|
|
 | | From: | N Nakayama | | Subject: | Re: RE: Why Arabs hate the USA | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:23:13 -0000 |
|
|
 | On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:10:08 -0000, "N Nakayama"
wrote:
>
>"Bob" wrote in message
>>
>> we supported the people of afghanistan against soviet imperialist
>> aggression. are you in favor of colonialism? seems like you think
>> colonialism is fine, except when the US engages in it.
>
>You supported the fundamentalist Mujahadeen, who effectively (the
>fundamentalists) have come back to bite you in the arse . You think
>Colonialism is wrong except when the US engages in it.
ah. so we supported the muslims who thru out soviet imperialists, and
our reward for supporting freedom is to be attacked by muslims?
*ROLFMAO. The lesson, you bungling moron is not to strikes deals with
dodgy characters especially religious lunatics
well, we wont make THAT mistake again.
*Don't count on it, you fundies don't rely on common sense to propogate
opinions.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Ok you really are running out of garbage to throw. The Taliban took
power
>>>aroun 1996. What the f* are you trying to prove?
>>
>> you didnt know the taliban visited the US to talk with US oil
>> companies about a pipeline??
>
>Are you that stupid realy? It cannot be possible.The Taliban were not
around
>during the soviet invasion, idiot.
never said they were, sport.
* ROFLMAO...Worse evasion ever.
>>>
>> from: http://www.alternet.org/story/12525
>>
>>>From 1997 to as late as August 2001, the U.S. government continued
to
>>>negotiate with the Taliban, trying to find a stabilizing factor that
would
>>>allow American oil ventures to proceed with this project without
>>>interference. To this end, in December 1997, Unocal invited the
Taliban
>>>contingency to Texas to negotiate protection while the pipeline was
under
>>>construction. At the end of their stay, the Afghan visitors were
invited
>>>to Washington to meet with the government officials of the Clinton
>>>Administration.
>
>
>Again what is the point you are trying to prove?
*ROFLMAO.... so now just deny the asinine claims that you made before.
I am trying to explain that the Taliban were not present during the
80s.
You stated the fact is we had no designs on the muslim fanatics who
ruled afghanistan.
*Irrelevant garbage designed to be evasions.
>>
>>>>
>>>> and al qaida fundies...like your hero bin laden...fought the
soviets,
>>>> funded by the saudis.
>>>
>>>Ok you are clearly very confused. Al qaeda was formed in 1998 by
OBL.
>>
>> bin laden fought in afghanistan against the soviets..you know...your
>> 'taliban-like' type fundies.
>
>But Al Qaeda was formed in 1998, but you didn't know that, did you??
You
>probably thought Al Qaeda existed in the 80s? fundies fighting the
soviets
>with their global network of terror. They were supported by your
friends
>remember?
ROLFMAO!! what is 'al qaida'? you seem to think these groups are like
companies listed on the NYSE!
*Of course, that's why the TAliban were fighting the Soviets in the
80s....ROFL
they come and go as the situation
demands.
*LOL...Muslim Terror groups can obviously travel through time.
and who did the fighting in afghanistan? Martians? nope...muslims
fundies.
*Correction....Time travelling muslim fundies.
>>
>> Back
>>>then (soveit invasion) OBL was part of the Mujahadeen. It seems
that
>>>Saddam
>>>is your hero (from "they were fighting the iranians, so its ok"
fame), you
>>>can have OBL as you hero as well. Extremist lunatic...
>>
>> and you ignore the fact that OBL first attacked the soviets, then
>> turned his hatred to the west, convinced we were decadent and would
>> fall easier than the soviets did...
>
>Not because you were decadent (it may be a reaon but lower down), but
to get
>bases out of SA, and your support of Israel, etc.
he was convinced we would not fight...we would collapse just like the
soviets....bin laden, like you, hates the west.
**ROFL.... Your mind reading abilities suck....real bad. But what is
clearly apparent is that you hate the French, Arabs and all Muslims and
that you are a fanatic.
>>
>> his miscalculation.
>
>He's still alive, he must have known the type of reaction against him.
he ran. he's a coward. he ran.
* ROFL>>> or he maybe travelling through time. hehe
>Where did I make such an assertion?
>> for a discussion of the afghan civil war, and the attendant coups,
>> see:
>>
>> http://www.historyguy.com/afghan_civil_war.html
>
>
>I know I have read extensively and have lived in several south asian
>countries (Pakistan, India and long visits to Nepal, bhutan and
>Bangladesh ). I know the politics and history of the region in-depth.
If you
>have any questions, don't hesistate to ask, in the mean time you
should read
>the link above.
it's a shame you have such strong support for the islamic fascists,
and such little regard for the people of the region.
ROFL..... This coming fromt he guy who hates all MUSLIMS and believe
arabs aren't capable of democracy.
>>>>
>>>> wbat does 'US' support consist of? the US left saudi arabia a year
>>>> ago. no free elections there. the US doesnt even have diplomatic
>>>> relations with syria or libya. no free elections there either
>>>
>>>Its only been a year.
>>
>> and we offered NO support to libya for over 20 years, yet it's not a
>> democracy
>
>Libya is unlucky to get a lunatic like Gadaffi. They certainly did not
>choose him.
ROFLMAO!! hey genius...a self fulfilling prophecy. YOU sais that ONLY
US imperialism caused the lack of freedom in the arab world. NOW
*LOL, moron... Libya is a failure because Gadaffi came to power and the
people did not adequately resist. This is the situation in Libya. But
according to you all Arabs are failures, so therefore are not able to
form democracies.
you're saying it's dumb luck
*Well its clear that you're dumb.
any other backpedaling you wanna do? do you beep when you back up that
fast?
*ROFL, amusing since your contentions just expose an ignorant racist,
who relies entirely on fundamnetalist, racist garbage to forward
roughage disguised as rebuttals.
>>
>> care to explain? based on your fundie hatred of the US?
>
>Well... he took power in a coup. Hows the fundie hatred of Muslims,
French,
>Libs, etc going?
ah. he took power in a coup. funny...seems to be alot of that around
in the mideast...with NO US help
*ROFL... Exactly..thats why so many of the undemocratic regimes in the
mideast are cheered and supported by the US. YOu excel at contributing
decaying fecal matter.
doesnt do much for your assertion that US imperialism causes the lack
of freedom in the mideast.
* ROFLMAO, so just because Gadaffi came to power independently it must
mean the US cannot be responsible for the rest of the despotic regimes
they love in the mideast. Quientessial toilet humour from BOB.
>>
>> The Saudi family have been in power with western
>>>support for more than 60 years. What do you expect? Revolution
overnight?
>>>As
>>>with Syria and Bashad, he seems to be a more popular Arab leader not
under
>>>the strings of Americans.
>>
>> ah. a dictator is more popular than democracy
>
>Of course, the dictator Bashad is not a US prop. He therefore is
considered
>to be for the Arab cause.
ah. so the arabs are in favor of democracy, except when they're in
favor of a dictatorship?
*When dictatorship is popular, so what?
any other contradictions you wanna offer in support of your bizarre
fundamentalism that the US alone is responsible for dictatorships in
*This is coming from the guy who says he likes Arabs, but
unfortunately believes them to be subhuman monkeys unable to create
democratic reforms. There is no contradiction, it would seem clearer if
you'd just stick your head out of the toilet for a minute.
the mideast?
* Yes you don't have the slightest clue about the region, we know.
>>
>> FIRST you say that ONLY the US is preventing democracy in the
mideast.
>
>They are, it would compromise oil supplies and may make the region
dangerous
>for Israel.
well let's see. first you said its the US. then it's luck. then it's
if a dictator is in favor of the 'arab cause', the cause, apparently,
* ROLFMAO, brilliant logic, ignore the fact that there are numerous
states in the middle east, and just pretend that they are all the same.
+ add a liberal splattering of willful ignorance. Just because
Gadaffi came to power independently, it therefore must mean the US
cannot be responsible for the Majority of cases.
not including freedom.
as to oil supplies, we've spent more in iraq than we're ever gonna get
back in oil.
* Did you hear that during on of your frequent dives in the tropical
waters of your toilet? So you are saying that the amount the US has
spent on IRAQ is more than the oil proceeds from IRAQ'S entire oil
resource?
>
>> then when it's shown this is WRONG, you say that dictators are
popular
>
>This dictator is very popular, because he doesn't like the US and
Israel,
>like most Arabs. His policies reflect the views of his people. Don't
you
>see?
ah. a popular dictator.
* Yes, in a country currently at war.
dont have much faith in arabs, do you? they LIKE their dictators! so
* But I am not the one who believes they are incapable of democracy.
Syria is in a volatile region of the world/at war with a major US
ally/and has a leader who stands up to US bullying.
dictators have YOUR approval, except when they are, apparently, US
'puppets'.
* ROFL... Not my approval, their approval. You on the other hand love
arab dictators, unless apparently, they are liked by the population.
so much for your contention that arabs support democracy.
* Have you just refuted it? Excreting, however pleasurable does not
constitute using your brain during debates. I have explained why Syria
is under dictatorship. You on the other love explaining how arabs are
incapable of democracy.
>>
>> any other way you want to defend your fundie hatred of the US?
>
>There is no fundie hatred, except from you, remember?
>>
>> seems your major premise that the US stands in the way of democracy
is
>> wrong.
>
>The premise is correct? How could it be wrong? You have not adequately
>refuted it.
says the guy who said above that syria's dictator is 'popular' and
'reflects the arab cause'.
* Says the guy who thinks Jordan is a shining example of democracy.
HE knows what the arab people want
because...well, he just does, you see.
* You must know the Arabs a lot better, since you have come to the
conclusion that they are inferior monkey-types, not even remotely close
to having the abilities to create democracies.
so, again, the US is responsible for every arab dictator, except when
we arent.
* Again.... Your contention infers that just because Gadaffi comes to
power independently, all Middle east therefore must be the same. Ignore
the the wholesome support the US throws behind the rest of the despots,
and also the crucial interests the uSA has in the region. If you're
trying to facetious again, you're doing well.
>>
>> Countries like Syria and Libya (believe it or not)
>>>have a much better chance of democracy (if the US does not
interefere)
>>>than
>>>the US-friendly countries.
>>
>> when? in 300 years? 500 years?? when? again, you keep telling us how
>
>It will be before countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudia Arabia and
Yemen that
>is for sure
>
>> the rush to democracy will take place when US imperialism is absent
>
>Exactly
except you said above that's wrong.
* You just cannot reason properly.
you said above that there are
POPULAR arab dictators that have no US support.
* Yes 1, and that is down to the US/Israel as well.
so arab dictators have US support, except when they dont.
* ROLF, another classic example of BOB pulling noxious garbage out of
Bob's ass. All the dictators in the mideast except, Gadafi and Bashad
have US support,.
gee...another creationist fundamentalist
* I would constitute extracting fecal matter out of ones' rectum and
placing it on usenet, the behaviour of a creationist fundamentalist.
Hows your efforts going into banning evolution these days going anyway?
>>
>> fine. it's absent in libya and syria. yet they are not democracies.
>
>Libya is unlucky due to the presence of a dictator. Bashar is a
popular
>leader who's policy reflects the views of his people, a form of
democracy
>(and they are currently at war). Leaders propped up by the US are
hated
>furiously.
that's not what you said. YOU said that the US is responsible for
dictatorships and the lack of democracy in the mideast
*THE US is responsible for all the countries except Libya and Syria
(which is part US's fault as well).
.. that's your
claim
*It stands
now you're saying that arabs LIKE their dictators. arabs dont DO
democracy.
*the arabs like Bashad, because he is not handpicked by the US. + Take
into the consideration the volatile nature of that region (ie. Being at
war with a major US ally). The reason BAshad is popular is due to the
US. Again, to refute your racist nonsense,t he Arabs are capable of
democracy + again ANy elected government would have extreme animosity
towards the US. Why do you evade these points? why?
any other backpedaling coming our way?
* How is that backpedalling? Are your supplies of standard toilet-grade
responses running out on this thread? That was poor, even by your
standards.
>
>
>> explain.
>
>Explained above
>>
>>>>>
>>>> so where's your proof that the only thing standing between arabs
and
>>>> free elections is the US?
>>>
>>>I've already explained with saudi. Libya and Syria will have some
sort of
>>>democratic elections in the not to distant future. These countries
fare a
>>>much better chance than say jordan.
>>
>> jordan already has an elected parliament. neither libya nor syria
>> does, nor is there any sign that elections are coming.
>
>The elected parliament is ineffective and does not wield real power
(its a
>sham).
ah. so the dictator in syria is more popular than the elected
parliament of jordan?
* You believe the parliament * coughs* yields any power?
you tell us that the dictators that have no US support are moving
towards democracy...someday...but an elected parliament in jordan is
irrelevant, even though it's elected,
*ROFLMAO...this is logic like "democracy is coming to IRAQ very soon."
It is a sham get it? The power is firmly in the hands of the
Hashemites. Just because you and your fundies believe delusional
garbage does not mean its automatically effective in reasoned debates.
and the dictatorships you
support have NO signs of democracy
* ROFLMAO, hehehe
"..but..but...Jordan is a democracy"
that's fundamentalist america hatred. no facts need apply.
* Your self-description is stunningly accurate.
>Jordan is a constitutional monarchy ruled by the King. It is more of
>a feudal system (where people from certain families yield the power).
Your
>ignorance of the politics of this country shows
says the guy who thinks the dictator of syria is a WONDERFUL guy, and
* Arabs think he's a wondeful guy, not me, I am not an arab.
VERY popular with the folks back home even though bashad is an
alawite...a member of a very small minority group in syria.
** ROFLMAO , this is the guy who thinks the Hashemites in Jordan are
fully behind democracy. So what if he's from a minority group? Its good
..
how does he know this? why, the UFO's told him...chicken entrails. you
*BOB is now decribing in intimitate detail, the exotic rituals he
undertakes before posting on usenet.
see, when you're a fundmentalist america hater, syria is a democracy,
* When you're a fundamentalist arab-hater, you would believe Jordan is
"democracy", and IRAQ soon wil be as well
even though it's a dictatorship
*true
, and jordan is a nazi state, although
it has an elected parliament.
* An elected parliament which sits to scratch their own backsides,
because the US supported Hashemites are not willing to let go of power.
(do some research on the
>temporary laws introduced in the last 3 years, it effectively exposes
the
>nature of democracy there and is the tip of the iceberg). I have a
close
>friend who happens to be of Jordanian origin and have visited the
country.
>They tend to be a friendly and hospitabe people with a vibrant and
>intriguing culture. If you have any questions regarding Jordan, don't
>hesitate to ask.
i'd ask you about area 51 before i'd ask you about the mideast.
*That is because you read the likes of frontpagemag and the national
review. You are inclined to munch through fundamentalist manure, rather
than consider a dispassionate education of the area.
>>
>> AND, again, your assertion is that US imperialism is the cause of
lack
>> of democracy in the mideast, yet your assertion is wrong.
>
>ROLF! And again you make this claim without seriously refuting my
>contention.** hehe...... Jordan is a real democracy...IT is
>....realllyy!!!** don't make me laugh.
says the guy who thinks the syrian dictatorship is a democracy, and is
VERY popular.
*Say the guy who thinks Jordan is a shining example of Democracy, their
parliament sitting to enforce nothing.
when was the last parliamentary election in syria? well, there wasnt
one.
* The question is - parliamentary elections to do what? I'm sure there
are elections in Jordan and Syria, just not for a parliamentary
democracy.
but that's a sign of democracy, you see...
* ROFLMAO!!!!!!!..Of course, a sham democracy, electing a sham
parliament, with complete power in the hands of the Hashemite elite
cannot be a sham. It must be definite sign of defimnite sign of
democracy. Consider this with the democracy currently in Lebanon, which
is a lot more effective than the thum-twiddling sessions in the
Jordanian Parliamnent (BAHAHAA....Jordanian Parliament...hehe...sounds
funny)
>>
>> explain.
>
>have done
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Why do you think the Arabs are so pissed? Nearly every Middle
>>>>>eastern leader has been propped up by the US.
>>>>
>>>> which, of course, is wrong. we did not prop up the dictators of
>>>>
>>>> algeria
>>>
>>>Yes it was.But France played a dominant role
>>
>> ah. so it's the FRENCH...doesnt do much for your fundie view of the
>> US.
>
>I don't love the French and they were wrong, but the US did not object
to
>this foreign intevention which breached democracy, but they supported
it.
>Algeria has oil you see, France and US agreed on this issue.
>>
ROFLMAO!! so let me get this straight.
*Please do.
france colonizes algeria. but that's OUR fault because we 'supported'
* ROFL! you're a moron, I am not talking about the Algerian liberation,
dimwit. Research the 1991 elections in Algeria.
it. it has zip to do with france.
that's fundamentalist america hatred.
* You're a fundametalist and ignorant racist.
>>>
>>>> libya
>>>> syria
>>>> n. yemen
>
>the US supports the ruling family in Yemen as I am told. Nobody is
goin to
>knock them of for the moment
ever hear of n. yemen? know the history of the region? what was our
relationship to n. yemen before the union?
* ROFLMAO!!!.... That is why the USS Cole was docked in a yemini port.
Research the more recent events and politics of n.yemen, and then come
back. Ignorant half-wit...talking about the a failed Union in the 50s
does show off your scant knowledge of the region
oh. we didnt have one. they were an islamist dictatorship and we had
no relations with them
* They do have a very productive relationship now.
yep...another ironclad proof that the US is responsible for
dictatorships
* another toilet-grade contention from Bob, which is refuted by its own
stupidity.
>
>>>> iraq
>>>
>>>Thats just 4.
>>
>> ah. just 4. how many countries are there in the mideast?
>
>Ah...How many, care to count? The list has decreased in size by the
way.
so all the countries of the mideast are our fault, except when they're
not.
* exactly, the exception being libya
yep...fundamentalism
*ROFL! Yes ... heaps coming from you.
>> and again, if
>> absence of US imperialism is enough for democracy, WHY ARENT THESE
>> COUNTRIES DEMOCRATIC?
>
>Libya has a dictator, Syria has a dictator, albeit one which is
popular. The
>ruling family in N Yemen is supported by the states.
there is no n. yemen. look it up. it used to be a marxist dictatorship
and was actively hostile to the US...
*Until recent times, you look it up.
another successful democracy by your measure!
*You consider Jordan a democracy, what other asinine refuse are you
going to post next.
>
>>>> if US imperialism is stifling democracy, why arent those 4
countries,
>
>Because Libya is unlucky, N Yemen is supported by US, and Bashar is
quite
>popular (and at war).
ROFLMAO!! so the US is stifling democracy, except when we're NOT!
* ROFL!! so you think the US is not stifling democracy, except when
they ARE, which is THE MAJORIY OF CASES
jesus, what a concept! he has a 'popular' dictator which he admits we
dont support, as proof that the US is stifling democracy....
* ROLF!! hehe...Sorry you have completely lost me, is there actually
any reasoning for the above statements or is it just a random
combination of words which you have yet again extracted fresh out of
your rectum.
yep...he's convinced me!
* ROFLMAO!!..Yes you've convinces us that you frequently explore the
inner depths of you anus, to find inspiration for these exchanges.
>> countries which should be democratic according to your
fundamentalist
>> view of US imperialism. yet they arent. so your theory is wrong.
>
>Ah.. that word, fundamentalist, again. It seems to describe you quite
well.
>From the list we can take out Yemen (supported by US)
really? we supported a marxist dictatorship? go tell it to castro.
*ROFL... you're talking about the 50s and 60s? and the great arab
union? The US has a very fruitful relationship with Yemen.
>, and Syria (which I
>admit is not a democracy, but Bashar is quite popular and carries out
the
>wish of his people)
aint that nice. you KNOW that this dictatorship is a democracy! after
all, it MUST be, because the US does not support it!
* I said no such thing. You think any dictatorship supported by the US
is a democracy... you're fundie nonsense is getting tiresome.
and your proof the US screwed up algeria? why, the FRENCH invaded and
* ROFL, get some more education, I am talking about more recent events.
WE supported it. yep. the french had nothing to do with it
* ?
THAT'S fundamentalism. no matter WHAT happens, no matter WHAT the
* You are eloquently describing the nature of your views here....well
done.
facts, they get warped to support a wrong concept.
>> but that wasnt your contention. YOU said US imperialist aggression
was
>> propping up dictators and preventing democracy
>
>IT IS and in those countries where US is choosing the leadership,
there is
>no chance of democracy.
uh why arent they 'choosing' leadership in syria, where the US has no
* They would love to, but they haven't been able to.
influence? how about libya?
* The bombing in the 80s , they tried.
>>
>> i pointed out that there are a number of countries where US
influence
>> is zero...no military bases, no business, no 'propping up
>> dictators'..nothing. yet they arent democracies.
>
>Which ones? Your above list was inept and included Yemen (?).
inept? you admitted syria is a dictatorship, but you say it's
democratic dictatorship...
* ROFL, not only was our list inept, so is your entire reasoning here.
Yemen is an ally of the US and has been for a while.
god what twisted version of aristotle's
logic did YOU read in college?
* Not the classical method of extracting ideas out of one's own rectum,
championed by the Likes of BOB, and other pre-adolescent loons.
>>
>> your theory, then, is wrong. it is NOT 'US imperialism' which is
>> preventing democracy, but some other factor.
>
>The theory stands, as in the majority of Arab countries, it is the USA
that
>PREVENTS DEMOCRACY AS IT IS NOT FAVOURABLE to the USA.
except, of course, when the US is not involved. then the the result is
exactly the same.
* ROFLMA!! Of course there are numerous examples to support this
assumpption, like Libya....and Libya.Your reasoning here is inapt. Just
because US was not responsible for Libya, it therfore cannot be
responsible for the dictatorships in countries they subjugate?
so that proves it must be the US.
what's his solution for the US supporting democracy?
*what sort of question is this?
well we could IGNORE the country like syria..oh, wait, that doesnt
work
* Why would we ignore Syria?
well, we could INVADE...oh, wait, he doesnt like that
*Of course you could invade and prop up a sham democracy like in Iraq.
The US has so much trust in the UN that it bugs the secretory genral's
office, and goes to war without its authorisation.
so he has NO idea about HOW the US could help democracy.
* Yes i a have a great big one actually.
but the US is
always wrong.
* It frequently is in the mideast, history proves it. The BUshites are
following on the legacy and furthering beyong imagination.
fundamentalism
*heaps...coming from you.
>
>>
>> and you are, by all means, a fundamentalist.
>
>ROFLMAO! This is the guy who thinks France wanted to arm Saddam, so
that he
>could blow up New York.
the largest arms supplier to saddam hussein?
france.
* Important Supplier of WMD to and supporter of IRAQ in 80s which was
a country which was killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Kurds and
Iranians?
-US
But what does it matter, Eh Bob? We were supprting the Iranians, and
these mid-easterners are not worth saving, right?
>>>What else can you do ? A people heaving under 60 years of
totalitarianism
>>>(currently still being supported by US) need time. You are an idiot
with
>>>little common sense
>>
>> and, again, we did NOTHING in libya. nor syria. why arent they
>
>Syria is at war with a US ally and has little experience of a
democracy, and
>has a popular leader. Libya is unlucky
ah. so other factors besides the US are causing the lack of democracy
in the mideast?
There are not many.
luck...little experience of democracy...
* No luck, experience does help, especially for a country that is at
war with a major US ally.
you said that, not me. doesnt do much for your idea that the US is
responsible for lack of democracy.
* It doesn't refute it. It signifies why the US is even more
responsible.
>
>> democracies? they SHOULD be by your fundamentalist view of US
>> influence in the region. yet they're not.
>
>
>As I explain again , in the majority of Arab countries, it is the US
that
>prevents democracy.
you have failed to prove how this happens.
* Bungling tactit...it has been explained in depth.
you said above that, when
france invaded, it had zip to do with france...it was our fault.
* I was referring to something else. You being an illeterate,
fundamentalist dimwit would not know of it.
you said that, in spite of the fact jordan has had elections while
* ROLF!! WHY WHY?Jprdan is not even remotely a democracy, it is ian
affront to democracy.
syria hasnt, syria is a popular dictatorship...whatever that means.
*It means what it means, unlike a democratic jordan, which means
nothing.
you havent told us anything about HOW the US could promote democracy
* I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED IT SEVERAL TIMES, leave the region alone.
You use this pathetic and racist argument, that just because Libya is
not a democracy, the rest of the Arab world cannot be democracies
either. Racist and untaught to the extreme,
because you believe, as a fundie, that the US is evil
* You are a fundie , who believes that the Arabs are an intellectually
inferior ethnicity incapable of democracy.What other enlightening
garbage do you want to contribute?
>>
>> who knows what this fundamentalist means by 'supported'. it could be
>> that bush smiles at a saudi prince. it could be that saudi students
>> study in the US.
>
>Why doesn't fundamentalist B (as in bob, I must be fundamentalist A or
>fundamentalist N)look up Support in the dictionary. It may reveal
>definitions
notice he doesnt answer the question.
*My reply perfectly infers the answer to the question.
no answer about how the US could
support democracy.
* The answer has been there and blatant all the way throughout this
thread. Only an ignorant, funamentalist, dimwit the intellectual
capacity of a gamete could not realise this.
that's because the US is evil, by definition. he's
* Now this idiot resorts to archaic generalisations so common among
Right-wing fundamentalists.... The world cannot be a such a complex
place right? Its must be all black and white. Just because I criticise
the US foreign policy in the mideast, I must be a fundies US hater? I
love you bible-bashing fundies.
a big shot, you see...HE'S taking on the US!!
*HEHE of course, the Great US of A, the land of freedom and
whatnot...JIngoistic ass-wipe. Nobody is taking on anybody, except for
your continous insults on Arabs and Muslims. My anger with the US
foreign policy makers, not with anybody else. But no, I must be a
rabid US hater, hating all things American.
>>
>> in fact, his view of 'supporting' is so broad as to be meaningless.
>> this is what we see:
>
>The word support was utilised as it is "broad". The support is broad
in fact your definition of support is so broad as to be meaningless.\
* It is not even remotely meaningless, it is proficient in its aims.
even having diplomatic relations is 'support. and, it seems ONLY the
US does this.
*Granted now, but not for the last 60 years (or is it 70?).
>>
>> 1. the US treats middle east countries no difference than other
>> countries like france or germany do. we do not 'prop up' dictators
>
>A Fundamentalist lie, coming from Fundamentalist B, who can spout
nothing
>but Fundamentalist nonsense. The US does not treat France and Germany
like
>the middle east.
he cant read. i said the US treats the mideast no differently than
germany treats the mideast.
* ROFLMAO!!!! HEheheh....This statement is refuted by its own
stupidity. YOu are truly a right-wing fundamentalist.
his contention is that somehow the US is unique.
* IT is very unique , in that it plays a very dominant role in the
region.....Germany...does not.
the fact is were are
not.
* The fact is you are...And you haven't even remotely tried to refute
this.
>>
>> 2. in countries where there is NO US influence, democracy is still
>> absent
>
>In the majority of Middle Eastern countries it is the US that prevents
>democracy
whatever the 'majority' is.
* Look up in the dictionary,
his own statements show that 'luck', or
lack of experience with democracy are factors.
* Unimportant factors which become significant when you consider US
hegemony in the region.
but, being a fundie america hater
*Still parotting the same garbage without **any proof** that I am a
"fundie america hater". Typical of right-wing extremists from the US.
If anybody disagrees with you, they must be a "fundamentalist"
, he simplifies this to the bogey under the bed...the US.
* Bobs tactic before debating is to drown his head in a toilet bowl, so
he can truly escape reality - then he can contribute the most
stupendously farcical assetions possible like :
"the US treats the mideast no differently than
germany treats the mideast"
>>
>> these 2 facts prove that his theory that the US is 'propping up
>> dictators' is wrong.
>
>ROLF....
>
>"the US treats middle east countries no difference than other
countries like
>france or germany"
notice how he gets my statement above wrong THEN repeats it?
* Why would i pay attention to such ridiculous nonsense? It served its
purpose.
i said
the US treats middle eastern countries no differently than france or
germany treats middle eastern countries.
"the US treats middle east countries no difference than other countries
like
france or germany"
Your assertion was stupid and thus, it does not warrant a word for word
recapitulation. There is, though, no difference in meaning. Notice BOB
utilising these incosequential tactics.
he simply cant read.
* That is indeed ironic, when considering the heaps of descrepant trash
posted by him.
>
>
>> and, although iran is not an arab state,
>>we have had NO business or
>> diplomatic relations with them for over 25 years...a quarter of a
>> century. again, this should CAUSE them to be a democracy. yet they
>> arent
>
>The US/UK can be held responsible for the religious extremists
currently in
>power
ah. so even though we have had NO relations with them for a quarter of
a century,
*yes.
and even though HIS concept is that this should cause
democracy..
* I have already explained *in depth* that the damage caused by the
US/UK at a social and political level, by supporting the Shah was
innumerate.
it didnt. but it's still OUR fault, you see...
* The reason why it is, is your fault. This has been explained.
>>
>> ROFLMAO!! our troops are in iraq, dying to support a UNITED NATIONS
>> organized election and i am arguing in FAVOR of our presence there
>
>ROFL! What fundie garbage. Your troops are dying because they are
aggressive
>soldiers illegally occupying Iraq, coming from a hated country.
funny that all the violence is in the sunni region. the kurds and
shi'ites are getting ready for elections organized by the UN.
* Oh right, yes good old Muqtada. Now the US is playing down the
elections.
oh. i forgot. elections are a tool of dictatorships,
* Of course, with democracies like Jordan....
except in syria
where there is a popularly elected dictator,
*Yes, much like the democracy in Jordan.
or something like that...whatever this fundie means.
* You have the reasoning capacity of a fundamentalist baboon.
>>
>> the french and russians have, for the last 20 years, been husseins
>> biggest arms suppliers.
>
>The US sold WMD in the 80s, which were used against his own citizens
and
>Iran. What's your point? Oh wait ....You have none.
notice, again, the french and the russians get a free pass, while the
US does not,
* THe French and Russians do not get a free pass. We are concentrating
on the US and your hypocracy.
even though the US behaved EXACTLY like france and
russia?
* This combined with dominant role of the US in the entire region.
fundamentalism.
* i know...heaps, coming from you.
>>
>> where america has NO presence? ghosts? demons? UFO's?
>
>There are not many countries in the region where there is no US
subjugation
what is 'subjugation'? according to you,
* Look it up in the dictionary, or should I this time?
it's merely having diplomatic
* No its a lot more. Look it up in the dictionary.
relations. even though germany and france have relations with syria,
and syria is a dictatorship,
* The US relationship with Saudi Arabia, for nearly 70 years was a lot
more than just democratic. You dont understand the full significance of
my assertions. This is not surprising... you being a fundamentalist
with sparse knowledge of the region, except for popular fundie gossip.
THEY dont get accused of subjugation
* That is because they dont subjugate. Except for France with algeria.
only the US does
* That is undeniably true.
fundamentalism
* Yes .. I know, heaps coming from you.
>> that is NOT the contention. i NEVER said arab countries couldnt
>> democratize.
>
>You have unwittingly inferred this. You hate Arabs and all Muslims and
so
>this is not suprising . You assume that because of the undemocratic
nature
>of Libya, all Arab countries must therefore be destined to be
undemocratic
>and also currently are. You think the Arabs are not capable of
creating
>democracies. I believe they clearly are, and the US does not want it
(except
>in Libya and syria).
says the guy who thinks the syrian dictatorship is wonderful and
reflects the view of the people.
* Says the Guy who thinks Jordan is shining example democracy and will
soon be followed by IRAQ.
of course, the presence of a ruthless
secret police has no effect on the people of syria.
* Much like US-supported Egypt, I hear.
>>
>> gee...and america had zip to do with PROPPING UP GADAFFI. nada.
>> nothing.
>
>BWAAHAHAHAA. Ok let me get this straight.....because the US were not
>responsible for Gadaffi, they can't at all be responsible for the
>undemocratic leadership in the other countries of the mid-east.
your contention is that the US is an imperialist power solely
responsible for mideast dictatorships
*Yes, except in Libya.
except in syria. and libya. and the sudan. and n. yemen.
* Take Syria out, n.yemen out and Sudan out. Moves are being made for
democracy there (sudan) as well, albeit it is a very chaotic country.
gee. what logic. your theory about the mideast works for every country
except those in the mideast.
* ROFL!! It works perfectly except in the ones imagined by fundies like
yourself.
>>>> You support Saudi Arabia and
>>>>>their brand of despotism Your hypocricy here is glaring.
>>>>
>>>> now let's see...if we imposed democracy by FORCE, why, i'm sure
you'd
>>>
>>>The US is still actively supporting the Saudia regime.
>>
>> prove it.
>
>Full and unfettered diplomatic relations, . But It doesn't
particularly
>matter if Saudi falls to the Fundamentalists....remember the US has
Iraq
>now..
hey idiot. who do you think controls SA now? buddhists?
* Half-wit, why don't you answer the question? Who is in power of SA,
and How did they get there and remain?
>>
>>> Nobody has cut any
>>>ties. Diplomatic relations are strong. The US would never introduce
>>>democracy by force, unless rigged for a favourable outcome.
>>
>> gee. the french and germans and dutch and british and irish and
>> singaporeans and indians and russians and south africans have
>> relations with saudi arabia too.
>
>Your contention being? I did not explore this point in the last post
and I
>should have done- the US now has Eye-Rack, so Saudia arabia has
decreased in
>importance.
ROFLMAO!! notice how he misses the point.
**ROLF. Notice they lack of any lucid contention above.
i ask how the US subjugates
countries. he says 'the US has diplomatic relations with subjugated
countries'
*Hey idiot, anwswer the question, above. Unfortunately, the full
significance of the answer may be wasted on him.
the fact that germany, france, south africa and singapore do likewise,
well, that doesnt fit his fundie theory.
* Imbecillic Half-wit!! The US has had a lot mopre than diplomatic
relations since the inception of SA. That is the point that needs to be
conveyed. Germany, France, South Africa, and Singapore had diplomatic
relations and only that.
>> but when the US acts EXACTLY like other countries, you dont say THEY
>> are propping up dictators
>
>We haven't discussed where the US is acting like other countries. We
are
>discussing the mid-east. But if it makes you happy, the US is acting
like
>any other country in their relations with......Norway (?) Happy. The
>mideast is fundamentally too import to the US, to let any willy nilly
to
>come to power especially in the ones under their "control". Take
Jordan for
>example again.
ah. except that we completely ignore syria, lebanon, libya, the
sudan....
Your ignorance of the politics and history of the region is astounding.
These countries realised the US tactics and have taken steps to ensure
their survival. How long they may last is another question. You can
take Sudan out, they are not too important. The country is in internal
chaos and has been for a long time. The countries remaining are Syria
and Libya. Lebanon has had enough intervention from US and a US ally.
so much for your view that this area is too important to be left
alone.
* Try again, it stands.
>>>
>> and when the US is ABSENT from countries like libya, and they are
>> still dictatorships, you IGNORE that fact.
>
>Exactly and the fact is not ignored. The US did NOT factor into
Gadaffi
>seizing power.
well, gee. according to you, we should have IMMEDIATELY siezed power
*ROFL!!??? You tried
there. that's your theory, remember? mideast countries with oil are
too important to be left alone
* Yes, attempts were made on Gadaffi's life. His adopted daughter died
in one of the air raids.
except you admit we left libya alone. and syria. and the sudan.
* Sudan is inconsequential. Libya, yes , Syria no.
So therefore (according to you) all the other countries with
>dictators and undemocratic leadership cannot be down to the US, right?
What
>a f*ing stupid argument, which exposes your duplicity/imbecillity.
Libya is
>not Egypt. Libya is Libya. You cannot apply whats happened in Libya to
other
>Arab countries.
uh, why not? because it's YOUR view that we CAN. it's YOUR view that
* Exactly you do it, and its woefully misguided.
the US will inevitably overthrow any mideast country which has oil and
doesnt do what we want.
* inevitably, yes they would like to.
libya has oil. libya is antiamerican. libya doesnt do what we want.
* Attempts were made on Gadaffi life by the US. Now Libya is playing
ball.
but the US ignored it.
* ...... No it didn't.
oh, hell. there goes your theory...again.
* Really? How? How has it gone? The only theories that can be safely
binned are:
i.) Democracy is coming to Iraq very soon.
ii.) The US behaviour in the mideast is no different to germany
iii.) the racist contention that Arabs are not capable of democracy.
iv.) Jordan is a shining example of democracy.
>
>> care to prove it? because the elections are organized by the UNITED
>> NATIONS, NOT the US. why is the UN present to oversee the elections?
>
>And it is only due to people like us who have been protesting like
CRAZY, to
>get the UN in.
but it's YOUR contention that the US will ignore this in order to set
up a pro-american regime.
* Yes it is trying to get its own way.
The US was extremely hesitant to let the UN get the
>involved. I am not willing to trust the US with anything in Iraq let
alone
>elections.
fine. put in UN troops. let 'em get slaughtered. al qaida has a $25M
*Yes it would be ideal.
contract on kofi annan's head.
* ROFL!! Kofi annan does not serve on the front line.
go to it!
is the UN an imperialist power, too?
* No, the US is, the UN is an international organisation.
>>
>> says the guy who is wrong on every single point about the role of US
>> policy in the mideast.
>
>Says the fundamentalist who reads the National review. You have not
proven
>any of my assertions wrong, instead you crack right wing jokes.
says the guy who thinks the US controls every mideast dictatorship
with oil
*Another one from where the sun don't shine?
except for most countries with oil
* So therefore, according to your logic there actually are not any
countries in the he mid-east with oil?
yep. more ironclad logic.
* Yes it is, but nothing remotely similar is coming from your direction
unfortunately.
>>
>> ah. it's 'happening'. whatever that means. but iran is NOT a
>> democracy. they had a revolution, kicked out the US. by your theory,
>
>The mullahs came into power due to the US installation/support of the
Shah.
yeah, 25 years ago. some march to democracy.
* ROFL!!...Supporting an idiot like the Shah can do that to a country.
>
>> they SHOULD be a democracy, since the US prevents democracies.
>
>ROFL....What a moron.
>
>There is not a democracy because the US toppled the democratic
government
>with the Shah, who outraged his people, and made the extremists came
to the
>fore.
but it's YOUR theory that ONLY US imperialism prevents democracy.
*Yes it is, except for Libya.
it's
been a quarter of a century. when may we see the iranian democracy
take hold?
* Half wit!! I have explained this a number of times. Supporting the
Shah, led these loonies to come to power. If it was not for the US,
IRan would still be a democracy.
jordan has had elections. where are the free elections in iran?
* ROFLMAO!!!! Elections to do what???
oh. there arent any.
* Yes Jordan is not a democracy, we know.
yep...more proof of your theory.
* There is a lot of proof, unlike your half-baked fundie, toilet
gossip.
>>
>> The backlash
>>>created the revolution, you cannot forcefully force a people to
>>>westernise.
>>
>> tell it to kemal ataturk
>
>The modernisation in Turkey was planned and had forethought, not so in
Iran.
>Ask any Iranian why the revolution took place.
>Here is an interesting thread:
and how many people did ataturk imprison? how many free
newspapers were there? what was the difference between ataturk and
iran?
* . You are trying to compare the Shah's policy of
pregressive reform to Turkey's back in the 20s? Classic!!
why, after 25 years of US absence is there NO iranian democracy,
if ONLY the US is responsible for dictatorships?
* This has been explained numerous times in this thread, and mentioned
above as well. Can you read?
>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=Iran+Turkey+modernization&hl=en&lr
=&safe=off&selm=337ED546.1B81%40worldnet.att.net&rnum=6
>>
>>>Thats what happened in Iran and the result was the revolution. Face
it,
>>>many
>>>iranians blame the US for the revoution and they have their reason.
Thats
>>>what happens when you meddle and interfere in others affairs.
>>
>> and we havent meddled in their affairs for over a quarter of a
>> century. still no democracy....
>
>
>But the damage has been done by the Shah, which enabled the
conservatives to
>come to the fore.
ah. so let's see. we have 'luck' (libya), a lack of experience with
democracy (syria),
*Notice how he cuts bits off, and ignores anything relevant . The
Lacks of experience becomes significant due to constant war with a
close US ally and the volatility of the region, which can be attributed
to US intervention. What do you not understand fundie?
now we have conservatives in power for a quarter of
a century.
* Yes who would not be, if the US left the region alone. Typical
example of why you should not support dodgy groups or characters.
not a sign...not a breath of US subjugation.
* **Sigh** How many times? the US overthrow of the democratic
government and support of the Shah led , these religious fundies to
come to power. The US is responsible for the mess.
none. yet none of these
countries is a democracy like you said they should be.
*How many, Take Iran And Syria out. You are left with Libya.
>>>> The US supports utalitarian
>>>>>type leaderships in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen etc.
>>>>
>>>> and what's your excuse for libya, syria, lebanon, algeria, etc.
>
>-Libya is due to Gadaffi,
>-Syria is due to a popular dictator/war.
dont'cha love this
* Why should I? Do you?
....a popular dictator...that HE knows is popular
* Yes, compared to Mubarak, that king of Jordan etc.
, in
spite of the fact it's an alawite dictatorship with an extensive
* Who is supported because of his pro-arab, anti-arab stance.
secret police
* That is a pity, but the in amny eyes, the positives outweigh the
negatives.
such is his view of arabs.
* What is your view? Like to repeat that bit about Arabs intellectually
incapable of democracy?
>-Lebanon is under Syrian occupation, but still has a
>constitutional,parliamentary democracy (the only arab country with
one), did
>you know that?? uh...Probably not. It still needs improvement, but is
>commendable and quite effective.
>-Algeria is well on its way to democracy after western interruption of
>democracy.
ROFLMAO!! 'western' interruption. dont recall any western troops in
algeria.
* Sighs** Research the elections in the early 90s in algeria
more tin foil hate paranoia.
* Yes Annan really should trust the US about not bugging his offices.
and there's always the sudan...the US has had NO relations with them
AND has led the UN in imnposing sanctions against the fascist islamist
dictatorship there.
but, according to him, it should be a democracy.
* It soon will be, fingers crossed.
>
>> so, again, what's your excuse for those failures, in areas where US
>> control is totally absent?
>
>Libya is unlucky, lebanon has a democratic tradition albeit one that
needs
>improvement and Syria is not helping. So we are left with two
countries,
>Syria and Libya.
and the sudan. a genocidal dictatorship, where the US has led the UN
in stopping the genocide. yet you ignore THAT
* It is not relevant here. Sudan is bogged down in internal chaos. ANd
moves to democracy have already been initiated. That is the only way
this country will survive. The US support here is admirable and I
commend the administration here.
fundamentalism
*yes... I know, heaps coming, from you.
>
>You say the US cannot be the lack of democracy in the Middle East
because
>Syra and Libya are undemocratic??? A flawed and waggish argument which
does
>not take into account the behaviour of the US in the other arab
countries.
>You seem to think that all Arab countries are the same, they aren't.
ROFLMAO!! i NEVER said that.
we havent overthrown a mideast govt in 50
* It keep s despotic regimes in power.
years. but you think it was yesterday.
* The past affect the present...... This is the case in iRan.
you admit a number of factors affect mideast govts
A number, the US being the MOST DOMINANT>
....but, like a
fundie,
* Yes, it is apparent that you are.
simplify these to "US subjugation" even though you cant tell
us HOW this is exercised.
* This has been explored in depth, and you are blind.
\
>> we have already spent more on iraq than we could ever recoup in oil
>
>Who sets the recouping limit? Saddam?
uh, the laws of geology. a bit more influential than saddam. sorry.
Err.. Do you are sayin the price of the entire oil reserves of IRaq
would be less than the amount the US has put in? WHICH laws of geology
do you suscribe to?
>>
>> in addition, WE dont control iraqi oil. the UNITED NATIONS does
>
>Temporary.
proof of this? because the UN has controlled it for the last 15 years.
* Hey IDIOT, Saddam is GONE. Situations have changed.
>
>
>> think this fundamentalist will notice those facts??
>
>
>ROFL, good one Fundamentalist/Comedian B.
>
>> nope. he'll just go on bleating "US IMPERIALISM". even though the
>> argument is a sieve.
>
>The Argument is as strong as armour, and you have yet to refute it.
Why can
>you not? Maybe because you are a fundamentalist (Refer to statements
similar
>to - France wants to arm Iraq with nukes, so that NY can be blown sky
high)
>
>>>>
>>>> more racism. you discount the effect of their homegrown wahabist
>>>> religious fanaticism. you're a racist, so think the arabs are too
>>>
>>>If the people chose an Islamic government than it is their rights
within
>>>democracy. There is no contradiction. You seem confused.
>>
>> fine. show me an islamic democracy.
>
>Turkey. No real seperation of church and state. The state administers
and
>runs religous affairs. One of the problems why Turkey is having
problems
>with EU membership
hmmm...you dont know jacques chirac?
* I do, I think
former president of
france...opposed turkey's membership...he MAY have had something to do
with this.
* Yes, other countries are hesitant as well.
>>
>> places where the US has been completely absent for decades...we're
>> 'stalling' democracy. how? laser beams? microwaves? UFO'S?
>
>Ever heard of Chronotons. Particles apparently travelling faster than
the
>speed of light?
tachyons.
* Star trek and other science fiction.
>The US aims to install a friendly government in Iraq. The debts can
>>>be then payed back through oil
>>
>> 1. we've spent over $200B in iraq. BEFORE the war, iraq's TOTAL
annual
>> oil revenue was $12.5B
>> (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH12Ak02.html).
>
>Crucial word BEFORE, The oil industry can be improved upgraded.
at what cost? how many billions? what schedule? what time frame?
* It would be small price considering the HUGE oil reserves of the
country.oh. you didnt factor that in.
oh. you didnt factor those in.
* Did already.
>But if I accept the above that would mean that the US would have to
stay in
>Iraq for 16 years. Hardly a long time! The US plans to be deeply
involved in
>the region, that is obvious.
uh, the UN has had control of iraqi oil for 15 years.
*Because of Saddam.
and, pray tell,
what business leader YOU know has the balls to tell his boss it's
gonna be 16 years before you make money?
* I am not a moron like you, i don't believe it will take 16 to get to
Iraq's oil. Why should it take so long?
oh. you aren't in business. you just make up numbers.
* You haven't taken first grade mathematics, you pull numbers out of
your arse.
>>
>> in addition, it's going to cost billions MORE to rebuild iraq's
>> decrepit oil infrastructure.
>
>Unimportant, they have oil.
unimportant? uh, money is unimportant?
*Which can come from oil. You can exchange money.....for goods.
fine. send me yours.
*fine. send me your oil
>
>> so, again, your argument is...WRONG.
>>
>How can it be wrong?You have not refuted it, except for asking stupid
>questions about whether I studied maths at school.
grad school, obviously. not much beyond that.
* I only wish I had those skills. I could become a comedian.
>
>The basis of your argument of course is that - Libya and Syria are the
only
>arab countries unfettered by the US . Since Libya and Syria lack
democracy
>it would mean ARABS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF FORMING DEMOCRACIES AT ALL.
really? care to prove where i said that?
* What else does it infer?
and YOU are the guy telling us how popular the syrian dictatorship is,
its extensive secret police notwithstanding.
* Ask a Syrian. Of course, you consider Jordan a good democracy.
I believe Arabs can form
>democracies, you do not.
Yeah i can tell.
* That is good.
your support for the syrian dictatorship speaks
* where?Where have i mentioned that?
volumes.
* Volumes of refuse exiting your anus heading for usent. we know.
>The reason in countries apart from Syria and Libya
and the sudan...
* Why include Sudan, its too bogged down in internal chaos.
>(which is still effectively at war, and has been from its creation),
the
>lack of democracy can be seen due to US (eg. Jordan). Arabs are
capable of
>democracies,you are a racist and don't believe that.
so the US is responsible for dictatorships, except when it's not
* Its not responsible in Libya, but it is everywhere else.
the US treats mideast countries no differently than france or germany
does...
* Another one of those "theories" which can be safely binned. Only an
illeterate nincompoop can come up with something as ridiculous as that.
yet we're responsible
* Yes its true.
france invades algeria. the US is at fault.
* You are climbing up the wrong tree.
the US leads the efforts to stop genocide in sudan...no notice taken
* Have done and mentioned it in this thread. Apologies if not mentioned
before.
syria, the dictatorship, is better than jordan which has an elected
parliament
* An elected parliament which does nothing.
because the former has no US relations while the latter
* The Former is considered for the Arab cause, the latter is not.
does.
the most free countries in the mideast are jordan, qatar, bahrain. the
* Are you now an Arab? The leadership is greatly hated and so is the US.
countries with great US relations are jordan,qatar, bahrain.
* ROFLMAO!!!!..... Yes the people love the US over there.
god, no, he's not a fundie. he LOVES america!
*Absolutely I do, except for the neolithic morons like yourself so prevalent
in your country.
business leaders in the US are looking forward to a profit...in 20-30
*Really? Why so long???
years.
ROFLMAO
*Indeed I same here.
apologies for late reply, cannot seem to post this in original thread
NN
|
|
| | From: | N Nakayama | | Subject: | Re: RE: Why Arabs hate the USA | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:28:14 -0000 |
|
|
| >>> hardly. many of the bribery cases were reported by the leftwing
>>> british newspaper the 'guardian'. your paranoia is showing.
>>
>>My paranoia? Hehe....You are funny. You conclude from the reports of
>>bribery
>>in the oil for food, that Saddam would then be able bribe officials so
>>that
>>he could acquire nukes? You are mad.
>
> what i love about the far left is its naivete.
Noted, but what I love about the far right is their insanity.
>
> strict controls have to be placed on nukes so that people don't sell
> them on the black market. it's a perennial concern of both the US and
> USSR. that's one reason they have such strict oversight.
Agreed.
>
> so you think the french wouldnt allow the iraqis to acquire nuclear
> technology, if they were well paid for it?
Why would the French want a nuclear armed Saddam, with his part behaviour.
It would literaly be the most stupid thing ever done by anybody.
>
> they did everything they could to relax sanctions. they did everything
> they could to relax inspections. they were the ones who vetoed rolf
That is not so, they did not want Rolf Ekeus, who many agree tends to be
over-aggressive. Hans Blix was a respected and highly competent
alternative.
> ekeus.
>
> you seem to think the US would do ANYTHING for business, but the
> french are, somehow, saints
Not so, The US would not arm Saddam with nukes, now knowing his full
insanity. You in contrast think that France would do ANYTHING for business,
but the US are, somehow, saints.
How quaint.
>
> sorry to burst your bubble.
Dont worry, you weren't even close.
NN
> ---------------------------
> to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
> and enter 'wf3h' in the field
|
|
| | From: | N Nakayama | | Subject: | Re: RE: Why Arabs hate the USA | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:29:53 -0000 |
|
|
|
"Bob" wrote in message
news:41e53133.36317451@usenet.ptd.net...
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:29:15 -0000, "N Nakayama"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob" wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> of course you don't. you're part of the problem. france blocked rolf
>>> ekeus's appointment instead of hans blix as UN weapons inspector.
>>
>>Hans Blix was fine.
>
> then why did france veto ekeus? he was, according to the french, 'too
> aggressive'. the french were worried about upsetting their iraqi
The French thought he was a "too aggressive" and hence not a good choice for
the job. There is nothing wrong here.
> paymasters.
Fundie conspiracies. Hans Blix was a respected choice , and NO ONE had a
problem.
>
> if ekeus had been there, perhaps there would have been no war.
ROFL. There was a war because US/UK were not the least bit interested in
inspections.
Fundie nonsense
>
>>
>>> france tried to get sanctions relaxed. france had billions in oil
>>
>>If there was justification to support the relaxing of sanctions so what?
>>> contracts. france, for the last 20 years, was iraq's largest arms
>
> ah. relaxing sanctions so iraq could build even more arms...acquire
> even more nuclear technology...
>>
>>It may be true but does not mean they would ignore Saddam's attempts at
>>acquiring nukes and other wmd. Source?
>
> because they were paid billions by hussein. because a number of their
Irrelevent, France would never ever allow a nuclear armed Saddam, business
is business.
> officials were bribed by the iraqis. because they voted ekeus. because
This would automatically mean, France would support Saddam's attempts to
acquire Nuclear Weapons?
> they argued for weakened sanctions and for weakened inspection
Intemperate Baloney. They never argued for weakend inspections. They argued
for effective and efficient inspections. Hans Blix could do the job better,
and nobody denied it. If the weakening of sanctions were justified, then
they should have been weakened.. But you just want Iraqi infants do die of
starvation. Your numerous instances of fanatical racism are catalogued
throughout this thread.
> criteria. because they sold arms to the iraqis. because they had
US sold arms to the Iraqis, so what? They were not selling them WMD, not
during recent times.
> billions in oil contracts.
Business contracts in OIL, NOT NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
You seem to think that France would do ANYTHING for business,
but the US are, somehow, saints.
>>
>>>
>>> france agreed that iraq had WMD's. but france knew it wasnt a target,
>>> so didnt care.
>>
>>When did they agree? France would not ignore the possibility of a
>>possible
>>nuking of the US by Saddam. Typical fundamentalist garbage without
>>rationalism.
>>
>
> france hoped that the US would deter an attack. they would, however,
> have been glad to have a counterbalance to US power in the form of
> islamist terrorism. french foreign policy is built on achieving a
> balance of power in the world.
ROFL, so according to you:
i.) France would completely trust Saddam under any scenario, because of his
known history as a deranged psychopath. This is of course nothing out of
the ordinary, as most poeple, when put in the position, would have no
problem trusting their lives with deranged psychopaths.
ii.) France actually wants Saddam and terrorists to nuke NY (and other Us
cities) to kill hundreds of thousands of citizens belonging to an ally
nation, just to redress some balance of power. BWAHAHHAHAHAHAH
I've said this before, and I'll say it again - This amount of entertainment
should be captured in a book or a comedy show.
NN
> ---------------------------
> to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
> and enter 'wf3h' in the field
|
|
| | From: | Bob | | Subject: | Re: Why Arabs hate the USA | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:48:35 GMT |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:29:53 -0000, "N Nakayama"
wrote:
>
>"Bob" wrote in message
>news:41e53133.36317451@usenet.ptd.net...
>> then why did france veto ekeus? he was, according to the french, 'too
>> aggressive'. the french were worried about upsetting their iraqi
>
>The French thought he was a "too aggressive" and hence not a good choice for
>the job. There is nothing wrong here.
yes, the french have a long history of appeasement. no surprise there.
>
>> paymasters.
>
>Fundie conspiracies. Hans Blix was a respected choice , and NO ONE had a
>problem.
except the french were the ones saying they would veto the use of
force in iraq by the UN to compel compliance under ANY circumstances.
>
>>>
>
>This would automatically mean, France would support Saddam's attempts to
>acquire Nuclear Weapons?
france would support its own interests in iraq. what hussein actually
did was not of interest to them as long as france preserved its
influence and its business.
>
>
>> they argued for weakened sanctions and for weakened inspection
>
>Intemperate Baloney. They never argued for weakend inspections. They argued
>for effective and efficient inspections.
uh, how? both blix and annan stated categorically that the ONLY reason
hussein was beginning to comply with UN inspections was the threat of
force. when france removed force as a negotiating tool, hussein had NO
reason to comply.
Hans Blix could do the job better,
>and nobody denied it. If the weakening of sanctions were justified, then
>they should have been weakened.. But you just want Iraqi infants do die of
>starvation. Your numerous instances of fanatical racism are catalogued
>throughout this thread.
iraqis arent dying of starvation. if so, prove it.
>
>> criteria. because they sold arms to the iraqis. because they had
>
>US sold arms to the Iraqis, so what? They were not selling them WMD, not
>during recent times.
we sold them 30 years ago. there's a bit of a difference.
>
>> billions in oil contracts.
>
>Business contracts in OIL, NOT NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
irrelevant. france doesnt care what iraq does as long as it gets OIL.
again, you seem to think the US would be in it for the oil, but not
the sainted french.
>>
>> france hoped that the US would deter an attack. they would, however,
>> have been glad to have a counterbalance to US power in the form of
>> islamist terrorism. french foreign policy is built on achieving a
>> balance of power in the world.
>
>ROFL, so according to you:
>
>i.) France would completely trust Saddam under any scenario, because of his
>known history as a deranged psychopath.
correct. psychopaths are not unusual as govt. leaders. france is quite
used to dealing with them.
This is of course nothing out of
>the ordinary, as most poeple, when put in the position, would have no
>problem trusting their lives with deranged psychopaths.
really? you think france hasnt supported psychopaths?
>
>ii.) France actually wants Saddam and terrorists to nuke NY (and other Us
>cities) to kill hundreds of thousands of citizens belonging to an ally
>nation, just to redress some balance of power. BWAHAHHAHAHAHAH
i think the concept is irrelevant to france. nukes were not an
immediate problem, so the french didnt care if he got them 3 or 4
years down the road. the french would have oil, influence, and the
americans would have to deal with iraq.
again, it's a no lose situation for france.
>
>
>I've said this before, and I'll say it again - This amount of entertainment
>should be captured in a book or a comedy show.
>NN
says the guy who thinks france would NEVER compromise its morals for
OIL, and that they would never deal with a dictator...
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
|
|
| | From: | Bob | | Subject: | Re: Why Arabs hate the USA | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:41:05 GMT |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:28:14 -0000, "N Nakayama"
wrote:
>>
>> so you think the french wouldnt allow the iraqis to acquire nuclear
>> technology, if they were well paid for it?
>
>Why would the French want a nuclear armed Saddam, with his part behaviour.
>It would literaly be the most stupid thing ever done by anybody.
so what? what's your point? the french can't be stupid?
the fact is, they are. remarkably so. they had a large hand in
creating the modern arab world with their imperialism in algeria and
lebanon.
their main foreign policy focus is to create a counterbalance to US
power. if it's a bunch of crazed arab dictators with nukes, so what?
that's free. the french don't have to pay, they get business from
buying oil, and they sell weapons, as well as preserving influence.
it's a no lose situation.
>
>>
>> they did everything they could to relax sanctions. they did everything
>> they could to relax inspections. they were the ones who vetoed rolf
>
>That is not so, they did not want Rolf Ekeus, who many agree tends to be
>over-aggressive. Hans Blix was a respected and highly competent
>alternative.
actually i didnt think he was bad. i thought he was competent. but he
was not forceful enough in dealing with iraqi intransigence during the
inspections.
>
>
>> you seem to think the US would do ANYTHING for business, but the
>> french are, somehow, saints
>
>Not so, The US would not arm Saddam with nukes, now knowing his full
>insanity. You in contrast think that France would do ANYTHING for business,
>but the US are, somehow, saints.
hardly. the french WERE selling weapons to the iraqis, HAD signed oil
contracts, and did everything they could to weaken the inspection
regime. they were the ones who said they'd veto any use of force, even
when it was obvious hussein was playing the UN like a harp.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
|
|
| | From: | Bob | | Subject: | Re: Why Arabs hate the USA | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:14:13 GMT |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:28:14 -0000, "N Nakayama"
wrote:
>>>>
>
>Why would the French want a nuclear armed Saddam, with his part behaviour.
>It would literaly be the most stupid thing ever done by anybody.
>
>>
for an example of french support of genocide, this time in rwanda,
see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1045294,00.html
>The most notable of the enemies are the French, who have never forgiven Kagame
> for winning the war against the French-backed regime responsible for the genocide
this, decribing efforts to thwart the govt of kagame after the
genocide.
and that from the left leaning 'guardian' newspaper.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
|
|
|
