The beginning of WW3?

Jonny7

guitarzero wrote: »

Is it a fact that Bin Laden was found in Pakistan?
Would the evidence that supports this hold in a court?
Is it fact that that 9/11 was'nt an inside job?
Give me some facts of how a building can fall just by a few floors somehow being on fire?
Show me some facts on how Americas invasion has helped Iraq. Show me some facts on how America has benefited any of the countries it has invaded.
You seem so sure btw. You seem so certain that the US military's actions are of sound morality. How are you so sure? Where do you derive such a sense of nobility in what they do? If those who administer these invasion are of such integrity about what they do, then why has none of them or their family ever taken part in what the US government pump billions of dollars into?
What makes something a fact is actually quite hard to determine at times. To just have faith in what your government tells you is such a stupid thing, so stupid.

And all these assumptions are based on?

I'm not going to assume you believe everything the Pope says now am I. That would be a rather condescending attitude to have in life.

WakeUp

studiorat wrote: »

I doubt that very much Wakey.

I think thats what he was getting at, he might have made some assumptions but I think that was the jist of his point. Im thinking of changing my username I like Wakey actually or maybe Wu:D havent decided yet might change it to that so if I do nice one in advance! has a ring to it me thinks:D..

guitarzero

studiorat wrote: »

Of course jumping to conclusions like guitar hero has is equally stupid.

Thinking Alex Jones is a loon does not equate to to supporting the US in Iraq etc.

I didnt jump to conclusions, you jumped to conclusions stating that the US military are justified in their present actions. You must be a half wit. They are simply trodding right into Asia now and just below Russia. Chinese authorities backing Pakistan should America decide to have an open war with them. How profoundly stupid.
Lets trace it back. China backing Pakistan. Pakistan invaded by American troops because, apparently, now lets not jump to conclusions, Bin Laden was found next a military base in Pakistan. Bin Laden apparently behind 9/11. 9/11, one of the most contentious events in world history. There was no independant investigation done on 9/11 so how have we come to here?
You have'nt provided any facts on my previous post, instead you mentioned nutjob alex jones. Btw, if you truly believe that the US military are justified then why dont you sign up?

studiorat

guitarzero wrote: »

I didnt jump to conclusions, you jumped to conclusions stating that the US military are justified in their present actions. You must be a half wit. They are simply trodding right into Asia now and just below Russia. Chinese authorities backing Pakistan should America decide to have an open war with them. How profoundly stupid.

More conclusions. I have stated what I believe to be the US' intentions, I haven't justified them. So although you may not like the message, there's no need to shoot the messenger.
Is it usual for you when someone tells you something you don't like to hear to blame them?

I've pointed out the contradictions in the article the OP quotes, and no one except Ed2h has even considered them. A classic case of confirmation bias I would have though.

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

More conclusions. I have stated what I believe to be the US' intentions, I haven't justified them. So although you may not like the message, there's no need to shoot the messenger.
Is it usual for you when someone tells you something you don't like to hear to blame them?

I've pointed out the contradictions in the article the OP quotes, and no one except Ed2h has even considered them. A classic case of confirmation bias I would have though.

SR, would you just step back and try to take stock of the hypocrisy and contradictions of the angle you're trying to defend here? What contradictions have you pointed out in the article?

Here's a direct quote from you:

"There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Simples."

You prattle on about US business setting up freely in other countries. What would you have to say about countries whose people do not want US businesses coming in and exploiting them? What if they wanted to harvest their resources themselves and determine what happens with the proceeds?

The US topples democratically elected governments all the time and installs brutal dictators who then allow US corporations to come in and exploit the sh!t out of the place. The US toppled democratically elected Allende in Chile and installed the maniac, Pinochet. Democratically elected Mossadegh in Iran nationalised Iran's oil so the US overthrew him and installed the Shah....a psychopath of galactic proportions who unleashed his Savak secret police on the people. The US propped this clown up and in turn he allowed US oil companies to rape Iran and give not a dime to the Persian people. I see a pattern in your "spreading democracy"

When the Iranian people finally got rid of the beast, Shah, in 1979 and re-nationalised their oil....well, you know the script....they've once again become a pariah state in an "axis of evil" that must be invaded and their regime changed to a democratic system (read: a fcuking puppet dictator that will once again put Iranian oil into the hands of Exxon and Shell and Unocal and let the people starve). Funny how the US viewed Iran as a friend when that lunatic Shah was in power and giving them oil. The situation is no different with Libya. Gadaffi was ruling his country in the best interests of his people (i.e. not allowing BP or Amoco or Mobil to just fleece all the oil) so he has to go.
Venezuela and Chavez is another one. The US has been drumming up a constant smear campaign against Chavez ever since he nationalised his nation's oil reserves and used the profits for all kinds of domestic projects for his people such as free health clinics, subsidised food and housing for the poor, education, urban and rural development...you know....the kind of sh!t you would expect from a guy who has the interests of his people at the forefront of his job. They've been trying to paint this guy as a dictator, or terrorist sympathiser or some other whingeing bullcrap they, the dildos in Washington, constantly spit out...and of course people like you just believe what they say without question ...like you're some kind of robot.
Venezuela and Iceland are actually the two MOST democratic contries in the world. They are the only two countries where a sitting leader can be recalled at ANY time. Dictatorship my FCUKING ASS! The US even tried to overthrow Chavez in a coup in 2002 but their ineptitude and incompetence didn't fool the Venezuelan people who returned him to power with an overwhelming majority vote (and no, the elections weren't rigged. They were deemed to be the fairest that the boys from Vienna had ever witnessed. The same boys who left the US halfway through the 2004 US presidential election stating that they'd seen fairer and less rigged elections in African banana states).

The US also supports dictatorship that play ball with Washington and US corporations. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Egypt and that hell of a country Uzbeckistan to name but a few. These dictatorships routinely torture and murder their people, have no semblance of "democracy" or any kind of government accountability for theft, corruption and overall criminality. So for you to bleat on about spreading democracy reminds me of the brainless drones in Orwell's 1984 quacking like ducks .... hence the phrase "duckspeak". It's laughable to listen to you parrotting propaganda and not even stopping to think about the crap you're just regurgitating.

A child wouldn't fall for the rubbish that you do.

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

SR, would you just step back and try to take stock of the hypocrisy and contradictions of the angle you're trying to defend here? What contradictions have you pointed out in the article?

Here's a direct quote from you:

"There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Simples."

You prattle on about US business setting up freely in other countries. What would you have to say about countries whose people do not want US businesses coming in and exploiting them? What if they wanted to harvest their resources themselves and determine what happens with the proceeds?

Hypocrisy? Lol. Dude you're so far up on that high horse of yours that you can't make a rational decision to save your life. It's unreal...

There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Simples

There's the statement again. Now tell me where there is an error in either of those two statements.

I don't want to hear your bleeding heart rubbish. The US supports dictatorships, this isn't news. The CIA toppled Iran for BP in the 50's this isn't news.

Without the moral crap and the tedious preaching tell me how those statments are inaccurate.

DeadParrot

How can people in all fairness believe this;

The US even tried to overthrow Chavez in a coup in 2002 but their ineptitude and incompetence didn't fool the Venezuelan people who returned him to power with an overwhelming majority vote

and yet believe that the US have and continue to perpetrate massive multi layered, impossibly convoluted attacks, atrocities and secret weapons plans.
If they can't rig an election in Latin America due to ineptitude, how can they keep the cone of silence around 9/11,global warming, HAARP, Cia-controlled Taliban, JFK, etc etc etc

guitarzero

I think its basically a case of whatever narrow, selfish lense the US view the world as, it goes and aint sh*t the world can do. The US set up their laws for profit while people suffer, its the US law, deal with it. Its a dehumaniztion process.

Democracy? - North Korea awaits you.

Protecting its citizens? - How many dead in Iraq and Afganistan over a lie?

Jonny7

Well to be fair there's people out there who believe there were explosives in the world trade towers..

To rig that amount of explosive, in two of the world's largest buildings, undetected, against your own countrymen, gambling everything that no one would find out, that no one would notice it, that the planes would hit, that no one would say anything afterwards even though everyone involved would be guilty of murder and treason

With two highly combustible high velocity objects crashing into rigged thermite laden towers, that could not go off by accident during the impact

With the whole world watching...



...Just for effect..



But, what I've noticed is, if someone want to believe, then they'll find facts to "support" it.

Personally, I'm as skeptical towards conspiracy theories as I am of the US government.. and the Russia government .. and the Chinese government.. etc etc

guitarzero

The fact that no independant study was granted by the governement suggests to me that they would rather the people get their info from reputable, honest sources like Fox and the like. If you look into every aspect of 9/11 you will see just how contentious it is. But all someone has to say is 'conspiracy' and thats, well, that. It loses all weight cuz someone calls it conspiracy. Like that conspiracy of the British Forces colluding with RUC in killing innocent catholic people, like that conspiracy that was proven true. If people are just gonna give up thinking for themselves when they hear conspiracy then I dont think WW3 could come sooner.

Talk E

guitarzero wrote: »

The fact that no independant study was granted by the governement suggests to me that they would rather the people get their info from reputable, honest sources like Fox and the like. If you look into every aspect of 9/11 you will see just how contentious it is. But all someone has to say is 'conspiracy' and thats, well, that. It loses all weight cuz someone calls it conspiracy. Like that conspiracy of the British Forces colluding with RUC in killing innocent catholic people, like that conspiracy that was proven true. If people are just gonna give up thinking for themselves when they hear conspiracy then I dont think WW3 could come sooner.

jackiebaron

DeadParrot wrote: »

How can people in all fairness believe this;

and yet believe that the US have and continue to perpetrate massive multi layered, impossibly convoluted attacks, atrocities and secret weapons plans.
If they can't rig an election in Latin America due to ineptitude, how can they keep the cone of silence around 9/11,global warming, HAARP, Cia-controlled Taliban, JFK, etc etc etc

How's this for you, Sparky:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

Hypocrisy? Lol. Dude you're so far up on that high horse of yours that you can't make a rational decision to save your life. It's unreal...



There's the statement again. Now tell me where there is an error in either of those two statements.

I don't want to hear your bleeding heart rubbish. The US supports dictatorships, this isn't news. The CIA toppled Iran for BP in the 50's this isn't news.

Without the moral crap and the tedious preaching tell me how those statments are inaccurate.

If the US routinely topples democratically elected governments in favour of compliant dictatorships and if the US turns a blind eye to the atrocities committed by existing dictatorships as long as they do Washington's bidding then I would have to say that you pathetic statement of the US "spreading democracy" is not only inaccurate, it's farcical.

Don't insult our intelligence with your "beacon on a hill" bullsh!t.

Try and grow a pair and just have the backbone to say the US stomps around the world killing in order to exert hegemony and exploit resources. At least you might garner a bit of respect then for being honest. But you don't even have the balls to do that.

ed2hands

Quote:
There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent Provide terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide Prevent better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting spreading terrorism and spreading fighting democracy. Simples

There you go studio, thats fixed it;)

jackiebaron

ed2hands wrote: »

Quote:
There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent Provide terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide Prevent better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting spreading terrorism and spreading fighting democracy. Simples

There you go studio, thats fixed it;)

:pac:

WakeUp

ed2hands wrote: »

Quote:
There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent Provide terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide Prevent better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting spreading terrorism and spreading fighting democracy. Simples

There you go studio, thats fixed it;)

+1:D

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

Try and grow a pair and just have the backbone to say the US stomps around the world killing in order to exert hegemony and exploit resources. At least you might garner a bit of respect then for being honest. But you don't even have the balls to do that.

I see you reserve respect only for those who agree with your own points of view, borderline nazi behavior I would have thought.
You actually think that it takes courage to be anti-US? You certainly seem love yourself if you do. The sense of self importance is astonishing.

You don't seem to be here for discussion at all Jackie. You are simply soap-boxing and looking for support . Nothing I have put forward has been met by any discussion but simply by derision.

The arrogance goes so far that if someone questions your OP, rather than defend it you assume that person is a pro-US stooge and behave like a child. If pro-US posts were the alternative viewpoint I suspect you'd take that tack.

Did you consider Russia's part and it's relations with India before you posted your OP?

It seems to me you scanned through it quickly, saw that it roughly fitted in to your prejudice and posted expecting agreement and confirmation from the usual yes men.

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

I see you reserve respect only for those who agree with your own points of view, borderline nazi behavior I would have thought.
You actually think that it takes courage to be anti-US? You certainly seem love yourself if you do. The sense of self importance is astonishing.

You don't seem to be here for discussion at all Jackie. You are simply soap-boxing and looking for support . Nothing I have put forward has been met by any discussion but simply by derision.

The arrogance goes so far that if someone questions your OP, rather than defend it you assume that person is a pro-US stooge and behave like a child. If pro-US posts were the alternative viewpoint I suspect you'd take that tack.

Did you consider Russia's part and it's relations with India before you posted your OP?

It seems to me you scanned through it quickly, saw that it roughly fitted in to your prejudice and posted expecting agreement and confirmation from the usual yes men.

Don't harp back to the OP in order to change the subject. The issue between you and I has long veered from that. You asked me to demonstrate how your claim of the US "spreading democracy" was inaccurate. I did just that which you chose to ignore.

So I derided you for not having the strength of character to admit that the US stomps around the world slaughtering for control of resources and markets. I stated that if you at least admitted this but that you were "with them all the way, anyway" then I might have respected you for your honesty. But instead you excuse these actions or try to rationalise them as some necessary evil that must be perpetrated in order to bring peace and comfort, "US-style", to the damn world.

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

Don't harp back to the OP in order to change the subject. The issue between you and I has long veered from that. You asked me to demonstrate how your claim of the US "spreading democracy" was inaccurate. I did just that which you chose to ignore.

So I derided you for not having the strength of character to admit that the US stomps around the world slaughtering for control of resources and markets. I stated that if you at least admitted this but that you were "with them all the way, anyway" then I might have respected you for your honesty. But instead you excuse these actions or try to rationalise them as some necessary evil that must be perpetrated in order to bring peace and comfort, "US-style", to the damn world.

Could you quote your points then please, all I remember is a few links and a bit of polemic.

You avoided anything to do with the OP from the start.

And again, I don't have the same point of view as you and you question my honesty. I mean WTF?

But hey I'll let you off on that one, it's your problem not mine.

So about the OP how does the depth and scope of of Indian/Russian political and economic relations fit into this?

Do you not think the article is ever so slightly racist in it reference to British and Indian past histories? Are you happy enough to concur with such generalizations?

DeadParrot

jackiebaron wrote: »

How's this for you, Sparky:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

That doesnt realyl answer my question

If they can't rig an election in Latin America due to ineptitude, how can they keep the cone of silence around 9/11,global warming, HAARP, Cia-controlled Taliban, JFK, etc etc etc

Brown Bomber

DeadParrot wrote: »

That doesnt realyl answer my question

If they can't rig an election in Latin America due to ineptitude, how can they keep the cone of silence around 9/11,global warming, HAARP, Cia-controlled Taliban, JFK, etc etc etc

It's not a fair question. Obviously they can rig elections in S.America because they have done on numerous occasions. Also they've hardly kept a cone of silence around JFK and 9-11 and CIA controlled Taliban is a fact not a conspiracy theory. Regarding HAARP and Global Warming there is only the need for silence if they are hiding something...Do you think they are? I don't.

So your question should read

"as they can rig elections is South America due to compotence how have they failed to keep the cone of silence around CIA Taliban connections, 9-11, JFK assassination etc etc etc.? Also, I'd like to throw in HAARP and Global warming for some reason on the off chance that their might be some sort of a conspiracy going on there. I don't think so myself but if on the outside chance that there is they sure are keeping people quiet about it"

WakeUp

Jonny7

Ahh in fairness its been "just around the corner" for 60 years now

Jeboa Safari

I see the US, and France, are pulling troops out of Afghanistan. Doesn't sound like something they'd do if they were planning world war 3 in the region, or invading Pakistan like suggested earlier

13spanner

Chances are, the superpowers could destroy each other without even moving troops. I mean God only knows what kind of Nuclear ICBM's are on standby as we speak. Couldn't be compared to the trench warfare of the first 2 world wars.

ed2hands

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I see the US, and France, are pulling troops out of Afghanistan. Doesn't sound like something they'd do if they were planning world war 3 in the region, or invading Pakistan like suggested earlier

They don't seem to be pulling that many out though. To get away from world war 3 for a minute, what if it's just that the Afghanistan part is just coming to it's natural conclusion and they need to free up numbers for the next interventions? Pakistan for instance. Libya.

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

Ahh in fairness its been "just around the corner" for 60 years now

Yea but if the US was really interested in making the world a safer place, they should start with Isreal/Palestine. They're not, and thats the hypocracy of these Middle East wars elsewhere. They're despised in the region in general for very good reason.

Jeboa Safari

13spanner wrote: »

Chances are, the superpowers could destroy each other without even moving troops. I mean God only knows what kind of Nuclear ICBM's are on standby as we speak. Couldn't be compared to the trench warfare of the first 2 world wars.

No doubt they could, but they know they'd both be destroyed

ed2hands wrote: »

They don't seem to be pulling that many out though. To get away from world war 3 for a minute, what if it's just that the Afghanistan part is just coming to it's natural conclusion and they need to free up numbers for the next interventions? Pakistan for instance. Libya.

If it was Pakistan, it wouldn't make much sense to withdraw them from Pakistans doorstep to 7000 miles away in the US

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

Yea but if the US was really interested in making the world a safer place, they should start with Isreal/Palestine. They're not, and thats the hypocracy of these Middle East wars elsewhere. They're despised in the region in general for very good reason.

Woah, I'm staying out of this one, its far too crackpot for me, I've been very interested in the Pakistan situation for about 4 or 5 years now, the very notion of the US "invading" Pakistan is to be honest one of the sillier things I've read here. I'll leave that to a Tom Clancy novel

ed2hands

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

If it was Pakistan, it wouldn't make much sense to withdraw them from Pakistans doorstep to 7000 miles away in the US

Yes, but they're not elephants; just little soldiers. To withdraw them means sticking them on a few transport planes. They go back to the States, see the wife and kids, then get flown out again when the next ground invasion kicks off. I take it the infastructure stays put for the moment.