While many on this site are fond of accusing America of war mongering and calling Bush an idiot for considering a strike against Iran, a new poll shows a majority of Europeans favor it!

Over half of Europeans would support a preemptive military strike to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a poll released last week by a London think-tank reports.

In response to the statement, "We must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action", 52 percent of Europeans agreed, 40 percent disagreed and 8 percent stated they were undecided.

Support for the military option varied widely, with Danes giving the greatest support at 68 percent and Slovaks the least at 37 percent. Support for military action amongst the great powers was closely divided; France 53 percent, Britain 51 percent, Italy 49 percent, and Germany 45 percent. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879271095&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

While many on this site are fond of accusing America of war mongering and calling Bush an idiot for considering a strike against Iran, a new poll shows a majority of Europeans favor it!I thought all you tighty righties despised Europeans. NOW you love them because of a questionable rightist link?? FLIP FLOPPER!!!!!

:p Riiight. We know the zionists are telling the truth!
FACT: Israel is wildly unpopular in Europe.
FICTION: Israel is swaying Euro opinion in it's war on Islam!!!:rolleyes:

Who cares what the Europeans think, whether they agree with us or not.

~String

I thought all you tighty righties despised Europeans. NOW you love them because of a questionable rightist link?? FLIP FLOPPER!!!!!

We only don't like the french .

Who cares what the Europeans think, whether they agree with us or not.

~StringEXACTLY what all the rightwingnuts have screeched since 9/11. But if the Jerusalem POST says it's true it's good enough for some righties!!!!:rolleyes:
I care more about what Euros think than the zionists dragging my government behind it as a personal bodyguard/welfare provider.
%@#* the Jerusalem Post!

We only don't like the french .Even if they, according to the Zionist Post, support the Bush Wars on Islam?:eek:
And who is "we?" The minority far right population of the US? I LOVE the French, even though they have a Conservative leader. They have what's called a Democracy. The people were opposed to the Bush War and so their government didn't sink in the swamp of civil war based on LIES! What a bloody concept eh?!

Even if they, according to the Zionist Post, support the Bush Wars on Islam?:eek:
And who is "we?" The minority far right population of the US?

Genj, you shouldn't believe every link or poll you read either.

I LOVE the French, even though they have a Conservative leader. They have what's called a Democracy.

They've never been the same since Napoleon , that's for sure.

Genj, you shouldn't believe every link or poll you read either.Precisely why I don't buy zionist press about Europe. No one is further removed from reality than rightwingnuts and zionists.

I LOVE the French, even though they have a Conservative leader.

I love Alizee.
http://www.saber.net/~z31/alizeeanimava54bf.gif

http://www.saber.net/~z31/alizee.gif

They've never been the same since Napoleon , that's for sure.Has anyone been the same since the Age of Napoleon?
I know US boasting of supremacy and power hasn't been the same since Vietnam, America's Waterloo. We haven't won a war since WW2.

We haven't won a war since WW2.

Who is we?

So hard to see you go:)

Take care of yourself, dont take any wooden knickels and dont eat yellow snow.

I love Alizee.
http://www.saber.net/~z31/alizeeanimava54bf.gif

http://www.saber.net/~z31/alizee.gif

She is freakin' hot!

Who is we?

So hard to see you go:)

Take care of yourself, dont take any wooden knickels and dont eat yellow snow."We" being the US of A. Korea: Standoff
Vietnam: DEFEAT
Gulf War? :rolleyes: The Emirs get their emirate back. Is that victory while they partied in St. Tropez as WE restored the Islamic emirs to power? Not a Victory.
Where does the arrogance come from?:p
I'll miss it here too. Thank You John.

She is freakin' hot!Does the Jerusalem Post say she's hot??:confused:

She is freakin' hot!

That may very well be the only time I've ever agreed with you about anything.

Over half of Europeans would support a preemptive military strike to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a poll released last week by a London think-tank reports.

In response to the statement, "We must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action", 52 percent of Europeans agreed, 40 percent disagreed and 8 percent stated they were undecided.
Perhaps they should have mentioned the small matter of a pre-emptive strike in the question if they wanted to draw that conclusion from the responses?

note that it says countries LIKE iran. not iran itself. for all you know countries LIKE iran includes the other major religious theocracy - america.

Heh. Nice.

That may very well be the only time I've ever agreed with you about anything.
Well, I liked the movie, Repo Man. I assume you're also a fan.

More pix of Alizee please. :)

the premise of this post is flawed beyond anything i can describe.
i mean...i LIVE here, and i constantly have to explain to people why the usa attacked iraq. i dont give the bullshit party line, i tell the truth.

in other words, just because you read it....that doesnt make it true.
pure propoganda by the right to drum up support for bushwar 3.
as if saying "europeans think its ok," lends violence some credibility? these people are just as clueless as americans! again...i live here, and i am american. i am qualified to make the comparison.

While many on this site are fond of accusing America of war mongering and calling Bush an idiot for considering a strike against Iran, a new poll shows a majority of Europeans favor it!

Yet another eye popping article from the Jerusalem Post!:p

It's kind of nice though for the USA. They can just sit back and relax. Europe will take care of the Iran problem by military means allegedly.

Who cares what the Europeans think, whether they agree with us or not.
No you got that all wrong, you're only suppossed to care if they agree with you, otherwise you dont care........

I find it funny that the necons are dribbling at the mouth over the prospect of bombing Iran, then wonder why Iran wants weapons.....

I find it funny that the necons are dribbling at the mouth over the prospect of bombing Iran, then wonder why Iran wants weapons.....

The Iranians live to serve the vengeance of the American people by wanting nuclear weapons. Iranians are so thoughtful and considerate.

Naa, its not the common Europeans man, I am sure it the manufacturer's of WMD there.

Perhaps they should have mentioned the small matter of a pre-emptive strike in the question if they wanted to draw that conclusion from the responses?

Exactly. Furthermore, we have no proof that Iran has or is in the process of constructing a nuclear weapon.

While many on this site are fond of accusing America of war mongering and calling Bush an idiot for considering a strike against Iran, a new poll shows a majority of Europeans favor it!

What a joke!

Most Europeans definately do not favour any such action. Some American-funded right-wing think tank notwithstanding.

In Europe only the arrogant Blair is unconditionally supporting American and Israeli foreign policy. Thankfully for the British he will soon be stepping down.

Guys: the poll is the poll. If there's reason to think that Europeans wouldn't support military action in Iran, then it should be easy to find one that says so.

On another issue: can no one now accept any poll on the site? Then they shouldn't be presented here by anyone. Or is it merely any poll taken by Israelis that must not be accepted? I seem to recall one poster above who proudly presented a poll on attitudes towards US occupation in Iraq, who then deflated when the poll didn't quite say what she thought it said. Is it really necessary to be hypocritical about this? If you don't like the poll, find another one that disagrees with it. I don't have proof that Iran is building nukes, but there is no one that can deny they have a poor record indeed of dealing with UN regulations on same, besides outright lying and the possession of illegal documents on building nuclear weapons "accidentally" (:rolleyes:)acquired from Pakistan. It stands to reason - for the reasonable, at least - that they and their despotic little leader have a great interest in doing so, if only for reasons of...geographic revisionism, shall we say? Or possibly just defense. But a regime that executes teenagers for being raped by their uncles, led by a man from a islamic revelationist cult actually banned by the Ayatollah Khomeni does not strike me as too rational, or too grounded, or too safe.

My objection isn't that the poll is unreliable, which it may well be, but that it doesn't support the notion madwayne thinks it does. Supporting military action as an option is not the same thing as supporting a pre-emptive strike on Iran at the present time to prevent them from building a nuke.

In response to the statement, "We must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action", 52 percent of Europeans agreed, 40 percent disagreed and 8 percent stated they were undecided.


that makes it a pretty split opinion. the title "majority back military strike" is misleading. there was another poll taken when the 15 UK sailors were still in Iran, and only about 40% thought that a military strike should be considered if the sailors aren't released.

a strike on Iran can have unimaginable horrible implications. the world lived under a Soviet nuclear threat for decades, and things ended up being solved peacefully even though the threat was more imminent. i am sure something similar can be achieved with Iran. there is no need to go to war, even if the target is a fanatical regime such as the Iranian theocracy.

boycotting Iranian oil exports is a much better idea, IMO. and that too should be done carefully and incrementally, since such a measure will have real and devastating effects.

Netanyahu has an interesting plan which is far better than a military assault

http://blogcentral.jpost.com/view.php?cat_id=6&blog_id=50&blog_post_id=972

boycotting Iranian oil exports is a much better idea, IMO.
How would you get China to agree to such a boycott?

But a regime that executes teenagers for being raped by their uncles, led by a man from a islamic revelationist cult actually banned by the Ayatollah Khomeni does not strike me as too rational, or too grounded, or too safe.

can't you say the same thing about the USA but with different words?

How would you get China to agree to such a boycott?

hmm interesting question. i think there are ways. bribing them with reduced tarriffs on their goods, emphasizing to them that a nuclear Iran is against everyone interest, including theirs, etc.
the tarriffs thing will hurt the US's economy a bit, but look at it this way: it's better than bombing Iran which will require taxing the private sectior and then spending that tax cash on bombs, not to mention the loss of lives

but even if China is not convinced, they won't step in to buy all the oil that other countries would have otherwise been buying. it's just too expensive, and it'll hurt their relationship with other oil suppliers if they stop buying from them and switch to buying exclusively or mostly from Iran. if they do step in, then Iran will have to be making bulk discounts which will still hurt them too (tho not as much). it will also not stop Iran's isolation. they'll become another North Korea -- nobody's friend except China's. isolated, feared, and bankrupt, with a starving population and angry youth who happen to be the biggest group and might just cause Revolution 2.0

China wouldnt have to switch to buying Iran oil, they already are. You would have to convince them to stop.

Fuckin polls can get fuckin twisted to say any fuckin thing you want em to fucking say!!

Since when is it Americas business to authorize nuclear programs in sovereign nations?

More pix of Alizee please. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqySOwqRumw

My objection isn't that the poll is unreliable, which it may well be, but that it doesn't support the notion madwayne thinks it does. Supporting military action as an option is not the same thing as supporting a pre-emptive strike on Iran at the present time to prevent them from building a nuke.

I suppose. But what else would it mean? Sailing ships around the Gulf? The opinion wasn't solidly one way or another, though.

can't you say the same thing about the USA but with different words?

"Executed for being raped by their uncles"? No. "Fanatical theist"? Mmmm...still no. Bush claims God "speaks" to him, but it's not clear if it's allegorical or what. Ahmendinejidad, who is basically a gnome run by the Ayatollah (the successor to another Ayatollah who explictly connected his religion with the perogative to war with his "they are fools" speech) is not really a fair comparison to Bush, however much one doesn't like Bush - and, to the extent I care about him, I dislike him. But not enough to say he's Hilter or the Ayatollah or Pol Pot. Is he collaborative with fascists? Possibly - Pinochet, for example; and I'm innately distrustful of Republicans and/or their upper echelon elements. But I have to be credible about these things. Is Bush a theist git? Probably. But as bad as the Iranian leadership? No. Plus: he can be unelected. The Ayatollah and the rest - can't.

Ahmendinejidad, who is basically a gnome run by the Ayatollah - -- - Is Bush a theist git? Probably. But as bad as the Iranian leadership? No. Plus: he can be unelected. The Ayatollah and the rest - can't. So what is being said there? That Ahmadinejad is not part of the Iranian leadership? Because he can be unelected -a lot more easily than our theist gits, if the struggles of the past two US elections are any clue.

The general tone of things coming out of Iran seems to indicate that Ahmadinejad has never been all that favored by certain important mullahs, and has made himself actually undesireable lately among them as well as regular Iranians - so much so that his party and associates are doing very poorly in the local elections where mullah influence is strong, as well as in the more sophisticated urban areas. The commentators seem to agree that the only reason he won last time around was grassroots reaction to American posturing and threats - Iranians remember the Iran/Iraq war, and what can happen in the wake of American threats. They circled the wagons and backed the rightwinger. But the voters have lost tolerance. He's gone, next election, unless the US does something stupid, these analysts say.

"Executed for being raped by their uncles"?

what about:
teenager executed - yes.
mentally retarded executed - yes.





No. "Fanatical theist"? Mmmm...still no. Bush claims God "speaks" to him, but it's not clear if it's allegorical or what. Ahmendinejidad, who is basically a gnome run by the Ayatollah (the successor to another Ayatollah who explictly connected his religion with the perogative to war with his "they are fools" speech) is not really a fair comparison to Bush, however much one doesn't like Bush - and, to the extent I care about him, I dislike him. But not enough to say he's Hilter or the Ayatollah or Pol Pot. Is he collaborative with fascists? Possibly - Pinochet, for example; and I'm innately distrustful of Republicans and/or their upper echelon elements. But I have to be credible about these things. Is Bush a theist git? Probably. But as bad as the Iranian leadership? No. Plus: he can be unelected. The Ayatollah and the rest - can't.

If you read a speech by Ahmendinejidad he comes across as being reasonable and smart. Not a fanatic. If I read a speech by Bush I shit my pants because I am under the impression that WW3 will commence any second now.

To me, a European Atheist, there is not much difference between the two men, besides Ahmendinejidad being more likable and human.

what about:
teenager executed - yes.
mentally retarded executed - yes.

Did the teenager or the allegedly mentally retarded person commit murder? If yes, then execute them.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court agrees with you on the issue of mental retardation. So we now have a monster in Indiana who has lived his whole life on his own, held normal jobs, etc. Now that he's been convicted of kidnapping, raping, and then burying a little girl alive; he's decided that he's retarded. He took a test!

Here's the situation, take this IQ test. If you do well, we'll kill you. Big surprise, his IQ now measures retarded!!!!

He didn't seem retarded when he was planning his crime or attempting to hide the evidence.

There is no comparison between executing a rape victim and executing a bastard who raped and murdered a little girl in the most horrific manner imaginable.

That you draw such a comparison is despicable.

Did the teenager or the allegedly mentally retarded person commit murder? If yes, then execute them.


And you have no clue apparently how uncivilized you sound right now. You are truly a fine Iranian.

I love Alizee.
http://www.saber.net/~z31/alizeeanimava54bf.gif

http://www.saber.net/~z31/alizee.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceSxEjwXHcM

Worst dancer ever.

And you have no clue apparently how uncivilized you sound right now. You are truly a fine Iranian.
There was a case, I think in England, where two young teenagers lured a two year old away from its mother and beat it to death. It was caught on a survelence camera. They did this for no reason whatsoever. Just pure evil.

Where does a teenager go from beating to death a toddler for no reason whatsoever? You think such a monster can be rehabilitated? There's no point in keeping them alive.

If they're this evil at 14, what will they be at 30?

I suppose. But what else would it mean? Sailing ships around the Gulf? The opinion wasn't solidly one way or another, though.

I think it depends on having solid intelligence about a nuke being built, not just speculation that they desire one.

I think it depends on having solid intelligence about a nuke being built, not just speculation that they desire one.

I agree, but Iran also has to stop fooling about with the inspection teams. They were in possession of documents on the construction of nuclear weapons. The old rule about walking, quacking ducks comes to mind. I don't have any desire to go to war with Iran; at what point, though, do the posters here feel military intervention is justified? Is it ever?

what about:
teenager executed - yes.
mentally retarded executed - yes.

The difference being that the girl was executed for what others had done to her, not what she had (allegedly in the above cases) done to others. There isn't really a comparison to the way that women's rights are suppressed under official religious law there. Bush might scare you, but the claims, governance and background of Ahmendinejidad are worse.

at what point, though, do the posters here feel military intervention is justified? One criterion for that point might be: at that point, anyone's military intervention is justified and welcome. China's, Russia's, anyone's.

That would be a necessary, not sufficient, criterion.

True. But I don't think China has the capacity to get there, and Russia's probably disinterested. In the cacophony of nations with various economic interests - the geography of external diplomacy to the region looking like a Persian remake of "Cannonball Run" - I have no idea who to trust or what to believe.

I think as long as the US is holding the world hostage, every country should have a nuclear weapon.

The question was not specific to this situation, and the criterion is abstract: not whether China can get there, but whether we would welcome their military intervention - welcome a Chinese invasion and occupation of Iran - if it were a looming possibility.

And if not, recognize that that unwillingness probably invalidates our own justification.

The question was not specific to this situation, and the criterion is abstract: not whether China can get there, but whether we would welcome their military intervention - welcome a Chinese invasion and occupation of Iran - if it were a looming possibility.

And if not, recognize that that unwillingness probably invalidates our own justification.

I would prefer the Chinese to the Americans.

I would prefer the Chinese to the Americans.Me Too.

Although he and I have our political disagreements, I have to paraphrase Baron Max here:

Who cares about a stupid poll? It only speaks for a SMALL population! Polls mean NOTHING!

Although he and I have our political disagreements, I have to paraphrase Baron Max here:

Who cares about a stupid poll? It only speaks for a SMALL population! Polls mean NOTHING!
Sure, sure. But it's still interesting. Judging by the opinion of Europeans around here (and I don't meet many other Europeans), I'd have put support for invading Iran at less than one percent. So even if the poll wasn't perfect, the results are still surprising and interesting, IMO.

Sure, sure. But it's still interesting. Judging by the opinion of Europeans around here (and I don't meet many other Europeans), I'd have put support for invading Iran at less than one percent. So even if the poll wasn't perfect, the results are still surprising and interesting, IMO.

Invading Iran?

Who said anything about invading Iran? Wasn't the poll about a military strike? Some missile strikes against their nuclear plants?

Americans are insane.

Americans are insane.

All problems can be resolved by invasion and mass murder, doncha know?:rolleyes:

All problems can be resolved by invasion and mass murder, doncha know?:rolleyes:

Murder implies intent.

Murder implies intent.

Sure does.

What do 10-12 military installations and the biggest US embassy in the ME imply?:rolleyes:

Sure does.

What do 10-12 military installations and the biggest US embassy in the ME imply?:rolleyes:

We keep our friends close and our enemies closer?
We protect our assets?

We keep our friends close and our enemies closer?
We protect our assets?

Is that what you call supporting Saudi Arabia and fighting Saudi supported al-Qaeda, supporting al-Maliki and fighting Shia supported Iran?

Are you sure you know your ass from your nose?

Or are the two too close to tell the difference?;)

So which is it Sam, inept and bumbling, or murderous and scheming?

So which is it Sam, inept and bumbling, or murderous and scheming?

Both of course, only an ass keeps shooting himself in the foot with his own gun, shrieks and moans about the pain and then deliberately shoots himself in the foot again. Probably figures its the only way he can get around actually doing something constructive, since everyone is so busy looking at the foot no one looks to check who did the shooting.

I would prefer the Chinese to the Americans.

I can't believe you said that. I now Bush is making america unpopular. But to be rooting for China what's next. Aren't your countries constant bitching on a piece of land east from Nepal their not that friendly you know and if you think america is imperial then I suggest you read some of the chinese recent history.

I can't believe you said that. I now Bush is making america unpopular. But to be rooting for China what's next. Aren't your countries constant bitching on a piece of land east from Nepal their not that friendly you know and if you think america is imperial then I suggest you read some of the chinese recent history.

To control Iran the Chinese are a better option, they've done it before. Where do you think the Mongols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol) came from?:)

Mongolia.

Both of course, only an ass keeps shooting himself in the foot with his own gun, shrieks and moans about the pain and then deliberately shoots himself in the foot again. Probably figures its the only way he can get around actually doing something constructive, since everyone is so busy looking at the foot no one looks to check who did the shooting.

Seems there's no place in your analogy for murder.

Seems there's no place in your analogy for murder.

You forget, the US doesn't do body counts, dead nonAmerican people don't exist.

You forget, the US doesn't do body counts, dead nonAmerican people don't exist.

Culpability, sam. Where is it?

Culpability, sam. Where is it?

I think "we don't do body counts" pretty much covers it.

Besides the war was fought on false grounds, deliberately misleading people as to the real causes.

Only Americans cannot see culpability. Not in the support for Saddam and providing him with the weapons, not in invading and destabilising a country they know nothing about, not in sending in barely trained morons who shoot first and ask questions later.

And still have the time to build military installations and an embassy with a swimming pool. The priorities are clear.

Accidental deaths aren't mass murder.
Sorry America is America's number one priority. Maybe you could apply for citizenship?

Accidental deaths aren't mass murder.
Sorry America is America's number one priority. Maybe you could apply for citizenship?

No one says America should not be Americas number one priority.

But mass murder for oil? Its a war crime, not an accident.

And if they've given up all pretense of humanity, then they should be prepared to take the consequences. Like Saddam.

Mongolia.

Mongolia got its independence in 1921. From China.:)

Besides the Chinese foreign policy does not involve death squads or dictators.

And they actually support (http://www.cfr.org/publication/12582/broadman.html) the infrastructure of the countries they do business with.

Unlike Americans who only spread conflict and starvation (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/index-dae.html) in the name of democracy. Results are more important than rhetoric.

No one says America should not be Americas number one priority.

But mass murder for oil? Its a war crime, not an accident.

And if they've given up all pretense of humanity, then they should be prepared to take the consequences. Like Saddam.

If we've given up "all pretense of humanity", why aren't we reducing Iraqi towns to a fine ash? Why are there only a handful of massacres (even if the # of massacres are underreported by a factor of 100, that's hardly any, is it)?

Where are the extermination camps? Mass graves for the towns executed at gun point?

Mongolia got its independence in 1921. From China.

The Mongols were from the central steppe, a region that has had its own cultural, language, and ethnicity for thousands of years.

Mongols != Chinese, ever. Sorry sam.

The Mongols were from the central steppe, a region that has had its own cultural, language, and ethnicity for thousands of years.

Mongols != Chinese, ever. Sorry sam.

China is a country of many ethnicities. Besides Genghis Khan was pretty prolific.:)

Apparently a lot of people can trace him in their ancestry.

China is a country of many ethnicities. Besides Genghis Khan was pretty prolific.:)

Apparently a lot of people can trace him in their ancestry.

The Mongols were not, and are not, Chinese. Read a history book.

If we've given up "all pretense of humanity", why aren't we reducing Iraqi towns to a fine ash? Why are there only a handful of massacres (even if the # of massacres are underreported by a factor of 100, that's hardly any, is it)?

Where are the extermination camps? Mass graves for the towns executed at gun point?

I think 600,000 people dead is a massacre, 2 million displaced is an atrocity.

And America has stopped pretending its humanitarianism only since a short while, they are pretty obvious about their hegemonistic ambitions now. You want to see the ME reduced to glass? Wait a while, you're getting there.

I think 600,000 people dead is a massacre

Unfortunately it was unintentional.

The Mongols were not, and are not, Chinese. Read a history book.

The Mongols are not Hans, the major ethnic group in China. They are however most certainly a part of China before 1921; currently they are also a part of Pakistan Afghanistan and Russia.

Unfortunately it was unintentional.

See the increase in deaths since "Mission Accomplished" (code for petroeuros to petrodollars).

Instability is key to military installations and a sustained US presence in Iraq.

Results are more important than rhetoric.

No. Rhetoric sets the standard for results. If the rhetoric is already bad, as it is from some leaders (Ahmendinejidad, for instance), then one should correspondingly expect worse.

Results are more important than rhetoric

Considering oil prices and body count both the US and Iraq are loosing.
No China is yust as bad as the US they and India are standard against a Iran attac because it would disrupt the oil flow that goes generaly through Iran. So it doesn't really matter what your reasons are and what exactly your countries role is in it fighting in that region is always going to be influenced by oil. BTW China's realy not a nice country remember Tibet and the trouble their giving taiwan?

Considering oil prices and body count both the US and Iraq are loosing.
No China is yust as bad as the US they and India are standard against a Iran attac because it would disrupt the oil flow that goes generaly through Iran. So it doesn't really matter what your reasons are and what exactly your countries role is in it fighting in that region is always going to be influenced by oil. BTW China's realy not a nice country remember Tibet and the trouble their giving taiwan?

Like I said results are more important than rhetoric.

The Chinese had oil contracts in the ME, not democratic liberations through unknown body counts.

The Mongols are not Hans, the major ethnic group in China. They are however most certainly a part of China before 1921; currently they are also a part of Pakistan Afghanistan and Russia.

Your example of the 13th century Mongolian empire was most certainly not a Chinese one. Your assumption that the modern People's Republic of China would behave in the same manner is unwarranted.

The Mongolians had a terrific history of tolerance for thier conquered people, that is, if the conquered didn't resist. If America was instiuting anywhere near the level of violence and total war that the Mongols employed, you would truly get to witness the meaning of the word 'atrocity'.

Your example of the 13th century Mongolian empire was most certainly not a Chinese one. Your assumption that the modern People's Republic of China would behave in the same manner is unwarranted.

The Mongolians had a terrific history of tolerance for thier conquered people, that is, if the conquered didn't resist. If America was instiuting anywhere near the level of violence and total war that the Mongols employed, you would truly get to witness the meaning of the word 'atrocity'.

Like I said, results are more important than rhetoric.

The results of Chinas foreign policy far outweigh the disaster of US foreign policy.

Like I said, results are more important than rhetoric.

So America should slaughter every man, woman and child of a resisting town?

I hear that blood ran ankle deep in the gutters and grease poured like streams from the funeral pyres, after the Mongolians were done with a city.

The results of Chinas foreign policy far outweigh the disaster of US foreign policy.

Like Tibet?

As a backwards, overpopulated, communist nation for most of the 20th century, China's had to first over come the hurdle of its disaster of domestic policy before it can move on to the world stage.

So America should slaughter every man, woman and child of a resisting town?

I hear that blood ran ankle deep in the gutters and grease poured like streams from the funeral pyres, after the Mongolians were done with a city.

The Europeans were not knitting booties. And Americans established their country by killing every man woman and child. They can hardly get on a high horse with the Chinese past.

Like Tibet?

I'm not enamoured of the Dalai Lama's atrocities.

I'm not enamoured of the Dalai Lama's atrocities.

You mean like the time he invaded China and tasered all their peaceful communist bureaucrats in the mouth until their teeth fell out and they stopped complaining about not being able to practice their peaceful form of government?

http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2003/08-14-dalai-lama.jpg
how can you not be?

the fact is that China is more then any other country busy with anexing territory in the last 50 years. And I believe that makes them yust a tad wors then the US

the fact is that China is more then any other country busy with anexing territory in the last 50 years. And I believe that makes them yust a tad wors then the US

Then you wont mind telling me how many military bases the US has worldwide?

And how many US nuclear weapons worldwide? You forget, the US does not need land right now for its population, it already got enough by getting rid of the original inhabitants. If it needs more in the future, do you think a detail like other people will get in the way? Just see how it deals with a scarce resource like oil.

Because military bases = annexation:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Then you wont mind telling me how many military bases the US has worldwide?

And how many nuclear weapons worldwide?

I'm not sure but It's a public secret that the US has nukes in belgium and offcourse many other countries. I never said that the US keeps to it's own.

Did you catch the eye roll?
Here it is again, in case you missed it:
:rolleyes:

Again:
:rolleyes:

A couple more times:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm not enamoured of the Dalai Lama's atrocities.

The what? Are you having a breakdown?

Anyway, as I said before, rhetoric clearly sets the tone for results. But if you're so far gone as the above, well, I suppose I'm done.

Best,

Geoff

The what? Are you having a breakdown?

Anyway, as I said before, rhetoric clearly sets the tone for results. But if you're so far gone as the above, well, I suppose I'm done.

Best,

Geoff

Westerners are so enmeshed in their fantasies.

Yes, fantasies about the Dalai Lama's evilness.

Good day.

Geoff

Yes, fantasies about the Dalai Lama's evilness.

Good day.

Geoff

I see no reason to support a man who uses his fame to garner cash for his lifestyle while opposing any progress for his people, a homophobe who "shoots hawks because he misses sex" and who supports his cash cows by supporting their wars.

Basically a man who uses his "divine incarnation" to fleece silly Westerners.

Because military bases = annexation:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No it equals control. Would you like an Iranian military base in Washington? Or an Iraqi one? How about a Chinese or Russian base?

The US has 702 military installations in 132 countries. It possesses 8000 active and operational nuclear warheads. For what purpose?

The US has 702 military installations in 132 countries. It possesses 8000 active and operational nuclear warheads. For what purpose?

Simple, the purpose is to attack when the moment comes

No it equals control. Would you like an Iranian military base in Washington? Or an Iraqi one? How about a Chinese or Russian base?

The US has 702 military installations in 132 countries. It possesses 8000 active and operational nuclear warheads. For what purpose?

Control.
The nice sort of control the Mongolians used.

Control.
The nice sort of control the Mongolians used.

Yes, they are on a military footing and cause other countries to maintain or establish weapons as a consequence. And then cry for mummy.

The only one crying here is you.

"Boo hoo, dead Iraqis, boo hoo!"

Whatever.

The only one crying here is you.

"Boo hoo, dead Iraqis, boo hoo!"

Whatever.

Of course, since the Iraqi dead don't officially exist.

I hear Saddam had WMDs and was going to attack the US.

Now watch Americans crap their pants and vote overwhelmingly for a war.

Oh wait, its Iran now.

Dry your eyes sam, and thank your god that we haven't decided to go after India yet.

Dry your eyes sam, and thank your god that we haven't decided to go after India yet.

Don't be silly, that would mean Americans would actually have to do the work they outsource. :cool:

Touché.

I see no reason to support a man who uses his fame to garner cash for his lifestyle while opposing any progress for his people, a homophobe who "shoots hawks because he misses sex" and who supports his cash cows by supporting their wars.

Basically a man who uses his "divine incarnation" to fleece silly Westerners.

So...you're criticizing...the Dalai Lama. An actual refugee from invasion, who's had his country cut out from under him. But not the Ayatollah - Khomeini or the equally thick successor. Not the president of al-Ahzar. Not Arafat. Not Mohammed.

Like I say: I think my point is made. Don't hypocrites suffer the worst punishment in islam? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Geoff

I see no reason to support a man who uses his fame to garner cash for his lifestyle while opposing any progress for his people, a homophobe who "shoots hawks because he misses sex" and who supports his cash cows by supporting their wars.

Basically a man who uses his "divine incarnation" to fleece silly Westerners.

What the hell are you talking about?

Of course, since the Iraqi dead don't officially exist.

I hear Saddam had WMDs and was going to attack the US.

Now watch Americans crap their pants and vote overwhelmingly for a war.

Oh wait, its Iran now.

we're watchin you, lithuania!!!