Oligo 1 Posted October 7, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 07 2002,14:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What goverment does not lie? What goverment has not done something hypocritic?<span id='postcolor'> Good point. All governments are full of wankers. Why? Because in order to get to governments, you have to be a power-hungry bastard willing to sacrifice your whole life for the quest for power. Therefore, Dubya and his cronies are no better than Saddam and his cronies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted October 7, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Oct. 07 2002,13:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 07 2002,14:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What goverment does not lie? What goverment has not done something hypocritic?<span id='postcolor'> Good point. All governments are full of wankers. Why? Because in order to get to governments, you have to be a power-hungry bastard willing to sacrifice your whole life for the quest for power. Therefore, Dubya and his cronies are no better than Saddam and his cronies.<span id='postcolor'> Well that's a black and white world really isn't it, fortunately it's not like that and things are more a "big bad" or "little bad" kind of deal. While not being the biggest fan of Mr. Bush (other than his handling of 911) I would certainly take umbrage with any kind of generalisation that stands Mr. Bush alongside Saddam Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CosmicCastaway 0 Posted October 7, 2002 Of course Hussein hasn't made moves to attack any other countries in the past few months, so in that respect perhaps we can place him higher up the moral ladder? Note: (Obviously we can't as he's done reprehensible things in the past, but I'm just making a point) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted October 7, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ Oct. 07 2002,13:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, that is the stratigic oil reserve that you are thinking of. This is oil that has already been tapped and is just sitting underground in crude form. The government sets it aside to use in case of a major armed conflict. The untapped oil reserves in Alaska are quite vast, especially in ANWR area.<span id='postcolor'> Official numbers of oil production and reserves from 1995. Very interesting is table 2; the US has already used ~2/3 of its original oil reserves. Very much, compared to 1/5 - 1/3 in the other countries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloney 0 Posted October 7, 2002 Sorry about the Euros comment guys. Didn't mean it. BTW Good to see you back 11B. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted October 7, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Oct. 07 2002,11:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Use your Head TEX!! It said that Israel is in side the US government! It meant by having the US go on the offense it helped the Israel go on the own war against the Palestines! Are you so gulible to believe the press?<span id='postcolor'> What makes your sources any more valid than my sources? I'd say mine have the edge on you because they don't go in for idiotic conspiracy-mongering. Why would Israel benefit from the US attacking Iraq? Last time it happened, Israel got attacked by Scuds, but was forced to bite its tongue to keep the coalition intact. Why would they want to repeat that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supah 0 Posted October 7, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Oct. 07 2002,11:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Use your Head TEX!! It said that Israel is in side the US government! It meant by having the US go on the offense it helped the Israel go on the own war against the Palestines! Are you so gulible to believe the press?<span id='postcolor'> I sure am .... because your standpoint reminds me off people who claim that every president since carter (and him too) has been an alien in some sort of suit. I mean come on, sure jewish americans how some power of US politics through campaign contributions but the mossad ISNT running the show. I mean even Enron and microsoft pay politicians campaign contributions .... is Bill Gates the mastermind behind the war on terror? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted October 7, 2002 Come back David Icke all is forgiven Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chill 0 Posted October 7, 2002 Doh!!! If the USA attacks Iraq it takes the heat of Israel. While the USA is on its mission to free the world of terrorism the Israeli's are their mission to free the Mid East of Palestinians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted October 7, 2002 *hands Chill a tinfoil hat* Put it to good use! World Politics as I see it: No matter how half baked our crazy a comment/concept might seem, if you search even a little, you'll likely find ways to support it. Does it mean that it's true? Nope! Does it mean that it's false because it's flakey? Also no! That's the problem with conspiracy theories... it's so damn easy to make them seem rational! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted October 8, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Oct. 07 2002,16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's the problem with conspiracy theories... Â it's so damn easy to make them seem rational!<span id='postcolor'> Of course, it also helps to be at least slightly delusional... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SirLoins 0 Posted October 8, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oligo Posted: Oct. 07 2002,08:27 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 07 2002,04:37) The United States could double it's land mass. No you couldn't. There are (at least) two reasons for this: 1. You're not the only one who has enough nukes to blow the whole world up. 2. The tolerance of your public to the attrition of occupation is minimal. -------------- <span id='postcolor'> Oligo, read my post again. Did you really take me seriously? The tolerance of our attrition of occupation is zero. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joltan 0 Posted October 8, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Oct. 08 2002,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">is Bill Gates the mastermind behind the war on terror?<span id='postcolor'> Of course, I'm sure Sadam is using a pirate copy of MS DOS 3.3 - M$ never forgets, never forgives! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bogo 0 Posted October 8, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Oct. 08 2002,13:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Oct. 08 2002,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">is Bill Gates the mastermind behind the war on terror?<span id='postcolor'> Of course, I'm sure Sadam is using a pirate copy of MS DOS 3.3 - M$ never forgets, never forgives! <span id='postcolor'> Ahh there is the reason why Bush whant's to attak. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sam Samson 0 Posted October 8, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 07 2002,04:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sam, didn't you realize as soon as you mentioned oil, it would be the topic of this thread. ...<span id='postcolor'> sirloins: you're right. shoulda known. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">therefore dubya and his cronies are not any better than Saddam and his cronies. <span id='postcolor'> oligo: aah. always good for some bash-bush hatemongering. bush has a yale (or stanford) mba. what do you have? he is also a yale skull and bones member. dunno how much you know about that fraternity. but it's exclusive. members vote only 15 new ones in every year out of all of yale, and only those who seem to stick out in some positive way. it is very old. the bonesmen have produced an extraordinary large amount of leaders, including 3 presidents. seems those who know bush see something in him that oglers like you don't get from several thousand miles away. ad hoc he's not very articulate. I agree on that. but then, we never heard YOU give a talk either. chill! so you are the nazi who accidentally got deep-frozen in 1941 and recently escaped from his cooler. chill-man, the REAL problem is the walla-spy ring that rules the world through the UN out of geneva! the israeli spy thing didn't work. you found out about them. they can't influence you. they are done for. but you didn't find out about the walla intrigue. their fearsome warcry is "walla walla!" better duck when you hear it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sam Samson 0 Posted October 8, 2002 back to topic had hoped somebody would pick up on the first couple of thoughts I threw in. about the israelis agreeing with jordanians about jordan's incorporation of iraqi territory. folks those two talking like that..., that's nothing less than revolutionary! figure: if israel and jordan are agreeing on enlarging jordan all the way to the tigris river, that could rapidly solve the israeli-palestinian question. provided arafat is substituted. I for one think jordan's government is probably the most benevolent among the arab governments. for iraqi sunni arabs to be ruled by jordan would be fantastic. maybe somebody is talking to iran about the shiite part of iraq... if iran were allowed to incorporate the south, that might ease the aggressive stance iran had towards the US (and the rest of the world) for the last 23 years. the northern iraqi kurds could declare their republic of kurdistan. dunno if turkey would like that though. whaddayathink? (just don't feed me any baloneyous flamey oneliners. have mercy with an old man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bogo 0 Posted October 8, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 08 2002,20:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">back to topic had hoped somebody would pick up on the first couple of thoughts I threw in. about the israelis agreeing with jordanians about jordan's incorporation of iraqi territory. folks those two talking like that..., that's nothing less than revolutionary! figure: if israel and jordan are agreeing on enlarging jordan all the way to the tigris river, that could rapidly solve the israeli-palestinian question. provided arafat is substituted. I for one think jordan's government is probably the most benevolent among the arab governments. for iraqi sunni arabs to be ruled by jordan would be fantastic. maybe somebody is talking to iran about the shiite part of iraq... if iran were allowed to incorporate the south, that might ease the aggressive stance iran had towards the US (and the rest of the world) for the last 23 years. the northern iraqi kurds could declare their republic of kurdistan. dunno if turkey would like that though. whaddayathink? (just don't feed me any baloneyous flamey oneliners. have mercy with an old man. <span id='postcolor'> Sow you whant to split a country that has existit for thousands of years because the Israeli and palestinian issue. I got better idea why don't you move the israelis to us and give them a state that will solve the prob wouldent. And by the way do you have a link for the Israeli and Jordan issue? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted October 8, 2002 We have a middle east thread, unless I'm missing something this thread now contains middle east discussions which should go in the middle east thread? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted October 8, 2002 fire away Placebo. This thread certainly seems to be heading that way Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted October 8, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ Oct. 08 2002,23:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sow you whant to split a country that has existit for thousands of years because the Israeli and palestinian issue.<span id='postcolor'> "Iraq always has been difficult to manage and govern. Hastily glued together by Britain in the 1920s to serve its imperial interests, it was placed under the Hashemite monarchy, brought from nearby Hijaz (today's Saudi Arabia), which lacked public legitimacy because of its close ties with colonial Britain and its narrow social base of support." Thousands of years (give or take thousands of years) Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted October 9, 2002 Iraq is a country without a unifying identity. Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the south, Shiites in the area near the Iranian border. Without Saddam Hussein and his iron grip, the country probably would have fragmented by now, either creating independent states based on ethnicity, or gobbled up by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, respectively, to take advantage of the oil reserves in the area. To be very clear, Iraq is Saddam Hussein, and without him or a nation-building effort, Iraq will most likely cease to exist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bogo 0 Posted October 9, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Oct. 09 2002,03:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is a country without a unifying identity. Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the south, Shiites in the area near the Iranian border. Without Saddam Hussein and his iron grip, the country probably would have fragmented by now, either creating independent states based on ethnicity, or gobbled up by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, respectively, to take advantage of the oil reserves in the area. To be very clear, Iraq is Saddam Hussein, and without him or a nation-building effort, Iraq will most likely cease to exist.<span id='postcolor'> I am almost 99% shure that the iraqie people don't share your view on that well maybe the kurds. But the kurds have always whant it atonomy from the turks, iranians, iraqs and jordan. Let's not forget who is Saddam Husein he diden't came to power by being alected , he came to power by using dirty triks. I have spoken actually with some iraqies on the matter of iraq will be split if saddam isen't there and non share the view of the americans. All the supresing that has been done in iraq is manly done because of Saddam Hussein. And i hope you remmeber the babylon time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bogo 0 Posted October 9, 2002 Look what i found Jordan denies an agreement with Israel permitting the Israeli planes to attack Iraq through Jordanian airspace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sam Samson 0 Posted October 10, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ Oct. 09 2002,23:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look what i found Jordan denies an agreement with Israel permitting the Israeli planes to attack Iraq through Jordanian airspace<span id='postcolor'> from arabnews.com! well, bogo what do you think you will hear from israel when you ask whether its spec ops are operating in western iraq? or when you ask certain nations in the region: "do you plan on dismantling iraq?" you know what they'll say? whaddayathink? they'll put their hand on your sholder, look at you intently, and then they'll lie through their teeth. I don't see anything wrong with working on iraq, if it serves peace and stability in the region, which it probably will. (iraq changed a lot all by itself in those thousands and thousands of years since 1925.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sam Samson 0 Posted October 12, 2002 I read france, russia and china all struck lucrative billion $ oil deals with saddam for the time when the sanctions are lifted. all 3 are permanent, veto-powered members of the UN security council. F and R are already doing brisk business under the food-for-oil program. hmmm. no wonder they all gripe so loud about the robust UN resolution bush wants. has nothing to do with peace or concern for the people of iraq. they want cheap oil! a war would only disrupt the supply. imagine the US goes it alone, installs a US-friendly regime and engages in nation building? imagine this new government then tells F, RUS an china: sorry guys, deal's up. we're doin' business with the US now. awful, ain't it? no wonder folks are bashing bush and his bad, bad, wicked oil-biz veep. imagine also this new iraqi government would tell the "martyrs": sorry, we're through funding you guys. and would make peace with israel? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites