Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bustr on January 29, 2007, 08:08:49 PM
-
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/01/29/giving_radical_islam_its_start
Fun passage from article:
When the Shah petitioned the Carter administration to purchase tear gas and riot control gear, the human rights office in the State Department held up the request. Some, like State Department official Henry Precht, urged the U.S. to prepare the way for the shah to make a “graceful exit” from power. William Miller, chief of staff on the Democrat-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, said America had nothing to fear from Khomeini since he would be a progressive force for human rights. U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan even compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi, and Andrew Young termed the ayatollah a “twentieth century saint.”
-
The origins of terrorism can be traced back as far as the 1970s?
Wow. I thought it all started in 2001.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The origins of terrorism can be traced back as far as the 1970s?
Wow. I thought it all started in 2001.
Actually, it can be traced back to when the British started mingling in middle east affairs, and that might go back centuries...
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php
-
I think the article in the original post is actually pointing to events that accelerated and encouraged the current problems in the middle east OUTSIDE the long running Israel <->"Palestinian" conflict. The article is correct, for the most part, however it fails to take into account events prior to and after the events in mentioned the article. Although I have nearly boundless respect and admiration for Ronald Reagan, his pullout of Beruit was a major mistake, not of the proportions of Carter's many errors, but still a major mistake. Further still there is the unwillingness to pull out the stops and finish the job in southeast asia. So we have what amounts to a series of events, some much worse than others, that lead our enemies to believe there is a serious lack of will to fight and win, and in all honesty, their belief is not completely unfounded.
As a side note, I give Carter plenty of credit for his work with Sadat, who ended up paying with his life for his attempt at peace with Israel. However, Carter's actions of the last decade or so have done much to make the situation worse, enough to negate most of the success he achieved with Sadat and Egypt.
-
i thought boosh invented terrorism so he could control the worlds oil supply, boy am i dumb. :O
ah, is this new history or old history?
-
Someone had to continue the mess.
Thanks for taking over that responsibility - you're exceeding all our expectations.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Someone had to continue the mess.
Thanks for taking over that responsibility - you're exceeding all our expectations.
And the oil is still flowing. You're welcome, at the cost of our country's best, at the cost of their blood.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And the oil is still flowing. You're welcome, at the cost of our country's best, at the cost of their blood.
There you have it. We invaded Iraq for oil. :aok
-
National interest is always in the reasoning for conflict Sandie, you know that. Given how the industrialized world is dependant on oil to maintain an industrialized society should that surprise you? There is no society in any industrialized country that will continue to flourish much less survive if the supply of oil is gone. It goes for far more than transportation alone.
-
that albatross should be hung around the neck of a certain republican president. the one who authorized the coup to overthrow the iranian democracy back in '53, and the rationale given at the time was cheap oil.
seems rather cowardly to lay the blame at the feet of carter...a guy who builds homes for the poor, as a matter of fact...i'd say carter was the only president with enough integrity to acknowledge the hideous facts.
-
Originally posted by Torque
a guy who builds homes for the poor, as a matter of fact.
Iran thinks Carter was the best president too...
:lol
-
Originally posted by Torque
that albatross should be hung around the neck of a certain republican president. the one who authorized the coup to overthrow the iranian democracy back in '53, and the rationale given at the time was cheap oil.
seems rather cowardly to lay the blame at the feet of carter...a guy who builds homes for the poor, as a matter of fact...i'd say carter was the only president with enough integrity to acknowledge the hideous facts.
I know a lot of guys who build homes for the poor. They'd suck at being President too. Carter has so much integrity his "think tank" is abandoning him over his latest book.
-
You guys ever even hear about the Crusades?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And the oil is still flowing. You're welcome, at the cost of our country's best, at the cost of their blood.
Straight from the horse's ....
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And the oil is still flowing. You're welcome, at the cost of our country's best, at the cost of their blood.
As I have stated many times already.
Oil isnt just in our national interests it IS our national interest.
so much so that it is vital to our country
It isnt uncommon. Nor is it improper for a nation to go to war even without being attacked to protect or for that matter aqquire what is in her national interests.
Yes it is at the cost of our nations best.
but thats just the way it is and always has been.
throughout history nations have either gotten into or involved in wars due to national interests. The only difference is what the national interest is.
In the past its been everything from protecting trade routes,Gold,Sugar, Tea, and any number of other things.
I wonder if the French screamed "No blood for sugar" during the American revolution.
In any event. 200 years from now it will be something else Im sure.
In any event. I have no problems whatsoever going to war for Oil.
As I said its Vital to us and considerinig there are no viable alternatives on the horizon we HAVE to have it.
Cause I dont see many people downsizing the size of their cars bying less SUVs (hint) or buying less things made out of plastic
So our options are rather limited
-
DREDIOCK, I have question for you.
Looks like you are not from the bunch of morons who really do believe in fair tales about "fighting for democracy", WMD and other BS. I agree that nation has the right to fight for national interests, and oil is one of the most important resource now days, but...
Did you ever think that may be "national interests" is just another line of defence? Ok, the first line is for rednecks who really do belive in "democracy" delirium. For those who at least have spoon of brains "national interests" are coming. But may be there is the third line?
The main business interest of Bush family is oil. This family makes money on oil. The latest two peaks of oil prices were ... yes, when Bush-father was ruling the USA and now, when his son took the power. Gulf war and Iraq. All others who were not Christmas presents for sure were not so interested in "national interests" or "democracy", and oil prices dropped at their times. Only two Bushes put the prices out of sky...
What do you think, is it possible that American soldiers died not for "national interests" but, how to say...., for additional profit of selected companies?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The origins of terrorism can be traced back as far as the 1970s?
Wow. I thought it all started in 2001.
No! It started when boosh invaded irak!!!one!!1!!!!1! It's all his fault!!!!!!
Note: in case you didn't know, that's called extreme sarcasm.
-
Originally posted by Vad
DREDIOCK, I have question for you.
Looks like you are not from the bunch of morons who really do believe in fair tales about "fighting for democracy", WMD and other BS. I agree that nation has the right to fight for national interests, and oil is one of the most important resource now days, but...
Did you ever think that may be "national interests" is just another line of defence? Ok, the first line is for rednecks who really do belive in "democracy" delirium. For those who at least have spoon of brains "national interests" are coming. But may be there is the third line?
The main business interest of Bush family is oil. This family makes money on oil. The latest two peaks of oil prices were ... yes, when Bush-father was ruling the USA and now, when his son took the power. Gulf war and Iraq. All others who were not Christmas presents for sure were not so interested in "national interests" or "democracy", and oil prices dropped at their times. Only two Bushes put the prices out of sky...
What do you think, is it possible that American soldiers died not for "national interests" but, how to say...., for additional profit of selected companies?
Question back at ya.
How does the Bush family control worl oil prices?
If the spikes in oil only occured in the USA I'd maybe side with your arguement. but they dont.
Without creating a wall of text going into every single detail
I have also said all along that among other things I saw the invasion of Iraq as being in our national interests.
On the oil front Bush or the rest of the oil moguls are irrelevent to me.
when supply goes down the prices go up. when oil prices go up the economy usually is hurt by it.
Doesnt matter who the president is either.
At the time I did beleive in WMDs. to a certain extent I still do
Tigers dont suddenly become lambs. Just doesnt happen
And I can fully understand how it can be made to look like they didnt have them
I also can fully understand how people can beleive he didnt have them and thus thinl the entire thing was "BS" as most people dont understand how the Iraqi WMD program worked. so its not a very far reach to see how people cant understand how it can be made to look as if they didnt have them
I also said I saw Iraq as a situation that had to be dealt with in this way sooner or later.
I've also mentioned how I've been against a policy of "containment" As we can easily see just how well that works by looking at North Korea
I've said all along there was an entire multitude of reasons to take care of Iraq.
I'd have been behind it no matter who the president was, Be it Perot, Clinton,Gore, Or Bush.
As I have said many many times already. I didnt need the excuse of WMDs.
I'd have said "fine" if they told me we were going in "because its tuesday"
I would have supported it because I see it as being in our national interests to do so.
What I dont like. Nor do I agree with is how it has been handled or mishandled as the case is, since the fall of Bahgdad.
As for Democracy in Iraq....eh its a nice thought. But it isnt something I've countd on. And certainly not in a few years.
Your dealing with a people who just arent used to that thought.
It is possible to acheive just not to our standards. At least not right away
Different culture and mindset
-
vad, you used the R word," redneck", are you a racist?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Question back at ya.
How does the Bush family control worl oil prices?
Easily. Any war in Gulf region increases oil prices. Yes, it is arguable in the case of old Bush, actually he stopped the war there, but in Bush Junior case it was unprovoked.
But ok, you have answered my question, thank you.
Originally posted by john9001
vad, you used the R word," redneck", are you a racist?
[/B]
Sorry, but there is some misunderstanding here. Why is "racist"? I used to translate "redneck" as "uneducated person", "bigot", "reactionary person". You want to say that this word has another meaning? I'm sorry in this case, English is not my first language.
-
It's real close to being racist Vad, it is certainly inflammatory, and it negates anything you have to say, factual or otherwise. Any questions?
And even less credence should be given to people who don't give their real location. If you can't be honest about where you are from and where you are, why should anything you have to "say" be taken for anything other than empty words?
-
:O:OzOMG:O:OPC rednex:O:Ooneoneone:O:O:p
-
Holy Mackerel Andy!
bigot
One entry found for bigot.
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb
The shoe above fits easily many posters. Forget about "race." I mean . . . who's kidding whom?
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
It's real close to being racist Vad, it is certainly inflammatory, and it negates anything you have to say, factual or otherwise. Any questions?
I've already said I am sorry. Ok, once again, I didn't know etymology of this word, and I will try to refrain from using this word here and in real life. Thank you for language lesson.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And even less credence should be given to people who don't give their real location. If you can't be honest about where you are from and where you are, why should anything you have to "say" be taken for anything other than empty words?
1. If it was mandatory HTC wouldn't allow to post without that information.
2. I'm not sure that it is your business where I am living.
3. Nobody asked you to take my words serious. It's up to you.
4. For ... Ok, this word can also have its own etymology. Just for you. I'm Russian who is living in Canada.
Any more questions?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I know a lot of guys who build homes for the poor. They'd suck at being President too. Carter has so much integrity his "think tank" is abandoning him over his latest book.
a quib on carter today...that's the best you got?
no rebuttal regarding the cia's coup. well... that would leave me to believe you're either being obtuse of shamed into silence, either way it's typical.
-
Originally posted by Torque
a quib on carter today...that's the best you got?
no rebuttal regarding the cia's coup. well... that would leave me to believe you're either being obtuse of shamed into silence, either way it's typical.
Neither, but think what you will. Regardless of what happened in 1953, it was Carter who allowed the hard line radical fundamentalist regime currently in power in Iran to come to power. I think the subject at hand is the CURRENT regime in Iran, and how they came to power, and not what happened over 50 years ago. Of course, you can keep trying to change the subject, since you desire to ignore Carter's brilliant decision to allow what may indeed be the most dangerous regime in the entire region to come into power. But go ahead and call me obtuse, since that's all you have.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
You guys ever even hear about the Crusades?
And your point about the Crusades is what?
-
Originally posted by Torque
a quib on carter today...that's the best you got?
no rebuttal regarding the cia's coup. well... that would leave me to believe you're either being obtuse of shamed into silence, either way it's typical.
You know, guys like you can cherry pick individual actions, describe them completely out of historical context and then say "see, we're just as bad" but you completely ignore the almost universal propensity for liberals and leftists in the US to consistently be on the wrong side of history. Why is it people like you do this but ignore the obvious and utter failures of the left? Carter, is without any doubt the worst post-WWII president the US has had and the worst ex-president in US history.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php
Maybe we should just drop the term terrorists and name them for their ideology? That would make the current "terrorists" just Muslims right? How unPC.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
National interest is always in the reasoning for conflict Sandie, you know that. Given how the industrialized world is dependant on oil to maintain an industrialized society should that surprise you? There is no society in any industrialized country that will continue to flourish much less survive if the supply of oil is gone. It goes for far more than transportation alone.
This sounds an awful lot like justification to invade another country for their resources.
I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that this would not be greeted warmly by the rest of the civilized planet.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Maybe we should just drop the term terrorists and name them for their ideology? That would make the current "terrorists" just Muslims right? How unPC.
Fine by me. The term "war on terrorism" is moronic. Call it what it is.
Of course... you can call it the "war on radical islam" but that doesn't quite cover Iraq either. As I understand it, Hussein himself was a bit too secular for Islamic fundamentalists.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Fine by me. The term "war on terrorism" is moronic. Call it what it is.
Can we call it jihad against the infidels?
-
Sandy, the world lives with it every day. An economic action equivalent to, or an actual blockade of a country's resources is a threat to that nations existence.
Now having said that, I want to redirect you to what I was trying to convey the first time. A nation will enter a conflict to either secure it's national interests or defend them. Any one who thinks an indutrialized nation does not consider the means to maintain it's industrialized "lifestyle", if you will, is not in it's national interest is living in denial. Whether you want to consider it PC or not is immaterial.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Someone had to continue the mess.
Thanks for taking over that responsibility - you're exceeding all our expectations.
John is in charge now?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sandy, the world lives with it every day. An economic action equivalent to, or an actual blockade of a country's resources is a threat to that nations existence.
Now having said that, I want to redirect you to what I was trying to convey the first time. A nation will enter a conflict to either secure it's national interests or defend them. Any one who thinks an indutrialized nation does not consider the means to maintain it's industrialized "lifestyle", if you will, is not in it's national interest is living in denial. Whether you want to consider it PC or not is immaterial.
Sounds like a great reason for Iraq to invade Kuwait.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This sounds an awful lot like justification to invade another country for their resources.
I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that this would not be greeted warmly by the rest of the civilized planet.
sorry but its just the way the game is played. always has been. Always will be.
aint the nicest thing in the world.
but it is what it is.
While the populus might object on ethical grounds.
The only reason other governments object is because the attacking country got there first
-
Does the cost of a war not match that of researching energy self-sufficiency?
Oil snake & al.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, it can be traced back to when the British started mingling in middle east affairs, and that might go back centuries...
do you know what is the origin of the word "assassin" ?
-
Originally posted by moot
Does the cost of a war not match that of researching energy self-sufficiency?
Oil snake & al.
There is the oil that we (the US needs) and oil that the rest of civilized world needs. That's a fact of life. Self sufficiency for the US does little to sustain the rest of the world, especially now that China is surging forth. Even with a full-court press on alternatives the "world" will not transition to a non-fossil fuel based economy anytime in our lifetimes.
This war, and the previous Gulf war has nothing to do with the US capturing and controlling oil for profit despite what many boneheads say, to a large degree it's about denying control to extremist regimes to protect not just the US but the rest of the civilized and developing world. The whole world benefits from a free-market for oil. It keeps the price down and the desire for profit motivates exploration and development, not what would happen should such a large chunk of the world's oil reserves are controlled by Iran or other radical Muslims.
It just so happens that one of the ways to prevent this from happening also coincides with the need to counter growing Islamic terrorism, hence the Iraq war. Just because protecting the oil supply is one of the objectives of the war doesn't mean it's the only one or even the most important. That would be the same as saying World War II was only about Germany conquering France. Saying this is just a "war for oil" is childish and ignorant.
-
Originally posted by moot
Does the cost of a war not match that of researching energy self-sufficiency?
Oil snake & al.
Big part of the problem is Oil is still the cheapest way to go.
Being self sufficient is great if you can afford it.
so far any of the new alternatives are going to cost alot moreto use then the oil we now use
We frequently blame Big oil for the cost of gas but we do little ourselves to help the situation and very much to hurt it.
You can tell that by the sheer amount of Suburbans, Hummers and SUVs you see on the roads.
People dont want to spend blood for oil.
but they dont want to have to do anything that might reduce our dependancy on oil either.
Like drive ALOT smaller cars or maybe alot more at the pumps or give up all those cool gagets made out of plastic
Cant have it both ways
-
the USA could cut oil dependency almost over night, do what they did in WW2, ration gas.
painful, but it works, the US govt does not have the courage to do what has to be done. They want to be "re-elected", so all the govt does is talk about the problem and play partisan politics.
-
Sorry, rationing gas won't work. It would probably cripple the economy anyway.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Sounds like a great reason for Iraq to invade Kuwait.
And also a reason to prevent a single beligerant entity (person if you will) from controlling a majority or controlling share of the production too. IE kicking iraq out of Kuwait. Would not all out economic warfare be as devastating to a country's existance as actual combat?
-
Originally posted by john9001
the USA could cut oil dependency almost over night, do what they did in WW2, ration gas.
painful, but it works, the US govt does not have the courage to do what has to be done. They want to be "re-elected", so all the govt does is talk about the problem and play partisan politics.
This is the same argument and blindness that global warming dweebs make. Take the most simplistic, poorly thought out, and damaging possible course of action and advocate for it. You're missing the entire point, take oil out of the economy like that and it'll make the Great Depression look like a party. BTW, as the US economy goes down the tubes in the name of energy independance guess where the rest of the world's will go?
Mace
-
Mace,
You just don't understand. It's the fault of the US. It is no one elses fault, just the US. No one else is doing any damage or causing any problems. :rolleyes: