America says FUCK OFF to the United Nations

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Sleek_Jeek, Aug 29, 2003.

Remove all ads!
Support Terra-Arcanum:

GOG.com

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!

what do you think?

  1. a) i agree with you, we just want oil for our SUVs

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. b) i disagree with you, you're a liar

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. c) i agree with you, but i think its america's place to lead the world into the new millenium (on a

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. d) i'm not from america and the people who selected C told me to shut up and and start making nike t

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    wow solaris, nice rebuttle. even though chalupa is a little melodramatic about giving her opinion, i tend to agree with the fact that our government is extremely self serving.

    oh and i just saw a really awesome old spy movie "the three days of the condor." there was a line in it that i though was absolutley priceless; after the protagonist has seen all of his team members killed, his best friend killed, has dodged numerous attempts on his life, and has finally learned why all of this is happening straight from the mouth of the person who ordered it all, he says "so... you mean to... tell me... that... this has all been about OIL?" it was great in context to whats happened over the past decade or so. i'm sure thats what 110,000 iraqis are mulling over in their graves right now. the delivery of this line was the peak of robert redford's career.
     
  2. Blinky969

    Blinky969 Active Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    The loss of Iraqi life is tragic but then again, the racist hicks shall come and say, who gives about some little Iraqis? To them I say, your precious president seems to care, or at least pretends to as he rapes their country. Even without worrying about the Iraqis, why are Americans in harm's way so that soccer moms can save 40 cents a gallon on gas? And they are even saving, the price of gas has gone UP! :-o Saddam is gone, big whoop-dee-doo, I saw Condeleeza, or however you spell her name, herself say that Iraq wouldn't have a nuke in the next decade. Oh, were they going to attack Israel? Well, the Palestinians have been doing that for awhile, we don't invade them. You can't hold the world to some double standard just because your wallet wants too.
     
  3. Solaris

    Solaris New Member

    Messages:
    1,423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    You seem to think, like many people, that that US ships were going to pull in, fill up with oil and steal it :roll:
    The situation with oil in the Middle-east is not that simple. It requires western technology to get it out of the ground and process it - there's no other way. Local companies can't do it, they lack the equipment and aren't capable of investing sufficient resources into research.
    What it does mean though is that when contracts are awarded to foreign companies (as they would be anyway), companies like Exxon, BP, etc. will be more likely to get them than TotalFinaElf and other European corporations.
    So when the oil is produced and sold, the revenues still go back to the Iraqi treasury. All it means is that US companies will be making money by setting up the processing infrastructure and the technology. The oil will still be Iraqi.
     
  4. Kinjiss

    Kinjiss New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    I only read the top 6 posts, but I agree with Sleek-Jeek.

    America joined WWII when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour right. Wrong, they were cutting off Japan's oil for months, so the Japanese had no choice to attack, I'm not saying Japan was on the right side, but basically for pay back America dropped 2 A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now I personally think that is overkill. Also 9/11, that was a tragedy but that just got Bush going on a terrorist killing spree. Sure terrorism is bad, but think of all the innocents that died during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan was acceptable (barely), but IRAQ! C'mon, even people who hated Saddam Husein joined the army to fight America. They're still fighting even though the war is "over".

    About bullying other countries, when Canada got a Mad Cow scare, America immedeately banned our meat. First off, it was ONE cow, and it was from AMERICA! Softwood lumber teriff, that just hurts our economy while strengthening yours. Also whats with the actors not wanting to film in Canada, thats just stupid. America is doing a hell of a lot better than Canada right now, and you want to take jobs away from us! America also banned French wine because they thought the war in Iraq was a bad Idea.

    Sure, America helps sometimes but what about Vietnaam and Cuba. America banned all trade with Cuba because its communist, and it started a war with an already wartorn 3rd world country, because they were turning communist. WHY THE HELL DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO! Also after WWII America just took the Palestinians land away from them and said this is Israel. I don't like any bit of what the Palestinians and Israelies are doing in the middle east, but soon enough I bet the Americans will go in and support Israel. That'll bring all the Muslim nations in on them and things will get even worse!

    All I'm saying is that America should just mind it's own business. Next election, please don't re-elect Bush. He's a moron.
     
  5. Swedish_viking

    Swedish_viking New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    How many iracians has been killed in the USA after 11 september??
     
  6. Shadygrove

    Shadygrove New Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    That is Bush's comitment to free trade.

    I have been asking that question for over 40 years. I have not gotten an acceptable answer yet.

    1, That was the UN. 2, It was not taken from the Palestinians, it was taken away from the British. "The Brittish mandate of Palestine." 3, There were NO Palestinians in '48. When Bobby Kennedy got shot by a Palestinian in '68, our state department hadn't even heard of Palestinians. 4, This does not make anything about that mess right, merely corecting your mistatments.

    "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything" - Joseph Stalin.

    We did not elect him. He was appointed by five republicans in black. In case you, like most of my countrymen, didn't notice we had a coup here. Do you think that given the comming emergency we will be alowed to vote in '04? What comming emergency you might ask? Why the one that will make the canceling the elections plausible.
     
  7. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    i completely understand this situation. which is why i completely disagree with the way we are going about rebuilding iraq. i am especially dumbfounded by the fact that the president has requested 87 billion dollars from congress, in order to continue going about our business in iraq. that amount is completely ridiculous. it seems to me that bush thinks he can buy himself into the best "presidency ever" category, or at least it seems that all of his policies call for spending ludicrous amounts of money. ever since 9/11 all we've done is spend spend spend. why the fuck did we have a huge tax rebate right before a war? why the fuck did we have a war when we had just spent billions bailing out the airline industry? why the fuck did we go to war right after we were done dropping 100,000 pound bombs on poor afghani villages? and why the fuck didnt anyone see this shit coming? and i gurantee you that we're setting up the new iraqi establishment in a way that will allow maximum american profits, and barely allow iraqis an average third world country quality of lifestyle. bush needs to stop quoting the god damn bible and start reading some confuscious. this 87 billion seems to me to be along the lines of "give a man a fish feed him for a day" but of course its more like "give a man 87billion fish" so the iraqis wont have any problems at all for the next 6 years or so.
     
  8. Blinky969

    Blinky969 Active Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Well, Bush bought his education, so why can't he buy a war right?

    Bush is a moron, no avoiding it. Osama bin Laden SAID, the US cannot be taken by force, we need to cripple their economy. Well, Bush is sure as fuck making that easy!

    And Iraqi infrastructure isn't going to solve the problem in Iraq. They might say thank you before they snipe at us, but they don't want us there, and that is that. We are going to spend 87 billion trying to help people who hate us? WHY?!?

    And alright, that's not fair, alot of Iraqis aren't going to shoot are troops, but I'm sure they aren't too happy of being under US control. The troops are jumpy, under no fault of their own, I would be jumpy too, and they are ready to shoot any perceived threat. Now that sounds smart and fine, but if you stand in NYC and really look at how people walk, there are alot of what could be percieved threats, and none of them pan out to be anything more than reaching for a cell phone, etc.

    Bush has let our economy crumble, and he doesn't care. He thinks if he sets up Iraq all nice and pretty like a house of cards it will be fine. But it's a flimsy house of cards. If Iraq isn't ready for the government we are setting up it doesn't matter if we spend 200 billion; in less then ten years the government will fall, a new dictator will emerge, and it will cost a TRILLION dollars to stop him that time.
     
  9. Kinjiss

    Kinjiss New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Shadygrove Said:
    1, That was the UN. 2, It was not taken from the Palestinians, it was taken away from the British. "The Brittish mandate of Palestine." 3, There were NO Palestinians in '48. When Bobby Kennedy got shot by a Palestinian in '68, our state department hadn't even heard of Palestinians. 4, This does not make anything about that mess right, merely corecting your mistatments.

    All right, thanks for the corrections. My bad.
     
  10. ThreeDogs

    ThreeDogs New Member

    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Dude being the "smart kid" on the little bus is not something to brag about
     
  11. gargob

    gargob New Member

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    I just learned that you Americans made us Pilipinos sign this paper(I think it was the Party Rights or something) when we asked for help when most of our buildings were destroyed during the war(I think it was WW2)the demos from hell(Americans) made us sign this paper that in exchange for dollars you get access to HALF of our RESOURCES of course our president had no choice because several people were dying and needed help ASAP.
    Pure Evil taking advantage of the victims. PURE EVIL I SAY.

    ThreeDogs, I wasn't being smart. Here in my school it's a requirment to learn Tagalog, English and Madarin. And one who was failing here transferred to America and became top in his class in the school over there.(Now that I reliaze it that's where all the RICH FAILURES from here go and become top in their class)
     
  12. Solaris

    Solaris New Member

    Messages:
    1,423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Don't ask me. Bush is not my president, and I don't have much interest in those of his actions that do not affect my country (Israel) one way or another. Sadly, so far he is trying to fix the damage done by the war to the US relationship with the Arabs at our cost, forcing us into yet another agreement with Arafat and his thugs.
    That said, I still have to disagree with you on at least one point: the countries in whose economy the US is involved, are usually by far more prosperous than the "proudly independent" ones. Compare the US supported states with those who refused the support- Jordan vs. Syria, Kuwait vs. Saddam's Iraq, Egypt vs. Libya or Sudan, South Korea vs. North Korea, Taiwan vs. continental China and so on.
     
  13. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    You live in israel? wow thats weird, (not weird, just something i dont encounter everyday). while i dont agree with suicide bombing, i also dont agree with the US siding with israel just because the UN decided to give an area they pointed at and called "ISRAEL" to a bunch of dispossessed jews after world war 2. not that i agree with violence in any way shape or form, but you have to admit that the fact that the americans have provided israel with millions of dollars worth of military equipment, tanks and weapons has given you guys an unfair advantage and as far as i'm able to ascertain the only option left open to anyone who wants to stand up against that kind of stuff is bombing tactics.

    the US running out of funds would directly affect israel after it got to a certain point. we'd have to cut foreign aid to the areas around you, and possibly pull out our military support in your country if the fiscal deficit ever got bad enough.

    from my limited point of view i dont think of arafat as a terrorist. i think of him as more of an islamic Moses, leading his people during a period of time when they are without homes or fair representation. inmo the only satisfactory outcome i can think of for this whole israel/palestine conflict is that both sides would just shut the fuck up about religion and learn to live in peace. as a matter of fact, the whole fucking middle east needs to take a step back and reconsider their approach to religion, how can anyone really believe that Allah, Jehova, or Jesus's intentions were to divide people and propel them into bloody, eternal conflict?
     
  14. Solaris

    Solaris New Member

    Messages:
    1,423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    A classic collection of misconceptions and propaganda myths.
    You know, I won't even bother replying to most of it. First, it would derail the thread, which wasn't made to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. Second, I get enough of this kind of posts on more or less every board I visit, and I'm not ready to waste my time and energy relpying to each and every one of them. Every time someone finds out that I'm from Israel, they feel obliged to voice every single thought that had ever crossed their mind about Israel, the Palestinians, the Arabs, the terrorists and the Middle East in general. Most posts like that are so similar in both content and phrasing that its not even entertaining anymore. I've been through so many arguments on this subject that I don't even have to type the replies anymore- the accusations against Israel thrown by all sorts of online "fighters for justice" are so predictable that I can simply reuse my posts from previous debates.

    However, one part of your post is in a way relevant to this thread. I mean this:

    Here's what I have to say on this.
    First, Israel is not the only country recieving US aid. So do Egypt, Jordan and many other Arab states. If I remember the figures right, Israel receives about 3 billion dollars per year. Egypt receives 2 billion, Jordan a bit less than a billion. This already makes an equal ammount of aid to that received by Israel. If you add the aid provided by the US to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Middle Eastern Arab states, you can easily see that the combined aid provided by the US to the Arabs (including the Palestinians by the way) is far greater than that given to Israel.
    Secondly, many Israeli generals and economists believe that Israel would be much better off without the US aid. I even heard opinions that the US aid to Israel is in fact nothing but a huge subsidy to American military industry. Here's the list of reasons why:

    1)The US military aid is the main reason why Israel is forced to use many American weapons that would otherwise long be replaced by the higher quality Israeli ones - like that worthless piece of plastic known as M16 assault rifle for example. Israeli TAR21 Tavor, and even the old IMI Galil, have proved to be superior to M16 in the given conditions. However, as M16s come as part of the US aid, Israel has no choice but to use them (as we're not allowed to sell them to the third country by the agreements).
    2)Using American vehicles and aircrafts forces Israel into purchasing spare parts and accessories for them from the American suppliers- and this time not for "cheap dollars". In fact, for every dollar of the US aid the IDF is forced to spend 3-4 dollars on maintenance. Maintaining similar technology made in Israel would cost less.
    3)Threats to cut down the US aid are being used as a tool of pressure in both politics and economy. Last year, for example, a billion dollar agreement about selling Israeli anti-missile "Arrow" systems to India was cancelled under the US pressure. So was the "Popeye" rocket deal with Poland, and the Phalcon system deal with China (also a billion dollar worth). If it wasn't for these threats, American military industries would have to engage into a fair competition against their Israeli collegues, whose technologies are usually on the same level and often even superior (for example, the effectiveness of the "Arrow" system is above 80% vs. 60% effectiveness of the US "Patriots").
    4)Today, in exchange for the formentioned aid, the US gets access to all latest Israeli military technologies and free license for their production. You would be surprised to find out how many weapons and electronic systems used by the US army are of Israeli origin.
    5)The US aid is also being used to shut down Israeli projects that can be a threat to the American weapons manufacturers (the Lavi fighter plane project was shut down in its final stage, after three prototypes were built, because the plane proved to be superior to the F16 and could become popular on the world market).
    6)The US military industries are also interested in examining the performance of their weapons and vehicles. Israel makes an excellent testing ground.
    7)Seeing the weapon supplies Israel receives from the US, the Arab states purchase huge ammounts of sophisticated arms to "keep the power balance in the region". 80% of these weapons are US made. This way, the "free" aid to Israel boosts up the sales of American weapons in the region in general.

    Back in 1991 the Israelis already announced that they supported the idea of a freeze in Middle East arms transfers, yet it was the United States that rejected it.

    Now, every time I explain this, I get asked why Israel doesn't just refuse the US aid one-sidedly. Sadly, its not that simple. It has to do with the so called "emergency agreement", according to which the US promised to support Israel with massive arms shipments if Israel is invaded by the Arab states, like it happened in 1973. In fact, it is the only kind of military aid that Israel really needs from the US. Our government is simply afraid that if they turn down the annual "aid", the US will denounce the "emergency agreement", which is seen as an important additional guarantee of Israeli security, and will also reduce the level of diplomatic and political support for Israel. Which is why we are stuck with the "aid", paying the price of American "generosity".
     
  15. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    well its not like mister ariel sharon is trying to hard to get rid of the americans, but yeah, point taken.

    sorry if i dont know everything about the israel/palestinian conflict, but anyhoo.

    i'd like to point out that there are dictators in south america, and people have it pretty bad in many parts of south america, but as far as i know we barely give any foreign aid to these countries, and definitely not in the quantities we've been providing the middle east with... anyone have any thoughts on the reason for this?

    they dont have any OIL!
     
  16. Chalupa Cobra

    Chalupa Cobra New Member

    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Machiavelli's The Prince is a good read and many of its thoughts are applicable to current situations. The book is blacklisted by most people because it advocates a selfish posture for the rulers of nations; these blacklisters fail to mention that this selfish posture is only maintained for the good of the state and that ALL of a prince's thoughts should be dedicated to the public good. The Prince is probably not as weighty a read as you think, too, if you can read through the dated language.

    The way I see it, might makes right. America has the right to reconstruct Iraq because we possess stealth bombers, nuclear weaponry, and the tencacity to threaten people with them. We have great military power and all the rights that that power grants. I feel our exercise of our rights has been grossly wrong but then I'm not the one holding the guns.

    There is also the weapons industry. Weapons makers will always strive to do bigger, better business and this means that the breeding of war goes hand-in-hand with making weapons; the same can be said of the doctors who hold back from destroying the last bastions of disease for the sake of job security; or this new wave of Internet advertisement that was most likely spawned by the very same people who made the MSBlaster and So_big viruses.

    Now, when one can't really be free without the right to bear arms and the right to bear arms means pandering to the makers of weapons, then the makers of weapons define the meaning of freedom. The definition of American freedom has become entirely warped by the pursuit of mammon. Personally, I feel that "American" freedom is something too precarious to entrust to every person in this broad land -- ESPECIALLY not in the hands of Texan Boy George.

    Unless we can see past the current events to the underlying pattern then we will be unable to affect any lasting change. America and the world at large need to consider very carefully how large a role we choose to assign deadly weaponry.
     
  17. Shadygrove

    Shadygrove New Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Jeek, we give massive aid to a lot of South American countries. Mostly under the "drug war" ruse. Yeah, like Black Hawk choppers have a police usage.

    No, we don't give as much as we do to the mid east, but there is not nearly as much oil there. The largest subsidy comes in the political spectrum, things like the Voice of America, the School of the Americas, & our black budget. Most of our aid to S. A. goes to making our chosen agents into multi milionares.

    Yes Afrat used to be a terroist, but most of Israel's early presidents had been terrorists as well. Its how you fight when you are grossly out numbered or gunned. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
     
  18. Solaris

    Solaris New Member

    Messages:
    1,423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Wrong here Shady. Only two of the Israeli prime ministers have been inolved into activities that the mandatory British government back then saw as terrorism- Menachem Begin, a former member of ETZEL (known in English sources as Irgun), and Itzhak Shamir, former member of LEHI (the Stern gang in English sources). They weren't among the "early" Israeli prime ministers (Begin became a prime minister in 1977, Shamir in 1988). Both ETZEL and LEHI attacks targeted mostly British soldiers and military administration- the kind of actions that under the Geneva convention qualify as a legitimate guerilla resistance, though there were exceptions- like the assassination of the League of the Nations representative Bernadott. It can hardly be equated to suicide bombers tactics used by the Palestinians, that violates not only the international law, but also the Muslim ethics of warfare.
     
  19. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    two is still a hell of a lot when you think about the fact that they are TERRORISTS, who became leaders of a nation. (well may be not when you think about south africa) but still!
     
  20. Solaris

    Solaris New Member

    Messages:
    1,423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Take into account 30 years of complete political obstruction they were put through. Their organizations were dismantled mercilessly by using military force, by the way (look up the Altalena transport incident), and the reputation of former ETZEL and LEHI members prevented Begin and Shamir from getting any position in the government until 1977. By that time their views had changed greatly. It was Begin who first called for withdrawing the "emergency laws", that could be seen by the Israeli Arabs as discriminatory. It was Begin who signed the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab state (Egypt). It was Shamir who first offered the Palestinians territorial authonomy during the Madrid conference.
    Not exactly the picture we see in the Palestinian authonomy, where the government members are terrorists not only in their past, but also in their present, and taking action against the militants is seen as a "betrayal".
     
Our Host!