Makes sense to me...
That and the fact that, in a general sense, José Maria Aznar has always been a cunt, oppressing Basque nationalism and suppressing those voices that seek a sovereign and independent País Vasco. He even tried to use the Madrid Bombings as an election issue by falsely blaming it on ETA - thankfully the Spanish weren't stupid.ghettoperson wrote:
By invading Iraq, he went against the wishes of pretty much the entire population of Spain.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Just asking, but based on that, are you going to call each and every single Prime Minister/President/other heads of state a "cunt" and bash on them for going to Iraq along with Bush?CameronPoe wrote:
No they didn't - that cunt José Maria Aznar did. But can I ask you this: do you think Spain would have invaded Iraq without the US, on their own initiative? Thinking with their fucking pockets - that right wing Aznar is such a slimy git.
My question still isn't answered.CameronPoe wrote:
That and the fact that, in a general sense, José Maria Aznar has always been a cunt, oppressing Basque nationalism and suppressing those voices that seek a sovereign and independent País Vasco. He even tried to use the Madrid Bombings as an election issue by falsely blaming it on ETA - thankfully the Spanish weren't stupid.ghettoperson wrote:
By invading Iraq, he went against the wishes of pretty much the entire population of Spain.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Just asking, but based on that, are you going to call each and every single Prime Minister/President/other heads of state a "cunt" and bash on them for going to Iraq along with Bush?
Those that did so against the wishes of their people, which amounts to a vast majority. The particular ones that spring to mind are Tony Blair, José Maria Aznar and Silvio Berlusconi.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
My question still isn't answered.CameronPoe wrote:
That and the fact that, in a general sense, José Maria Aznar has always been a cunt, oppressing Basque nationalism and suppressing those voices that seek a sovereign and independent País Vasco. He even tried to use the Madrid Bombings as an election issue by falsely blaming it on ETA - thankfully the Spanish weren't stupid.ghettoperson wrote:
By invading Iraq, he went against the wishes of pretty much the entire population of Spain.
this thread is awesome. just sad that some of slower ones here can or will be able to vote one day...makes me wonder which America they grew up in.
My god I just accidentally deleted my post 90% done before I posted it. Forgive me if this isn't quite so intelligible, I'm a bit pissed.
1. The goals were completely different, more troops are required to storm a country than to hunt down a man in the mountains. More troops wandering around won't find him faster than a few specially trained units hunting him with the help of local militias.
2.IRAQ WAS NOT ABOUT SADDAM, YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT
Muslim opinion of U.S.
I reiterate, Muslim opinion of U.S.
Saddam was a minor threat, yes, but all the WMD talk was about giving the public a reason they can understand to go to Iraq.
3.Obviously you can't comprehend how herculean this task would be in the U.S.
Most major U.S. airports
Israel - Area - comparative: slightly smaller than New Jersey
Ireland - Area - slightly larger than West Virginia
I seriously hope you were kidding about the Great Wall. Come on.
As for public opinion, Americans are not used to standing in any lines, or worried about terroist attacks. It is a cultural thing I'm sure, but I know we wouldn't stand for it as a whole.
4. So you want the billions thrown to Intelligence contractors? You want fines for terrorist acts? Put a suicide bomber (or what's left of him) in jail for a few days?
5. I'm a bit confused on this point myself. We don't have problems with muslims in the States, but I don't know what kind of outreach problems you want across the world that we either aren't doing already or would be viewed as weakness on our part.
6. I confess I don't know much of what is going on there, but I don't think anyone does. I do not believe there is any torture going on. I also highly, highly doubt anyone was taken there based on mere ethnicity, coincidence, etc. Show me a specific case and prove me wrong, I don't believe someone who is Muslim and happens to have a box cutter should go to one of these camps.
I automatically have lesser respect for people trying to demonize my countries attempts to keep people from blowing the shit out of our buildings. lol. It's a tough call where to draw the line, between personal freedom and protection, and it's funny how much that line shifts right after a major attack.
7. I assume the "our" you're talking about is the U.N.
The U.N. drew those borders, pretty much fucked it up, but it can't just drop it now. It needs to be fixed. Maybe Israel didn't deserve to come into existence in the first place, certainly not under the current conditions, but you can't give these people a nation, say "whoops we screwed up, can't really help you out anymore, good luck!"
8. U.S. economic policies are for our interests, not someone else's. Unless you plan on globalizing the world economy, it's kind of a ridiculous request.
The test of endurance continues
Yes, Cameron, I realize you went 67 pages on your oh so special Israel topic.
Not all of us are so adept at spewing bs all over the forums
1. The goals were completely different, more troops are required to storm a country than to hunt down a man in the mountains. More troops wandering around won't find him faster than a few specially trained units hunting him with the help of local militias.
2.IRAQ WAS NOT ABOUT SADDAM, YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT
Muslim opinion of U.S.
I reiterate, Muslim opinion of U.S.
Saddam was a minor threat, yes, but all the WMD talk was about giving the public a reason they can understand to go to Iraq.
3.Obviously you can't comprehend how herculean this task would be in the U.S.
Most major U.S. airports
Israel - Area - comparative: slightly smaller than New Jersey
Ireland - Area - slightly larger than West Virginia
I seriously hope you were kidding about the Great Wall. Come on.
As for public opinion, Americans are not used to standing in any lines, or worried about terroist attacks. It is a cultural thing I'm sure, but I know we wouldn't stand for it as a whole.
4. So you want the billions thrown to Intelligence contractors? You want fines for terrorist acts? Put a suicide bomber (or what's left of him) in jail for a few days?
5. I'm a bit confused on this point myself. We don't have problems with muslims in the States, but I don't know what kind of outreach problems you want across the world that we either aren't doing already or would be viewed as weakness on our part.
6. I confess I don't know much of what is going on there, but I don't think anyone does. I do not believe there is any torture going on. I also highly, highly doubt anyone was taken there based on mere ethnicity, coincidence, etc. Show me a specific case and prove me wrong, I don't believe someone who is Muslim and happens to have a box cutter should go to one of these camps.
I automatically have lesser respect for people trying to demonize my countries attempts to keep people from blowing the shit out of our buildings. lol. It's a tough call where to draw the line, between personal freedom and protection, and it's funny how much that line shifts right after a major attack.
7. I assume the "our" you're talking about is the U.N.
The U.N. drew those borders, pretty much fucked it up, but it can't just drop it now. It needs to be fixed. Maybe Israel didn't deserve to come into existence in the first place, certainly not under the current conditions, but you can't give these people a nation, say "whoops we screwed up, can't really help you out anymore, good luck!"
8. U.S. economic policies are for our interests, not someone else's. Unless you plan on globalizing the world economy, it's kind of a ridiculous request.
The test of endurance continues
Yes, Cameron, I realize you went 67 pages on your oh so special Israel topic.
Not all of us are so adept at spewing bs all over the forums
1. What was the goal of entering Afghanistan, in your mind?
2. Are you saying that muslim opinion of the US is why the US invaded Iraq? Because Israel's greatest ally dropping in for a visit is going to do what exactly? There was a reason Bush Snr. didn't go the whole hog and 'liberate' Iraq you know - he seemed to realise it would be the biggest mistake he could possibly make.
3. We're going to have to agree to differ on this one. It shouldn't be so hard for a nation of 300m to build a wall - your government proposed one, I'm not some visionary proposing this for the first time. War in the middle east: bad from a terrorism point of view. Domestic Security: Good from a terrorism point of view. It's about making sacrifices for safety. If you're not prepared to take the difficult choices well then there's nothing more to discuss on this issue. You're country proportionality argument doesn't really hold because there are sufficient people in the US to fill the jobs that would be created to secure ports, borders and airports. It's about population to area proportionality.
4. No. Increase CIA and FBI funding considerably. Terrorism can only be treated with preventative measures and policing operations. Those who think otherwise do not understand the type of terrorism we face today. You can't fight terrorism with a conventional army. For a start terrorists usually operate under the noses of sovereign regimes who do not endorse their acts. Collective punishment to weed out the few terrorists will only multiply the existing terrorists. See Bloody Sunday, Northern Ireland, for details...
5. The population of muslims in the states is miniscule you're correct. It's a more relevant comment when applied to say the UK or France.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Guantanamo
7. By 'our' I mean anyone in the western world. I don't believe in the UN. I think it's credibility has been compromised and that it is and always has been a total charade. I'm a 'western' isolationist/protectionist and don't believe we owe a debt of responsibility to a relatively rich nation like Israel. Perhaps Germany does but their crimes have nothing to do with me.
8. I am not asking for openness, honesty and transparency on the international stage solely from the US. I am asking it of every nation, big or small.
2. Are you saying that muslim opinion of the US is why the US invaded Iraq? Because Israel's greatest ally dropping in for a visit is going to do what exactly? There was a reason Bush Snr. didn't go the whole hog and 'liberate' Iraq you know - he seemed to realise it would be the biggest mistake he could possibly make.
3. We're going to have to agree to differ on this one. It shouldn't be so hard for a nation of 300m to build a wall - your government proposed one, I'm not some visionary proposing this for the first time. War in the middle east: bad from a terrorism point of view. Domestic Security: Good from a terrorism point of view. It's about making sacrifices for safety. If you're not prepared to take the difficult choices well then there's nothing more to discuss on this issue. You're country proportionality argument doesn't really hold because there are sufficient people in the US to fill the jobs that would be created to secure ports, borders and airports. It's about population to area proportionality.
4. No. Increase CIA and FBI funding considerably. Terrorism can only be treated with preventative measures and policing operations. Those who think otherwise do not understand the type of terrorism we face today. You can't fight terrorism with a conventional army. For a start terrorists usually operate under the noses of sovereign regimes who do not endorse their acts. Collective punishment to weed out the few terrorists will only multiply the existing terrorists. See Bloody Sunday, Northern Ireland, for details...
5. The population of muslims in the states is miniscule you're correct. It's a more relevant comment when applied to say the UK or France.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Guantanamo
7. By 'our' I mean anyone in the western world. I don't believe in the UN. I think it's credibility has been compromised and that it is and always has been a total charade. I'm a 'western' isolationist/protectionist and don't believe we owe a debt of responsibility to a relatively rich nation like Israel. Perhaps Germany does but their crimes have nothing to do with me.
8. I am not asking for openness, honesty and transparency on the international stage solely from the US. I am asking it of every nation, big or small.
nice one. cam's post never hold up under any scrutiny. The only thing worse is the amount of material. I feel like Im trying to clean up during WoodstockDBBrinson1 wrote:
Hey LOOK Everybody!! It's another condescending "Bush hating" thread by Cam!CameronPoe wrote:
I was just thinking to myself: what a 'godsend' that John Kerry wasn't elected president of the United States of America. 'Why?', you might ask. Well it's simple. It wsa necessary to allow Bush to completely and utterly destroy himself, the credibility of the neo-conservative movement and be seen to be in charge when the inevitable failure of his foreign dalliances came to pass. If Kerry had got into power Republicans would be able to palm off a portion of the blame on the Democrat party with their predictable 'Defeatist' bullshit with the Democrats no doubt changing tack on what had gone previously. The way things turned out we got to see Bush and his cronies implode and allow the American public to 'see the light' as regards their errant foreign policy and who should carry the blame.
Thank you for electing President GW Bush America. You did yourselves a favour by allowing yourselves to be taught a valuable lesson in the realities of the 'outside world' and baseless pre-emptive war.
You forget that Kerry voted for the war? before he voted against it....
I use the term "Thank Fuck" quite frequently.CameronPoe wrote:
Care to address the content of the OP? 'Thank fuck' is an Irish expression - I thought it was used elsewhere - apologies.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Thank fuck? Gee you sound smart...
Scrutiny? Jeez I've never been so heavily scrutinised in my life! Did I not say that John Kerry was a spineless cunt? An unprincipled one at that. At least he saw the error of his ways I suppose but his image was tarnished at that stage.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
nice one. cam's post never hold up under any scrutiny. The only thing worse is the amount of material. I feel like Im trying to clean up during WoodstockDBBrinson1 wrote:
Hey LOOK Everybody!! It's another condescending "Bush hating" thread by Cam!CameronPoe wrote:
I was just thinking to myself: what a 'godsend' that John Kerry wasn't elected president of the United States of America. 'Why?', you might ask. Well it's simple. It wsa necessary to allow Bush to completely and utterly destroy himself, the credibility of the neo-conservative movement and be seen to be in charge when the inevitable failure of his foreign dalliances came to pass. If Kerry had got into power Republicans would be able to palm off a portion of the blame on the Democrat party with their predictable 'Defeatist' bullshit with the Democrats no doubt changing tack on what had gone previously. The way things turned out we got to see Bush and his cronies implode and allow the American public to 'see the light' as regards their errant foreign policy and who should carry the blame.
Thank you for electing President GW Bush America. You did yourselves a favour by allowing yourselves to be taught a valuable lesson in the realities of the 'outside world' and baseless pre-emptive war.
You forget that Kerry voted for the war? before he voted against it....
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-15 16:47:56)
Thank fuck's used here too, though perhaps not in some areas. But I think he was talking about the theory of the use of profanity being tied to intellect. Unfortunately for him, this does not apply to the Irish (who are predisposed to cursing).CameronPoe wrote:
Care to address the content of the OP? 'Thank fuck' is an Irish expression - I thought it was used elsewhere - apologies.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Thank fuck? Gee you sound smart...
But as to your op:
Who the hell knows what Kerry would or wouldn't have done in office? I don't think Kerry himself could give a straight answer to that. He may have utterly caused the collapse of the "neo-liberal movement."Kmarion wrote:
Pssst, Kerry voted for errant foreign policy to send troops into Iraq.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-15 17:03:54)
Wouldn't that make Bush the good guy for taking out Saddam? It's not like Bush put him in power and then took him out.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Well then maybe you should have let us borrow your crystal ball -then the US could have avoided it all.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
To coin a phrase, the US government was for Saddam before it was against him. I guess supporting a murderous thug as he brutalizes and kills his own people for over a decade until he turns into an enemy isn't idiocy, right?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea... Viva Saddam! /idiocy
Well under Bush I the CIA turned a blind eye to what Saddam was doing. . . . in response to Iran.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Wouldn't that make Bush the good guy for taking out Saddam? It's not like Bush put him in power and then took him out.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Well then maybe you should have let us borrow your crystal ball -then the US could have avoided it all.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
To coin a phrase, the US government was for Saddam before it was against him. I guess supporting a murderous thug as he brutalizes and kills his own people for over a decade until he turns into an enemy isn't idiocy, right?
Regardless. . . . in this new world climate, brutal dictators are NO LONGER safe from justice. . .as proven with the invasion and eventually hanging of one of the worst dictators of the 20th century. . .
Iraq is better off without him, as is the world! Not too mention the the deaths of his lunatic son's (which nobody ever mentions)!
Stalin. Hitler. Franco. Mussolini. Hussein?fadedsteve wrote:
Well under Bush I the CIA turned a blind eye to what Saddam was doing. . . . in response to Iran.
Regardless. . . . in this new world climate, brutal dictators are NO LONGER safe from justice. . .as proven with the invasion and eventually hanging of one of the worst dictators of the 20th century. . .
Iraq is better off without him, as is the world! Not too mention the the deaths of his lunatic son's (which nobody ever mentions)!
Yes Cam but you didn't display a proper level of bootlicking toadyism towards the spineless cunt that did get elected.CameronPoe wrote:
Scrutiny? Jeez I've never been so heavily scrutinised in my life! Did I not say that John Kerry was a spineless cunt? An unprincipled one at that. At least he saw the error of his ways I suppose but his image was tarnished at that stage.
You'll notice I never mentioned either Bush or Reagan in what I originally said. Both parties have their hands dirty as far as working with or supporting vile dictators like Saddam to further US government and corporate interests. Trying to blame it all on just one party is intellectually dishonest.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Wouldn't that make Bush the good guy for taking out Saddam? It's not like Bush put him in power and then took him out.
Nonsense. There are plenty of brutal dictators all over the world who are quite safe from "justice" as long as they continue to play nicey-nice with the US government. They can pull out all the fingernails they want and pour boiling oil on whoever they want as long as it coincides with or doesn't interfere with our policies. I think as a rule our government prefers to deal with dictatorships because that only leaves one person in any power that needs to be bribed or coerced into cooperation instead of having to deal with an entire nation full of people who would probably tell them to go get fucked, see also: Iran before Operation Ajax.fadedsteve wrote:
Regardless. . . . in this new world climate, brutal dictators are NO LONGER safe from justice. . .as proven with the invasion and eventually hanging of one of the worst dictators of the 20th century. . .
Iraq is better off without him, as is the world! Not too mention the the deaths of his lunatic son's (which nobody ever mentions)!
As far as Saddam's sons, you won't catch a whole lot of people shedding tears for them, but you might notice a few holding their breath in nervous anticipation of what will take their place.
To my Lefty friends :
Correct me if I am wrong, but the last four tools in office have been repub, repub, dem, repub.
Why is that? Don't be mad at us if your tools cannot out lie/sell our tools. Don't be mad that you have a hard time making people listen to you...air america for example.
They are all tools and they all fuck up tons of stuff we don't even know about. Kerry would have done whatever his advisers told him, just like Bush.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the last four tools in office have been repub, repub, dem, repub.
Why is that? Don't be mad at us if your tools cannot out lie/sell our tools. Don't be mad that you have a hard time making people listen to you...air america for example.
They are all tools and they all fuck up tons of stuff we don't even know about. Kerry would have done whatever his advisers told him, just like Bush.
1. An immediate reaction to 9/11 from America. Without this reaction, further attacks would have followed as America would have been viewed as weak, though in our current situation it appears we only worked to prolong future attacks.
2. Yes. Radical Muslims must see the U.S. is not weak, and must show soon-to-be radical Muslims that it isn't doing everything it can to eradicate all Muslims. A decisive victory in the Middle East would have done just that.
3. I'm not saying the wall couldn't be built, I'm saying it would be next to worthless.
There are more people in the U.S., but the problem is organization. Surely you realize it's easier to defend one point of entry with ten people than ten points of entry with 100 people. Those people have to be paid too, they won't work for free.
I'm not saying we can't make decisions to tighten security, but the fact is no matter what our borders will leak like a sieve.
4. The only preventative measures I can think of are genocide and changing the views of an entire nation.
5. I wouldn't say we have a minuscule amount of Muslims, but they aren't any more of a problem than other religions.
6. I need specific cases please, I don't know where to go to find the movie. I can't see it being popular in the States.
7. Well whoever the hell thought they were in charge then, whether you believe them or not, got Israel drawn on every global map in every corner of the world. We put it there, now we have to deal with it. It can't be wished away, and it's people can't be abandoned to certain death.
8. I agree, a global order would be great. Why this is on a thread bashing Bush and his policies, I don't know. Would you seriously be pursuing a global order on at least an economic scale at this day in age?
2. Yes. Radical Muslims must see the U.S. is not weak, and must show soon-to-be radical Muslims that it isn't doing everything it can to eradicate all Muslims. A decisive victory in the Middle East would have done just that.
3. I'm not saying the wall couldn't be built, I'm saying it would be next to worthless.
There are more people in the U.S., but the problem is organization. Surely you realize it's easier to defend one point of entry with ten people than ten points of entry with 100 people. Those people have to be paid too, they won't work for free.
I'm not saying we can't make decisions to tighten security, but the fact is no matter what our borders will leak like a sieve.
4. The only preventative measures I can think of are genocide and changing the views of an entire nation.
5. I wouldn't say we have a minuscule amount of Muslims, but they aren't any more of a problem than other religions.
6. I need specific cases please, I don't know where to go to find the movie. I can't see it being popular in the States.
7. Well whoever the hell thought they were in charge then, whether you believe them or not, got Israel drawn on every global map in every corner of the world. We put it there, now we have to deal with it. It can't be wished away, and it's people can't be abandoned to certain death.
8. I agree, a global order would be great. Why this is on a thread bashing Bush and his policies, I don't know. Would you seriously be pursuing a global order on at least an economic scale at this day in age?
usmarine: thankyou for correcting that, and I apologize for my language. Please remember that unless you explicitly state otherwise, your posts address the whole of the BF2s forum userbase, not a single individual. by using the word 'Euros' you were implicitly including all European nations in your statements. Please choose your words more carefully in the future.usmarine2005 wrote:
I think most people know I didn't mean the UK obviously. So let's say not Euros, let's say all the neutral appeasers. As for Madrid, was that the fault of the US also?CameronPoe wrote:
You stated, and I quote: "You Euros have way too much free time to worry about shit that does not concern you."usmarine2005 wrote:
First off, are you saying that is all the fault of the US?
Madrid and London both lie in Europe, in the EU in fact. I travel about the EU, my home, quite frequently. They were both attacked in counter-Iraq war acts of terror. To belittle the impact the American president's decisions and influence (and admittedly our own) have had on Europe is disrespectful and understating the that very real and deadly impact.
As beer intake increases, word choice decreases.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Please choose your words more carefully in the future.
The condescending attitude of "haha you were wrong neo-cons" seems to be seriously flawed. You don't have to look too far to see that non-neocons (Clinton) have endorsed regime change in the past.
Iraq Liberation Act
Not to mention the majority of the DEM candidates running for president supported military action in Iraq.
Edit:This is not to say the Neo's were not wrong, but the blame is not exclusive to them.
Iraq Liberation Act
Not to mention the majority of the DEM candidates running for president supported military action in Iraq.
Edit:This is not to say the Neo's were not wrong, but the blame is not exclusive to them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
In an ideal world, we'd all live in San Francisco, listen to Ipods, and blog all day.
Maybe in your ideal world, I can't function in that kind of heat. I'll stay up here where it's cold and rainy.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
In an ideal world, we'd all live in San Francisco, listen to Ipods, and blog all day.
1. I would disagree there. A simple prolonged (year maybe) carpet bombing of Al Qaeda strongholds would have sufficed as a show of strength. A more concerted effort to nail Osama would have given the symbolic 'victory' necessary. 'Nation building' in that hell hole is a joke. NATO should have learned from Russian mistakes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1. An immediate reaction to 9/11 from America. Without this reaction, further attacks would have followed as America would have been viewed as weak, though in our current situation it appears we only worked to prolong future attacks.
What do you mean by a 'decisive victory in the Middle East'? You beat Saddam militarily. That didn't overly enamour the US with the people of the middle east - it handed Iraq to Iran, created a civil war, provided a new base for Al Qaeda and risked war between Turkey and the Kurds in the north. No-one in the middle east has an ounce of trust in the US due mainly to its involvement in Iran since WWII and its unflinching support for Israel. There was never EVER going to be a fairytale ending to that mission. A blind hobo in the street could have told any American that.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
2. Yes. Radical Muslims must see the U.S. is not weak, and must show soon-to-be radical Muslims that it isn't doing everything it can to eradicate all Muslims. A decisive victory in the Middle East would have done just that.
Also - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with radical Islamic terror. This was all just some fanciful escapade - a planned experiment on free market economics that banked on Iraqis embracing their 'liberators' with open arms (which we now all know was unbelievably wide of the mark).
It wouldn't just be a wall - it would be patrolled and manned at turrets dotted along the wall every few hundred metres. An investment in security and a stop to illegal immigration.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
3. I'm not saying the wall couldn't be built, I'm saying it would be next to worthless.
There are more people in the U.S., but the problem is organization. Surely you realize it's easier to defend one point of entry with ten people than ten points of entry with 100 people. Those people have to be paid too, they won't work for free.
I'm not saying we can't make decisions to tighten security, but the fact is no matter what our borders will leak like a sieve.
Terrorism will ALWAYS exist. It is something that must be managed, as it cannot be eradicated. Talk of genocide is shocking and changing the views of an entire nation is naive and arrogant. The people who practice terrorism are tied to twisted ideologies not nations for a start.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
4. The only preventative measures I can think of are genocide and changing the views of an entire nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipton_ThreeFlaming_Maniac wrote:
6. I need specific cases please, I don't know where to go to find the movie. I can't see it being popular in the States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moheb_Ullah_Borekzai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habir_Russol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Rashidi
Agree to disagree. I didn't believe that anyone had the right to impose Israel on the Palestinians. I don't want to see innocent Israelis killed but I would like to see a JUST PEACE. Turning a blind eye to their flouting of international law and their human rights abuses compromises western integrity.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
7. Well whoever the hell thought they were in charge then, whether you believe them or not, got Israel drawn on every global map in every corner of the world. We put it there, now we have to deal with it. It can't be wished away, and it's people can't be abandoned to certain death.
The global order that Bush espouses is one where the movement of capital rules all - a global order of FREE trade. I want a global order of FAIR trade and protectionist policies where each pocket of the world looks after its own interests but co-operates with others for mutual benefit.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
8. I agree, a global order would be great. Why this is on a thread bashing Bush and his policies, I don't know. Would you seriously be pursuing a global order on at least an economic scale at this day in age?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-16 06:24:58)
I believe it does, Ireland has related itself to Nazi Germany numerous times in the past, harboring escaped Nazis, disallowing Jews fleeing to safety to settle there. I think Ireland owes a debt to Israel for the way it treated people trying to escape extermination. Here's some evidence if you don't believe itCameronPoe wrote:
I'm a 'western' isolationist/protectionist and don't believe we owe a debt of responsibility to a relatively rich nation like Israel. Perhaps Germany does but their crimes have nothing to do with me.
From the History Channel, Ireland's Nazis
Veteran broadcaster Cathal O’Shannon conducts a unique and comprehensive exploration of these uncomfortable issues. O’Shannon has a personal interest in this story. During the Second World War, he was a member of the Royal Air Force. When he returned to Ireland following the defeat of the Axis powers, he became increasingly uneasy regarding the attitude of Irish political decision makers towards former Nazis.
In the first instalment of his two part series, O’Shannon examines the horrendous deeds of Andrija Artukovic, the Nazi Minister of the Interior in Croatia. Responsible for the deaths of over 1,000,000 men, women and children in concentration camps, Artukovic’s time in Ireland is still shrouded in mystery. The Department of Foreign Affairs refuses to release his file, while the Irish public remain unaware that such a man once resided in their country.
O’Shannon also delves into the activities of Celestine Laine, the former leader of Bezen Perrot, a Waffen SS unit responsible for the torture and murder of civilians in occupied Brittany. He also looks at the gruesome actions of Pieter Menten, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Jews in Poland.
O’Shannon asks why the Irish government was prepared to harbour men such as Artukovic and Laine, while simultaneously refusing asylum to many Jewish refugees. He talks to historians and other experts, uncovers government documents and investigates the thorny issue of anti-Semitism in twentieth century Ireland.
(Awaits some sort of retaliation argument )
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-05-16 10:09:13)
I'm well aware of our WWII stance. It was a stance based around maintaining complete and total NEUTRALITY - a core tenet of our consitution. The 'helping nazis' thing was isolated at best - I'm sure there are countless cases of us helping stray Britons and Americans who ended up shipwrecked, etc. You are correct in your assertion that Ireland, at that time, was an anti-semitic country but then again so was nearly every country and hindsight is a great thing to have. I wouldn't blow this crap out of proportion - Ireland kept remarkably neutral to both sides for the entire duration of the war, as decreed in our constitution, the Zion brigade like to bring up the not-so-golden moments because of modern Ireland's intolerance of the human rights abuses of the current regime in Israel (we're the most outspoken country in the EU as regards Israel).M.O.A.B wrote:
I believe it does, Ireland has related itself to Nazi Germany numerous times in the past, harboring escaped Nazis, disallowing Jews fleeing to safety to settle there. I think Ireland owes a debt to Israel for the way it treated people trying to escape extermination. Here's some evidence if you don't believe it
From the History Channel, Ireland's Nazis
Veteran broadcaster Cathal O’Shannon conducts a unique and comprehensive exploration of these uncomfortable issues. O’Shannon has a personal interest in this story. During the Second World War, he was a member of the Royal Air Force. When he returned to Ireland following the defeat of the Axis powers, he became increasingly uneasy regarding the attitude of Irish political decision makers towards former Nazis.
In the first instalment of his two part series, O’Shannon examines the horrendous deeds of Andrija Artukovic, the Nazi Minister of the Interior in Croatia. Responsible for the deaths of over 1,000,000 men, women and children in concentration camps, Artukovic’s time in Ireland is still shrouded in mystery. The Department of Foreign Affairs refuses to release his file, while the Irish public remain unaware that such a man once resided in their country.
O’Shannon also delves into the activities of Celestine Laine, the former leader of Bezen Perrot, a Waffen SS unit responsible for the torture and murder of civilians in occupied Brittany. He also looks at the gruesome actions of Pieter Menten, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Jews in Poland.
O’Shannon asks why the Irish government was prepared to harbour men such as Artukovic and Laine, while simultaneously refusing asylum to many Jewish refugees. He talks to historians and other experts, uncovers government documents and investigates the thorny issue of anti-Semitism in twentieth century Ireland.