The world famous unmoderated thread

25 years ago or so, the American government placed the Mulhas in place instead of the Shah, the King of Iran back in the day. The reason? Iran denied to give resources to the Americans because , naturally, they were their own (You don't hear Russia asking for Alaska oil do u?).

So now the Mulhas, who have terrorized their own people for 25 years, thrown people in jail for political reasons till they rotted etc, are having their own way. I have been to Iran and Tehran, and I ve lived the police chase (with no provocation or reason, you can be chased, arrested etc, just for looking suspicious). So, the US goverment placed these dictators in place (which have fucked up the whole country making everyone follow ridiculous "islamic" rules - ridiculous because most of the people don't want them) and now they want to take them back? Sounds like a Sadam story to me. They kind of deserve the trouble they re getting now though for bringing those assholes in power in the first place.

Regarding Israel, I openly state that I have nothing against the Jews, as many of my good friends are, and I admire many of their scientists and their culture. However Israel was planted in the Middle East after WW2 so the Jews wouldn't be chased (the WW2 subject is another one.It's not like Jews were the only ones who got killed.10 million russians died, thats more than the jews).

Imagine how you would feel if I cam around and took your country (Assuming that you lived in the middle east for the sake of example) because Alexander the Great had once conquered the place, and I am Greek. Would that give me the right to forcefuly establish myself? I think not.

The politics of Israel (and not the jewish nation) is something I can't find reasons to agree with. Maybe I'm wrong, I dont know, but it sure looks as they re the ones who provoked the native people there, being the Palaistinians. And as the US "helps" many countries for something in return, Iran is a local superpower that might consider doing the same. The world is a free place and that's the beauty of it. It's the rules of the Jungle, and survivial of the fittest when it comes to world domination, as the US has proven ever since its founding, and the British, Portoguese and Roman empires before (countless of other empires too)

Regarding Nukes. Who's to say one nation is more responsible than another? Just because WE live in the western society doesn't make us right and them wrong. It's all a matter of point of view. Everyone's subjective reasons are reasonable ones. As was invading Iraq "reasonable" so for the Iranian Government (And not the iranians) invading Israel might be "reasonable". Besides, if two people want to fight, let em duke it out, what's it to the bystander if there's no benefit for him? So there obviously is a benefit.

No one has clean hands in this story anyway. Wars were wars since the dawn of time, and my point is that they exist between nations for better or for worse. America isn't a referee, and if they dont want people to dislike them, they should stop acting like one in marketing terms. Obviously they woulndt act as a referee if there wasnt something in for the US Goverment. And i dont blame them. Every leader looks after his own country, but please, dont take sides. The strongest will win anyway, and all empires come to an end someday. Taking a look at China I d put my money on them for the next 100 years. And i dont like their politics, but they have the power, and so they will march on.

 

Excuse me if some of this seems disjointed, I'm not going to quote everything that I'm responding to.

You and I have different points of view on how we look at current and past history, which is natural. Most of my European friends take the same stance as you which is to look at all actions through the motives/goals of America. I tend to look at things in terms of what the West has done overall. I'm sure you'll find that whatever the US is doing Europe is doing or has done the same thing to the same extent.

For example, limiting your claim that the US acted becasue it felt threatened isn't unique to the US. Kosovo was no threat to us....but I don't remember hearing Europeans talk about that when most of the resources (and deaths) were on America's shoulders. It was a threat to Europe...and Europe only got involved when it felt threatened. If you want to disagree with that policy then let's at least open up the horizon a bit and try to change something bigger than just one country. The US has never been threatened by invasion yet we have a lot of soldiers buried in Europe and all over the world. I'm not sure there's a moral high ground for Europe or anyone else on that position.

The investigation into the incident with American soldiers is happening now. They released a group of soldiers from a different investigation but the major investigation (two, actually) is in progress now. I doubt they'll get a slap on the wrist. The soldiers at Abu Graib got a lot more than that. If anything these soldiers will be made an example of to try to please Iraq. Obviously I can't and won't excuse their actions, but my response was in regards to your questing the label of "freedom fighter" and "terrorist." Using exceptions doesn't prove a rule. And yes, the massacre is a huge story in the US, of course.

Soliders hunting children? Again I think that's the exception, or at least I hope it is. I'm not sure one could use that as an outcome to a system unless a majority of the people going through that system do it.

Why isn't anyone in Chechnya? Simple....they're no threat to us or Europe. I'd love to see that philosophy changed but it doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. America will invade Iraq saying Islamic extremism needs to be fought but won't invade Chechnya. Europe will say that someone needed to be done in Kosovo but will also ignore Chechnya. It's a shifty position by Western nations where threats are magnified if they serve a purpose and ignored if they don't. That's a huge problem with the structure of the world today.

Well I disagree about Afghanistan. I think 9/11 showed the world what a group of people thousands of miles away can do with the time and resources to carry out a plan. If 9/11 didn't show you the threat then I'm not sure what will.

Yep, it is all politics and marketing. America ignores a million dead in North Korea from starvation and Europe ignored a million dead at the hands of Saddam. You should add racism into the mix as well.

Iran? The US installed the Shah and he was removed by the Iranian people. The leaders of that revolution are the ones who control the country now. Sorry, maybe I just didn't understand what you were saying.

Israel was created by the UN, not Israel. Again, Western nations railroaded the legislation through the UN, mostly framed by England and backed by the US. If you have a problem with it, then talk to the UN. But Israel is there now and it isn't going anywhere. The clock can't be turned back. Using the "how would you feel" arguement is always a doubled-edged sword. How would you feel if you have UN backing on your country and you were invaded by Arab nations from the first day your country was created, etc. It really doesn't get us anywhere.

The US is a superpower, not an empire.

Again, Iran getting nukes is a bad thing for the world in my opinion. You can talk about fairness all you want. It doesn't change the fact that a terrorist supporting government with nukes would pretty much suck. And as for Iran getting nukes for protection...that's like saying a bank robber has every right to take a hostage when the police arrive because it's natural for him to seek protection. On top of that you'd have to blame the police for the hostage since he wouldn't have taken a hostage had the police not come. I just don't buy the legitimacy of terrorists getting bigger weapons to protect themselves.

America will be disliked for a variety of reasons, some legit and some from just sheer insanity. I've seen what the Japanese and European press print about America and it's no wonder people over there have a negative opinion. It's what sells papers these days. Finding someone who is able to see through the BS and have a rational discussion is getting harder and harder. America has ills but it's not Nazi Germany.

Sorry, I missed a piece of your post so I'm going to back track a little...

The Iraq invasion was about economics? Which one? The one that's put us into debt? The one that's doubled the price of oil? Can you explain the economic motivation in real terms?

The Middle East is a rich place? I thought the problem of terrorism has deep roots in recruiting poor, uneducated people to fight for someone else's cause. Most of the money is consolidated into the hands of a few.

[font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]
[/font]
This is the biggest myth and the biggest success story for terrorism today. They have people convinced that they are fighting to reverse some kind of injustice. Terrorism first came to our attention in Palestine where there is a struggle. Every terrorist group since that time has somehow fallen under the romantic "unjustice" umbrella. A bomb designed to kill a child is turned into a cry for help from terrorists.

Osama is attacking dozens of nations because he wants to be the leader of a Taliban-type state from Morocco to Afghanistan. There is no struggle. There is no injustice he's trying to change. He's doing it in order to be king of his part of the world. He attacks Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabs, Kuwait, America, England, Spain, Bali (with Australia), Israel, et al. There is the newly discovered plot in Canada. Yet everyone points to America as if we're the only one's he's attacked, and usually it's becasue they want to limit the responsibility to America. He claims to support Palestine, yet after his announcements the Palestinian leaders quickly say "no thanks." And yet people still link Osama to the injustice in Palestine and injustice overall.

These men kill babies for a living, including their own children as human bombs. The word "justice" has no place in their description.

Maybe you didn't realize this when you wrote your post, but it dealt with America only which, again, is quite common for the Europeans that I know. I didn't see any mention at all of European responsibility with terrorism. I didn't see any mention about Europe's desire to get involved only when it suits them. I saw no comments about Europe's role in creating Israel or fighting in Afghanistan. I saw no mention of Europe supporting Saddam both before and right up to the war. I saw nothing about terrorist attacks in Europe.

It will take a worldwide effort to help reduce this problem and pointing fingers at one country alone isn't going to solve anything. It will increase BBC revenues, but that's about it. And last I checked you had Muslims in Europe demonstrating in London with signs supporting genocide, living in French slums and burning cars, killing Dutch authors, and issuing fatwas over Danish politics cartoons. Everyone has their own problems with radicals Muslims, including you. The more we divide ourselves the easier it is for them to carry out their plans.

 

Your point of view is the flip side of the same coin, so I won't disagree, and I do respect your views.

However, let me assure you that Khomeinih has placed instead of the Shah by the CIA at the time, although this is not the official line of the US government. I happen to know this for a fact. Please feel free to research this, as I don't wish to make a public statement regarding the source of this, but for someone like myself to be sure about something, it takes proof, not mere theory, so please trust me in saying that I m not talking out of my ass

EDIT: by the way, i must assure you that you are correct that the Shah was placed there by the US - actualy his father, Reza Shah was placed first (he was a high ranking general of sorts that rebelled against the then king, and got assisted by other super-powers including America at the time)who reformed the country and made it the powerhouse it was later on- The US kind of told Reza Shah to step down (he was eventualy posoined i think) due to his involvement with various international subjects that brought the neutrality of Iran in question in front of the eyes of other leaders (the official line) and make a "fresh" start with his son. His son was known for his limited competence in political issues and kind of a brat, which made his replacement by the Mulha's easier. Mosadegh was the man who refused the Americans the availability of resources to his country's benefit.

 

Oh please. They think they are engaged in a just war. It might be worth pointing out that America also bombed hospitals in Iraq, which surely contained children. So western soldiers kill children for a living too... wait, you call that "collateral damage", right?

I hear your point about blaming America instead of European countries, but the fact is that America is the prime aggressor and our countries limp along. Doesn't mean I or even many people in my country support the actions, in fact the 1 million+ people who bothered to march on London before the Iraq war in protest shows that an awful lot of people really didn't at all. Enough evidence has come to light that shows that there was no real reason to invade Iraq (see the downing street memo for an example). Why do it then, if not for commercial gain on the part of a small number of people? So you're seeing oil prices rise, who do you think is gaining there?

 

Hey there

Well if you want to simplify things to that extent then I could just say that cops kill people for a living. You could also say that there's no difference between Stalin and a British soldier in WWII...they both killed people for a living. My vet kills sick animals for a living...

I'm not going to argue the difference...it's mostly a debate tactic. I think the US in Iraq minimizes civilian casualties to the extent that they can whereas the terrorist maximize civilian casualties to the extent that they can. We can argue that the US should do more to prevent civilian deaths, which I will always agree with, but saying saying that you don't see a difference is disingenuous in my opinion.

America is either the aggressor or hero, depending on who they are fighting for. People will accept American "aggression" when it suits their purpose, and surely America will say they are the "hero" depending on who they are fighting for. It's hypocrisy on both sides.

I think there was a reason to invade Iraq, and that was to remove Saddam. I don't care what Bush said or Blair said or if Saddam had WMDs or not. I didn't vote for Bush and I don't support him. I think the world is phucked in the head when they say they will only act when it's a threat to them. Millions have died...tens of millions if you want to include that past 50 years with Mao, Stalin, etc, based on the "no threat to me" philosophy. Western nations are quick to support their own, but quick to ignore it when non-Western nations are under the rule of a dictator.

Think of it this way...Japan takes more heat for killing whales than North Korea does for killing it's own people. Millions of people will die this year from AIDs while the newspaper reports two people who are killed in Iraq. The focus of the world can be absolutely insane to me at times.

Saddam invaded or attacked countries, used chemical weapons on his own people, supported terrorism, etc. If you crossed him he would have someone take a female member of your family and rape her with a broken bottle while you watched. To say that there was no reason to invade Iraq is saying that those lives are less important than Western lives. If it were happening in France, or Canada, or Korea, we'd all be on board and fueling the jets without the need for any WMD debate at all.

I think if Saddam were the leader of some small African country then the US would have done nothing. If Saddam were the leader of a European country then Europe would have been involved in the invasion. The sides change back and forth and people argue who is just or right.

What the world needs is a better system to decide when force should be used. The UN is a political body, we can see that with Iraq, with Sudan, with Iran, etc. Countries don't vote to end genocide unless it helps them. The US can't go into countries alone, and other countries can't let genocide happen because it doesn't affect them. I was hoping that debate would start with Iraq, but it never did. America will look like a fool when it doesn't vote to stop genocide someone else, and Europe will look like a fool when it votes to send troops to be the "hero" the next time genocide causes a threat to them.

As for US force, it seems to boil down to whether or not the use of force by America benefitted you or not. If there is a threat to you (Korea, WWI, Kuwait, Somalia, etc) then the use of force is justified. If there is no threat to you then the use of force isn't justified. That's how it seems to play out.

I don't buy the "war for oil company profit" scenario. If the US government wanted to line the pockets of investors they could do so with a much smaller conspiracy and a much cheaper one too...just give money direct to the companies under the table. To think that they'd create an entire war just don't compute for me. There are much easier and cheaper ways to achieve that goal, especially if you believe that the people involved have no morals.

Thanks for your comments.

 

If you think invading Iraq was just for oil and that you are completely against it, then do me a BIG favor, stop driving your car. Don't buy any petroleum product whatsoever. If you believe that, then by buying Gasoline or any other petroleum products, then you are simply supporting the war.


Its like Al-Gore driving out Cannes in five big SUVs during the Cannes Film Festival supporting his anti-global warming movie "An Inconvenient Truth".

That's pure hypocrisy. So why not tell people you're against the war, that it was all for oil, by simply not driving your car.


And if it was for oil, than why am I paying $2.60/gallon for gas? Where is my cheap oil?

That has already begun. Just look at the Internet...

Those who blindly agree with the mass-media jargon or blindly disagree with the mass-media jargon based on "facts they read on the Internet" are one and the same, blind sheep.

 

I don't drive

I hear your point, though. It would be nigh on impossible for me to stop buying products manufactured with the aid of crude oil, as that includes just about every product imaginable, either directly or indirectly. It's a case of picking the battles as best you can - for one I'd never purchase a fuel-hungry car.

Sounds like you've found some pure fountain of truthful news - care to let us in on the secret? If not in the mass media/internet, where then? You've been out to Iraq yourself?

If you mean to point out that scepticism is healthy, I agree. If you mean to say that keeping up with the news at reputable news sources and making guarded judgements based upon what seems like relevant and accurate information makes someone a "sheep" I'd have to disagree.

 

Saddam invaded or attacked countries, used chemical weapons on his own people, supported terrorism, etc. If you crossed him he would have someone take a female member of your family and rape her with a broken bottle while you watched. To say that there was no reason to invade Iraq is saying that those lives are less important than Western lives. If it were happening in France, or Canada, or Korea, we'd all be on board and fueling the jets without the need for any WMD debate at all.

Sadam was planted and trained by the US , as was Bin Laden. He was "ok" to do as he did as long as it was to the US' benefit, but apparently wasn't any more. I don't see how that would make the US look good for taking out Sadam. They were the ones who brought this plague named Sadam in the first place, he killed thousands, and the americans killed some more and have camped in Iraq. At both ends, the Iraqi people are the ones who are fed up with the US. First for bringing them Sadam, and now this.

 

Well Bin Laden and the US had very little contact during their alliance in Afghanistan. That's one of those things where they were both fighting the same enemy and their involvement with each other seems to get strong and stronger as Osama became part of the public eye. Now people make it sound like he was being shuttled around in US planes and planning attacks on Russians from the Pentagon.

One can easily say that helping Afghanistan was a bad choice because of the realities it created today, but the alternative would have been to watch Russia take it over. You have to take into account the negatives of Russian success when deciding if the choice was correct at the time. Without that I don't think it's a fair debate.

About the US helping Saddam, that's often the response, and I'm not here to disagree, but I will point out agian that most Western nations did. How ironic was it that the US was bombing facilities built by Germany and France in Iraq. Talk about pawns... But again I tend to see things as Western Civilization and Muslims having problems and not just one country and another.

That debate can be had, but it doesn't address the current problem. In reality if you're angry about countries supporting Saddam then you should have welcomed the changed in the US policy and scorned the "status quo" of Europe who just wanted to keep Saddam in power because it was easiest for them ("no threat to us"). I think it was wrong for the US to help Saddam in the 80s but I also think it was wrong to not remove him now and correct that mistake. You can't claim that supporting him was wrong then removing him was wrong. I think it's one or the other.

Thanks again for your comments.

 

Thats my point from that earlier statement. Don't believe everything you hear, read, and see. All matters of the senses are just the tip of the iceberg from the whole truth. But this is just phylisophical stuff.

 

Assembler....I think things aren't as bad as they seem. I'm 32 and grew up in the 80s when the Cold War was still going on. Seemed pretty touch and go to me. We were living under the threat of global nuclear war. One mistake could have killed us all. Our parents had it worse in the 60s.

Terrorism is a threat, but it's not near the threat the Cold War was. It's all localized violence. Even if a nuclear attack were possible it would be peanuts compared to what the Russians could have done to the US. So, in some way you can think that the biggest threat today is a lot smaller than it was yesterday.

 

Not really. Back then. all you had to worry about was one single country. Nowadays you have to worry about one single person or a group of people that can make base in any other country without that country's knowledge and acquire WMDs and wreak havoc on civilized societies that can strike at any moment. We don't know about terrorists groups until they attack something, never beforhand..

 

Go Israel! Stop taking shit and just finish the fight that's been going on for centuries.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/13/D8IQTOQG0.html

If Iran and Syria step in, then US will have to step in.

 

The free west should let the world know that they are behind Israel for 100%! The weak attitude the world (west) has now against terrorist that terrorise Israel gives the wrong message.

Israel (and America) are the only country's that fight those people, and look how they have been treated.

 

The missus asked me a question last night while watching the news.

"Why did America rush in to Iraq when they didn't even launch a missile yet North Korea have launched one and threatened to send one to the states yet they do nothing. Are they afraid?" To which I replied, "What has North Korea got that the US would possibly want." You have to ask yourself WHY don't you.

Yakumo

 

Well that is exactly why N. Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear weapons ASAP, or already have. The way they (as well as the other 'rogue-nations' out there) see it is if you don't have a nuke, you get invaded, you get pushed around, but if you have a nuke, then you are untouchable like the US, Russia, China, India, etc.. That is why they are pursuing it and the US really can't stop them diplomatically.

War is inevitable and with things escelating in Israel vs. Lebanon, if Israel goes after Syria (because they can supply Hezbollah with weapons if they are cut out from Lebanon), Iran will get involved and start firing missles and if they have already, possibly fire a nuke. If that were to happen, then you basically have a World War because then the US would have to get involved and call up more reserve troops into active-duty, as well as other countries. Of course, if this were to happen then Israel would get blamed for starting it, when infact it was the Arabs. If diplomacy has yet to work with these people, then its clear what they want, they are religious zealots who want their way even if it takes a war. Actually, I shouldn't say people. It is the governments, groups of people who continously brainwash their citizens to keep them in absolute power and control. They don't want to go without a fight.

 

Just to get a few facts in here:

Bin Lauden was recruited into the Mujahadeen by the Pakistani ISI, their equivalent of the CIA. The Mujahadeen was created to fight the Soviet Invasion of Afganistan in 1978, the idea was to turn it into the Soviet version of South Vietnam, a conflict that would leech resources from the country (in this sense it worked, the Soviets ended up spending billions of dollars and losing thousands of people, and in less than a decade the USSR was no more.)

Bin Lauden's role in the begining was to secure finances from various sources, including fake charities, legitimate governments (Iran, Saudi Arabia) etc. But the main portion of money for the Mujahadeen came from opium poppies, an idea that came from our very own CIA.

So what happened was the Mujahadeen kicked out the Soviets and everyone claimed victory, but you can't just leave 100,000 maniac zealots armed with machine guns running around in ten different countries like that. Thus the Jihad spread to Chechenya, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.

The Taliban came from a group of Islamic students from religious schools along the Afgani/Pakistani border region (schools that are funded by rich Saudi wahabbist princes and oil men.) Thus after the Afgan/Soviet war they were able to take over in the power vaccum. (The near total abandonment of Afganistan by the west after the Afgan-Soviet war is called "The Great Betrayal" in Afgainistan. People don't forget shit like that.) Even now after the United States declared "Mission Accomplished," Afganistan is still ruled by warlords who have weapons left over from the 80s, not to mention any kind of armament they want via black markets in Pakistan, Yemen, etc. These are the kinds of places you can walk into a shop in a market place and walk out with Stinger missiles and RPGs (Rocket propelled gernades, not Role Playing Games Plus Afganistan rakes in over $200 billion a year from heroin and Opium sales. They've got the cash to get any kind of lethal weapon they want.

Then it boggles my mind when confronted with such a huge mess, that instead of trying to sort that mess out and catch the people who were actually involved in the 9-11 attacks, we invade Iraq instead. It's a war of opportunity, they've wanted to take down Saddam for a long time. Yeah oil may not be the whole reason, but it definetely is a major factor (say, 90% of the reason.)

Truth is nobody cared about Saddamn when he was gassing his own people (with our weapons and radar support,) or when he used germ bombs on Iran and the Kurds. He was our ally in those days, and only became a "madman" becasue the US government set him up that way.

Anyone remember that testimony before the first gulf war about how Iraqi soliders were dropping babies out of incubators? Total lie, the girl who testified before congress (I forget her name, I'm sure a google could find it out) was hired by a PR firm by the Kuwaiti Royal family. But that's the story that got the American public behind the war. Why else would be want to bomb someone who less than a year before was our ally?

So why instead of taking 125,000 troop and covering every inch of those mountains until we found Ossma Bin Lauden did we invade Iraq instead? Becasue of the oil? Partially. Just as important are the permanent US bases in the country that allows us to strike at any trouble spots in the whole region. Becasue when the oil curve peaks in six years whoever has control over that region gets to decide who lives and who dies.


There was more, but I'm at work and thus, have to get back to work.

 

"What has North Korea got that the US would possibly want."

Each situation is different and you cannot create one rule in which to judge or take action. Invading North Korea would pretty much take Seoul off the map and about 35,000 US troops on the border with them. You can add quite a few dead in Tokyo as well. Want to throw China into the mix as well? Now it's WWIII. It's not like the consequences are the same for every country in the world.

And if you think the reason is oil, well then I'm surprised you're not asking why Venezuela isn't flying an American flag right now. Was their oil in Bosnia or Somalia? The list of counter-evidence is endless.