Iran Leader Calls for Israel's Destruction
-
kgaddy wrote: This is a perfect example of "Peace through Strength" I prefer "MAD theory" :-D Nonetheless, I agree, the old adage "Si vis pacem para bellum" is still valid
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Diego Moita wrote:
If I "hated america", I wouldn't be speaking/writing here, wouldn't be in a language you'd understand and wouldn't be writing to you, right? It is not about hating america, it is about hating imperialism. America is wonderfull when is not bad
This is so funny. Explain how America is being imperialistic. Here is a good definition: "is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire." Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out. It goes and gets rid of a criminal, gives the country a lot of it's own money, then leaves. How is this imperialism? If it were imperialism the US would stay in Iraq, like Syria did in lebanon, and take all their goods. It took 13 years for America to agree on a constution. Ask most in the area, besides the media, who only concentrates on the negative they they say there is good proigress in Iraq. You believe what you want to believe.
kgaddy wrote:
Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out. It goes and gets rid of a criminal, gives the country a lot of it's own money, then leaves. How is this imperialism? If it were imperialism the US would stay in Iraq, like Syria did in lebanon, and take all their goods.
Ahem - isn't the US troops still in Iraq? It goes about removing a criminal they created, in search of weapons they thought existed, given by them, and then gets the hell out.... except they are still there. (mighty noble of "you" - now I do basically agree that removing Saddam was a good idea, but hey - it is just spring cleaning your own mess) Once the troops leaves Iraq - you can say they have left, but up until now - the troops are still there occuping the country. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
kgaddy wrote:
Wow, I didm't realize you hated America so much.
Oh, please! You can do better than repeating political propaganda tricks, can't you? Analyze this: a) English is not my native language. It took me time, money and effort to learn it. And it is the language of America. b) I am using a PC (American invention) running Windows (made in...). c) I am posting in a forum (frequented mostly by Americans) in the internet (invented at ...) Now, I might not be too bright, but I can spell "contradiction" and consult a dictionary. If I "hated america", I wouldn't be speaking/writing here, wouldn't be in a language you'd understand and wouldn't be writing to you, right?;) It is not about hating america, it is about hating imperialism. America is wonderfull when is not bad.
kgaddy wrote:
do you think something should be done?
Honestly? I think this imbroglio (or quagmire) can only have a chance of success if you redefine success. Iraq is lost for the mobs already. The better the Bush administration can do now is try to save some of it's interests: the Saudi cleptocracy, Kuwait, Bahrein, Mubarak, etc. Dadinho é o caralho! Meu nome agora é Zé Pequeno, porra!
Leandro Firmino da Hora in the best movie[^] you'll ever see.Well - remember. If you disagree with current policies of the US, you are either A) unpatriotic and hates america if you an american. B) you just hate america if you are non-american. You know - the good and strong arguments. :doh: --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
I have seen polls that say diffrently. Funny how they never give the source of the poll and at one time call it a "seceret" poll. I call BS. Lay off the koolAid.
-
Yes. It is BS because the numbers and casualty list disagrees with your worldview. Mighty fine argument. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
kgaddy wrote:
Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out. It goes and gets rid of a criminal, gives the country a lot of it's own money, then leaves. How is this imperialism? If it were imperialism the US would stay in Iraq, like Syria did in lebanon, and take all their goods.
Ahem - isn't the US troops still in Iraq? It goes about removing a criminal they created, in search of weapons they thought existed, given by them, and then gets the hell out.... except they are still there. (mighty noble of "you" - now I do basically agree that removing Saddam was a good idea, but hey - it is just spring cleaning your own mess) Once the troops leaves Iraq - you can say they have left, but up until now - the troops are still there occuping the country. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
Alsvha wrote:
Ahem - isn't the US troops still in Iraq?
Ahem, yes, but have already stated that when the Iraqi troops are ready they will leave. Have you not read the news?
Alsvha wrote:
It goes about removing a criminal they created
Just because they supported him when he was against Iran does not mean they created him. That a big streach.
Alsvha wrote:
now I do basically agree that removing Saddam was a good idea, but hey - it is just spring cleaning your own mess
If you agree that removing him was a good idea, why do critize the troops there. How would you remove him without troops?????
Alsvha wrote:
Once the troops leaves Iraq - you can say they have left, but up until now - the troops are still there occuping the country.
On the same note, how can you call it imperialism if you have not given them the chance to get out. It's a two way street.
-
Well - remember. If you disagree with current policies of the US, you are either A) unpatriotic and hates america if you an american. B) you just hate america if you are non-american. You know - the good and strong arguments. :doh: --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
I'll repost his statement: "Wow! I'd love to see that too, but for the oposite reason of yours. It would be like trying to extinguish fire with gasoline. Americans would become radioactive in the middle-east for the next 20 years. You would have to say goodbye for cheap oil, goodbye to any influence in the region, ... Oh, well, it would be to good to be true. Even Bush can't be so crazy.." Now, he may disagree with policies, but it also looks like he wants the US to fail.
-
Who the fuck is Jane, and how the hell does she know so much about guns and shit? I worked in defense in the UK, we had Jane's Nuclear Subs, Jane's attack helicopters... she must be some psycho babe! Nunc est bibendum -- modified at 6:14 Thursday 27th October, 2005
:laugh :laugh: :laugh: She sure is. Think Rambo, but blonde.... ;) Anna :rose: Riverblade Ltd - Software Consultancy Services Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
(guess my sarcasm wasn't as dripping as i thought) :) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
No I call bs because the source of the poll was not listed. I have seen other polls, sources listed, that state otherwise. Now, tell me whats wrong with that argument.
kgaddy wrote:
No I call bs because the source of the poll was not listed. I have seen other polls, sources listed, that state otherwise. Now, tell me whats wrong with that argument.
The source was listed. It was commissioned by the UK Ministry of Defence. The article didn't say who leaked it, but that is no surprise. As for your "other polls", there were favourable polls in the first few months after the invasion but I haven't seen any recent favourable polls. Find one from 2005. I'll be surprised if you can even find one from 2004. Here is one reported by the Washington Post in May 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22403-2004May12.html[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Alsvha wrote:
Ahem - isn't the US troops still in Iraq?
Ahem, yes, but have already stated that when the Iraqi troops are ready they will leave. Have you not read the news?
Alsvha wrote:
It goes about removing a criminal they created
Just because they supported him when he was against Iran does not mean they created him. That a big streach.
Alsvha wrote:
now I do basically agree that removing Saddam was a good idea, but hey - it is just spring cleaning your own mess
If you agree that removing him was a good idea, why do critize the troops there. How would you remove him without troops?????
Alsvha wrote:
Once the troops leaves Iraq - you can say they have left, but up until now - the troops are still there occuping the country.
On the same note, how can you call it imperialism if you have not given them the chance to get out. It's a two way street.
kgaddy wrote:
Ahem, yes, but have already stated that when the Iraqi troops are ready they will leave. Have you not read the news?
Yes. I follow the news, but "they" also said there were confirmed WMD and chemical weapons stockpiles. "They" have claimed a lot which weren't true. Take current events and past actions into consideration, instad of only the rethorics and political slogans produced. No doubt that the US troops will leave eventually afterall pretty much no occupation lasts forever, but claiming at the moment that they will leave at some very vauge and undefined periode in the future is not the same as they indeed have left or will leave anytime soon. Who knows ... for all "we" know - the time isn't for 3-4-5-6-10 years down the road.
kgaddy wrote:
Just because they supported him when he was against Iran does not mean they created him. That a big streach.
Selling/giving weapons while ignoreing the usage of chemical weapons and similar in the Iran/Iraq conflict, and not taking him out doing Desert Storm. I'd say the stretch keeps getting smaller.
kgaddy wrote:
If you agree that removing him was a good idea, why do critize the troops there. How would you remove him without troops?????
While I agree that one less dictator in the world is a good thing, I do not agree with the reasons used for going in there - It always seemed to be only for the oil and stabilizing that supply. The "reasons" were already far fetched at that point in time - and time has shown that fully with no WMD stockpiles found - also because the only ones who had "proof" was the US. I do not agree with our own troops staying in the country (and yes - our country have soldiers there as well), but once comitted you unfortunally have to follow through lest you leave a huge vacuum, and then all the pain and deaths were for nothing. But I do not glub up the political rethrorics. I'll see the troops leave before I belive it. And I do not critize the troops at all, I critize the people in charge for this errounous action. So you are barking up the wrong tree here. But that doens't mean that I am glad or even patriotic about the event and the soldiers there. Living in a free country - we are allowed to be critical of the events the leaders take and are allowed to question them withouth being unpatriotic or hating said country.
-
kgaddy wrote:
Ahem, yes, but have already stated that when the Iraqi troops are ready they will leave. Have you not read the news?
Yes. I follow the news, but "they" also said there were confirmed WMD and chemical weapons stockpiles. "They" have claimed a lot which weren't true. Take current events and past actions into consideration, instad of only the rethorics and political slogans produced. No doubt that the US troops will leave eventually afterall pretty much no occupation lasts forever, but claiming at the moment that they will leave at some very vauge and undefined periode in the future is not the same as they indeed have left or will leave anytime soon. Who knows ... for all "we" know - the time isn't for 3-4-5-6-10 years down the road.
kgaddy wrote:
Just because they supported him when he was against Iran does not mean they created him. That a big streach.
Selling/giving weapons while ignoreing the usage of chemical weapons and similar in the Iran/Iraq conflict, and not taking him out doing Desert Storm. I'd say the stretch keeps getting smaller.
kgaddy wrote:
If you agree that removing him was a good idea, why do critize the troops there. How would you remove him without troops?????
While I agree that one less dictator in the world is a good thing, I do not agree with the reasons used for going in there - It always seemed to be only for the oil and stabilizing that supply. The "reasons" were already far fetched at that point in time - and time has shown that fully with no WMD stockpiles found - also because the only ones who had "proof" was the US. I do not agree with our own troops staying in the country (and yes - our country have soldiers there as well), but once comitted you unfortunally have to follow through lest you leave a huge vacuum, and then all the pain and deaths were for nothing. But I do not glub up the political rethrorics. I'll see the troops leave before I belive it. And I do not critize the troops at all, I critize the people in charge for this errounous action. So you are barking up the wrong tree here. But that doens't mean that I am glad or even patriotic about the event and the soldiers there. Living in a free country - we are allowed to be critical of the events the leaders take and are allowed to question them withouth being unpatriotic or hating said country.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
If I "hated america", I wouldn't be speaking/writing here, wouldn't be in a language you'd understand and wouldn't be writing to you, right? It is not about hating america, it is about hating imperialism. America is wonderfull when is not bad
This is so funny. Explain how America is being imperialistic. Here is a good definition: "is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire." Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out. It goes and gets rid of a criminal, gives the country a lot of it's own money, then leaves. How is this imperialism? If it were imperialism the US would stay in Iraq, like Syria did in lebanon, and take all their goods. It took 13 years for America to agree on a constution. Ask most in the area, besides the media, who only concentrates on the negative they they say there is good proigress in Iraq. You believe what you want to believe.
kgaddy wrote:
Explain how America is being imperialistic.
History of United States imperialism[^]
kgaddy wrote:
Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out
What? The plan to implant bases in Iraq[^] is gone then? Is that official or is this your perception?
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
K(arl) wrote:
Why was there no outrage before?
Had I seen it, I would have been outraged. You?
The claim to destroy Israel is made for years by Iran, at least since Khomeini grabed the power. I think Iran was/is? supportive to terrorist/resistant groups who attack/fight Israel has the Hezbollah or the Hamas at least, so there's no doubt Iran is an enemy of Israel, but I don't think they would attack it as it was often feared[^] I also believe the iranian president' statements will backfire, and he will realize he committed a big mistake.
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
-
I'm courious too. So I'm asking. You have some examples of scores being settled in th second term?
-
You have not addressed that the US is not taking anything from Iraq. Not oil, nothing. This is not imperialism by any definition. As a matter of fact, The US is spending it's own money there.
Once more... I did not call it impreialisme. *sigh* Okay? I addressed your post:
kgaddy wrote:
Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out. It goes and gets rid of a criminal, gives the country a lot of it's own money, then leaves. How is this imperialism? If it were imperialism the US would stay in Iraq, like Syria did in lebanon, and take all their goods.
And said the troops are still in Iraq, and there is currently no sign of them leaving other then in bodybags, thus invalidating your argument. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1 -- modified at 0:44 Friday 28th October, 2005
-
kgaddy wrote:
Explain how America is being imperialistic.
History of United States imperialism[^]
kgaddy wrote:
Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out
What? The plan to implant bases in Iraq[^] is gone then? Is that official or is this your perception?
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
A quote from the wiki site "Some argue that the means by which the United States expanded and asserted its authority were classic examples of imperialism" Yes some you argue that. ANd some argue that bigfoot exists, that does not make it so.
K(arl) wrote:
What? The plan to implant bases in Iraq[^] is gone then?" do you even read the articles you link to? From the article " Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years" They are buliding long term bases but plan to stay at least 2 years. THe Iraqi's will probably take over when they leave. And I'm sure you do understand that have a base does not make you an imperial power over that country. Is the US a Imperial power over Great Britian? The US has bases there too.
-
Once more... I did not call it impreialisme. *sigh* Okay? I addressed your post:
kgaddy wrote:
Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out. It goes and gets rid of a criminal, gives the country a lot of it's own money, then leaves. How is this imperialism? If it were imperialism the US would stay in Iraq, like Syria did in lebanon, and take all their goods.
And said the troops are still in Iraq, and there is currently no sign of them leaving other then in bodybags, thus invalidating your argument. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1 -- modified at 0:44 Friday 28th October, 2005
Alsvha wrote:
Once more... I did not call it impreialisme. *sigh*
I was addressing Diego. You jumped in to that conversation.
Alsvha wrote:
And said the troops are still in Iraq, and there is currently no sign of them leaving other then in bodybags, thus invalidating your argument.
They will leave when Iraq has an army and defend themselves from the radical Islamic freaks. Far more of them are being buried in the dirt. Don't you want Iraq to have an army to kill Islamic terrorist?
-
Iraq. but thats an opinion and I dont have the energy to argue it. And I think Clinton settled a bit of an old score with his wife ;)