posted
Iran wants Israel dead...they stated as much in a speech... there's no guesswork here... Iran is trying to get world opinion on their side, IRAN is building a nuclear weapon program.. Iran is backing hamas and hezbolah
yes, Bush has embarassed US IMO too... but?
i am getting sick and tired of hearing how Israel has gone too far... Iran has gone too far...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
At least Hezbollah, while I don't condone their actions in any way, are up-front about their twisted intent.
The American Government, on the other hand, were absolutely deceitful; the real reasons for our war of conquest were not disclosed. And thus we are even more hated and terrorism has increased accordingly.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld...
Stupid? yes.
Productive? For Halliburton, absolutely.
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch: even I know there is a very large difference between the actions we took in Iraq and the action that Hezbolah and Hamas are taking against Israel.
-------------------- "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
Weapons...valid point. However it is retrospect in relation to the current problem and thereby moot.
World's Police force. Agreed. But this conflict is not asking America to police anything. If America were to get involved it would be as a military action...not a police action. That is what we are doing in Iraq.
Also, as to a conflict that doesn't involve us...do you not think we have a responsibility to support our allies? Wouldn't it hurt our credibility more to back off of our position and leave our friends hanging in the wind?
True humanitarian aid. Also a valid point. And one we should work to get better on. The USA government has a very poor record of charity and aid despite our very vocal very press worthy pedges of aid. There is the little problem of other countries using aid for fundraising purposes such as North Korea selling the UN food aid rather than distributing it to the poor or the corruption uncovered in the oil for food program. that shouldn't stop us from giving however. You are correct.
Sasquatch
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So where do we go from here Gordon with the past acknowledged?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: You should be ashamed if you advocate killing innocent people for the sake of an ideology. (Sounds familiar doesn't it?)
quote:Originally posted by Sunnyside: Jewish? I'm ashamed then.
Of course you understood that my shame was directed at you. I never stated I advocated killing anyone. Interesting though is that you attempt to condemn me for "killing people for the sake of an ideology" when that is exactly what the fanatical extremist Muslims are doing and you seem to have a deep sympathy for and understanding of them.
Posts: 184 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and so the cycle continues. How will our Government's actions now affect those in thirty years time? Etc... Etc... Etc... It has to stop.
My ideal America would provide basic humanitarian aid to all in need and would offer true refugee support from tyrannical regimes worldwide.
We would urge restraint and diplomacy for all without choosing sides (like the "Axis of evil" mentality that helps to fuel all this).
We would end all preventive strikes.
Further, as a world power, we would set a good example by actually engaging in diplomacy ourselves.
More importantly, we would stop doing business with terrorists for energy, as is our policy now. Until we do, we will (correctly) be viewed as hypocrites.
And until we do, we should simply stay the f**k out of the Middle East militarily. Our motives will never be viewed as righteous while there is still oil under that sand.
-------------------- "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
well? diplomacy has not been very well handled and i don't see Bush doing any better at the G8 this weekend either... Iran has been scoffing at US for years...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK...so I've gleaned that you don't like the past stances that America has taken in regards to the middle east.
You don't think we should be selling them weapons. Does that extend to Israel? How bout India?
I'd agree in general in regards to Syria/Iran, and other areas where we disagree with the governance of the area but would like you to clarify your point.
You want humanitarian aid for all refugees. A noble aim. Are you ok with the idea of sending soldiers in to defend these area's? Take Darfur for example...is there any safe zone that could be set up without soldiers to defend the area? How many and what is ok, what is overstepping the boundaries? If they know a military unit that has been slaughtering villagers is headed in their direction can they engage them prior to the refugee camp or must they wait until the enemy unit fires first in case the refugee camp isn't their target but the town twenty miles away is?
End all preventative strikes. Any and all? What if you have rock solid intelligence that an assault on the California coastline is eminent?
Diplomacy. I'd agree to that. What type of diplomacy do you suggest we use in disarming the current situation between Israel and Palestine/Hezbollah? Should we offer incentives? Should we condemn Israel's offensive?
Stop doing business with terrorists for energy. To do that we would need to ban all trade with Iran and other similar countries. Is that what you are suggesting? This would be the only way to control governmentally the trade of American energy companies.
No action in the middle east. Alright...does that extend to our defense of Kuwait in the first Gulf War when Iraq invaded? Do you mean you do not want any American military in Israel to defend an ally's boarders from encroachment?
Sas
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: well? diplomacy has not been very well handled and i don't see Bush doing any better at the G8 this weekend either... Iran has been scoffing at US for years...
-------------------- "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 Sasquatch: OK...so I've gleaned that you don't like the past stances that America has taken in regards to the middle east.
I despise them. That picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam will forever label Rummy a hypocrite.
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch: You don't think we should be selling them weapons. Does that extend to Israel? How bout India?
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch: I'd agree in general in regards to Syria/Iran, and other areas where we disagree with the governance of the area but would like you to clarify your point.
The region is called "unstable" for a good reason.
Governance changes; what we agree with today, we may be opposed to tomorrow. The stockpiles of weapons we sold to the prior government are then in the hands of our enemies. (There is a precedent for this theory, as you are aware.)
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch: You want humanitarian aid for all refugees. A noble aim. Are you ok with the idea of sending soldiers in to defend these area's? Take Darfur for example...is there any safe zone that could be set up without soldiers to defend the area? How many and what is ok, what is overstepping the boundaries? If they know a military unit that has been slaughtering villagers is headed in their direction can they engage them prior to the refugee camp or must they wait until the enemy unit fires first in case the refugee camp isn't their target but the town twenty miles away is?
I just hope the "military unit that has been slaughtering villagers" isn't one of ours. If we have the support of a majority of the world to go in and provide help (as in WWII), it's a good idea to defend (and preferably rescue) those in danger. We need to think globally in this nuclear age and engage the world in the discussion of problems that influence our humanity. We are all human beings; nothing more.
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch: End all preventative strikes. Any and all? What if you have rock solid intelligence that an assault on the California coastline is eminent?
You mean a "slam-dunk" case? LOL
I doubt such clear, honest intelligence is even possible today.
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch: Diplomacy. I'd agree to that. What type of diplomacy do you suggest we use in disarming the current situation between Israel and Palestine/Hezbollah? Should we offer incentives? Should we condemn Israel's offensive?
The US doesn't need to engage in diplomacy as it is not our country's battle. It is up to the two who are in conflict to resolve it. We should neither condone nor condemn, nor should we offer incentives or choose sides. We should merely urge diplomacy and provide humanitarian aid where we can. There is not a clear-cut case of good vs. evil here. (There rarely is.) It's been an-eye-for-an-eye for too long for either side to be conceived as completely innocent. Both have blood on their hands.
Further, while we have corporate oil deals with the Middle East, US opinion on these matters will be viewed as little more than a bad joke on the world stage anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch: Stop doing business with terrorists for energy. To do that we would need to ban all trade with Iran and other similar countries. Is that what you are suggesting? This would be the only way to control governmentally the trade of American energy companies.
We should ban all trade with terrorist governments or cease the hypocritical "war on terror." Can we have it both ways? I think not.
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch: No action in the middle east. Alright...does that extend to our defense of Kuwait in the first Gulf War when Iraq invaded? Do you mean you do not want any American military in Israel to defend an ally's boarders from encroachment?
While our own borders can not be secured? How dare we! No.
The past is gone, as you have all pointed out to me. As for today, I think we have enough troubles at home.
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch: Sas
-Gordon B.
-------------------- "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 |
Good job Gordo! You gave me specifics to what I was asking.
Couple more questions and a personal statement.
First...are there any countries that you would agree to America selling arms to? How about outdated military equipment that America does not use anymore and doesn't consider a threat? Could we sell these items to make back a little of the astronomical amount we spend on our "defense" budget?
On preventative strikes...What if there WAS a slam dunk case? Would you not find the government at fault for not taking action after the fact if such an event were to take place?
Does your diplomacy stance change should Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Palestine/Egypt/and Jordan all attack Israel and it looks as if the country is going to fall? At what point would it be OK in your eyes to go in and support our ally from those who have stated harmful intents toward America?
It seems to me instead of an eye for an eye you are touting live and let die. I have a problem with that policy too. It's turning a blind eye to the problems of the world.
I agree with you in one regard. Our own borders. we need to do a lot more on securing them.
As to your oil policy...have you really considered the consequences of either of those actions? Isn't ignoring terrorist groups exactly how they came to have so much influence in the first place? If we were to ban trade for oil in middle eastern countries what would that mean at home? $8 for a gallon of gas? Any chance of protecting the Alaskan Wildlife refuge after that? Or Yellowstone park? How would our relationships with other countries that we purchase oil from change? Would they do to us what Russia did to the Ukraine and hold us hostage by withholding supplies until we swallow inflated prices out of necessity?
Perhaps we would push our need for sustainable energy but if we had to pay double or triple for that which our infrastructure is currently set up for...how many other services would suffer? How will we create a national healthcare system? Where will we find the money to beef up boarder security? How will we fix social security? Where does the money come from? We already have a national debt that reaches decades into the future should we make paying it off a priority tomorrow...How long until America's economy collapses and thereby much of the worlds economy?
I understand the moralistic background from which your opinions are formed but I don't find them very pragmatic in the real world.
Sas
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Agreed. I'm also 40 years old, Jewish and college educated (engineering).
It's all in the perception, you see. And your perceptions about me have been proven to be completely wrong.
Therefore, your gleeful hope of war and 100% certainty that you side with the righteous, or even possess the full comprehension of the situation that it takes to choose a side, is laughable.
quote:Originally posted by Relentless Despot.: Yes gordo, I know.. there are no true definitions of anything.. it's all perspective.. You have to be 12 years old.. Grow up twenty years then we'll talk.
Its only American Jews (if that is what you truly are) that think they have the luxury of showing disdain for Israel. Do you think the Moslems will spare your life because you preach tolerance and education. How naive. I certainly do not want war, but its far more than mere perspective. Men wrapped in dynamite and blowing themselves and innocents up isn't a matter of perception. Its outright terrorism. And I don't care where you are standing.
Israeli occupation? Did you ever hear of the 6-day war. Would that not be how Israel came to occupy land? Attacked on all borders by their enemies and still prevailed. But they are called the occupiers? And are forced to concede land for peace, for which there is none anyway? Daily bombings in Israel by terrorists killing innocent civilians, or are Palestinians the only innocents. Silly American Liberal. Jewish? I'm ashamed then.
posted
Some random responses, as I don't have the time to do another line-by-line response.
First of all, we need a radical shift in our way of thinking. We need to reevaluate our sense of entitlement to all of the world's resources.
Preventive strikes are too easily manipulated for political gain to be considered viable. If the missile's on the way, by all means shoot it down.
We could sell those old latrine huts to someone, I suppose.
$8 a gallon for gas is nothing. Wait a year.
Even drilling Alaska (which I oppose) wouldn't provide us enough oil for long at our current consumption rate. We need to aggressively pursue alternative energy or drastically alter our current lifestyles immediately. Otherwise it's just going to be "relentless."
Best regards for your cordial posts! I wish that were the case with everyone here.
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch:
Good job Gordo! You gave me specifics to what I was asking.
-------------------- "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
You don't think we should be selling them weapons. Does that extend to Israel? How bout India?
and Pakistan don't forget the Paki's
US defends Pakistan F-16 jet deal Saturday, 26 March, 2005, 15:35 GMT Condoleezza Rice Ms Rice says the US wants strong ties with both India and Pakistan The US has defended its decision to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, in the face of opposition from India.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Washington Post newspaper the US was trying to build relations with Pakistan and India at the same time.
India - which may also buy F-16s in the future - has warned the US deal with Pakistan risks creating an arms race.
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has welcomed the move, seen as a reward for supporting the US war on terror.
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: $8 a gallon for gas is nothing. Wait a year.
Even drilling Alaska (which I oppose) wouldn't provide us enough oil for long at our current consumption rate. We need to aggressively pursue alternative energy or drastically alter our current lifestyles immediately. Otherwise it's just going to be "relentless."
My point here is how many things will we find sacrificed to support a habit that is no longer within our capability? Eventually we will shift to sustainable energy practices(hopefully sooner than later) but if we were to ban middleeastern oil now the public would cry out for respite so loudly that nothing would be sacred during the time that the new infrastructure was being created. The environment wouldn't be worth a damn compared to not being able to get to work or the cabin. Sad...but that's the nature of the human beast.
Sas
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
do you guys actually think the masons and illuminati are going to allow the world to kill itself off?
You guys gotta be smarter than that.
We're just gonna see map makers busy for awhile rearranging a few areas.
-------------------- *I'm not a financial expert or advisor, everything stated is my opinion* Posts: 1680 | From: NC | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sasquatch: My point here is how many things will we find sacrificed to support a habit that is no longer within our capability?
-------------------- "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:$8 a gallon for gas is nothing. Wait a year.
Even drilling Alaska (which I oppose) wouldn't provide us enough oil for long at our current consumption rate. We need to aggressively pursue alternative energy or drastically alter our current lifestyles immediately. Otherwise it's just going to be "relentless."
You dont get it do you? There is no shortage in oil. The reason gas is so expensive is because the oil companies in America wont build new refineries. We have plenty of oil floating around. They just arents turning it into gas fast enough to meet the demand. Which works out for exxon because then they create their own supply and demand. What we really need is government intervention to stop the gouging. But that wont happen as long as you idiots keep electing retards.
-------------------- *I'm not a financial expert or advisor, everything stated is my opinion* Posts: 1680 | From: NC | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
thats never going to happen because too much money is involved in oil
same reason we havent stopped the drug trade
same reason we back israel
same reason russian/france and the rest of those turds back iran
MONEY!
-------------------- *I'm not a financial expert or advisor, everything stated is my opinion* Posts: 1680 | From: NC | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The US doesn't need to engage in diplomacy as it is not our country's battle. It is up to the two who are in conflict to resolve it. We should neither condone nor condemn, nor should we offer incentives or choose sides. We should merely urge diplomacy and provide humanitarian aid where we can. There is not a clear-cut case of good vs. evil here. (There rarely is.) It's been an-eye-for-an-eye for too long for either side to be conceived as completely innocent. Both have blood on their hands.
I find it ironic that that same stance is what allowed Hitler to get as far as he did, which then resulted in Israel being born again in the first place, when we finally did do something. Hard to believe your a Jew advocating such a position. There is NO country that doesn't have blood on it's hands, that's no excuse. So far I haven't seen the US do anything but say Israel has the right to defend itself.
Posts: 174 | From: Precipice | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Just ship everyone who disagrees with me to live on the moon!
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...and sell them arms, and call their enemies the "axis of evil," and invade Iraq, and....
Inciting the enemy to violence appears to be our main game. It's a money maker...
Hitler got as far as he did with a lot of help.
With apologies to Rumsfeld, once again...
Should we have intervened in WWII sooner? Absolutely.
Did the USA wait too long? For three million or so of us, yes.
Is it fair to draw comparisons between the helpless inmates of Hitler's concentration camps and the heavily-armed government of Israel? Absolutely not.
quote:Originally posted by MagicK: I find it ironic that that same stance is what allowed Hitler to get as far as he did, which then resulted in Israel being born again in the first place, when we finally did do something. Hard to believe your a Jew advocating such a position. There is NO country that doesn't have blood on it's hands, that's no excuse. So far I haven't seen the US do anything but say Israel has the right to defend itself.
-------------------- "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 |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
