Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Topic: Would US attack Iran?!! Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 12:33
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
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.
That's the situation in Sudan, but what's that other rival country that
would have ignored the UN and invaded a sovereign state for oil?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
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.
So anything un-American is propaganda to you, even without seeing
it? Tells a lot about your open-mindedness, you know. Sorry
about your computer, I guess!
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
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!
Sorry, I didn't understand this.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
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.
Not always. You try to avoid the conflict if it wasn't
existent to begin with. In this case, the verse below applies:
"And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner
as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with
those who ward off (evil)." [2:194]
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
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.
I'm sure I remember seeing Bush and Al Gore (in the first elections)
compete with each other on who would support Israel more. That
was quire a competition.
And please don't act like Israel is doing the Palestinians a favor
by "conceding" land. They're only giving back less than half of
what they occupied after 67. They're already ignored over 60
resolutions regarding that matter.
Of course they have to move out. Who cares what the settlers
think? They're settlers after all, who live on stolen land that
belongs to others. Do you ask for the thief's permission before
returning the stolen property to its rightful owner? Use some
common sense.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
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?
No matter what, even when and if a peace is ever achieved, the
Israelis will always remain the thieves, who had stolen the lands of
other people, and established their state on the expense of another
nation. I don't know if you'd like to live in camps like
Palestinian refugees, when you know you have a land but cannot return
to it. How can you give someone, who claims that their ancestors
had lived in the land some 2000 years ago the "right of return," while
those who have been expelled not even a century ago are still living in
camps and do not have the right to return to their homelands?!
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
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.
This is democracy and the people's free will. The people elect
whom they believe will represent them better to the world. Hamas
does represent the Palestinian frustration and patience that's running
out.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
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.
Then you have no idea what's going on in the global oil market. Take a look:
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 13:44
That's the situation in Sudan, but what's that other rival country that would have ignored the UN and invaded a sovereign state for oil?
is this a trick question?
So anything un-American is propaganda to you, even without seeing it? Tells a lot about your open-mindedness, you know. Sorry about your computer, I guess!
I already told you before, I try not to believe information from one source. This source is directly from the other side. The news, while I will take it with a grain of salt, isn't linked to the government. If you ever watch the news here you'd see thatif there was propaganda it would be the kind making the government look bad. They show Bush ignoring people, lying about the war,showing he doesn't care about security, makes him out as a hypocrite, and shows that the US citizens don't support him and recently believe that Congress is doing a horrible job too.
You also use a US source below. Thats a news agency just like any other in the US. They are no different. But like I said, I tend not to believe things directly involved with one side that in a fight and I like to take multiple sources.
Sorry, I didn't understand this.
What I'm saying is I'm not a judge. I believe the the court system but I'm not in it. You were saying I was bragging about the US court system, I was just saying what it was about. Then you made it out as though I should follow the mechanics of it as though it should effect my opinion. Thats not the case and but I said if you want us to we could bring them on trial where in court they will be innocent until proven guilty. Thats in court though.
Not always. You try to avoid the conflict if it wasn't existent to begin with. In this case, the verse below applies
But there was a chance for peace! How can you deny it? It's almost as though your just arguing this case just to argue. It was some short lived actual progress.
I'm sure I remember seeing Bush and Al Gore (in the first elections) compete with each other on who would support Israel more. That was quire a competition.
I guess you remember more then me because all I remember was them saying they wanted to bring peace to the two countries. Which makes more sense to say as thats how you sell a product. Whether they ment it or not I don't know exactly, but thats called, "Talking like a Politician".
And please don't act like Israel is doing the Palestinians a favor by "conceding" land. They're only giving back less than half of what they occupied after 67. They're already ignored over 60 resolutions regarding that matter.
That was right when peace talks were really making progress. That was when the Palistinian Government and Israely government were actually talking. That was some "Progress" that is now lost due to Hamas. Your arguing for violence when you should want peace. I mean, how could you not want that small possibilty that there won't be bloodshed?
Of course they have to move out. Who cares what the settlers think? They're settlers after all, who live on stolen land that belongs to others. Do you ask for the thief's permission before returning the stolen property to its rightful owner? Use some common sense.
They don't have to do anything, they should move out though. But it's up to the Israelies as it's obvious no one else is going to force them out. It wasn't violence that made them give back those settlements, it was peace talks and Hamas refuses to take part in any now.
They maybe theives, but they are theives that could do a hell of alot worse. Peace talks stopped violence and land was returned. How can you go against that? Who knows what could have happened if they continued.
No matter what, even when and if a peace is ever achieved, the Israelis will always remain the thieves, who had stolen the lands of other people, and established their state on the expense of another nation. I don't know if you'd like to live in camps like Palestinian refugees, when you know you have a land but cannot return to it. How can you give someone, who claims that their ancestors had lived in the land some 2000 years ago the "right of return," while those who have been expelled not even a century ago are still living in camps and do not have the right to return to their homelands?!
Like I said numerous times, I don't like Israel at all. I wish they weren't our ally at all. They do nothing for us. How many times do I have to say this, your acting like I do support them.
The only thing I've been arguing is a chance of some progress and maybe a future without bloodshed. I doubt Israel will ever leave, but if there is a possibilty to end blood shed and allow the two sides to talk, I'm all for it. But Hamas has said they won't do that at all and want to continue a fight that kills people and proves nothing, solves nothing, and continues to go no where.
This is democracy and the people's free will. The people elect whom they believe will represent them better to the world. Hamas does represent the Palestinian frustration and patience that's running out.
And that's fine, but the US government said they won't support them. It seems pretty frustrating when you almost have a possibilty of making some good progress and then all of a sudden over a decade of work to bring some sort of peace just disappears.
People weren't dying as they were before, land was given back, two enemies were shaking hands, progress was made, and a new leader came in and said that's it, we don't want it. Does that honestly sound right to you?
Then you have no idea what's going on in the global oil market. Take a look
The link doesn't work. But if you get it to work or find couple of sources that show we are going to need oil badly within the next decade, then I'll believe you that this war is for oil. Though it won't really change my view on the war, it just gives me another reason not to agree with it and I'll probably send a letter to my representatives similar to this one: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/letter3.html
I think both of us share the same views, and what we want, but not the reasoning behind it all.
Edited by SearchAndDestroy
"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: 02-Mar-2006 at 14:38
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
That's the situation in Sudan, but
what's that other rival country that would have ignored the UN and
invaded a sovereign state for oil?
is this a trick question?
Too simple, no?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
I already told you before, I try not to
believe information from one source. This source is directly from the
other side. The news, while I will take it with a grain of salt, isn't
linked to the government. If you ever watch the news here you'd see
thatif there was propaganda it would be the kind making the government
look bad. They show Bush ignoring people, lying about the war,showing
he doesn't care about security, makes him out as a hypocrite, and shows
that the US citizens don't support him and recently believe that
Congress is doing a horrible job too.You also use a US source
below. Thats a news agency just like any other in the US. They are no
different. But like I said, I tend not to believe things directly
involved with one side that in a fight and I like to take multiple
sources.
I try my best to avoid using "our sources" (such as Al Jazeera), and
stick to your own to make it eaiser for you to believe the content of
the information posted. You seem to be inclined to believe your
sources, but I may be wrong.
You'd be so naiive to think that "news" isn't linked to the
government. Haven't you heard of PSYOPS and CNN? Directly from the
other side or not, to be "open minded" means to be open to all views
and not avoid something because it's from the extreme other. I don't
think you'd lose anything by watching that video; it just speaks for
most of us in the Middle East, not just the Iraqis - that's if you even
care about how we feel.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
What I'm saying is I'm not a judge. I
believe the the court system but I'm not in it. You were saying I was
bragging about the US court system, I was just saying what it was
about. Then you made it out as though I should follow the mechanics of
it as though it should effect my opinion. Thats not the case and but I
said if you want us to we could bring them on trial where in court they
will be innocent until proven guilty. Thats in court though.
Lol. I still don't understand the point, but thanks for trying to explain it again.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Not always. You try to avoid
the conflict if it wasn't existent to begin with. In this case,
the verse below applies
But
there was a chance for peace! How can you deny it? It's almost as
though your just arguing this case just to argue. It was some short
lived actual progress.
If it was short-lived, it died before the elections, not after it.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
I'm sure I remember seeing Bush and
Al Gore (in the first elections) compete with each other on who would
support Israel more. That was quire a competition.
I
guess you remember more then me because all I remember was them
saying they wanted to bring peace to the two countries. Which makes
more sense to say as thats how you sell a product. Whether they ment it
or not I don't know exactly, but thats called, "Talking like a
Politician".
I didn't hear them talk about supporting the Palestinians. I
heard them talk specifically about pushing forward the peace process to
solve the Middle East conflict, and "support Israel."
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
And please don't act like Israel is
doing the Palestinians a favor by "conceding" land. They're only
giving back less than half of what they occupied after 67.
They're already ignored over 60 resolutions regarding that
matter.
That was right when peace talks were really making progress. That was
when the Palistinian Government and Israely government were actually
talking. That was some "Progress" that is now lost due to Hamas. Your
arguing for violence when you should want peace. I mean, how could you
not want that small possibilty that there won't be bloodshed?
I would love for a peaceful solution to surface, of course.
Who doesn't want peace? But we can't apply the Christian
philosophy (with all due respect) of turning the other cheek. If
you hit me, I'll hit you back. I have the choice of forgiving
you, but I won't be sinning if I choose not to. I don't support
violence, but I believe in Hamas' right to retaliate, just like you
believe in America's right to retaliate for 9/11.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Of course they have to move
out. Who cares what the settlers think? They're settlers
after all, who live on stolen land that belongs to others. Do you
ask for the thief's permission before returning the stolen property to
its rightful owner? Use some common sense.
They don't have to do anything, they should
move out though. But it's up to the Israelies as it's obvious no one
else is going to force them out. It wasn't violence that made them give
back those settlements, it was peace talks and Hamas refuses to take
part in any now.
Here you go:
Hamas statements boost peace hopes March 03, 2006
MOSCOW: Hamas might reconsider its attitude towards Israel in order to
advance the interests of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian
ambassador to Russia announced last night.
Hamas "ties the question of recognising Israel as a state with the
necessity to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories",
ambassador Bakir Abdel Munem said, raising hopes of a major
breakthrough in its standoff with Israel since its landmark election
win.
They maybe theives, but they are theives that
could do a hell of alot worse. Peace talks stopped violence and land
was returned. How can you go against that? Who knows what could have
happened if they continued.
I don't see why there's no chance for these peace talks to
continue. The Palestinians conceded to sitting at the same table
with Ariel Sharon; the war criminal.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Like I said numerous times, I don't like
Israel at all. I wish they weren't our ally at all. They do nothing for
us. How many times do I have to say this, your acting like I do support
them.
The only thing I've been arguing is a chance of some progress and
maybe a future without bloodshed. I doubt Israel will ever leave, but
if there is a possibilty to end blood shed and allow the two sides to
talk, I'm all for it. But Hamas has said they won't do that at all and
want to continue a fight that kills people and proves nothing, solves
nothing, and continues to go no where.
Calm down, lol. Why do you take everything I say so personally?
We're all for peace, as long as it helps the Palestinian cause.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
And that's fine, but the US government
said they won't support them. It seems pretty frustrating when you
almost have a possibilty of making some good progress and then all of a
sudden over a decade of work to bring some sort of peace just
disappears.
Hamas didn't even get down to business yet, so what are you basing
your opinion on? How do you know all chances of bringing peace
have disappeared? Give them a chance! The US pushed for the
elections and was giving big talks about democracy: Here's what
you got. Deal with it! In any case, I'm sure Hamas doesn't
expect much from the US. It has always relied on Arab/Muslim
support.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
People were dying as they were before,
land was given back, to enemies were shaking hands, progress was made,
and a new leader came in and said that's it, we don't want it. Does
that honestly sound right to you?
Give them a chance. They just made a progress with the
statement about "reconsidering" their position. Doesn't that look
promising to you?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Then you have no idea what's going on in the global oil market. Take a look
The link doesn't work. But if you get it to work or find couple of
sources that show we are going to need oil badly within the next
decade, then I'll believe you that this war is for oil. Though it won't
really change my view on the war, it just gives me another reason not
to agree with it and I'll probably send a letter to my representatives
similar to this one: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/letter3.html
I think both of us share the same views, and what we want, but not the reasoning behind it all.
Hmm .. Maybe!
Allow me to copy-paste the entire content of the link that mysteriously didn't work for you, lol. (I'll make a new post)
Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 14:39
Debate brews: Has oil production peaked?
By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
Almost since the dawn of the oil age, people
have worried about the taps running dry. So far, the worrywarts have
been wrong. Oil men from John D. Rockefeller to T. Boone Pickens always
manage to find new gushers.
But now, a vocal minority of experts says world
oil production is at or near its peak. Existing wells are tiring. New
discoveries have disappointed for a decade. And standard assessments of
what remains in the biggest reservoirs in the Middle East, they argue,
are little more than guesses.
"There isn't a middle argument. It's a finite
resource. The only debate should be over when we peak," says Matthew
Simmons, a Houston investment banker and author of a new book that
questions Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.
Today's gasoline prices are high because
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupted oil production in the Gulf of
Mexico. But emergency supplies from strategic oil reserves in the
United States and abroad can largely compensate for that temporary
shortfall. If the "peak oil" advocates are correct, however, today's
transient shortages and high prices will soon become a permanent way of
life. Just as individual oil fields inevitably reach a point at which
it gets harder and more expensive to extract the oil before output
declines, global oil production is about to crest, they say. Since
2000, the cost of finding and developing new sources of oil has risen
about 15% annually, according to the John S. Herold consulting firm.
As global demand rises, American consumers will
find themselves in a bidding war with others around the world for
scarce oil supplies. That will send prices of gasoline, heating oil and
all petroleum-related products soaring.
"The least-bad scenario is a hard landing,
global recession worse than the 1930s," says Kenneth Deffeyes, a
Princeton University professor emeritus of geosciences. "The worst-case
borrows from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: war, famine,
pestilence and death."
He's not kidding: Production of pesticides and
fertilizers needed to sustain crop yields rely on large quantities of
chemicals derived from petroleum. And Stanford University's Amos Nur
says China and the United States could "slide into a military conflict"
over oil.
Rising global demand for oil
There's no question that demand is rising. Last
year, global oil consumption jumped 3.5%, or 2.8 million barrels a day.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects demand rising from
the current 84 million barrels a day to 103 million barrels by 2015. If
China and India where cars and factories are proliferating madly
start consuming oil at just one-half of current U.S. per-capita levels,
global demand would jump 96%, according to Nur.
Such forecasts put the doom in doomsday. Many in
the industry reject the notion that global oil production can't keep
up. "This is the fifth time we've run out of oil since the 1880s,"
scoffs Daniel Yergin, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his 1991 oil
industry history The Prize.
In June, Yergin's consulting firm, Cambridge
Energy Research Associates (CERA) in Cambridge, Mass., concluded oil
supplies would exceed demand through 2010. Plenty of new oil is likely
to be found in the Middle East and off the coasts of Brazil and
Nigeria, Yergin says.
"There's a lot more oil out there still to find," says Peter Jackson, a veteran geologist who co-authored the CERA study.
Based on current technology, peak oil production
won't occur before 2020, Yergin says. And even if it does, oil
production volumes won't plummet immediately; they'll coast for years
on an "undulating plateau," he says.
Debate growing sharper
Both sides in the peak oil controversy agree
that oil is a finite resource and that every year, the world consumes
more oil than it discovers. But those are about the only things they
agree upon.
As the debate has persisted, it's grown
personal. "Peak oil" believers disparage those who disagree as mere
"economists" in thrall to the magic of the marketplace or simple-minded
"optimists" who assume every new well will score.
Yergin emphasizes that the CERA study was
developed by geologists and petroleum engineers, not social scientists.
Of Simmons, Yergin says: "He's wonderful at stirring up an argument and
slinging around rhetoric. ... For some of these people, it seems to be
a theological issue. For us, it's an analytic issue."
When they're not trading insults, the two sides
disagree fiercely over the likelihood of future technology
breakthroughs, prospects for so-called unconventional fuel sources such
as oil sands and even the state of Saudi Arabia's reserves.
The world's No. 1 oil exporter, in fact, is at the center of Simmons' new book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, which has reinvigorated the peak oil argument.
Simmons says it's impossible for global
production to keep up with surging demand unless the Saudis can
increase daily production beyond today's 9.5 million barrels and
continue pumping comfortably for decades. And, indeed, Yergin is
counting on the Saudis to reach 13 million barrels a day by 2015.
Yet while the oil reserves of U.S. firms are
verified by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Saudis like other OPEC
countries don't allow independent audits of their reservoirs. So when
Riyadh says it has 263 billion barrels locked up beneath the desert,
the world has to take it at its word.
Simmons didn't. Instead, two years ago, he
pulled about 200 technical papers from the files of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers and performed his own assessment. His conclusion:
The Saudis are increasingly straining to drag oil out of aging fields
and could suffer a "production collapse" at any time.
Yergin is more optimistic both about the Saudis
and the industry's prospects in general. If the past is any guide,
technological breakthroughs will reshape both demand and supply, he
says. In the 1970s, for example, the deepest offshore wells were
drilled in 600 feet of water. Today, a Chevron well in the Gulf of
Mexico draws oil from 10,011 feet below the surface.
Widespread use of technologies such as remote
sensing and automation in "digital oil fields" could boost global oil
reserves by 125 billion barrels, CERA says. Already, advanced software
and "down hole measurement" devices to track what's happening in the
well have elevated recovery rates in some North Sea fields to 60% from
the industry average of 35%, Jackson says.
Technology also won't stand still on the
consumption side of the equation, Yergin says. "By 2025 or 2030, we'll
probably be moving around in vehicles quite different from the ones we
drive today. Maybe we'll be driving around in vehicles that get 110
miles to the gallon," he says.
That's more than a guess. Toyota's 2001-model
Prius hybrid got 48 miles per gallon; the 2005 model was up to 55 mpg.
If automakers focused solely on energy efficiency, 110 mpg isn't out of
the question.
Still, breakthroughs don't just happen, and in
the late 1990s, after oil prices fell as low as $12 a barrel, major oil
companies slashed research spending. Some who previously doubted the
peak oil claims now wonder whether the industry is equipped to develop
the necessary innovations.
"Before 1998, I was on the side that said,
'Technology solves all problems,' " says Roger Anderson of
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. "The problem
is, after $12 oil, oil companies responded by merging and firing large
portions of their technical staff."
Now, the International Energy Agency in Paris
estimates that $5 trillion in new spending is needed over the next 30
years to improve exploration and production.
The limits of technology
As oil prices now about $63 a barrel stay
elevated, so-called unconventional supplies of oil become economically
feasible. Exhibit one: enormous deposits of Canadian oil sands, which
could eventually yield more than 170 billion barrels of oil. On the
list of the world's biggest oil countries, that total puts the USA's
northern neighbor behind only Saudi Arabia.
That's the good news. The bad news is that
wringing oil from the sludge-like tar sands is difficult and costly,
and requires enormous quantities of water and natural gas itself an
ever-pricier fuel.
Deffeyes calls talk of substantial tar sands
production "the fantasy of economists," adding: "They believe if you
show up at the cashier's window with enough money, God will put more
oil in the ground."
In recent months, the peak oil camp has received
support from some fairly sober quarters, including the U.S. government.
A 91-page study prepared in February for the Energy Department
concluded: "The world is fast approaching the inevitable peaking of
conventional world oil production ... (a problem) unlike any yet faced
by modern industrial society."
So far, almost no one in government is calling
for immediate action because of the peak oil argument. But in a recent
interview with USA TODAY, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman sounded less
than sanguine about the future.
"There's plenty of oil to deal with this over
the near term, five years. But if you look out over the next 20, 25
years, we expect demand to grow 50% to 120 million barrels a day. I
wouldn't want to opine that's available," says Bodman, a former
professor of chemical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. "It could be, but I don't know."
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 15:42
You'd be so naiive to think that "news" isn't linked to the government. Haven't you heard of PSYOPS and CNN? Directly from the other side or not, to be "open minded" means to be open to all views and not avoid something because it's from the extreme other. I don't think you'd lose anything by watching that video; it just speaks for most of us in the Middle East, not just the Iraqis - that's if you even care about how we feel.
Like I said, I don't believe entirely into something unless there are a few sources. The news in the US is definitly not in support of the government. They find things that will scare people and make the government look like it's not capable of doing anything. I'm mean the big story on the news is a new scandal of Bush knowing about all of the things Katrina was going to do, yet he didn't do anything about it and said he never knew about any of the catastrophies. The government and especially the brand new agency Bush has been pushing as great are not looking good at all at the moment.
I find on these message boards everything that has to do with news agencies are considered propaganda. While I like to look up more information before I fully believe in something, I really don't believe CNN is a propaganda machine for the government due to all the negitives it gives. Unless you consider CNN showing the negitives of the Iraq war, talking about the people being killed, and how they say insurgent numbers are just growing and make it seem as though the war will never end gives a good image of our government, then I guess I could agree with you that it is a propaganda machine.
Lol. I still don't understand the point, but thanks for trying to explain it again.
I give up!
If it was short-lived, it died before the elections, not after it.
I don't know if your right or not. If it did end it wasn't because of the Palistinian government at that point, they were really pushing for peace.
I would love for a peaceful solution to surface, of course. Who doesn't want peace? But we can't apply the Christian philosophy (with all due respect) of turning the other cheek. If you hit me, I'll hit you back. I have the choice of forgiving you, but I won't be sinning if I choose not to. I don't support violence, but I believe in Hamas' right to retaliate, just like you believe in America's right to retaliate for 9/11.
Palistine and Israel are neighbors, both aren't going anywhere anytime soon. They have been fighting for what, 4-5 decades. Thousands dying, no end in sight. Really, both sides aren't good guys. The Palistinians and Isralies willing to talk are the way to go.
I didn't hear them talk about supporting the Palestinians. I heard them talk specifically about pushing forward the peace process to solve the Middle East conflict, and "support Israel."
I honestly don't remember. And this really wouldn't work in winning the American vote except Evangelicals.
Calm down, lol. Why do you take everything I say so personally?
I wasn't really upset, just typed it out clear as I could because I feel I had to mention more then once.
Hamas didn't even get down to business yet, so what are you basing your opinion on? How do you know all chances of bringing peace have disappeared? Give them a chance! The US pushed for the elections and was giving big talks about democracy: Here's what you got. Deal with it! In any case, I'm sure Hamas doesn't expect much from the US. It has always relied on Arab/Muslim support.
Well like I said in the past, I didn't support them due to taking away freedom from the minorities. You know how you have strong faith in Islam, mine is with Freedom.
Here you go:
Hamas statements boost peace hopes
March 03, 2006MOSCOW: Hamas might reconsider its attitude towards Israel in order to advance the interests of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian ambassador to Russia announced last night.
Hamas "ties the question of recognising Israel as a state with the necessity to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories", ambassador Bakir Abdel Munem said, raising hopes of a major breakthrough in its standoff with Israel since its landmark election win.
Give them a chance. They just made a progress with the statement about "reconsidering" their position. Doesn't that look promising to you?
Sure does now, but the first statement they said on the issue was "Israel will always be our enemy", that sure as hell didn't to me.
Also that comes from the future! It's march 2nd over here. You must be a fortune teller.
But I do see this as progress. The feeling they gave off when they first came in wasn't that of progress. So this is back to the talks I've been talking about above.
Allow me to copy-paste the entire content of the link that mysteriously didn't work for you, lol. (I'll make a new post)[/qupte] Hey now, I wouldn't lie to you. It really would work!
Well thanks for posting it.
[quote]Technology also won't stand still on the consumption side of the equation, Yergin says. "By 2025 or 2030, we'll probably be moving around in vehicles quite different from the ones we drive today. Maybe we'll be driving around in vehicles that get 110 miles to the gallon," he says.
That's more than a guess. Toyota's 2001-model Prius hybrid got 48 miles per gallon; the 2005 model was up to 55 mpg. If automakers focused solely on energy efficiency, 110 mpg isn't out of the question.
Well I do see this happening which will help out alot, I tend to see more car companies pushing for alternate fuels more and more every year. GM right now has the "Live Green go Yellow" campaign going and California's highways right now are being built with hydrogen fuel stations. The oil maybe a problem in a decade, but the industry has teken on a whole new approach to fuel. It's not even about the needs, it's becoming apart of pop culture to have alternate fuels and the car companies see a new market for it.
Also it seems the oil companies here are raising prices just for the hell of it. A inbestigation was launched to see if they had any reason to be raising prices and there really isn't any. Exxon made the highest profits ever by a company in the United States in the last quater. They definitly jacked up the prices using the war as an excuse. It seems everytime a suicide bomber blows up, or the US army is struggling the prices suddenly shoot up. And for what reason, we aren't getting oil from Iraq yet.
If anything, this article almost seems aimed to help bring up the idea of supporting the war for Bush supporters. The news is always talking about how the world is heating up from global warming, yet snow fall has been increasing for the past four years. Like I said, the news here likes to scare people.
It might be because of oil, but so far I think it's just because Bush is an idiot and wanting to finish something is father didn't finish. I think I'd rather believe it was for oil so I could stop guessing, but recent trends, oil being found in other parts of the world, and so on just don't point to it. I'm just going to go and further my research into it.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 07:59
Would US attack Iran?!!
In light of Iran`s theat to wipe Israel off the map and the palestines idealogy of not caring if they all commit sucide to do it , effecting the world with possiable mass destuction. How does the world stop it?
Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 09:22
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
You'd be so naiive to think that
"news" isn't linked to the government. Haven't you heard of
PSYOPS and CNN? Directly from the other side or not, to be "open
minded" means to be open to all views and not avoid something because
it's from the extreme other. I don't think you'd lose anything by
watching that video; it just speaks for most of us in the Middle East,
not just the Iraqis - that's if you even care about how we
feel.
Like I said, I don't believe entirely into something
unless there are a few sources. The news in the US is definitly not in
support of the government. They find things that will scare people and
make the government look like it's not capable of doing anything. I'm
mean the big story on the news is a new scandal of Bush knowing about
all of the things Katrina was going to do, yet he didn't do anything
about it and said he never knew about any of the catastrophies. The
government and especially the brand new agency Bush has been pushing as
great are not looking good at all at the moment.
I find on these message boards everything that has to do with news
agencies are considered propaganda. While I like to look up more
information before I fully believe in something, I really don't believe
CNN is a propaganda machine for the government due to all the negitives
it gives. Unless you consider CNN showing the negitives of the Iraq
war, talking about the people being killed, and how they say insurgent
numbers are just growing and make it seem as though the war
will never end gives a good image of our government, then I guess
I could agree with you that it is a propaganda machine.
Lol. I still don't understand the point, but thanks for trying to explain it again.
I give up!
If it was short-lived, it died before the elections, not
after it.
I don't know if your right or not. If it did end it
wasn't because of the Palistinian government at that point, they were
really pushing for peace.
I would love for a peaceful solution to surface, of
course. Who doesn't want peace? But we can't apply the
Christian philosophy (with all due respect) of turning the other
cheek. If you hit me, I'll hit you back. I have the choice
of forgiving you, but I won't be sinning if I choose not to. I
don't support violence, but I believe in Hamas' right to retaliate,
just like you believe in America's right to retaliate for 9/11.
Palistine and Israel are neighbors, both aren't going anywhere anytime
soon. They have been fighting for what, 4-5 decades. Thousands dying,
no end in sight. Really, both sides aren't good guys. The Palistinians
and Isralies willing to talk are the way to go.
I didn't hear them talk about supporting the
Palestinians. I heard them talk specifically about pushing
forward the peace process to solve the Middle East conflict, and
"support Israel."
I honestly don't remember. And this really
wouldn't work in winning the American vote except Evangelicals.
Calm down, lol. Why do you take everything I say so
personally?
I wasn't really upset, just typed it out clear as I
could because I feel I had to mention more then once.
Hamas didn't even get down to business yet, so what are you
basing your opinion on? How do you know all chances of bringing
peace have disappeared? Give them a chance! The US pushed
for the elections and was giving big talks about democracy:
Here's what you got. Deal with it! In any case, I'm sure
Hamas doesn't expect much from the US. It has always relied on
Arab/Muslim support.
Well like I said in the past, I didn't
support them due to taking away freedom from the minorities. You know
how you have strong faith in Islam, mine is with Freedom.
Here you go:
Hamas statements boost peace hopes
March 03, 2006MOSCOW:
Hamas might reconsider its attitude towards Israel in order to advance
the interests of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian ambassador to
Russia announced last night.
Hamas "ties
the question of recognising Israel as a state with the necessity to end
the occupation of the Palestinian territories", ambassador Bakir Abdel
Munem said, raising hopes of a major breakthrough in its standoff with
Israel since its landmark election win.
Give them a chance. They just made a progress with the
statement about "reconsidering" their position. Doesn't that look
promising to you?
Sure does now, but the first statement
they said on the issue was "Israel will always be our enemy", that sure
as hell didn't to me.
Also that comes from the future! It's march 2nd over here. You must be a fortune teller.
But I do see this as progress. The feeling they gave off when they
first came in wasn't that of progress. So this is back to the talks
I've been talking about above.
Allow me to copy-paste the entire content of the link that
mysteriously didn't work for you, lol. (I'll make a new post)[/qupte]
Hey now, I wouldn't lie to you. It really would work!
Well thanks for posting it.
[quote]Technology also won't stand still on the
consumption side of the equation, Yergin says. "By 2025 or 2030, we'll
probably be moving around in vehicles quite different from the ones we
drive today. Maybe we'll be driving around in vehicles that get 110
miles to the gallon," he says.
That's more than a guess. Toyota's 2001-model Prius
hybrid got 48 miles per gallon; the 2005 model was up to 55 mpg. If
automakers focused solely on energy efficiency, 110 mpg isn't out of
the question.
Well I do see this happening which will help out
alot, I tend to see more car companies pushing for alternate fuels more
and more every year. GM right now has the "Live Green go Yellow"
campaign going and California's highways right now are being built with
hydrogen fuel stations. The oil maybe a problem in a decade, but the
industry has teken on a whole new approach to fuel. It's not even about
the needs, it's becoming apart of pop culture to have alternate fuels
and the car companies see a new market for it.
Also it seems the oil companies here are raising
prices just for the hell of it. A inbestigation was launched to see if
they had any reason to be raising prices and there really isn't any.
Exxon made the highest profits ever by a company in the United States
in the last quater. They definitly jacked up the prices using the war
as an excuse. It seems everytime a suicide bomber blows up, or the US
army is struggling the prices suddenly shoot up. And for what reason,
we aren't getting oil from Iraq yet.
If anything, this article almost seems aimed to help
bring up the idea of supporting the war for Bush supporters. The news
is always talking about how the world is heating up from global
warming, yet snow fall has been increasing for the past four years.
Like I said, the news here likes to scare people.
It might be because of oil, but so far I think it's
just because Bush is an idiot and wanting to finish something is father
didn't finish. I think I'd rather believe it was for oil so I could
stop guessing, but recent trends, oil being found in other parts of the
world, and so on just don't point to it. I'm just going to go and
further my research into it.
You more or less agreed with everything I said, right? I can't
find anything to argue about or disagree with - although I surely
wouldn't mind if this goes on forever, you know.
Thank you for your time, and thank you for keeping the "discussion" respectful.
Sorry, I have to get this out: I find threads nauseating after they reach a certain size.
Bye.
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 11:02
You more or less agreed with everything I said, right? I can't find anything to argue about or disagree with - although I surely wouldn't mind if this goes on forever, you know.
Oh I believe that! Most girls like to keep arguements going on forever!
I think it was a good discussion, I learned alot, I hope you took away something too. Never thought I'd see a discussion really end on these forums. Look forward to future arguements with you.
"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