[quote]JeffR wrote:
Events are moving quickly. I wonder if this is what it felt like when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated.[/quote]
It’s crazy isn’t it!? I was just talking about the same thing with a friend yesterday. This situation certainly has the potential…
please, enlighten me. tell me how it really went.
[quote]mazilla wrote:
please, enlighten me. tell me how it really went.[/quote]
I’ve already done so in other threads and given your earlier post, I doubt very much you have ever spent any time researching the subject–do the legwork yourself. You clearly have an axe to grind and I’m fairly positive anything I tell you will be met with the obligatory, “you’re just a puppet for the Jew lobby!”
[quote]mazilla wrote:
the power of the sword? conquered? more like the power of the dollar. who did the conquering? not the jews, no they had NO SWORD. it’s the good old USA, and some help from russia i would presume. the fact is, nobody wanted the jews, sure we fought an entire world war just to help them out.
after it was over everybody was passing them around, and nobody wanted them. so waht did the powers at be do? put them right dsmack in the middle of the holy land. why? we needed a good puppet in the middle east, they have the oil. come on, everybody knows this shit already. there was no conquering of any nations by a single nation. send the jews back to germany, theyu don’t belong there.
i agree with president mahmaniwhateverthefuck, they should not have israel where it is. i say blow them off the map, whats the difference? it’s what you wanted to do to afghanistan, iraq, and now Iran, ans syria. when will you open your eyes? they tell you who the bad guy is and everybody is commited 100% to believeing anything they throw at you. they can’t commit the vile attrocities without support from idiots off all walks of life.
[/quote]
Both the spirit and the specifics of your post are wrong. You need to learn something about how Israel was founded.
The part about “wiping off the map” a nation of 6 million is horrid, you disgusting, little, fucking dink. Please send your money and support to your pal “president mahmaniwhateverthefuck” so we can lock your weak punk ass up and throw away the key.
We can’t “send them back to Germany”, those Jews were rounded up and gassed, or did you miss that little bit of history? Do we not learn about the Holocaust in California because there’s no real way to blame it on America?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
I don’t know, what I see from the weasel words being used by the Syrian diplomats is really that they hope something will happen, but they don’t have the sack to actually make anything happen.
It was disgusting to watch these guys speak, and see how one sided it is. …
I agree 100%.
The Israelis are not clean but watching the Syrians talk made my skin crawl.[/quote]
The whole world wanted the Syrians out of Lebanon, remember. We thought they were to much of an influence there.
We forgot how they came in to put an end to a civil war and were a stabilising factor. We just wanted them out.
We got what we wanted.
Now we want something else.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Events are moving quickly. I wonder if this is what it felt like when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated.
It’s crazy isn’t it!? I was just talking about the same thing with a friend yesterday. This situation certainly has the potential…[/quote]
No, it doesn’t.
WWI happened because everybody was over-involved. Everybody had allies.
The situation in the ME is allowed to continue because nobody gives a flying fuck.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
The part about “wiping off the map” a nation of 6 million is horrid, you disgusting, little, fucking dink. Please send your money and support to your pal “president mahmaniwhateverthefuck” so we can lock your weak punk ass up and throw away the key.[/quote]
Strange, how many people are comfortable saying the same thing about other countries in the Middle East? Does the phrase “sea of glass” ring a bell to anybody?
Whatever the case, there is a long and drawn out history which needs to be let go of. The future is more important than the past. Maybe some day the people over there will decide they’d actually like to have a future that isn’t full of death and destruction.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
I don’t know, what I see from the weasel words being used by the Syrian diplomats is really that they hope something will happen, but they don’t have the sack to actually make anything happen.
It was disgusting to watch these guys speak, and see how one sided it is. …
I agree 100%.
The Israelis are not clean but watching the Syrians talk made my skin crawl.
The whole world wanted the Syrians out of Lebanon, remember. We thought they were to much of an influence there.
We forgot how they came in to put an end to a civil war and were a stabilising factor. We just wanted them out.
We got what we wanted.
Now we want something else.[/quote]
The Syrians have been destabilizing Lebanons legitimate government and supporting Hezbollahs attacks on Israel.
How can you pretend we miss their stabilizing factor?
They, along with Iran are causing the problems!
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
mazilla wrote:
please, enlighten me. tell me how it really went.
I’ve already done so in other threads and given your earlier post, I doubt very much you have ever spent any time researching the subject–do the legwork yourself. You clearly have an axe to grind and I’m fairly positive anything I tell you will be met with the obligatory, “you’re just a puppet for the Jew lobby!”[/quote]
You are right not to waste your time.
[quote]mazilla wrote:
NO, Israel is hated because they are intruders. they should have been set up in Europe. what the hell did palastine do to deserve having their land stolen?
[/quote]
The Israelis have been there since they were chased out of Egypt and took it from the Canaanites ~ 2500 years ago. There are just a lot of them that came back post WW2.
It is their tradional home long before the Palestinians came into the picture.
It is a stupid argument anyway. The reality is they are there. They are not going anywhere.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Have you any basis for that supposition? [/quote]
No, it just a guess.
Dustin
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know, what I see from the weasel words being used by the Syrian diplomats is really that they hope something will happen, but they don’t have the sack to actually make anything happen.
It was disgusting to watch these guys speak, and see how one sided it is. Both parties have been killing or otherwise transgressing against each other for decades.
There is a problem in that the general populace has been fed propaganda their entire lives and don’t actually want peace. They want what they are told is “justice”. If people in the region want peace, they are going to have to risk their lives by coming out and opposing the extremists.
If moderates do not fight for peace with their own extremists, they will not get it.
We need more propaganda in Muslim countries…[/quote]
Of course they don’t have the sack. Israel’s already kicked the shit out of them once.
Israel has as much right to exist as anyone in the region - except the terrorists, and they should be exterminated like the cowardly vermin they are.
None of the countries over there have the nuts to start any big shit with Israel. Iran knows damn good and well the capabilities of Israel, and they don’t have anyone in their sorry assed military that can hold a candle to what a bunch of pissed off Jews can do.
The latest phase of brutality in Gaza began on June 24th when Isreal abducted 2 Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don’t know their names and presumably they’ve been taken to Isreal. Who knows their fate? Now the next day something happened that we know far more about. Militants in Gaza abducted Corporal Gilad Shalit. This is well known, the first abduction -which was done by Isreal- is not known. A small example of how mass media filters the news so that you hear what you are supposed to hear. Again this is a small example.
[quote]clovely wrote:
If we just let the Islamic nations around Isreal destroy this “pretend nation”, who do you think they’ll come after next? It’s not about a tiny piece of land. They hate Israel because they’re not Muslim. And 9/11 didn’t happen because a bunch of guys had something against tall buildings - they want us gone too.[/quote]
9/11 happened because we’ve been occupying the Middle East for decades. Bin Laden himself has identified this as a major point of contention, even prior to 9/11.
Do you have the slightest idea what your government has been doing in that region for half a century? I can guarantee you that the people who live there do.
While the American public was sound asleep – prior to 9/11 – Uncle Sam was keepin’ busy in the Middle East. For instance, the first Gulf War never stopped. American jets flew over Iraq daily during the 90’s and bombed targets at their discretion. But that’s just a tiny inkling of a forgotten past that nobody is interested in hearing. We are told that “9/11 changed everything”, which would imply that nothing that transpired before that incident has any relevance to the current situation (unless it happens to bolster the party line).
What nonsense. 9/11 was a REPRISAL that was also intended to be a wake-up call. Unfortunately, the Islamists underestimated the vast ignorance of the average American when it came to his government’s involvement in foreign affairs.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
These attacks have been happening before we “occupied” any of these states.
Who did we “occupy” on 9/11?[/quote]
Dude, I’m floored. I was under the impression that you had a fairly good knowledge of the history of American intervention. As such, I would have expected a justification rather than an outright denial from you. I can answer this question for you, if need be. Just let me know…
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
While the American public was sound asleep – prior to 9/11 – Uncle Sam was keepin’ busy in the Middle East. For instance, the first Gulf War never stopped. American jets flew over Iraq daily during the 90’s and bombed targets at their discretion.
[/quote]
You are either ignorant or just lying. The Northern and Southern No-Fly Areas over Iraq were established to protect the oppressed Kurds in the North and the oppressed Shia in the South. American planes dropped bombs when they were engaged by Saddam’s anti-aircraft batteries. This was done in accordance with UN guidelines. Look it up.
Also, the term “occupation” is being wrongly used on this forum to describe what really has been a US Troop Presence. Occupation implies governance of territory. Just because the US has a base in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait does not mean we have “occupied” those countries.
It can also be effectively argued that Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer “occupied” by US Forces (even though I am sitting here right now) because we are not in the governance role. You can call these governments puppets if you want, but there were free and fair elections by the indiginous peoples. Here in Iraq, we are not in the governing role, rather a supporting role.
Tell your Imam I said Hi!
[quote]mazilla wrote:
NO, Israel is hated because they are intruders. they should have been set up in Europe. what the hell did palastine do to deserve having their land stolen? i think they should have put them in afghanistan, nobody wants that shit anyways.
[/quote]
exactly. Israel is not hated because its Jewish, only because they came from europe and took palestinian lands.
BUT zionists would not have had it any other way.
“In 1938 a thirty-one nation conference was held in Evian, France, on resettlement of the victims of Nazism. The World Zionist Organization refused to participate, fearing that resettlement of Jews in other states would reduce the number available for Palestine.”
-John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”
“It was summed up in the meeting [of the Jewish Agency’s Executive on June 26, 1938] that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the [Evian] Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing…We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection efforts’…Ben-Gurion’s statement at the same meeting: ‘No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.’”
-Israeli author Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”
“[Ben-Gurion stated] ‘If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second - because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people.’ In the wake of the Kristallnacht pogroms, Ben-Gurion commented that ‘the human conscience’ might bring various countries to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Germany. He saw this as a threat and warned: ‘Zionism is in danger.’”
-Israeli historian, Tom Segev, “The Seventh Million.”
for more: http://www.cactus48.com/holocaust.html
[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
The Northern and Southern No-Fly Areas over Iraq were established to protect the oppressed Kurds in the North and the oppressed Shia in the South. American planes dropped bombs when they were engaged by Saddam’s anti-aircraft batteries. This was done in accordance with UN guidelines. Look it up.[/quote]
What’s your point? Do you think the average Iraqi citizen enjoyed having foreign military jets flying over his country for a decade? Do you think it improved the image of America throughout the Muslim World? What military threat did Iraq ever pose to the U.S.?
[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
Also, the term “occupation” is being wrongly used on this forum to describe what really has been a US Troop Presence. Occupation implies governance of territory. Just because the US has a base in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait does not mean we have “occupied” those countries.
It can also be effectively argued that Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer “occupied” by US Forces (even though I am sitting here right now) because we are not in the governance role. You can call these governments puppets if you want, but there were free and fair elections by the indiginous peoples. Here in Iraq, we are not in the governing role, rather a supporting role.[/quote]
The U.S. exerts great influence on the government of every nation in which it has a military presence (and quite a few in which it doesn’t…as yet). The elections were not unequivocally “free and fair”, and the U.S. government has not disengaged from the governance of it’s occupied territories. Or do you really believe that if the Iraqi’s freely elected a fundamentalist Shiite government into power, the U.S. would stand aside and let democracy run it’s course? Ha, now that’s a comedic notion.
Silencer, you are on the mark.
All of the problems being confronted today in the Middle East and elsewhere are the result of British and American imperialism in the first half of the 20th century. The way to resolve these problems is not by embarking on a new round of “neo-imperialism” (as manifested in the doctrine of neoconservatism).
This article sums it up brilliantly:
The second paragraph, in particular, is worth noting.
[i]Heeding British ghosts
By H.D.S. Greenway | June 6, 2006
EDINBURGH
WHEN PRESIDENT Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair met recently to discuss what looks increasingly like a losing war in Iraq, there were ghosts at the table – ghosts of Britain’s previous efforts to tame that untamable land.
Americans are notorious for ignoring historical precedents because they believe in American exceptionalism to such a degree that what befell other countries in the past can have no relevance to the present or the future. I once asked an American general in Vietnam if he had read anything about the French experience in Indochina, and he said there was no point because the French had lost and, therefore, had nothing to teach us. But the fate of the British in Iraq after the First World War, when they cobbled together three provinces from the old Ottoman Empire, has ironies piled upon ironies for both Britons and Americans.
The commander of the Mesopotamia Expeditionary Force, Sir Stanley Maude, whose bones rest in Baghdad, is quoted these days for having told the Iraqis in 1917 that ``our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) wrote scolding articles in the Times of London in 1920 insisting that Britain’s Iraq policy was on the wrong track.
Gertrude Bell, the intrepid nation-builder whose bones also lie in Baghdad, is remembered for having drawn up the map of modern Iraq to suit Britain’s imperial needs. Bell believed strongly in staying the course in the newly formed Iraq. She died before the British finally abandoned the effort.
As it was with the Americans more than 80 years later, the British never seemed to get their act together. British administrators, each with a new line, succeeded one another as have Americans from Jay Garner, to Paul Bremer, to Zalmay Khalilzad.
At first the British assumed that they would annex oil-rich Basra and create friendly entities to the north. Oil, then as now, was important to imperial designs. But the world had changed following WWI. A colonial administrator, Mark Sykes, caught this shift when he wrote: ``Imperialism, annexation, military prestige, white man’s burdens, have been expunged from the popular political vocabulary. Consequently protectorates, spheres of interest or influence . . . bases, etc., have to be consigned to the diplomatic lumber room."
Most of the above would creep out of the lumber room some eight decades later when American neo-imperialists such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, et al sold the white man’s burden to an inexperienced president, and the British prime minister went along for the ride.
When British patience began to weary of Iraq in the '20s, Britain’s man in Baghdad, Sir Percy Cox, argued that British policy was actually working, and if prematurely curtailed, the result would be disastrous . . . Withdrawal would lead inevitably to anarchy, a rise of Russian influence, and ultimately the return of the Turks." If Britain turned its back on Iraq the negative effects would be felt across the entire Muslim world," Cox argued.
But Britain’s Iraq policy ultimately changed from nation-building to doing anything to get out. Unrealistically optimistic reports of progress in Iraq became the order of the day. US Army Major Joel Rayburn, writing in Foreign Affairs, quotes Britain’s then- colonial secretary, Leopold Amery, as saying that the politics of scuttle" would create far greater dangers for his countrymen than fulfilling their obligations." A mery argued back in the '20s that Iraq could be a model for development and democracy for the entire region." But according to Major Rayburn, Britain concluded that the only way to leave with honor would be to redefine the standards of success and overstate Iraq’s achievements." From 1925 until the British finally pulled out in 1932, progress reports ``increasingly diverged from reality."
We have seen the same divergence from reality in our own time, and one has to wonder if the British debate back then isn’t replicating itself now when George Packer, in The New Yorker, recently wrote: ``It’s an open secret in Washington that [Donald] Rumsfeld wants to extricate himself from Iraq. But President Bush’s rhetoric . . . remains resolute. For three years, the administration has split the difference between these two poles, committing itself halfheartedly to Iraq." And in Afghanistan, which might have been a Bush administration success if it were not for resources being pulled away to service Iraq, anti-American riots in the capital recall even older ghosts of the British in Kabul. But that is another story for another day.
H.D.S. Greenway’s column appears regularly in the Globe.
[/i]
Do JTF and Nominal Prospect get group discounts on their swastika tattoos?
You seem to be mistaken. I’m not the one advocating a fascist position here. No sir, Libertarianism is diametrically opposed to that ideological persuasion.
You can argue that everything being done today in the Middle East is necessary, but Hitler said essentially the same things in the 1930’s.