Nukes??

[Jackrat]

So are the Yanks gonn'a nuke Iran???:corn:

[Two Smoker]

So are the Yanks gonn'a nuke Iran???:corn:

Yeah... Old Bush is a bit scary... World War Three aye??? Even if there is no nukes and Bush invades Iran, there will still be hell!!!

[Jantar]

The war began years ago when the combined Islamic nations, headed by Iran, called for a Jihad. Maybe the yanks will respond, but it will be a boring war if they don't.

Will it come to nukes? if Iran get their nuke program running then it definitely will, but the big question is still: "who will nuke whom first?"

[Hitcher]

The man (George W Bush) is certifiably insane. Apparently swathes of CIA operatives have already been deployed to subvert the Iranian masses to rise up against their government. Clearly the man has no idea of cause and effect. And then people wonder why the Iranians may want to develop their own nuclear weapons?

And it wouldn't be WWIII. The Yanks would have no allies anywhere else in the world if they pulled such a stunt. It would be the muslim world versus the USA. If Mr Bush thinks he is currently fighting a "war on terror", the consequences of a precipitous and unprovoked action against Iran would be considerably worse. He would need more than Jesus on his side. This would be a "war" that America could not win.

Stock up on petrol now...

[Colapop]

So was Hitler - but it didn't stop a nation from blindly following him until the opposition totally crushed the country. The American gubbermint is slightly more wealthy and a whole lot more dangerous. They come up with really good ideas all the time...
"Ooo a fire lets pore some petrol on it and see what happens." -
"Shit that's hot!!" -
"Ow fuck we got burned" -
"We'll nuke the fucker that'll teach it!!":doh:

Not all Americans are like that, but certainly the politicians are.

[Timber020]

Hitler was a decorated war vetran, at least he has some cred. And the german people had been in really bad times with the promise of better ones (Haha), where as the american people are in the opposite situation.
Oh and Hitler had a mostache! And one ball more than the president!
I doubt that even the rednecks that make up most of the US military would be ready to follow Bush on this one.

[James Deuce]

So was Hitler .......

That's an excuse to appease the German postwar zeitgeist guilt complex.

[kickingzebra]

Bush is the only politician with balls. Will it come to nukes? I hope not, but as always it is going to be the nut behind the wheel. I doubt USA would fire first. They actually have morals.

[Skyryder]

I first heard this on the news tonight but unfortunately the phone rang and by the time I got back theitem had been and gone. Did a quick search on the net and it appears that Bush has not ruled out any options on weapon deployment and use, should he decide to invade Iraq. from what little I can gather this has more to do with the prevention of Iraq from developing a nuke weapon programme. Iraq has consistantly maintained that nuke programm is for peacfull purposes.

So question
# 1 Who here believes that and Iraq nuke programe is only for peacfull purposes. Well I sure as hell don't. And I'm sure as hell that Bush and his advisors do not either. So failing to prevent Iraq from developing a nuke programm, question

#2 how does the US prevent Iraq from developing a Nuke weapon?

Now here's the rub. Given Bushes bullshit about Saddam Hussains weapons of mass destruction, (he had destroyed them so that there was no chance of the UN weapons inspectors of discovering them) who here believes that Bush will actually use them. Well I fucking well don't. Why should he when he's got the Israielis. These guys have been out of the equation for sometime but make no mistake, they will not allow another middle eastern power to aquire a nuclear arsinal.

Bush is playing a game that we are not privy too. He's considered enough of a looney to prabably get away with it. There's going to be some serious talking that going to paradise is not going to happen if you get vapourised.


Skyryder

[James Deuce]

Bush is the only politician with balls. Will it come to nukes? I hope not, but as always it is going to be the nut behind the wheel. I doubt USA would fire first. They actually have morals.
Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa

The same country who maintained Ford and GM factories in occupied Europe during WWII at the same time as they were at war with Germany????

Bahahahahaaaaa

Bush's family laundered money for Nazi Germany as it began its military expansion in the mid-30s.

The only "moral" the US subscribes to is cold hard cash.

[OMG]

How ironic, to prevent nuclear weapons getting into 'the wrong hands' and make the world a saver place, the only nation in the history of world to use nuclear weapons are threatening to use them again.

[Skyryder]

I doubt USA would fire first. They actually have morals.:rofl: :rofl:

What planet have you been on for the last fifty years.

Skyryder

[kickingzebra]

How ironic, all the left leaning woofters come out to play, but they only ever moan or protest... Action is a verb people...

[James Deuce]

#2 how does the US prevent Iraq from developing a Nuke weapon?



They let Israel do their job, and then reward them with a few billion dollars worth of F22s.

[Marmoot]

Not all Americans are like that, but certainly the politicians are.

It is a modern universal truth that in Democratic nation the people does not matter :slap:

Democracy: from Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia), δημος (demos) the common people + κρατειν (kratein) to rule + the suffix ία (ia), literally "the common people rule", adapted to Modern English structure "to rule the common people"

[James Deuce]

It is a modern universal truth that in Democratic nation the people does not matter :slap:

There's no such thing on the planet. Representative Government isn't Democracy.

[MidnightMike]

Durka Durka Muhhammed Jihad.

KA bloody BOOOOOOMMM!

Lol, I forgot what I was going to say.:brick:

Mwahahaha.

At least there would be no more daily he bombed him stories on the news and in the papers, they are no longer interesting, the need to pimp it out.

Like ( On a push bike ) A back flip 360 to a bail suicide bombing :crazy:

[Marmoot]

There's no such thing on the planet. Representative Government isn't Democracy.

*ahem* USA is a Democratic country. It is in their declaration of Independence, albeit with the old Greek definition instead of the Modern English one which they have become.

I believe we are too.

[Finn]

I first heard this on the news tonight but unfortunately the phone rang and by the time I got back theitem had been and gone. Did a quick search on the net and it appears that Bush has not ruled out any options on weapon deployment and use, should he decide to invade Iraq. from what little I can gather this has more to do with the prevention of Iraq from developing a nuke weapon programme. Iraq has consistantly maintained that nuke programm is for peacfull purposes.

So question
# 1 Who here believes that and Iraq nuke programe is only for peacfull purposes. Well I sure as hell don't. And I'm sure as hell that Bush and his advisors do not either. So failing to prevent Iraq from developing a nuke programm, question

#2 how does the US prevent Iraq from developing a Nuke weapon?

Now here's the rub. Given Bushes bullshit about Saddam Hussains weapons of mass destruction, (he had destroyed them so that there was no chance of the UN weapons inspectors of discovering them) who here believes that Bush will actually use them. Well I fucking well don't. Why should he when he's got the Israielis. These guys have been out of the equation for sometime but make no mistake, they will not allow another middle eastern power to aquire a nuclear arsinal.

Bush is playing a game that we are not privy too. He's considered enough of a looney to prabably get away with it. There's going to be some serious talking that going to paradise is not going to happen if you get vapourised.


Skyryder

I think you meant to say Iran. Mind you, Bush probably doesn't know the difference.

Keep in mind, they're not talking about dropping a nuke on Tehran, just the weapons facility which is in no mans land. I say nuke em. The news is a bit boring at the moment.

[Teflon]

What a great idea. That's a few less ragheads to worry about..

[James Deuce]

*ahem* USA is a Democratic country. It is in their declaration of Independence, albeit with the old Greek definition instead of the Modern English one which they have become.

I believe we are too.

The US was never founded on Direct Democracy. The debate was what type of representative government would be used, liberal or illiberal democracy. Liberal Democracy won.

Athenian democracy was always envisaged as the only form of fair government but it has been conceded that it didn't work if you couldn't gather all the citizens together to vote on each issue, every time an issue needed to be settled.

We're now equipped for direct democracy via a vast range of electronic media. But the opportunity won;t EVER present itself, largely because those who dabble in politics won't like having to accede to the demands of a democratic society. Plus they'll lose money personally if they can't push their pet projects through.

I think the commonly accepted belief, especially given the average voter turn out that hovers around 50% in the US, is that once you elect a "representative" you have lost control of your vote. The US is moving toward an illiberal democracy under the Bush/Republican model currently in action, while even NZ is becoming illiberal, evidenced by a growing number of solutions to problems that are entirely designed for vocal minorities.

I've yet to meet the NZ representative MP that gives a shit about any of the things that I care about. Representative government is about power broking between and against political entities at a macro level, irrespective of desires and concerns those that it represents at an individual level.

[kickingzebra]

Theres no bush in Iraq or Iran, lots of sand and a few cities, but no bush, no kiwis... No HoonDuhs or skawasnuckies, Just a sad sad place, and Nuclear material, and lots of brain washing... I know, I've seen that brad pitt and robert redford film about spying in middle eastern countries and china...

[Madness]

I mean the guy is surely not going to be re-elected after the New Orleans fiasco, not to mention the enormous debt being incurred as a result of the War Against Terror.
If you knew your job's days were numbered you'd want to push the big red button before you had to go off to the ranch in Texas to retire in anonimity, Hell he aint going to get speaking jobs like Clinton, Bush cant remember his own name half the time.
It was good to see the Pommy guy call the plan "Nuts" on the news, not playing puppets this time aye?

[Skyryder]

*ahem* USA is a Democratic country. It is in their declaration of Independence, albeit with the old Greek definition instead of the Modern English one which they have become.

I believe we are too.

Some time ago I got into a raging flamewar in one of the Militia forums that led to the defination of democracy. In the course of this 'robust' discussion I pointed out that the Westminster tradition of democracy is older as it's orogins date from the Magna Cartal (1215) than the American democracy which only dates from the War of Independance of 1763-1789) This fact was 'demolished' by the unequivical belief that the American system is older because it is based on the 'roman' model. Shit I use to have fun in those days.

But to be honest I am not sure what the difference is between the greek and roman other than the roman senat was based on the greek ideal. Anyone know?

Skyryder

[kickingzebra]

Maximus demeritus;
He is at the end of his term, and unable to be reelected as president, because unlike some dodgy backwater pacific states that think they are the tail that wags the dog, USA has election policy intended to stop powermongering, one of the methods being limited terms in office.

The real question come the election,as always is conservative men or liberal whatevers in the upcoming election.

[Madness]

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

There is a small upside to nuclear devestation.....

[MacD]

*ahem* USA is a Democratic country. It is in their declaration of Independence, albeit with the old Greek definition instead of the Modern English one which they have become.

I believe we are too.

No mention of "democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic)" in the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm).

Nor in the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html).

And of course the President is not elected by direct vote of the people but by the vote of the electoral college (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1022293.stm).

NZ is a Constitutional Monarchy (http://www.govt.nz/static/govtinfo.php), with the Representative of the Head of State appointed by the Government, and the leader of the Government, the Prime Minister appointed by the party which can form a government. At least we get to vote directly for a party these days due to MMP.

All of these structures seem quite divorced from the ideals of Athenian democracy...

[kickingzebra]

With this thread going the way it is, I am beginning to wonder if there will shortly be a market demand for pitchforks and flaming torches... Any takers?

[Timber020]

Bush is the only politician with balls. Will it come to nukes? I hope not, but as always it is going to be the nut behind the wheel. I doubt USA would fire first. They actually have morals.


Bush has balls? Doesnt take balls to order others to do the dirty work. The french prime minister has a stronger war record than the top 5 people in the whitehouse combined.

[babyB]

inho; put the leaders in a large sealed freezer & say "now fight ya silly buggers" (re-released in .....20yrs)

[kickingzebra]

Bush has balls? Doesnt take balls to order others to do the dirty work. The french prime minister has a stronger war record than the top 5 people in the whitehouse combined.

Ask any military officer... I have a Mate doing initial officer training, attrition rate on the course is quite high, as people realise they may have to send people they know to die... No, doesn't take any balls.... no sarcasm here officer...

Can't speak for the French, but how do you define stronger war record? fired the guns himself?

[Marmoot]

No mention of "democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic)" in the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm).

Nor in the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html).

And of course the President is not elected by direct vote of the people but by the vote of the electoral college (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1022293.stm).

NZ is a Constitutional Monarchy (http://www.govt.nz/static/govtinfo.php), with the Representative of the Head of State appointed by the Government, and the leader of the Government, the Prime Minister appointed by the party which can form a government. At least we get to vote directly for a party these days due to MMP.

All of these structures seem quite divorced from the ideals of Athenian democracy...

My Mistake. It was the Gettysburg speech by Abe Lincoln, which is held in importance by Americans as one of their principles too.
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
That is the original definition of democracy.

Sadly it now has become "the government of the people. Period".

Jim2 is right. "I've yet to meet the NZ representative MP that gives a shit about any of the things that I care about."

[James Deuce]

Nice one Tom Scott.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/common/imageViewer/0,1445,231354,00.jpg

Must remember to watch Dr Strangelove again soon.

[Lias]

George Bush isnt insane, nor is he stupid. He is however completely a puppet of israel.

I personally sincerely hope that Iran, or another muslim country get nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists who nuke Israel and the mainland USA. Then the USA can nuke them back and we'll have no israel, no muslim nations, and a nuked america.. Sounds like paradise to me.

[James Deuce]

Ooooo Anti-Semitism - that's a new one.

[Nitzer]

George Bush isnt insane, nor is he stupid. He is however completely a puppet of the jews.

I personally sincerely hope that Iran, or another muslim country get nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists who nuke Israel and the mainland USA. Then the USA can nuke them back and we'll have no israel, no muslim nations, and a nuked america.. Sounds like paradise to me.

sounds like a 'scorched-Earth' policy to me

[Lias]

Ooooo Anti-Semitism - that's a new one.
Anti-Semitism is prejudice towards jews. I have nothing against jews per see, I just have prejudice against israel, and the way it controls america's government :-)

[Marmoot]

the earth wouldn't look as nice when slightly dented.
Kinda like comparing shiny new apple and one with a bite mark on it.

Not to mention the axis might shift and we'd end up being slightly southern than now. My bike sucks on snow.

[Marmoot]

Anti-Semitism is prejudice towards jews. I have nothing against jews per see, I just have prejudice against israel, and the way it controls america's government :-)

I thought you were refering to Bush as a puppet of the jews, not as a puppet of Israel?

[Lias]

I thought you were refering to Bush as a puppet of the jews, not as a puppet of Israel?
Israel is mostly jewish, but have reworded for clarity.

[Marmoot]

Israel is mostly jewish, but have reworded for clarity.
'mostly' is different from 'all'
Without the clarification, one would imply your prejudice against Israel as prejudice against jews. :wacko:
It's good that you clarify.

But, forgive me if I'm wrong, judging from your posts in other threads you seem to have quite a prejudice against anything non-kiwi? :whistle:

[kickingzebra]

Anti-Semitism is prejudice towards jews. I have nothing against jews per see, I just have prejudice against israel, and the way it controls america's government :-)

I'd say they have done bloody well for them selves, kick ass in a war where they were not the aggressor, and were far outnumbered, become a fixture in the middle of the most turmultuous region on earth, and somehow got to control the whitehouse...

They deserve accolades, and yet, they begged aunty Helen to get back into NZs good books?:clap: :clap: :clap:
Genius, I am awed in your presence:thud: :lol:

[Lias]

I'd say they have done bloody well for them selves, kick ass in a war where they were not the aggressor, and were far outnumbered, become a fixture in the middle of the most turmultuous region on earth, and somehow got to control the whitehouse...

They deserve accolades, and yet, they begged aunty Helen to get back into NZs good books?:clap: :clap: :clap:
Genius, I am awed in your presence:thud: :lol:
They wernt the aggressor? Their entire country is built on stolen land. Any attack against them is a direct response to them occupying stolen land.

I despise Israel as a country, but I do admire their ability to manipulate america into doing their grunt work, they also have an extremely effective military and intelligence service.

And yes marmoot I'm a fairly staunch nationalist, which is why the whole "stolen land" thing of Israel is a pet peeve of mine :-P Like the Iranian dude said, if europe was feeling so guilty about what Hitler did to the jews, why didnt they give the jews a corner of europe for a homeland, rather than stealing the land from the palestinians?

[kickingzebra]

The palestinians have as much historic right to the sahara desert as anything else. And for all I care they can keep it, but problem is no one will give them money there to buy guns and rockets, so they can keep up a pretence of humanity... I speak in general, there are some very nice and reasonable palestinians.

The land rights for these 2 countries long predate the english language. How could we be expected to understand a 7 century exile from our home land??

[Nitzer]

They wernt the aggressor? Their entire country is built on stolen land. Any attack against them is a direct response to them occupying stolen land.

How about an attack on NZ? Wasn't NZ built from stolen land?



Like the Iranian dude said, if europe was feeling so guilty about what Hitler did to the jews, why didnt they give the jews a corner of europe for a homeland, rather than stealing the land from the palestinians?

Historically the Jewish people originated from Palestine, not Europe.

[James Deuce]

Lias - you've fallen into the trap that all Anti-Semites - oops - Anti Israelis want you to believe: That Palestine was a country. Palestine is the name given to an area of land by two occupying colonial empires; 1st the Romans and much later the British Empire. There has never been a country called Palestine, just an area called Palestine by occupying forces.

Many other countries have claimed that territory, rendering the ideal of a native Palestianian moot.

The area was granted for the creation of an Israeli state by the British Emprie in 1917 by the Balfour declaration. Winston Churchill reneged on honouring the declaration and created the dispute that continues to this day. There have always been Jews in "Palestine". Oddly enough they got on fine with the other nomadic tribes of various religions that also used "Palestine" as a home territory.

The Roman Empire destroyed the original Israel by creating the 2nd Jewish diaspora. Jews were superb administrators and small businessmen, so they were used as the economic and administrative backbone of the Roman Empire.

As for European guilt, the vast bulk of that guilt should belong to the so-called "Allies" us included, who were all fiercely anti-semite prior to WWII. You can't expunge that guilt with a flip comment. None of us belong to a society that has the moral ground ever point finger at anything an Israeli descendant of a holocaust survivor does and pronounce it as evil. They'd have systematically kill 6 million members of a religious faith by direct means, not the feeble indirect methods that that "journalist" Robert Fisk ascribes to the modern Israeli state.

As for "jews"controlling" the US? Bollocks. Money has always controlled America.

This should give you an idea of how the monied elite view "jews" - people to make money from.

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/030928warracket.htm

[Skyryder]

How about an attack on NZ? Wasn't NZ built from stolen land?



Historically the Jewish people originated from Palestine, not Europe.

I think it was Judea.

But both the Jews and the Arabs are on one stock.

Abraham. The dispute here is who was the wife, and who was the maidservent.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Many other countries have claimed that territory, rendering the ideal of a native Palestianian moot.

The area was granted for the creation of an Israeli state by the British Emprie in 1917 by the Balfour declaration. Winston Churchill reneged on honouring the declaration and created the dispute that continues to this day. There have always been Jews in "Palestine". Oddly enough they got on fine with the other nomadic tribes of various religions that also used "Palestine" as a home territory.

The Roman Empire destroyed the original Israel by creating the 2nd Jewish diaspora. Jews were superb administrators and small businessmen, so they were used as the economic and administrative backbone of the Roman Empire.

As for European guilt, the vast bulk of that guilt should belong to the so-called "Allies" us included, who were all fiercely anti-semite prior to WWII. You can't expunge that guilt with a flip comment. None of us belong to a society that has the moral ground ever point finger at anything an Israeli descendant of a holocaust survivor does and pronounce it as evil. They'd have systematically kill 6 million members of a religious faith by direct means, not the feeble indirect methods that that "journalist" Robert Fisk ascribes to the modern Israeli state.

As for "jews"controlling" the US? Bollocks. Money has always controlled America.

This should give you an idea of how the monied elite view "jews" - people to make money from.

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/030928warracket.htm


During WW1 the Brits needed support of both the Zionists and the Arabs. It' slong and involved and when I find the time will try and find a link. But in effect they promised Palestine to both. When it comes to dirty deals the Brits would leave the Americans in the dust.

They did much the same thing to the House of Saud. Promises promises then reneged and the Americans backed the House over the Brits who if memory serves correctly changed thier support to the Rashid's. just one of the reasons why the Saudis are so pro America. They put them there. Got a link on this somewhere. To paraphase Churchil Never has so much misery been caused to so many by so few.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

During WW1 the Brits needed support of both the Zionists and the Arabs. It' slong and involved and when I find the time will try and find a link. But in effect they promised Palestine to both. When it comes to dirty deals the Brits would leave the Americans in the dust.

They did much the same thing to the House of Saud. Promises promises then reneged and the Americans backed the House over the Brits who if memory serves correctly changed thier support to the Rashid's. just one of the reasons why the Saudis are so pro America. They put them there. Got a link on this somewhere. To paraphase Churchil Never has so much misery been caused by so few.

Skyryder

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/abdulaziz.htm

Desperate to court him(King ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman Al Sa‘ud, ) once war with the Turks became a reality in 1914, the British Government engaged in a long-term strategic relationship that benefited both sides: British support aided the Saudis in their efforts to reunify the country, which meant driving the Turks from the region, and the rising Arabian polity that resulted meant that Britain could look upon a friendly government in a part of the world that the British regarded as essential to the defense of the centerpiece of their empire —India.

Relying on the Ottomans to maintain stability in the Middle East before the war, Britain had earlier disdained a pact with Abd al Aziz, but after Britain's declaration of war against the Ottoman Empire in October 1914, the British sought an alliance with the House of Saud. By a treaty signed in December 1914, the British recognized Saudi independence from the Ottoman Empire and provided Abd al Aziz with financial subsidies and small arms. As his part of the agreement, Abd al Aziz promised to keep 4,000 men in the field against the House of Rashid, which was associated with the Ottomans.

Looking for a foreign company to help develop the Kingdom’s oil reserves, King Abdulaziz chose not one of the many British firms that were already working in the region - in Iran, Iraq and Bahrain - but an American company, a choice made over the objections of Britain, then the dominant global power. The granting of the oil concession on July 7, 1933, to Standard Oil of California, which would evolve into the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco), was followed in November of the same year by the establishment of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States.
In February 1945, King Abdulaziz met separately with US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill along the Suez Canal. The main topic of conversation was the future of the Middle East in the post-war era. The meeting between King Abdulaziz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Febuary 14, 1945 set the stage for close Saudi-U.S. relations. While Ibn Saud was angered by the United States’ acceptance of the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine, he overruled Prince Faisal’s call for breaking diplomatic relations with America.


Skyryder

[Marmoot]

And yes marmoot I'm a fairly staunch nationalist, which is why the whole "stolen land" thing of Israel is a pet peeve of mine :-P Like the Iranian dude said, if europe was feeling so guilty about what Hitler did to the jews, why didnt they give the jews a corner of europe for a homeland, rather than stealing the land from the palestinians?

Ha......I should name New Zealand and Australia as "stolen lands" as well then.
It's just a matter of replacing the 'jews' with 'british' and 'palestinians' with 'maoris'
:weird:

[kickingzebra]

Ha......I should name New Zealand and Australia as "stolen lands" as well then.
It's just a matter of replacing the 'jews' with 'british' and 'palestinians' with 'maoris'
:weird:

Replace Palestinians with Maoris, Excellent idea... Ponders difficulties...:clap: :clap: :clap: :dodge: :dodge:

[Maha]

And IRAN
IRAN so far away
I just ran
couldn't get away.........Flock of Seagulls.......:2thumbsup

[Winston001]

The Israeli situation was thrashed out on the Palestinian thread a few months ago. Good summation Jim2 and Skyrider.

Now - Iran. Unlike Pakistan, it isn't even remotely friendly to the USA. Having nuclear weapons would pose a clear and present danger to Israel, Saudi, Egypt, and a nascent democratic Iraq. Every country within range of a ship or aircraft.

So cousin George has leaked the pre-emptive strike idea. When the media report it - shock and denial. No no no - diplomacy is the answer.

The Brits, French et al make equally horrified noises. But behind the scenes they are telling the Iranians - he means it - he's nuts but he'll do it.

And so the intricate wheels of diplomacy will turn. With a bit of luck Iran will open their plants, abandon their plans, and the Americans will say "Fair enough, we were mistaken, don't do it again." Face saved all around.

Or the Iranians will give the rest of the world the fingers and find a few daisy-cutters arrive early one morning. :finger:

[riffer]

As for "jews"controlling" the US? Bollocks. Money has always controlled America.

Quite true.

How much of the demonisation of Iran is linked to the proposal by Iran to link the Oil Bourse (the international Oil Exchange) to Euros, thereby destroying the concept of the american Dollar as the one universal currency?

What will that do to the American Dollar?

see:

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060123_iran_92s_oil_exchange_.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=9752

[riffer]

Ha......I should name New Zealand and Australia as "stolen lands" as well then.
It's just a matter of replacing the 'jews' with 'british' and 'palestinians' with 'maoris'
:weird:

Actually Marmoot, Oxford University's DNA studies have conclusively proved that the Maoris were actually made in Taiwan...

[Timber020]

Ask any military officer... I have a Mate doing initial officer training, attrition rate on the course is quite high, as people realise they may have to send people they know to die... No, doesn't take any balls.... no sarcasm here officer...

Can't speak for the French, but how do you define stronger war record? fired the guns himself?


I have respect for military officers, they are some of the first picked off by a dirtfoot if the opportunity arises. They are also largely accountable for their actions and are at least on the same battlefield as those that they order. Bush managed to defend the texas skys against the vietcong airforce and skipped base when medicals were due (which included drug testing). He hasnt put his red neck on the line for anything but to make more power or money for himself.

Chirac fought in the algerian conflict, although he was offered safe positions (ie desk jobs) he chose combat, lead from the front, fought bravely and was wounded in action. I do think he was drafted though.

[Marmoot]

Actually Marmoot, Oxford University's DNA studies have conclusively proved that the Maoris were actually made in Taiwan...

mate, almost everything is made in Taiwan, especially nowadays :bleh:

[kickingzebra]

Timber and collegues...

ANYONE in politics knows that you don't so much make money or power, while in power, you make connections with people that have both.

There are a multitude of possibly less demanding, less critical jobs to be had outside of public office, and a fair number of them would be higher paid.

The nasty side effect of having military people in power, is the one thing they understand is military. There is a problem, how are we going to fix it? Oh wait, Tiannemin square is just around the corner.

Is it just to say that any military personnal that have never seen "you kill me or I kill you combat" was never in fact in the military?
Mention that down at your nearest RSA and you'll be lynched!!

Bush is one of few politicians who by demonstrating fault, eg speaking etc, is more human than robobitch (helen) and yet, by doing what he is doing on the war front, is showing that Justice is still important. It is however interesting to note, that the left wing people, screaming the loudest on this (in the states) are all the ones that voted for clintons left wing administration to go to iraq in the very first place. Somehow it is worse, because the "war loving" right wing are taking a course of action and SEEING it Through.

Note, though personnal pro nouns are used in this post, no personnal offence is intended to timber 020 or anyone who may be a holder of the opposite viewpoint... Unless they piss me off... No one has yet.... Should I PM and tell you if you have so you know to take the insults personally?:woohoo: :shake:

[sAsLEX]

Ask any military officer... I have a Mate doing initial officer training, attrition rate on the course is quite high, as people realise they may have to send people they know to die... No, doesn't take any balls.... no sarcasm here officer...


Depends what force your on about mate, the Army for instance gets large numbers at the start of their Training with the aim of culling the weak and only keeping the few they deem as worthy.
Navy on the other hand has smaller courses and tends to only loose one or two through training, but then what would I know.....

EDIT: and if it is one facility out in the middle of nowhere why not just use a few MOABs on the thing inserted by a b1 or something,could prob do it on the down low and try to deny it.....

[kickingzebra]

Army it is, the point is, it is a serious responsibility, not one anybody can just pick up up, and say, hey, I think I'll send Ted, Billy and Joe on a suicide mission today....

Whether the individual force do, picking officer candidates before or after is up to them. I would rather say let them loose for while, after initially profiling them, and see how they react when the pressure is on.

I suppose in the navy, survivability is arguably more at stake, so they want to make the right decision first time. Still, how do you see how someone is going to react in a battle/emergency situation?

[sAsLEX]

I suppose in the navy, survivability is arguably more at stake, so they want to make the right decision first time. Still, how do you see how someone is going to react in a battle/emergency situation?

You dont but you train hard and long to ensure that the odds they will react in a similar way to training when encountered with the real situation.

Take our firefighting training, we do it with real fires in realalistic situations and have to requalify before heading to ship, why cause fire is one of our biggest dangers and the last few fires they have had on ship there was no hesatation before people were in there fighting it.

Have seen people kicked from the Navy due to an adverse reaction to a situation, such as freezing while in command of the ship due to pressure, thats why they train long and hard before being given sole control so they are exposed to all situations possible.

[Timber020]

Timber and collegues...

ANYONE in politics knows that you don't so much make money or power, while in power, you make connections with people that have both.

There are a multitude of possibly less demanding, less critical jobs to be had outside of public office, and a fair number of them would be higher paid.

The nasty side effect of having military people in power, is the one thing they understand is military. There is a problem, how are we going to fix it? Oh wait, Tiannemin square is just around the corner.

Is it just to say that any military personnal that have never seen "you kill me or I kill you combat" was never in fact in the military?
Mention that down at your nearest RSA and you'll be lynched!!

Bush is one of few politicians who by demonstrating fault, eg speaking etc, is more human than robobitch (helen) and yet, by doing what he is doing on the war front, is showing that Justice is still important. It is however interesting to note, that the left wing people, screaming the loudest on this (in the states) are all the ones that voted for clintons left wing administration to go to iraq in the very first place. Somehow it is worse, because the "war loving" right wing are taking a course of action and SEEING it Through.

Note, though personnal pro nouns are used in this post, no personnal offence is intended to timber 020 or anyone who may be a holder of the opposite viewpoint... Unless they piss me off... No one has yet.... Should I PM and tell you if you have so you know to take the insults personally?:woohoo: :shake:

My arguement with Bush is he actively avoided having to do his duty by getting into the national guard instead of having to go to vietnam. And he wasnt even able to stick with the guard. He sends guys to do things that in no way was he willing to do himself. That none of his crew would do.
The worse thing that bush is doing is discrediting and destroying a nation as great as the USA. Hes breaking every rule, hes condeming the US to a guarenteed future of further terrorist attacks and economic instabilty and isolation and distrust from the world community. Hes not fighting terrorism, hes fueling it.

Bush is clueless, and its taking a long time for his supporters to finally click that he really doesnt know what hes doing aside from whatever "base" tells him to. Basically (and im not including you in this) his supporters are simple folk, they like there to be a good guy and a bad guy in every story, they are fundamentalist christians who think that 911 and saddam hussain have strong links. They like to be talked to simply and to be reinforce in there blind patriotism and think the US is Always the good guy. They got hurt by 911 and felt weakened by it, and a good show of force will make them feel better. They generally dont know squat of the outside world.

[Hitcher]

This is issue is all about m o n e y.

[sAsLEX]

This is issue is all about m o n e y.

you splet it all wrong hitcher, its spelt O I L

[kickingzebra]

I must then ask, what would work to fight terrorism? bearing in mind it might not be as far away a problem as we all seem to think for NZ. Giving in to ransom demands etc only fuels the fight, as the monkeys go and buy newer bigger better weapons etc... This has shown up in history a lot in the last century.

It sounds really nice to palm off Bush supporters as simple folk, but that would be blatantly wrong. They are the conservatives, but not neccesarily simple because of it. The US doesn't have the richest economy in the world for no reason, and those people that voted bush in make up a large percentile of general populance. The equation doesn't bear out.

As with any group of people, they are broad and diverse, from poor homeless bums, through to doctors lawyers Judges etc.

The wonderful thing about management is that it involves using other peoples skills, to fulfill tasks you couldn't do yourself. Ask yourself who you would rather have leading the defence of your country in hostile times, Bush, or Helen?

At least the big bushy dog has bite.

[Hitcher]

I must then ask, what would work to fight terrorism?
"Terrorism" has little, if anything, to do with sovereign nation states. That's why dealing with it is incredibly difficult. "Terrorists" do not respect national boundaries and cannot be quelled by traditional military might. Hence the frustration of the US military -- armed with all the latest and greatest kit and caboodle -- against an "enemy" that won't come out and fight.

Terrorists can live anywhere and emerge at any time. Their chief weapon is surprise... surprise and fear... fear and surprise.... Their two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency.... Their three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to their "prophet".... Their four... no... Amongst their weapons.... Amongst their weaponry... are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

[James Deuce]

I'd rather have Helen thanks.

One thing you've ignored kickingzebra is the vested personal interests in maintaining oil and the US dollar as the two base currencies of the world that Bush and Cheney have.

The Bush family are Texas Oil Barons. Cheny has a finger in every US oil company and oil exploration company.

All Iran have done is trade oil for Euros. The crap about their "nuclear weapons facilities" is just that - crap.

If the eastern middle east start trading oil in Euros, Bush, Cheney, et al, start to lose money personally.

Making sure low level terrorism happens to keep the money flowing to the US is the goal of the "War on Terror", not eradicating terrorism.

That is what the "war" in Iraq has been about and what the coming "wars" with Syria and Iran are about.

[sAsLEX]

All Iran have done is trade oil for Euros. The crap about their "nuclear weapons facilities" is just that - crap.

If the eastern middle east start trading oil in Euros, Bush, Cheney, et al, start to lose money personally.


So where would Tony stand on this one since he is on the Euro side I assumes?

[Marmoot]

you splet it all wrong hitcher, its spelt O I L
You got it wrong, young boy. :oi-grr:

In the beginning, there was oil.
Then oil makes money.
Then with money comes sex.

It is all about S E X







Edit: P.S. could we have some pictures to illustrate this final point please?

[James Deuce]

So where would Tony stand on this one since he is on the Euro side I assumes?

You'd have to ask him, because so far I don't think anyone's been able to figure out just why the UK jumped in the the US so readily.

[kickingzebra]

In one hand you have wealth, in another hand you have a V8, and then, in a third hand, you have the end of the civilised world as we know it...

Lets face it, its only really civilised as long as we aren't hard out killing each other. As soon as we start randomly killing strangers, we are no different to the... SEX??
Excellent point Marmoot!!!

Speaking of Iran, tell me, would you happily walk down any street in tehran, at any time of day wearing a ""there is no god t-shirt""??
Suuure, cause, like, there aren't any phschos there huh? and when they stole your wallet after beheading you, where would the $52 dollars and two visa cards go?? To the besieged brothers in arms.
When they have been funneling money to the people that stir the unrest in the french communities, and capture nurses in the phillipines, and cut parts of their womanly anatomy off, just for the sheer hell of it, as you do....
But lets go to the largely gullible international community and moan about oil, that'll do the trick... Mean while our leverage in the international community via nuclear terrorism grows closer each day...

And the Western idiots argue over oil....

We're so dumb.. and scared and surprised, and stunned by the ruthless efficiancy and fanatical devotion to the prophet who was as mad as hatter, maybe slightly worse.

Door to door salesmen must love our gullibility if we buy the Its for Oil argument.

If it was for oil, USA would bust the door down, go in shooting till nothing moved, and then say fook yer, Oh sorry no WMDS, oh well, its for the best. They wouldn't piss around with the diplomacy/veiled threats, and nasty just plain mean things like spending billions on rebuilding the shattered infrastructure of said countries.

The world already thinks America is crazy, and, big news here, America doesn't give a toss, cause they know we are all little wanky countries that bark a lot, but have no teeth, and our pathetically little jaws have been sewn shut, in a typical left wing approach to national growth...

You don't seriously believe that Helen is the woman for handling armed confrontation? Whats she going to do, take them tramping? offer them a cheap deal on some well used museum antique planes? maybe fire the remaining 15 of the 27 whole hand held anti aircraft missiles we brought in 1997 as part of the national defense strategy for the next 15 years?

She'll be in there with big words, and the country would be overrun. Who's going to help? Aussie maybe, but only because of the strategic importance of having a hostile force so close to their borders. We going to plead with the USA? they'll say, suuurrreee, we'll just send a few nuclear powered carriers shall we???

[Marmoot]

Speaking of Iran, tell me, would you happily walk down any street in tehran, at any time of day wearing a ""there is no god t-shirt""??

Try wearing a t-shirt saying "Allah is great and there is no God except him" in Sydney or Los Angeles. I have a feeling the end result might be the same.

[kickingzebra]

Nah, they just smash you with a beer can, and then breath breathy beer breath and australian germs all over you. Occa hasn't learnt the head removal trick yet, for which I am eternally gratefull.

[James Deuce]

Or wander through the South Island wearing a T-Shirt that says, "There is no such Maori tribe as Ngai Tahu."

That's a trite argument that only serves underline the arguers lack of respect for any culture other than his own. Or is it that "free speech" thing that everyone thinks is a license to rudely and loudly discredit any opinion or culture that you don;t subscribe to?

[MSTRS]

....They wouldn't piss around with the diplomacy/veiled threats, and nasty just plain mean things like spending billions on rebuilding the shattered infrastructure of said countries.....
Oh wouldn't they? Japan springs to mind. And America does seem to be a slow learner when it comes to "Might is right..."

[kickingzebra]

Maybe a trite argument, but how many people in NZ regularly, knowingly fund wars against civilians?? probably few to be fair, but with population wide acceptance? I speak loudly about the agenda of Islam, but has anyone ever seen me to condone slaughtering them all? Men woman and Children?

Iran is a vocal supporter of the slaughter of all Israel.

Shouldn't that say something? Free speech does have a place, because with speech one can only go so far, and in a society such as our own, with a reasonable amount of balance, and no real needs, only a few very foolish people will take an extremist stance (thinking National Front etc in NZ) but they are relatively toothless organisations, who would probably not stomach the killing required to fulfill their rhetoric.

By the way, where can I get the above T shirt in a tainui version?!!?

The argument is how far people will go to defend their beliefs, and how extreme said beliefs are. I ain't going to kill you if you don't believe in what I do. I wouldn't even beat you up, or throw firebombs at your house. I would just talk to you, and as my mood at the time dictated, whether I treated your viewpoints with curiousity, or just wanted to debunk you, and then, depending on how the chat went, I would decide whether I was going to pay for the coffee/beer/meal or just halve it.

Is Iran capable of deploying nuclear weapons to get their own way? yes, is any other nuclear country inthe world? yes Would any of the other countries in the world? No, they have sat on the horror too long, so it is just detterant value. Would Iran? same as USA, the world already thinks they are crazy, so what do they have to lose??

There is the difference.

[kickingzebra]

Oh wouldn't they? Japan springs to mind. And America does seem to be a slow learner when it comes to "Might is right..."

Funny that, the general consensus on Japan in attached thread seems to be that at that time, they were such a menace, no one could control them, so killing them off was understandable, and acceptable, in a wartime situation.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=574756#post574756

Look where said Japan is now?? Financially underpinning the NZ dollar (and our excess spending) exporting product to every nation under the sun...

America said it would do what it did, and they did, and they won. 50 years, and anti american sentiment runs rafe, but everyone recognises and fears USA...
And now would do likewise to Japan too it is worth noting.

[Winston001]

You don't seriously believe that Helen is the woman for handling armed confrontation? Whats she going to do, take them tramping?

Gotta green you for that. :D

[Hoon]

Its always been about oil. The only people that don't believe this are the Bush supporters who fell for the "War on Terrorism" con. So much for liberating Iraq. Its worse today than it ever was and it'll take another Sadam dictatorship to sort it out. However Bush has his oil contracts so he's happy.

US is also worried about Chinas booming economy. The only thing holding China back is lack of oil. China had that sorted when they closed an oil deal with Iraq a few years back but Bush put an end to that.

However Iran is a different kettle of fish! They've existed in relative comfort for the last 15 years and unlike Iraq who have been strained with internal conflict and 2 wars, Iran has a very capable Army. Iran is now the only regional military power that poses a significant conventional military threat to Gulf stability and could easily shut the gulf down if they wanted to. This would annoy Bush's Country Club mates to no end. They also have a very adequate anti-air defence and those russian missiles which can intercept anything the US throws their way so you can understand why they aren't intimidated by Bushs chest beating.

They know Bush would have to be an idiot (even by his standards) to go to War with Iran. Iraq would be lost - at the moment the US is only fighting off the Sunni's insurgents but going against Iran will also solidify the Shiites. Syria is in a pact with Iran and they aint no slouches either.

Ohh and last year China signed a $70 billion oil deal with Iran.

[Quasievil]

Iran is a vocal supporter of the slaughter of all Israel.



Not exactly true, a large number of Iranians support the slaughter of Israel, there is a difference, trouble is the leader of Iran President Mahmoud Ahadinejad believes categorically that the coming of the Messiah will be only when the holocaust comes and by that he means the end of Israel ie Nuking it, thats what he wants, he is a fundementalist and he is doing every thing to go down that path, Unfortunetly he has the power.
Its actually not all about money, the politices are in part but there is the above issue which doesnt just mean money, it means potental major war.

Those of you who disagree with the USA, I understand why, but think of a world where the USA isnt the super power,what would the situation be then, who would be there to sought out the issues of the world, what if Russia or China where the superpower ?

Its all a fine balance and involves very delicate situations.

About 15 months ago I was in Tehran, even posted on here whilst there if you look it up, for me I feel sorry for the people, they are oppressed and have been for years, bo not think they are all radical and gunslinging, they are not, they are mostly kind loving people, do not tarnish them based on what you see on TV.
I actually did not feel safe there because I looked like an american, but the people I did get to know where very nice.
For the rest of the middle east I loved it, it is NOT what you think, I would gladly walk down any street over there way before I would walk down the main street of Hamilton or Auckland at 3.00am believe me!!!
(except Iraq didnt go there Kuwait I did, that was safe to)

Thats my contribution

[James Deuce]

Maybe a trite argument, but how many people in NZ regularly, knowingly fund wars against civilians?? probably few to be fair, but with population wide acceptance? I speak loudly about the agenda of Islam, but has anyone ever seen me to condone slaughtering them all? Men woman and Children?

Iran is a vocal supporter of the slaughter of all Israel.

Shouldn't that say something? Free speech does have a place, because with speech one can only go so far, and in a society such as our own, with a reasonable amount of balance, and no real needs, only a few very foolish people will take an extremist stance (thinking National Front etc in NZ) but they are relatively toothless organisations, who would probably not stomach the killing required to fulfill their rhetoric.

By the way, where can I get the above T shirt in a tainui version?!!?

The argument is how far people will go to defend their beliefs, and how extreme said beliefs are. I ain't going to kill you if you don't believe in what I do. I wouldn't even beat you up, or throw firebombs at your house. I would just talk to you, and as my mood at the time dictated, whether I treated your viewpoints with curiousity, or just wanted to debunk you, and then, depending on how the chat went, I would decide whether I was going to pay for the coffee/beer/meal or just halve it.

Is Iran capable of deploying nuclear weapons to get their own way? yes, is any other nuclear country inthe world? yes Would any of the other countries in the world? No, they have sat on the horror too long, so it is just detterant value. Would Iran? same as USA, the world already thinks they are crazy, so what do they have to lose??

There is the difference.

So the vocal viewpoint of a minority Islamic sect, sets the tone for what you believe all of Islam stands for? I work with a shitload of muslims and we have professional disagreements every day. None of them have EVER threatened ti kill me, despite me being fairly annoying. They are also respectful of our culture to a fault. You haven't presented an argument you've represented the propaganda designed to vilify all Muslims. Most of whom are just like you and me. They like food, sex, friendship, good housing, and trying to make the future a little better for their kids.

The weapons grade uranium found in Iran has been found to be most likely provided by Pakistan. So when are the US going to invade Pakistan? What? You say they have no oil? And the country is a bunch of rocks next to Afghanistan? No worth it economically?

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000544.html

So all "natives, "muslims", "wogs", and "niggers' are out to kill whitey? Is that REALLY an argument?

[Winston001]

The worse thing that Bush is doing is discrediting and destroying a nation as great as the USA. He's not fighting terrorism, hes fueling it.

Fair comment - but what else does he do? Neville Chamberlain practised the politics of appeasement with Adolph Hitler. The Germans were contemptuous of their weak European neighbours and used every olive branch to restore their armed forces. Diplomacy was an empty vessel when dealing with the Nazis.




Bush is clueless, and its taking a long time for his supporters to finally click that he really doesnt know what hes doing aside from whatever "base" tells him to. Basically (and im not including you in this) his supporters are simple folk, they like there to be a good guy and a bad guy in every story, they are fundamentalist christians who think that 911 and saddam hussain have strong links. They like to be talked to simply and to be reinforce in there blind patriotism and think the US is Always the good guy. They got hurt by 911 and felt weakened by it, and a good show of force will make them feel better. They generally dont know squat of the outside world.

Contrary to popular myth, Bush is an intelligent man with huge support. But it suits us to scorn him, irrational as that might be. He is after all, only one member of the American government. If Congress wanted to, they could stop the war. But they don't.

However you are correct about black and white. Thats politics everywhere. Complex arguments don't fit soundbites. So the lines between fact and fiction get blurred. Iraq may yet be a mistake but the moderate Middle East nations such as Egypt and Jordan have a vital interest in seeing a stable democratic Iraq. Not every Arab country is baying for US blood. In fact, Iran is pretty much alone in that.

[kickingzebra]

The weapons grade uranium found in Iran has been found to be most likely provided by Pakistan. So when are the US going to invade Pakistan? What? You say they have no oil? And the country is a bunch of rocks next to Afghanistan? No worth it economically?

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000544.html

So all "natives, "muslims", "wogs", and "niggers' are out to kill whitey? Is that REALLY an argument?

Don't forget Chinks, Bungas and horis, to make Billy Ts quote complete...
I wasn't speaking to that effect, in fact, I believe I was talking about Israelis, jews, not really white skinned, but never mind...

India will keep Pakistan in check for now, and human rights there isn't the same issue. They pay the guys they put through the sewers to clean them, and don't chop them in little bits first.

Ok, so there may be a minority supporting extremist measures, but how the HELL did they get into power?

Average Joe Blow on the street won't likely go a killing, but ignoring a problem is tacit approval.
I don't think it is any exageration to say The governernment of Iran supports genocidal measures agaisnt the people of Israel.

Once that can of worms is opened, the whole middle east erupts into war, and that instability does effect the rest of us. But pump prices aren't the issue here. Supply is still there, money is still flowing.

Do you think finding a suitable alternative to oil would stop all tensions in the middle east? Extremely doubtful.

Do you think the same being true, America would stop playing big brother?
Again, I doubt it. We should thank God there is a country in the world big enough to give a toss, and try and do something about some of the worlds problems.

[Marmoot]

Maybe a trite argument, but how many people in NZ regularly, knowingly fund wars against civilians?? probably few to be fair, but with population wide acceptance? I speak loudly about the agenda of Islam, but has anyone ever seen me to condone slaughtering them all? Men woman and Children?

...

Shouldn't that say something? Free speech does have a place, because with speech one can only go so far, and in a society such as our own, with a reasonable amount of balance, and no real needs, only a few very foolish people will take an extremist stance (thinking National Front etc in NZ) but they are relatively toothless organisations, who would probably not stomach the killing required to fulfill their rhetoric.

...



I don't think so. Remember Cronulla. It's only a few weeks ago. People actually went out to look for trouble by bringing weapons in their droves.
Just an illustration to show how banal our 'civilized' society can become quite easily. Not too much different from our darker-coloured skin brethrens or Allah-worshippers, aren't we?

[kickingzebra]

Casualties in Cronulla? I am not saying that is acceptable, and I don't condone a bunch of drunk teenagers trying to fix the world problems, on the people in their back yard who may just have been trying to escape such nonsense.
People are sheep at best. Unfortunate truth. Even sheep can think..

[James Deuce]

Do you think the same being true, America would stop playing big brother?
Again, I doubt it. We should thank God there is a country in the world big enough to give a toss, and try and do something about some of the worlds problems.

The US doesn't "care" about anything except its own interests. Since the fall of the USSR there is no check on how and where they extend military force, or how they bludgeon other countries economically, and they don't even bother using any excuse when cutting a nation off at the knees if they don't agree with US "foreign policy".

You have got to be kidding if you think the US are trying to do anything except maintain the flow of oil from the Middle East, and make sure it is paid for in US dollars without having to touch their own national reserves. Iran is sitting on the world's 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserves and they're not allowed to export it. Petrol prices are rising because we're being manipulated into accepting that there is extreme unrest in the Middle East and that we have hit peak oil production. Neither situation is true, but it suits US "foreign policy" to malign countries whose cultures and values are different to their own.

Iran won't play the game the way the US want so they must be "evil", and "stupid". The Iranian president is now being characterised as "dangerous and unstable".

Winston001 said that Bush is intelligent - he isn't - he has the rat cunning of a very good manager, and the sense to surround himself with intelligent people who have a stake in what is important to oil driven corporate USofA.

I still don't see how a bunch of Saudi trained and equipped terrorists flying airliners into a couple of skyscrapers in NYC means that millions of people in countries not even economically aligned with Saudi Arabia have to suffer in a "War" on "Terrorism". Or that the Jews somehow managed to manipulate the US into the "war" on "Terrorism", and I certainly haven't seen any evidence of a reasoned, researched, deliberated response to anything I've said, except that "America cares".

[Marmoot]

The US doesn't "care" about anything except its own interests. Since the fall of the USSR there is no check on
...
...
and I certainly haven't seen any evidence of a reasoned, researched, deliberated response to anything I've said, except that "America cares".

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jim2 again. :slap:

[sAsLEX]

In the beginning, there was oil.
Then oil makes money.
Then with money comes sex.

It is all about S E X

Edit: P.S. could we have some pictures to illustrate this final point please?
illustrate this final point

[kickingzebra]

Deleted, due to lack of critical acclaim... Na, I actually screwed up the posting... and realised after actually posting it, that this mk 1 had gone ahead without me...

[Biff]

Nahhh. But I bet my butt they're seriously thinking of dropping one of their special nuke bunker bombs.

I say they hit Iran by next Feb tops. But they wont initiate a 'proper' offensive unless Iran strike back.

Normally I'd say that Iran has a right to nukes, and that the US were being hypocritical. Then the Iranian publuic voted in a nutter of their own, who openly admits to the fact that he wants to wipe out Israel. Which, doesn't initially sound like a bad thing, but doing so will start a war to end all wars in the middle east. Not good.

[sAsLEX]

Which, doesn't initially sound like a bad thing, but doing so will start a war to end all wars in the middle east. Not good.

About time we had another 7 wonder type arrangement.

The Worlds biggest piece of glass, visible from space hundreds of miles across....

[kickingzebra]

Jim2s words in italics, response not.

The US doesn't "care" about anything except its own interests. Since the fall of the USSR there is no check on how and where they extend military force, or how they bludgeon other countries economically, and they don't even bother using any excuse when cutting a nation off at the knees if they don't agree with US "foreign policy".

Opinions are like? Four letter word, beginning with A, spelling is debatable on here...

US foreign policy, the same one that minimises the flow of illicit weapons used in various parts of Africa to quell civilians from not uprising for example? Maybe the foriegn policy that does keep the best interests of the US at heart, because if they scuttle themselves in a marketplace, they are in no position to do anything.

You have got to be kidding if you think the US are trying to do anything except maintain the flow of oil from the Middle East, and make sure it is paid for in US dollars without having to touch their own national reserves. Iran is sitting on the world's 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserves and they're not allowed to export it. Petrol prices are rising because we're being manipulated into accepting that there is extreme unrest in the Middle East and that we have hit peak oil production. Neither situation is true, but it suits US "foreign policy" to malign countries whose cultures and values are different to their own.

Unfortunatly, blaming it on Oil is just a little bit too simplistic. Ignoring the US breifly, who is doing the manipulating? Couldn't possibly be OPEC? How many US controlling factors are on said OPEC? Hmm... Let me see, bugger all, diplomatic pressure via trade is the only weight the US holds within OPEC.

OPEC limits production, to stimulate demand, and then ups the going price while playing the Chinas and Indias of this world off against one another. We are just along for the ride. The US has some influence in those circles, but aside from military intervention, and siezing the wells and infrastructure, what can they do? But of course, you will say they have already done this, in Iraq. Where unfortunately the money that comes from the oil flowing goes back to the local government. Just to piss off theorisers in NZ. Auditable trails do things like that.

Iran won't play the game the way the US want so they must be "evil", and "stupid". The Iranian president is now being characterised as "dangerous and unstable".

If we are to believe Miss Clark, anybody with any form of Nuclear Fissionable device or material is unbalanced and unstable. Various anti nuclear protests of the late 70s in NZ saw many a hospital and university Nuclear Medicine facility vandalised, and equipment damaged. The work of the uninformed angry protestor. Hideously effective, if only anyone knew what against.

Grammarian issue, but speech marks would imply I said the words stupid and evil, which I did not.

In fact, my exact words were "I don't think it is any exageration to say The governernment of Iran supports genocidal measures agaisnt the people of Israel."
I am still awaiting my "reasoned, researched, deliberated response".

Winston001 said that Bush is intelligent - he isn't - he has the rat cunning of a very good manager, and the sense to surround himself with intelligent people who have a stake in what is important to oil driven corporate USofA.


Your Research to back this up? 15 years in Kindergarten with the man?


I still don't see how a bunch of Saudi trained and equipped terrorists flying airliners into a couple of skyscrapers in NYC means that millions of people in countries not even economically aligned with Saudi Arabia have to suffer in a "War" on "Terrorism". Or that the Jews somehow managed to manipulate the US into the "war" on "Terrorism", and I certainly haven't seen any evidence of a reasoned, researched, deliberated response to anything I've said, except that "America cares".

The Saudi Arabian govnernment isn't even a problem in this debate, unless we are talking about OPEC, then we can bring that one up.

The Jews being involved in the US decision to start a "war in terror" mystifies me, History has shown the Israelis know perfectly well how to deal with their own terrorists, and if their hands weren't tied by the international community, there may well have never been a start to many of these problems.

[Jackrat]

[QUOTE=Nitzer]How about an attack on NZ? Wasn't NZ built from stolen land?

No it bloody wasn't.
All the land owned by my family, both Maori and New Zealander was gifted by Kamerea Wharepapa,,,,,SO FUCK OFF,YOU RACIST COCK!

[Hoon]

Your Research to back this up? 15 years in Kindergarten with the man?
You're not actually trying to argue that Bush IS intelligent?!? I think you've just lost all credibility right there!

Its no secret that US/UK is out to destabilise OPEC. The US as mighty as they may be, have little control over the flow of oil and this upsets them greatly. The only way to wrestle control from the OPEC nations is to flood the market with cheap oil. These middle east states whos regimes and political control rely on this $60 per barrel income would collapse if their budget was cut to $6 a barrel. The Middle East would be rife with uprisings and civil war.

[Biff]

How ironic, all the left leaning woofters come out to play, but they only ever moan or protest... Action is a verb people...

Dude - the action to which you refer has proven to do nothing but fuel anti-western beliefs and increase international/random terrorism.

The sooner those neo-conservatives get their collective hands out of their puppet's arse (gdUBYAA) the better. And guess what religion these neo-conservatives follow? Quel surprise, they're all Jews, every one of them. And which countries are they targeting, and have they openly detested for decades? That's right, the arab states, pretty much all of them in fact.

Not the commie bastards in North Korea, who, coincidently, paid the same Pakistani scientist for the same nuclear weaponry secrets and centrifuges that Iran did. Or heaven forbid - Israel, which coincidently has more UN resolutions against it that every one of the Arab nations UN resolutions added up. Oh - and Israel , to this day, refuse to openly admit to having a nuclear weapons capability, and whose national security agency (Mosad) kidnapped a former employee of one of these newkiller (as referred to by Mr dUByaa himself)facilities , in Rome.

Nuke Israel. Oh and Washington. And Tehran. And Paris. And there's a bloke in Nepal who is a right wanker as well. Fuck them all in fact. And as for that prat at the local Chinese, I asked for a bastard 73....



Freak show.:banana:


Shit - I guess I sound all anti-sematic now. I'm not. All religions are fucked up IMO. Apart from Buddhism - but that's more of a philiosphy. I could be a Buddhist. I like pies.

Sorry to you religiousy types. But I just don't 'get it'.

I'm off to the 'Scottish thread' for pennance.

[Storm]

No need to go anywhere my old mate
Its KB, everyone has a opinion/arsehole, and thanks to the majesty of the internet, can freely express/expose it there for all to see.
Eat more pies my son, and become wise

[Indiana_Jones]

F*ck Iran, they're a bunch of wankers. For peaceful purposes my arse, even they say the UN is a bunch of sof cocks who don't do shit.

If the Yanks don't do it, the Jews will :finger:

-Indy

[Biff]

If the Yanks don't do it, the Jews will :finger:

-Indy

Now there's a man that squeaketh the truth.

[Winston001]

The US doesn't "care" about anything except its own interests. Since the fall of the USSR there is no check on how and where they extend military force, or how they bludgeon other countries economically, and they don't even bother using any excuse when cutting a nation off at the knees if they don't agree with US "foreign policy".

Now Jim, can't help feeling you've fallen for the trendy-liberal worldview here. May I ask:

1. Who is the major funder of the United Nations?

2. What self-interest caused US troops to peacekeep and die in that famous oil rich nation of Somalia?

3. Again, what self-interest led to US troops being bombed in Kenya? A nation of untold wealth and influence.

4. And again, why did US troops die in Lebanon which has yet to find any oil.

5. Why did US medics, troops etc die in Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo? I mean, these giant nations of international economics must have been critical to the US self-interest but.................I just can't find it.

Just curious. We don't get exposed to the real world much down south. :D

[Winston001]

[QUOTE=Hoon]You're not actually trying to argue that Bush IS intelligent?!? I think you've just lost all credibility right there!

QUOTE]

I guess it depends on how you measure intelligence. But never mind that. The fact is that journalists have driven the "intelligence" question, not American voters. In fact the average American doesn't have a problem with George at all - it is the news media looking for a hook for a story.

Here is an analysis of journalists articles about Bush - which show a strong bias on a non-issue.

Sources for Views on Bush's Intellect

Journalist 57%
Analysis 41
Opinion 16
Voter 4
Expert 6
Surrogate 10
Candidate 15
Other Media 7
Other 1

Total 100

http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/character/intelligence.asp

[Timber020]

Now Jim, can't help feeling you've fallen for the trendy-liberal worldview here. May I ask:

1. Who is the major funder of the United Nations?

Easy, the USA, although for there GDP they actually give much less than they are meant to.

2. What self-interest caused US troops to peacekeep and die in that famous oil rich nation of Somalia?

well it was lack of self interest that got them out of somalia faster than you can say "a skinny took my blackhawk" but they were there as part of the UN, like NZers were.

3. Again, what self-interest led to US troops being bombed in Kenya? A nation of untold wealth and influence.

Probably the same general self interest that motivated those of 911.

4. And again, why did US troops die in Lebanon which has yet to find any oil.

Yeah Lebanon is so far removed from the whole stability of the middle east thing, oh wait, thats right, any instability in the middle east threatens the political climate and oil prices. Especially if it happens to be near Israel, who would never want the US help in anything.......hey can I have a tui?

5. Why did US medics, troops etc die in Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo? I mean, these giant nations of international economics must have been critical to the US self-interest but.................I just can't find it.

Like most of the rest of the world, they dragged there feet for a while and then finally did some good there, thats a gold star for uncle sam.

Just curious. We don't get exposed to the real world much down south. :D

Nobody is saying that the US solely does everything for self interest, but its certainly not the champion of freedom that they and hollywood would like us to believe. Look what they did to england for helping them out during ww2, or all the dictatorships they have installed over democratically elected leaders.

[Marmoot]

...
And there's a bloke in Nepal who is a right wanker as well. .......

Motoracer?
He is here in Auckland, mate...... :scratch:....and....uh....being faster than you makes him a right wanker?

:blah:

[gunnyrob]

Thank god the yanks won the cold war. can you imagine it if the Soviet Union, China or Iran were running things????

Buckets of instant sunshine all round, if that's what it takes to win!:sunny: :sunny: :sunny:

[Biff]

Motoracer?


Nah, the guy I'm referring to just diddled my company out of $160K.And because he made me look a wanker, he's an even bigger wanker in my book.

However if Moto is Nepalise and has suddenly come into some serious cash, then yup, chance are he's is a wanker, and could you flick me his address please. But if you're calling Moto a wanker simply because he rides faster than me, then that accounts for 94.5% of the members here you've just called wankers.

Charming :kick:

[kickingzebra]

Mate, looking at Motoracers van and r6, if I had 160 k to give, he'd get it, cause I certainly don't think he stole it off you!!
That bloke is pretty damn quick on a bike!! And who gives a rip if hes Nepalese, at the drag and stunt day he marched straight up to me and said hello, started talking, cause he didn't recognise me. What a dude!!! No nuking of the Motoracer I say!!

[Hitcher]

1. Who is the major funder of the United Nations?
Don't tell me you've fallen for this one. The US funds way less than its fair share of the UN. This is why wealthy American benefactors, such as Ted Turner, feel obliged to do some "topping up".

[kickingzebra]

Define fair share??? I would say with the manpower, the equipment, the humanitarian relief, and the money, the UN is over resourced and underpreforming.

The UN is the biggest letdown consuming the most resources that our planet can boast of. What a waste of time and money. Peacekeepers? how the hell does that work when they aren't allowed to interfere if rival factions should want to shoot each other?

The UN was a brilliant idea, that is now a toothless, money hungry behemoth of lard.

Opinion ventured ;)

[Hitcher]

The UN was a brilliant idea, that is now a toothless, money hungry behemoth of lard.
And your original point about the US funding it was what, exactly?

[kickingzebra]

Sorry, can't claim that point in the first instance... It was winston I think...
The US is funding a good idea that is underperforming. If it was me, I would cut the losses, and continue to do what one could without aiding the UN anyway....

[Hitcher]

Sorry, can't claim that point in the first instance... It was winston I think...
You're right. I apologise.

[jonbuoy]

This war has cost more than the US will possibly get back in oil. If they spent all that this war has cost them on oil exploration and reclaiming, oil prices would be far lower.

And this is a war - the first punch was thrown at the US. They learnt the hard way in WW2 that you can't ignore a war and hope it won't head your way. If the Iraqis had let the UN inspectors in where they wanted to go they would have known they didn't have any WOMD. They played the biggest bluff hand ever and it backfired on them. And anyone else who bluffs about Biological/Nuclear weapons is going to find the same thing.

Who would you rather have as a world superpower - Iran/Iraq - controlling the world through torture, human rights voilations opression. Or the US controlling the world through - Starbucks and McDonalds?

[Hitcher]

This war has cost more than the US will possibly get back in oil. If they spent all that this war has cost them on oil exploration and reclaiming, oil prices would be far lower.

And this is a war - the first punch was thrown at the US. They learnt the hard way in WW2 that you can't ignore a war and hope it won't head your way. If the Iraqis had let the UN inspectors in where they wanted to go they would have known they didn't have any WOMD. They played the biggest bluff hand ever and it backfired on them. And anyone else who bluffs about Biological/Nuclear weapons is going to find the same thing.

Who would you rather have as a world superpower - Iran/Iraq - controlling the world through torture, human rights voilations opression. Or the US controlling the world through - Starbucks and McDonalds?
I was nearly going to ignore this pile of crap, but have had a change of heart.

Regarding the cost of the war versus the cost of oil -- some facts to back up such an assertion would be valued.

Regarding the "war". Iraq did not throw the first punch. A bunch of terrorists non-aligned to any nation state did. The other excuses for the "war" perpetrated by the US Government are a crock. In fact they are lies. You should read more.

As for the Naomi Klein diatribe in your last paragraph -- it's hard to see Starbucks or McDonald's dominating the world's political agenda. It's funny how the "bad" multinationals always get caned as the devil's spawn but the good ones never rate a mention. And not all multinationals are American. You should read more.

[kickingzebra]

Terrorist alignment is an interesting Topic!
Just because nation states don't proclaim terrorist agendas in policy, does not mean they are not aligned with the idealogy!
I would happily say that if you are unconcerned about terrorism, and if your country does not do all that is in its power to fight it, then said country is a supporter. Tactful denials aplenty, but where does the money trial go? The people that become the terrorists?

[Biff]

[FONT=Verdana]


The UN was a brilliant idea, that is now a toothless, money hungry behemoth of lard.

Opinion ventured
What utter arse biscuits.

I guess your simply referring to the fact that it hasn’t favoured the US in terms of agreeing to military action against 'rogue' nations over recent years, or the fact that as a Peacekeeping Organisation, not a military organisation like NATO, it would rather keep the peace. You appear to have fallen under the spell of the US propaganda trap me thinks.

The UN is not just about wars.
What about the humanitarian relief it renders?
Kids welfare charities?
Education programmes?

I have a sneaky suspicion the tens of millions of people that the UN help each year would say your talking absolute rubbish about the overall effectiveness of the UN my friend.

The UN is more than a military behemoth at the beck and call of the US, and it's only as powerful as its members (plural).

[kickingzebra]

No I am simply reffering to the chats I have had with our soldiers who have served as peace keepers, who say effectively, they can't do anything. The only thing they are allowed to do is protect themselves, if they should be lucky enough to come under fire, and even then, they aren't allowed to chase down the antagonists...

I picked up a hitch hiker once, stoned off his face. This guy was such a drop kick it was unbelieveable, doing a political sciences degree, one aspiration in life? To go work for the UN and help out with world peace...
When I asked him if the UN was effective, he said, no, they are underfunded.

I asked him how much of the money his Cannibis Oil cost him would go towards world peace...

Problem is the losers like him of yesteryear, are the ones holding the strings of power now. Through our government, the UN, whatever.

Justice for the sake of justice, not pecuniary gain is what is needed.
And if people happen to be butchering other people in plain view, and the peacekeepers can't do anything about it, because of UN regulations?

That my friend, is bullshit in the highest order.

[Hitcher]

Democratically elected and sovereign nations are entitled to some respect. And protection. Just because we may not agree with some of the things they do, should not give us carte blanche to invade and sort things out. If we have learned nothing else from history, that warning should be tatooed on our foreheads.

Otherwise the UN should have taken control of the US after that sham that saw George W Bush elected as president, largely on the whim of his brother, the Governor of Florida. And don't mention state-sanctioned executions...

[kickingzebra]

Can you imagine weedyboy in power though? two horse race maybe, but one of the horses was far less a candidate than the other.
The voting system, though strange (wonder what the rest of the world thinks of MMP) of the US, worked exactly as it was meant to in this case, and there aren't any strings to pull. It is a numbers game, pure and simple.

Personally I am not for the death penalty, and am quite interested in Restorative justice as a concept.

Soverign states, elected democracies, maybe, but who polices the police?
That is what the UN was intended to do!
It can't, it would need to be heavey handed for that to happen, but if it was to be heavy handed, it would breed a world dictator. Given the corruption they already suffer from, this is not what is needed...

The UN becoming word dictator will probably happen one day anyway...

It is the ultimate catch 22... At the moment, I am relatively satisfied the US is doing what it is doing with the interest of justice at heart, and the constitution garauntees against it happening willy nilly. If that changes all depends, if they get a whole bunch of left swinging Judges in the judiciary, they have shown they are more than happy to rewrite the law/see it in the light of whatever the heck they want to see it in.

Summary, we're all gonna die!! I just hope mine is old age, not psychotic governments.

[jonbuoy]

I was nearly going to ignore this pile of crap, but have had a change of heart.

Regarding the cost of the war versus the cost of oil -- some facts to back up such an assertion would be valued.

Regarding the "war". Iraq did not throw the first punch. A bunch of terrorists non-aligned to any nation state did. The other excuses for the "war" perpetrated by the US Government are a crock. In fact they are lies. You should read more.

As for the Naomi Klein diatribe in your last paragraph -- it's hard to see Starbucks or McDonald's dominating the world's political agenda. It's funny how the "bad" multinationals always get caned as the devil's spawn but the good ones never rate a mention. And not all multinationals are American. You should read more.

Iraq brought all this on on themsleves. And a 173 billion dollars of oil exploration would go a long way. Iraq had links to the terrorist group involved, and if they had let the UN inspectors go where they wanted to instead of continually dicking them around the UN would never have allowed the US to attack Iraq.

Maybe you should stop reading so many conspiracy tales.

[Hitcher]

Iraq brought all this on on themsleves. And a 173 billion dollars of oil exploration would go a long way. Iraq had links to the terrorist group involved, and if they had let the UN inspectors go where they wanted to instead of continually dicking them around the UN would never have allowed the US to attack Iraq.

Maybe you should stop reading so many conspiracy tales.
There is no proof whatsoever that the Saddam Hussein regime had any links to Al Qaeda. Like "WMD" this is a US lie.

We now know that even if Iraq had let the IAEA inspectors go where they wanted, they wouldn't have found any nuclear weapons or components thereof. Kind of shows a perverse sense of humour on Iraq's part!

And the UN did not "allow" the US to attack Iraq. The US and its axis partners decided to do it anyway.

I agree that $173 billion (I presume US$) would buy a lot of oil exploration. But why this amount? And there is no guarantee that this exploration investment would find any oil.

I still think you should read more.

[jonbuoy]

No need to go anywhere my old mate
Its KB, everyone has a opinion/arsehole, and thanks to the majesty of the internet, can freely express/expose it there for all to see.
Eat more pies my son, and become wise

Well said - and thankfully in this Pacific Paradise, under a western government we can say what we like when we like, about anyone, without fear of being dragged off in the middle of the night for a good kicking, or worse...........

[jonbuoy]

There is no proof whatsoever that the Saddam Hussein regime had any links to Al Qaeda. Like "WMD" this is a US lie.

We now know that even if Iraq had let the IAEA inspectors go where they wanted, they wouldn't have found any nuclear weapons or components thereof. Kind of shows a perverse sense of humour on Iraq's part!

And the UN did not "allow" the US to attack Iraq. The US and its axis partners decided to do it anyway.

I agree that $173 billion (I presume US$) would buy a lot of oil exploration. But why this amount? And there is no guarantee that this exploration investment would find any oil.

I still think you should read more.


173 Billion US is the estimated cost of the war so far - I'm surprised you haven't READ that already. Axis partners?? Partners that are prepared to risk their people, political and financial arses and careers so that we can all sit here and wank on about stuff we know nothing about. What would have happened if the Allied forces had made a preemptive strike against Hitler and Germany while they were still building up their war machine? Long before we all made a stand on Poland? You can't wait for that to happen when dealing with Nukes and other WOMD. Thats my view..

[Ixion]

,, What would have happened if the Allied forces had made a preemptive strike against Hitler and Germany while they were still building up their war machine? Long before we all made a stand on Poland? ,,.

The French did. Didn't help much. "Allied forces" could not, because they were not "allied" until after Poland .

[Hitcher]

173 Billion US is the estimated cost of the war so far - I'm surprised you haven't READ that already. Axis partners?? Partners that are prepared to risk their people, political and financial arses and careers so that we can all sit here and wank on about stuff we know nothing about. What would have happened if the Allied forces had made a preemptive strike against Hitler and Germany while they were still building up their war machine? Long before we all made a stand on Poland? You can't wait for that to happen when dealing with Nukes and other WOMD. Thats my view..
I agree with you about starting WWII earlier. But there is a world of difference between vassilating when confronted by a clear and present danger. But making shit up just to oust a regime that your daddy couldn't whip and to secure oil revenues is a completely different proposition.

I thought that the cost of the Iraq fiasco (it can't be defined as a war) would be better counted in death and human misery than dollars. But I suppose we're not allowed to talk about that.

[Ixion]

Mr Hitcher, Mr Hitcher , I am sad to see such a fall from grace. Don't vacillate , edit your egregious error ere others see it.

[Bet I make some stupid spelling mistake in this]

[Biff]

No I am simply reffering to the chats I have had with our soldiers who have served as peace keepers, who say effectively, they can't do anything. The only thing they are allowed to do is protect themselves, if they should be lucky enough to come under fire, and even then, they aren't allowed to chase down the antagonists...

Ahhh - ok. Now I see where your coming from. Soldiers obeying the UN charter. The attached PPT presentation may help you understand the UN's position with regards to rules of engagement. I've removed some of the slides and images in order to keep the file size down.

Bascially UN soldiers, unlike NATO or the armed forces of a sovereign state, are only a peace-keeping force. They are not allowed, by law, to open fire or chase down any enemy combatant unless their own safety, or the safety of their charges are at risk.


Iraq had links to the terrorist group involved, .
Simply not true. There snot a shread of evidence to support this claim. The initial claim to this effect was made by the Pentagon, pre war, that Saddam sanctioned the use of Iraqi soil for terrorist training was later watered down to something in the order of, "well, there were a couple of guys in Baghdad that once attended a terrorist camp."

No conspiracy theory, simply fact. Nice n solid one as well. Unless, that is, you know something the British and even the American govts now openly claim to be bullshit. Sorry - I mean a failure in intelligence.

[kickingzebra]

But if they can't respond to acts not conducive to peace, are they then rightly called peace keepers? more like violence observers I would have thought?!

Oh, and how does one quote more than one post in a reply?

[Biff]

Armed protection?


Oh, and how does one quote more than one post in a reply?

I open two or more screens (CTRL N) and cut n paste.

[kickingzebra]

Thanks for that!

Diplomatic protection squad, financed by the UN? I should be so lucky!!
Would have thought it cheap enough to buy a few monkeys, train them in the usage of firearms, and biting, then walk around like a king...

You see what I am getting at, the whole peace keeping thing is wearing thin, because there is no peace to be kept, and violations of the peace aren't allowed to be acted upon. Seems crazy to me!!

[Biff]

because there is no peace to be kept, and violations of the peace aren't allowed to be acted upon. Seems crazy to me!!

???
Kosovo, Congo, Ivory Coast etc etc. These places are heavily fortified with UN peacekeepers, and their presence has probably saved tens of thousands of lives. Seems logical to me.

[kickingzebra]

Ok, I hadn't accounted on the presence preventing violence aspect.

But what about those incidences, where they are present, and violence goes right ahead under their noses?
Isn't consequence only taken seriously when it actually has tangible results?
(not team america style nasty letters?)

[Hitcher]

Mr Hitcher, Mr Hitcher , I am sad to see such a fall from grace. Don't vacillate , edit your egregious error ere others see it.

[Bet I make some stupid spelling mistake in this]
I was talking about George W Bush. I bet he vassilates...