Looks like a million person march on Washington is a must if they back the Muslim Brotherhood........or get involved with this mess
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Looks like a million person march on Washington is a must if they back the Muslim Brotherhood........or get involved with this mess
...
It is not the Muslim Brotherhood... it is al Qaeda and Hezbollah that are part of the driving forces of the rebellion.
Those whom are calling to arm the rebels (Sen. McCain, Graham, Chambliss, etc...) want to arm al Qaeda.
What happens if they win? Who's in charge?
Answer: al Qaeda and Hezbollah.
But, of course, al Qaeda will return the weapons after the rebellions succeeds, right?
...
Stay out of Syria.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Looks like a million person march on Washington is a must if they back the Muslim Brotherhood........or get involved with this mess
...
It is not the Muslim Brotherhood... it is al Qaeda and Hezbollah that are part of the driving forces of the rebellion.
Those whom are calling to arm the rebels (Sen. McCain, Graham, Chambliss, etc...) want to arm al Qaeda.
What happens if they win? Who's in charge?
Answer: al Qaeda and Hezbollah.
But, of course, al Qaeda will return the weapons after the rebellions succeeds, right?
...
Stay out of Syria.
Sorry but Hezbollah is NOT part of the rebels. They have assad's back.
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Looks like a million person march on Washington is a must if they back the Muslim Brotherhood........or get involved with this mess
...
It is not the Muslim Brotherhood... it is al Qaeda and Hezbollah that are part of the driving forces of the rebellion.
Those whom are calling to arm the rebels (Sen. McCain, Graham, Chambliss, etc...) want to arm al Qaeda.
What happens if they win? Who's in charge?
Answer: al Qaeda and Hezbollah.
But, of course, al Qaeda will return the weapons after the rebellions succeeds, right?
...
Stay out of Syria.
Sorry but Hezbollah is NOT part of the rebels. They have assad's back.
...
Yeah... I forgot that Hezbollah are Shia.
Still... there is a pretty solid backing by al Qaeda elements. and personally, I don't think arming members of al Qaeda is a good idea. Remember that old saying... "The Enemy of My Enemy is still al Fucking Qaeda... so, arming them is pretty fucking stupid".
Let Iran get entangled in that shithole mess and have al Qaeda fuck with them, instead of us.
Post edited by Cosmo on
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Sunni vs Shi'ite. Sectarian violence that will not end with Assad's demise. The US (or any other Western country) backing one or the other is a very dangerous move that will come back and bite them.
Sunni vs Shi'ite. Sectarian violence that will not end with Assad's demise. The US (or any other Western country) backing one or the other is a very dangerous move that will come back and bite them.
how so?
when your goal is war profiteering and political instability and economic imperialism ... what is the blowback? ... if there are attacks on US citizens - that's just further motivation for the above ...
Sunni vs Shi'ite. Sectarian violence that will not end with Assad's demise. The US (or any other Western country) backing one or the other is a very dangerous move that will come back and bite them.
how so?
when your goal is war profiteering and political instability and economic imperialism ... what is the blowback? ... if there are attacks on US citizens - that's just further motivation for the above ...
Terrorism? I know the CIA says they never trained bin Laden but there is, to my knowledge, to definitive proof that he wasn't a part of the Afghan Mujaheddin that we did train.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Terrorism? I know the CIA says they never trained bin Laden but there is, to my knowledge, to definitive proof that he wasn't a part of the Afghan Mujaheddin that we did train.
terrorism is not an unwanted outcome ... when your goal is to profit from war by selling guns and choppers and tanks and bullets ... you need to live in a world of violence ... you don't have afghanistan and iraq without 9/11 ... you can't pass orwellian legislations without the threat of violence and terrorism ...
look at the israeli/palestine conflict ... israel would not be able to get away with everything it does if it wasn't for the periodic rocket attack, suicide bomber or threat of it ...
the people won't easily give up their civil liberties unless there is that threat ... axis of evil ... wmds ... terrorists! ... drilling for fear makes the job simple ...
Terrorism? I know the CIA says they never trained bin Laden but there is, to my knowledge, to definitive proof that he wasn't a part of the Afghan Mujaheddin that we did train.
terrorism is not an unwanted outcome ... when your goal is to profit from war by selling guns and choppers and tanks and bullets ... you need to live in a world of violence ... you don't have afghanistan and iraq without 9/11 ... you can't pass orwellian legislations without the threat of violence and terrorism ...
look at the israeli/palestine conflict ... israel would not be able to get away with everything it does if it wasn't for the periodic rocket attack, suicide bomber or threat of it ...
the people won't easily give up their civil liberties unless there is that threat ... axis of evil ... wmds ... terrorists! ... drilling for fear makes the job simple ...
Sunni vs Shi'ite. Sectarian violence that will not end with Assad's demise. The US (or any other Western country) backing one or the other is a very dangerous move that will come back and bite them.
how so?.
Countries such as the US, by backing a certain group of people against their current government/leader, count on this group to 'win' ,installing a democracy instead of dictatorship or government not to their liking, etc. (yadidadida as we've heard many times before). Obviously banking on the new leaders to have a more 'positive relationship' with the US. How wrong can that be in the Middle East (latest one Egypt..). Doesn't go to plan.... Very simply put but I think you get the drift...
Terrorism? I know the CIA says they never trained bin Laden but there is, to my knowledge, to definitive proof that he wasn't a part of the Afghan Mujaheddin that we did train.
terrorism is not an unwanted outcome ... when your goal is to profit from war by selling guns and choppers and tanks and bullets ... you need to live in a world of violence ... you don't have afghanistan and iraq without 9/11 ... you can't pass orwellian legislations without the threat of violence and terrorism ...
look at the israeli/palestine conflict ... israel would not be able to get away with everything it does if it wasn't for the periodic rocket attack, suicide bomber or threat of it ...
the people won't easily give up their civil liberties unless there is that threat ... axis of evil ... wmds ... terrorists! ... drilling for fear makes the job simple ...
Exactly whose goal is "to profit from war by selling guns and choppers and tanks and bullets"?
Terrorism? I know the CIA says they never trained bin Laden but there is, to my knowledge, to definitive proof that he wasn't a part of the Afghan Mujaheddin that we did train.
terrorism is not an unwanted outcome ... when your goal is to profit from war by selling guns and choppers and tanks and bullets ... you need to live in a world of violence ... you don't have afghanistan and iraq without 9/11 ... you can't pass orwellian legislations without the threat of violence and terrorism ...
look at the israeli/palestine conflict ... israel would not be able to get away with everything it does if it wasn't for the periodic rocket attack, suicide bomber or threat of it ...
the people won't easily give up their civil liberties unless there is that threat ... axis of evil ... wmds ... terrorists! ... drilling for fear makes the job simple ...
tin hat territory. just say’n
Let's phrase this a bit differently then. US foreign policy, for much of our history, has to do with "saving" others from "dictatorships" or other 'undesirable' forms of government, right? And this going all the way to the 1820s Monroe Doctrine and the resulting change over time in regards to the very clear reasoning behind profiting from European involvement in WWI and WWII. Is it really that far out of line with what polaris said? His reasoning makes it sound like tin hat conspiracy mentality but very clearly the US has chosen to intervene in numerous conflicts around the world, and while part of our motivation might be to protect other nations from rogue dictators, the very clear intent has been to 'protect' our economic interests. Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to say that we might "favor" or "look the other way" in regards to perpetrating violence to suit our own needs.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Let's phrase this a bit differently then. US foreign policy, for much of our history, has to do with "saving" others from "dictatorships" or other 'undesirable' forms of government, right? And this going all the way to the 1820s Monroe Doctrine and the resulting change over time in regards to the very clear reasoning behind profiting from European involvement in WWI and WWII. Is it really that far out of line with what polaris said? His reasoning makes it sound like tin hat conspiracy mentality but very clearly the US has chosen to intervene in numerous conflicts around the world, and while part of our motivation might be to protect other nations from rogue dictators, the very clear intent has been to 'protect' our economic interests. Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to say that we might "favor" or "look the other way" in regards to perpetrating violence to suit our own needs.
This I don't disagree with at all. As I said earlier in the thread regarding oil as a reason, I wish I could disagree but I cannot.
Let's phrase this a bit differently then. US foreign policy, for much of our history, has to do with "saving" others from "dictatorships" or other 'undesirable' forms of government, right? And this going all the way to the 1820s Monroe Doctrine and the resulting change over time in regards to the very clear reasoning behind profiting from European involvement in WWI and WWII. Is it really that far out of line with what polaris said? His reasoning makes it sound like tin hat conspiracy mentality but very clearly the US has chosen to intervene in numerous conflicts around the world, and while part of our motivation might be to protect other nations from rogue dictators, the very clear intent has been to 'protect' our economic interests. Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to say that we might "favor" or "look the other way" in regards to perpetrating violence to suit our own needs.
you're being way too diplomatic ...
us foreign policy has always been about economic interests and imperialism ... frig - for the longest time - the biggest enemies were commies ... why? ... because people want to share? ... the gov't managed a pr campaign that convinced all americans that commies were evil and that you needed to wage wars against them ... how moronic was that ... we all know it was so they can protect their economic interests ...
all of latin america ... what's the reason behind your incursions into honduras and gautemala? ... and i'm kinda talking to everyone else here ... not you riotgirl ...
us foreign policy has always been about economic interests and imperialism ... frig - for the longest time - the biggest enemies were commies ... why? ... because people want to share? ... the gov't managed a pr campaign that convinced all americans that commies were evil and that you needed to wage wars against them ... how moronic was that ... we all know it was so they can protect their economic interests ...
all of latin america ... what's the reason behind your incursions into honduras and gautemala? ... and i'm kinda talking to everyone else here ... not you riotgirl ...
Yes, all Americans, 100% of us, and only Americans, not the Brits or the Germans or the Canadians, were convinced that the "commies" were evil. :roll:
Let's phrase this a bit differently then. US foreign policy, for much of our history, has to do with "saving" others from "dictatorships" or other 'undesirable' forms of government, right? And this going all the way to the 1820s Monroe Doctrine and the resulting change over time in regards to the very clear reasoning behind profiting from European involvement in WWI and WWII. Is it really that far out of line with what polaris said? His reasoning makes it sound like tin hat conspiracy mentality but very clearly the US has chosen to intervene in numerous conflicts around the world, and while part of our motivation might be to protect other nations from rogue dictators, the very clear intent has been to 'protect' our economic interests. Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to say that we might "favor" or "look the other way" in regards to perpetrating violence to suit our own needs.
you're being way too diplomatic ...
us foreign policy has always been about economic interests and imperialism ... frig - for the longest time - the biggest enemies were commies ... why? ... because people want to share? ... the gov't managed a pr campaign that convinced all americans that commies were evil and that you needed to wage wars against them ... how moronic was that ... we all know it was so they can protect their economic interests ...
all of latin america ... what's the reason behind your incursions into honduras and gautemala? ... and i'm kinda talking to everyone else here ... not you riotgirl ...
Sometimes diplomacy is called for Kinda like you get more flies with honey! Every war, every conflict has been motivated by economic gain. We are a capitalist nation and must defend said capitalism at all costs. Even our isolationist stance prior to WWI was all about economic motivation. Some call for a return to this stance but American isolationism is a lie, we have never been isolationist, at least in our economic policy and really this policy informs the entirety of our foreign policy.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
If someone was a blatant racist I would not put much stock in their thoughts on race relations.
If someone has a blatant prejudice against Americans I don't see why anyone should take too seriously their thoughts on Americans.
Cue the "its too bad you are so easily offended" response.
whatever excuse you need man ... it's cool ... if it were me - i'd much rather ignore the problem as well ... ignorance is bliss ... so, continue to focus on my prejudice and ignore the blatant crimes committed ...
If someone was a blatant racist I would not put much stock in their thoughts on race relations.
If someone has a blatant prejudice against Americans I don't see why anyone should take too seriously their thoughts on Americans.
Cue the "its too bad you are so easily offended" response.
whatever excuse you need man ... it's cool ... if it were me - i'd much rather ignore the problem as well ... ignorance is bliss ... so, continue to focus on my prejudice and ignore the blatant crimes committed ...
I think its pretty clear that you are ignoring your problem and my point.
Comments
Looks like a million person march on Washington is a must if they back the Muslim Brotherhood........or get involved with this mess
exactly....why USA need to get involved in this??
oh wait...
"Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I wish I could say this wasn't true...but I can't.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It is not the Muslim Brotherhood... it is al Qaeda and Hezbollah that are part of the driving forces of the rebellion.
Those whom are calling to arm the rebels (Sen. McCain, Graham, Chambliss, etc...) want to arm al Qaeda.
What happens if they win? Who's in charge?
Answer: al Qaeda and Hezbollah.
But, of course, al Qaeda will return the weapons after the rebellions succeeds, right?
...
Stay out of Syria.
Hail, Hail!!!
Sorry but Hezbollah is NOT part of the rebels. They have assad's back.
:thumbup:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Yeah... I forgot that Hezbollah are Shia.
Still... there is a pretty solid backing by al Qaeda elements. and personally, I don't think arming members of al Qaeda is a good idea. Remember that old saying... "The Enemy of My Enemy is still al Fucking Qaeda... so, arming them is pretty fucking stupid".
Let Iran get entangled in that shithole mess and have al Qaeda fuck with them, instead of us.
Hail, Hail!!!
how so?
when your goal is war profiteering and political instability and economic imperialism ... what is the blowback? ... if there are attacks on US citizens - that's just further motivation for the above ...
Terrorism? I know the CIA says they never trained bin Laden but there is, to my knowledge, to definitive proof that he wasn't a part of the Afghan Mujaheddin that we did train.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
terrorism is not an unwanted outcome ... when your goal is to profit from war by selling guns and choppers and tanks and bullets ... you need to live in a world of violence ... you don't have afghanistan and iraq without 9/11 ... you can't pass orwellian legislations without the threat of violence and terrorism ...
look at the israeli/palestine conflict ... israel would not be able to get away with everything it does if it wasn't for the periodic rocket attack, suicide bomber or threat of it ...
the people won't easily give up their civil liberties unless there is that threat ... axis of evil ... wmds ... terrorists! ... drilling for fear makes the job simple ...
Countries such as the US, by backing a certain group of people against their current government/leader, count on this group to 'win' ,installing a democracy instead of dictatorship or government not to their liking, etc. (yadidadida as we've heard many times before). Obviously banking on the new leaders to have a more 'positive relationship' with the US. How wrong can that be in the Middle East (latest one Egypt..). Doesn't go to plan.... Very simply put but I think you get the drift...
Exactly whose goal is "to profit from war by selling guns and choppers and tanks and bullets"?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
the military industrial complex
Let's phrase this a bit differently then. US foreign policy, for much of our history, has to do with "saving" others from "dictatorships" or other 'undesirable' forms of government, right? And this going all the way to the 1820s Monroe Doctrine and the resulting change over time in regards to the very clear reasoning behind profiting from European involvement in WWI and WWII. Is it really that far out of line with what polaris said? His reasoning makes it sound like tin hat conspiracy mentality but very clearly the US has chosen to intervene in numerous conflicts around the world, and while part of our motivation might be to protect other nations from rogue dictators, the very clear intent has been to 'protect' our economic interests. Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to say that we might "favor" or "look the other way" in regards to perpetrating violence to suit our own needs.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
This I don't disagree with at all. As I said earlier in the thread regarding oil as a reason, I wish I could disagree but I cannot.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
of course you think so ... just say'n
you're being way too diplomatic ...
us foreign policy has always been about economic interests and imperialism ... frig - for the longest time - the biggest enemies were commies ... why? ... because people want to share? ... the gov't managed a pr campaign that convinced all americans that commies were evil and that you needed to wage wars against them ... how moronic was that ... we all know it was so they can protect their economic interests ...
all of latin america ... what's the reason behind your incursions into honduras and gautemala? ... and i'm kinda talking to everyone else here ... not you riotgirl ...
Yes, all Americans, 100% of us, and only Americans, not the Brits or the Germans or the Canadians, were convinced that the "commies" were evil. :roll:
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Sometimes diplomacy is called for
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
haha ... so typical ... out of all that - that's what you focus on ...
If someone was a blatant racist I would not put much stock in their thoughts on race relations.
If someone has a blatant prejudice against Americans I don't see why anyone should take too seriously their thoughts on Americans.
Cue the "its too bad you are so easily offended" response.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
whatever excuse you need man ... it's cool ... if it were me - i'd much rather ignore the problem as well ... ignorance is bliss ... so, continue to focus on my prejudice and ignore the blatant crimes committed ...
I think its pretty clear that you are ignoring your problem and my point.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
i could start a U-S-A chant if it makes you feel better about everything! ...
Nah, not about making me feel better. But go ahead, you might like it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."