quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Yes, but they chose to ignore that fact because they needed a war to hide the facts of the stolen election and to serve as a mechanism to drain the money out of the U. S. Treasury into their control; to set op the takeover by corporations and cartels.
I see, so basically it is just a vast rightwing conspiracy controlled by Bush and his evil Nazi cronies. The end goal being total control of the entire planet? Or does this only involve Iraq and it's oil reserves?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how far it is designed to go. I'm not in on the planning and control. And I can't get that information from you because you aren't "in" either. They don't confide in you, just direct you. By the way, how long ago was it you were allowed to have an idea and didn't have to go the the Party for one?
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: I see, so basically it is just a vast rightwing conspiracy controlled by Bush and his evil Nazi cronies. The end goal being total control of the entire planet? Or does this only involve Iraq and it's oil reserves?
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: Beedge, you mean the sand won't preserve it? like those silica gel dessicant thingees...
--------------------------------------------- Or those other "thing a ma jiggers" that don't travel at the speed of light [as previously thought] and half of um get lost in time traveling thru the Earth because now they discovered they indeed have mass?
Posts: 10729 | From: oregon | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
The two contenders for President of the United States are:
1. George W. Bush and
2. Saddam Hussein
My vote would go to GW Bush. But I'm sure most of you would vote for Hussein since most of you hate Bush and hate America. Shame on you Cindy Sheehan wannabes!
-------------------- "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE U.S./CHINA CONNECTION"
posted
Has anybody ever wondered where these impoverished people like the Iraqi's get their guns and ammo, rockets and bombs?
Who is supplying these people? And where is the money coming from to purchase arms?
-------------------- Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth -- Proverbs 27:1 Posts: 476 | From: East Texas | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: Has anybody ever wondered where these impoverished people like the Iraqi's get their guns and ammo, rockets and bombs?
Who is supplying these people? And where is the money coming from to purchase arms?
Gee I wonder.... I'll give you 3 guesses...
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. It could be anybody from the U.S. government to Bin Laden to Ronald McDonald.
And if it's not from the U.S., why don't we work to break up the supply chain?
It's pretty sad when they barely have enough basic life essentials, yet their mud-homes are filled with AK's, ammo, and bombs.
-------------------- Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth -- Proverbs 27:1 Posts: 476 | From: East Texas | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, wrong answer. You are truely... Clueless.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I'm clueless, how about you enlighten me?
-------------------- Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth -- Proverbs 27:1 Posts: 476 | From: East Texas | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002
Country $MM USD 1990 % Total USSR 25145 57.26 France 5595 12.74 China 5192 11.82 Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56 Poland 1681 3.83 Brazil 724 1.65 Egypt 568 1.29 Romania 524 1.19 Denmark 226 0.51 Libya 200 0.46 USA 200 0.46 South Africa 192 0.44 Austria 190 0.43 Switzerland 151 0.34 Yugoslavia 107 0.24 Germany (FRG) 84 0.19 Italy 84 0.19 UK 79 0.18 Hungary 30 0.07 Spain 29 0.07 East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06 Canada 7 0.02 Jordan 2 0.005 Total 43915 100.0
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: Because I'm clueless, how about you enlighten me?
Gee... Russia, China and France.. The same guys who opposed us when we ran to the UN for permission to take out a lunatic dictator that had already broken the terms of the first Gulf War ceasefire. What a surprise....
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
teamsleep they are getting their weapons from saudi smugglers, iran, syria etc...the borders are losely patrolled.
also what do you think happened to the iraqi military ammunition stock piles when the invasion happened? people looted those...there are weapons everywhere
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess Bush doesn't see a problem with the throat-slitters being so heavily armed since they are a democracy full of law abiding citizens...
-------------------- Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth -- Proverbs 27:1 Posts: 476 | From: East Texas | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: teamsleep they are getting their weapons from saudi smugglers, iran, syria etc...the borders are losely patrolled.
also what do you think happened to the iraqi military ammunition stock piles when the invasion happened? people looted those...there are weapons everywhere
Who do you think supplies Iran, Syria etc? Who provided a majority of Iraqi military ammunition stock piles? Hmmmmm...
[ March 01, 2006, 17:43: Message edited by: NaturalResources ]
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: never mind, i found the list at SIPRI
stockholm international peace research institute?
Yes, I should have linked it, sorry.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i thought for sure Germany was higher on the list too..
remeber that big giant gun sadam oredered from Britain? project Babylon?
heh, they confiscated it at the port before it shipped...after sadam payed them
The Project Babylon gun would have a barrel 156 meters long with a one meter bore. The launch tube would be 30 cm thick at the breech, tapering to 6.5 cm at the exit. Like the V-3 the gun would be built in segments. 26 six-meter-long sections would make up the barrel, totalling 1510 tonnes. Added to this would be four 220 tonne recoil cylinders, and the 165 tonne breech. The recoil force of the gun would be 27,000 tonnes - equivalent to a nuclear bomb and sufficient to register as a major seismic event all around the world. Nine tonnes of special supergun propellant would fire a 600 kg projectile over a range of 1,000 kilometres, or a 2,000 kg rocket-assisted projectile. The 2,000 kg projectile would place a net payload of about 200 kg into orbit at a cost of $ 600 per kg. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/babongun.htm
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:UNITED NATIONS - Russia and China have rejected proposals from the United States and other veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council for a statement demanding that Iran clear up suspicions about its nuclear program, diplomats said Monday.
...
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Make no mistake. The current posture and policy of the United States are leading inexorably towards a military showdown with Iran that could have profoundly negative consequences for Iran, for the region and for the United States.
For all the studied vagueness and ambiguity of senior United States and European officials, for all the talk of a long diplomatic process, of economic sanctions and political isolation, at the end of this road lies the opening of another front in America's "Long War."
The Egyptian IAEA chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, implicitly acknowledged the high risks at stake when he appealed to both Western and Iranian leaders on March 7 to "lower the rhetoric" and adopt a "cool-headed approach." But, as the Iranian dossier now moves to the U.N. Security Council, there is little sign of such an approach either in Tehran or in Washington.
"The Iranian regime needs to know," Dick Cheney told the annual policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington on March 7, "that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences. For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
Pressed by reporters on whether Cheney's "meaningful consequences" meant military action, hapless White House press spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that the vice president was merely "stating our policy".
But Cheney's message, delivered with symbolic, if not verbal, precision against the backdrop of a massive graphic of the Israeli national flag merging into the Stars and Stripes, was clear enough: the United States will use military force if diplomacy and economic pressure do not persuade the Iranian government to back down.
Two days later, on March 9, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice further raised the temperature, reiterating her claim that Iran is the Middle East's "central banker for terrorism."
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," she said, "whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East that we would like to see develop."
The problem with the United States' confrontational approach to Iran is that it is based on a misreading of the internal situation in Iran and on an over-confident assessment of the strategic position of the United States in the region in the aftermath of the U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Diplomatic pressure, far from bringing about a change of heart in Tehran, is already strengthening the domestic political position of the hardliners around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reinforcing their determination to press ahead with their nuclear enrichment plans in defiance of the United States, Europe and Israel. Furthermore, President Bush's nuclear deal with India has significantly undermined the diplomatic argument against Iran by blowing a hole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Because of the size of Iran's shadow economy and its relative economic self-sufficiency, any economic sanctions against Iran will be ineffective and could further bolster the hardliners' internal political standing. Furthermore, as Iranian officials have pointed out, Iran's status as a major oil producer means that it is in a position to retaliate to economic sanctions in kind, pushing up the price of oil.
The scarcely veiled threat of U.S. military action is no more likely to deter Iran's hardliners. Ahmadinejad calculates, correctly, that a full-scale invasion of Iran is out of the question and that United States or Israeli air strikes would simply help to strengthen Iran's political position in the region and provide a pretext for further consolidation at home (e.g. a crackdown on political opponents). Furthermore, Iran could respond to military action by piling the pressure on the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on Israel from Lebanon and Palestine.
The absence of a cool-headed approach to the crisis on the part of Ahmadinejad and his supporters seems to be based on a very cool calculation of their own factional political interests within Iran's political maze and of Washington's strategic difficulties in the region.
All this points in one direction: at some point in the not too distant future, once the diplomatic process at the U.N. is exhausted and economic sanctions have failed to get the Iranians to change their tune, there won't be any options left on Washington's table except military ones. And Iran's leaders are probably right in their assessment that those options are not good ones.
U.S. firepower could do a lot of physical damage and might even put back Iran's nuclear programme by a few years. But it would also do a lot of political damage: to the prospects of political reform in Iran; to the stability of Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider region; and to U.S. political and strategic standing in the world.
The United States is making the same mistakes with regard to Iran as those which it made with regard to Iraq. The consequences are likely to be just as fraught, and perhaps even more damaging.
Although several leading members of the neo-conservative movement, which provided the theoretical and intellectual underpinning for the invasion of Iraq, have now recanted and admitted they were wrong about Iraq, the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran is not getting the critical attention it deserves.
Washington has missed several good opportunities in recent years to engage with Iran and to influence internal Iranian politics in a positive and peaceful manner. It is unlikely that any more will present themselves now or that this U.S. administration will seek to engage in bold, transformational diplomacy with the Iranian government. That would count as appeasement in Washington's current political vocabulary.
So there is no serious debate about the credible alternatives to military action in Iran. The United States is drifting unnecessarily towards military confrontation with the largest and richest state in the Middle East, with grave implications for the future of Western relations with the Muslim world. And everyone is busily pretending that it is not happening.
Tom Porteous is a freelance writer and analyst who was formerly with BBC Africa and served as Conflict Management Advisor for Africa with the British Foreign Office.
posted
"The United States is drifting unnecessarily towards military confrontation with the largest and richest state in the Middle East, with grave implications for the future of Western relations with the Muslim world. And everyone is busily pretending that it is not happening."
That's it, in a nutshell.
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how ridiculous it may be. Personally, I think Good ol George has done a pretty good job with the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other AOR's. Being a Marine makes me biased. However, I truly believe in the way that things are being handled........along with a large population of the country. This country is in no way becoming even close to a Dictatorship. There are Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors out there in the field everyday, losing their lives.....
and they do it because they take pride in the country they live in and want to keep it safe.
The war on terror is no joke. My little brother, who is also a Marine, was killed on the 5th of January this year. The people we are at battle with are not even close to human. My little brother was killed by an idiot who strapped a bomb to his chest along with 20 lbs of ball bearings.
Rest in peace little brother.
-------------------- Forgive me if I ask any "stupid" questions. I'm new to trading. Someone please help me!!!!!! Posts: 81 | From: San Diego | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by justin66: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how ridiculous it may be. Personally, I think Good ol George has done a pretty good job with the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other AOR's. Being a Marine makes me biased. However, I truly believe in the way that things are being handled........along with a large population of the country. This country is in no way becoming even close to a Dictatorship. There are Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors out there in the field everyday, losing their lives.....
and they do it because they take pride in the country they live in and want to keep it safe.
The war on terror is no joke. My little brother, who is also a Marine, was killed on the 5th of January this year. The people we are at battle with are not even close to human. My little brother was killed by an idiot who strapped a bomb to his chest along with 20 lbs of ball bearings.
Rest in peace little brother.
i'm sorry to hear about your brother man. really.
since your a marine i have to ask.. do you think that particular person would have blew himself up if he didnt believe he was fighting for his country against people he sees as foreign invaders? i know for a fact if say, China tried to invade america in order to take bush out of power and instill a regime change i would be out there with all my guns trying any way possible to stop this invasion. (Even though i dont really want bush in power but i also dont want some other country dictating my country's politics..) ya know?
If china did try this would you fight against them or with them?
-------------------- "Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." Herbert Hoover 1930 Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idiot who blew himself up was not fighting for his country. He was one of many who was part of a terrorist network. That guy wasn't fighting for his country. Many of the people we're fighting out there aren't even from Iraq. They're there to spite us. Most Iraqis out there want us to be there. I can't really explain it better than that. If you had been there before, you'd understand. The majority of Iraqis know that we're there to help them......not to blow up their country. We took an inhumane dictator out of power and now we're trying to give these people a better life. Most appreciate our efforts to make Iraq a better place.
Here's a sidenote for you. The person who blew himself up was targeting Iraqis who were standing in line to apply for jobs as policemen. My brother just happened to be the one guarding these people.
The subject of China doing this same thing to us doesn't make any sense. Our country hasn't experienced the same things that Iraq has experienced. We don't have a dictator that takes advantage of his people for his own benefit.
-------------------- Forgive me if I ask any "stupid" questions. I'm new to trading. Someone please help me!!!!!! Posts: 81 | From: San Diego | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
