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 14151617>
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: 27-Feb-2006 at 12:56
Originally posted by malizai_

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by Mira

Justification unaccepted by the rest of the world - how about you get used to that?

When it comes to national interests, the acceptance by the rest of the world is not relevant.  We are used to it, as are, and have been all other powers.

The also get used to the hate and criticism. U cant have it both ways. Problem is that decent American with more humane values than urselves have to suffer alongside the likes of u.



I totally second this.  Can't put a Hitler and a Mother Teresa in the same category, though they're both Christians.
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: 27-Feb-2006 at 12:57
Originally posted by Genghis

Originally posted by Zagros

it is criminal negligence.

It is a fact of war, get used to it.

I am arguing semantics with you - you are trying to give it moral justification when it has none, not by any conventional standard at least, it is the sort of rationale consistant with that of a morally bankrupted and totalitarian state.

And, btw,   I am used to it, probably unlike anyone here: I have experienced war, first hand.

 



Edited by Zagros
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: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:08
Originally posted by malizai_

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by Mira

Justification unaccepted by the rest of the world - how about you get used to that?

When it comes to national interests, the acceptance by the rest of the world is not relevant.  We are used to it, as are, and have been all other powers.

Then also get used to the hate and criticism. U cant have it both ways. Problem is that decent Americans with more humane values than urselves have to suffer alongside the likes of u who champion illegitimate military causes.

I said we are used to all that.

Great Powers don't need it both ways.

Your outrage is also not relevant.  You can get as upset as you want, but it is not going to, and in any event would not, change anything.

Whine and compalin all you like.  Britain is a free country.

 

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: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:26
Our feelings of frustration won't change anything; the Iraqi resistance's will.
Back to Top
Aydin View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:28
American gov is trying every single possibility to destabilize iran. the chief of the independentist arab organization of khuzestan met already several personalities not only american authorities but also canadian PM... i think most of iranian including the government are unconscious about the gravity of the situation ...
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:44

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

I said we are used to all that.

Great Powers don't need it both ways.

Your outrage is also not relevant.  You can get as upset as you want, but it is not going to, and in any event would not, change anything.

Whine and complain all you like.  Britain is a free country.

U r right, great powers do everything their way. My outrage is nothing more than an expression of my frustration and anger at the loss of thousands of innocent civilian lives at the hands of the great powers.

What i must do is show my distaste for the abuse of other peoples right to life, by a great power. I must protest at this. For if u can not change something by hand than at least you can try to change it by your tongue. Pretty normal human emotive response built into some people. 

Sitting back, with hot cocoa and some bourbons, enjoying a lengthy feature on civilian deaths around the world is not an option. It is a state of mind of defeatist souls.

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: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:47

Originally posted by Aydin

American gov is trying every single possibility to destabilize iran. the chief of the independentist arab organization of khuzestan met already several personalities not only american authorities but also canadian PM... i think most of iranian including the government are unconscious about the gravity of the situation ...

The mullahs and their goons are doing a good enough job destabilizing Iran.  The West can just sit back and watch.  I trust there are plenty of responsible and reasonable Iranians to pick up the pieces once those idiots are gone.

 

 

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: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:47

Originally posted by Aydin

American gov is trying every single possibility to destabilize iran. the chief of the independentist arab organization of khuzestan met already several personalities not only american authorities but also canadian PM... i think most of iranian including the government are unconscious about the gravity of the situation ...

Iran should just crack down really hard arrest all suspects and any potential US informers and collaborators and line Bushehr and other nuclear and strategic sites with them. 



Edited by Zagros
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: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:53
Originally posted by malizai_

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

I said we are used to all that.

Great Powers don't need it both ways.

Your outrage is also not relevant.  You can get as upset as you want, but it is not going to, and in any event would not, change anything.

Whine and complain all you like.  Britain is a free country.

U r right, great powers do everything their way. My outrage is nothing more than an expression of my frustration and anger at the loss of thousands of innocent civilian lives at the hands of the great powers.

What i must do is show my distaste for the abuse of other peoples right to life, by a great power. I must protest at this. For if u can not change something by hand than at least you can try to change it by your tongue. Pretty normal human emotive response built into some people. 

Sitting back, with hot cocoa and some bourbons, enjoying a lengthy feature on civilian deaths around the world is not an option. It is a state of mind of defeatist souls.

Malizai:

I appreciate your feelings, but it does not change things.  It can be, as I know you are aware, a hard world.  None of us will get that much of what we would like, from material things to peace, but what can be done?

I don't think most persons would behave toward other individuals the way national polities behave toward each other, but look at the history.  This is a history forum.

 

 

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: 27-Feb-2006 at 14:17
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And most people seem to think it's all conspiracies. I don't mind changing my mind when hard evidence comes up. But I look at all angles, and all I see is unbievable conspiacies on your part. You say they are there to colonize basicly because the US is western, because other western countries have done it in the past. There is no reason to colonize anymore, for what oil? Canada hasn't even tapped into it's oil completly and it's said to be the biggest in the world, the US has more then enough oil fields itself and if needed there still Alaska. We buy cheap oil from the Saudi's who are more then happy to seel it to us.

The US, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, China Norway and a few others are able to produce more Petroleum them Iraq can. Iraq is 14th on the list, Iran 4th. If we really went for oil, who do you think would have been more beneficial to colonize?


The US doesn't want to use its own reserves.  It's clear as the sun.  If you wanted to use your reserves, and you say you have plenty, then you wouldn't have reduced yourself to supporting repressive governments like the Saudi regime just for the sake of keeping the oil prices stable.

The Darfur crisis has been happening ever since I was a baby in a cradle.  The US only paid attention to the "humanitarian" crisis when uranium was discovered there.  Now isn't that one strange coincidence?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Yes ofcourse the American, the US is in a country without reason. Anyone has the right to be scared if their country was invaded and the right to fight. I never agreed with this war, but I'm not going to assume the reasons for it if I don't know everything. Know one knows the real reason, you can only assume, but from what I see as the reason for colonizing the country doesn't make sense.

You certainly didn't go there for the unfound WMDs, and there's weren't any Al Qaeda links and all that BS with the ex-regime.  Saddam Hussein was always evil, nothing new. 

Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists

So now the US wants to be the vanguard and the protector of the wealth of other countries.  5% of the world population is consuming half the world resources.  Sigh.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You need not be a conservative Muslim to have morals.  Easterners, generally, are more conservative in terms of upholding traditions and values than Westerners, whether they were Muslims, Hindus, Christians .. etc. 
I thought we talked about ignorance before, and here you are saying that Middle Easterners are only capable of morals. Morals are different for everyone, I was raised to treat everyone with respect unless they don't show it to me, and to believe everyone is on equal footing, obviously you don't see people as equals. It almost seems that you feel westeners are inferior is your own culture, which is pretty sad.

S&D, why am I misquoted here?  Where in that paragraph did I say that MidEasterners "are only capable of morals"?  First of all, I said "Easterners," not Middle Easterners.  Secondly, I said, "more conservative."

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

We took out the taliban for supporting Osama, we took out a secular dictator though I believe illegally, but obviosly not because he was muslim. We don't force other countries to become secular, but we won't help a country who we feel doesn't support our ideas or doesn't have anything to offer, thats politics.

You didn't only "take out" the Talibans for 'allegedly' supporting OBL.  (They Talibans said, "Present us with evidence and we'll hand him over."  The US failed to do so,) you "took out" more than just the Talibans.  Too many innocents were "taken out" in that process.  I don't know what that wedding had to do with the Taliban.  It's sad they had to accept a bomb down on them for a wedding gift.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Only thing we told them is we don't support a country that doesn't over rights to the minority.

But you support Saudi Arabia?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

We have something called a constitution that a President must follow. He in know way can put his religion on others and he can't take away the rights of the people upheld by the constitution. Thus the minorities are still protected. I also know in a couple of years I still get my chance to vote in someone with my own ideas and they are different from the current President.

How do you know the Palestinians don't feel secure about guaranteed freedoms?  You just assume that by Hamas winning the elections, there's going to be no more freedoms guaranteed?  Now isn't that ignorance and prejudice?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Yes it is up to them, problem is it's still not Freedom of choice for everyone.

You're wrong.  It only shows you know so much about Shariah law.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

No because in court you can't favor one group, everyone is on equal footing in court until your found guilty by the laws of the land.

This applies to minorities everywhere.  One minority group can't be favored over other groups, whether the other groups were the majority or another minority group.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I don't think many Palestinians will object to the new government's desire to eliminate corruption; who likes corruption anyway? 
Who says they aren't corrupt, or is it because of those strong Eastern morals you spoke of before?


The majority who voted for Hamas didn't think they were corrupt, or at least that corrupt.  You can't tell unless you were a citizen of Palestine.  In any case, Hamas was never part of the government before.  On what grounds do you base your claims of their corruption?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Prostitution, for example, is legal in 10 (some say 15) out of 17 counties in Nevada.  So why make it illegal in the others?  Each 'county' is different, and wants to put different laws to protect itself.  See what I'm saying?

And any American citizen can go and leave those places without facing any crime. Protitution also has heavy guidlines there and are illegal in other places because it would cost money to take care of that one business. But what does this prove except our laws are very flexable?


You call it flexibility, we call it laws of protection.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

The Iraq war wasn't about humans rights at all, it was about stupid lies. I don't know the exact reason and I probably never will, but it doesn't make sense for colonizing and oil when it doesn't offer anymore then we already get and can get.

Then why aren't you using what you already have and can get?  Why is the US government interested in maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia, and asking them to keep the oil prices as they are, when there are better alternatives, as you say?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Your also forgetting the Political aspect. A country does what it needs to to either get to the top or stay on top. Palistine offers us nothing and stands against what we are against, Saudi Arabia has alot to offer. Like I said, you seem to be looking at this world in black and white.

Has a lot to offer in terms of what?  Oil?  I thought you said you already have and can get that from somewhere else.  Does Saudi Arabia stand for what you believe in?  Palestine perhaps is closer to being a secular state, even with Hamas in power, than Saudi Arabia is.

I don't think you understand our region and its politics.

Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 14:19

Yes the topic has somewhat diverged, but arguments for the shut-up, put-up philosophy needed to be countered. People dont tolerate it and that too is part of history. 

The militancy of the the Great Powers also infringes upon the rights of people, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which they are signatories. There r a lot of people with different ideas about what can or cant be done. But we can not do is live in a world where the Law of the jungle, is the LAW.

A discussion of such rights and their infringements does fall under Current Affairs and International Relations.


"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
-- Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations,

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: 27-Feb-2006 at 14:19

Mira and SearchAndDestroy:

I think you two might make a perfect couple.  Opposites attract.

Why don't you make a date to go out? 

 

Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 15:00

Originally posted by Zagros

And, btw,   I am used to it, probably unlike anyone here: I have experienced war, first hand.

I never knew that, did you fight against Iraq in the 1980's?

 

Member of IAEA
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: 27-Feb-2006 at 15:13
nope. I didnt fight, i was a kid and I remember the bombing and shelling as  well as people's suffering. a rocket/shell landed 50m from my grans. and when the sirens sounded we all had to come out of our homes and stand against the walls.  There was a military barracks about 100m that used to fire AA guns at the bombers, they would head for the centre of town and bombn busy bazaars, schools and hospitals.

Edited by Zagros
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: 27-Feb-2006 at 15:24

The US doesn't want to use its own reserves. It's clear as the sun. If you wanted to use your reserves, and you say you have plenty, then you wouldn't have reduced yourself to supporting repressive governments like the Saudi regime just for the sake of keeping the oil prices stable.

Well we do have reserves, but we also produce alot of oil. I'll explain further down as some of these questions can be answered together.

The Darfur crisis has been happening ever since I was a baby in a cradle. The US only paid attention to the "humanitarian" crisis when uranium was discovered there. Now isn't that one strange coincidence?
Didn't the Dafur crisis happen recently when the minorities were complaining of unfair treatment by the Government and favoring the Arabs over the minorities? The Government supported a group called Janjaweed which killed and raped the minorties and burned villages.

Though a few years ago when Powell was still in office, he wanted the US to get involved in some civil war going on in Afriaca. To be honest, I don't really follow what happens in Africa. So I'll just go with what your saying.

You certainly didn't go there for the unfound WMDs, and there's weren't any Al Qaeda links and all that BS with the ex-regime. Saddam Hussein was always evil, nothing new.

So now the US wants to be the vanguard and the protector of the wealth of other countries. 5% of the world population is consuming half the world resources. Sigh.

I agree with everything here, and I doubt the terrorist really had any interest in the oil feilds in Iraq. Just another excuse by the current adminstration trying to find some reasonable excuse.

S&D, why am I misquoted here? Where in that paragraph did I say that MidEasterners "are only capable of morals"? First of all, I said "Easterners," not Middle Easterners. Secondly, I said, "more conservative."
I concede here... I feel like a idiot, I thought you said, "You need be a conservative Muslim to have morals" Taking the "not" out, I over read it. Can you forgive me?

You didn't only "take out" the Talibans for 'allegedly' supporting OBL. (They Talibans said, "Present us with evidence and we'll hand him over." The US failed to do so,) you "took out" more than just the Talibans. Too many innocents were "taken out" in that process. I don't know what that wedding had to do with the Taliban. It's sad they had to accept a bomb down on them for a wedding gift.
Well you honestly can't believe the wedding was targetted on purpose. There is absolutly no point in that.

Though you can't deny the Taliban didn't know about Al Qaida. They openly supported them. They allowed Terrorist camps to be built in their country without hesitation. They admired him for helping fight off the Soviets. They may have asked for evidence, but that was just to save themselves. We know he was there for numerous reasons.

But you support Saudi Arabia?

Then why aren't you using what you already have and can get? Why is the US government interested in maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia, and asking them to keep the oil prices as they are, when there are better alternatives, as you say?

Has a lot to offer in terms of what? Oil? I thought you said you already have and can get that from somewhere else. Does Saudi Arabia stand for what you believe in? Palestine perhaps is closer to being a secular state, even with Hamas in power, than Saudi Arabia is.

Like I said it's all politics. A Government is going to stay on top in whatever way they can. Like I said before, Palistine has nothing to offer us while Saudi Arabia does. They have oil, we buy from them and sell our own. There is nothing Iraq has to offer from what I can tell and neither does Palistine.

Staying on top to enforce human rights is good, but Bush I believe is abusing our Power right now.

You're wrong. It only shows you know so much about Shariah law.
It may have secular laws also in it, but it's still considered Islamic law. Just that alone people that aren't muslim may not agree with it because in a way it shows favoritism.

This applies to minorities everywhere. One minority group can't be favored over other groups, whether the other groups were the majority or another minority group.
And the American court takes in mind as everyone as equals. It's not a perfect system, but the idea is that everyone is the same and everyone is inocent until proven guilty. It's laws set by the nation, not by a certain culture, not by a religion, not by how one person believes it should be. If the jury is right and not biased which is the usual case, then in theory people get a fair and equal trial.

The majority who voted for Hamas didn't think they were corrupt, or at least that corrupt. You can't tell unless you were a citizen of Palestine. In any case, Hamas was never part of the government before. On what grounds do you base your claims of their corruption?
That they aren't looking for peace and want to keep fighting. And like you said, the "majority" voted them in. I'm willing to bet Hamas is going to change things in favor of themselves which in the end screws over the minority will become helpless.

You call it flexibility, we call it laws of protection.
The prositute in these places aren't like those that are basicly nameless and have no protection except for a violent Pimp in other parts of the country. Every week if they are a registered prostitute they have to check into a hospital to be checked for STDs. If they aren't, obviously the authorities will come looking for them.

Has a lot to offer in terms of what? Oil? I thought you said you already have and can get that from somewhere else. Does Saudi Arabia stand for what you believe in? Palestine perhaps is closer to being a secular state, even with Hamas in power, than Saudi Arabia is.
Well I gave my reasons for supporting Saudi Arabia, which is true and does show double standards, but it's the only way for us to stay on top.

But for Hamas, today the leader came out and said that they considered themselves the winners in the struggle against Israel for winning the election. He said that Israel would also always be considered a enemy. Basicly with that said, everything the US has been doing diplomaticly since the Clinton adminstration has just ended. We basicly have to start all over again if we want peace in that region. Which is why I wish we could just forget about Israel, maybe thats why we want Iraq and Afghanistan as a ally, so we could forget about Israel...

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
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: 28-Feb-2006 at 03:32
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

The Darfur crisis has been happening ever since I was a baby in a cradle. The US only paid attention to the "humanitarian" crisis when uranium was discovered there. Now isn't that one strange coincidence?
Didn't the Dafur crisis happen recently when the minorities were complaining of unfair treatment by the Government and favoring the Arabs over the minorities? The Government supported a group called Janjaweed which killed and raped the minorties and burned villages.

Though a few years ago when Powell was still in office, he wanted the US to get involved in some civil war going on in Afriaca. To be honest, I don't really follow what happens in Africa. So I'll just go with what your saying.


Well, good morning, I guess.  The Darfur crisis has been going on for decades now.  It's nothing new.  It only drew international attention (especially US attention) after the discovery of uranium.  It is worth mentioning that the Chinese are in control of the big businesses in Sudan, including Sudan's oil reserves.  China and Sudan have arm trade contracts signed between them, and almost all Chinese workers in Sudan come from a military background.  It's about competition:

Excerpt from the Newsweek article, "Yet Another Great Game," by Stephen Glain:

"In staking out Africa, however, Beijing is setting itself up for a seismic rivalry with the United States, which has identified the region as key to its efforts to diversify its oil sources away from the unstable Middle East. In the aftermath of 9/11, a U.S.-Israeli study group recommended that Washington prevent "rivals such as China" from horning in on Africa's natural resources, while the Pentagon study says, "Chinese companies are investing in East, West, and North Africa and [the Chinese Army] has sent troops to pro-tect its energy investments in Sudan" an assertion long rumored by human-rights groups and other Africa experts but never confirmed. In turn, Amer-ican oil companies have raised their profile in Africa amid rumors that the United States is planning to build a military base in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea. "In Africa," says Jamal Qureshi, an oil-markets expert at PFC Energy in Washington, "you've got new players, with China as a possible counterweight to the U.S. There could be elements of confrontation."

Sudan is rich with oil, gold, the recently discovered uranium and other natural resources, and China is working hard on establishing itself in the oil/uranium-rich Sudan.

And why should you just go with what I say, or anybody says for that matter?  I suggest you do your homework and find out for yourself.

Here's another interesting read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec 22.html

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You didn't only "take out" the Talibans for 'allegedly' supporting OBL. (They Talibans said, "Present us with evidence and we'll hand him over." The US failed to do so,) you "took out" more than just the Talibans. Too many innocents were "taken out" in that process. I don't know what that wedding had to do with the Taliban. It's sad they had to accept a bomb down on them for a wedding gift.
Well you honestly can't believe the wedding was targetted on purpose. There is absolutly no point in that.

Quoting an article that appeared in the Pakistan Newsline:

"The Urozgan bombing was not the first such incident involving the US military in civilians deaths. Another wedding party had earlier been bombed in the southern Khost province in which more than a dozen people had been killed. On both occasions, the American pilots appear to have mistaken traditional celebratory aerial firing as hostile fire and retaliated in a knee-jerk fashion. The US warplanes have also bombed, mistakenly or deliberately, passenger buses, mosques, madrassas, shrines, Red Cross warehouses and villages, resulting in scores of civilians deaths. One reason behind the high number of blunders could be the nervousness of American pilots, who despite the complete US command over Afghan skies, believe that hostile forces still have access to anti-aircraft missiles. Since there are no legitimate military targets to speak of left in Afghanistan for the vastly superior US arsenal and troops, there is a greater risk of inflicting harm on non-combatants in rural Afghanistan."

http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsAug2002/newsbeataug2.htm

Whether the wedding or any civilians are targeted on purpose or not, that doesn't not justify the death of so many people.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Though you can't deny the Taliban didn't know about Al Qaida. They openly supported them. They allowed Terrorist camps to be built in their country without hesitation. They admired him for helping fight off the Soviets. They may have asked for evidence, but that was just to save themselves. We know he was there for numerous reasons.

This is arguable.  In principle, the US should have presented evidence, not marched into a sovereign state (whether we like the Taliban government or not, it was legitimate by International Law standards.)

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Like I said it's all politics. A Government is going to stay on top in whatever way they can. Like I said before, Palistine has nothing to offer us while Saudi Arabia does. They have oil, we buy from them and sell our own. There is nothing Iraq has to offer from what I can tell and neither does Palistine.


You really have no idea, S&D.  Iraq is competing with Saudi Arabia in the number of oil reserves it has.  In fact, it is argued that Iraq may actually have more oil reserves than that of Saudi Arabia.

"Yet even at this early stage, Iraq's current proven oil reserves exceed 110 billion barrelssecond only to Saudi Arabia's.

Given this picture of underdevelopment, it is realistic to assume that Iraq has far more oil reserves than documented so farprobably about 200 billion barrels more. These numbers make Iraqtogether with a few othersthe fulcrum of any future equilibrium in the global oil market."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305462/site/newsweek/

You seriously need to do some research.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You're wrong. It only shows you know so much about Shariah law.
It may have secular laws also in it, but it's still considered Islamic law. Just that alone people that aren't muslim may not agree with it because in a way it shows favoritism.


You obviously don't know this fact, so I think I must tell you that only Muslims are subject to Shariah law.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And the American court takes in mind as everyone as equals. It's not a perfect system, but the idea is that everyone is the same and everyone is inocent until proven guilty. It's laws set by the nation, not by a certain culture, not by a religion, not by how one person believes it should be. If the jury is right and not biased which is the usual case, then in theory people get a fair and equal trial.

I don't think these characteristics are restricted to the American justice system; it's universal.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

That they aren't looking for peace and want to keep fighting. And like you said, the "majority" voted them in. I'm willing to bet Hamas is going to change things in favor of themselves which in the end screws over the minority will become helpless.

And you naiively think that the Israeli government wants peace?  They would have achieved that right after Oslo.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

The prositute in these places aren't like those that are basicly nameless and have no protection except for a violent Pimp in other parts of the country. Every week if they are a registered prostitute they have to check into a hospital to be checked for STDs. If they aren't, obviously the authorities will come looking for them.

Having prostitutes checked for STD doesn't make them or their jobs any respectable.  It is a form of corruption; if not in America, then in other parts of the world.  As said earlier, we all have different definitions of what's moral and what's not.

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: 28-Feb-2006 at 04:46
a shadey UK business man was investigated by an ethical documentry programme for his direct connection to Dharfur and the areas that were being ethnically cleansed, he is an oil moghul of sorts.
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: 28-Feb-2006 at 12:33

And why should you just go with what I say, or anybody says for that matter?  I suggest you do your homework and find out for yourself.
I read alot of stories about other parts of Africa, with civil wars and all that. It's all depressing, the worst actions I ever heard. Some politicians want to go there but it's up to the current adminstration whether we do or not basicly. There are alot of charities and from what I understand Mercenary companies are hired hear to go into Africa for peace keeping. Obviously not enough is being done though.

In this article it mentions China's interest in oil. In away this kid of confirms what I think the US went to Iraq for. China is going to be in dire need of oil in 2007 from what I heard, and this just shows it in how they are trying to protect their interests with military protection. I'm not making a arguement against you hear, but this might prove the reasoning in Iraq.

Whether the wedding or any civilians are targeted on purpose or not, that doesn't not justify the death of so many people.
There definitly isn't any justification in it, but there also isn't any reason for wanting to hit civilian targets.

This is arguable.  In principle, the US should have presented evidence, not marched into a sovereign state (whether we like the Taliban government or not, it was legitimate by International Law standards.)
Well besides some of the Al Qaida miltants that were apart of the Taliban miltary or atleast supporting it and all the terrorist camps, from what I heard to should a great friendship between the two, one of Osama's sons married one of Mullah Omar's daughters. That shows some pretty good evidence. Even the clinton adminstration knew about Al Qaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan and fired cruise missiles at three of them in the late 90s.

You really have no idea, S&D.  Iraq is competing with Saudi Arabia in the number of oil reserves it has.  In fact, it is argued that Iraq may actually have more oil reserves than that of Saudi Arabia.

"Yet even at this early stage, Iraq's current proven oil reserves exceed 110 billion barrelssecond only to Saudi Arabia's.

Given this picture of underdevelopment, it is realistic to assume that Iraq has far more oil reserves than documented so farprobably about 200 billion barrels more. These numbers make Iraqtogether with a few othersthe fulcrum of any future equilibrium in the global oil market."

  • Saudi Arabia (OPEC) - 10.37 MMbbl/d
  • Russia - 9.27 MMbbl/d
  • United States 1 - 8.69 MMbbl/d
  • Iran (OPEC) - 4.09 MMbbl/d
  • Mexico 1 - 3.83 MMbbl/d
  • China 1 - 3.62 MMbbl/d
  • Norway 1 - 3.18 MMbbl/d
  • Canada 1 - 3.14 MMbbl/d
  • Venezuela (OPEC) 1 - 2.86 MMbbl/d
  • United Arab Emirates (OPEC) - 2.76 MMbbl/d
  • Kuwait (OPEC) - 2.51 MMbbl/d
  • Nigeria (OPEC) - 2.51 MMbbl/d
  • United Kingdom 1 - 2.08 MMbbl/d
  • Iraq (OPEC) 2 - 2.03 MMbbl/d
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum
  • This is how much is produced a day. I didn't do the math, but I'm willing to bet 110 billion barrels won't really last long at all. And obviously their production isn't as high as other allies of ours.

    You obviously don't know this fact, so I think I must tell you that only Muslims are subject to Shariah law.
    Thats not the point, if a government supports the Sharia laws, does that not show that the government is in support of Muslims? Some muslim countries persecuted other sects of Muslims, the Taliban themselves persecuted Shia and killed about 15,000 them from what I read. You can't say Hamas doesn't have extreme ideas either. Though it's yet to be seen, there is still a high possiblity.

    But like I said, just showing you support a certain group is enough to make a person uneasy. I get made everytime Bush brings up God because he's not supposed to. It just shows who the politicians are in more support of.

    I don't think these characteristics are restricted to the American justice system; it's universal.
    Never said they weren't, but we were talking about minorities and the majorities being supported in court. All I was pointing out is we won't put Sharia laws in because it already gives them equality and we can't support any religion in law.

    And you naiively think that the Israeli government wants peace?  They would have achieved that right after Oslo.
    I already said numerous times my dislike of Israel. But on point, you can't deny just before the election there was alot of progress with both sides talking of peace with one another, Israel pulling out of settlements handing them over to Palistinians, and the last Palistinian leader actually making a huge move for peace. Now hamas has came in and said they were sworn enemies. Does that sound like progress to you?

    Would you rather the constant fighting over the possiblity of peace between the two that could have been made before Hamas came in?

    Having prostitutes checked for STD doesn't make them or their jobs any respectable.  It is a form of corruption; if not in America, then in other parts of the world.  As said earlier, we all have different definitions of what's moral and what's not.
    According only to your morals are prostitutes not respectable. Sex seems to have been made out as evil when not in wed lock in religion. I see nothing wrong with it, though I'd never be in a act with a prostititute. I'm not going to look down on them for their choice in life. The protitutes in Nevada live good lives, it's not like those that are in illegal areas where they are killed and beaten all the time. Usually the prostitutes in Nevada work in secure Brothels from what I understand.

    So your right morals aren't different from all of us. It's definitly something the Evangelicals would love to outlaw here in the US if they get into government.

     

    "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
    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: 28-Feb-2006 at 13:04
    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    In this article it mentions China's interest in oil. In away this kid of confirms what I think the US went to Iraq for.


    I thought you said you didn't believe the US went to Iraq for oil?

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    Whether the wedding or any civilians are targeted on purpose or not, that doesn't not justify the death of so many people.
    There definitly isn't any justification in it, but there also isn't any reason for wanting to hit civilian targets.

    You don't drop down bombs randomly and not expect them to cause any civilian damage.  Did you, by any chance, see the invasion of Iraq live on TV?  It couldn't have been smart-targeting.

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    Well besides some of the Al Qaida miltants that were apart of the Taliban miltary or atleast supporting it and all the terrorist camps, from what I heard to should a great friendship between the two, one of Osama's sons married one of Mullah Omar's daughters. That shows some pretty good evidence. Even the clinton adminstration knew about Al Qaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan and fired cruise missiles at three of them in the late 90s.

    I don't know what you hear in that part of the world, and I don't want to go off-topic here, so I'm just going to say:  Do some research.  And that story about OBL son marrying one of Mullah Omar's daughters, FYI, is not true.

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

  • Saudi Arabia (OPEC) - 10.37 MMbbl/d
  • Russia - 9.27 MMbbl/d
  • United States 1 - 8.69 MMbbl/d
  • Iran (OPEC) - 4.09 MMbbl/d
  • Mexico 1 - 3.83 MMbbl/d
  • China 1 - 3.62 MMbbl/d
  • Norway 1 - 3.18 MMbbl/d
  • Canada 1 - 3.14 MMbbl/d
  • Venezuela (OPEC) 1 - 2.86 MMbbl/d
  • United Arab Emirates (OPEC) - 2.76 MMbbl/d
  • Kuwait (OPEC) - 2.51 MMbbl/d
  • Nigeria (OPEC) - 2.51 MMbbl/d
  • United Kingdom 1 - 2.08 MMbbl/d
  • Iraq (OPEC) 2 - 2.03 MMbbl/d
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum
  • This is how much is produced a day. I didn't do the math, but I'm willing to bet 110 billion barrels won't really last long at all. And obviously their production isn't as high as other allies of ours.


    You obviously did not even check the links I gave you.  Here are some excerpts from the article to explain the figures you gave:

    "They put the brakes on Iraq. Development stalled, exploration was restrained and Iraq Petroleum acquired all remaining concessions in order to shut out competition."

    "By 1960, Iraq Petroleum had developed only eight out of the 35 oilfields discovered in Iraq."

    "But the new era was snuffed out by the 1979 rise to power of Saddam Hussein, who diverted oil revenue from development toward imperial goals and left the vast majority of newly discovered fields untapped."

    "Some figures reveal just how untouched Iraq is: since oil production began at the dawn of the 20th century, only 2,300 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with about 1 million in Texas. A large part of the countrythe western desert areais still mainly unexplored."

    "Of more than 80 oilfields discovered in Iraq, only about 21 have been at least partially developed. And 70 percent of current capacity derives from just three old fields: Kirkuk, discovered in 1927, and North and South Rumailah, discovered in 1951 and 1962, respectively."

    Which reminds me:  Did you check the link to the video I had posted earlier?

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    Thats not the point, if a government supports the Sharia laws, does that not show that the government is in support of Muslims? Some muslim countries persecuted other sects of Muslims, the Taliban themselves persecuted Shia and killed about 15,000 them from what I read. You can't say Hamas doesn't have extreme ideas either. Though it's yet to be seen, there is still a high possiblity.

    You were just bragging about the great justice system where nobody's guilty until proven otherwise, but now you're talking about 'possibilities' and that one should automatically be suspicious about Hamas because of its Islamic nature?

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    But like I said, just showing you support a certain group is enough to make a person uneasy. I get made everytime Bush brings up God because he's not supposed to. It just shows who the politicians are in more support of.

    Your governments have supported Israel for the past 50 years.  Isn't that a reason to feel uneasy about your country?

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    I already said numerous times my dislike of Israel. But on point, you can't deny just before the election there was alot of progress with both sides talking of peace with one another, Israel pulling out of settlements handing them over to Palistinians, and the last Palistinian leader actually making a huge move for peace. Now hamas has came in and said they were sworn enemies. Does that sound like progress to you?

    Hamas always vows to "retaliate"; they never start the aggression.

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    Would you rather the constant fighting over the possiblity of peace between the two that could have been made before Hamas came in?

    If there was a possibility of peace, it would have happened with or without Hamas.  You can't use Hamas as a scapegoat.  Hamas just recently won the elections, and the post-Arafat government has been doing its best for a year now.  Arafat died in November 2004, by the way.

    Who provoked this whole intifada anyway?

    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 00:25

    I thought you said you didn't believe the US went to Iraq for oil?
    I said it kind of confirms the idea. I also said before I'll probably never know the reason to the war. I'm only trying to find a reason. And if the idea is true, it's not about getting oil but preventing another country from getting it.

    I don't know what you hear in that part of the world, and I don't want to go off-topic here, so I'm just going to say:  Do some research.  And that story about OBL son marrying one of Mullah Omar's daughters, FYI, is not true.
    Information gets pushed around the easily today with the internet, so it's not isolated to one area anymore unless you expierence something first hand. I did do research.

    Which reminds me:  Did you check the link to the video I had posted earlier?
    That propaganda with the guy wearing a mask? It froze my computer.

    You were just bragging about the great justice system where nobody's guilty until proven otherwise, but now you're talking about 'possibilities' and that one should automatically be suspicious about Hamas because of its Islamic nature?
    Yeah the courts do. Would you like us to put them on trial? I honestly wouldn't!

    Besides it's not the Islamic nature at all, I thought in Islam your supposed to be trying to avoid conflict any way you can anyways? I'll go on further down.

    Your governments have supported Israel for the past 50 years.  Isn't that a reason to feel uneasy about your country?
    And the Clinton adminstration never showed any aggression towards them and pushed on trying to bring peace between the two nations. And Bush continued, though he probably never would have gone with it if he wasn't picking up before the previous adminstration.

    But Bush did try and before Hamas came in they were actually agreeing on things. I mean, Israel was actually pulling out of areas which pissed off their own citizens. You can't say that wasn't a move in the right direction.

    Hamas always vows to "retaliate"; they never start the aggression.
    Continuing from above, I gave you the link the other day with the Hamas leader saying that Israel will always be it's enemy and they believe they are winning because they were elected. Does this honestly sound like they are progressing in the right direction?

    Arafat died in November 2004, by the way.
    Whats your point here, the next adminstration came in and were pushing for peace even further then Arafat. Unfortunatly they weren't in for the long term and Hamas got voted in.

    On oil, I still can't see it the reason for attacking them unless we plan on stealing oil from Iraq, which will never happen and sell it for a higher price. I mean, they can't force us to buy more oil, we are far from a shortage, and the only reason oil prices are going up is because the companies are greedy over hear.

    I love talking to girls, but arguing with them can go on forever. But I'll never give up, because a man never loses!

    Sorry I didn't answer you yesterday, I didn't see. So sorry I kept you waiting...

     


     

     

    "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 14151617>

    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.