Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWould US attack Iran?!!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 151617
Author
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Direct Link To This Post 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. 

Look at the map after the 1948 partition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Pal estine_1947.png

And the map after the 1967 occupation:

http://www.countrysidebible.com/audio/2002-Israel/maps/1967- before-six-day-war.jpg

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:

 http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-1 0-16-oil-1a-cover-usat_x.htm


Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Direct Link To This Post 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.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,574 4,18331819%255E2703,00.html

What else do you have against Hamas?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

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)

Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Direct Link To This Post 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."

Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Direct Link To This Post 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, 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.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,574 4,18331819%255E2703,00.html

What else do you have against Hamas?

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
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 21:23
Would US attack Iran?!!

no
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 05:40

Well, what is certain is that not unless Iran attacked the US.

Sorry, I have to get this out: I find threads nauseating after they reach a certain size.

Bye.



Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
docyabut View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
Direct Link To This Post 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?

 

 

 

  

Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Direct Link To This Post 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, 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.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,574 4,18331819%255E2703,00.html

What else do you have against Hamas?

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.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 10:18

 

zagros wrote

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.
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 12:25
Since some of the main contributors themselves have indicated this thread has run out of steam, it is closed.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 151617

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.