bomb.
Deterrence in duality is everything.

Now, what else can be called two timing? Deterrence in duality is a big word. Like statistics it solves all dualities of actions.

 

[Member2019]

Gandhi was against partition. It was Jawaharlal Nehru, who wanted partition so that Jinnah doesn't become the premier of the entire the then India.

Yes, I know, that's what I said.

That was the problem. Us always tossed & turned just before WWII & just after, to see which side the bread is buttered. Look at the history closely and you don't have to ask where from I got the information.

Yes, because the US has always been made up of many nationalities. It's hard to move to one side without alienating a significant number of constituents. I don't think people realize that with regards to the US' actions -- past and present. Also makes me laugh when people think we are anti-Islam -- makes me laugh hard.

 

[alexios]

When truth be told, it should be told in full, not in part.

Ask Pakistan, they point the finger to India regarding the turmoil in Sind.

I'm no India hater, far from it. But with 43% people being below the poverty line and illiteracy rate going higher of that figure, what do you think happens in the poll in the biggest democratic country of the world, that is India?

India produced Nuclear weopon long time back. Just because it is going to rival China in the market-size and low-cost labour strength, USA is patting its back now, for getting in to the market and make it a viable opposition to China in the region.

But the question is, "Would you like to loose your country one fine morning and called an out sider on your own soil?" Ask the refugees of the India-Pakistan partition, who had gone through the same agony.

You can try to justify anything, like "Israel" was not supported initially by USA. But go back to that time and think, was it possible to relocate Jews in gulf without the consent of USA.

US was always motivated by their own market ***** and they have two-timed the world enough number of times. Role reversal of US w.r.t Pakistan and India is another in that line.

I could also make a lot of points for the opposite. I feel that you've missed a lot of points and make a way too simplified and liberal argument for the concept of international relations. Refugees..refugees...blah blah blah. No refugees are happy, but there are always refugees when change occurs. "Israel" (as you like to say in quotes) is not the product or the result of the United States. Not everything in the world happens because of the United States...sometimes countries can act independelt of us, unless you're one of the cloudy-minded people that think that the U.S. has controlled everybody's actions for the past 60 years. Of course the United States is driven by selfish intentions in international relations, every country, no matter how pious they want to appear, is the same way. Don't fool yourself into believing that any country really cares about any other country...do you think the world would really miss the U.S. if it were gone? or India? or any other country? International relations is selfish, greedy, politically motivated, and centered around deals, *****, money, power, and influence. That being said, I completely digress, as this thought stream has absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

I could also make a lot of points for the opposite. I feel that you've missed a lot of points and make a way too simplified and liberal argument for the concept of international relations. Refugees..refugees...blah blah blah. No refugees are happy, but there are always refugees when change occurs. "Israel" (as you like to say in quotes) is not the product or the result of the United States. Not everything in the world happens because of the United States...sometimes countries can act independelt of us, unless you're one of the cloudy-minded people that think that the U.S. has controlled everybody's actions for the past 60 years. Of course the United States is driven by selfish intentions in international relations, every country, no matter how pious they want to appear, is the same way. Don't fool yourself into believing that any country really cares about any other country...do you think the world would really miss the U.S. if it were gone? or India? or any other country? International relations is selfish, greedy, politically motivated, and centered around deals, *****, money, power, and influence. That being said, I completely digress, as this thought stream has absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

I apologise for the digression. And thank you for correcting my way. I was carried away. But you are absolutely right when you say, "Don't fool yourself into believing that any country really cares about any other country...do you think the world would really miss the U.S. if it were gone? or India? or any other country? International relations is selfish, greedy, politically motivated, and centered around deals, *****, money, power, and influence."

I'm no fool but a dreamer. I ***** about a world where all these are not true. Would you find that offensive?

 

[alexios]

I apologise for the digression. And thank you for correcting my way. I was carried away. But you are absolutely right when you say, "Don't fool yourself into believing that any country really cares about any other country...do you think the world would really miss the U.S. if it were gone? or India? or any other country? International relations is selfish, greedy, politically motivated, and centered around deals, *****, money, power, and influence."

I'm no fool but a dreamer. I ***** about a world where all these are not true. Would you find that offensive?

You know...to be honest, I admire you for that. Being a dreamer is hard for me because I cannot escape the reality of it, but I'm very impressed to see that you can. For my part, I apologize for perhaps jumping in with both feet, so to speak. I wish you were right about IR, but it seems like, as long as there are others who are greedy, there are only two options: be greedy yourself or get taken advantage of.

 

[Member2019]

The US is arrogant and invasive.
It's because we believe our form of government provides the greatest stability.
It's far from perfect and I don't claim it's a righteous attitude.
And we reserve it for when countries lose wars.

Although that still doesn't account for the CIA and other intelligence agencies that have manipulated governments.

 

[alexios]

The US is arrogant and invasive.
It's because we believe our form of government provides the greatest stability.
It's far from perfect and I don't claim it's a righteous attitude.
And we reserve it for when countries lose wars.

Although that still doesn't account for the CIA and other intelligence agencies that have manipulated governments.

Actually, our form of government does provide the greatest stability. Think about it, discounting fringe and other various 3rd parties which have never really gained a foothold in our society, our country has always been governed by one of two parties, and even that one party's platform has been moderated by the other party. Basically, our government, with some slight incremental shifts, has remained the same. This is a great thing as far as stability and predictability is concerned, but it does limit choice. I mean, sure you could vote for a third party if you believe in them; however, with the odds being that the party won't garner enough support to get anyone elected beyond the local level, many people see voting for anyone but the two main parties as throwing their vote away.

 

[Member2019]

Actually, our form of government does provide the greatest stability.
Think about it, discounting fringe and other various 3rd parties which have never really gained a foothold in our society, our country has always been governed by one of two parties,

GW is a great read on this subject, he quickly identified the follies of political parties.
But he was also a Federalist.

The United State has had no less than 5 major political parties control good portions of the Legislative and Executive.
Early during the Communist scare post-WWII, the US decided to subsidize the Democrat and Republican parties.
That's part of the problem.

But a further realization is the fact that many Americans are actually of the original Jeffersonian Republican aka Democrat-Republican (and the parent of both modern parties).
And most people just choose between the ***** differences, possibly based on rhetoric, between the two.

I am registered no party (never have been), and I omit many of my votes on the ballot.
I only vote those people who I truly believe will make choices consistent with the good of the US.
And in most of those cases, they are the American Libertarian party -- a return to the Jeffersonian ideals.

and even that one party's platform has been moderated by the other party.

Huh? I didn't get your point there?

Basically, our government, with some slight incremental shifts, has remained the same.

That was the idea in the first place.
We only change when things are really needed.
It is purposely designed with balances and in-fighting so things don't get done unless they are really important.

This is a great thing as far as stability and predictability is concerned, but it does limit choice.

No. People's insistence on voting party lines is what limits choice.
If people went to the ballot, omitted races they are ignorant of, and only voted for candidates they really believed in, we wouldn't have a problem.

Or better yet, we should adopt a better system of "yes-only" votes, where you can give a "yes" to one or more of the candidates.
That way you get the common candidate that most agree on.
But that'll never happen.

I mean, sure you could vote for a third party if you believe in them;

I do NOT vote "third party."
I vote the candidate that reflects what I believe is good for this country.
As a by-product, that means American Libertarian in 20-30% of the cases.

Again, I leave 50+% of my ballot blank, I REFUSE to vote in ignorance.
But I show up, do my civic duty, and vote the offices where I am informed.

however, with the odds being that the party won't garner enough support to get anyone elected beyond the local level, many people see voting for anyone but the two main parties as throwing their vote away.

And they are part of the problem.