US middle east relations
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Ever heard of NORAID Felix? Yes, but was it by state/defence minister like our discussion?
Oh please. It was terrorist fund raising pure and simple and surely would have been illegal had it not of been for American-Irish influence. How many guns and Semtex it enabled the IRA to purchase we'll never know, but it was sure as hell helping them kill innocent people in the name of their cause. They also received funding from Libya and the former USSR (apparently). Oh the irony!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
And they say brainwashing only happens in Russia. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
I certainly never said that. But I will say this, I have nver received any sort of official political indoctrination - from the military or otherwise. My opinions a based purely upon examing a wide range of sources of information and drawing conclusions on my own. I owe my liberty exclusively to the capitalistic economic system and I am an enemy of any other system. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
Hi Robert! It's been a while since I saw you post. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Ever heard of NORAID Felix? Please get your facts right. Be carefull!! He will now accuse you of being anti-semitic! Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Yep, everyone not agreeing with me is anti-semitic:-D:-D:-D
-
Oh please. It was terrorist fund raising pure and simple and surely would have been illegal had it not of been for American-Irish influence. How many guns and Semtex it enabled the IRA to purchase we'll never know, but it was sure as hell helping them kill innocent people in the name of their cause. They also received funding from Libya and the former USSR (apparently). Oh the irony!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: They also received funding from Libya and the former USSR (apparently). Also who can forget the joined camps with PLO in Columbia.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: They also received funding from Libya and the former USSR (apparently). Also who can forget the joined camps with PLO in Columbia.
-
Also, Sinn Fein are very left-wing and have policies that many Americans would find almost Communist in nature! We live in a crazy world indeed.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Have you read the book "The Brotherhood of Arms"? (How the US submarine industry was originally funded.) "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
-
peterchen wrote: but it wasn't the hellmouth you describe. Peter, Keep in mind that some of us grew up with fall-out drills every few weeks. Justified or not try to understand that. Back to time frame again. This was Stalin's USSR OK. How many people were taken away never to be heard from again? (And when asked the only thing told to the family was "They are not in prison.") To me this describes hell pretty well. They are doing that to their own people so what would they do to others! "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
I fully understand that, n.p. When I was maybe 10, and I saw the first picture of Regean, I wondered how this evil man could be smiling. I know this doesn't justify anything, but those who vanished usually knew very well what they did. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: what would they do to others Nothing they wouldn't do to their own people, I suppose... This didn't matter much.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
Have you read the book "The Brotherhood of Arms"? (How the US submarine industry was originally funded.) "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I am not saying it was a product of paranoia. But in the post WWII era the west was paranoid about communism. Justification is not the issue here. But isn't paranoia without justification simply a dillusional condition? I will confess to being a bit sensitive to the suggestion that our opposition to communism was in any way an overreaction. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It may not have been part of our grand strategy but our support was directly due to our concern for the stability of the region becoming communist. If so, I would certainly rate it as one of our rather more obvious miscalculations. Still, if it did help, than I'm comfortable with it. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: What I am trying to convey is the fact that many decisions made in the late 40's to mid 60's and even into the 80's was to attack communism. Not against the people caught in the middle. Most on this list I do not believe appreciate that fact and due to that why the US made many decisions that now seem bad. We certainly agree on that. However, I think the problem goes much deeper than simply a failure to appreciate reality. To virtually every European and many on the American left, the U.S. represents an equal but opposite evil to that which the USSR represented. As long as the USSR existed the two evils cancelled each other out. They view themselves as representative of a happy middle ground between the extremes of Soviet communism and American capitalism. And they view any opposition to American hegemony as being prefectly justified. In other words, people are being taught (brainwashed) to believe that we represent a threat to their welfare. This is a pervasive and growing international attitude. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Reverend Stan wrote: However, I think the problem goes much deeper than simply a failure to appreciate reality. To virtually every European and many on the American left, the U.S. represents an equal but opposite evil to that which the USSR represented. As a 30-something native of the UK I take issue with that in the strongest possible terms. Personally I dodn't know anyone as deluded as you suggest, either at the time I was becoming aware of world events (1980s) or since. Sure, I may not like parts of US/Western Culture (ok, MacDonalds and the greed culture that pervades our society) but that doesn't mean I hate the US! Get real. At school (History "O" level) I studied the postwar era and am very aware of the part the US played in the recovery of Europe. I'm also aware of the screw-ups Western nations (US and UK included) have made in other parts of the word since. We're no angels either. We have a huge amount to thank you for, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with all your policies. Go in peace, Anna :rose: "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch -
Reverend Stan wrote: You counter any kind of anti-Jewish comment with an implied charge of anti-semitism. In the same way that a relatively small but well organized Cuban population influences our polocies towards Cuba, a small but well organized Jewish population influences our policies towards Israel. Influence? Sure. Everybody does it. But talking as it forces US to act against its interests, is different.
Felix Gartsman wrote: Influence? Sure. Everybody does it. But talking as it forces US to act against its interests, is different But that's the whole point! It is in America's interest to open up to Cuba yet an influential Cuban minority support the opposing view. The same goes for every other pressure group including the Jewish lobby. Giving such explicit and generous support to Israel, yet at the same time stationing American troops on Arab Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) is bad foreign policy from the purely American point of view. America would do itself a huge favour if it was seen as neutal in the Mid-East. But the Jewish lobby will make sure this does not happen. If you seriously and honestly believe that America declaring that Ariel Sharon is a "man of piece" is in it's own interest than you are living in cuckoo-land. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
IT has been a number of years but I remember the group called "Feinian Brotherhood" actually underwrote the development and had plans to smuggle the first subs to Ireland. (This was the late 1800's) "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
-
I fully understand that, n.p. When I was maybe 10, and I saw the first picture of Regean, I wondered how this evil man could be smiling. I know this doesn't justify anything, but those who vanished usually knew very well what they did. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: what would they do to others Nothing they wouldn't do to their own people, I suppose... This didn't matter much.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
peterchen wrote: I know this doesn't justify anything, but those who vanished usually knew very well what they did. Well my specific case was a Doctor who was trying to develop a cure for a plague that was being carried by rats. Really a threat to the state. "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
-
peterchen wrote: The problem I see is that it's still the same game: todays friend is tomorrows enemy. Short-sighted, short-lived alliances. You are missing my point, what started this. The war against communism. That was not short-sighted or short-lived. But do to that some alliances were created to fight a greater evil, it was a decision to be made in that time and has to be looked at in that time frame, not todays, which is the common error I see many making. "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: Influence? Sure. Everybody does it. But talking as it forces US to act against its interests, is different But that's the whole point! It is in America's interest to open up to Cuba yet an influential Cuban minority support the opposing view. The same goes for every other pressure group including the Jewish lobby. Giving such explicit and generous support to Israel, yet at the same time stationing American troops on Arab Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) is bad foreign policy from the purely American point of view. America would do itself a huge favour if it was seen as neutal in the Mid-East. But the Jewish lobby will make sure this does not happen. If you seriously and honestly believe that America declaring that Ariel Sharon is a "man of piece" is in it's own interest than you are living in cuckoo-land. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: If you seriously and honestly believe that America declaring that Ariel Sharon is a "man of piece" is in it's own interest than you are living in cuckoo-land. I wish:) It's probaby more fun there. It is american interest to have good ties with Israel, criticizing Israel PM wont do any good. ME is different than Europe, the rules are different. Usually everything is against logic. For example, in the west rumsfeld ignores german minister to show chilly relations. Here every arab leader can hardly stop kissing Saddam, it means he is doomed. I blame the heat for all troubles, it is over 35 degrees now!
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: Influence? Sure. Everybody does it. But talking as it forces US to act against its interests, is different But that's the whole point! It is in America's interest to open up to Cuba yet an influential Cuban minority support the opposing view. The same goes for every other pressure group including the Jewish lobby. Giving such explicit and generous support to Israel, yet at the same time stationing American troops on Arab Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) is bad foreign policy from the purely American point of view. America would do itself a huge favour if it was seen as neutal in the Mid-East. But the Jewish lobby will make sure this does not happen. If you seriously and honestly believe that America declaring that Ariel Sharon is a "man of piece" is in it's own interest than you are living in cuckoo-land. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: than you are living in cuckoo-land. I think that sums up the world right now pretty well. No matter what side you think you are on:) Cheers. "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: If you seriously and honestly believe that America declaring that Ariel Sharon is a "man of piece" is in it's own interest than you are living in cuckoo-land. I wish:) It's probaby more fun there. It is american interest to have good ties with Israel, criticizing Israel PM wont do any good. ME is different than Europe, the rules are different. Usually everything is against logic. For example, in the west rumsfeld ignores german minister to show chilly relations. Here every arab leader can hardly stop kissing Saddam, it means he is doomed. I blame the heat for all troubles, it is over 35 degrees now!
Felix Gartsman wrote: I blame the heat for all troubles, it is over 35 degrees now! Good point. It was 92 here yesterday, 35 seems awfully cold, humm I wonder if we are talking the same language? Now which is more difficult. Getting everyone to use the same units or endorse the same policies? "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
-
agreed, but the choice of allies looks to me as short-sighted as ever.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
I hear you. How do we break the cycle? Take care and thanks for the polite conversation. "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I am not saying it was a product of paranoia. But in the post WWII era the west was paranoid about communism. Justification is not the issue here. But isn't paranoia without justification simply a dillusional condition? I will confess to being a bit sensitive to the suggestion that our opposition to communism was in any way an overreaction. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It may not have been part of our grand strategy but our support was directly due to our concern for the stability of the region becoming communist. If so, I would certainly rate it as one of our rather more obvious miscalculations. Still, if it did help, than I'm comfortable with it. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: What I am trying to convey is the fact that many decisions made in the late 40's to mid 60's and even into the 80's was to attack communism. Not against the people caught in the middle. Most on this list I do not believe appreciate that fact and due to that why the US made many decisions that now seem bad. We certainly agree on that. However, I think the problem goes much deeper than simply a failure to appreciate reality. To virtually every European and many on the American left, the U.S. represents an equal but opposite evil to that which the USSR represented. As long as the USSR existed the two evils cancelled each other out. They view themselves as representative of a happy middle ground between the extremes of Soviet communism and American capitalism. And they view any opposition to American hegemony as being prefectly justified. In other words, people are being taught (brainwashed) to believe that we represent a threat to their welfare. This is a pervasive and growing international attitude. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
To virtually every European and many on the American left, the U.S. represents an equal but opposite evil to that which the USSR represented. Awwww Stan - why'd you have to go and ruin an otherwise effective argument with such a facile comment? This is rubbish. I know many people on the left but I don't know anyone who thinks this. Sure, many people in the UK are currently expressing hostility to the US stance on the Middle East, but that doesn't mean they think the US is evil. Their main beef is that President Blair will tag along regardless of puplic opinion, which is a justified concern in any democracy.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: I blame the heat for all troubles, it is over 35 degrees now! Good point. It was 92 here yesterday, 35 seems awfully cold, humm I wonder if we are talking the same language? Now which is more difficult. Getting everyone to use the same units or endorse the same policies? "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
probably a centigrade / farenheit difference? ;) The following statement about your geekness is true.
The previous statement about your geekness is false. -
One good thing that seems to have emerged from the aftermath of 9/11 is that the Real IRA have been VERY quiet indeed. Let's hope it stays that way eh? Also, I think that many more Americans are now aware of what it means to live with the daily threat of terrorism - which will hopefully see any US support for the IRA dwindle. Funnily enough, the only time I have ever felt any animosity when abroad (and I'm well travelled) was in an Irish bar in NYC about 10 years ago. Someone actually came round with a collecting tin to help fund the Irish "freedom fighters". As soon as I opened my mouth and the people in the bar realised I was English, I was told to leave in no uncertain terms. It was actually quite scary.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
...people in the bar realised I was English, I was told to leave in no uncertain terms No wonder. If you English would simply end the illegal occupation of Northern Ireland, those same people would likely buy you a pint.