esteve wrote: » Is what he wrote not true?
Jonny7 wrote: » Conspiracy theories is the forum you're looking for
donegal__road wrote: » In 2000, Saddam switched from the dollar to the euro for oil payments.. because 'he did not want to deal with the currency of the enemy'.. the US moved on him 2 years later.in 2010, Gaddafi announced he was going to drop the dollar in favour of the Dinar for trading oil. This move literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a "threat" to the financial security of the world. The "Insiders" were apparently panicking over Gadhafi's plan. So they bombed Libya in 2011.In 2011, Iran started trading oil for gold with Turkey and other countries. The reason being that the US imposed sanctions on Iran, which meant that Iran was barred from using the SWIFT system... forcing Iran to barter. .
bumper234 wrote: » Assad kills innocent people lets bomb the shìt out of him Obama kills innocent people lets give him a fùcking nobel peace prize.
realweirdo wrote: » So was Stalin...lets just do whataboutery from now on on this thread, it seems to be the only thing you're good at...now your turn...
bumper234 wrote: » So was Bush so is Obama....maybe the rest of the world should start calling for the white house to be bombed?
realweirdo wrote: » What is the answer? Prayer? Fasting? More UN diplomacy? Give us a really seriously credibile alternative. You are just repeating the same naive nonsense over and over about how Assad would change if people asked him nicely, how he would have handed over his chemical weapons if only people would have asked him nicely. So far I am hearing waffle from you and others about how this could be tried or that could be tried, just hollow talk with nothing to back it up, the kind of talk that Assad has always ignored and has never listened to, the kind of talk that Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon are the world's foremost experts at...talk talk talk....which Assad ignores ignores ignores.... The Americans haven't used bombs..yet..they said they wouldn't use them unless Assad refused to hand over his CW. If he doesn't hand them over I hope they flatten his presidential palace, I make no bones about that....the guy is a mass murdering thug.
clairefontaine wrote: » This is a Middle eastern problem. Let them deal with it. The US should stay out of it.
realweirdo wrote: » But do you condemn the involvement of non syrians such as Hezbollah and Iranians on Assads side and Chechans, etc on the oppositions side? Do you think all non-syrians should withdraw? Do you agree that Hezbollah have men on the ground in Syria whereas America have not. Are you ready to condemn Hezbollah's involvement?
clairefontaine wrote: » There is no answer. It's a civil war, like the US' civil war, no intervention would have helped. It just had to happen.
realweirdo wrote: » What is the answer? Prayer? Fasting? More UN diplomacy? Give us a really seriously credibile alternative. You are just repeating the same naive nonsense over and over about how Assad would change if people asked him nicely, how he would have handed over his chemical weapons if only people would have asked him nicely. So far I am hearing waffle. The Americans haven't used bombs..yet..they said they wouldn't use them unless Assad refused to hand over his CW.
clairefontaine wrote: » And because we know this, makes me suspect this venture has nothing to do with supporting democracy.
bumper234 wrote: » Before you condemn people for being antiAmerican maybe you should read back the last few pages and read your posts. You are pro American to the point of insanity. I have never claimed to be anti American no more than i have claimed to be pro Putin pro Russian Pro Assad pr Taliban or pro Muslim brotherhood so please stop accusing anyone who disagrees with your pro American USA#1 rhetoric of being anti American or Anti democracy. What i am is anti death of innocent men women and children. Yes Assad or the rebels set off chemical weapons and i would have no problem with seeing the person responsible for this in front of a firing squad. But the answer to bombings is not MORE bombings.
Mr.Micro wrote: » Yes indeed. Getting Assad out and replacing him with some other group, that might prove to be not right, or acceptable either. Violent change does not always yield democracy, or a government that will fit all needs, alas.
clairefontaine wrote: » He's supporting the rebels in Syria. CIA just sent them more weapons. There is no talk or strategy of stabilising Syria, though this whole thing stinks of regime change. And who do you think will replace Assad if his regime is ousted? They know by now you can't just replace what's their with western post reformation ideas about democracy. They know it doesn't work. So to me it still looks like he supports the Muslim brotherhood defacto.
realweirdo wrote: » The war on terror is a a complex one which demands a complex debate...it can't be settled by the usual 'America bad, everyone else good' arguments that go on around here. If I thought anyone was interested in that complex debate I'd gladly take part. The main point of the debate is that the Taliban and AQ are against democracy and most forms of human rights for individuals. Yes there is collatoral damage confronting them, but allowing them spread their poisonous philosophy is just not an option. I think even you would agree with that. America joined WW2 at the end of '41. Roosevelt was probably keen to join earlier but there was a very vocal anti-interventionist lobby in the states who prevented him acting. The vocal ant-interventionists have their descendents today who say things like "we shouldn't get involved, there's nothing in it for us, not our problem and so on." America did confront Russia as much as possible. Cuban missible crisis an example, but yes much of it was proxy conflicts to try to prevent the spread of communism, something clearly you think would have been ok. You also think that Russia is a knight in shining armour in the world. I would love to see you condemnn Russia and before it the USSRs appalling human rights record...they ruled half of Europe with local dictators. The Japanese Empire was a genocidal state, just ask the Chinese. No-one cares if they were about to run out of oil or not. The best thing that ever happened was that Empire was consigned to the dust bin of history. This thread has got boring with the usual monotonous anti american foreign policy types on it. They never say anything new.
realweirdo wrote: » Not really. He supports democracy. The Egyption people had a democratic election, the Muslim Brotherhood were elected to power, that should have been the end of the matter. A lot of people in Egypt were unhappy that reforms weren't happening fast enough and the army took that as a cue to carry out a coup.
bumper234 wrote: » America joined WW2 at the end they did not confront the Nazi's Japan's bombing of pearl harbour was over oil (pretty much like Amerca's actions these days) and they paid for it by getting nuked twice (a more evil act in most peoples books). America did not "confront" Russia it got into an arms war with it. It still fights wars with Russia by proxy (Syria these days) Ireland stayed neutral as did Switzerland....so what? America is confronting Islamic terrorism that America helped to create. America bankrolled the Taliban in Afghanistan and sent the CIA to train them. America used 9-11 as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq yet most of the 9-11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia (friends of the US) America has not gotten rid of the Taliban and of anything by bombing innocent civilians it has ensured that the Taliban will have a ready supply of volunteers for many decades to come.
clairefontaine wrote: » Yes and no. You are right but we are also fighting Saudis war by proxy (Bush 1 et all )and it appears to me that Obama supports the Muslim brotherhood.
realweirdo wrote: » Convienently ignore the fact that America confronted and helped defeat three of the great evils of the 20th century Nazi Germany, Emperial Japan and the USSR. (Ireland stayed neutral). Ignore the fact that but for the US, South Korea would be a communist run sh*thole like North Korea. Ignore the fact that America is the biggest provider of humanitarian assistance in the world by far. Ignore the fact that America is about the only nation confronting Islamic terrorism, yes in a war where there is collatoral damage, but the alternative is to allow the spread of Islamofascism unchecked. It really is a case of either or in this situation. Ignore the fact that America sent the Taliban packing from large parts of Afghanistan. And basically ignore every good deed America has ever done in its history. You don't do balance do you?
Eggy Baby! wrote: » Wow...you are incredibly naive. So De Valera signing Hitler's book of condolences is as bad as the sum total of American imperialism? Read up on the Phillippines, the Mexican-American wars, the Spanish American wars.
realweirdo wrote: » This is getting farcical, actually you are getting farcical. One minute you are saying Putin never preaches about human rights and now you are saying yes he does preach about human rights abuses. You're making it up as you go along and it's hard to take anything you say seriously. A tip, try to stay consistant, people will take you more seriously that way.
bumper234 wrote: » Are you not the guy who said RT is not a credible news source? Now it is? As for Putin preaching about America's record in the middle east.....it's pretty much spot on. Years of war many thousands dead (most of them innocent civilians) all because America wants to control the oil fields and ensure the petrodollar stays strong.
Ireland had a disastrous moral standing in the twentieth century, probably as bad as America's, whose own moral standing wasn't great. When Hitler died and the rest of the world was celebrating the end of WW2, De Valera was opening a book of condolences to the German people, to give one example.
Which begs the ultimate question, if you hate the west, why do you still live here?
I am fighting on the ground? what are you raving about man?
From day one, Russia has been the main obstruction to a peacefully negotiated solution, not America.
Like most anti Americans, you are completely and absolutely irrational....and you have an irrational and unlimited hatred of America and I suppose the west in general.
realweirdo wrote: » Do you not watch the news? You can watch RT for these ones. For the last two and a half years, Putin has been preaching around the clock about how America cause trouble in the middle east, how their record is bad, human rights abuses blah blah blah. I'd imagine it's the same in China. Hugo Chavez had his own show denouncing all things American. Press TV condemns American human rights abuses around the clock. As does Cuba. As does North Korea. So what you are saying is simply not true. Every one of these countries preaches about human rights abuses and yet are just as bad themselves.
bumper234 wrote: » North Korea, Russia, China are 3 countries who don't preach to others about human rights abuses and then go out and deny others their human rights. None of those countries say lets bomb Syria, Iran North Korea because they have Nukes and chemical weapons but lets leave Israel alone even though they have CW and nukes.
