Osama And The World
Nurot
Join Date: 2003-12-04 Member: 23932Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-12-04 Member: 23932Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/binladen.tape/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/...tape/index.html</a>So Osama is definately alive. Wonder how much of a role they will play in the world in the future or if its over and this is all talk in hood? I know they have the men needed but can and will they pull it off successfully? Did anyone see that tape about the American who was threatening to attack the US too?
Comments
When the response rymes its always good times.
<span style='font-size:2pt;line-height:100%'>Lamest response ever... Just joking FYI</span>
It's kind of bittersweet how he disassociated himself with backing Kerry (or even Bush) by basically saying "no matter what you do, you're screwed."
<!--QuoteBegin-Matthew L. Barre+Oct 29 2004, 11:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Matthew L. Barre @ Oct 29 2004, 11:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh and that American tape from 2 days ago Assam the American is it? He threatens an attack that will dwarf September 11, 2001 if Bush wins. His tape appears to have terrorist connections, but National Security cannot confirm the terrorsit ties authenticity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is kind of off topic: But can I get a link to the "Assam the American" story? I tried doing a search for it but I came up with rubbish...
Bah, it seems like an empty threat in order to get Bush reinstated.
Remember what Ralph Nader said in the election of 2000? He said we need to bring all of our troops stationed in europe back to the US and make our armies smaller, LOL, we would have been soooooo screwed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dr_1337 I believe that premise is wrong. If Nader had brought our troops back and made our army smaller, there is also a good chance that he would have improved relations with the middle east. If the had done that there is a good chance that Osama would have never attacked.
Just remember that fighting isn't the only way to prove your point. Theres a little thing called Diplomacy that really helps when your trying to convince people over to your way of life.
Just remember that fighting isn't the only way to prove your point. Theres a little thing called Diplomacy that really helps when your trying to convince people over to your way of life. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, didnt you listen to Bin Ladin - he justs wants to stop fighting and talk things over: with a lot of mutual respect and love from both sides, I'm sure we'll have peace by Christmas. Remember, Osama only fights because you guys are in Iraq.... Well because you guys were in Afghanistan..... well actually because you had some troops in Saudi Arabia.... AND you're helping those Zionist dogs.... and you supported Australia when it pacified the defection of East Timor from Indonesian tyranny.... and your not Muslim....
So its easy you see - you go to the debating table, you agree to change everything written above, and then you have peace. I nominate Nuketheplace as chief diplomat.
/me starts playing Wizard of Oz - Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Isnt it interesting how over every fanatics website in the world is plastered with how negotiation is not an option, only blood will purge our sins and generally how they are going to massacre us - and I'm told on a daily basis that we should be negotiating. How do you plan upon dragging them to the negotiation table? If you cant convince these guys that hacking the head of Mrs Hassan, an Iraqi-British citizen whose been working in Care humanitarian aid for the last 10 years in Iraq is a bad idea, how do you plan to convince them to stop attack us?
It's kind of bittersweet how he disassociated himself with backing Kerry (or even Bush) by basically saying "no matter what you do, you're screwed."
<!--QuoteBegin-Matthew L. Barre+Oct 29 2004, 11:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Matthew L. Barre @ Oct 29 2004, 11:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh and that American tape from 2 days ago Assam the American is it? He threatens an attack that will dwarf September 11, 2001 if Bush wins. His tape appears to have terrorist connections, but National Security cannot confirm the terrorsit ties authenticity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is kind of off topic: But can I get a link to the "Assam the American" story? I tried doing a search for it but I came up with rubbish... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's a crappy link, but it was all over the international news on cnn. This was just the first one I found, but here, I was spelling his name wrog too. <a href='http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=100264&list=/home.php' target='_blank'>http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_inter...&list=/home.php</a>
Osama: "He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers."
----------------
Secretary: "Mr Fry, your 2 o'clock magician is here."
Fry: "Believe it or not, I have more important things to do today than laugh and
clap my hands. Reschedule."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, why are you in Iraq? Or better, why didn't you stay in Iraq back in GW1? Back then, Saddam was considered an enemy of the muslims. If you had gotten rid of him back then..well, maybe you would actually have been able to install a functional government there...but..ohhhh I forgot, you wantet to keep him as counterweight against the ayatollahs......
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
well actually because you had some troops in Saudi Arabia....
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
had some troops? did I miss something? If so please inform me. Otherwhise...
Well, they are still there.....
It was promised that US troops would leave the gulf after Desert Storm. It was guaranteed.
Of yourse your puppy sheiks wanted it that way, but the people of Saudi Arabia are kind of pi**ed about the fact a foreing nation has stationed troops in their country. That could be misunderstood as occupation you know. Alongside with the ever present carrier task force since about 2 decades, the nuclear weapons on these carriers, the air patrols.... You would get pi**ed too if foreing fleets would operate some 50 miles away from your coast and install nuclear capabilites there. Ohhhh wait, that already happened once. Cuba crisis anyone? Did you like that? No? did you act? Yes?.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
AND you're helping those Zionist dogs....
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, you send the money that allowed the israelian hardliners to keep up their policy for so long. If you had cut the fundings, Israel would have been forced to retreat from palestina a decade ago....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
and you supported Australia when it pacified the defection of East Timor from Indonesian tyranny....
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess Bin Laden will directly adress the australian government in that matter <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
and your not Muslim....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I don't think he ever said that explicitly. He just alwasy talks about holy war and driving the il-fated out of their coutries and somesuch. Just like Bush and his crusade against terrorism......
Dear God in Heaven....we have a fundamentalist fanatic as head of the World...<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Why are we in Iraq? To ensure that A) Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction, B) Give the Iraqi people a shot at democracy, and hopeful encourage other nations in the area to do likewise (this is combined with fighting terrorism - nothing ruins your "America = Satan" then a whole country that would benefit from US brought things like peace and democracy) and C) Stable, reliable flow of oil. A is achieved, B is currently being fought for, and C is a hopeful. As for the previous Iraq war, at this time, its irrelevant. I have little time for the first Gulf War - I always thought it was a half finished job. American mistakes can and do fill volumes, but when talking about how terrorists deal with the US <b>now</b>, previous mistakes really mean nothing. Either way Osama and his band of freaks wouldnt have cared - its still Christian's vs Muslim's in their eyes, Iraq war then or now. The only difference would have been in popular support from the Shi'ites.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
had some troops? did I miss something? If so please inform me. Otherwhise...
Well, they are still there.....
It was promised that US troops would leave the gulf after Desert Storm. It was guaranteed.
Of yourse your puppy sheiks wanted it that way, but the people of Saudi Arabia are kind of pi**ed about the fact a foreing nation has stationed troops in their country. That could be misunderstood as occupation you know. Alongside with the ever present carrier task force since about 2 decades, the nuclear weapons on these carriers, the air patrols.... You would get pi**ed too if foreing fleets would operate some 50 miles away from your coast and install nuclear capabilites there. Ohhhh wait, that already happened once. Cuba crisis anyone? Did you like that? No? did you act? Yes?.....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. You missed it. The American military had/have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and one of Ladin's initial stated aims was of clearing the infidel of Saudi Arabia's holy soil. The US army base still stands in Saudi Arabia, they just werent allowed to use it as a command post for the Iraq war. The US and the Saudi's have a longstanding relationship, which is unique in that the Saudi's seem to cultivate anti-US sentiment, at the same time as being heavily involved with US politics. The people of Saudi Arabia crack up, not because they are being mistreated by the US, but merely because these Christian dogs are there. I seriously doubt they see it as an occupational force - they know the Royal Family is making all the calls.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hey, you send the money that allowed the israelian hardliners to keep up their policy for so long. If you had cut the fundings, Israel would have been forced to retreat from palestina a decade ago....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldnt be so sure. Underestimating Israeli military capabilities is something the world seems to make a habit out of. Most people are shocked when I tell them that the first two wars the Israeli's fought were completely off their own bat with no US funding/supplies. You are also mistaken in thinking that its the occupation (and I use that term very lightly) that is the cause of concern - the very existence of Israel is an affront to these fanatics..
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I guess Bin Laden will directly adress the australian government in that matter <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He has, thats how we know. He sent us a lovely little warning after blowing up 88 of our tourists - this is the beginning of payback for helping the East Timorese.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well I don't think he ever said that explicitly. He just alwasy talks about holy war and driving the il-fated out of their coutries and somesuch. Just like Bush and his crusade against terrorism......<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Holy war against the infidel - you do realise who the infidel is in that statement? You do also realise he has verses from the Koran that talk about what happens to those who refuse to submit to Allah in the course of this holy war? I do believe he has made it explicit multiple times that he hates us because he believes we are the enemies of Allah. The only non-enemies of Allah are Muslims.
Honestly, to make headway here you have to convince me that all the stuff he's said about slaughtering all Americans, butchering Jews, killing non-Muslims etc is either garbage the media has convinced me he said but he didnt, or he said it but didnt mean it.
A) First of, there are no WMD, nor were there any before the war. That one is kind of old don't you think?.
B) You know, these countries are not democratic neither are it people. They don't care for democracy. They also don't care if we have domocracy or not. They don't not belittle us because we are not govened by Pope and King anymore either....
Just go there and say "Hello my little muslims now you are a democracy" is not going to work. Bush is not Q you know?
C)Why do we have to fight for a stable flow of ressources? War is commonly accepted as last option of diplomacy. So when we have fear oil shortages, there must be a reason for it. The reason is our inability to maintain a peacefull relationship with these governments on whose ressources we depend. The reason for this conflict is our engagement in their politics and their leadership to ensure cheap oil for our economy and welfare. Foreing dominace and influence resolves in distrust and resistance. It is a simple rule that fits on every occasion. Think about the US indepence war. Why did you revolt? To become free of british political influence and taxiation. Im really puzzled why US citizens cannot understand the feelings of the muslim population about the US agenda in the gulf region.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yup. You missed it. The American military had/have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and one of Ladin's initial stated aims was of clearing the infidel of Saudi Arabia's holy soil. The US army base still stands in Saudi Arabia, they just werent allowed to use it as a command post for the Iraq war. The US and the Saudi's have a longstanding relationship, which is unique in that the Saudi's seem to cultivate anti-US sentiment, at the same time as being heavily involved with US politics. The people of Saudi Arabia crack up, not because they are being mistreated by the US, but merely because these Christian dogs are there. I seriously doubt they see it as an occupational force - they know the Royal Family is making all the calls<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well the last Info I had was that 100 of 200 US airplanes still remained in the Saud Arabian airbase, but im a bit short on time to confirm that right now.
However, the point is that the Troops stayed there in the first place. Just think about it as if you were affected. Lets say Saddam was Kanadian, and the Kanadians invaded Alaska. The US tropps are not fit to stop Saddam and his vile kanadians ( <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Sorry, just had to do that.... I like Kanada really... just joking!) marouding Alaska. The UN decides to intervene, and a coalition Force cosisting of mostly russian and chinese troops gather at airfields near New York, Wahington and Detroit. 500000 kommy chinese and russian soldiers within your borders.
Now, you have to pay so much money for this operation, that your economy is severely damaged and after the successful liberation of Alaska, your President tells you that 5000 chinese soldiers will stay in at New York, although they promised you they would leave after the war....Of course its the Presidents descision to keep them in the country, but just imagine, nobody actually wants this President anymore because he is corrupt and decadent and his familiy wastes billion of dollars a year for luxories, yet he's in charge because Putin wants him to be.... would be a nice world wouldn't it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wouldnt be so sure. Underestimating Israeli military capabilities is something the world seems to make a habit out of. Most people are shocked when I tell them that the first two wars the Israeli's fought were completely off their own bat with no US funding/supplies. You are also mistaken in thinking that its the occupation (and I use that term very lightly) that is the cause of concern - the very existence of Israel is an affront to these fanatics..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difference is that the first wars were fought agaisnt unprepared and badly trained enemies, and they had full su?pport od the whole Isralian population. Today, the support for the Hardliners consists mainly out of old militarists, militant settlers, and influental Jews from all over the world. Im not a friend of zeonistic conspiracy theories, don't get me wrong, but the many influental suppporters for Sharon live in the US for example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He has, thats how we know. He sent us a lovely little warning after blowing up 88 of our tourists - this is the beginning of payback for helping the East Timorese.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. That is a very effective tactic indeed. It worked very well in spain and other countries. I'm kind of courious how long the Japanese will stay firm.
Point is, it is not revenge of any kind. It is military caulation. Terroristc attacks against the population ignites fear and makes mommas keep their children at home. It shakes the foundation of every democracy and that is the people. As long as you do not realize this as what it is and label it with words like terrorism and cowardice, you will neither be able to find a peacepul solution, nor solve the problem by force.
This is a situation of military imbalance. If Bin Laden had missles and aircraft carriers in his disposal, he would not resort to carbombs. Only weapons create peace. If one side is not able to defend itself it will find other means of warfare. Peace is impossible in this situation, as the inferior force can not be clearly defeated and will reform and strike again sooner or later, while it never can do enough harm to severely cripple the supperior.
The advantage on behalf of the terroists is the fundametal weakness of democatic nations, or better the weakness of any democratically elected leader. The election and the people that elects him. So, the terroists target the people as their enemy is dependant on them.
Simple and effective. It will work with the US people too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Holy war against the infidel - you do realise who the infidel is in that statement? You do also realise he has verses from the Koran that talk about what happens to those who refuse to submit to Allah in the course of this holy war? I do believe he has made it explicit multiple times that he hates us because he believes we are the enemies of Allah. The only non-enemies of Allah are Muslims.
Honestly, to make headway here you have to convince me that all the stuff he's said about slaughtering all Americans, butchering Jews, killing non-Muslims etc is either garbage the media has convinced me he said but he didnt, or he said it but didnt mean it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush said America is leading a holy war against terrorism and all those that harbor them. He said he would attack any nation that supports Al Quaeda and will secure Americas interests no matter what it costs. How do you think that sounds to Muslim ears?
Besides, this is rhetoric. It is fundametal muslim rhetoric and it is meant to threaten you. Do you think he really means to go with a kitchen knife from house to house yust because you dont beleive in Allah?
When he said he will kill all americans attacking muslim nations setting foot on muslim soil, or when he said he will destroy america and all their allies beacsue their are evil and enemies of Allah, then he is telling the same kind of crap every warleader tells since the dawn of time. Even Priceboxers talk bull**** like that before the fight. Its propaganda dude.
That man is no fool. The problem is you do not realize this. That man just speaks the language of his radical followers. He pulls the right strings. I hardly believe he is a fanatic goon.
He is religious, yes. But he is also a rational thinker and extremely diziplined. His organisation and operations are extremely well planned and executed. That man was born rich and lived an easy live. Yet, he went to Afghanistan during Soviet occupation and fought 10 years in the mountains until he defeated the intruders. What does this tell us about him? do you think Gorgieboy Bush Junior would do something like this?
This man has a goal, and this goal is to free the islamic antions of foreing influence and give them the opportinity to form their own future and make their own oil prizes.
he does not give a s**t about what we believe, unless we keep it for us. Simple as that.
When he attacked Pentagon, he said that that operation was being developed so many freaking years.. And still they launched A ROCKET (not an airplane) or military aircraft into the area what was empty and under construction...
And now, he claims to attack more if G.W.Bush doesn't stop.
It is the plot against Mr. Bush. Somebody brought some proof that Bush had actually taken some loan from Osama and now Osama is destroying him. Bush is **** anyways, but I still don't care if Osama is alive or not. Is he real or not.
When he attacked Pentagon, he said that that operation was being developed so many freaking years.. And still they launched A ROCKET (not an airplane) or military aircraft into the area what was empty and under construction...
And now, he claims to attack more if G.W.Bush doesn't stop.
It is the plot against Mr. Bush. Somebody brought some proof that Bush had actually taken some loan from Osama and now Osama is destroying him. Bush is **** anyways, but I still don't care if Osama is alive or not. Is he real or not. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh?
I don't recall him saying anything about launching a rocket at the Pentagon.
Now wait....Bush owes Osama a loan....so that's why he's attacking us...?
This is a discussion forum....not a make stuff up then give no proof forum.
I guess he is referring to reports of eye whittnesses of the Pentagon strike and the statements of experts which examined the damadge on site. These reports indicate that it was actuallly no plane that crashed into the Pentagon.
Theres a movie clip that sums the stuff up. Nice watch, quite intresting.
<a href='http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main' target='_blank'>enjoy</a>
----to the modereators-----
please forgive me for the "advertising" on that page, it was the only working link I could find at this time.....
Remember what Ralph Nader said in the election of 2000? He said we need to bring all of our troops stationed in europe back to the US and make our armies smaller, LOL, we would have been soooooo screwed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So Isolationism is, politically-speaking, completely out of the question nowadays? Since when is agression the answer to anything?
Also; I can guarantee 9/11 would not have happened if Nader was the president. I can't say the same about Gore (Gore is a slug), but I can guarantee that if Bush was not in office we would be in a much safer place today.
Theres a movie clip that sums the stuff up. Nice watch, quite intresting.
<a href='http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main' target='_blank'>enjoy</a>
----to the modereators-----
please forgive me for the "advertising" on that page, it was the only working link I could find at this time..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh that stupid lie again.
Well he can do a simple search to find topics that have ended with it's disproval and a link to that wonderful snopes article.
You are being very optimistic in your assumptions, and it isnt as plain as you lay it out to be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To ensure that A) Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would you invade a country if you have no clue whether or not they have it, why would saddam jeopardize himself and his whole country, I think he's having too good fun down there <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> There are more obvious targets, sure I dont moan the loss of him, but the timing was wrong, I thought the war on terror took priority.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Isolationism is out of the question, yes. Please, I implore you, for the love of God dont abandon the world to the UN and the EU - you Americans may not be perfect, but anything is superior to those two. Isolationism is crazy when you have an international economy and you get your oil from overseas. Since when is agression not the answer to everything? "Please" may get you pretty far at the dining room table, but it didnt get the Polish anywhere, it didnt get the East Timorese anywhere, it didnt get Hungaria anywhere, it didnt get Kuwait anywhere, hell it didnt even get the US colonies anywhere. Unless anywhere means "occupied". Agression is completely necessary when the other side decides to use it - see 1939-45.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EU R TEH PWNZOR, THEY R PWNING AMARICANS! SUFT! It's not all the same situations though, you are taking biased examples without showing why they are linked, atleast not in details.
To requote myself: To ensure that A) Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction
That statement is exactly what happened. The US went into Iraq and ensured that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Everyone, even our leftwing friends, agree that that was good. What they are angry about is the fact that Bush told the world he was certain they were there.
I wasnt bothered about whether Bush was right or wrong about WMD - as far as I was concerned that was a side issue. Liberating Iraqi people alone should have been reason enough. Either way, Bush right or wrong, at the end of that war Saddam wasnt going to have WMD, we'd know he didnt have them, and we'd know he'd never try and get them again. It all turned out great in my eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->B) You know, these countries are not democratic neither are it people. They don't care for democracy. They also don't care if we have domocracy or not. They don't not belittle us because we are not govened by Pope and King anymore either....
Just go there and say "Hello my little muslims now you are a democracy" is not going to work. Bush is not Q you know?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why its a work in progess. That is what the fighting in Iraq is currently about. If the US wins, the Iraqi's will vote, and democracy will be on its oft rocky way. People say "I dont like democracy" - but when asked if they want to be able to voice their opinions and have a say in goverment, the answer is always a resounding yes. Democracy provides that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->C)Why do we have to fight for a stable flow of ressources? War is commonly accepted as last option of diplomacy. So when we have fear oil shortages, there must be a reason for it. The reason is our inability to maintain a peacefull relationship with these governments on whose ressources we depend. The reason for this conflict is our engagement in their politics and their leadership to ensure cheap oil for our economy and welfare. Foreing dominace and influence resolves in distrust and resistance. It is a simple rule that fits on every occasion. Think about the US indepence war. Why did you revolt? To become free of british political influence and taxiation. Im really puzzled why US citizens cannot understand the feelings of the muslim population about the US agenda in the gulf region. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to break it too you - but oil makes the world go round. It powers your military, it enables your farmers to maintain their current food output, it delivers your food to supermarkets, it transports your citizens, it delivers your mail, it powers your industries - it is 100% essential in every Western country. The reason we cant maintain peaceful relationships with these countries is partly to do with previous dealings with them, but partly because we disapprove of their military ambitions ie Kuwait. They are caught between wanting our money but resenting our military superiority. These weren't naturally happy and peaceloving folks before the dirty Americans came, they were the same as now, little dictatorships and theocracies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->well the last Info I had was that 100 of 200 US airplanes still remained in the Saud Arabian airbase, but im a bit short on time to confirm that right now.
However, the point is that the Troops stayed there in the first place. Just think about it as if you were affected. Lets say Saddam was Kanadian, and the Kanadians invaded Alaska. The US tropps are not fit to stop Saddam and his vile kanadians ( <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Sorry, just had to do that.... I like Kanada really... just joking!) marouding Alaska. The UN decides to intervene, and a coalition Force cosisting of mostly russian and chinese troops gather at airfields near New York, Wahington and Detroit. 500000 kommy chinese and russian soldiers within your borders.
Now, you have to pay so much money for this operation, that your economy is severely damaged and after the successful liberation of Alaska, your President tells you that 5000 chinese soldiers will stay in at New York, although they promised you they would leave after the war....Of course its the Presidents descision to keep them in the country, but just imagine, nobody actually wants this President anymore because he is corrupt and decadent and his familiy wastes billion of dollars a year for luxories, yet he's in charge because Putin wants him to be.... would be a nice world wouldn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting analogy - militaries of countries we (and I'm not American, I'm Australian) despise stationed against the will of the people. However the Americans didnt fight for their bases in Saudi Arabia, they didnt force themselves in. They pay money for it, and the Saudi Royal Family responds well to money. The people of Saudi Arabia never have and never will get a say in government - something else I'd like to see the US deal with. But later, further down the track, after Iraq is finished.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The difference is that the first wars were fought agaisnt unprepared and badly trained enemies, and they had full su?pport od the whole Isralian population. Today, the support for the Hardliners consists mainly out of old militarists, militant settlers, and influental Jews from all over the world. Im not a friend of zeonistic conspiracy theories, don't get me wrong, but the many influental suppporters for Sharon live in the US for example.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Israeli's had quality troops, there's no denying that, but they were vastly outnumbered, and definately out equipped. They didnt have planes, artillery or tanks - the Arabs had all three. Now the Israeli's are a nation where almost all males after a certain age have not just military training but also military experience, and a lot of fancy equipment, plus nukes to ensure that no other nation decides to interfere. Even without US support, they can hold on to as much of Palestine as they want. Support for Sharon's pullout from Gaza is pretty much widespread - but so is support of his wall to block out the Palestinians. Most of them dont live in settlements, so they're willing to just fall back behind the wall and leave those settlements to the Palestinians. But there is precious little sentiment around for the Palestinian's themselves - but having your friends blown up does sort generate negative feelings.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes. That is a very effective tactic indeed. It worked very well in spain and other countries. I'm kind of courious how long the Japanese will stay firm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Japanese have had the same political party in power for 50 years. The current leader is pretty popular and very firm in his support. Plus the Japanese are worried about the North Koreans, and look towards the US to take care of them. One or two journalists getting their heads lopped off isnt going to faze them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Point is, it is not revenge of any kind. It is military caulation. Terroristc attacks against the population ignites fear and makes mommas keep their children at home. It shakes the foundation of every democracy and that is the people. As long as you do not realize this as what it is and label it with words like terrorism and cowardice, you will neither be able to find a peacepul solution, nor solve the problem by force.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But they refuse to negotiate. It might be very effective - but its aims arent rational. Nor can Western democracies afford to grant any concessions - concessions gained through attacks on civilians merely provokes more attacks. If it worked the first time...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a situation of military imbalance. If Bin Laden had missles and aircraft carriers in his disposal, he would not resort to carbombs. Only weapons create peace. If one side is not able to defend itself it will find other means of warfare. Peace is impossible in this situation, as the inferior force can not be clearly defeated and will reform and strike again sooner or later, while it never can do enough harm to severely cripple the supperior.
The advantage on behalf of the terroists is the fundametal weakness of democatic nations, or better the weakness of any democratically elected leader. The election and the people that elects him. So, the terroists target the people as their enemy is dependant on them.
Simple and effective. It will work with the US people too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed - but what is it trying to achieve? These terrorists (or military strategists if you would rather I put it in that term) are not asking for things we can give. They have a few demands that can be met, with massive concession, but then they have other things that cant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush said America is leading a holy war against terrorism and all those that harbor them. He said he would attack any nation that supports Al Quaeda and will secure Americas interests no matter what it costs. How do you think that sounds to Muslim ears?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont think he's ever said holy war - he merely believes that God is on his side. There is a difference between believing God will help you and a holy war - because in Holy wars you go out attacking another religion. Bush isnt hunting muslims.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, this is rhetoric. It is fundametal muslim rhetoric and it is meant to threaten you. Do you think he really means to go with a kitchen knife from house to house yust because you dont beleive in Allah? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they could, yes. Its been done before. Religious based massacres are as old as the hills.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When he said he will kill all americans attacking muslim nations setting foot on muslim soil, or when he said he will destroy america and all their allies beacsue their are evil and enemies of Allah, then he is telling the same kind of crap every warleader tells since the dawn of time. Even Priceboxers talk bull**** like that before the fight. Its propaganda dude.
That man is no fool. The problem is you do not realize this. That man just speaks the language of his radical followers. He pulls the right strings. I hardly believe he is a fanatic goon.
He is religious, yes. But he is also a rational thinker and extremely diziplined. His organisation and operations are extremely well planned and executed. That man was born rich and lived an easy live. Yet, he went to Afghanistan during Soviet occupation and fought 10 years in the mountains until he defeated the intruders. What does this tell us about him? do you think Gorgieboy Bush Junior would do something like this?
This man has a goal, and this goal is to free the islamic antions of foreing influence and give them the opportinity to form their own future and make their own oil prizes.
he does not give a s**t about what we believe, unless we keep it for us. Simple as that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont believe Ladin is a fool - yet I do believe he asks too much from Western nations, and the method's he has used to attempt to extract them has made it impossible for us to even consider conceding. And even if we do concede, and leave the Middle East, then we merely abandon it to those Kings among Men running Iran, Syria, Jordan etc - we just abandon them to their fate of tyranny. Iraq was the start of the GMEI, and if it works those nations have a greater chance at peace and freedom. I think the West, for all its meddling over the years, owes it too the Middle East.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So Isolationism is, politically-speaking, completely out of the question nowadays? Since when is agression the answer to anything?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isolationism is out of the question, yes. Please, I implore you, for the love of God dont abandon the world to the UN and the EU - you Americans may not be perfect, but anything is superior to those two. Isolationism is crazy when you have an international economy and you get your oil from overseas. Since when is agression not the answer to everything? "Please" may get you pretty far at the dining room table, but it didnt get the Polish anywhere, it didnt get the East Timorese anywhere, it didnt get Hungaria anywhere, it didnt get Kuwait anywhere, hell it didnt even get the US colonies anywhere. Unless anywhere means "occupied". Agression is completely necessary when the other side decides to use it - see 1939-45.
EU R TEH PWNZOR, THEY R PWNING AMARICANS! SUFT! It's not all the same situations though, you are taking biased examples without showing why they are linked, atleast not in details.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EU FTLEWSE! I just dont like them, the same way they dont like Bush. I'm a religious conservative - so everything I like, the EU seems to dislike, everything I hate the EU thinks is awesome. The UN is just impotent and critically flawed as I see it. I'd rather that the EU was as impotent, but unfortunately it isnt <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are being very optimistic in your assumptions, and it isnt as plain as you lay it out to be.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably - very few things can be laid out plainly in a couple of paragraphs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why would you invade a country if you have no clue whether or not they have it, why would saddam jeopardize himself and his whole country, I think he's having too good fun down there <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> There are more obvious targets, sure I dont moan the loss of him, but the timing was wrong, I thought the war on terror took priority.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Bush + CIA + French intelligence + MI6 + German intelligence - Russian intelligence = we're pretty confident he has em. Confidently wrong <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. But either way, I knew that the Iraq war would turn up some concrete answers - so I was cheering. Saddam may have been having fun, but the pride and ego that comes with being a despot gets in the way. He claimed he didnt have any WMD when the squeeze was on - but who wouldnt? And even when he let the weapons inspectors in, he stuffed them around too. He looked and acted like he had em - but he didnt.
The Iraq war is part of the war on terror. Middle Eastern unrest is the primary cause of terrorism, and by taking over Iraq and turning it into a democracy, the Americans hope to transform the Middle East by example. Many people think this is a pipedream.
Isolationism is out of the question, yes. Please, I implore you, for the love of God dont abandon the world to the UN and the EU - you Americans may not be perfect, but anything is superior to those two. Isolationism is crazy when you have an international economy and you get your oil from overseas. Since when is agression not the answer to everything? "Please" may get you pretty far at the dining room table, but it didnt get the Polish anywhere, it didnt get the East Timorese anywhere, it didnt get Hungaria anywhere, it didnt get Kuwait anywhere, hell it didnt even get the US colonies anywhere. Unless anywhere means "occupied". Agression is completely necessary when the other side decides to use it - see 1939-45. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, this theory of isolationism involves de-insinuating ourselves rom the Middle Eastern oil market and drilling in the United States. Since this obviously couldn't last forever, developing new sources of power is key.
You're suggesting that if we don't keep ourselves involved in everyine else's business that we'll eventually become occupied? It was circumstances like that that the UN was created for. Even if we pull out of the UN (god knows Bush is getting there), they'd still block any aggressive invasions from...yeah..who, now? China?
It is not a matter of left or right wing to be angry about such misinformation. Bush forced the western world into a conflict based on false information. That is severe, extremely severe. He ignited fear in his people and in other countries governments and poulation, with the intention to support him in a war for profits.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's why its a work in progess. That is what the fighting in Iraq is currently about. If the US wins, the Iraqi's will vote, and democracy will be on its oft rocky way. People say "I dont like democracy" - but when asked if they want to be able to voice their opinions and have a say in goverment, the answer is always a resounding yes. Democracy provides that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure. they all want to vote. They all want to decide their government. Problem is, there are at least 3 major powers that want their <i>own</i> government in charge. What the US is trying to achieve is not going to work. Also, these people are not democratic in their inermost mind.
Take Germany for examle. After WW1, the Republic of Weimar was installed by the victorious nations. Constitusion and government were installed by foreing powers, and it was unstable, weak and unable to reform the nation. Until that date, Germany was a working monarchy. The monarchy was working because it reformed its own government and modernised the society. it was bureocratic, but it worked. People had food, work, medical wellfare and education.
It was later called a revolution from above. These improvements were made after the bloody revolt in France, when the european kingdoms realized that actions had to be taken to prevent uprisings in the people.
The german people were not democratic. The republic was known as "democracy without demotrats". We know the outcome of this.
US political agenda after the war was to achieve lasting peace in Europe. It did not succeed as we know. Keep in mind that Europ was consiting of western nations and yet it was futile to appease the continent. How do you intend to achieve this in a completely different society, where archaic traditions, customs and hatreds are kept alive until the present day? Since thousands of years, nobody was able to subdue these rivalites for longer than a few decades, and this only by force.
These different tribes will not be able to sustain their government without foreing suppport. Yet, it is this foreing influence that ignites the violence. They do not want us to belittle them. In addition to that, the Iraqi people do not trust the US military becasue they were disapointed once before in GW1.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hate to break it too you - but oil makes the world go round. It powers your military, it enables your farmers to maintain their current food output, it delivers your food to supermarkets, it transports your citizens, it delivers your mail, it powers your industries - it is 100% essential in every Western country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am aware of that. My point was not why we need oil but why we need to aquire it by means of war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason we cant maintain peaceful relationships with these countries is partly to do with previous dealings with them, but partly because we disapprove of their military ambitions ie Kuwait. They are caught between wanting our money but resenting our military superiority. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our previous dealings is kind of a vague description for completely desabilizing their governments, installing puppet leaders and igniting hostilities between the nations, do subdue their potential to reestablish political influence. people like Bin Laden not only see the US as their enemy , but also the governments installed or maintained by their support. The Saudis for example are known for supporting terrorists and fundamentalistic organisations. They do this to buy peace and prevent them from igniting unrest in Saudi arabia. The Saudis economy is severely hindered by the low oil prices and the enormous amount of money they spent in the Gulf War. In addition to that, the saudi monarchy wastes money like hell. (im not certain but I heard rumors about 30% of total state income....)
The outcome is that the peoples income (which is paid by the state to all citizens equally) has beed drastically reduced. So the opposition wants to stop the monarchy from burning money to fire their campsites and raise the oil prices. Which is somehow understandable, its their oil after all. The exact same situation lead to the revolt in Iran, and we will see this happen again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These weren't naturally happy and peaceloving folks before the dirty Americans came, they were the same as now, little dictatorships and theocracies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They were self deciding dictorships and theocracies. A Leadership cannot sustain itself without the peoples support for a long time. Maybe one brutal leader may conquer a nation and subdue the population, maybe he will form an empire, but when he dies, the empire will fall apart within the blink of an eye. Great states or empires are only held together by the poeples approval or brutal force. The latter will provoke resistance and revolt. It is inevitable. If foreing nations however support the leaders and implement governments that are not supported by the people, the natural rising disaproval will focus on the foreing power.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting analogy - militaries of countries we (and I'm not American, I'm Australian) despise stationed against the will of the people. However the Americans didnt fight for their bases in Saudi Arabia, they didnt force themselves in. They pay money for it, and the Saudi Royal Family responds well to money. The people of Saudi Arabia never have and never will get a say in government - something else I'd like to see the US deal with. But later, further down the track, after Iraq is finished.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had guessed you are US citizen, sorry on that, I would have made a nice analogy your country instead <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. (note: I don't want to say it is bad to be US citizen... just to make that clear....)
The point is, that the people of Saudi Arabia do not think so positively about the troops. Its not dramatically, as they are all well protected and nobody suffers from poverty. The Arabian people are pleased with their lives. There are no needs. However, the US troops are an insult for their national pride. (Quatar has the same problems with rising disaproval of the US bases mong the common people.)
This disaproval is cooking up since the troops did not leave after the Gulf War.
Besides, I don't know how much the US are actually paying for their bases in Saudi Arabia, but on the cortrary, the Shaiks paid billions of Dollars support for the Kuwait campaing in the 90s and have summed up enormous depts that cripple the economy until the present day. This lead to cuts on social welfare and on wages for Saudi Arabian citizens (which are all alike paid from the oil export income)
The Arabians are not living in poverty because of that, but they are a bit unwilling to sustain a monarchy that rather saves money on its people than raising the oil prizes, while building palaces in the desert for vacation.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The Israeli's had quality troops, there's no denying that, but they were vastly outnumbered, and definately out equipped. They didnt have planes, artillery or tanks - the Arabs had all three. Now the Israeli's are a nation where almost all males after a certain age have not just military training but also military experience, and a lot of fancy equipment, plus nukes to ensure that no other nation decides to interfere. Even without US support, they can hold on to as much of Palestine as they want. Support for Sharon's pullout from Gaza is pretty much widespread - but so is support of his wall to block out the Palestinians. Most of them dont live in settlements, so they're willing to just fall back behind the wall and leave those settlements to the Palestinians. But there is precious little sentiment around for the Palestinian's themselves - but having your friends blown up does sort generate negative feelings.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, why do you thinkthey have the money to maintain their armies. And their nuclear program. War not a matter of weapons, but of money. No money, no weapons. The constant warfare has massively harmed the israelin economy. Without foreing support and US investments, the Israelian Economy would not be able to sustain the military development. Also, who do you think the Israelis were able to aquire nuclear capabilities? Do you think it was helpful for the political situation to install a nuclear power in that region? This way, all that has been achieved is constant terroristic activities against Israel, as this is the only means of warfare now possible. Its about balance of power.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Japanese have had the same political party in power for 50 years. The current leader is pretty popular and very firm in his support. Plus the Japanese are worried about the North Koreans, and look towards the US to take care of them. One or two journalists getting their heads lopped off isnt going to faze them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I do not doubt that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
But they refuse to negotiate. It might be very effective - but its aims arent rational. Nor can Western democracies afford to grant any concessions - concessions gained through attacks on civilians merely provokes more attacks. If it worked the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do not negotiate as their goal is set. Complete political independence from western nations. The negotiations have failed a century ago, when colonial powers descided to make the Gulf to their own little gas station. Their aims are rational, as theiy target the most vulnerable spot of any demorytic leader. His people. If his people lives in fear and starts to falter, he is forced to act. Either he manages to control the situation, or he must alter his political course.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Agreed - but what is it trying to achieve? These terrorists (or military strategists if you would rather I put it in that term) are not asking for things we can give. They have a few demands that can be met, with massive concession, but then they have other things that cant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, maybe that is true. However, the costs would have not been so high if the politics would have set another course a long time ago. Now we are in a state of war against the muslim people. The aggression is growing from day to day. Within 4 years of Bush administration, this conflict has climaxed in a way nobody would have expected. And it will become worse.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont think he's ever said holy war - he merely believes that God is on his side. There is a difference between believing God will help you and a holy war - because in Holy wars you go out attacking another religion. Bush isnt hunting muslims.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes he actually did. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> really. It was shortly before the Afghanistan iirc. He used the term "crusade". Did quite upset the muslims.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If they could, yes. Its been done before. Religious based massacres are as old as the hills.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, some of them would. Some US citizens said "nuke em all" after 9/11.
Hatred materialises in many ways, one of them is religious zeal. In the particular case of Bin Laden: after the defeat of the Soviet troops, he did not start a campaing to kill all Soviets and started bombing Mokow. The tchechenian (?) rebels will stop their attacks too if Putin finally leaves their country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont believe Ladin is a fool - yet I do believe he asks too much from Western nations, and the method's he has used to attempt to extract them has made it impossible for us to even consider conceding. And even if we do concede, and leave the Middle East, then we merely abandon it to those Kings among Men running Iran, Syria, Jordan etc - we just abandon them to their fate of tyranny. Iraq was the start of the GMEI, and if it works those nations have a greater chance at peace and freedom. I think the West, for all its meddling over the years, owes it too the Middle East.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraqs tyranny is a direct result of western, in particular US, political involvement. Do you really believe that there is any other outcome possible? There is currently no political Leader in Iraq which is really an option for the US officials, as all Leaders which are actually supported by the people or at least a considerable part of the people want to end US control over Iraq. So what shall we do? install a democratically elected government, consiting of liberal (pro US) politicians which are elected out of a pool of liberal (pro US) politicians? How long will such a government last? Not long until US troops leave Iraq. conclusions? US troops will stay in Iraq, the attacks will go on and the country will not calm down.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Isolationism is out of the question, yes. Please, I implore you, for the love of God dont abandon the world to the UN and the EU - you Americans may not be perfect, but anything is superior to those two. Isolationism is crazy when you have an international economy and you get your oil from overseas. Since when is agression not the answer to everything? "Please" may get you pretty far at the dining room table, but it didnt get the Polish anywhere, it didnt get the East Timorese anywhere, it didnt get Hungaria anywhere, it didnt get Kuwait anywhere, hell it didnt even get the US colonies anywhere. Unless anywhere means "occupied". Agression is completely necessary when the other side decides to use it - see 1939-45.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I agree that agression solves every problem, as long as it is enough agression. However, this conclusion only works in convetional warfare. You cannot subdue terroristic warfare by force, as you do not see your oponent and therefore cannot aim your strikes properly. You only can react and clear the streets afterwards. Any use of force invariably will affect innocents, as the terrorits and their supporters hide among them. So how far do you want to go to win this war? The more force you use, teh more people will tend towards the terrorits and the peoples agression wil rise against you. You will only suppply your enemies with new followers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- see 1939-45.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to attend this specifically, as this case is the only one where actually US intervention resulted in lasting peace and democratic development.
As I wrote in a paragraph above, WW2 is the direct result of the political situation after WW1. Germany was declared as the agressor (which is not accurate) and was punished with reparation payments. Als, the new republic was installed by foreigners. Germany was economically weak after the war, and the payments for France and England further harmed its development. The great economic recession at that time did its part. The people were poor, many almost starving. Unemployment was as high as never before in history. Pensions were not paid. The government was unable to reform the country. The people were desperate and angry. Two political ideas and their leaders strived for followers. The kommunists and the national sozialists were the two options that promised a better future. It was eventually the national sozialists that succeeded, probably because they managed to unite their movement to a more organised front, as the various kommunistic parities always had interenal struggles. If it had not been the Nazis, there would have been a kommunistic revolution like in Russia, and the seoond World War would have been fought by Germany and the Sovjet Union against the western world.
The war however, was inevitable, because the conflict was not settled in WW1. The war was ended by outsiders, its was not descided.
The reasons for the successful democratisation of Germany after WW2 and the lasting peace was the new enemy behind the Iron Curtain. It was not due to successful politics. It was because Germany was needed as easternmost part of the NATO. It was needed as it was the largest western Nation ( population) on the continent. The US troops were accepted, because the people feared the Sovjets.
You mentioned the US colonies. I think you mean the British colonies before the declaration of independence. It is interesting that you shift your argumentation to the side of the "oppressed" at this point. The British were certain that their civilisation was superior to every body else on the world. Their empire justified that claim. However, their colony rebelled and achieved independence and...only roughly 200 years later, as status the leading industrial nation.
That is maybe exactly the same what will happen with the middle east.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What profits?
The reconstruction of Iraqs infrastructure is done by private hands. The contracts have been granted to US companies (Bush supporters) even before the war actually started.
Besides, you don't really think that the Iraqi people will have actual influence on their oil exports any time soon do you? The export prices will be set by their future government, which will in any case be dependent of and dictated by western influence.
The profit is a source of cheap oil. If Iraq sells it's oil significantly cheaper than the OPEC , they wil have to adjust their prizes to keep up. And the brokers open a bottle of champaing.
That is of course, if the Situation in Iraq is going to stabilize.