[ms] · Est. May 2002
One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.
Al Qaeda and Iraq, but Iraq wasn't directly involved with the 9/11 attacks.
This bothers me because what exactly does "relationship" mean? Bush actually had relationships with the Bin Laden family. He had them all flown out of the country right after 9/11 happened. Is that reason to go to war with him too?
These alleged "ties" or relationships between Iraq are Al Qaeda are somewhat far reaching and can be disputed.
Can he just tell us that it was about money and stabilizing the price of oil?
This thread goes better with...
[url]http://www.mercuryserver.com/viewforum.php?f=4[/url]
:wink:
Re: President Bush says there was a relationship with...
[quote=superdave] Can he just tell us that it was about money and stabilizing the price of oil?[/quote]
No, because then he wouldn't be re-elected...
wrong forum
you're right mj. :oops:
aaaakkk too much politics.
Maybe Iraq and al Queada were friends with benefits. Or better yet "ummmmm....friends" (friends that you fuck, but you refer to them as friends when you're introducing them to other company - as in: Hey guys, this is Nicki my.....ummmmmm....friend).
Re: President Bush says there was a relationship with...
[quote=superdave]Al Qaeda and Iraq, but Iraq wasn't directly involved with the 9/11 attacks.
This bothers me because what exactly does "relationship" mean? Bush actually had relationships with the Bin Laden family. He had them all flown out of the country right after 9/11 happened. Is that reason to go to war with him too?
These alleged "ties" or relationships between Iraq are Al Qaeda are somewhat far reaching and can be disputed.
Can he just tell us that it was about money and stabilizing the price of oil?[/quote]
I watched a show on this recently. There actually was a very open relationship between Saddam and Al-Queda but it was mainly unthreatening. Since back in the 90's Iraq was hooking Osama up with small arms and other weaponry and Osama asked about using Iraq to have a terrorist training facility but the deal fell through. There is no doubt that Osama and Saddam talked either personally or through other people on numerous occasions, but for some reason communications kept going cold over and over again. But keep in mind these are only the things we know about. I don't think that there is much more to the story than that, but Iraq actually did play a role as a third party. Iraq is in between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and it appears that many meetings and deals may have transpired in the desert of Iraq and some of them were facilitated by Iraqi officials. Freeing Iraq was more of a strategic geographical move when it come to fighting the war on terror.
jon stewart and the daily show - classic stuff last night
It was all a big lie anyways. Bush wanted to finish what his daddy could not in iraq. That is what I think.
Osama was even too crazy for Saddam. :twisted:
I suppose you could say the relationship is the US...
Bin Laden was trained by the CIA.
Saddam was funded by the US.
The US 're-introduced' the notion of jihad for its purposes in the Soviet-Afghanistan war.
Umm, anyone buying this? Thought not...
I think Saddam had ties to Bin Laden. Now if Bush went into Iraq for WMD, or stop terrorism or to finish what his dad started it doesn't matter. A dictator that commited genocide is out of power and the country will be better off.
my understanding is that Bin Laden tried to get Saddam to change Iraq to a more fundamentalist state...they met several times but saddam didn't want to and bin laden hates him for it now.
Re: President Bush says there was a relationship with...
[quote=mylexicon] [b]Occupying[/b] Iraq was more of a strategic geographical move when it comes to [b]controlling the world[/b].[/quote]
:Bingo: Agreed. totally. :wink:
Still, I don't see how the war in Iraq fits in with the War on terrorism. Sure, Sadam financed Palestinian terrorists, but then Israel could attack it as a part of a War on terrorism, and not the US. Sadam had to be careful that he wasn't too associated with the Al quaeda, cause that would probably help Americans get all they international support they would need to attack Iraq. I mean the coallition eliminated a threat in the region, but that only inspired more people in the region to be enclined towards terrorism.
Re: President Bush says there was a relationship with...
[quote=brakada][quote=mylexicon] [b]Occupying[/b] Iraq was more of a strategic geographical move when it comes to [b]controlling the world[/b].[/quote]
:Bingo: Agreed. totally. :wink:
Still, I don't see how the war in Iraq fits in with the War on terrorism. Sure, Sadam financed Palestinian terrorists, but then Israel could attack it as a part of a War on terrorism, and not the US. [/quote]
That's one of the ironies about the war on terror. Israel receives terrorist attacks on a weekly basis and the rest of the world thinks it does not have the right to defend itself. Israel is even condemned for retaliating. However, when America receives one attack, it launches this whole campaign to completely disrupt the Middle East, and it receives SOME support from other nations.
Cheney blames the media for "confusing" everybody...
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/[/url]
ummmm; yea
[quote=FM]Cheney blames the media for "confusing" everybody...
ummmm; yea[/quote]
who's confusing who, I wonder? I'm confused. :? :lol:
Re: President Bush says there was a relationship with...
[quote=Galapidate][quote=brakada][quote=mylexicon] [b]Occupying[/b] Iraq was more of a strategic geographical move when it comes to [b]controlling the world[/b].[/quote]
:Bingo: Agreed. totally. :wink:
Still, I don't see how the war in Iraq fits in with the War on terrorism. Sure, Sadam financed Palestinian terrorists, but then Israel could attack it as a part of a War on terrorism, and not the US. [/quote]
That's one of the ironies about the war on terror. Israel receives terrorist attacks on a weekly basis and the rest of the world thinks it does not have the right to defend itself. Israel is even condemned for retaliating. However, when America receives one attack, it launches this whole campaign to completely disrupt the Middle East, and it receives SOME support from other nations.[/quote]
23 years ago Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor and got condemed for it be the 'free' world. Aren't you all happy now that we did.
There is a double standard when it comes to the war on terror. For years Iraq financially supported the families of homicide bombers. Even today Arafat's currupt regime continues to support these families. Iran is actively recruiting bombers to take out Israeli (and US) interests.
When we take action resolution after friggin resolution at the UN General Assembly is passed without condeming the act of homicide attacks. My country has been facing a war on terror since it was founded - with very little support from anyone.
Re: President Bush says there was a relationship with...
[quote=davetlv][quote=Galapidate][quote=brakada][quote=mylexicon] [b]Occupying[/b] Iraq was more of a strategic geographical move when it comes to [b]controlling the world[/b].[/quote]
:Bingo: Agreed. totally. :wink:
Still, I don't see how the war in Iraq fits in with the War on terrorism. Sure, Sadam financed Palestinian terrorists, but then Israel could attack it as a part of a War on terrorism, and not the US. [/quote]
That's one of the ironies about the war on terror. Israel receives terrorist attacks on a weekly basis and the rest of the world thinks it does not have the right to defend itself. Israel is even condemned for retaliating. However, when America receives one attack, it launches this whole campaign to completely disrupt the Middle East, and it receives SOME support from other nations.[/quote]
23 years ago Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor and got condemed for it be the 'free' world. Aren't you all happy now that we did.
There is a double standard when it comes to the war on terror. For years Iraq financially supported the families of homicide bombers. Even today Arafat's currupt regime continues to support these families. Iran is actively recruiting bombers to take out Israeli (and US) interests.
When we take action resolution after friggin resolution at the UN General Assembly is passed without condeming the act of homicide attacks. My country has been facing a war on terror since it was founded - with very little support from anyone.[/quote]
I notice your avatar, so you live in Israel. I was considering (since I'm Jewish) to take a trip to Israel sometime in the near future. Is it safe where you are and where are other relatively peaceful areas in Israel right now.
Re: President Bush says there was a relationship with...
[quote=Galapidate] I notice your avatar, so you live in Israel. I was considering (since I'm Jewish) to take a trip to Israel sometime in the near future. Is it safe where you are and where are other relatively peaceful areas in Israel right now.[/quote]
No, buy a helmet, a bulletproof vest and a mini portable armoured vehicle, travel edition TM. :wink: Well it's safe as it has always been, meaning: yes, terrosrist attacks still happen, but not really many tourists are affected by them, unless you would like to tour the new wall, protecting from terrorist attacks... :wink:
As for Palestinian terrorists, it is still hard for me to equate them with international terrorists groups. I regard them more as the IRA of Palestina. If I can remember right, the IRA killed a lot of innocent people, but they were fighting for their "freedom" kind of. But because of huge international support it was never regarded as the cancer of the modern world. It is true, that the political wing of the IRA was a lot more civilised and trustworthy than the Palestinian "leadership" is, but let's hope things will get better in time.
Drop pot, not bombs on the Middle East, and things are without doubt going to get better soon. :Blazed: Peace....
Re: President Bush says there was a relationship with...
[quote=davetlv][quote=Galapidate][quote=brakada][quote=mylexicon] [b]Occupying[/b] Iraq was more of a strategic geographical move when it comes to [b]controlling the world[/b].[/quote]
:Bingo: Agreed. totally. :wink:
Still, I don't see how the war in Iraq fits in with the War on terrorism. Sure, Sadam financed Palestinian terrorists, but then Israel could attack it as a part of a War on terrorism, and not the US. [/quote]
That's one of the ironies about the war on terror. Israel receives terrorist attacks on a weekly basis and the rest of the world thinks it does not have the right to defend itself. Israel is even condemned for retaliating. However, when America receives one attack, it launches this whole campaign to completely disrupt the Middle East, and it receives SOME support from other nations.[/quote]
23 years ago Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor and got condemed for it be the 'free' world. Aren't you all happy now that we did.
There is a double standard when it comes to the war on terror. For years Iraq financially supported the families of homicide bombers. Even today Arafat's currupt regime continues to support these families. Iran is actively recruiting bombers to take out Israeli (and US) interests.
When we take action resolution after friggin resolution at the UN General Assembly is passed without condeming the act of homicide attacks. My country has been facing a war on terror since it was founded - with very little support from anyone.[/quote]
I'm surprised that you think that your country (Israel) hasnt received any support from anyone. There is huge list of UN resolutions condemning your country for attacks on Palestinians which have all been vetoed by the US. (being a permenant member and all) Compared to the Palestinians your support base is huge. There are host of multnational organizations who rountinly donate money to your country. Many of these funds are used for millitary and 'defensive' purposes.
What I take from your post is that you wish ISrael should have get the go ahead from the rest of the world to take out the entire Palestinian lands wihout any reprecussions of any kind. Similar to what the US is doing. A bit hard dont you think?? It wont solve any problems dude. The first step is to figure out what makes someone wanna kill themselves. Have you left your home in TLV and ventured far enough to see how the people on the other side of the fence live and how they have been treated by daily incursions into their lands??
[url]http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html[/url]
[quote=milks]What I take from your post is that you wish ISrael should have get the go ahead from the rest of the world to take out the entire Palestinian lands wihout any reprecussions of any kind. Similar to what the US is doing. A bit hard dont you think?? It wont solve any problems dude.[/quote]
The reason you don't understand what Israel is doing is because you don't understand the situation. THE LAND DOESN'T BELONG TO PALESTINE. They are not a sovereign nation; that is what they are trying to become. Palestinians are killing innocent people every day so they can become a sovereign nation. Israel isn't stupid enough to hand it over because they know the attacks won't stop even if Israel turns the land over. Israel is also smart enough to know if they do turn the land over and it proves once and for all that Arabs are attacking them only because they hate Israel; the rest of the world will be too lazy to help them.
Plz, before you make a comment. Take a minute to learn what the situation is. The only reason people support Palestine is because they have no idea how the problem started and in many cases they have no idea what the problem is today. Plus most people are sensationalistic/ emotional idiots. All they see is a bunch of pathetic weak people getting beat up by a modernized army; when they situation is actually much more complex. And to make matters worse the average American idiot sees pictures of Israeli citizens getting blown up on buses and they think "oh those poor Arabs". And the only reason they think that is because the average liberal-ass teeny-bopper imbicile thinks Israelis are white, and they refuse to read the goddam captions. :shock:
[quote=mylexicon][quote=milks]What I take from your post is that you wish ISrael should have get the go ahead from the rest of the world to take out the entire Palestinian lands wihout any reprecussions of any kind. Similar to what the US is doing. A bit hard dont you think?? It wont solve any problems dude.[/quote]
The reason you don't understand what Israel is doing is because you don't understand the situation. THE LAND DOESN'T BELONG TO PALESTINE. They are not a sovereign nation; that is what they are trying to become. Palestinians are killing innocent people every day so they can become a sovereign nation. Israel isn't stupid enough to hand it over because they know the attacks won't stop even if Israel turns the land over. Israel is also smart enough to know if they do turn the land over and it proves once and for all that Arabs are attacking them only because they hate Israel; the rest of the world will be too lazy to help them.
Plz, before you make a comment. Take a minute to learn what the situation is. The only reason people support Palestine is because they have no idea how the problem started and in many cases they have no idea what the problem is today. Plus most people are sensationalistic/ emotional idiots. All they see is a bunch of pathetic weak people getting beat up by a modernized army; when they situation is actually much more complex. And to make matters worse the average American idiot sees pictures of Israeli citizens getting blown up on buses and they think "oh those poor Arabs". And the only reason they think that is because the average liberal-ass teeny-bopper imbicile thinks Israelis are white, and they refuse to read the goddam captions. :shock:[/quote]
Umm dude: First of all I realize this is a very sensitive topic for many people. I appreciate you points and please dont take any of this personally, its just a debate.
Your argument that the lands now occupied by Israel does not belong to the Palestinians. Ummm again very debatable. Most of the Israeli citizans were actually brought in after 1945, (end of WW II) from various parts of Europe. All this culminated in the Israeli war of independence (1948) Prior to this time the area was inhabited by Muslims and Jews. Therefere I strongly disagree with your point. Would appreciate it if you would provide some back up to your statement.
After the Yom Kippur War (1967) Israel occupied Sinai (Egypt) the Bolan Heights (Syria) and East Jurusalem (Palestine) The claimed that it was all a part of 'Greater Isreal' So again where does it all end??? All land were returned following talks, however Israeli expansionist ambitions were unveiled.
The entire world sees the poor Arabs being killed by Israeli tanks and the arabs retaliating by blowing themselves up. Thats becasue thats the way it is.... I mean since the intifada started there ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed is somethign close to 10:1. Hey man, if you want to make it a fair fight, how about providing the palestinains with some real fire power????
The right wing neo cons rednecks, associate the Arabs as backward violent indivisuals who 'hate freedom.' They think of the Israeli govt. as being progressive peace lovers who are just like Americans. Give me a break. The rest of the world is against Israel cuz their hardline approach is not the answer, contrary to what you might think.
Plz dont make such sweeping comments that I dont understand the situation.... think i do pretty well, and just because you dont agree with my stance is nothing to do with not knowing facts.
The Palestinians do not have a history as a culture. They migrated from other Arab states into the region of Israel. The palestinians used the tool of becoming a state as a strategic move.
Back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV. Here's what he said: "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
[quote=mylexicon][quote=milks] The reason you don't understand what Israel is doing is because you don't understand the situation. THE LAND DOESN'T BELONG TO PALESTINE. They are not a sovereign nation; that is what they are trying to become. Palestinians are killing innocent people every day so they can become a sovereign nation. Israel isn't stupid enough to hand it over because they know the attacks won't stop even if Israel turns the land over. Israel is also smart enough to know if they do turn the land over and it proves once and for all that Arabs are attacking them only because they hate Israel; the rest of the world will be too lazy to help them.
Plz, before you make a comment. Take a minute to learn what the situation is. The only reason people support Palestine is because they have no idea how the problem started and in many cases they have no idea what the problem is today. Plus most people are sensationalistic/ emotional idiots. All they see is a bunch of pathetic weak people getting beat up by a modernized army; when they situation is actually much more complex. And to make matters worse the average American idiot sees pictures of Israeli citizens getting blown up on buses and they think "oh those poor Arabs". And the only reason they think that is because the average liberal-ass teeny-bopper imbicile thinks Israelis are white, and they refuse to read the goddam captions. :shock:[/quote]
Umm dude: First of all I realize this is a very sensitive topic for many people. I appreciate you points and please dont take any of this personally, its just a debate.
Your argument that the lands now occupied by Israel does not belong to the Palestinians. Ummm again very debatable. Most of the Israeli citizans were actually brought in after 1945, (end of WW II) from various parts of Europe. All this culminated in the Israeli war of independence (1948) Prior to this time the area was inhabited by Muslims and Jews. Therefere I strongly disagree with your point. Would appreciate it if you would provide some back up to your statement.
After the Yom Kippur War (1967) Israel occupied Sinai (Egypt) the Bolan Heights (Syria) and East Jurusalem (Palestine) The claimed that it was all a part of 'Greater Isreal' So again where does it all end??? All land were returned following talks, however Israeli expansionist ambitions were unveiled.
The entire world sees the poor Arabs being killed by Israeli tanks and the arabs retaliating by blowing themselves up. Thats becasue thats the way it is.... I mean since the intifada started there ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed is somethign close to 10:1. Hey man, if you want to make it a fair fight, how about providing the palestinains with some real fire power????
The right wing neo cons rednecks, associate the Arabs as backward violent indivisuals who 'hate freedom.' They think of the Israeli govt. as being progressive peace lovers who are just like Americans. Give me a break. The rest of the world is against Israel cuz their hardline approach is not the answer, contrary to what you might think.
Plz dont make such sweeping comments that I dont understand the situation.... think i do pretty well, and just because you dont agree with my stance is nothing to do with not knowing facts.[/quote]
First. Let me reply to Lexicon's post. Israel would not give up the "promised land" to the palestinians even if they thought it would end the war. The war between the arabs and the jews has been waged even before Christ, and long there after. This is what the war is about, a piece of land that each feel is rightfully their's, given to them by their god. Isreal would not give it up any sooner then the Palestinians would stop fighting for it. Or rather, having their political and religious leaders use propoganda to make their people's believe thats what they are fighting for. Thats really the only problem with your post.
Now as far as Milks post goes, damn, you are exactly what lexicon was talking about. Talking about the 10:1 ratio of arabs dying as opposed to Jews, what about how many Jews have died in the close to 20,000 years they have existed as a people?? That isn't very relevant here though. What is relevant is that Isreal was formed by the UN. All the nations belonging to it then decided that giving Israel to the Jews was the right thing to do. Its not like the US was the only country to initiate that country.
Your talking about how we think the Arabs are a people opposed to freedom, which they are. You talk about how they get rolled over with tanks and yet they have to resort to blowing each other up. Well here is how it really is. Israel is a form of democratic government, any Arab nation is not. Arab leaders use religion to oppress and defile their entire existence. The Arab people would do well to bring down their own government that kills them and makes them believe that they are dying for a cause. They are not, they are pretending to be fighting over a very small piece of land when they are actually just anti-semetic, just as cosmo's post suggests. And will not stop until every Jew in the world is dead, and every westerner that harbours them dies with them.
The terrorists that are blowing themselves up could have tanks too, to roll over Jews with. But they don't have tanks for the same reason why they can't read a book, or watch a movie, or allow their brides to wonder in public with their face shown. They are exactly what you said. They are still living in the middle ages, and their government uses religious propoganda to make sure it stays that way. If these people had any sense of war, or what they are doing don't you think they would realize that 10:1 ratio?? Don't you think they would realize that they can't win a war if they all die out, because at the rate their going, they will all kill themselves.
Once again, they do not realize this because their governments, and religious leaders make everything out to be about one small piece of land when its really nothing more then prejidice.
[quote=miks]
Umm dude: First of all I realize this is a very sensitive topic for many people. I appreciate you points and please dont take any of this personally, its just a debate.
Your argument that the lands now occupied by Israel does not belong to the Palestinians. Ummm again very debatable. Most of the Israeli citizans were actually brought in after 1945, (end of WW II) from various parts of Europe. All this culminated in the Israeli war of independence (1948) Prior to this time the area was inhabited by Muslims and Jews. Therefere I strongly disagree with your point. Would appreciate it if you would provide some back up to your statement.
After the Yom Kippur War (1967) Israel occupied Sinai (Egypt) the Bolan Heights (Syria) and East Jurusalem (Palestine) The claimed that it was all a part of 'Greater Isreal' So again where does it all end??? All land were returned following talks, however Israeli expansionist ambitions were unveiled.
The entire world sees the poor Arabs being killed by Israeli tanks and the arabs retaliating by blowing themselves up. Thats becasue thats the way it is.... I mean since the intifada started there ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed is somethign close to 10:1. Hey man, if you want to make it a fair fight, how about providing the palestinains with some real fire power????
The right wing neo cons rednecks, associate the Arabs as backward violent indivisuals who 'hate freedom.' They think of the Israeli govt. as being progressive peace lovers who are just like Americans. Give me a break. The rest of the world is against Israel cuz their hardline approach is not the answer, contrary to what you might think.
Plz dont make such sweeping comments that I dont understand the situation.... think i do pretty well, and just because you dont agree with my stance is nothing to do with not knowing facts.[/quote]
:CrackUp: :CrackUp: :CrackUp:
History 101 now begins. . .
When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades. Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called "the holy land" (al-Arad al-Muqaddash).
In 1920 League of Nations proclaimed that Palestine was to be a homeland for the Jews. Around the same time, Lebanon was made a place for Arab Christians, and Syria, and Iraq were to be homelands for Arab Moslems. In 1922 England [the occupying power in Palestine] gave all of Palestine east of the River Jordan [77% of Palestine] to Arab Moslems, forbidding Jews to live there.
Further UN estimates put the property loses of Jews kicked out of Arab countries after 1948 at 10 times those lost by Palestinian Arabs.
[In World War I] Turkey, with an expansive empire that compassed the Middle East (including Palestine) and North Africa, fought with Germany and the Central Powers against the Allies. At the breaking up of the Turkish Empire by the victorious Allies, both Jews and Arabs requested independent states. The world powers were generous in the extreme to the Arabs by granting them twenty-two independent Arabs states - encompassing 5,414,000 square miles. The Jews asked for less than one percent of that vast territory. The Allies agreed to this request (which included both sides of the Jordan) in the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1920 San Remo Conference of World Powers.
For imperialistic interests, however, in 1921 Great Britain reneged on the Balfour Declaration, lopped off 77 percent of the Land promised in the Balfour Declaration and set up the Arab Emirate of Transjordan. Then in 1922 the League of Nations gave Great Britain a Mandate to prepare the remaining 23 percent of Palestine (including Samaria, Judea, Gaza, Golan Heights and Eastern Jerusalem) for a Jewish National Home. But under French pressure, in 1923 the Golan Heights was ceded by the British to the French mandate of Syria.
After the War of Independance Israel actually controlled less land that was promised to it in previous years.
As a result of the six day war in 1967 (the Yom Kippur war took place in 1973) Isreal gained control of the areas now under dispute. The Golan heights (not Bolan - I believe he was a 1960's singer), The West Bank (or Judea and Samaria), East Jerusalem and the Sinai Desert. You claim that all lands were returned after talks miks, the only land returned was Sinai. As for the other areas, Israel annexed the Golan Heights, and yes, occuppied the West Bank and Gaza Strip (which BTW was offered by Begin to Sadat as part of the Sinai settlement but Sadat rejected it).
[quote=miks]
I'm surprised that you think that your country (Israel) hasnt received any support from anyone. There is huge list of UN resolutions condemning your country for attacks on Palestinians which have all been vetoed by the US. (being a permenant member and all) Compared to the Palestinians your support base is huge. There are host of multnational organizations who rountinly donate money to your country. Many of these funds are used for millitary and 'defensive' purposes.
What I take from your post is that you wish ISrael should have get the go ahead from the rest of the world to take out the entire Palestinian lands wihout any reprecussions of any kind. Similar to what the US is doing. A bit hard dont you think?? It wont solve any problems dude. The first step is to figure out what makes someone wanna kill themselves. Have you left your home in TLV and ventured far enough to see how the people on the other side of the fence live and how they have been treated by daily incursions into their lands?? [/quote]
Within the UN Israel's support lies entirely with the USA - and thank god for that. The reason why the US keeps using its veteo int eh security council is because the resolutions keep condeming Israel whilst ignore the Palestinian terrorists and their actions. They are hardly balanced resolutions. Please remember that there are also a myriad of resolutions from the General Assembly, that the US has no power of veteo over, that condem Israel and ignore the Palestinians.
Do you think we like this situation? Do you think we like to get blown up? Do you think our mothers don't lie awake at night and worry about what might have happened to their children when they fail to come home when they said they would? Listening to you its like we are solely to blame for the situation here.
When you talk of funds coming into this country, dont forget the billions the PA has received to build an infrastructure for the Palaestinian people from the EU and US. Also dont forget about the hundred of millions that have been misappropriated by Arafat and syphoned off into his own private bank accounts to fund terrorism and give his wife an nice life in Paris. (An EU report confirms this).
As for my personal thought on the issue, here goes.
Regardless of what was offered by the League of Nations, the Balfour Decleration and the UN mandate, the situation on the ground today in 2004 is what needs a solution. I personally believe that we should evacuate all israeli citizens from Gaza and the West Bank. I think the PA should have sole control with those areas and an independant Palestinian state should gain formal recognition by the world.
No i haven't venured into the territories for two very good reasons:-
I dont think as an Israeli i should be there.
As an Israeli, driving an vehicle with an Israeli number plate, i would leave myself open to attack. I like my life, I have no need to try and end it prematurely.
Re: President Bush says there was a relationship with...
[quote=Galapidate][quote=superdave] Can he just tell us that it was about money and stabilizing the price of oil?[/quote]
No, because then he wouldn't be re-elected...[/quote]
Is that why we're paying more for gas now than ever before? You have to remember, the U.S. doesn't control oil..Saudi Arabia is the largest member of OPEC which is the body that controls it and they would never just "give up" their gold mine. The only way the U.S. will control the oil market is when the rest of the world runs out and we start pumping our oil fields. Now, the fact that Bush and Cheney are in the oil industry does bring up questions...in that case I can see that it [i]may[/i] be about money..as far as stabilizing the price, obviously that's not it...
Gokada
We actually don't import a majority of our oil from OPEC
[url]http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html[/url]
People forget too that we don't buy much oil from Iraq because of our moral objection to Saddam's rule there. Futhermore, Iraq was sanctioned by the U.N. to produce a very small amount of oil because of their aggressive behavior towards Kuwait.
If the U.S. wanted oil from Iraq they didn't have to go to war, they could have simply lifted the sanctions. Which is why it is ridiculous that people propose the war on terror is about oil.
And as far a future oil production goes.......the U.S. and Mexico will be ridiculously wealthy in the next 25-50 years if oil demand stays high. The largest oil reserves in the world (yet discovered) lie in the Gulf of Mexico, and i do mean largest :twisted: We will own this fucking planet and eliminate the U.S. immigration problems at the same time, which is why every intelligent foreigner is either out taking underground readings for oil or is hell bent on making sure we discover alternative fuels.
You think the Prince of Brunei is rich.....just wait until the Chinese economy reaches 7-8 trillion and Microsoft start drilling for oil :lol: Its not about the environment at all. People have been playing the game of lowering global oil demand by all means necessary......consequently they believe everything we do is aimed at fillibustering their efforts.
And you just have to trust me on this Gulf of Mexico oil thing. My roommate's dad has been involved in the oil industry his entire life. He and a couple of his best friends started an oil company after they got canned from Coastal. He has a chart in his home office from 2001. It is a composite map of known fields and privately commisioned exploratory efforts. His company bought some information about known inaccessible oil fields and then he went in on an explatory commision with a bunch of other companies big and small. The map features green dots/blobs where the oil fields are located. The map is fucking speckled from the keys to South America. And since its privately financed and the reserves are in International waters, most of the info is kept on the hush until exploratory drilling is possible. Amazing stuff imo. :shock:
[quote=mylexicon]If the U.S. wanted oil from Iraq they didn't have to go to war, they could have simply lifted the sanctions. Which is why it is ridiculous that people propose the war on terror is about oil.[/quote]
No, they don't just want the "oil from Iraq" but also the contracts for rebuilding and controlling the oil industry. Big difference. Why buy the oil from Saddam when you can take over the country and get other people to buy it from you?
In Cheney's Energy Task Force documents, he plainly stated that the US must control vital energy supplies... even by force. Detailed maps of Iraqi fields and contracts were made. When the rest of the country was being looted, the US protected the Oil Ministry as a main priority. Some soldiers even complained that most of their preparation was for the takeover of oil fields, not rebuilding and policing a country.
However you cut it, oil played a major part in this war.
[quote] The oil industry has gone to great lengths to distance itself from any planning related to the potential post-war opening of Iraq's massive fields, now partly in U.S. and British hands. But it is becoming clear that a number of companies played significant advisory roles in military operations taking place on those fields, underscoring an unusual partnership between the military and private companies in the Iraq campaign.
BP PLC employees in Kuwait showed the Royal Engineers and other combat troops how oil fields operate before their assault on South Rumeila, along the Kuwaiti border. Houston fire-fighting firm Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc. helped draw up emergency and contingency plans for securing the field, and private-sector U.S. oil executives, serving as U.S. reserve officers, ran soldiers and combat engineers through fields in West Texas in preparation for the attack. There is no evidence that any of the firms were paid for their oil-field advice, but coalition military engineers considered the advice critical.
"We leveraged the private sector," said Brig. Gen. Robert Crear, commander of the Southwestern Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is spearheading reconstruction efforts in Iraq.[/quote] [url]http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11212[/url]
[quote]Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch?s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and ?Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.? The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: [url]www.JudicialWatch.org[/url]. [/quote] [url]http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml[/url]
[quote=Civic_Zen][Now as far as Milks post goes, damn, you are exactly what lexicon was talking about. Talking about the 10:1 ratio of arabs dying as opposed to Jews, what about how many Jews have died in the close to 20,000 years they have existed as a people?? That isn't very relevant here though. What is relevant is that Isreal was formed by the UN. All the nations belonging to it then decided that giving Israel to the Jews was the right thing to do. Its not like the US was the only country to initiate that country.
Your talking about how we think the Arabs are a people opposed to freedom, which they are. You talk about how they get rolled over with tanks and yet they have to resort to blowing each other up. Well here is how it really is. Israel is a form of democratic government, any Arab nation is not. Arab leaders use religion to oppress and defile their entire existence. The Arab people would do well to bring down their own government that kills them and makes them believe that they are dying for a cause. They are not, they are pretending to be fighting over a very small piece of land when they are actually just anti-semetic, just as cosmo's post suggests. And will not stop until every Jew in the world is dead, and every westerner that harbours them dies with them.
The terrorists that are blowing themselves up could have tanks too, to roll over Jews with. But they don't have tanks for the same reason why they can't read a book, or watch a movie, or allow their brides to wonder in public with their face shown. They are exactly what you said. They are still living in the middle ages, and their government uses religious propoganda to make sure it stays that way. If these people had any sense of war, or what they are doing don't you think they would realize that 10:1 ratio?? Don't you think they would realize that they can't win a war if they all die out, because at the rate their going, they will all kill themselves.
Once again, they do not realize this because their governments, and religious leaders make everything out to be about one small piece of land when its really nothing more then prejidice.[/quote]
Sorry to say this dude, but you got a hellava warped view on the Arab world, bordering on extreme prejuidice. I'm real glad there arent any Arabs on this forum, otherwise we may have had a war on our hands. What you havce described is a sterotypical view protrayed by many Western media(especially American ) on the Arab world in general. Conditions which Palestinians live in have casued them become what they are today. A lot of this has to do with their leadership (especially the PA) however the recent Likud goverment hasnt made things much better. I dont know how many Arabs you know, or if you've tried to understand their culture and practices. Anyway you have your view and I have mine. No point discussing it further.
Davetlv, thanks for the history lesson, your historical facts are great, and informative, like your corrections on my post. Could do without the sarcasm, I would exepct you to know about your own country than I would...
Few points. Untill recently I thought that Sharon was fucking megalomaniac. His entire poilcy on the Palestinians were to seek out and destroy. Most attacks were unprovoked and countless homes have been rasied. I wasnt sure how exactly that would provide a peace plan. All he was doing was systematic genocide. Pretty sick stuff man. I felt that all he was doing was attacking the Palestinaains so he could provoke Hamas and other groups to come out. Smart but evil. His recent move to clear out the Gaza Strip has somewhat redemmed him, however I wonder how effective he will be given the oppostition by his own party. I believe that the UN is trying to condemn Israel as it believes that many of those attacks were unprovoked. Considering the entire world seems to be backing the Palestinians in many cases requires some consideration....
The conditions which the Palestinians live in is awful. Incursions and attacks have only strengtened the powers of certain millitant groups, (Hamas, fatah.... Brigades etc etc ) and only reinforce their extreme point of view. By killing of innocent children you only create more suicide bombers. Since Sharon has come into power, the situation has just gotten a lot fucking worse....
Agree with your views on creation of the Palestinian state.
Still think you should check out the Palestinian lands. There should be some way or the other.
Your point about Israeli mothers, holds true for Palestinian mothers too. Living in fear is not something mutually exclusive to the Israeli's.
[quote=mylexicon]We actually don't import a majority of our oil from OPEC
[url]http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html[/url]
People forget too that we don't buy much oil from Iraq because of our moral objection to Saddam's rule there. Futhermore, Iraq was sanctioned by the U.N. to produce a very small amount of oil because of their aggressive behavior towards Kuwait.
If the U.S. wanted oil from Iraq they didn't have to go to war, they could have simply lifted the sanctions. Which is why it is ridiculous that people propose the war on terror is about oil.
And as far a future oil production goes.......the U.S. and Mexico will be ridiculously wealthy in the next 25-50 years if oil demand stays high. The largest oil reserves in the world (yet discovered) lie in the Gulf of Mexico, and i do mean largest :twisted: We will own this fucking planet and eliminate the U.S. immigration problems at the same time, which is why every intelligent foreigner is either out taking underground readings for oil or is hell bent on making sure we discover alternative fuels.
You think the Prince of Brunei is rich.....just wait until the Chinese economy reaches 7-8 trillion and Microsoft start drilling for oil :lol: Its not about the environment at all. People have been playing the game of lowering global oil demand by all means necessary......consequently they believe everything we do is aimed at fillibustering their efforts.
And you just have to trust me on this Gulf of Mexico oil thing. My roommate's dad has been involved in the oil industry his entire life. He and a couple of his best friends started an oil company after they got canned from Coastal. He has a chart in his home office from 2001. It is a composite map of known fields and privately commisioned exploratory efforts. His company bought some information about known inaccessible oil fields and then he went in on an explatory commision with a bunch of other companies big and small. The map features green dots/blobs where the oil fields are located. The map is fucking speckled from the keys to South America. And since its privately financed and the reserves are in International waters, most of the info is kept on the hush until exploratory drilling is possible. Amazing stuff imo. :shock:[/quote]
I agree with everything you said, but I never said that we import a majority of our oil from OPEC. I was simply stating that OPEC controls the market. Only 4 of the countries (Canada, Mexico, U.K, and Angola) listed in the link you forwarded are not part of OPEC, the rest are...
[url]http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/opec.html[/url]
...that's 4 out of 11 countries that are not OPEC members. I agree with the fact that prices are high b/c of this:
[url]http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2000/july00/00-07-05.shtml[/url]
...so it's also my belief that the war in Iraq is not a war for oil. That's ridiculous. Once again, look at the price now. Why don't people realize that [b]we are at war[/b]!!! You can't negotiate with people who kill innocent women and children, and then claim that they're doing God's work. If Kerry were president you know what he'd do? Try to open up a dialogue with these fuckers. Dialogue shmialogue!! Yes, things are fucked up, yes, prison guards acted stupid, yes, the U.N. is caught up in the oil for food scandal (btw, the U.N. isn't worth a shit anyway)...does that mean we cut and run? I think we all know the answer to that. No, Bush isn't a great public speaker and he's rough around the edges, but he's the best man for the [b]most important job[/b] at this time. I don't know if he knew about 9/11 beforehand, I doubt it. I think he knew there was a general threat, but he took it about as seriously as the Clinton Adiministration. So if you blame Bush for prior knowledge, you must blame the previous adiministration(s) also.
Sorry Lexicon, I wasn't directing all that other stuff at you..just the OPEC part..the rest was general rambling... :oops:
Gokada
Yet another piece of history and a blow for the liberals. Looks like Clinton beat Bush to the punch (as if we didn't know that) now why the hell didn't Clinton do anything first if he knew this was such a high level threat.
[b]Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam[/b]
By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements. The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts. In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands. The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists. The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists. Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission. He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program." He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"