Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on April 15, 2004, 02:08:22 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3627775.stm
-
meh
some arab dude who has nothing better to do let's his grandpa read a bit of propoganda into a tape recorder, mails it to some TV station, and has a great laugh when he sees/hears it on the news.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
meh
some arab dude who has nothing better to do let's his grandpa read a bit of propoganda into a tape recorder, mails it to some TV station, and has a great laugh when he sees/hears it on the news.
Ignorance is bliss? After the meeting with Isreal today i would be asking for a cease fire as well. Else its one big bloodbath for years to come, both sides know it but only one side is willing to cease hostilities.
Funniest Quote:
You cant bring democracy with force
The guy who said it is the same guy who asked to use force in Iraq to push forth democracy. Why are supporters of this war so blind?
-
Kasperl's brain is too damaged from all the mens groins banging into his forehead to understand the diplomatic and economic nuke Bin Laden just dropped.
It's a case of "Everyone accept or become a pariah". At best, it'll mean we can't **** with Muslim countries. At worst it'll fracture the EU and the UN into "**** Bin Laden" and "Accept the truce" factions.
-
Id rather get along with everyone then have to worry about the next big attack let me tell you.....
If peace is part of this solution, then you need to recognize all parties involved.
-
I just hope to god Blair doesn't do anything stupid.
I'd rather nudge one step closer to becoming a European Citizen than have the country be embargoed by the rest of the EU and bombed to **** by terrorists.
**** America, they're on their own.
-
One thing I have to say I've always agreed with Reagan on was when he said, "We will not negotiate with terrorists."
I'm curious to see what the EU does, particularly Britain. I think the Brits should do what they should have done in the first place and say, "Sorry, George, you're on your own."
-
Hell yeah.
If/When Blair rejects it, the public reaction is gonna be hella-bad.
-
lets hope he gets screwed over by his own party if he tries to. Likelyhood is, he will.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Kasperl's brain is too damaged from all the mens groins banging into his forehead to understand the diplomatic and economic nuke Bin Laden just dropped.
It's a case of "Everyone accept or become a pariah". At best, it'll mean we can't **** with Muslim countries. At worst it'll fracture the EU and the UN into "**** Bin Laden" and "Accept the truce" factions.
i thought of that, i'm not that stupid. the problem is, too many Osama tapes have passed sionce 911, so people are just too frickin bored to pay attention. i doubt that there will be any response, besides the CIA saying "it's fake, we know it's fake"
-
Personally, I hope he someone assasinates him.
I view him as a bigger threat to Britain than any terrorist.
Blowing up a few hundred people is nothing compared to systematically destroying the UK's infrastructure.
-
You realize they are lying, right?
an0n, cooperating with the EU is killing Britain faster than anything else. I don't consider Britain part of Europe and you shouldn't either.
-
mmm.
Blair, *Shrub and Balkenende in a single room.
I would give my laptop for an explosion killing all three of them.
edit: bloody censor.
-
You would rather them bend over and take it in the @$$?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You realize they are lying, right?
an0n, cooperating with the EU is killing Britain faster than anything else. I don't consider Britain part of Europe and you shouldn't either.
It's inconsequential.
They'll be stalling for time while they concentrate on ****ing America because they know they're boned.
I say, let America deal with their own **** and we can sweep up afterwards, when Al Qaeda get desperate enough to start trying to attack us again.
And the closer the UK comes to becoming an official subsidiary of the French economy, the more influence the BNP will get. And if there's one thing they're good at, it's kicking and screaming whenever anyone tries to give foreigners stuff. At the very least they'd force a referendum, which would smack the idea down quite nicely.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
One thing I have to say I've always agreed with Reagan on was when he said, "We will not negotiate with terrorists."
I'm curious to see what the EU does, particularly Britain. I think the Brits should do what they should have done in the first place and say, "Sorry, George, you're on your own."
Worth trying if it works. Look at Northern Ireland. 30 years of not negotiating got us nowhere.
The best solution is to negotiate but take so long about it that everyone forgets what the original problem was. They seem to be doing a very good job of doing that in Northern Ireland.
-
....And if europe agrees and they get bombed a few months/years later?
-
Wait a minute.
1) What "EU"? The lands still follow their own policy.
2) They will laugh at this.
-
Originally posted by Bri_Dog
....And if europe agrees and they get bombed a few months/years later?
That's the whole big problem with this statement. Who here believes that they can trust Osama Bin Laden?
Besides there are likely to be break away factions who still want to attack Europe same as with the Real IRA.
Still this isn't something that should just be ignored and forgotten about.
-
I don't really agree withyou there an0n. With maybe a few, small exceptions, I'd be willing to bet European leaders'll ignore this one. For one thing, the "We do not negotiate with terrorists" line is beaten into every major western government these days pretty solidly, moreover, if people are willing to separate this from Iraq, then it's still sitting back and treating these people like anything other than the evil buggers they are. Do you think the spanish are just going to say "OK, all is forgiven, let's all just get along!"? I personally doubt it.
Also, the US will condemn this faster than you can say, well, much of anything, and in political and economic terms, keeping the US happy is more important than keeping terrorists happy, especially since, all things considered, these attacks aren't really killing that many people (Compared to the normal definition of war - I mean, compare the casualties from September 11 or Madrid to Pearl Harbour or Galipolli). If Al Quaeda were killing people, from dozens of European countries on a weekly or monthly basis, this might get more consideration, but really, per country, a major attack can be expected, what, every 20, 30 years? Given the average casulaty lists, that's comparable to the road toll. Bin Laden just doesn;t have the negotiating power in this particular situation.
-
I don't think we should let our foreign policy be dictated by terrorists..... avoid unnecessary wars like Iraq, yes, but we also need to keep fighting any form of terrorism*.
On the subject of Iraq and Afghanistan, I don;t think there's an option to pull out - we (in this case the US and UK) ****ed up these countries in the process of invading them, and we have a responsibility to repair that damage and actually allow these countries to forge their own path. (the problem is, that there is a lot of rebuilding still required to allow these countries to be able to run themselves)
You have to ask why Bin Ladin wishes a truce, anyway. Possibly it's a form of political pressure, or maybe (and I hope this is the case) Al-Queda is actually being hurt by police operations in europe (i.e. rounding up the cell in Madrid, or the similar arrests in the UK). Of course, there's also the side that, if the Us is left alone in Iraq / Afghanistan and eventually forced out (i.e. humiliated), then there would be a power vacumn that could be filled nicely by bin Ladin or asimilar fundamentalist, i.e. the return of the Taliban to afghanistan.
Regardless of the above, IMO this 'offer' will almost certainly not be accepted - because to do so would be an implicit admission that the Uk (in particualr) had been attacking Muslims.
*not the good old(current?) US method of creating a big burning pile of martyrs' bodies without addressing the grass roots reasons - but rather working to both dismantle terrorist organisations whilst also resolving the ethnic, religious and political reasons these organizations were founded and by which they draw strength.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You realize they are lying, right?
an0n, cooperating with the EU is killing Britain faster than anything else. I don't consider Britain part of Europe and you shouldn't either.
bull****. Britain is part of Europe, it always has been and always will be
anyway: everyone thinking this "peace-offer" is genuine (i.e. genuine as in: there will be everlasting peace with these piece of **** terrorists) is criminally naive.
There can be no peace with Bin Laden and his ilk... ever.
Anyway, no one will consider it anyway.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Still this isn't something that should just be ignored and forgotten about.
yes it is.
iirc, the coran itself says there can be no peace as long as there are places that don't fall under muslim rule (and we don't want that do we?).
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
There can be no peace with Bin Laden and his ilk... ever.
20 years ago people said the same about the IRA and look at things now. Leaders of the IRA like Gerry Adams are actually part of the power sharing schemes running in Northern Ireland.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
iirc, the coran itself says there can be no peace as long as there are places that don't fall under muslim rule (and we don't want that do we?).
Yet more rubbish from someone who hasn't read the Koran. Where do you people get this **** from anyway?
The bible says all kinds of stuff about false gods and people who believe in them but I've never once heard anyone point to America and say they'll never be peace in the world because the bible says everyone should be christians.
It's a load of xenophobic nonsense. Most muslims are quite happy to live in peace with other religions as long as the other religions leave them alone.
-
Stop spilling our blood so we can stop spilling your blood
Good man. Thats by far a smarter statement than I could ever hope to hear from Blair or Dubya.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You realize they are lying, right?
an0n, cooperating with the EU is killing Britain faster than anything else. I don't consider Britain part of Europe and you shouldn't either.
I always marvel at your arrogance. You think that just because you came along one day and said "Old Europe, New Europe" you can change something thats been around for 1500 years? Europeamn countries have FAR more in common with each other than with America. You're just trying to play off of Britain's ego and say "you're better than them, they're destroying you, come join us".
Get a clue. The British people don't want any part of your little imperial adventures. They more or less hate America. Its only the Labour government which supports you, against the will of its people.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
bull****. Britain is part of Europe, it always has been and always will be
A thing only the Brits don't seem to realize... Quite funny to see them trying to deny their own history :p
-
I think the "not part of Europe" thing means idealogicly
"The tape also condemned the US-led occupation of Iraq as a money-making scheme for companies making weapons or aiding reconstruction efforts - specifically naming the American firm Halliburton."
were have I heard that before? hmmm...
well it looks like he is playing you all like a fiddle, oh well, good thing most nations are fairly well stuck were there going to be for the next few years.
-
wait, so just because he sas something I agree with, he' playing me like a fiddle? I like you logic. I believed that long before he can around and said so. Just because he's a terrorist, you think that the only way to not be manipulated by him is to flatly disagree with everything he says? So if he says 2+2=4, I should disagree becuase otherwise he's playing me like a fiddle?
Hey look, the sky is blue! I've got you in my cluthes!
The reality is, Haliburton is indeed profiting nicely from Iraq. The fact that the Vice President and one of the chief hawks who pushed for war also sat on the Haliburton board of directors, thats got *nothing* to do with the fact that they're rolling in money from various no-competition contracts, right?
-
the "playing you like a fiddle" bit is from you're reactions to the 'offer'
-
Alright, lets see here. America created bin Laden and Al Queda, you trained and armed them. Then, you supported (and still support) the regime in Saudi Arabia with the bin Laden family getting huge amounts of business coming their way. So, in a way, you're also supporting him financially.
Now, Osama hits your towers, and suddenly he's everyone's enemy? What he wants is US troops out of the Middle East. So do I. Why should I fight your enemy when I agree with his ends, if not necessarily him means. You can talk all you want, but I believe hes not out to kill or convert all Christians blablabla. He wants US troops out, thats not unreasonable. Now, he's offering Europe (too broad, but whatever) a truce. Alright, Serbia is part of Europe. He has never harmed, nor does he intend to harm say, France. Why should they put their citizens at risk for going after your enemy?
As I see it, bin Laden is America's problem. He is not a threat, not even a potential one, to most of Europe. Why shouldn't they accept the truce? The only attacks he has commited were against Americans, and he had a damn good reason for doing it. Now, before the whole lot of you start jumping up and down and yelling "terrorist lover", I'de just like to inform you that I think Osama is a fundamentalist asshole and ought to be shot. But, its not my fight, and I agree with reasons for fighting. Its retaliation for the heavy US presence in the MIddle East. Lets call it the invasion of the MIddle East. Same as in Iraq, an invaded people have a right to hit back.
-
The Truce Is Rejected (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040415/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_bin_laden_tape&cid=540&ncid=716).
-
Pity.
-
they've threatened France, remember the head scarf thingy.
-
Yeah, that was very stupid of France. Not due to bin Laden or anything, it was just a stupid thing to do. Thats quite clearly the opposite of religious tolerance.
-
lol truce.
Whats the bets theres going to be some bombs going off in some european countries in three months time?
-
yes, but he did threaten them, and they were someone, the only one, you specificly singled out as someone he "He has never harmed, nor does he intend to harm", people you don't intend to harm, you usualy don't threaten.
look, he is like an evagelist with a large milita, how would you feel about Billy Grahm with an army behind 'em.
-
Never threatened us, cant say this they hate the west **** goes down very well over here, seems like you're trying to drag us all down into the ****heap you've made.
-
*shudder*
Well, considering **** is a born-again Christian, has massive support from the Bible Belt and has persued a policy very much in line with the wishes of the Christian right, I'de say we already have one.
But really, religion is just one subset of idealogy. Stalin didn't need religion to be a madman, ditto Saddam and most modern megalomaniacs.
-
Originally posted by an0n
**** America, they're on their own.
We always were.
I've said it before, one more time won't hurt
"There's only one way to stop a terrorist: cut his head off." - James Woods
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The reality is, Haliburton is indeed profiting nicely from Iraq. The fact that the Vice President and one of the chief hawks who pushed for war also sat on the Haliburton board of directors, thats got *nothing* to do with the fact that they're rolling in money from various no-competition contracts, right?
Okay, let's get one thing straight you leftist bugger, Cheney has no ties to Haliburton other than the friends he left behind. He did take one thing with him when he left Haliburton however, the knowledge of what that company in capable of in what kind of time frame. He did have such knowledge of the other two companies in the world , so it only makes sense on a perfectly logical level that he would favor Haliburton over the others. You would do the same thing, and don't pretend that you wouldn't.
-
A bit touchy today, aren't we?
-
LOL, so what you're saying is Halliburton got the job cos Cheney is vp. i.e the exact same thing as rictor. twat.
-
Originally posted by Gank
LOL, so what you're saying is Halliburton got the job cos Cheney is vp. i.e the exact same thing as rictor. twat.
No, Haliburton got the job because Haliburton got the job.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, let's get one thing straight you leftist bugger, Cheney has no ties to Haliburton other than the friends he left behind. He did take one thing with him when he left Haliburton however, the knowledge of what that company in capable of in what kind of time frame. He did have such knowledge of the other two companies in the world , so it only makes sense on a perfectly logical level that he would favor Haliburton over the others. You would do the same thing, and don't pretend that you wouldn't.
What, war profiteering? I certainly would not. You can't expect someone who sat on the board of directords of Company X (any company) and left on good terms to be impartial in the future. When this man becomes the vice President, he has the ability to make the company billions.
Its like, if you've got a best friend and suddenly you become President, you're going to go out of your way to give him some government business, maybe change a few policies he doesn't like. How can you possibly trust corporate gansters to stay impartial, when they stand to profit greatly from it?
Explain to me why Haliburton never competed for these contracts? They just got them. This isn't normal business practice. Yes, Cheyney says he has no connections to Haliburton. The difference between you and me is that you take his word on it, despite evidence to the contrary, while I just think he's lying.
They do that you know, lie. Politicians are not bastions of justice and truth. Most of them are liers, thieves and quite other things.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
No, Haliburton got the job because Haliburton got the job.
They breed sheep well these day, don't they? You don't even *attempt* to give some sort of reason, because you believe that no reason is necessary. You could at least try to think of something creative, but no. What the masters say, goes.
He killed him because he killed him. The world is flat becuase the world is flat. Haliburton got the job becuase Haliburton got the job.
-
Guess this shows al-Qaeda is getting pretty worried about European anti-terror operations, we must get getting to em.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
No, Haliburton got the job because Haliburton got the job.
You a problem reading? because thats not what Liberator said.
Halliburton have this to say on the matter:
The contract to do the work in Iraq, similar to work the company performed in both Bosnia and Kosovo, was competitively bid in 2001.
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/corpnws_091903.jsp
-
Originally posted by Rictor
They breed sheep well these day, don't they? You don't even *attempt* to give some sort of reason, because you believe that no reason is necessary. You could at least try to think of something creative, but no. What the masters say, goes.
He killed him because he killed him. The world is flat becuase the world is flat. Haliburton got the job becuase Haliburton got the job.
Haliburton got the job because there a US company and Iraq's infrastructure among other things needs repairing. US does the nasty business of war, US gets its soldiers killed, US spends billions upon billions fighting a war, US gets to award contracts to benefit its own companies, quite fair really.
-
Zeronet, you realize that what you're saying is basically one or more of the things the current administration and it's defenders are busily trying to deny? Namely 1) the laughable IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL, 2) the US just loots and acts like a conqueror, 3) they rob the productive jobs out of the Iraq workers, who they've gone to liberate from.
I hope you are using sarcasm, but my sarcascm detect-o-meter is currently broken.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Guess this shows al-Qaeda is getting pretty worried about European anti-terror operations, we must get getting to em.
Yeah, we Dutch 'll 'weed' 'm out :D
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Guess this shows al-Qaeda is getting pretty worried about European anti-terror operations, we must get getting to em.
Uh-huh, because europe has netted some major Al-Quada figures like the only guy to be convicted in connection to the wtc attacks and foiled some major attacks that were planned like the one in spain..oh wait.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Zeronet, you realize that what you're saying is basically one or more of the things the current administration and it's defenders are busily trying to deny? Namely 1) the laughable IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL, 2) the US just loots and acts like a conqueror, 3) they rob the productive jobs out of the Iraq workers, who they've gone to liberate from.
I hope you are using sarcasm, but my sarcascm detect-o-meter is currently broken.
:wtf: Janos, meet reality, reality meet Janos. If anyone else would like to actually like to tell me what he is going on about please tell me, i think i,ve been spending too much time in the real world. I mean, my post doesn't even use the word oil. Point 2 is amusingly biased and inaccurate and point 3, well, i doubt even some of our liberal friends on this board would go so far as to say nonsense like that.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Uh-huh, because europe has netted some major Al-Quada figures like the only guy to be convicted in connection to the wtc attacks and foiled some major attacks that were planned like the one in spain..oh wait.
Yep, Britian has foiled some major attacks(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3627917.stm) abd the SAS are/were involved in hunting down Bin laden and other senior fiqures and yes, Europe probably is gathering quite a bit of information which it supplies to the US to help it fight its war.
-
Eh, unemployments at 75% in Iraq atm Zeronet, mainly because US contractors bring in cheap migrant labour. Have you not being following the news lately? What the hell do you think those chinese peasants that got kidnapped were doing in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Yep, Britian has foiled some major attacks(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3627917.stm) abd the SAS are/were involved in hunting down Bin laden and other senior fiqures and yes, Europe probably is gathering quite a bit of information which it supplies to the US to help it fight its war.
:wtf: You think arresting 6 men has got Al-Quada on the run? As for the SAS finding Bin Laden, that doesnt even deserve a reply. And I doubt europes intelligence is much use to the US when they cant even detect attacks in europe itself. If you think that lots got Bin Laden scared, you're living in la-la land.
-
Bin Laden isn't scared, but Al-Quada isn't in as good a position as it'd like to be, not that and we do have Al-quada on the run, they got kicked out of their training camps in Afganisation and one must'nt be so hasty as to connect Al-quada being on the run generally to my earlier comment, which was over-exaagerated.
Thats what happens when you listen to conservatives, you get silly comments like Conservative deputy leader Michael Ancram said it showed al-Qaeda was worried.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Eh, unemployments at 75% in Iraq atm Zeronet, mainly because US contractors bring in cheap migrant labour. Have you not being following the news lately? What the hell do you think those chinese peasants that got kidnapped were doing in Iraq?
Yep, cheap migrant chinese policeman, or not. Also, back up the 75% fiqure please, i give links when i say some stuff, i'd like you to do so to.
-
@Zeronet
R > C > P
Yes, your post as itself does not use any of these often quite biased words I used in my reply - I am not a native english speaker and tend to use too complex phrase structures. However, the essence of your post is just what the most anti-war people were and still are against (often including myself).
"The US went into war and has now right to gain back some lost money" is not that bad idea - who really goes into a war where you gain absolutely nothing? However, quite many people are concerned that US will mainly focus on oil and handles out all works and jobs conserning oil into US-led corporations - which is just what APPEARS to happen. As words and "reality" - or what we see and judge as being real - are in apparent conflict, the words are usually labeled as misleading.
Because if the occupier says that they're there to liberate (other reasons I will not phrase here) the X people and then go on and seize control of the most productive and famous of the X's resources, many people refer it to as imperialism. I was referring to that. And if one of the most adamant defenders of the war also has ties on one of the companies getting those hi-profit jobs, it will only raise more concern.
Edit: blah
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Yep, cheap migrant chinese policeman, or not.
:wtf:
Talk some sense, are you saying the chinese were policemen? Thats stupid, Iraqs policeforce are Iraqis. They were migrant workers, same as the Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Filipino and Turks that got kidnapped.
Originally posted by Zeronet
Bin Laden isn't scared, but Al-Quada isn't in as good a position as it'd like to be, not that, that means they're on the run.
Umm, the US isnt in as good a position as it'd like to be either, does that mean they're on the run too?
-
Actually, the US government LOSES even more money with these reconstruction contracts. By going to war, the US probably hopes to deliver democracy to it, rid itself of a nuisance dictator who was killing thousands upon thousands of people.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99h.htm
The US incidently, if it were after all oil, could of simply bought it dirt cheap from Saddamn. The company in question did contracts both in Bosnia and Kosovo and bid in 2001 for the contract it received in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Gank
:wtf:
Talk some sense, are you saying the chinese were policemen? Thats stupid, Iraqs policeforce are Iraqis. They were migrant workers, same as the Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Filipino and Turks that got kidnapped.
Umm, the US isnt in as good a position as it'd like to be either, does that mean they're on the run too?
Does that mean they're on the run? Nope. I actually said Al-quada are not on the run. not that, that means they're on the run.
See? See? Not that means they're on the run. The use of the negative, not, implies i said they were not on the run.
See unlike some on this board, when im wrong as i clearly was when saying Al-aquada was scared of Europe, i actually admit it, unlike some who go on arguing for the sake of face.
People claimed the US was stealing all the jobs from iraqis, when in actual fact, its trained many to work as security guards and policemen, giving them jobs. The migrants travelling to the region are unfortunate. Forgive the sarcasm, but you used it to. Also notice the use of the negative, not again, which implies the statement wasn't true.
Course, the US isn't doing as good a job as it should, they're pretty much useless at peacekeeping, too heavy handed and accident prone.
-
Investing money is one way to earn money. :D Which company would get itself into a problem area if it would just lose a tremendous amount of money, and would US back it up if it did not except any return of the investments? I wouldn't, and I think neither would US.
And of course if they were in it just for oil, they've bought it - they're buying it from Niger and Saudi-Arabia, who are not definately the cleaniest little birdies. I disagree with the posse who enthustiacally chants "all about oil, all about oil", but securing long-term oil productions propably played some part in the decision of going to Iraq (I wonder where we derailed this thread this bad :) ).
But off to the terrace I go, you guys have fun.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Actually, the US government LOSES even more money with these reconstruction contracts. By going to war, the US probably hopes to deliver democracy to it, rid itself of a nuisance dictator who was killing thousands upon thousands of people.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99h.htm
The US incidently, if it were after all oil, could of simply bought it dirt cheap from Saddamn. The company in question did contracts both in Bosnia and Kosovo and bid in 2001 for the contract it received in Iraq.
A nuisance dictator who killed thousands of people with chemical weapons he received from the US.
A nuisance dictator who continued to get support from said country for up to half a year after these incidents.
A nuisance dictator who got the weapons in the first place to use them on Iranians with the blessing of the US.
And why exactly would the US be able to buy oil dirt cheap from Saddam?
If I were gonna sell oil to make a profit for my country, I would atleast make sure I got a decent profit. (no I'm not saying Saddam would have done that for his country, I'm just stating an example).
And wether you like it or not, the US will make good use of the oil supplies in Iraq.
-
http://www.uuiraq.org/english/23.html
Uh, Iraq had a policeforce before the US invaded, not creating any jobs there, and if its training Iraqis to be security guards how come theres over 10,000 foreigners doing the job in Iraq? Just for the record, theres approx 18 million unemployed Iraqis I think you're going to have to come up with some better examples than whaqt you've posted.
As for the negative, I presumed you were going by what you originally said, ie the european intelligence services had them on the run.
-
America goes in to Iraq and demoslishes everything. Someone has to rebuild it, and that someone is the likes of Bechtel, Haliburton and Kellog, Brown & Root. The American people pay for the reconstruction through taxes, which is then paid to the conrtactors for the work they do to rebuild Iraq.
Net result: Several billion dollars of money, from the taxpayers to the corporations. Its a nice scheme, I must admit. Essentially, you have the American public paying for Bechtel CEO's new house and private lear jet. Not a new trick, mind you, but hey - if it ain't broke don't fix it. And if it is broke, no skin off their back.
-
Well according to this,
http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/25/int10.htm they are trying to create jobs.
Also, the 10,000 foreigners are a supplement, surely you can admit, that there are iraqis being trained to be security guards and policement, which is new job creation, they're might not be many but they exist.
I'll admit there's a lot more work to be done to improve the job situation, but there is some progress and i'll leave it at that. take it as a concession if you want, i havent got all day to argue.
Though, quite a lot of these services have been in disrepair long before the coalition arrived, the sanctions saw to that, bloody useless sanctions, just harmed the iraqi people more than anything, stupid UN.
-
Libby is rather explosive - hey liberator, got read "****whacked"
-
Originally posted by Rictor
They breed sheep well these day, don't they? You don't even *attempt* to give some sort of reason, because you believe that no reason is necessary. You could at least try to think of something creative, but no. What the masters say, goes.
He killed him because he killed him. The world is flat becuase the world is flat. Haliburton got the job becuase Haliburton got the job.
I'm not even going to dignify name-calling with a reply.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Libby is rather explosive - hey liberator, got read "****whacked"
And these leftist, terrorist supporters around here aren't?
-
"Leftist" = "Terrist Supporter" now?
you'd do **** proud - dissention = support of terrorism by your statement
you disgust me you - THAT is antiamerican you civil rights stomping pig
-
Originally posted by ionia23
And these leftist, terrorist supporters around here aren't?
So anyone that questions the motives of their government (which I believe is a perfectly acceptable action) is a terrorist sympathiser? What kind of crack are you smoking?
::Edit::
Damn Kazan, just beat me to it.
-
Leave them alone. They had a rough few years during the 90s. They couldn't call people Commies anymore, and terrorism wasn't in style yet. But now, things are looking up. You've got your "terrorist supporters" on one hand, the "appeasers" and "cowards" on the other, and when all else fails, you still have good ol' reliable "Liberal peacenicks" to fall back on. Ah, life is good.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Leave them alone. They had a rough few years during the 90s. They couldn't call people Commies anymore, and terrorism wasn't in style yet. But now, things are looking up. You've got your "terrorist supporters" on one hand, the "appeasers" and "cowards" on the other, and when all else fails, you still have good ol' reliable "Liberal peacenicks" to fall back on. Ah, life is good.
I don't think I fall under any of those labels though, which is amusing to me at least.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"Leftist" = "Terrist Supporter" now?
you'd do **** proud - dissention = support of terrorism by your statement
you disgust me you - THAT is antiamerican you civil rights stomping pig
Oh, I see how it is. So anyone who doesn't support the idea of nuking America out of existence for it's horrid track record is a warmongering nazi.
If you can't take it being thrown back at you, don't throw it in the first place.
-
Suddenly I understand Meag's position on political threads a lot better... :doubt:
You people are unable to argue without calling eachother names, eh? :p
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Oh, I see how it is. So anyone who doesn't support the idea of nuking America out of existence for it's horrid track record is a warmongering nazi.
If you can't take it being thrown back at you, don't throw it in the first place.
I fail to see the connection between the "warmongering nazi" thing and what Kazan said.
AFAIK he didn't even get close to mentioning that or something like that.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Suddenly I understand Meag's position on political threads a lot better... :doubt:
You people are unable to argue without calling eachother names, eh? :p
So it seems, although it usually goes well until some people gets a little too hot headed to have a decent debate about the subject :p
-
Originally posted by Zuljin
So it seems, although it usually goes well until some people gets a little too hot headed to have a decent debate about the subject :p
Guilty. I withdraw my earlier statements.
-
There is a big difference between dissention and out-and-out hateful flaming.
I have not, as yet, seen someone on the opposite side of mine suggest a course of action that is more than pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. All I see is more and more Dubya & Co. bashing.
-
Gentlemen, tone it down. This is the reason why the Shrike impales people on the Tree of Pain.
Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, let's get one thing straight you leftist bugger, Cheney has no ties to Haliburton other than the friends he left behind. He did take one thing with him when he left Haliburton however, the knowledge of what that company in capable of in what kind of time frame. He did have such knowledge of the other two companies in the world , so it only makes sense on a perfectly logical level that he would favor Haliburton over the others. You would do the same thing, and don't pretend that you wouldn't.
Actually, Cheney is still recieving $1 million from Haliburton annually. I believe the list it, officially, as 'back pay'. I'll reserve judgement as to what it actually is.
In light of that, its very difficult to believe that Cheney "has no ties to haliburton other than the friends he left behind," unless those friends are in the disbursing office.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
There is a big difference between dissention and out-and-out hateful flaming.
I have not, as yet, seen someone on the opposite side of mine suggest a course of action that is more than pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. All I see is more and more Dubya & Co. bashing.
That's what makes the extremes on both ends identical: "You are with us or you are against us".
-
The Right, at least the ones I listen to, don't attack Kerry and his cronies for being who they are. They attack his policies or rather, lack thereof.
-
I can easily take it being thrown back at me moron, because your aim sucks
"Anyone who doesn't support the idea of nuking America out of existance" is a "warmongering nazi" - that's BACKWARDs
anyone who would support the idea of nuking America out of existance _IS_ a war monger - just like anyone else who proposes using nukes, starting wars when they're not clearly necessary
You tried stamping out the expression of free speech when it's questioning the motives of our so-called leaders
-
Originally posted by Gank
And I doubt europes intelligence is much use to the US when they cant even detect attacks in europe itself.
You're US, right?
Now that's a joke, You saying that :rolleyes:
Let's compare... 3 trains, 2 towers. Ok, you got me there, there's one more train. You have other great peaks of arogance like this one? That sure is entertaining :doubt:
-
Alright, Kazan tone it down a bit. No name calling or the threads going bye bye. Hey, whatever happened to the "Owned" picture that would appear instead of the "Post Reply" button when a thread got locked. I remember it from my early days at HLP. Bring back the Owned pic :D:D
If you'de like to check my previous posts, I never called anyone names or flamed. Does excessive sarcasm qualify?
Liberator, you constantly talk about "realistic solutions", but thats a terribly defeatist attitude. 150 years ago, cars weren't "realistic". 1500 years ago, sailing across the Atlantic wasn't "realistic". And 50 years ago, India being free from British colonial rule wasn't "realistic". You must constantly strive for that which is not "realistic" because that it how progress is made.
You say that a peaceful world is not "realistic". But I say that it is inevitable. You have to make a distinction between "currently implemented" and "possible". An end to American imperialism isn't unrealistic. Not starting wars ever few years, thats not unrealistic. And end to economic rape under neo-liberal programs, thats not unrealistic.
edit: Venom, AFAIK he's Irish.
-
Ah yes, he's irish, my bad :p
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Liberator, you constantly talk about "realistic solutions", but thats a terribly defeatist attitude. 150 years ago, cars weren't "realistic". 1500 years ago, sailing across the Atlantic wasn't "realistic". And 50 years ago, India being free from British colonial rule wasn't "realistic". You must constantly strive for that which is not "realistic" because that it how progress is made.
You say that a peaceful world is not "realistic". But I say that it is inevitable. You have to make a distinction between "currently implemented" and "possible". An end to American imperialism isn't unrealistic. Not starting wars ever few years, thats not unrealistic. And end to economic rape under neo-liberal programs, thats not unrealistic.
Well, 2000 years ago, they were already believing a peaceful world was unrealistic. There lies the difference :p
-
A frenchman, calling me arrogant? lol
Originally posted by Zeronet
Also, the 10,000 foreigners are a supplement, surely you can admit, that there are iraqis being trained to be security guards and policement, which is new job creation, they're might not be many but they exist. UN.
Umm, 18 million unemployed Iraqis, they cant all be security guards. And whatever they are doing to create jobs, it doesnt detract from the fact that US contractors are hiring labour from outside the country. Btw if you look at the link, its quoting an Army officer, who I imagine would have very little to do with job creation? Its also out of date, 82nd handed Ramadi and the rest over to the 1st mef some time ago.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The Right, at least the ones I listen to, don't attack Kerry and his cronies for being who they are. They attack his policies or rather, lack thereof.
And I'm against ****'s policies.
OK, fine, I admit it. I don't like the man. He got through life cause his daddy was the President and well connected. He did coke, drove drunk and failed at every business venture he ever got involved in. Then, he stole the election. Oh yeah, skipped out on Vietnam duty. Also, he isn't the smartest guy I've ever seen. But all that pales in comparison with his his policies. If he just got the hell out of politics, I wouldn't mind him. He can have his ranch and his failed businesses and his father's money, as long as doesn't bother anyone else.
His policies harm alot of people, and that is what bothers me.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Eh Nico, maybe you should look at the location to the left of my post
before you make yourself look anymore like a complete and utter idiot.
Hey, that can happen to anybody :p
Besides, my point stands true :p
Originally posted by Gank
A frenchman, calling me arrogant? lol
What do you know about french people save for stupid internet jokes, I wonder.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Hey, that can happen to anybody :p
Besides, my point stands true :p
No it doesnt cos I'm not from the US
What do you know about french people save for stupid internet jokes, I wonder.
Thought we established I'm not a yank? As for what I know, never been to france so experience is limited to exchange students, tourists, expats etc, but if you're speaking generally I could give you a run down on french history back as far as Charlemagne. The arrogant remark was meant as a joke on the stereotype frenchman, so dont get all arrogant over it :p
-
Originally posted by Gank
No it doesnt cos I'm not from the US
Thought we established I'm not a yank? As for what I know, never been to france so experience is limited to exchange students, tourists, expats etc, but if you're speaking generally I could give you a run down on french history back as far as Charlemagne. The arrogant remark was meant as a joke on the stereotype frenchman, so dont get all arrogant over it :p
1) yeah it does, if you disregard the part about you :p
2) yeah, what does this have to do with you being a yankee or not?
Anyway, stereotypes are usually wrong, I suppose you're not a drunken rugbyman, right? :D
-
The yank thing was about how the stereotypical yank doesnt have a clue about the world outside his backdoor. btw dunno bout the drunken rugbyman stereotype, rugby isnt a big game here unless we win something, regarded as a bit of a huns game. just drunken would be more accurate I guess.
-
For the record, in terms of culture and ideology I'm Scottish first, British second, and nothing else after that.
Now, ideally we'd sit back and let the US and al-Queda slug it out, and avoid either bothering us, unfortunately that won't work since the concept of giving an inch and losing a mile is very applicable to the muslim groups in most european nations. The moment we conceeded to a peace treaty we'd have to comply with every Iman (??) and activist or we'd be accused to attacking muslims. Yay us.
:sigh:
-
[q]regarded as a bit of a huns game[/q] Oh now there's a familiar term... :lol:
-
Aye, though we use it exclusively for the english, on account of them being german. Scots, regardless of political/religious leaning are descended from the Irish.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Aye, though we use it exclusively for the english, on account of them being german. Scots, regardless of political/religious leaning are descended from the Irish.
I'm English but with Irish roots that go back to Co. Mayo. It explains the love of whiskey and folk music for sure. :)
-
[q]Scots, regardless of political/religious leaning are descended from the Irish.[/q]
True, everyone's got an irish granny or great granny somewhere.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]Scots, regardless of political/religious leaning are descended from the Irish.[/q]
True, everyone's got an irish granny or great granny somewhere.
:nod:
'Scots' tribe came over the irish sea and merged with the native Picts, apparently. Don't think anyone knows why it became 'Scot'land and not 'Pict'land, tho.
-
Heh, the English are so many races it's unbelievable, French, German, Celtic, Norweigan and Italian to name but a few ;)
We love it ;)
-
One thing that I don't understand:
Why is Osama Bin Laden going to exact revenge against the Americans for the killing of Sheikh Yassin the now assassinated leader of Hamas when the killing was done by Israelis?
Its becoming quite clear that this guy sees the world in a completely alternate way to anything that I've ever considered or heard of.
-
He considers the Israelians are being pushed by the USA.
-
The UN wanted to condemn Israel for doing it and hopefully force them not to try similar **** in the future, but the US veto'd the resolution.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I'm not even going to dignify name-calling with a reply.
The above is ironic to the extreme. He deserves a dogbone. :rolleyes:
So does this thread mean the end of political debates on HLP?
-
Err, not to mention that the missle which killed him and the helicopter which fired it were American made and payed for. This isn't just political cover, its also a very direct support of the military apparatus.
and also what anon said.
-
You know, I feel like we are in one of those Sci-Fi series which seems to require some kind of doomsday for us to get the hint, we would be stuck in the titles, accompanied by a deep voice saying 'In the year 2023.....'
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040415/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_musical_marine&cid=540&ncid=1473
I'm saddened.
-
Quite right, war is bad enough, but Bagpipes?, someone roll out the Geneva convention ;)
j/k :D
-
Apparently, all the Marines think its soothing!? Thats not the first word that springs to mind, I must admit.
Iraqi beaten to death for refusing to take down pciture of Sadr (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9282015%255E1702,00.html)
well what, would you rather I start a new thread? The topic has already been hijacked.
-
And let's not forget all the raping the American troops have been doing.....
-
[q]Thats not the first word that springs to mind, I must admit.
[/q]
Stirring is. :) You haven't heard a patriotic song until you've heard being played with a mass band with pipers, drummers, the lot....
-
Random question: What was the last reply that had something to do with the original topic?
-
9-10 posts up
-
How odd. It appears that an0n was the last person who was on topic.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]Thats not the first word that springs to mind, I must admit.
[/q]
Stirring is. :) You haven't heard a patriotic song until you've heard being played with a mass band with pipers, drummers, the lot....
:nod: :nod: :nod:
Sounds much better, don't know about the drums but ...
That guy dying is a tragedy and he should have cooperated until he was out of sight and he could've put it back up. The soldiers should be tried according to the UCMJ and put away for a long time, they should have had more restraint.
-
if that incedent is true, that sounds like they should get courtmarsheled, you know the military tribunal type thing.
-
Yup...thats a courtmarshal. I know this stuff happens...its happened to every countries military at some point but there is a code of conduct that entire nations need to follow and seem to forget more often than not.
Unfortunately the first casualty of war is the truth so its hard to say what happened. Maybe in 60 years.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Unfortunately the first casualty of war is the truth so its hard to say what happened. Maybe in 60 years.
You mean like with WW2 and how we're now free from all the anti-Nazi propaganda? How we're taught about all the social reforms the Nazi's made that improved the country? How we're told of the drop in crime after Hitler came to power?
It is now how it has always been: The losers are evil till the end of time and all the atrocities we committed were for a good cause.
-
Granted, its rather hard to make a convincing case for Hitler as anything but a butcher. Its not everyone who manages to kill as many people as he did. I find it analogous if not equal to the issue of American domestic/foreign policy.
Hitler did wonders in regards to domestic policy. Well, at least for the non-Jewish, non-Gypsy section of the population. But in regards to foreign policy,...not quite so good. If you benefit a small number of people (your citizens) and harm everyone else (the world), the latter outweighs the former.
You could have picked a better example than the Nazis. Sure, the basic arguement is intact, but good luck trying to find much sympathy for the Nazis, and rightly so.
-
All Hitler did was a more active version of what happens passively in every society. People who are losers and/or dangerous to the government are ostracized and crapped on. People who are winners and/or help the government are treated well.
He just took it one step further and erradicated the loser people to make the lives of the winners ten times better. And to be fair, he had a point. All he wanted to do was make a perfect race, which is an admirable goal, but it'd mean he'd have to infringe on the rights and lives of the people who were, by any measure, inferior. He pre-empted the problem of their *****ing by wiping them out, and even used the extermination as a means of increasing his support amongst the 'winner' people. The exception to this was the Jews, who were just scapegoats to rally the German people into action.
-
And you're quite obviously trolling for attention.
-
And you should quite obviously shut the **** up.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And you're quite obviously trolling for attention.
No, he's trolling to raise his post count.
-
yup only 531 more to go
-
Originally posted by IceFire
One thing that I don't understand:
Why is Osama Bin Laden going to exact revenge against the Americans for the killing of Sheikh Yassin the now assassinated leader of Hamas when the killing was done by Israelis?
Its becoming quite clear that this guy sees the world in a completely alternate way to anything that I've ever considered or heard of.
Pretty simple, really. The US backs Israel without question. Therefore, any action Israel takes is attributed to US interference or influence in the same sense that all the problems of the middle east are caused solely by the US, or such is the general consensus.
Sarcastic, yes. But sift through that and you have at least part of the reasoning.
-
It worries me that you were being sarcastic. :wtf:
-
Originally posted by vyper
It worries me that you were being sarcastic. :wtf:
Why's that?
-
Because you seem to think the US has no responsibility for what Israel is up to.
-
The contract to do the work in Iraq, similar to work the company performed in both Bosnia and Kosovo, was competitively bid in 2001.
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/corpnws_091903.jsp
Nobody noticed this?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Because you seem to think the US has no responsibility for what Israel is up to.
That would assume that I disagree with Israel's actions, which I don't.
-
Originally posted by an0n
All Hitler did was a more active version of what happens passively in every society. People who are losers and/or dangerous to the government are ostracized and crapped on. People who are winners and/or help the government are treated well.
He just took it one step further and erradicated the loser people to make the lives of the winners ten times better. And to be fair, he had a point. All he wanted to do was make a perfect race, which is an admirable goal, but it'd mean he'd have to infringe on the rights and lives of the people who were, by any measure, inferior. He pre-empted the problem of their *****ing by wiping them out, and even used the extermination as a means of increasing his support amongst the 'winner' people. The exception to this was the Jews, who were just scapegoats to rally the German people into action.
Ah. So you believe in Machiavellian politics, an0n?
-
All life is [q]Machiavellian politics[/q] it's just dressed up...
-
Thats a very depressing way of looking at the world. And for my money, untrue.
-
Well, it's really more of a philosophy. And it appears that once you believe in Machiavellian politics, you believe everyone else does, too.
-
Or rather, you believe that their beliefs are irrelevant in comparison to who wields the power.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Or rather, you believe that their beliefs are irrelevant in comparison to who wields the power.
Two can play that game!
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
:D
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Or rather, you believe that their beliefs are irrelevant in comparison to who wields the power.
No, I believe beliefs shouldn't get in the way of facts.
And it just so happens that my analysis of a situation is always the actual, factual one.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Thats a very depressing way of looking at the world. And for my money, untrue.
Hey I don't make the rules...
-
I've brought up the "realistic, factual etc etc" statement a few times before. The basic premise here, which "you people" seem to think is proven by historical evidence, is that people are bastards. Might makes right, the strong rule the weak and all that. Right, well, I see no reason why that should be. Granted, throughout most of history that has been the case, but then again, the same can be said for slavery, women being second class citizens, and even democracy. Totally new concepts are being "discovered" and accepted by the world every day. Present day democracy is better than that found in ancient Athens. It represents (in theory) a far greater section of the population. Another arguement, though one I think everyone is tired of, is the old "Internet communication revolution" one. What was previously impossible is now not only possible, but I would say essential to our society.
/rant.
-
Acting responsibly and shouting "but they did it too, see, we're better than the nazihunstalinistredkhmerwhatevers, it's human nature" pretty much cancel each other out.
Rictor has a good point there.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Two can play that game!
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
:D
*snaps fingers*
Like, freaky man. You should get that published, very pre post-modernist modern.