Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Topic: Would US attack Iran?!! Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 12:56
Originally posted by malizai_
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
Originally posted by Mira
Justification unaccepted by the rest of the world - how about you get used to that?
When it comes to national interests, the acceptance by the rest
of the world is not relevant. We are used to it, as are, and have
been all other powers.
The also get used to the hate and criticism. U cant have it both
ways. Problem is that decent American with more humane values than
urselves have to suffer alongside the likes of u.
I totally second this. Can't put a Hitler and a Mother Teresa in the same category, though they're both Christians.
I am arguing semantics with you - you are trying to give it moral justification when it has none, not by any conventional standard at least, it is the sort of rationale consistant with that of a morally bankrupted and totalitarian state.
And, btw, I am used to it, probably unlike anyone here: I have experienced war, first hand.
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:08
Originally posted by malizai_
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
Originally posted by Mira
Justification unaccepted by the rest of the world - how about you get used to that?
When it comes to national interests, the acceptance by the rest of the world is not relevant. We are used to it, as are, and have been all other powers.
Then also get used to the hate and criticism. U cant have it both ways. Problem is that decent Americans with more humane values than urselves have to suffer alongside the likes of u who champion illegitimate military causes.
I said we are used to all that.
Great Powers don't need it both ways.
Your outrage is also not relevant. You can get as upset as you want, but it is not going to, and in any event would not, change anything.
Whine and compalin all you like. Britain is a free country.
American gov is trying every single possibility to destabilize iran. the chief of the independentist arab organization of khuzestan met already several personalities not only american authorities but also canadian PM... i think most of iranian including the government are unconscious about the gravity of the situation ...
Your outrage is also not relevant. You can get as upset as you want, but it is not going to, and in any event would not, change anything.
Whine and complain all you like. Britain is a free country.
U r right, great powers do everything their way. My outrage is nothing more than an expression of my frustration and anger at the loss of thousands of innocent civilian lives at the hands of the great powers.
What i must do is show my distaste for the abuse of other peoples right to life, by a great power. I must protest at this. For if u can not change something by hand than at least you can try to change it by your tongue. Pretty normal human emotive response built into some people.
Sitting back, with hot cocoa and some bourbons, enjoying a lengthy feature on civilian deaths around the world is not an option. It is a state of mind of defeatist souls.
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:47
Originally posted by Aydin
American gov is trying every single possibility to destabilize iran. the chief of the independentist arab organization of khuzestan met already several personalities not only american authorities but also canadian PM... i think most of iranian including the government are unconscious about the gravity of the situation ...
The mullahs and their goons are doing a good enough job destabilizing Iran. The West can just sit back and watch. I trust there are plenty of responsible and reasonable Iranians to pick up the pieces once those idiots are gone.
American gov is trying every single possibility to destabilize iran. the chief of the independentist arab organization of khuzestan met already several personalities not only american authorities but also canadian PM... i think most of iranian including the government are unconscious about the gravity of the situation ...
Iran should just crack down really hard arrest all suspects and any potential US informers and collaborators and line Bushehr and other nuclear and strategic sites with them.
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:53
Originally posted by malizai_
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
I said we are used to all that.
Great Powers don't need it both ways.
Your outrage is also not relevant. You can get as upset as you want, but it is not going to, and in any event would not, change anything.
Whine and complain all you like. Britain is a free country.
U r right, great powers do everything their way. My outrage is nothing more than an expression of my frustration and anger at the loss of thousands of innocent civilian lives at the hands of the great powers.
What i must do is show my distaste for the abuse of other peoples right to life, by a great power. I must protest at this. For if u can not change something by hand than at least you can try to change it by your tongue. Pretty normal human emotive response built into some people.
Sitting back, with hot cocoa and some bourbons, enjoying a lengthy feature on civilian deaths around the world is not an option. It is a state of mind of defeatist souls.
Malizai:
I appreciate your feelings, but it does not change things. It can be, as I know you are aware, a hard world. None of us will get that much of what we would like, from material things to peace, but what can be done?
I don't think most persons would behave toward other individuals the way national polities behave toward each other, but look at the history. This is a history forum.
Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 14:17
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
And most people seem to think it's all
conspiracies. I don't mind changing my mind when hard evidence comes
up. But I look at all angles, and all I see is unbievable conspiacies
on your part. You say they are there to colonize basicly because the US
is western, because other western countries have done it in the past.
There is no reason to colonize anymore, for what oil? Canada hasn't
even tapped into it's oil completly and it's said to be the biggest in
the world, the US has more then enough oil fields itself and if needed
there still Alaska. We buy cheap oil from the Saudi's who are more then
happy to seel it to us.
The US, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, China Norway and a few
others are able to produce more Petroleum them Iraq can. Iraq is 14th
on the list, Iran 4th. If we really went for oil, who do you think
would have been more beneficial to colonize?
The US doesn't want to use its own reserves. It's clear as the
sun. If you wanted to use your reserves, and you say you have
plenty, then you wouldn't have reduced yourself to supporting
repressive governments like the Saudi regime just for the sake of
keeping the oil prices stable.
The Darfur crisis has been happening ever since I was a baby in a
cradle. The US only paid attention to the "humanitarian" crisis
when uranium was discovered there. Now isn't that one strange
coincidence?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Yes ofcourse the American, the US is in a
country without reason. Anyone has the right to be scared if their
country was invaded and the right to fight. I never agreed with this
war, but I'm not going to assume the reasons for it if I don't know
everything. Know one knows the real reason, you can only assume, but
from what I see as the reason for colonizing the country doesn't make
sense.
You certainly didn't go there for the unfound WMDs, and there's
weren't any Al Qaeda links and all that BS with the ex-regime.
Saddam Hussein was always evil, nothing new.
So now the US wants to be the vanguard and the protector of the wealth
of other countries. 5% of the world population is consuming half
the world resources. Sigh.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
You need not be a conservative Muslim to have morals. Easterners, generally, are more conservative
in terms of upholding traditions and values than Westerners, whether
they were Muslims, Hindus, Christians .. etc.
I thought
we talked about ignorance before, and here you are saying that Middle
Easterners are only capable of morals. Morals are different for
everyone, I was raised to treat everyone with respect unless they don't
show it to me, and to believe everyone is on equal footing, obviously
you don't see people as equals. It almost seems that you feel westeners
are inferior is your own culture, which is pretty sad.
S&D, why am I misquoted here? Where in that paragraph did
I say that MidEasterners "are only capable of morals"? First of
all, I said "Easterners," not Middle Easterners. Secondly, I
said, "more conservative."
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
We took out the taliban for supporting
Osama, we took out a secular dictator though I believe illegally, but
obviosly not because he was muslim. We don't force other countries to
become secular, but we won't help a country who we feel doesn't support
our ideas or doesn't have anything to offer, thats politics.
You didn't only "take out" the Talibans for 'allegedly' supporting
OBL. (They Talibans said, "Present us with evidence and we'll
hand him over." The US failed to do so,) you "took out" more than
just the Talibans. Too many innocents were "taken out" in that
process. I don't know what that wedding had to do with the
Taliban. It's sad they had to accept a bomb down on them for a
wedding gift.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Only thing we told them is we don't support a country that doesn't over rights to the minority.
But you support Saudi Arabia?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
We have something called a constitution
that a President must follow. He in know way can put his religion on
others and he can't take away the rights of the people upheld by the
constitution. Thus the minorities are still protected. I also know in a
couple of years I still get my chance to vote in someone with my own
ideas and they are different from the current President.
How do you know the Palestinians don't feel secure about guaranteed freedoms? You just assume that by Hamas winning the elections, there's going to be no more freedoms guaranteed? Now isn't that ignorance and prejudice?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Yes it is up to them, problem is it's still not Freedom of choice for everyone.
You're wrong. It only shows you know so much about Shariah law.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
No because in court you can't favor one
group, everyone is on equal footing in court until your found guilty by
the laws of the land.
This applies to minorities everywhere. One minority group
can't be favored over other groups, whether the other groups were the
majority or another minority group.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
I don't think many Palestinians will
object to the new government's desire to eliminate corruption; who
likes corruption anyway?
Who says they aren't corrupt, or
is it because of those strong Eastern morals you spoke of
before?
The majority who voted for Hamas didn't think they were corrupt, or at least that corrupt.
You can't tell unless you were a citizen of Palestine. In any
case, Hamas was never part of the government before. On what
grounds do you base your claims of their corruption?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Prostitution, for example, is legal
in 10 (some say 15) out of 17 counties in Nevada. So why make it
illegal in the others? Each 'county' is different, and wants to
put different laws to protect itself. See what I'm
saying?
And any American citizen can go and leave those places without
facing any crime. Protitution also has heavy guidlines there and are
illegal in other places because it would cost money to take care of
that one business. But what does this prove except our laws are very
flexable?
You call it flexibility, we call it laws of protection.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
The Iraq war wasn't about humans rights at
all, it was about stupid lies. I don't know the exact reason and I
probably never will, but it doesn't make sense for colonizing and oil
when it doesn't offer anymore then we already get and can get.
Then why aren't you using what you already have and can get?
Why is the US government interested in maintaining good relations with
Saudi Arabia, and asking them to keep the oil prices as they are, when
there are better alternatives, as you say?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Your also forgetting the Political aspect.
A country does what it needs to to either get to the top or stay on
top. Palistine offers us nothing and stands against what we are
against, Saudi Arabia has alot to offer. Like I said, you seem to be
looking at this world in black and white.
Has a lot to offer in terms of what? Oil? I thought you
said you already have and can get that from somewhere else. Does
Saudi Arabia stand for what you believe in? Palestine perhaps is
closer to being a secular state, even with Hamas in power, than Saudi
Arabia is.
I don't think you understand our region and its politics.
Yes the topic has somewhat diverged, but arguments for the shut-up, put-up philosophy needed to be countered. People dont tolerate it and that too is part of history.
The militancy of the the Great Powers also infringes upon the rights of people, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which they are signatories. There r a lot of people with different ideas about what can or cant be done. But we can not do is live in a world where the Law of the jungle, is the LAW.
A discussion of such rights and their infringements does fall under Current Affairs and International Relations.
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood." -- Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations,
nope. I didnt fight, i was a kid and I remember the bombing and shelling as well as people's suffering. a rocket/shell landed 50m from my grans. and when the sirens sounded we all had to come out of our homes and stand against the walls. There was a military barracks about 100m that used to fire AA guns at the bombers, they would head for the centre of town and bombn busy bazaars, schools and hospitals.
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 15:24
The US doesn't want to use its own reserves. It's clear as the sun. If you wanted to use your reserves, and you say you have plenty, then you wouldn't have reduced yourself to supporting repressive governments like the Saudi regime just for the sake of keeping the oil prices stable.
Well we do have reserves, but we also produce alot of oil. I'll explain further down as some of these questions can be answered together.
The Darfur crisis has been happening ever since I was a baby in a cradle. The US only paid attention to the "humanitarian" crisis when uranium was discovered there. Now isn't that one strange coincidence?
Didn't the Dafur crisis happen recently when the minorities were complaining of unfair treatment by the Government and favoring the Arabs over the minorities? The Government supported a group called Janjaweed which killed and raped the minorties and burned villages.
Though a few years ago when Powell was still in office, he wanted the US to get involved in some civil war going on in Afriaca. To be honest, I don't really follow what happens in Africa. So I'll just go with what your saying.
You certainly didn't go there for the unfound WMDs, and there's weren't any Al Qaeda links and all that BS with the ex-regime. Saddam Hussein was always evil, nothing new.
So now the US wants to be the vanguard and the protector of the wealth of other countries. 5% of the world population is consuming half the world resources. Sigh.
I agree with everything here, and I doubt the terrorist really had any interest in the oil feilds in Iraq. Just another excuse by the current adminstration trying to find some reasonable excuse.
S&D, why am I misquoted here? Where in that paragraph did I say that MidEasterners "are only capable of morals"? First of all, I said "Easterners," not Middle Easterners. Secondly, I said, "more conservative."
I concede here... I feel like a idiot, I thought you said, "You need be a conservative Muslim to have morals" Taking the "not" out, I over read it. Can you forgive me?
You didn't only "take out" the Talibans for 'allegedly' supporting OBL. (They Talibans said, "Present us with evidence and we'll hand him over." The US failed to do so,) you "took out" more than just the Talibans. Too many innocents were "taken out" in that process. I don't know what that wedding had to do with the Taliban. It's sad they had to accept a bomb down on them for a wedding gift.
Well you honestly can't believe the wedding was targetted on purpose. There is absolutly no point in that.
Though you can't deny the Taliban didn't know about Al Qaida. They openly supported them. They allowed Terrorist camps to be built in their country without hesitation. They admired him for helping fight off the Soviets. They may have asked for evidence, but that was just to save themselves. We know he was there for numerous reasons.
But you support Saudi Arabia?
Then why aren't you using what you already have and can get? Why is the US government interested in maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia, and asking them to keep the oil prices as they are, when there are better alternatives, as you say?
Has a lot to offer in terms of what? Oil? I thought you said you already have and can get that from somewhere else. Does Saudi Arabia stand for what you believe in? Palestine perhaps is closer to being a secular state, even with Hamas in power, than Saudi Arabia is.
Like I said it's all politics. A Government is going to stay on top in whatever way they can. Like I said before, Palistine has nothing to offer us while Saudi Arabia does. They have oil, we buy from them and sell our own. There is nothing Iraq has to offer from what I can tell and neither does Palistine.
Staying on top to enforce human rights is good, but Bush I believe is abusing our Power right now.
You're wrong. It only shows you know so much about Shariah law.
It may have secular laws also in it, but it's still considered Islamic law. Just that alone people that aren't muslim may not agree with it because in a way it shows favoritism.
This applies to minorities everywhere. One minority group can't be favored over other groups, whether the other groups were the majority or another minority group.
And the American court takes in mind as everyone as equals. It's not a perfect system, but the idea is that everyone is the same and everyone is inocent until proven guilty. It's laws set by the nation, not by a certain culture, not by a religion, not by how one person believes it should be. If the jury is right and not biased which is the usual case, then in theory people get a fair and equal trial.
The majority who voted for Hamas didn't think they were corrupt, or at least that corrupt. You can't tell unless you were a citizen of Palestine. In any case, Hamas was never part of the government before. On what grounds do you base your claims of their corruption?
That they aren't looking for peace and want to keep fighting. And like you said, the "majority" voted them in. I'm willing to bet Hamas is going to change things in favor of themselves which in the end screws over the minority will become helpless.
You call it flexibility, we call it laws of protection.
The prositute in these places aren't like those that are basicly nameless and have no protection except for a violent Pimp in other parts of the country. Every week if they are a registered prostitute they have to check into a hospital to be checked for STDs. If they aren't, obviously the authorities will come looking for them.
Has a lot to offer in terms of what? Oil? I thought you said you already have and can get that from somewhere else. Does Saudi Arabia stand for what you believe in? Palestine perhaps is closer to being a secular state, even with Hamas in power, than Saudi Arabia is.
Well I gave my reasons for supporting Saudi Arabia, which is true and does show double standards, but it's the only way for us to stay on top.
But for Hamas, today the leader came out and said that they considered themselves the winners in the struggle against Israel for winning the election. He said that Israel would also always be considered a enemy. Basicly with that said, everything the US has been doing diplomaticly since the Clinton adminstration has just ended. We basicly have to start all over again if we want peace in that region. Which is why I wish we could just forget about Israel, maybe thats why we want Iraq and Afghanistan as a ally, so we could forget about Israel...
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 03:32
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
The Darfur crisis has been happening
ever since I was a baby in a cradle. The US only paid attention to the
"humanitarian" crisis when uranium was discovered there. Now isn't that
one strange coincidence?
Didn't the Dafur crisis happen
recently when the minorities were complaining of unfair treatment by
the Government and favoring the Arabs over the minorities? The
Government supported a group called Janjaweed which killed and raped
the minorties and burned villages.
Though a few years ago when Powell was still in office, he wanted
the US to get involved in some civil war going on in Afriaca. To be
honest, I don't really follow what happens in Africa. So I'll just go
with what your saying.
Well, good morning, I guess. The Darfur crisis has been going
on for decades now. It's nothing new. It only drew
international attention (especially US attention) after the discovery
of uranium. It is worth mentioning that the Chinese are in
control of the big businesses in Sudan, including Sudan's oil
reserves. China and Sudan have arm trade contracts signed between
them, and almost all Chinese workers in Sudan come from a military
background. It's about competition:
"In staking out Africa, however, Beijing is setting itself up for a
seismic rivalry with the United States, which has identified the
region as key to its efforts to diversify its oil sources away from the
unstable Middle East. In the aftermath of 9/11, a U.S.-Israeli study
group recommended that Washington prevent "rivals such as China" from
horning in on Africa's natural resources, while the Pentagon study
says, "Chinese companies are investing in East, West, and North Africa
and [the Chinese Army] has sent troops to pro-tect its energy
investments in Sudan" an assertion long rumored by human-rights groups
and other Africa experts but never confirmed. In turn, Amer-ican oil
companies have raised their profile in Africa amid rumors that the
United States is planning to build a military base in the oil-rich Gulf
of Guinea. "In Africa," says Jamal Qureshi, an oil-markets expert at
PFC Energy in Washington, "you've got new players, with China as a
possible counterweight to the U.S. There could be elements of
confrontation."
Sudan is rich with oil, gold, the recently discovered uranium and
other natural resources, and China is working hard on establishing
itself in the oil/uranium-rich Sudan.
And why should you just go with what I say, or anybody says for that
matter? I suggest you do your homework and find out for yourself.
You didn't only "take out" the
Talibans for 'allegedly' supporting OBL. (They Talibans said, "Present
us with evidence and we'll hand him over." The US failed to do so,) you
"took out" more than just the Talibans. Too many innocents were "taken
out" in that process. I don't know what that wedding had to do with the
Taliban. It's sad they had to accept a bomb down on them for a wedding
gift.
Well you honestly can't believe the wedding was targetted
on purpose. There is absolutly no point in that.
Quoting an article that appeared in the Pakistan Newsline:
"The Urozgan bombing was not the first such incident involving the
US military in civilians deaths. Another wedding party had earlier
been bombed in the southern Khost province in which more than a
dozen people had been killed. On both occasions, the American pilots
appear to have mistaken traditional celebratory aerial firing as
hostile fire and retaliated in a knee-jerk fashion. The US warplanes
have also bombed, mistakenly or deliberately, passenger buses, mosques,
madrassas, shrines, Red Cross warehouses and villages, resulting
in scores of civilians deaths. One reason behind the high number
of blunders could be the nervousness of American pilots, who despite
the complete US command over Afghan skies, believe that hostile
forces still have access to anti-aircraft missiles. Since there
are no legitimate military targets to speak of left in Afghanistan
for the vastly superior US arsenal and troops, there is a greater
risk of inflicting harm on non-combatants in rural Afghanistan."
Whether the wedding or any civilians are targeted on purpose or not, that doesn't not justify the death of so many people.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Though you can't deny the Taliban didn't
know about Al Qaida. They openly supported them. They allowed Terrorist
camps to be built in their country without hesitation. They admired him
for helping fight off the Soviets. They may have asked for evidence,
but that was just to save themselves. We know he was there for numerous
reasons.
This is arguable. In principle, the US should have presented
evidence, not marched into a sovereign state (whether we like the
Taliban government or not, it was legitimate by International Law
standards.)
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Like I said it's all politics. A Government is
going to stay on top in whatever way they can. Like I said before,
Palistine has nothing to offer us while Saudi Arabia does. They have
oil, we buy from them and sell our own. There is nothing Iraq has to offer from what I can tell and neither does Palistine.
You really have no idea, S&D. Iraq is competing with Saudi
Arabia in the number of oil reserves it has. In fact, it is
argued that Iraq may actually have more oil reserves than that of Saudi
Arabia.
"Yet even at this early stage, Iraq's current proven oil reserves exceed 110 billion barrelssecond only to Saudi Arabia's.
Given
this picture of underdevelopment, it is realistic to assume that Iraq
has far more oil reserves than documented so farprobably about 200
billion barrels more. These numbers make Iraqtogether with a few
othersthe fulcrum of any future equilibrium in the global oil market."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305462/site/newsweek/
You seriously need to do some research.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
You're wrong. It only shows you know so
much about Shariah law.
It may have secular laws also in it,
but it's still considered Islamic law. Just that alone people that aren't muslim may not agree with it because in a way it shows favoritism.
You obviously don't know this fact, so I think I must tell you that only Muslims are subject to Shariah law.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
And the American court takes in mind as
everyone as equals. It's not a perfect system, but the idea is that
everyone is the same and everyone is inocent until proven guilty. It's
laws set by the nation, not by a certain culture, not by a religion,
not by how one person believes it should be. If the jury is right and
not biased which is the usual case, then in theory people get a fair
and equal trial.
I don't think these characteristics are restricted to the American justice system; it's universal.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
That they aren't looking for peace and
want to keep fighting. And like you said, the "majority" voted them in.
I'm willing to bet Hamas is going to change things in favor of
themselves which in the end screws over the minority will become
helpless.
And you naiively think that the Israeli government wants peace? They would have achieved that right after Oslo.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
The prositute in these places aren't like
those that are basicly nameless and have no protection except for a
violent Pimp in other parts of the country. Every week if they are a
registered prostitute they have to check into a hospital to be checked
for STDs. If they aren't, obviously the authorities will come looking
for them.
Having prostitutes checked for STD doesn't make them or their jobs
any respectable. It is a form of corruption; if not in America,
then in other parts of the world. As said earlier, we all have
different definitions of what's moral and what's not.
a shadey UK business man was investigated by an ethical documentry programme for his direct connection to Dharfur and the areas that were being ethnically cleansed, he is an oil moghul of sorts.
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 12:33
And why should you just go with what I say, or anybody says for that matter? I suggest you do your homework and find out for yourself.
I read alot of stories about other parts of Africa, with civil wars and all that. It's all depressing, the worst actions I ever heard. Some politicians want to go there but it's up to the current adminstration whether we do or not basicly. There are alot of charities and from what I understand Mercenary companies are hired hear to go into Africa for peace keeping. Obviously not enough is being done though.
In this article it mentions China's interest in oil. In away this kid of confirms what I think the US went to Iraq for. China is going to be in dire need of oil in 2007 from what I heard, and this just shows it in how they are trying to protect their interests with military protection. I'm not making a arguement against you hear, but this might prove the reasoning in Iraq.
Whether the wedding or any civilians are targeted on purpose or not, that doesn't not justify the death of so many people.
There definitly isn't any justification in it, but there also isn't any reason for wanting to hit civilian targets.
This is arguable. In principle, the US should have presented evidence, not marched into a sovereign state (whether we like the Taliban government or not, it was legitimate by International Law standards.)
Well besides some of the Al Qaida miltants that were apart of the Taliban miltary or atleast supporting it and all the terrorist camps, from what I heard to should a great friendship between the two, one of Osama's sons married one of Mullah Omar's daughters. That shows some pretty good evidence. Even the clinton adminstration knew about Al Qaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan and fired cruise missiles at three of them in the late 90s.
You really have no idea, S&D. Iraq is competing with Saudi Arabia in the number of oil reserves it has. In fact, it is argued that Iraq may actually have more oil reserves than that of Saudi Arabia.
"Yet even at this early stage, Iraq's current proven oil reserves exceed 110 billion barrelssecond only to Saudi Arabia's.
Given this picture of underdevelopment, it is realistic to assume that Iraq has far more oil reserves than documented so farprobably about 200 billion barrels more. These numbers make Iraqtogether with a few othersthe fulcrum of any future equilibrium in the global oil market."
This is how much is produced a day. I didn't do the math, but I'm willing to bet 110 billion barrels won't really last long at all. And obviously their production isn't as high as other allies of ours.
You obviously don't know this fact, so I think I must tell you that only Muslims are subject to Shariah law.
Thats not the point, if a government supports the Sharia laws, does that not show that the government is in support of Muslims? Some muslim countries persecuted other sects of Muslims, the Taliban themselves persecuted Shia and killed about 15,000 them from what I read. You can't say Hamas doesn't have extreme ideas either. Though it's yet to be seen, there is still a high possiblity.
But like I said, just showing you support a certain group is enough to make a person uneasy. I get made everytime Bush brings up God because he's not supposed to. It just shows who the politicians are in more support of.
I don't think these characteristics are restricted to the American justice system; it's universal.
Never said they weren't, but we were talking about minorities and the majorities being supported in court. All I was pointing out is we won't put Sharia laws in because it already gives them equality and we can't support any religion in law.
And you naiively think that the Israeli government wants peace? They would have achieved that right after Oslo.
I already said numerous times my dislike of Israel. But on point, you can't deny just before the election there was alot of progress with both sides talking of peace with one another, Israel pulling out of settlements handing them over to Palistinians, and the last Palistinian leader actually making a huge move for peace. Now hamas has came in and said they were sworn enemies. Does that sound like progress to you?
Would you rather the constant fighting over the possiblity of peace between the two that could have been made before Hamas came in?
Having prostitutes checked for STD doesn't make them or their jobs any respectable. It is a form of corruption; if not in America, then in other parts of the world. As said earlier, we all have different definitions of what's moral and what's not.
According only to your morals are prostitutes not respectable. Sex seems to have been made out as evil when not in wed lock in religion. I see nothing wrong with it, though I'd never be in a act with a prostititute. I'm not going to look down on them for their choice in life. The protitutes in Nevada live good lives, it's not like those that are in illegal areas where they are killed and beaten all the time. Usually the prostitutes in Nevada work in secure Brothels from what I understand.
So your right morals aren't different from all of us. It's definitly something the Evangelicals would love to outlaw here in the US if they get into government.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 13:04
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
In this article it mentions China's interest in
oil. In away this kid of confirms what I think the US went to Iraq
for.
I thought you said you didn't believe the US went to Iraq for oil?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Whether the wedding or any
civilians are targeted on purpose or not, that doesn't not justify the
death of so many people.
There definitly isn't any
justification in it, but there also isn't any reason for wanting to hit
civilian targets.
You don't drop down bombs randomly and not expect them to cause any
civilian damage. Did you, by any chance, see the invasion of Iraq live
on TV? It couldn't have been smart-targeting.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Well besides some of the Al Qaida miltants
that were apart of the Taliban miltary or atleast supporting it and all
the terrorist camps, from what I heard to should a great friendship
between the two, one of Osama's sons married one of Mullah Omar's
daughters. That shows some pretty good evidence. Even the clinton
adminstration knew about Al Qaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan and
fired cruise missiles at three of them in the late 90s.
I don't know what you hear in that part of the world, and I don't
want to go off-topic here, so I'm just going to say: Do some
research. And that story about OBL son marrying one of Mullah Omar's
daughters, FYI, is not true.
This is how much is produced a day. I didn't do the math, but I'm
willing to bet 110 billion barrels won't really last long at all. And
obviously their production isn't as high as other allies of
ours.
You obviously did not even check the links I gave you. Here
are some excerpts from the article to explain the figures you gave:
"They put the brakes on Iraq. Development stalled, exploration was
restrained and Iraq Petroleum acquired all remaining concessions in
order to shut out competition."
"By 1960, Iraq Petroleum had developed only eight out of the 35 oilfields discovered in Iraq."
"But the new era was snuffed out by the 1979 rise to power of Saddam
Hussein, who diverted oil revenue from development toward imperial
goals and left the vast majority of newly discovered fields untapped."
"Some figures reveal just how untouched Iraq is: since oil production
began at the dawn of the 20th century, only 2,300 wells have been
drilled in Iraq, compared with about 1 million in Texas. A large part
of the countrythe western desert areais still mainly unexplored."
"Of more than 80 oilfields discovered in Iraq, only about 21 have been
at least partially developed. And 70 percent of current capacity
derives from just three old fields: Kirkuk, discovered in 1927, and
North and South Rumailah, discovered in 1951 and 1962, respectively."
Which reminds me: Did you check the link to the video I had posted earlier?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Thats not the point, if a government
supports the Sharia laws, does that not show that the government is in
support of Muslims? Some muslim countries persecuted other sects of
Muslims, the Taliban themselves persecuted Shia and killed about 15,000
them from what I read. You can't say Hamas doesn't have extreme ideas
either. Though it's yet to be seen, there is still a high
possiblity.
You were just bragging about the great justice system where nobody's
guilty until proven otherwise, but now you're talking about
'possibilities' and that one should automatically be suspicious about
Hamas because of its Islamic nature?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
But like I said, just showing you support
a certain group is enough to make a person uneasy. I get made everytime
Bush brings up God because he's not supposed to. It just shows who the
politicians are in more support of.
Your governments have supported Israel for the past 50 years. Isn't that a reason to feel uneasy about your country?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
I already said numerous times my dislike
of Israel. But on point, you can't deny just before the election there
was alot of progress with both sides talking of peace with one another,
Israel pulling out of settlements handing them over to Palistinians,
and the last Palistinian leader actually making a huge move for peace.
Now hamas has came in and said they were sworn enemies. Does that sound
like progress to you?
Hamas always vows to "retaliate"; they never start the aggression.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Would you rather the constant fighting
over the possiblity of peace between the two that could have been made
before Hamas came in?
If there was a possibility of peace, it would have happened with or
without Hamas. You can't use Hamas as a scapegoat. Hamas just
recently won the elections, and the post-Arafat government has been
doing its best for a year now. Arafat died in November 2004, by the
way.
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 00:25
I thought you said you didn't believe the US went to Iraq for oil?
I said it kind of confirms the idea. I also said before I'll probably never know the reason to the war. I'm only trying to find a reason. And if the idea is true, it's not about getting oil but preventing another country from getting it.
I don't know what you hear in that part of the world, and I don't want to go off-topic here, so I'm just going to say: Do some research. And that story about OBL son marrying one of Mullah Omar's daughters, FYI, is not true.
Information gets pushed around the easily today with the internet, so it's not isolated to one area anymore unless you expierence something first hand. I did do research.
Which reminds me: Did you check the link to the video I had posted earlier?
That propaganda with the guy wearing a mask? It froze my computer.
You were just bragging about the great justice system where nobody's guilty until proven otherwise, but now you're talking about 'possibilities' and that one should automatically be suspicious about Hamas because of its Islamic nature?
Yeah the courts do. Would you like us to put them on trial? I honestly wouldn't!
Besides it's not the Islamic nature at all, I thought in Islam your supposed to be trying to avoid conflict any way you can anyways? I'll go on further down.
Your governments have supported Israel for the past 50 years. Isn't that a reason to feel uneasy about your country?
And the Clinton adminstration never showed any aggression towards them and pushed on trying to bring peace between the two nations. And Bush continued, though he probably never would have gone with it if he wasn't picking up before the previous adminstration.
But Bush did try and before Hamas came in they were actually agreeing on things. I mean, Israel was actually pulling out of areas which pissed off their own citizens. You can't say that wasn't a move in the right direction.
Hamas always vows to "retaliate"; they never start the aggression.
Continuing from above, I gave you the link the other day with the Hamas leader saying that Israel will always be it's enemy and they believe they are winning because they were elected. Does this honestly sound like they are progressing in the right direction?
Arafat died in November 2004, by the way.
Whats your point here, the next adminstration came in and were pushing for peace even further then Arafat. Unfortunatly they weren't in for the long term and Hamas got voted in.
On oil, I still can't see it the reason for attacking them unless we plan on stealing oil from Iraq, which will never happen and sell it for a higher price. I mean, they can't force us to buy more oil, we are far from a shortage, and the only reason oil prices are going up is because the companies are greedy over hear.
I love talking to girls, but arguing with them can go on forever. But I'll never give up, because a man never loses!
Sorry I didn't answer you yesterday, I didn't see. So sorry I kept you waiting...
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum