PDA

View Full Version : just wondered what everyone thought !



mac-hfd-eng
27 Jul 06,, 19:42
great yet more conflict in the middle east ! And the international stance on this " lets point the finger at everyone else apart from ourselves " is it not time that the U.N and the rest of the worlds goverments back each other and force them to sit down at the table and sort it out ..... Well no it isn't .
But WHY is this the case .... Maybe that our civil servents and goverment ministers are marching to a differnt tune .... one set out in the middle east !
But isn't that a conflict of interests !!!! wouldn't happen if you worked for a company ! And if you did , then you should be sacked !
As a child i was told " two wrongs don't not make a right ! "
i do beleive in helping foreign nations out ... but it seems to me that we help out only because we want something in return .... And it most of the case's it isn't peace ! and really IT ISN'T PEACE !
we or they may pretend it's peace as we're selling them arms through the back door ! and this has been proved time and time again !
it make's me sad to see what is happening at the moment ...
but as a white man in britain i might be preceived as a millitant or right wing ,
why because i speak up and say "its about time for a real change and not a change that a snide goverment spin doctor indian giver promise's but never delivers "
But some of you will will say "but their hands are tired , there's nothing they can do ! "
WHY
is it because arming two nations for profit and then standing back to watch them kill each other is more profitable.
what a great world we live in ! and what great people that we are that sit back and let them get on with it . will someone tell me is appeasement worth it ! i don't think so .... people will argue that all that i have written here is crap . you have the right to say this but can you really justfy yourself if there's someting in it for YOU !
politics should be run for the people , it's us thats put you there ! potitics should not be there just to help big business strive to make buck over the common people ! And no im not a idealist but justfied in thinking that its wrong , And that beacuse IT IS WRONG !
as voter's we should put pressure on our sennetor's or mp's or whomever that represents you to make a change ! and a real change for a real good ! 2000 year's of hate should be put to an end and as people we should act grown up and not as spoiled children !!!

but this won't make a difference .... because with arrogance grows complacancy !

yours

mac

highsea
27 Jul 06,, 20:47
Drugs are bad, mac.

m'kay?

Tronic
27 Jul 06,, 21:07
lol... Mac.. that is a lot of gibbrish... and you seem like an annoyed person... you live in Britain... sit back, relax, enjoy life... if another 7/7 occurs.. back your country and go chase the terrorist muthafuk@#s... and one day, the world will be a better place to live in...

TopHatter
27 Jul 06,, 21:09
Drugs are bad, mac.

m'kay?
*sigh* :rolleyes:

I've been saying that for years.

Ray
27 Jul 06,, 22:40
Mac,

Thanks for that clarion call.

You woke me up from my reverie.

I am off to find my horse and then....


So through the night rode Paul Revere (that's me);
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,---
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

I am still riding from country to country with your mnessage!

mac-hfd-eng
27 Jul 06,, 23:42
drugs, me never ! the other solution is . come people lets get the nukes out and end this ...... sounds like noah doesn't ....... the only trouble here is that all the people that should get nuked can afford bunker's .... oh well in a ideal world ..... one day !!!! lets hope ! cos it can't go on like this without someting going bang !

mac-hfd-eng
27 Jul 06,, 23:46
oh one thing tronic which terrorist's are we talking bout here ..... cos i see only a hand full .. two to that come to mind is bush and the other is blair ! and thats what i call terrorism !

Parihaka
27 Jul 06,, 23:56
*sigh* :rolleyes:

I've been saying that for years.
No NO dammit, it's not true! They just amplify whatever traits you have already. His naturally simplistic nature is merely intensified by his admittedly overenthusiastic indulgence.

mac-hfd-eng
27 Jul 06,, 23:57
yes drugs are bad highsea ...... so is lying and being so connected to the bin larden family so much so thay gave bush the capital for his 1st business and crazy just look at him !!!!! wait am i getting crazy confussed mixed up with thick as f..k ..... u tell me ! we can see it ! doesn't take a blind man ! oopsss thats sarcasum !!! don't trouble yerself you wouldn't understand DUDE !

TopHatter
28 Jul 06,, 02:14
yes drugs are bad highsea ...... so is lying and being so connected to the bin larden family so much so thay gave bush the capital for his 1st business and crazy just look at him !!!!! wait am i getting crazy confussed mixed up with thick as f..k ..... u tell me ! we can see it ! doesn't take a blind man ! oopsss thats sarcasum !!! don't trouble yerself you wouldn't understand DUDE !

mac-hfd-eng, your time here is short I'm afraid.

Parihaka
28 Jul 06,, 02:18
mac-hfd-eng, your time here is short I'm afraid.
I doubt even 2d wants this one

Tronic
28 Jul 06,, 02:25
oh one thing tronic which terrorist's are we talking bout here ..... cos i see only a hand full .. two to that come to mind is bush and the other is blair ! and thats what i call terrorism !
Terrorists are those who blow up civillians to shreds disregarding human life... If everyone was to just sit there and do nothing, then events like 9/11, 7/7, 7/11, would become an everyday thing... as for Bush and Blair.. it is called fighting today for a better tomorrow... once the terrorists are stopped and disabled, everyone can go home happy and not worried about a plane ramming into a building or the train which you are travelling in blowing up... sadly, fighting terrorism requires great willpower and determination, if the Americans just leave today (like the opposition parties in America are suggesting) then I wonder how long it would be until another 9/11 occurs...

ZFBoxcar
28 Jul 06,, 02:26
mac-hfd-eng, your time here is short I'm afraid.


Nooo he's hillarious, can't we keep him? Pleeease? :tongue:

Kansas Bear
28 Jul 06,, 02:51
Nooo he's hillarious, can't we keep him? Pleeease? :tongue:


Only if you promise to feed and water him....................


Sorry, I couldn't resist..... :biggrin:

troung
28 Jul 06,, 03:07
What is with the moon bat invasion...

Ray
28 Jul 06,, 05:04
Mac,

You are still here?

You deserve your nose bag and you should be watered!

mac-hfd-eng
28 Jul 06,, 09:13
oh please people ! who do you think armed the like's of the talliban and saddam in the place ...

mac-hfd-eng
28 Jul 06,, 09:18
opps in the 1st place that was ment to be ! but the question is still there ..
any takers ... our meddling has got us here ! thank our goverments for this ..
are they to be trusted .... great gung ho politics and short sightedness always great for a debate !

mac-hfd-eng
28 Jul 06,, 10:55
and please don't get me wrong . i watched with great horror sadness at what happened in new york, then i was shocked and sickened at what hapeened in london ! im scared to death what might happen next ! and now what happening in the middle east is harsh on both sides . innocent everyday people that die everyday and who knows you could be next , i could be next !and for what ! isn't time to put the arms away and try and make some kind of peace ! but the sad thing is it wont happen , not in our life time . i wish it would but there has been some unfair and underhand practices done ON BOTH SIDES and people don't forget ! "once bitten twice shy " .
And who really listens to the U.N .... when we went to war with Iraq . we were told that it was cos of the WOMD ... both the U.S and G.B said that they had intel .cos WE them the tech before hand ! don't get me wrong . i thought then and i still think now Saadam is madder than a barrell full of monkeys ! And Bin larden is a nutter,and yes i hope they do get him and make him go to TRIAL !if thats possible ! but lets not fool ourselfs we are not innocent either, And haven't been for quite a long time through underhandness, AND Why should we be trusted after all, in a lot of case's we armed these nutter's for are own personal complicity , And the once trusted dog has turned around and bitten us in the ass !

i'm just a everyday guy who's scared shittless at the thought " WHAT NEXT "
and does My family and friends have to suffer because of the lies and deciet of power hungry and selfish men, Men who pretend to be working for us but really out for thier own gain ! Its about time we grow up and work together and not against each other ! i could be wrong but why would millions and millions of people march around the world for the same thing's im saying here if i was wrong ! "2 WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT "

Tronic
28 Jul 06,, 12:48
and please don't get me wrong . i watched with great horror sadness at what happened in new york, then i was shocked and sickened at what hapeened in london ! im scared to death what might happen next ! and now what happening in the middle east is harsh on both sides . innocent everyday people that die everyday and who knows you could be next , i could be next !and for what ! isn't time to put the arms away and try and make some kind of peace ! but the sad thing is it wont happen , not in our life time . i wish it would but there has been some unfair and underhand practices done ON BOTH SIDES and people don't forget ! "once bitten twice shy " .
peace can only occur when terrorists are wiped out, because if we don't wipe them out, they're going to keep attacking OUR cities and killing OUR people...


And who really listens to the U.N .... when we went to war with Iraq . we were told that it was cos of the WOMD ... both the U.S and G.B said that they had intel .cos WE them the tech before hand ! don't get me wrong . i thought then and i still think now Saadam is madder than a barrell full of monkeys ! And Bin larden is a nutter,and yes i hope they do get him and make him go to TRIAL !if thats possible ! but lets not fool ourselfs we are not innocent either, And haven't been for quite a long time through underhandness, AND Why should we be trusted after all, in a lot of case's we armed these nutter's for are own personal complicity , And the once trusted dog has turned around and bitten us in the ass !
yes... the dog has bitten its own master... so now, take the dog out because you can't just abandon that dog, it will keep on coming when you have your back turned and bit you in the ass over and over again... so the best thing to do would be to put away this infested dog and not to arm any more extremist dogs...


i'm just a everyday guy who's scared shittless at the thought " WHAT NEXT "
and does My family and friends have to suffer because of the lies and deciet of power hungry and selfish men, Men who pretend to be working for us but really out for thier own gain ! Its about time we grow up and work together and not against each other ! i could be wrong but why would millions and millions of people march around the world for the same thing's im saying here if i was wrong ! "2 WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT "

dude... your family and freinds??? Think about all the families that were ruined during the terrorist attacks... and if these terrorists are not put down, then more families will be ruined, we don't want that... do we?

TopHatter
28 Jul 06,, 14:08
Nooo he's hillarious, can't we keep him? Pleeease? :tongue:


Only if you promise to feed and water him....................
Sorry, I couldn't resist..... :biggrin:
He lives for now. Just try to be polite.

2 words mac-hfd-eng: Spelling and Capitalization.



God I love my job...

mac-hfd-eng
28 Jul 06,, 14:26
a terrorist is like a 7 headed dragon, cut one head off and yet another appears,
we don't need to make these extreamistists into martyrs, that's just giving them a helping hand. something diffrent need to be done, And justice should
not be served out by some soilder at the end a of a barrell, they need to be captured ALIVE, and some kind of U.N court should judge them, not just one or 2 western countries, death is such a easy way out for these people and once again we would be playing into there hands, but also our dodgy international policies and the people that dream them up and implement them should be looked at very closely, cos we suffer cos of this, it's not fair and its not right!

mac-hfd-eng
28 Jul 06,, 14:28
the spelling may not be right but the argument is just ! take the gung-ho spectacles and read the writting on the wall ... or is that wake up and smell the coffee !

Ray
28 Jul 06,, 15:14
Mac,

You are becoming very malodorous.

What did you eat last night?

TopHatter
28 Jul 06,, 15:25
a terrorist is like a 7 headed dragon, cut one head off and yet another appears, Oh you mean a hydra. :rolleyes:


the spelling may not be right but the argument is just ! take the gung-ho spectacles and read the writting on the wall ... or is that wake up and smell the coffee !If the spelling is consistently wrong, people have this annoying tendency to tune you out completely. ;)

highsea
28 Jul 06,, 16:36
He lives for now. Just try to be polite.Lol. Good call TH. We need the comic relief.

bin larden. ROFL

Neo
28 Jul 06,, 17:21
I'm enjoying this! :)

mac-hfd-eng
28 Jul 06,, 19:25
i still see the negative feed back is from the red neck gung ho 1/4 ....
i was once a soilders and so was my pops too and his father and his too ...
try watching bbc world news or watching anythng by micheal moore .... just cos someone is in power does not mean you should follow them blindly ... unless of course your some kinda brainless left wing sheep .... !

mac-hfd-eng
28 Jul 06,, 19:37
why do i bother , your from the U.S of A and your always right .....
And your goverment wouldn't ever ever do anything under handed to serve thier own pockets , god what am i saying iv'e been so misguided .... to think
you can think independently of your media and the ******** you have been fed on since the 1950's
oh by the way im engish and when i last looked , i use the ENGLISH language and isn't called the ENGLISH LANGUAGE for nothing !
and just one last thing if you kick me off here of airing my views . WHAT THE HELLS FREE SPEACH ALL ABOUT THEN ! or is that just to suit yourselfs !


quote """ errrrrr dude , where's my country derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !"
thank god you have only 2 terms in office !

Tronic
28 Jul 06,, 20:37
a terrorist is like a 7 headed dragon, cut one head off and yet another appears,
we don't need to make these extreamistists into martyrs, that's just giving them a helping hand.
cutting down one head??? Dude.. just look at Afghanistan, we haven't merely cut off the terrorist networks head there but considerably weakened it and every day we are working to build up the Afghan governments strenght... Terrorism is like a cancer, it will continue to spread until someone acts to try to contain it and eventually to kill it off....



something diffrent need to be done, And justice should
not be served out by some soilder at the end a of a barrell, they need to be captured ALIVE, and some kind of U.N court should judge them, not just one or 2 western countries, death is such a easy way out for these people and once again we would be playing into there hands, but also our dodgy international policies and the people that dream them up and implement them should be looked at very closely, cos we suffer cos of this, it's not fair and its not right!
2 Western countries??? dude... the world is at war... the war on terrorism is not only being fought by 2 western countries... it is being fought by a whole dozen nations of this world...

secondly... how do you propose to capture all the terrorists alive??? that is a very imature statement... usually terrorists are identified when they have already blown themselves to pieces along with all the innocent civillians around them... soldiers at the end of the barrells of guns are an excellent way to send these monkeys to their heaven before they can take the lives of any innocent civillians... and if you really want to address terrorist breeding problems... then how about starting with Radical Islam and the education in many Islamic nations...

Bulgaroctonus
28 Jul 06,, 22:28
Mac,

Please use proper punctuation, grammar, and syntax. It would be best if you break up your thoughts into paragraphs. You may find the following model instructive:

Hello, World Affairs Board Members, I have quite a rant today.

I believe the Bush family are terrorists for the following reasons. The Bin Laden family, long known as the progenitor of America's mortal enemy - Osama, funded George W. Bush's first oil venture. We all know that the only plane in flight immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, was a plane taking the bin Laden family back to Saudi Arabia.

And, as a postscript, Bush's grandfather sold weapons to Hitler.

This format is easier for the board members to read, and will endear us to you.

Bulgaroctonus
28 Jul 06,, 22:45
i still see the negative feed back is from the red neck gung ho 1/4 ....
i was once a soilders and so was my pops too and his father and his too ...
try watching bbc world news or watching anythng by micheal moore .... just cos someone is in power does not mean you should follow them blindly ...
What is the 'red neck gung ho' section one fourth of? I agree with your assertion that those in power should not be followed blindly. Please expand your argument to contain specifics about the Bush Administration, since I sense those are the people in power you refer to.


unless of course your some kinda brainless left wing sheep .... !
I challenge your assertion that left-wing sheep follow governments blindly. Firstly, I raise the point that the 'left' (which in America usually refers to supporters of the Democratic Party or other liberal groups) is often known as being rebellious, suspicious of the government, and just downright cantakerous. Therefore, a person following the left may not necessarily follow a government, even a leftist government, with the zeal you assert.

Of course, its possible for a person of either party affiliation to support their government too much. However, this is all academic.

It seems you disagree with some of the Bush Administrations actions. You must remember that the Bush Administration is strongly right wing. Therefore, a 'brainless left wing sheep' would not be pertinent to your discussion, since only brainless right wing sheep would follow the Bush Administration wholeheartedly.

In short, sir, you have a sheep problem. In my professional opinion, it is very bad and requires immediate, expert attention.

Bulgaroctonus
28 Jul 06,, 23:18
a terrorist is like a 7 headed dragon, cut one head off and yet another appears,
we don't need to make these extreamistists into martyrs, that's just giving them a helping hand. something diffrent need to be done,
It is necessary to kill terrorists in order to end their operations. Unfortunately, they are revered as martyrs after their death. However, there is no other proven method that I am aware of whereby a terrorist group can be destroyed or disarmed.

If we keep a terrorist alive, it is true that we avoid making that person a martyr. However, that terrorist is free to kill those we do not want killed, and damage things we do not want damaged. I venture that the damage done by a living terrorist (in dollars, emotional damages, and loss of military assets, etc.) far outweighs the more nebulous damage done by the martyrdom of a terrorist.

The West does face a difficult problem. Every terrorist we have the fortune of killing, especially Muslim terrorists, spawns new terrorists. Nonetheless, it is necessary that we keep killing terrorists and 'bite the bullet' in terms of the those new terrorists. The governments of the world must simply accept the fact that the terrorists are an ever-multiplying threat - and do the best they can to kill as many as possible.

What do you propose we do instead of killing terrorists? It is not practical or wise to attempt to arrest every one of them alive and give them a trial. It is important that the blood of terrorists stays cheap, so we (the Western governments) can continue counter-insurgency. The legal costs of putting every terrorist on trial would make counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist operations even more difficult. Do you really want your tax dollars supporting a government lawyer to defend a terrorist that does not deserve mercy?

Furthermore, if we were to show respect for the lives of terrorists it would require an asinine style of war. The West already has its hands bound know that civilian death is no longer fashionable (Oh, I long for the days of Genghis) in war. If we also had to assure the life of every terrorist we were fighting, war would be an expensive and ineffective mechanism.

It is preferable that we show terrorists, and civilian populations that harbor them, little mercy. We must be ruthless in our attempt to destroy terrorism. Terrorists and other enemies of the United States are ruthless, and I would hate for our enemies to have the monopoly on ruthlessness.


And justice
not be served out by some soilder at the end a of a barrell, they need to be captured ALIVE, and some kind of U.N court should judge them, not just one or 2 western countries,
As I alluded to before, what you espouse is not practical. For example, Slobodan Milosevic, the leader of Serbia during the conflict in Kosovo and the architect of the Serbian military's genocide of ethnic Albanians, died before he was convicted because the trial took far too long. He was one of the most prominent war criminals ever brought before a court, and even he was not dealt justice.

Looking at the failure of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to convict just this one man, it is obvious that there exists no body capable of processing the tremendous amount of terrorists that have been apprehended.

In addition, the UN is a political body subject to the policies and interests of its member states. It is hardly the group necessary to issue fair verdicts of terrorists, especially if Arab states were on whatever court you imagine. In fact, I don't think international objectivity exists at all, so your project is probably doomed from the start.

I may also ask, where will the funding for your international terrorist court come from? The United States already pays most of the UN's budget, and would certainly not be willing to pay for terrorists it catches to be sent to an international court, where such terrorists could be acquitted. The United States, and probably most other governments, reserves the right to deal with terrorists within their own borders.


death is such a easy way out for these people and once again we would be playing into there hands, but also our dodgy international policies and the people that dream them up and implement them should be looked at very closely, cos we suffer cos of this, it's not fair and its not right!
Please make this last part more specific.

Bulgaroctonus
28 Jul 06,, 23:27
oh one thing tronic which terrorist's are we talking bout here ..... cos i see only a hand full .. two to that come to mind is bush and the other is blair ! and thats what i call terrorism !
Please list the terrorist offenses of Bush and Blair.

Bulgaroctonus
28 Jul 06,, 23:49
oh please people ! who do you think armed the like's of the talliban and saddam in the place ...
It is true that the United States funded and armed Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. I think that was a foolish action, since we could have found better allies against Iran than Hussein. Nonetheless, the true problem in the Middle East has never been Saddam Hussein. I view him as the ideal ruler of Iraq since he has the brutal instincts necessary to rule that country. It was a great foreign policy error of the United States that it allowed the beneficial alliance with Saddam to decay until the point of war. It would have been far better to leave Saddam, a secular fascist leader, in power. Now a Muslim fascist leader will probably take power, and it is always preferable that religion stays out of Middle Eastern politics.

To your second point, I do not think the United States ever funded the Taliban. The United States did fund mujahideen (including, apparently, the infamous Osama bin Laden) to fight the Russians in the 1980s. However, the Taliban emerged from the Harakat-i-Inqilab-i-Islami mujahideen faction [1]. I am not able to find whether this group ever received funding from the United States government.

Certainly after the Taliban was established (around 1994), the United States would have cut off any funding that had occurred before then. The United States never recognized the Taliban government. Also, would the US government have sponsored a group whose leader, Mullah Omar, said:

"This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it will fall to the ground." [2]

You must examine the facts.

------------------------------------
Notes
1) "Taliban Movement" from Wikipedia Accessed on 28 July 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

2) "Review: People Profiles: Mullah Omar." Aljazeera Magazine. Accessed on 28 July 2006 http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/people_full_story.asp?service_id=10285

ZFBoxcar
29 Jul 06,, 00:07
i use the ENGLISH language

It is difficult to tell.

TopHatter
29 Jul 06,, 00:48
why do i bother , your from the U.S of A and your always right ..... Of course we're always right. Except that not everybody on this forum is from the United States. Some of us are from:

Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Pakistan
Taiwan

Which reminds me...

oh by the way im engish ...we also have several "engish" posters here too. Well, U.K.'ers would be more accurate, but I'm willing to bet they know that it's spelled "English". Capital E and don't forget that "l" old boy.


and when i last looked , i use the ENGLISH languageBadly. Very badly. Which has the effect of making you look like a fool and a disgrace to your fellow countrymen. But at least you remembered that "l" this time.


and isn't called the ENGLISH LANGUAGE for nothing ! And it's not called edukayshun for nothing either.


and just one last thing if you kick me off here of airing my views . WHAT THE HELLS FREE SPEACH ALL ABOUT THEN ! or is that just to suit yourselfs ! Well, since this is a privately owned board (by a U.K.'er such as yourself ironically enough) there is no such thing as free speech here.

At the same time, we are extremely tolerant of people's differing opinions and don't like to throw anybody out...well, almost anybody.

Since several members seem to have this affinity for freaks such as yourself, as long as you don't cause too much of a ruckus, I suppose a circus sideshow is just what the boys and girls need.

ArmchairGeneral
29 Jul 06,, 03:27
It is true that the United States funded and armed Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. I think that was a foolish action, since we could have found better allies against Iran than Hussein. Nonetheless, the true problem in the Middle East has never been Saddam Hussein. I view him as the ideal ruler of Iraq since he has the brutal instincts necessary to rule that country. It was a great foreign policy error of the United States that it allowed the beneficial alliance with Saddam to decay until the point of war. It would have been far better to leave Saddam, a secular fascist leader, in power. Now a Muslim fascist leader will probably take power, and it is always preferable that religion stays out of Middle Eastern politics.
Why do you prefer secular leaders in the Middle East? I see the Arab-Israeli wars, the Iran-Iraq war, Gulf I and Gulf II, the Russo-Afgan war, and the American-Afgan war. Of those wars which involved fundamentalist Islamic gov'ts, the Iran-Iraq war was started by Saddam, IIRC and the Russo-Afgan war was pretty much started by Russia. That leaves the American-Afgan war as the only one out 9 major wars that was instigated by Muslim extremists. Seems to me that the secular leaders have a far worse record than the crazies. Granted, the crazies sponsor terrorism, but then so do the secular dictators. Saddam, in my opinion, caused far more disruption, destruction, and misery than Muslim extremists ever have.

mac-hfd-eng
29 Jul 06,, 04:03
yes or no did we fund the teliban and sadam ...... its that black and white ....
YES OR NO !

mac-hfd-eng
29 Jul 06,, 04:04
All I Want To Know Is Yes Or No !

mac-hfd-eng
29 Jul 06,, 04:09
COME ON TOP HATTER ! yes or no ! black or white ! come let us know ! don't give us the around the garden approch .... the question is YES OR NO !

Bulgaroctonus
29 Jul 06,, 04:55
Why do you prefer secular leaders in the Middle East? I see the Arab-Israeli wars, the Iran-Iraq war, Gulf I and Gulf II, the Russo-Afgan war, and the American-Afgan war. Of those wars which involved fundamentalist Islamic gov'ts, the Iran-Iraq war was started by Saddam, IIRC and the Russo-Afgan war was pretty much started by Russia. That leaves the American-Afgan war as the only one out 9 major wars that was instigated by Muslim extremists. Seems to me that the secular leaders have a far worse record than the crazies. Granted, the crazies sponsor terrorism, but then so do the secular dictators. Saddam, in my opinion, caused far more disruption, destruction, and misery than Muslim extremists ever have.

The destruction caused by secular Middle Eastern dictators is often aimed at other Middle Eastern nations, and often does not damage America's interests. For example, the Iraq-Iran war was an excellent oppurtunity for America to sell arms at great profit and manipulate the politics of the Gulf. The numerous Arab-Israeli wars have been thus far an oppurtunity for Israel and America to expand their power in the Middle East.

I should say I that view a 'good' Middle Eastern development as a development that furthers America's interests. That is my valuation system.

Of course, there are some secular dictators that are hostile towards American interests, such as the Assads of Syria and Qaddafi in Lybia. Nonetheless, these are in the minority compared to the relatively friendly and secular regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey (not a dictatorship though), Saudi Arabia (the religiosity of the government is unclear to me), and formerly Iraq. Many of the trivial Gulf states also have authoritarian governments.

Another advantage of secular dictatorships is that they allow the country they represent to be dealt with in an orderly fashion. For example, in the Iraq-Iran war, we knew that we could deal with one man if we wanted something done in Iraq - Saddam Hussein. Now the situation is fragmented and no single person speaks for Iraq. The situation is similar in chaotic Afghanistan (where the Taliban is seemingly making a resurgence). We can see that a dictatorship would be much preferable.

When religious dictatorships come to power (such as Iran) we can see how dangerous Islam can be, and how cantankerous it is to American foreign policy.

Therefore, the Bush Administration has one part of the political calculation right in the Middle East, it is pushing for secularism. However, it is also pushing for democracy. Democracy is the wrong political system for most of the Middle East. It is better that the Arabs live under crushing dictatorships, so that their chaos does not spill into the West. It is also important that the dictators have the ability to silence dissent using brutal methods.

Remember that in the days of Saddam, there was precious little terrorism emanating from Iraq. Now, it is a snake pit.

The Middle East main remain religious, poor, intolerant, and dangerous for centuries. Therefore, let dictators keep a lid on the cesspool.

mac-hfd-eng
29 Jul 06,, 05:12
ARE YOU SO STUPID or caught up in the gung ho ness that you are so blind ! i put my hand up ! my goverments policiys and your's will get us killed ... and would our goverment's couldn't give a dam ! as long as im all right jack ! gandi was once asked " what do you think of western intelgence " he replyed " it would be a good idea" iv'e never met a a english man on here!
but i have sure met some stupid people from the usa
on here

even

if they now if you live in india ! i have lived in france and italy and also india and we don't agree with you ..... be brave you live in a bubble ! do you know where the middle east is ? do you know where europe is ? do you think you should be a moderator ! 2 side's to every debate ! derrrrrrrrrr your retired ..... and there's me that thinks your 14 ! like i said before " wake up and smell the coffee ! "
YES I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SPELL BUT I AM JUST! YES OR NO ! THERES ONLY ONE QUESTION !
there's no blur blur blur !
for god sake !
has our goverments mendled too much !!!! come on ! dont beat around the BUSH ( hehehehe) no pun intened , honest ! but come on !
YES OR NO !
if you say no that you and i and everyone one on here ! will
never
believe a thing you say ever again !
and if you say yes ( this is a start ! but dout it if you have been in the force'es! )



one question " if china wanted go to go muslim ! would you protest ! "
OH
i doubt it !
oh my oh my you have one of our plane's ! but we won't kick up a stink! "
finger to mouth in dr evil way " austin powers"
and says you chicken or what ?
burr burrrrr burrrrrrrrriariiiiiirrrrrrrr !
and show me a english man that doesn't agree or a german or canadian . if you do i can really CAN GET
a french , a german or a candian to agree with ME . not cos i will bribe them ..... its cos they agree ! YOUR WRONG !
your not right even if you come from the good U.S OF A .
iv'e lived in these place's and as a nation your not liked ! and concidered as STUPID ! BRAINLESS AND GUNG-HO !n people . you only went to the moon cos a german showed you the way !
you are hated as a nation and this you have bought on yerselfs !
iv'e met plant's with more intelegence than you have ! and i live in the stick's so iv'e met plenty of plant's !
COME ON ! IT SO SIMPLE !
YES OR NO!
SINCE 1950's you have been lied to ....
same question ! but in a way you might understand !
are there any gay's in the U'S cathloic church!
YES OR NO !

mac-hfd-eng
29 Jul 06,, 05:46
DEAR bulgarotonus you are right in so many ways .... i bow down to you ! cos you put your hand up and say WRONG ! but if we shoot one lets shoot the rest ...... BLAIR AND BUSH WATCH OUT !
along with mr b.l and mr s.i .....
i will stop feeling scared and sorry for myself and never come on here again as long as people like you speak up for people as the like's of me !
you are just and the first person from the usa to say " yes you are right , and they are wrong ! "

i wish more people like you were on here !
never to see me again ,
cos it's a waste of my time .....


yours
mac

Bluesman
29 Jul 06,, 12:46
Now, see, kids, THIS is exactly why you should stay away from drugs and stay in school. You don't want to end up like this.

TopHatter
29 Jul 06,, 13:45
yes or no did we fund the teliban and sadam ...... its that black and white ....
YES OR NO !
All I Want To Know Is Yes Or No !

COME ON TOP HATTER ! yes or no ! black or white ! come let us know ! don't give us the around the garden approch .... the question is YES OR NO !
First thing I want you to do is look up OCD.

Then I want to you to look at the bottom of the screen and notice that all members are who presently online are listed for you. My name will be in green for easy spotting.

Then, the next time you get the urge to compulsively ask the same question over and over again to somebody, check the listing to see if they are even online or not.

Did the United States provide aid to Saddam Hussein? It's a matter of common knowledge that the United States supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. So did most of the Arab world and Europe. Take a good look at Iran both now and then and maybe you'll figure out why. I also want you to look up the word realpolitick.

Did the United States provide aid to the Taliban? It's a matter of common knowledge that the United States supported the Afghan mujaheddin during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It's mere common sense that this aid reached all manner of guerilla groups, some of whom formed the Taliban after the Soviets left.

Two final questions for you: After the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan, did the United States fund them? Yes or No? Did the United States even give diplomatic recognition to the Taliban? Don't wait for the translation, Yes or No?

Bluesman
29 Jul 06,, 15:44
Nice historical reference, Adlai Hatter! :biggrin:

TopHatter
29 Jul 06,, 16:58
Nice historical reference, Adlai Hatter! :biggrin:
Why thank you Blues. :)

Ray
29 Jul 06,, 18:16
Mac -sjh -xyv.


Could be be Neither, my friend from Nether Land?

Tronic
29 Jul 06,, 23:38
lol...

ArmchairGeneral
30 Jul 06,, 00:36
The destruction caused by secular Middle Eastern dictators is often aimed at other Middle Eastern nations, and often does not damage America's interests. For example, the Iraq-Iran war was an excellent oppurtunity for America to sell arms at great profit and manipulate the politics of the Gulf.
"Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed at least 300 civilian mariners."

"An Iraqi plane accidentally attacked the USS Stark (FFG 31), a Perry class frigate on May 17, killing 37 and injuring 21."

"On April 14, 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter was shot down, killing the two pilots. In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988... The U.S. eventually paid compensation for the incident but never apologised." -Wikipedia, Iran-Iraq War.

So you think that selling a few billion dollars worth of arms plus whatever "manipulations" we were able to achieve were worth the death of American navymen, civilian sailors, the massive cost of a major military operation, and the damage and disruption of the Persian Gulf oil supply?

The numerous Arab-Israeli wars have been thus far an oppurtunity for Israel and America to expand their power in the Middle East.
Contrary to what you seem to think, wars are not good. What do you mean by America and Israel expanding their power? Sure, Israel gained a lot of land. Perhaps the Sinai was useful, as it was a good bargaining chip with Egypt. On the other hand, they also got the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and I challenge anybody to show that those pieces of land are worth the grief they have caused Israel. I cannot figure out how you think America expanded her power through these wars. We sold arms to Israel, sure, but at what cost to the American taxpayer?


Another advantage of secular dictatorships is that they allow the country they represent to be dealt with in an orderly fashion. For example, in the Iraq-Iran war, we knew that we could deal with one man if we wanted something done in Iraq - Saddam Hussein. Now the situation is fragmented and no single person speaks for Iraq. The situation is similar in chaotic Afghanistan (where the Taliban is seemingly making a resurgence). We can see that a dictatorship would be much preferable.
That assumes that we want to deal with them at all. A chaotic Islamic country is, in my view, a good Islamic country, comparatively speaking. Anarchy is good for the US, because anarchy means poverty, and lack of organisation. In other words, no money to pay for either conventional wars or terrorism, and no stable base of operations to stage the aforementioned.


Remember that in the days of Saddam, there was precious little terrorism emanating from Iraq. Now, it is a snake pit.
Actually, no. I know of no terrorism emanating from Iraq these days. They're too busy inside Iraq to bother with anywhere else. Saddam seems to have helped with terrorist activities, such as the first WTC bombing, and, more importantly, he invaded two countries, and threatened many others, attempted to develop nuclear weapons, and caused untold trouble in general. Now, if we were to follow your ideals of ruthless realpolitick we could withdraw from Iraq and let 'em kill each other, with full confidence that there is no chance that they will either invade or nuke our friends, and that they won't be able to export enough oil to finance major terrorist operations overseas. Of course, we're actually a very nice country who care about people other than ourselves, so we're trying to help them help themselves.


The Middle East main remain religious, poor, intolerant, and dangerous for centuries. Therefore, let dictators keep a lid on the cesspool.
Dictators have a bad habit of invading other countries, and funding terrorists. Personally, I'm not confident about any form of gov't for Middle Eastern countries. It looks to me like it doesn't matter what type of gov't is in power, if they want to cause trouble, they will. However, since the only Muslim country that is even close to democracy, Turkey, seems to not cause any trouble, it's worth a try.

Bulgaroctonus
01 Aug 06,, 03:59
ArmchairGeneral,

I apologize for my negligence in answering your excellent post. Before I deal with each one of your points, I ask you to read the following piece from the New York Times Magazine by Noah Feldman. He brings up many good points about Middle Eastern democracy, and why it may not work. While he raises doubts about democracy, he does not go so far as to support the other side of the spectrum - dictatorship.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html


July 21, 2006
The Way We Live Now
Ballots and Bullets

By NOAH FELDMAN

When Hamas and then Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers a few weeks ago, the Israeli government could have held its fire and avoided a major confrontation in which dozens of Israelis and many more Palestinians and Lebanese have died. There might have been a strategic rationale for such a policy, since starving kidnappers of attention may be the best way to deter them. But Israel's leaders could not consider this option: they are responsible to an electorate that will tolerate war deaths but will not tolerate the neglect of kidnapped soldiers.

In the past, Israel was the only democracy in the region, and its enemies, whether autocratic states or free-floating terrorist groups, were not similarly accountable to a voting public. This time, however, things are different. With the Iraq war, the United States introduced to the Middle East a bold new policy of democratization by destabilization. That policy encouraged elections in Lebanon and Palestine, opening the door to entities like Hezbollah and Hamas that are now experimenting with a potent cocktail of electoral politics, radical Islamist ideology and violence. Destabilizing the old order really has changed the rules of the game. We are now witnessing the most serious regional test so far to the wisdom of starting down this uncertain path.

The most important new feature of the present situation is the strange hybrid character shared by Hamas and Hezbollah: both are simultaneously militias and democratically elected political parties participating in government. In the case of Hamas, which won the Palestinian elections in January, the political wing may not be able to control the military wing, yet the party maintains a basic unity of purpose. Hezbollah, for its part, does not hold a majority in the Lebanese Parliament, but its elected leaders participate in the Lebanese government, whose democratic credentials have been cited by the Bush administration as a sign of progress in that troubled country.

The dual political and military structures of Hamas and Hezbollah are not unique. In Iraq, both the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Moktada al-Sadr's movement play major roles in the elected government while maintaining counterpart militias that they have been unwilling to disband. The model of Islamist organizations that combine electoral politics with paramilitary tactics is fast becoming the calling card of the new wave of Arab democratization.

The fact that Hamas and Hezbollah pursue democratic legitimacy within the state while also employing violence on their own marks a watershed in Middle Eastern politics. For one thing, the boundary between state and nonstate violence has essentially been erased. Has the Palestinian government demanded an exchange of prisoners with Israel, or has the Hamas militia? Israel has been acting as if it were at war with Lebanon its targets have included a Lebanese Air Force base and Beirut's international airport - but Hezbollah began the hostilities, not the Lebanese government.

More important still, the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah owe much of their present standing to elections calls into question the viability of Middle Eastern democracy as a peaceful practice. In choosing these Islamists, Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites were in effect endorsing not only their political aims but also their commitment to violence, which was never hidden during their campaigns. (The same is true, to a lesser degree, of voters in Iraq who opted for the Shiite alliance.) It was possible that once in power, the politicians at the helm of Hamas and Hezbollah would distance themselves from violence or at least refrain from initiating it. That would have been a reasonable strategy if they wanted to persuade the voters that they could actually govern and use the resources of the state to improve their constituents' lives. We now know definitively that the leaders have rejected this path.

II.


How will the constituencies that support Hamas and Hezbollah react, over time, to kidnappings and rocket attacks that were calculated, it would seem, to provoke Israeli military reprisals? The elected Islamists are gambling that popular anger at Israel, apparent in the streets of Gaza and southern Lebanon in the first weeks of battle, will translate into redoubled enthusiasm for Islamist intransigence and rejectionism. This has sometimes worked for both Hamas and Hezbollah in the past. Both groups came to power in part because they were perceived as the only local actors willing to fight Israel head-on.

For its part, Israel is gambling that the right strategy is to make the people who elected Hamas and a government that includes Hezbollah reckon the costs of their representatives' recklessness. That is why Israel has targeted not only Hezbollah leaders and strongholds but has also bombed infrastructure that sustains daily life for everybody in Lebanon. From Israel's standpoint, this is no longer a fight with nonstate terrorists who are holding their fellow citizens hostage to their tactics. It is, rather, war between Israel and countries that are pursuing (or tolerating) violent policies endorsed (or at least accepted) by their electorates.

Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza last year on the theory that disengagement would lead to fewer attacks on it, not more. Right-wing Israelis argued that withdrawal rewarded Islamist violence and that rockets would soon be fired into Israel from the very areas being vacated. Now those critics claim to have been vindicated. The reply of the centrist Israeli government elected on the promise that it would unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank too is to insist that in the long run Hamas and Hezbollah can be deterred like Israel's other Arab enemies. The route to deterrence, claims the government, is to degrade the capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah and in the process inflict on Gaza and Lebanon the punishment of defeat in war the same approach that eventually led the major Arab powers to stop attacking Israel a generation ago.

The catch for Israel is that, taken too far, the strategy of making all Palestinians and all Lebanese pay for the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah may well backfire. Destroying the economic prosperity that had begun to return to Lebanon is likely to generate fresh hatred of Israel, and Palestinians under the gun have in recent years tended to become more radicalized, not less. Provided that democratic institutions in Palestine and Lebanon remain intact, the long-term success of Israel's campaign will probably depend on how the Palestinian and Lebanese electorates evaluate all that has happened. They will be doing so against the backdrop of deeply conflicted feelings: Hamas and Hezbollah may have sparked this round of fighting, but the bombs raining down on their cities and the soldiers in their bases still come from Israel, and no one likes to be bombed.

Democracy means that you cannot blame someone else for troubles caused by your own government. That is a comparatively new lesson in the region, and whether it is learned or not will determine the prospects for democracy itself there. But dodging missiles and running from tanks is not the ideal circumstance for rational reflection on the nature of self-rule. As in Iraq, what is especially risky and worrisome about democratization through destabilization is that it comes accompanied not by peace but by the sword. In this dangerous environment, the costs of democracy the weakness of government, the uncertainty, the violence can be felt everywhere. The benefits of democracy, though, are barely palpable.

III.

Although elections in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories owe much to America's democracy agenda, the Bush administration has, from the start, generally taken a hands-off approach to the region once known as the Levant. This is in part a function of limited capacity. Officials who have been focused since 9/11 on Afghanistan, and then on Iraq, cannot spare the time or attention to supervise the ins and outs of Israel's dealings with the Palestinians or with Lebanon. It also reflects the fact that the Bush administration mindful of President Clinton's ultimate failure at Camp David is wary of squandering its credibility on an ever-elusive peace deal. But it results, too, from a shift in perspective created by the Iraq-driven nature of the democratization policy itself. This has led the administration to see developments outside the Persian Gulf as democratic aftershocks of Saddam Hussein's removal and to believe it best to stand aside and let destabilization and the democratic spirit do their slow work.

Lebanon, in particular, has been treated by the Bush administration as a success of democratization. In a sense it has been one. Mass demonstrations, largely free of violence (including several organized by Hezbollah), set the tone for domestic Lebanese politics in the wake of last year's assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the former prime minister. These protests would have been hard to imagine without the American commitment to democratization in Iraq. For once acting with European allies, the Bush administration was able to respond by pressuring Syria to reduce its involvement in the country. The only difficulty was that once elections were held, Hezbollah took on a substantial role in the governance of the country while retaining its close ties to Syria and Iran. Until this latest crisis, the American attitude toward this problem was to leave it alone.

In Israel and the Palestinian territories, a hands-off strategy appeared to be working. Successful elections following the death of Yasir Arafat, coupled with the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, made it seem that the permissive approach was the right one. Until Hamas's election victory this January, it even seemed conceivable that democratization might eventually create a Palestinian government capable of saying yes to Israeli peace overtures and delivering Palestinian popular support for an eventual deal.

The sudden explosion of Israel's fronts with Gaza and Lebanon represents a major challenge to the Bush administration's detachment. Leaders and political observers in the region instinctively expect the Bush administration to respond to the crisis the way earlier administrations dealt with previous crises namely, by becoming deeply involved and trying not merely to halt the violence temporarily but also to guide the parties toward a comprehensive solution. Among some in the region, you can almost sense a nostalgic yearning to become once again the center of attention for American foreign policy.

How the United States responds to this latest crisis will therefore set an important historical precedent: has Iraq once and for all displaced Israel and its neighbors as the focal point of American interest and attention in the broader Middle East? Should the Bush administration limit its involvement to stanching the bloodshed in the short term and then disengage from serious negotiations, it would be a sign that we really have shifted the focus of our regional policy away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a shift that may last a quarter-century. (It could take at least that long for the United States to come to terms with its involvement in Iraq win, lose or draw.)

Letting relations between Israel and its neighbors develop on their own, without our stage management, would suggest that the Bush administration is taking seriously its own argument that democratization is a messy, long-term business that must run its course, unimpeded. According to this claim, the regional destabilization that followed the Iraq invasion is just the cost of democracy. The new wave of violence is one storm center in that destabilized atmospheric system. If the strategy of democratization remains in place, other storms will form and they, too, will have to be weathered.

IV.

Of course, even if President Bush did take on the task of negotiating something more than a stopgap to the bombing, American diplomats would face a more difficult challenge than their predecessors ever did. In the past, crises involving Israel were addressed by dealing with the regional Arab powers, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, all of which exerted influence of different kinds on the actors. Today, however, Iran has become the predominant external influence on Hezbollah, and perhaps even on Hamas. And American leverage over Iran, never very significant since the Iranian revolution, is today at its lowest ebb in years in the wake of the U.S. involvement in Iraq and the election of the populist anti-American Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The point is not that Iran necessarily gave a direct order to either Hamas or Hezbollah to initiate a new round of hostilities by kidnapping Israeli soldiers. No direct evidence of any such order has been made public, and the complex internal workings of Hamas which moved first are not particularly susceptible to such a chain of command. Rather, Iran clearly gains by the mess that has emerged, and both Hamas and Hezbollah know that serving Iranian interests is sure to result in continued, active support from Tehran.

The main issue for Iran is, of course, the threat of American intervention against its growing nuclear capacity. Iran's primary foreign-policy goal is therefore to deter the United States through the threat of repercussions. One potential arena is Iraq, where U.S. troops can barely handle the Sunni-led insurgency and would face the danger of being overwhelmed if there were serious attacks on them from either Shiite militias financed by Iran or Iranian irregulars. But Iran has more tricks up its sleeve. The attacks on Israel not only harm America's closest regional ally, but, by generating an expanding circle of violence, also substantially destabilize the region. It is as if the Iranians were saying to the United States, ''You have your strategy of creative destabilization, and we have ours.''

Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah is already being cited as evidence by those who want the United States to intervene directly against Iran. If their argument prevails, then Israel's little wars with Hamas and Hezbollah will turn out to have been a pair of proxy wars leading to the big one right around the corner. In Lebanon in the 1980's, Israel and Syria fought such a proxy war on behalf of the United States and the Soviet Union respectively. That it remained a proxy war is something for which we can be grateful.

But the cold-war days of balanced powers are behind us now. Faced with the threat of terror, the remaining superpower chose to unleash at once the forces of freedom and instability. From Baghdad to Beirut, Gaza City, Haifa and beyond, the consequences are beginning to be realized. We are in the world of asymmetry, of democratically legitimated militias and armed bands that fight wars with powerful states. Democracy can no longer be seen as an end in itself, and the fate of peoples lies in their own hands.

Noah Feldman, a contributing writer for the magazine, is a law professor at New York University and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

ArmchairGeneral
02 Aug 06,, 03:08
Very interesting and thought provoking article. Basically it describes in detail the most important fact about the Middle East, and, for that matter, politics in general: we don't know enough to predict anything with accuracy, beyond perhaps, three days. :biggrin: So I guess all we can do is wait and see. And, of course, argue. :biggrin: And all the leaders can do is try, try, try again. (sigh) Politics is depressing.

Confed999
03 Aug 06,, 00:40
we don't know enough to predict anything with accuracy, beyond perhaps, three days.
History is often the best bet.

mac-hfd-eng
09 Oct 08,, 23:28
Wow my last post. 7/26/06, what's changed its me, i don't care anymore, about any of it, what ever our views nothing will change. Good luck to you all and i wish you happiness for the future.

gunnut
09 Oct 08,, 23:33
Wow my last post. 7/26/06, what's changed its me, i don't care anymore, about any of it, what ever our views nothing will change. Good luck to you all and i wish you happiness for the future.

wow you still remember the password to your account :tongue:

Parihaka
10 Oct 08,, 04:47
wow you still remember the password to your account :tongue:

Drugs flashback.