I read all sorts of sources including AJ. I just don't take it as gospel. My point stands. Even if that law was passed, it would have given "Western" nations no more of an advantage than the Chinese, Russians, and others who ended up getting the contracts. People like you love to go on about "conspriacies" without ever creating a concrete narrative as to how actions actually benefit the supposed conspirator. The net result of the Iraq was has been absolutely horriffic for the US. Our reputation as a nation is smashed to bits. The region has been destabilized. Iraq is soon to become yet another proxy state of Iran. Nobody will every believe us again about WMDs which gives every dictator with the will carte blanche to say "the US is lying again" while rushing unabated to the nuclear finish line. And on top of all of that we didn't even get any of the oil we supposedly did it all for. Jesus. If the conspirators are that incompetent, you really think it's out of the realm of possibility they were actually stupid enough to believe Saddam, suspicious as he was acting, didn't actually have WMDs. It's not like the CIA has a fantastic track record historically on predicting these sorts of things. We've missed the mark on every single nuclear advance of every single enemy without exception. One day there's a test and... wow... who saw it coming? Certainly not the CIA. Your really think it's just not possible Iraq is a result of stupidity and not malice? You have a lot more faith in our leadership than I do.
As to the west bank military -- that would not be necessary were it not for the suicide bombers. Since the walls went up, guess what. Violence has stopped. Sure it causes inconveniences at checkpoints, but that's by nature of citizenship, not race. Even non-Israeli Jews are stopped at checkpoints. As to discrimination -- that happens in every country. In the US there is discrimination against all sorts of minorities. In Europe, it's worse (and I have lived there, for an extended period of time, so I do know this) -- and that's without immigrants habitually blowing themselves up in public places. It doesn't justify it, of course, but it's easy to understand why you're average Israeli Jew might not want to hire an Arab. It's easy to blame the Palestinian radicalization on Israel when the reality is that it would be happening regardless of what Israel does. Fatah has said it will never, ever, recognize Israel. Hamas said the same, and it's in it's charter. Why bother negotiating with that (not that the Israelis do try anyway)?
Perhaps you can explain then, if it was such a conspiracy, how the US managed to orchestrate the invasion and create a government without managing to get a simple law passed. Perhaps you can explain how this law would have helped give "Western" nations an advantage over other countries. As I see it, all it had to do was with profit sharing. I don't disagree that Iraq was horribly managed, but that doesn't imply malice. On the contrary. It lends quite a bit of credibility to the theory that incompetence played a more prominent role.
There is a certain value in letting your enemy know, that you got to them, and doing so in a public manner so as to portray them as weak and incompetent. It's a different culture in the middle east. You can very well undermine your enemy by embarrassing them publicly as Israel has done.
Don't make the mistake of believing "most" of the people are on your side. Need I remind you that most of the new democracies in the "arab spring" elected Theocracies and even the most liberal are a far, far, cry from a western style representative democracy with protection of rights of minorities. Even if they hate their government, it does not mean they are a friend of the west or can be in any way considered friendly to our interests or progressive socially. I'd love... absolutely love... to see the mullahs and the religious leadership in Iran all swinging from lamp-posts but that's just not going to happen.
So you're perfectly OK with China and Russia running things. I have one word for you: Syria. The US might not be perfect, but it's worlds better than the alternatives.
Truth doesn't matter to anti-Semites. There is a big difference between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and making stuff up because you hate Jews so much that the truth doesn't matter. There is no other motivation to irrationally attack Israel by lying like that than antisemitism.
If you actually looked at most of those companies -- they are hardly american. Petronas, for example, is Malysian. Russia and China got most everything. I hate to break it to Al Jazeera's worldview, but those are not exactly "Western" countries. US companies got nothing except a few subcontracts contracts to set up and operate pumps (but not to sell the oil). Hey. But don't let facts get in the way of your worldview. Gah! Oil! Rah! Capitalism evil! Bush Satan! Ever stop to think that maybe... just maybe... the simplest explanation is the best and the most likely scenario as to why we went to Iraq is simply because Saddam played chicken with a freight train and got run right over, not because of Oil or anything else. Tell me. Is it beyond the realm of possibility for the government to make a mistake? What's more likely -- that -- or a massive conspiracy that somehow resulted in accomplishing none of the alleged goals save destroying America's reputation worldwide?
Empires are not in and of themselves evil, nor is power. We have bases in many countries because of treaties with them. They agree to have us there. Just because we have bases on their soil does not mean somehow we "conquered them". It just means we have some power in their region with which to counterbalance other world powers. I'll tell you what would be dangerous: the resulting power vacuum if we were to withdrawal suddenly from all those countries. And for the last time, we did not get any of Iraq's oil so stop pushing that big lie, or the big lie that Israel recommended it (because they recommended the exact opposite). Iraq was a bad idea without question but not because of the reasons you imply. If anything a motivating factor could have been war profiteering but it was not oil.
The Israelis conquered that land after the Palestinians attacked them first. Had they not done that, the land would still be theirs. They tried to kill the Jews and they lost. Boo fucking hoo. I will say that not all "Palestinians" (term invented in the 60s) are bad. About 20% of the Arab population fought with the Jews in the war for independence and stay there and are represented there today. The Arabs even have a veto in the Knesset.
What Israel actually said was that yes, they're not working on a bomb, but they'e working on the parts and once they have those parts in a fortified bunker can likely put one together in short notice. You can't take the former part of that sentence and pretend the latter is not attached.
If by "Shia communitites" you mean Hezbollah, then yes, they support them -- and I would hardly call their actions defensive at all as even a cursory search could point out, not would I claim they "haven't attacked anybody in years". Iran is a state sponsor of terror too chicken shit to take direct action but perfecly happy to reign terror down on Jews and Americans worldwide through it's many proxies.
This is actually true, but what you neglect to mention is that "removing from the page of time" is best translated as an expression as "wipe off the map". That being said, since that time, Iran has indeed repeated the claim in english (a billboard outside a barracks of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, for example). If it's a mistranslation, it's a mistranslation they apparently agree with. In addition, Khamenie said this year that Israel was a "cancer" that would be "cut out". Seems to me that's a bit harsher than the "off the map" quote and nobody is arguing about it's translation.
I'll just touch on a few of those false accusations
1. "invaded neighboring countries" -- only after being attacked first. Not once, not twice, but three times. 48, 67, and 73. Most of the land, such as the Sinai peninsula, that Israel took, they gave back for peace in further negotiations. It worked with the Egyptians as long as we paid them the necessary Jizya (we still do), and Sadat got assassinated for his trouble. If Palestinians actually wanted the same, they could have it tomorrow but after decades and decades of playing games, why should Israel stop construction on land it conquered in a defensive conflict if Palestinians never make any serious attempt at peace. Stop the settlements first, you say? Israel did that. A year passed and the Palestinians did nothing to demonstrate good faith. Give back Gaza? They did that. Tens of thousands of rockets and an invasion later, the Palestinians have themselves a new place to fire unguided rockets into civilian population centers.
2. "repressed it's people in to poverty and apartheid" -- first off. Palestinians are not Israel's people. Those in Jerusalem have the option to gain Israeli citizenship and gain full rights but many choose not to. Those who have have every single right that other Israelis do, regardless of religion. About 20% of Israel's population is Arab -- many of whom descend from those Arabs who chose to stay with the Jews and fight for independence. Those in the west bank are governed by Fatah and those in Gaza by Hamas. Becuase they do not hold Israeli citizenship, of course they do not have the same rights in israel. As an American, I do not have the same rights in the EU. That's not apartheid and comparing it to racial separation is offensive.
The F? You do realize Palestinian obesity for women is 3rd worldwide, and for men, 8th? They have hotels and night clubs that rival some of the more extravagant places in the middle east. They're not exactly starving like the Jews were. How dare you make such a comparison. Unlike the Palestinians, the Jews were not launching rockets at the Russians or Germans. All the Palestinians have to do is cut out their terror and the blockade of Gaza will end.
So you don't think the balance of power in the middle east is important and Iran should be able to do whatever they want? "Once the threat of outside invasion recedes, the population will rise up and overthrow the extremists". If the threat of outside invasion doesn't actually exist (it does not. all that has discussed is bombing several hardened military facilities), then Iran will make up a threat, as it has, and the people will swallow it, as will some useful idiots in the west. It already blames Israel and America every chance it gets (even for Syria, which is absurd since it's a Shiite and Alawite vs Sunni conflict) and if you think the people see past it you're very naive. Some do, of course, but not enough to matter and controlling information as Iran does can indeed keep the necessary minority in the dark indefinately. Some protests in the street do not make a revolution. They got massacred. Sure we could back the MEK (sunni terrorists), but that's unlikely to get very far in Iran, despite the wishful thinking of some in the west. Even if they succeeded, they wouldn't be any more friendly to the west than the Taliban was after we helped them get rid of the soviets. It's like backing the sunni AQ "rebels" against Assad. Not much better. It'll likely result in ethnic cleansing against the Alawites, druze, Christians, and other minorities if the "rebels" ever do win. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't. You want the solution to Iran? There isn't one. The best temporary measure is to make sure they don't gain nuclear capability and contain them until things change significantly.
It wasn't intended as a message to the west. It was a message to the middle east and, more importantly, the Iranian people. The drone was not a threat. If it was a threat it would have been shot down a lot earlier. It got 20 minutes only because Israel didn't want to shoot the thing down over a populated area -- or Gaza which would have the Palis in a hissy fit if, god forbid, the wreckage landed on a school or something. Had the drone been an actual threat you can guarantee it would have never entered Israeli airspace. It was not a "stealth drone" and Israel has radar.
You know there are bluetooth clip-on keyboards for iPad, right? Even magnetic ones that double as a cover like the MS ones. Even has function keys for doing iOS stuff without poking at the screen.
Can I be an atheist and believe in god? What if I say i'm an Atheist who believes in god. Who are you to tell me i'm not. What, after all, is an atheist if it's just another label open to interpretation? To be clear, i'm not a theist, but I'm neither so blind as to think religious dogma can be completely separated from it's label.
Slashdot Mirror
i meant "acting, actually had WMDs"...
I read all sorts of sources including AJ. I just don't take it as gospel. My point stands. Even if that law was passed, it would have given "Western" nations no more of an advantage than the Chinese, Russians, and others who ended up getting the contracts. People like you love to go on about "conspriacies" without ever creating a concrete narrative as to how actions actually benefit the supposed conspirator. The net result of the Iraq was has been absolutely horriffic for the US. Our reputation as a nation is smashed to bits. The region has been destabilized. Iraq is soon to become yet another proxy state of Iran. Nobody will every believe us again about WMDs which gives every dictator with the will carte blanche to say "the US is lying again" while rushing unabated to the nuclear finish line. And on top of all of that we didn't even get any of the oil we supposedly did it all for. Jesus. If the conspirators are that incompetent, you really think it's out of the realm of possibility they were actually stupid enough to believe Saddam, suspicious as he was acting, didn't actually have WMDs. It's not like the CIA has a fantastic track record historically on predicting these sorts of things. We've missed the mark on every single nuclear advance of every single enemy without exception. One day there's a test and ... wow ... who saw it coming? Certainly not the CIA. Your really think it's just not possible Iraq is a result of stupidity and not malice? You have a lot more faith in our leadership than I do.
As to the west bank military -- that would not be necessary were it not for the suicide bombers. Since the walls went up, guess what. Violence has stopped. Sure it causes inconveniences at checkpoints, but that's by nature of citizenship, not race. Even non-Israeli Jews are stopped at checkpoints. As to discrimination -- that happens in every country. In the US there is discrimination against all sorts of minorities. In Europe, it's worse (and I have lived there, for an extended period of time, so I do know this) -- and that's without immigrants habitually blowing themselves up in public places. It doesn't justify it, of course, but it's easy to understand why you're average Israeli Jew might not want to hire an Arab. It's easy to blame the Palestinian radicalization on Israel when the reality is that it would be happening regardless of what Israel does. Fatah has said it will never, ever, recognize Israel. Hamas said the same, and it's in it's charter. Why bother negotiating with that (not that the Israelis do try anyway)?
Perhaps you can explain then, if it was such a conspiracy, how the US managed to orchestrate the invasion and create a government without managing to get a simple law passed. Perhaps you can explain how this law would have helped give "Western" nations an advantage over other countries. As I see it, all it had to do was with profit sharing. I don't disagree that Iraq was horribly managed, but that doesn't imply malice. On the contrary. It lends quite a bit of credibility to the theory that incompetence played a more prominent role.
There is a certain value in letting your enemy know, that you got to them, and doing so in a public manner so as to portray them as weak and incompetent. It's a different culture in the middle east. You can very well undermine your enemy by embarrassing them publicly as Israel has done.
Don't make the mistake of believing "most" of the people are on your side. Need I remind you that most of the new democracies in the "arab spring" elected Theocracies and even the most liberal are a far, far, cry from a western style representative democracy with protection of rights of minorities. Even if they hate their government, it does not mean they are a friend of the west or can be in any way considered friendly to our interests or progressive socially. I'd love... absolutely love... to see the mullahs and the religious leadership in Iran all swinging from lamp-posts but that's just not going to happen.
So you're perfectly OK with China and Russia running things. I have one word for you: Syria. The US might not be perfect, but it's worlds better than the alternatives.
Truth doesn't matter to anti-Semites. There is a big difference between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and making stuff up because you hate Jews so much that the truth doesn't matter. There is no other motivation to irrationally attack Israel by lying like that than antisemitism.
If you actually looked at most of those companies -- they are hardly american. Petronas, for example, is Malysian. Russia and China got most everything. I hate to break it to Al Jazeera's worldview, but those are not exactly "Western" countries. US companies got nothing except a few subcontracts contracts to set up and operate pumps (but not to sell the oil). Hey. But don't let facts get in the way of your worldview. Gah! Oil! Rah! Capitalism evil! Bush Satan! Ever stop to think that maybe... just maybe... the simplest explanation is the best and the most likely scenario as to why we went to Iraq is simply because Saddam played chicken with a freight train and got run right over, not because of Oil or anything else. Tell me. Is it beyond the realm of possibility for the government to make a mistake? What's more likely -- that -- or a massive conspiracy that somehow resulted in accomplishing none of the alleged goals save destroying America's reputation worldwide?
Just to correct myself regarding the MEK, I meant to say "Shia terrorists".
Empires are not in and of themselves evil, nor is power. We have bases in many countries because of treaties with them. They agree to have us there. Just because we have bases on their soil does not mean somehow we "conquered them". It just means we have some power in their region with which to counterbalance other world powers. I'll tell you what would be dangerous: the resulting power vacuum if we were to withdrawal suddenly from all those countries. And for the last time, we did not get any of Iraq's oil so stop pushing that big lie, or the big lie that Israel recommended it (because they recommended the exact opposite). Iraq was a bad idea without question but not because of the reasons you imply. If anything a motivating factor could have been war profiteering but it was not oil.
The Israelis conquered that land after the Palestinians attacked them first. Had they not done that, the land would still be theirs. They tried to kill the Jews and they lost. Boo fucking hoo. I will say that not all "Palestinians" (term invented in the 60s) are bad. About 20% of the Arab population fought with the Jews in the war for independence and stay there and are represented there today. The Arabs even have a veto in the Knesset.
What Israel actually said was that yes, they're not working on a bomb, but they'e working on the parts and once they have those parts in a fortified bunker can likely put one together in short notice. You can't take the former part of that sentence and pretend the latter is not attached.
If by "Shia communitites" you mean Hezbollah, then yes, they support them -- and I would hardly call their actions defensive at all as even a cursory search could point out, not would I claim they "haven't attacked anybody in years". Iran is a state sponsor of terror too chicken shit to take direct action but perfecly happy to reign terror down on Jews and Americans worldwide through it's many proxies.
This is actually true, but what you neglect to mention is that "removing from the page of time" is best translated as an expression as "wipe off the map". That being said, since that time, Iran has indeed repeated the claim in english (a billboard outside a barracks of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, for example). If it's a mistranslation, it's a mistranslation they apparently agree with. In addition, Khamenie said this year that Israel was a "cancer" that would be "cut out". Seems to me that's a bit harsher than the "off the map" quote and nobody is arguing about it's translation.
#7: What countries have Israel ever "gobbled up" on Iran's borders?
When has Israel ever threatened it's enemies with nuclear weapons? Defamation much?
I'll just touch on a few of those false accusations
1. "invaded neighboring countries" -- only after being attacked first. Not once, not twice, but three times. 48, 67, and 73. Most of the land, such as the Sinai peninsula, that Israel took, they gave back for peace in further negotiations. It worked with the Egyptians as long as we paid them the necessary Jizya (we still do), and Sadat got assassinated for his trouble. If Palestinians actually wanted the same, they could have it tomorrow but after decades and decades of playing games, why should Israel stop construction on land it conquered in a defensive conflict if Palestinians never make any serious attempt at peace. Stop the settlements first, you say? Israel did that. A year passed and the Palestinians did nothing to demonstrate good faith. Give back Gaza? They did that. Tens of thousands of rockets and an invasion later, the Palestinians have themselves a new place to fire unguided rockets into civilian population centers.
2. "repressed it's people in to poverty and apartheid" -- first off. Palestinians are not Israel's people. Those in Jerusalem have the option to gain Israeli citizenship and gain full rights but many choose not to. Those who have have every single right that other Israelis do, regardless of religion. About 20% of Israel's population is Arab -- many of whom descend from those Arabs who chose to stay with the Jews and fight for independence. Those in the west bank are governed by Fatah and those in Gaza by Hamas. Becuase they do not hold Israeli citizenship, of course they do not have the same rights in israel. As an American, I do not have the same rights in the EU. That's not apartheid and comparing it to racial separation is offensive.
The F? You do realize Palestinian obesity for women is 3rd worldwide, and for men, 8th? They have hotels and night clubs that rival some of the more extravagant places in the middle east. They're not exactly starving like the Jews were. How dare you make such a comparison. Unlike the Palestinians, the Jews were not launching rockets at the Russians or Germans. All the Palestinians have to do is cut out their terror and the blockade of Gaza will end.
So you don't think the balance of power in the middle east is important and Iran should be able to do whatever they want? "Once the threat of outside invasion recedes, the population will rise up and overthrow the extremists". If the threat of outside invasion doesn't actually exist (it does not. all that has discussed is bombing several hardened military facilities), then Iran will make up a threat, as it has, and the people will swallow it, as will some useful idiots in the west. It already blames Israel and America every chance it gets (even for Syria, which is absurd since it's a Shiite and Alawite vs Sunni conflict) and if you think the people see past it you're very naive. Some do, of course, but not enough to matter and controlling information as Iran does can indeed keep the necessary minority in the dark indefinately. Some protests in the street do not make a revolution. They got massacred. Sure we could back the MEK (sunni terrorists), but that's unlikely to get very far in Iran, despite the wishful thinking of some in the west. Even if they succeeded, they wouldn't be any more friendly to the west than the Taliban was after we helped them get rid of the soviets. It's like backing the sunni AQ "rebels" against Assad. Not much better. It'll likely result in ethnic cleansing against the Alawites, druze, Christians, and other minorities if the "rebels" ever do win. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't. You want the solution to Iran? There isn't one. The best temporary measure is to make sure they don't gain nuclear capability and contain them until things change significantly.
It wasn't intended as a message to the west. It was a message to the middle east and, more importantly, the Iranian people. The drone was not a threat. If it was a threat it would have been shot down a lot earlier. It got 20 minutes only because Israel didn't want to shoot the thing down over a populated area -- or Gaza which would have the Palis in a hissy fit if, god forbid, the wreckage landed on a school or something. Had the drone been an actual threat you can guarantee it would have never entered Israeli airspace. It was not a "stealth drone" and Israel has radar.
You know there are bluetooth clip-on keyboards for iPad, right? Even magnetic ones that double as a cover like the MS ones. Even has function keys for doing iOS stuff without poking at the screen.
My source was incorrect. My bad.
My citation was this, but I acknowledge it's incorrect. The rest of my comment still stands, however.
Can I be an atheist and believe in god? What if I say i'm an Atheist who believes in god. Who are you to tell me i'm not. What, after all, is an atheist if it's just another label open to interpretation? To be clear, i'm not a theist, but I'm neither so blind as to think religious dogma can be completely separated from it's label.