It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear

page: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


Oh come on . . ., you are still spinning that bunk?

lol He has said many times over that he wants Israel gone. He says he wants to annihilate the regime. How do you do that? War.

He is rattling his sabers. Beating the war drums.

He wants to bring about the 12th Imam by bringing war, terror and confusion to the world, knowing that if Israel/Iran go at it, the US, Russia, and China will jump in, bringing in their allies as well. WW3.

Now tell me . . . why would you want nuclear power if you are sitting on a vast oil field. Perhaps he has turned into a tree hugger? That is the only reason our country is not running on coal and oil from our resources. The tree huggers got their panties in a bunch. So he is a tree hugger, or is caving to the tree huggers in his country?

RIIIGHT.


Quit spinning his rhetoric. Everyone knows what he means when he talks.

[edit on 9/6/2008 by xxpigxx]




posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


Oh come on . . ., you are still spinning that bunk?


"Bunk"?

What he really said, and in Farsi:

"Imam ghofteen rezhim'e ishghalgar'-e qods bayad az safheh ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

In literal English: "Imam said regime (of) occupying Jerusalem must from page of time disappear."

Now a English translation: "The Imam said the regime occupying Jerusalem must disappear from the page of time"


lol He has said many times over that he wants Israel gone.


Did he? Can you show me one quote where he says he wants "Israel" gone, rather than their Zionist goverment?


He says he wants to annihilate the regime.


Quote please.


How do you do that? War.


Why is it so hard to understand that not everything can be solved by killing people? Is this the type of mentality that people are raised up on? How about not supporting the Israeli goverment through financial means? Would that work better than having no war?


He is rattling his sabers. Beating the war drums.


Not once has he said that he will start a war with Israel. On the other hand, Israel and the US have been "beating the war drums" on Iran for the past few years.



He wants to bring about the 12th Imam by bringing war, terror and confusion to the world, knowing that if Israel/Iran go at it, the US, Russia, and China will jump in, bringing in their allies as well. WW3.


Quote please.


Now tell me . . . why would you want nuclear power if you are sitting on a vast oil field.


Cause nuclear power is more efficient, less costly, and less strain on the environment?


Perhaps he has turned into a tree hugger? That is the only reason our country is not running on coal and oil from our resources. The tree huggers got their panties in a bunch.


And if those "tree huggers" didn't have their way, what kind of world would it be for future generations? Would you be ok with breathing in coal dust every morning, when trying to start your car?





So he is a tree hugger, or is caving to the tree huggers in his country?


Always with the duality. Right or wrong. Left or Right. Black or White. With or without. Learn to think outside the box and know that there are more than two options for every decision.


Quit spinning his rhetoric. Everyone knows what he means when he talks.


Do they? How well do you speak Farsi, because if you don't understand it, then you obviously don't know what he means when he talks.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


Exactly.

I have said many times on here what you just stated but people are just too ignorant to read between the lines.

The mistranslated "wiped off the map" quote attributed to Iran's President has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this FALSE statement to the masses. Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis to further push the governments agenda of going into war with Iran.

Following news of Iran's remark, as usual condemnation was swift and not surprising at all.

This scenario mirrors the kind of false claims that led to the illegal US invasion of Iraq, a war now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake. And yet the Bush administration and the corrupt corporate media continue to marinate the propaganda and speculation about attacking Iraq's much larger and more formidable neighbor - Iran. Most of this rests on the unproven assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the lie that Iran has vowed to physically destroy Israel which has been proven to be very misleading and not accurate. Given its scope and potentially disastrous outcome, all this amounts to what is arguably the RUMOUR of the century.

Peace

CR



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I've read the other translations, and it all equivalates to Ahmadinejad saying that he wishes Israel would be wiped off the map. This isn't any better. It shows that the radical government of Iran has no tolerance for Israel, or in my opinion, any non-Muslim nation. Now it is Israel, next it will be all of Africa, then India, and so on.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 





Now a English translation: "The Imam said the regime occupying Jerusalem must disappear from the page of time"



Doesn't that pretty much mean to "not exist in history".

I mean if I said DJ, "This fella over here wishes you to disappear from the pages of history, like you were never born or existed." Would you think he has good intentions towards you or bad intentions towards you?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Isn't it surprising how far they will go to come up with an excuse to defend that nutjob? Someone wants to destroy a country, and they try to find any way possible to defend that nutcase. Glad they weren't around in the 30's cause you know they would have been trying the same BS about Hitler and what he said.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Look at the obvious simple explanation people


Hold them horses please...


Ahmadinejad start making all this tough talk beating the drums of war as the U.S. is getting ready to choose our next leader for the next four, or perhaps eight years.


Actually his not beating anything he hasn't for some time now so it's hardly that obvious to me.


We can choose someone who wants to end the war or someone who wants to continue the war,


Didn't the American people in part vote for Bush because he also claimed that he would seek peace and would not indulge in 'arrogant' foreign policy? Since when did the American people EVER choose a president because he claimed that he was for wars? Just show me one that made it clear that he would involve the American people in foreign adventures and i show you someone that stole an election.


so why is Ahmadinejad stirring up trouble now when it will only most likely lead to the U.S. choosing a president who will defend our nation against his agression the strongest. The bad guys of the world are all in this together.


Because Americans have never voted for anything other than a strong defense and that wont change even if American presidents keep trying to pretend that they are in fact 'defending' the USA by invading other countries that NEVER attacked the US or even it's people's interest. The bad guys may very well be all in it together but that most certainly does not logically lead from the example you just presented.


The U.S. involvement in overseas military actions is supposed to be to spread the American way of life and all the advantages of our culture.


No it is not but that is one of the excuses they employ to pacify the American public who would much rather see that money spent on health care and infrastructure development. You should not confuse the official propaganda line with the actual for profit/control causes of the American wars of aggression against the developed and over exploited parts of the world.


Why should we sit by while brutal oppressive regimes all around the third world control most of the planet.


Why indeed did the American government either fund and support most of them? Why should the rest of the world sit by and allow this kind of behaviour other than the fact that western propaganda is very good and the enforcers of the global imperialism very well armed?


Why shouldn't we get involved to free the people of the oppressed third world nations from their oppressors?


This is a good question and a good majority of Americans who support foreign adventures do in fact believe that the US is 'liberating' said people from oppression. The fact that the US national security state people are in fact the oppressors is not something they can understand or wish to accept hence the continued US terrorism against the over exploited parts of the world. If the US were in fact in the business of liberating people i am sure it's army would manage to find recruits without having to pay them so much.


Isn't this the concept behind the military activities of the U.S. around the globe? Unfortunately, the people our military winds up representing are the people of the U.S., truth, justice, honor and all that, but International


No it isn't but luckily most people of the world are familiar with oppressive regimes and understand that the American people wouldn't actually endorse it if they understood what was going on.


Corporations who only want to put people in power that will help our IC's take advanatage of, supress, and enslave the people of the third world. Our tax dollars wind up going to the bad guys, and are used to export our jobs to slave labor states.


The tax dollars don't magically wind up in the wrong hands as it's PUT there by the hands that receives the money from the public; we should get away from the ideas that allows people to reason that all these terrible things happens 'coincidently' and without planning.


As far as all this who started what nonsense, this has been going on for a thousand years. When the Muslim world could compete with Europe militarily, they were agressively attacking the West.


So you won't mind sharing that history with me then?


For the last five hundred year, the Muslim world dared not to attack the West, except for terrorist incidences in the last fifty years, because western technology gave us far superior military might.


It's like the Ottoman empire didn't exist at all! History is FAR too complex to attempt the type of summation you seem to be interested in.



A thousand years ago, Muslims conquered the holy land, now we have taken it back.


So it's conquering when they win and 'take it back' when 'the west' 'wins'? That's a very interesting way of looking at history....


The Muslim world doesn't like it, too bad, it was not yours to begin with.


So who's was it?


In addition, most people hear about the barbaric laws practiced in Muslim nations, and we look at the Muslim world as barbaric.


As if the women of the west felt particularly free until just a few decades ago! What makes the very recent achievements of the west so special in your eyes that 'Arabs' must be treated with such disdain? Isn't this really a question of who watches who's propaganda and which economic system currently dominates the world?


In addition, Muslims in Europe are creating all kinds of problems, and these honor killings are being carried out at a far higher rate than serial killing and campus rampages here in the U.S. that we loudly condemn, while the Muslim world denies these honor killings. Once again, the Muslim world looks barbaric.


Sure they look barbaric in many ways but would that have been the case if the US didn't support the religious fundamentalist elements in most Muslim societies? What would happen to the west if the religious fundamentalist were given all the money and guns they wanted while their opponents were systematically assassinated by some foreign power with said power to ward of any like terrorism?


The West will always be far ahead in technology. The Muslim religion by it's very nature, stunts the development of technology.


The West wasn't far ahead in anything until recently and unless you wish to argue about which religion had the most deliterious effect on human progress i would suggest that both stunts development in horrible ways.


As long as the Islam has a hold on the Middle East, that region will always be backwards in technology.


But Islam does not have a hold on the middle east any more than Christianity has on Europe! It's just a question of who supports who and who is allowed to hold power and in which fashion. When ME nations vote for progressive candidates they are assassinated or otherwise sidelined and as long as that type of western practices are so effective it's unlikely that the majorities in nominally Muslim nations will be able to change their countries in the progressive ways that the majorities in European nations have managed to.


The only countries outside of Western Europe, the U.S., and Canada, who have developed into first world economies are Japan and S. Korea, who have adopted to western culture and ways.


They did not adopt Western culture and ways, but capitalism results in definite changes, but did adopt hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of education and infrastructure development ( from the western powers who built them up to serve as bulwarks of capitalism against socialism) that the various civil authorities to the best of their abilities then used to develop quite efficient modern capitalist states that in many ways have prevented the worse of American capitalist from taking root in their societies.


Technology in the West will continue to outstrip the rest of the world, and in another twenty years, our weapons technology will be so far more advanced, that we will be able to go in and out of anywhere in the third world with very little chance of taking on casualties.


I have heard that nonsense before and i will not give it any more credence now than ever before. Fact is the leaders of the US national security state does not give a damn about US casualties and the only reason why they apply more technology to the challenges is because American corporations can make MASSIVE profits by the ever changing and supposedly better weapons systems. The reason why the US army wont take any or many more casualties in the future has far more to do with it's relatively proficiency than with it's 'high' technology weapons all of which hasn't prevented it from taking many tens of thousands of serious casualties.

Continued



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   

The only threat the Muslim world poses to the West is through immigration. By controlling birth rates through the enslavement of their women, the Muslims would like to take over Europe through a population race.


Funnily, not for women thought, the moment women tasted a modicum of freedom, and the resulting prosperity, they employed it prevent men from forcing them to have kids by the boatload. High birth rates has everything to do with prosperity and the status of women in that society and if the west wants to 'protect' itself from this obviously non existent problem the European countries should either properly reward the immigrants they so desperately need or just close their borders to the countries where women are still treated as they were in the west not so long ago.


Europe needs to take steps to protect themselves from this type of aggression, or it will succeed.


Poor white folk, yes, always the victims of foreign plots... It's funny how conspiracies only exists to undermine the west with any mention of the west doing similar things to the developing world being ridiculed.


All of this plays into the hands of the IC's and the WTO, and the NWO crowd.


Actually they dislike larger population numbers , beyond a certain point, as their experiments with sterilization have proven over and over again. More people than you need to keep yourself in power is just people that you need to control by harsher means which destabilizes or even partly exposes the control system.


Luckily, all those people don't trust each other, because they are all a bunch of coniving, back stabbing, opportunists. They only cooperate to fight against the people who stand up for freedom in this world. Their problem is that they are like a community of cannibals. You never know when your nieghbor is going to try and throw you or a member of your family into the pot.


They are not a community of cannibals as such would have long ago consumed itself. Whether they are a 'community' driven/motivated by anything but a shared fear of the 'unwashed masses' is really the question as despite all those challenges they still apparently manage quite a bit of intrigue amongst themselves. That being said they are still around and their power have grown so lets not overstate the disagreements they might have and forget to mention how much success they are managing despite it.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


He's referring to the regime that is occupying Israel. Not the country itself.

Do you know who the regime is that is occupying Israel? Take a guess
It might all start to make sense.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Oh well gee that makes it all ok. So I guess if Bush were to make a speech saying he wants to remove from all time the Islamic Republic of Iran regime then you would approve of it since he isn't saying Iran, just the Govt. right? And that makes it all ok?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
Oh well gee that makes it all ok.


Did I personally say anything about making it ok or not? I was making it more clear for you because you had the wrong idea.


So I guess if Bush were to make a speech saying he wants to remove from all time the Islamic Republic of Iran regime then you would approve of it since he isn't saying Iran, just the Govt. right? And that makes it all ok?


Bush has basically already said these things. So as I said, who do you think supplies Iran? Who is Iran basically a little sister/brother of? Who do you think supplies Israel? Who do you think Israel is a little brother/sister of?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


And what regime occupies Israel exactly? Mahmud Abbas?

If prime minister in my country says Hamas regime in Gaza has to fall, i think that he means military operation. Maybe because i am not hypocrite?
Both are threats. It does not mean that threat is going to be fulfilled, but religious connotations make me nervous. Of course he meant another type Mahdi....



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mad_Hatter
War between Iran and Israel is inevitable...its been in the making since we (The US) gave Israel back to the Jews after WWII....tsk tsk... and yep...I'm sure the U.S. will get involved for 2 reasons...a)United States backs israel and b) United States likes to play "Team America: World Police"

[edit on 6/2/2008 by Mad_Hatter]


The only inevitability is that Israel will instigate a war with Iran by hook or by crook. Israel has had wars with its all its neighbours, it has assassination squads stationed all over the planet, has an army of sayanim (helpers) in all walks of life in every Western country and large third world country and the Israeli government has a network of professional agents (Katsas) in every country of note in the world. In contrast, Iran has not initiated any acts of war for more than several hundred years, does not have death squads stalking the world threatening the nationals of other countries and is subject to Israeli threats, allegations and demonisation.

Frankly if a country like Israeli was after my country like that, I would certainly support a build up of nuclear weapons.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


But Israel has no border with Iran. And i do not see how Ahmadinejad's speeches prevent this aggression by awful Katsas - by the way, what is it exactly? I live in Israel, speak Hebrew and am not aware of Katsas. But it makes them even more powerfull, then!
Edit:
Hate to be a pedant, but Iran exists for less then Israel so several hundreds years are a logical impossibility. But Persia had aggressive wars with Turkey, British colonies and Russian empire. All in less then 200 years.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by ZeroKnowledge]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 



Iran exports crude, useless for their economy, they still import their refined oil. Want independence from Central Banks, keep sovernity, make nukes like Israel did with their reactor.

Iran already has enough polonium and radioactive junk from Korea sales. Load it up on a scud and let it rip, 8 million glowing Jews for America and U.K. to treat, it will break USA health care.

That is best case response scenario you can get.........worse is US Gulf ships are reigned down on with 3000 Russian made Sunburn missles that can NOT be shot down, US says we are ducks in water. If Iran ships blockade narrow Gulf, trapped like sardines ..........CAN YOU SAY PEARL HARBOR ?

CAN YOU SAY WW IV ?
Careful what you wish for, you act like a chicken hawk NeoCon, Israeli Firster.

"Be very carefull when it comes to falling in love with another country," (Pres Ike)
only Micronesia, a dot near OZ, supports American/Israeli War On Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
Oh well gee that makes it all ok.


Sure it does as the US have not only CALLED for 'regime'/government, elected by it's people or not, removal but actually removed or intervened in the election of very many dozens.


So I guess if Bush were to make a speech saying he wants to remove from all time the Islamic Republic of Iran regime then you would approve of it since he isn't saying Iran, just the Govt. right?


So you didn't hear him calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein? You didn't hear calls for the removal of Hugo Chavez? What about Fidel Castro? Where have you been?


And that makes it all ok?


It doesn't make it 'ok' but it does point out that the country with the ability and record of removing regimes are run by hypocrites that get away with this type of illegalities.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


At least you admit that Ahmadinejad is beating the war drums and stirring up trouble. Maybe Ahmadinejad's constant taunts for war are only getting a little more attention now that the election is on. What makes it clear is that Ahmadinejad is definately a war monger, and yes, he does seem to have taken it up a notch during this election cycle.

You say no U.S. president comes to office by claiming he will start a war and then you say that the U.S. people always vote for the president who will make the U.S. military stronger. Seems that you have things fairly twisted up here.

First of all, the U.S. has tended to shy away from war mongers, not always, but most often, and many times Presidents have been elected who campaigned on cutting the military budget and concentrating more on domestic spending rather than military spending. For a long time the U.S. preferred to stay out of world affairs. This is basic U.S. history, you might want to get more of the story before making these convoluted assessments.

As far as my statement that "The U.S. involvement in overseas military actions is supposed to be to spread the American way of life and all the advantages of our culture."

You seemed to miss the phrase "SUPPOSED TO BE" in this statement. Your twisted reply winds up agreeing with my original statement as posted above. I also clearly state that while the U.S. people would like to see the elimination of brutal dictators around the world, that unfortunately, it doesn't always work this way.

Here is where you fail to grasp the logic. The international corporations who have far to much control in this world are not the same as the U.S. government. The problem is that these IC's do have a great deal of power, and therefore a great deal of influence in the U.S. government. Therefore the U.S. government, or parts of the U.S. government, and governments all over the world, wind up doing the will of the IC's.

You claim "The fact that the US national security state people are in fact the oppressors is not something they ( I assume you mean the people of the U.S. here ) can understand or wish to accept hence the continued US terrorism against the over exploited parts of the world.

Sorry, but you need to face a cold hard reality about the U.S.. First, most Americans are not that naive. While there are occasions where most of the people do get fooled for an adequate amount of time to get the wrong people elected, we here in the U.S. are doing better than the rest of the world in avoiding getting fooled over and over again. The people of the U.S. are not as stupid as you seem to think. The second part is the harder part to face. We here in the U.S. do not live in a secured zone where liberty and the American way of life are gauranteed. We struggle here to hold on to our liberty just like the rest of the world, we have just managed to be more successful, for now.

Here is the clincher, the ability of the IC's to exploit third world nations help these IC's build power, and these IC's are able to use this power to continue to chip away at our rights here in the good ole U.S. of A., and throughout the rest of the developed world.

Then you come along and claim complete ignorance about the centuries of Muslim aggression and the spread of Islam by the sword. This is what makes you a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. When Muslims start to face the realities of their past, then we can maybe start to work together to bring peace to this world, but as long as you want to continue to deny the problems of the Muslim world, you will remain a part of the problem. If you know about the Ottoman empire, then you know what I am talking about. Again, you prove yourself wrong.

The Muslim's conquered the holy land, we conquered the Muslims and took it back, sound better to you? Who does the planet Earth belong to? Who gets to be the boss of the world? Seems to me that the Muslims are the ones demanding to control the government of the land if Israel, that the Muslims are the ones demanding to be made the boss of the world.

Actually, the women of the west have always enjoyed far greater freedoms then women in the Muslim world. Women in the West have always been able to walk around without an escort, without having to cover themselves from head to toe. Who are you kidding?

Do we support the religious fundamentalist in most Muslim nations, or are those the ones we are forced to deal with? Seems to me that we are currently fighting the religious fundamentalists in Iraq and Afghanistan, while supporting the House of Saud, who may or may not be religiously fundamentalists. The situation is far more convoluted than you seem to want to grasp. There are good guys and bad guys on all sides of these situations.

As long as the west is able to hang onto representative government, and the concepts of the rights of man, we will continue to outpace the Muslim world technologically and therefore economically. We have enough problems here in the West keeping our quality leaders from being assasinated, don't blame us because you are not so successful in the Middle East. You are only continuing to fool yourself by claiming that all the failures of the Middle East are due to the power and influence of the West and the U.S.. Start taking responsibility for your own failures.

Sorry, but Japan and S. Korea did adopt many U.S. and other western cultural traits to succeed as they have, from the institutions of the their governments and bankings systems, the roots of their technologies, their labor unions, down to their three piece suits. They didn't abandon their culture in favor of Western Culture, but they adopted the critical components that allowed them to become first world nations. The West has also copied many Eastern cultural traits. The same evil influences of the IC's were working to prevent these two nations from succeeding that are working all over the world to keep the people of the third world oppressed. These nations succeeded, just as the western nations in their time succeeded in throwing off the yokes of tyranny.

Instead of blaming the U.S. for the failures of the Muslim world, you should learn what enabled us to succeed, and what enabled Japan and S Korea to succeed, and copy those trait.

Europe doesn't need immigration, after WW II they were short on man power but that time has come and gone., Now they allow it out of kindness. Be careful that the welcome is not worn out. All sides engage in plots and conspiracies, and evil is everywhere. I recognize the evil the U.S. based IC's have done in this world. Can you recognize the evil things that Islam has done, and continues to do?

The evil regimes of the world come and go, and few remain in power for very long. Most collapse in self destruction, only to be born again in a new from. The IC's have had their run, but in my opinion, they are about to run into their demise. How much longer do you think radical Islam will survive? I think Islam will eventually mellow out like Catholicism did, or at least that is what I hope.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
At least you admit that Ahmadinejad is beating the war drums and stirring up trouble. Maybe Ahmadinejad's constant taunts for war are only getting a little more attention now that the election is on. What makes it clear is that Ahmadinejad is definately a war monger, and yes, he does seem to have taken it up a notch during this election cycle.


So what if he is? When last did Iran invade any country and or bomb a entire society back into a near pre- industrial state? Do you threaten to beat a child to death when the tells you he hates you, even if he is shaking is little fists at you, or do you rather try to pacify him while your attempting to work out what's going on? Why does it make sense to threaten with violence when we know what the problem is and can show that the Iranian regime are nowhere near as dangerous as those who are accusing them?


You say no U.S. president comes to office by claiming he will start a war and then you say that the U.S. people always vote for the president who will make the U.S. military stronger. Seems that you have things fairly twisted up here.


That's in fact pretty clear to me; Americans want security against foreign aggression but they are by no means in support of attacking those who are not unilaterally threatening them. If you doubt that such is in fact the case just go look at what it took to drag Americans in both the first and second world war. If Hitler didn't declare war in the way he did Roosevelt might have had to leave yet another port ( or something similar) unprotected so as to tempt the Germans into a open and obvious attack; sinking American destroyers just wasn't getting the American people all that excited.


First of all, the U.S. has tended to shy away from war mongers, not always, but most often, and many times Presidents have been elected who campaigned on cutting the military budget and concentrating more on domestic spending rather than military spending.


The US national security establishment has a tendency to support and or install foreign dictators who will do their bidding in world affairs and this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that American presidents must campaign on platforms that promises peace and prosperity for Americans. The largest majority of the American people want peace , hence the promises to them, and a significant proportion of the rest think that the US national security establishment is in fact trying to bring about peace by attacking other nations. I do not understand why this is so hard to understand knowing as you must how governments tend to decieve their voters.


For a long time the U.S. preferred to stay out of world affairs. This is basic U.S. history, you might want to get more of the story before making these convoluted assessments.


I very probably understand American history, especially foreign affairs, better than you do and if you want to defend the concept that the US did not have a imperial strategy or ambition you can start by explaining why it took over such a large tract of the North AMerican continent and then proceed to how a few rebels turned against Britain which were by no means taxing them too heavily if at all. The fact that early Amercan history are not market by invasions of territories all over the world is easily explaining by the fact that they were already occupied by other far better armed and organized imperial powers.


As far as my statement that "The U.S. involvement in overseas military actions is supposed to be to spread the American way of life and all the advantages of our culture."

You seemed to miss the phrase "SUPPOSED TO BE" in this statement. Your twisted reply winds up agreeing with my original statement as posted above.


That's just what the American people have been told but it has NEVER been the intent of the selected/elected ( or these days unelected) officials who actually start those wars. They are not trying to spread freedom, democracy or any measure of economic prosperity and the results are almost always the exact opposite of the aims as explained to the American public.


I also clearly state that while the U.S. people would like to see the elimination of brutal dictators around the world, that unfortunately, it doesn't always work this way.


In fact the US national security apparatus never aims to remove anyone for reasons of their brutality or anti-democratic intent and if they do remove elected/unelected people from offices in various countries it is because their larger aims of economic dominance are met.


Here is where you fail to grasp the logic. The international corporations who have far to much control in this world are not the same as the U.S. government. The problem is that these IC's do have a great deal of power, and therefore a great deal of influence in the U.S. government. Therefore the U.S. government, or parts of the U.S. government, and governments all over the world, wind up doing the will of the IC's.


So they control the US intelligent apparatus, the presidency, the armed forces and the US media to such a extent that we can not fault the US government but must instead blame this all on a vague conspiracy of international corporations? I am sorry but if they are not working very closely together they are either one and the same thing or share the broader aim of destroying democracy and preventing economic expansion which is hard for me to presume as a logical corporate aim.


You claim "The fact that the US national security state people are in fact the oppressors is not something they ( I assume you mean the people of the U.S. here ) can understand or wish to accept hence the continued US terrorism against the over exploited parts of the world.


true...


Sorry, but you need to face a cold hard reality about the U.S.. First, most Americans are not that naive. While there are occasions where most of the people do get fooled for an adequate amount of time to get the wrong people elected, we here in the U.S. are doing better than the rest of the world in avoiding getting fooled over and over again.


To be most precise i would pick the word 'misinformed'; i don't think there are other western societies that are so misinformed. If i must use the world naive i would use it in the context of American arrogance where it's presumed that America is doing something 'better' to the world than other imperial powers before it. As for the American public avoiding getting fooled you just ended up with the same president of wasn't elected by Americans in either elections. To suggest that such a thing still happens in France, Britain, Germany or the Scandinavian countries is just not something i have seen but maybe you have evidence to the contrary?


The people of the U.S. are not as stupid as you seem to think. The second part is the harder part to face. We here in the U.S. do not live in a secured zone where liberty and the American way of life are gauranteed. We struggle here to hold on to our liberty just like the rest of the world, we have just managed to be more successful, for now.


There is a very specific reason why i don't call Americans, or any other large group of people, stupid and why i insist that it's trough misinformed that our cooperation is achieved. The wonderful thing about misinformation is that you can exploit a particular group with normally sufficient numbers of them actively aiding you! This is not something you can arrange against a ignorant people who will soon notice who holds the whip even if they were not feeling the lashes.


Here's the clincher, the ability of the IC's to exploit third world nations help these IC's build power, and these IC's are able to use this power to continue to chip away at our rights here in the good ole U.S. of A., and throughout the rest of the developed world.


But these self same IC's would have a much much harder time turning a fabulous profit in the third world if western intelligent/military forces did not sweep in and destroy any organized resistance to capitalism. Fact is that international corporations just can't be the real problem as we can regulate them trough elections and other processes which we could achieve once a public becomes well enough informed to keep their elected officials from serving the international conspiracy that is not even happy with the best ( or shall i say the few more moderate presumptions about capitalism) capitalism has to offer.


Then you come along and claim complete ignorance about the centuries of Muslim aggression and the spread of Islam by the sword. This is what makes you a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.


I don't claim ignorance and in fact just professed that i understood that Muslims are by no means any more innocent or guilty than the rest of mankind. If you wish to argue that there is something inherently worse about Muslims feel free to find a suitable idiotic audience to go share such lunacy with.

Continued



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

When Muslims start to face the realities of their past, then we can maybe start to work together to bring peace to this world, but as long as you want to continue to deny the problems of the Muslim world, you will remain a part of the problem.


So when Europeans( which for the most part is presumed to be Christian) start to face the reality of their imperial past, then maybe we can start to work together to bring peace to this world, bu as long as you want to continue to deny to deny the legacy of Imperial Europe you will remain part of the problem. What has the western world done that is so superior to the Muslim world ( and i don't mean in the last fifty years, who cares about such a short space of time) that we should condemn them all to hell by blaming every wrong in the world on their heads? Who believes such nonsensical dribble beside the hopelessly misinformed?


If you know about the Ottoman empire, then you know what I am talking about. Again, you prove yourself wrong.


I know a fair bit about history and that's why i have come to the conclusion that holding one religion or group of people to be more blameworthy, than another, today, is just self serving and largely uninformed arrogance.


The Muslim's conquered the holy land, we conquered the Muslims and took it back, sound better to you?


As i remember the 'chosen people' also had to kill the local inhabitants to gain control of the 'holy land'; history is a bloody mess and only those who are ignorant of it, or understands that others are, seeks justifications based on it. To suggest that we should hate Muslims for killing the original killers of those who killed and conquered before them is in my opinion pretty useless as motivation.


Who does the planet Earth belong to? Who gets to be the boss of the world?


Well i don't think it can be said to belong to anyone but while we are here i would very much like the majority wishes to be respected and that's why i believe we should stand or fall together as long as democracy reigns.


Seems to me that the Muslims are the ones demanding to control the government of the land if Israel, that the Muslims are the ones demanding to be made the boss of the world.


Seems to me you do not know what your talking about. The GOVERNMENTS and people's of the region understand that Jewish people ( even if the majority of the current inhabitants were Semitic people's ) have no greater claim to the region than them themselves have and while they were at first not too mindful of the fact that Semitic people's of the Jewish faith were once again settling some lands in the area they did not at the time understand that imperial powers such as Britain would eventually take up the cause of this terrorist band ( want to talk about Jewish suicide bombers?) and give and support the creation of a state they could never have managed in the absence of such support.

Knowing that Israeli's continued existence rests largely on the fact that they have been so well armed and financed by European powers the people of the region are logically suspicious and will at some time in the future, when Israel is abandoned to it's own defenses, test Israeli resolve by force of arms. How justified such actions may or may not be is not really important, given the historic pretext, and to judge either the average Israeli or the average Syrian, Iranian, Jordanian and so forth based on the narrow idea that some faction deserves it any more than they have the power or will to take it is a exercise in futility.


Actually, the women of the west have always enjoyed far greater freedoms then women in the Muslim world.
Women in the West have always been able to walk around without an escort, without having to cover themselves from head to toe. Who are you kidding?


I am not so sure that women in the west have enjoyed greater freedoms or longer lifespans ( which i believe to be a telling point) for the time span in which these religious have been practiced and since Islam has been around for quite a bit less time it just hasn't had as much time to do as much damage. Frankly i don't see why i should argue the point with someone who believes that the question of a 'escort' or clothing ( do you know what happens to skin exposed to the sunlight conditions in the area?) to be pertinent enough to prove his point. At best we will arrive at the conclusion that Muslim cultures were generally more 'civilized' ( in terms of organization; which they were) and that the patriarchal systems that resulted allowed a more state sponsored approach to suppressing the natural rights of women; The moment such organizations prevailed in the west much the same happened to women there. If you want to find yet more reasons to hate Muslim's that's up to you but your bias is most certainly showing.


Do we support the religious fundamentalist in most Muslim nations, or are those the ones we are forced to deal with?


You government supports the religious fundamentalist in most countries because they are in most cases also representative of the property and or wealthy classes. Since capitalism is all about protecting the ill gotten gains of the minority against the majority they stole it from this is not a question of picking one religion over another but simply expediency to affect the aims of capitalism.


Seems to me that we are currently fighting the religious fundamentalists in Iraq and Afghanistan, while supporting the House of Saud, who may or may not be religiously fundamentalists.


The US national security state is fighting a liberation movement in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the fact that some of those resistance fighters also hold very strong/fundamentalist religious views is largely incidental. Iraq were by no means led by a religious fundamentalist and the country were by no means being turned into a fundamentalist society. Afghanistan is a bit more interesting because the US national security state created the fundamentalism there from almost scratch ( Trained in Pakistan) knowing that the schools they were funding in Pakistan were in fact just as much against US imperialism as against perceived Soviet Imperialism and that as soon as the Soviets packed up and left those individuals would shift their aim to liberate other 'muslims' who were living under the neo- colonial western system. The US supports the House of Saud because the house of Saud serves itself and only feigns religious intent when it serves them to pacify some elements of their society who is faking religious intent for the sake of not being persecuted by a government who must be seen to take religion very seriously.


The situation is far more convoluted than you seem to want to grasp. There are good guys and bad guys on all sides of these situations.


No damn kidding? I am doing my best to explain to you that it's more complex than you know and here you are, the guy who is trying to tell us that Muslims are in fact far worse than anyone else, now suddenly pretending that you are familiar with the complexities of history? If you in fact believe that should i then presume that your admitting to a illogical hatred of Muslims?


As long as the west is able to hang onto representative government, and the concepts of the rights of man, we will continue to outpace the Muslim world technologically and therefore economically.


Well the 'representative governments of the west, are largely not representative and the people's of various western nations are doing their absolute best to keep their mostly elected leaders from doing what they said they would do before they were elected. The people of the west are mostly doing better than people elsewhere not because they are inherently more self respecting, smarter or in possession of natural abilities but largely due to a historical set of happenstances and events that could have turned out very differently with very different concepts of human rights as result. To suggest that the west is 'naturally' more inclined towards representative governments, the concepts of the rights of man and the like is not only speaking in evidence of your completely ignorance of western history but also admitting that you do not understand where modern civilization originated from!

As for the claim that the west continues to outpace the Muslim world technologically this is once again a current happenstance and it no more proves that the trend will continue than the fact that China's Economic and ( and sometimes technological preeminence) for the vast majority of the last two thousand years were always going to continue. Where would India have been today if the British economy did not reduce it's GDP by two thirds in a few decades? Where would China have been without western intervention? Where would Europe have been without two world wars? Where would Europa have been without vast colonies all over the world to strip mine and exploit into near oblivion? Would you like to try to make sense of all the could have been's and what if's and then proceed to explain to me why even a majority of those events were set in stone?

Continued



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

We have enough problems here in the West keeping our quality leaders from being assasinated, don't blame us because you are not so successful in the Middle East


Yes but what you fail to mention, or don't understand, is that it's the agents of western governments that assassinated the leaders of the less well developed/over exploited parts of the world. The fact that the powers that seem to reside behind those western government sometimes intervene to kill even prominent western leaders ( anyone remember Kennedy?) may point out that we are all in the same boat but it hardly helps if not even many westerners understands this. The idea that the East should be more successful in protecting their leaders from imperial assassination squads and mercenaries is ludicrous and i wonder why you suggested that we should be blaming them for such a failure.


You are only continuing to fool yourself by claiming that all the failures of the Middle East are due to the power and influence of the West and the U.S.. Start taking responsibility for your own failures.


I am not suggesting that the US is to blame for all the world's ill's but it's very hard to be overly critical of less well developed countries ( who's anti imperial struggle leaders keeps getting killed by foreign resources) under such duress. Until such a time as foreign influence can be limited to far lower levels i am going to have to side with the oppressed and point out why it's hard to breath properly if someone is sitting on your chest.


Sorry, but Japan and S. Korea did adopt many U.S. and other western cultural traits to succeed as they have, from the institutions of the their governments and bankings systems,


Japan was a fast rising power long before the US intervened and nothing short of perpetual physical occupation could in my opinion have kept them down for very long. The massive western capitol investing plus the hard working well organized people does not require the adoption of any US cultural traits. When it comes to South Korea there is a stronger argument for cultural exchange, especially given the large numbers of troops stationed in smaller less populous country, but even there i think most of the changes you perceive have been imposed and are more capitalist tendencies than American one's.


the roots of their technologies, their labor unions, down to their three piece suits.


So their technical ability and engineering feats are due to the adoption of American cultural traits? Labour unions are in my opinion stronger in Japan than they are in the US and while you might wish to argue that it's the adoption of American traits that got them there i would wonder when Americans lost those supposedly American traits to fail so badly at protecting their unions and generally unionizing the American citizenry.


They didn't abandon their culture in favor of Western Culture, but they adopted the critical components that allowed them to become first world nations.


Or, as i would argue, the kept the traditions that made them strong in the first place ( certainly the case for Japan) and diligently avoided the adoption the cultural traits that are preventing Americans from making their country far more powerful and prosperous than it is today. The fact that you think resource poor Japan/ South Korea could have ever succeeded by applying the American model of development just suggests that you really have no clue as the protectionism measures it required to build up those countries.


The West has also copied many Eastern cultural traits. The same evil influences of the IC's were working to prevent these two nations from succeeding that are working all over the world to keep the people of the third world oppressed.


The nations ( or maybe it suddenly serves your interest to argue that's it evil influences instead?) that ensured that one third of Koreans still live under very repressive regime should hardly be thanked for their great service to humanity and the Japanese success were a naturally development based on decades and decades of speedy economic and social development before the second world war. Japan's economic might didn't come from nowhere and to suggest that American did more good than harm is to have failed to understand why the US waged a war of aggression against Japan to which Japan responded by attacking Pearl Harbour.


These nations succeeded, just as the western nations in their time succeeded in throwing off the yokes of tyranny.


The measure of freedoms that the people of the Europe have achieved for themselves should never be confused with the violence their leaders/corporations are still visiting on whichever nations and people's it stands to benefit from in one way or another. Western nations never succeeded in throwing of the yoke but they have chipped away at it so that it today does not rest nearly so heavily on their shoulders. This weight has now , unbeknown st to the Europeans in question, been shifted to the people of the third and developing/over exploited parts of the world and their burden is becoming heavier and heavier by the day.


Instead of blaming the U.S. for the failures of the Muslim world, you should learn what enabled us to succeed, and what enabled Japan and S Korea to succeed, and copy those trait.


Imperialism, slavery and theft the scale of which is hardly imaginable is what enabled the old European families and corporations to gain the power which they still exercises. Since the third world is most certainly not well enough armed and organized to do the same ( lets supposed they had the intent) the odds are relatively low that the same prosperity will soon befall those still live under the same tyranny that Europeans have now mostly banished from Europe and North America. As for the Muslim worlds failures i hardly care much given by proximity to African failures and suffering...


Europe doesn't need immigration, after WW II they were short on man power but that time has come and gone., Now they allow it out of kindness.


What nonsense. Europe was not short of manpower after world war two and the times of highest migration were in fact ( feel free to go check as i read this a few years ago) in the late 50's and 60's when the still increasing American prosperity were still creating export markets all over the world. Currently Europe allows immigration because capitalism doesn't work and is completely dependent on paying those who do the most important work ( building stuff, maintaining stuff, growing stuff etc) to the lowest paid labor it can find or draft. Since such barely living wages are still a huge step up from certain starvation wages Africans will continue to stream to wherever they can and they will only be prevented from such attempts in the most half-hearted of ways. This is what globalism is all about and you should try to understand what alternative aim there could be for corporations to outsource production other than forcing the poor of one part of the world to compete with the starving of another.


Be careful that the welcome is not worn out. All sides engage in plots and conspiracies, and evil is everywhere.


And now your just being typically paranoid. Evil is not everywhere and if i could in fact make a list of people we could ship to penal planet somewhere else it would probably not contain more than a few tens of thousands of names. The absolute vast majority of people are by no means evil but to set in motion evil events, in the absence of sufficiently well informed and paranoid minds, is not apparently as complex as some would have you believe hence the success of the evil few. As you say all sides ( and they do not include average people in the planning that really matters) may be engaged in plots and conspiracies but since the vast majority does not even understand that they are the victims of a global conspiracy the thought just wont cross their mind often enough to stick and take root.


I recognize the evil the U.S. based IC's have done in this world. Can you recognize the evil things that Islam has done, and continues to do?


The first is easy but the comparative crimes of Islam barely registers on either a historic or modern graph. If you want to compare the crimes of each that's just fine with me but frankly they don't hold much power and they never ever had a chance to do much other than hold on to what they had which they proved incapable of doing in the first world war.

Continued

[edit on 1-7-2008 by StellarX]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by StellarX]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join