Iran seizes 15 British troops in Persian Gulf

Baron Max said:
Your's is all about revenge, isn't it, Sam? You don't care about the present or what to do about it, you only care about placing the blame, preferably on the US, then exacting your idea of revenge.

Seems pretty typcial of Muslims of the world today, wouldn't you say?

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

See? That little saying is true, ain't it? :D

Baron Max
Click to expand...

This from a country that destroyed two countries looking for one man and an imaginary weapon.
 
samcdkey said:
This from a country that destroyed two countries looking for one man and an imaginary weapon.
Click to expand...

See? You're all about revenge for past mistakes or errors. You have virtually nothing to add to the present situations of the world ...you pass judgement, yet present no solutions.

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
See? You're all about revenge for past mistakes or errors. You have virtually nothing to add to the present situations of the world ...you pass judgement, yet present no solutions.

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max
Click to expand...

With power comes responsibility. The US has no sense of responsibility. Its like a paranoid schizophrenic with a Kalashnikov.
 
Iran looks like it wants the west to attack it. I presume so it can play the victim card again.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003636140_iran26.html

Iran says sailors could face spy charge

By Tom Hundley

Chicago Tribune

LONDON — Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines three days ago appeared to be spiraling toward a full-blown diplomatic crisis Sunday after Iranians signaled that the captives could be tried for espionage.
Click to expand...
 
Mr. G said:
Where's the Guantanamo-like outrage over Geneva Convention violations?

The same place intellectual integrity has got off to.
Click to expand...

Yeah, too bad we don't have the moral high ground on that anymore. Claiming Geneva Convention rights now would seem the epitome of hypocracy.
 
samcdkey said:
Meaning that the US lives in a fanciful world where other countries exist merely as resources to be exploited. They've never been invaded or occupied by a foreign power so understanding the basics of oppression is beyond them.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you're forgetting their Revolution and 1812 and all, but be that as it may.

The major problem with the US troops is their complete indifference to the Iraqis and their problems.
Click to expand...

Is it indifference? Why are they there then? Because they like to be shot at? Sam, if you honestly believe they all don't give a rat's, you're fooling yourself. There are some that do and some that don't - but being that they're there, there will be more support for their stated mission (rebuild Iraq, fight terrorist bad guys who blow up civilians and sech) than you'll find in the average coffee-drinker in my department.

Depends on which side of the fence you are.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it made that much difference to the people of Iraq. They do indeed hate Americans, but they didn't want Saddam either. Is the alternative going to be worse? Oh, probably. But again: these are decisions that the terrorists in Iraq are making themselves.

I would rather the world put pressure on the Americans to disarm. Its the one country in the world that has absolutely no value for life if they are not American and are greedy and selfish enough to wipe out a country for profit.
Click to expand...

No, Sam. There's a long list of countries that have no value for the lives of non-citizens, and which are greedy enough to do exactly as you say: almost 193 of them, in fact.

This is to say that nations are much the same in their international policies, with a few exceptions. The other side of this coin is the practices of said nations domestically, which is to say how they behave to their own citizens, their minorities. In this light I can think of a few nations bad enough internationally, and needlessly vicious to their own people. It would be far better if the nations of the world abandoned state religious outlooks and simply came around to humanitarian secularism. That of course is not going to happen; now or ever.
 
samcdkey said:
With power comes responsibility. The US has no sense of responsibility. Its like a paranoid schizophrenic with a Kalashnikov.
Click to expand...

Could you show me a country that is more responsible? Who would _you_ like the Super Power to be?
 
GeoffP said:
Well, I think you're forgetting their Revolution and 1812 and all, but be that as it may.
Click to expand...

Hardly, that was over taxes. Money is the only thing that counts.

Is it indifference? Why are they there then? Because they like to be shot at? Sam, if you honestly believe they all don't give a rat's, you're fooling yourself. There are some that do and some that don't - but being that they're there, there will be more support for their stated mission (rebuild Iraq, fight terrorist bad guys who blow up civilians and sech) than you'll find in the average coffee-drinker in my department.
Click to expand...

You're assuming independent thought. Who are the terrorists? Anyone with a gun? US soldiers are highly unpopular in Iraq, not least because they shoot first ask questions later.

Besides, if Iraq was producing pickles and cabbages, would there be any interest at all?

I don't know that it made that much difference to the people of Iraq. They do indeed hate Americans, but they didn't want Saddam either. Is the alternative going to be worse? Oh, probably. But again: these are decisions that the terrorists in Iraq are making themselves.
Click to expand...

The terrorists are the ones who want neither the US nor the Baathists. That makes what the majority of Iraqis. Its going to take a lot of dead Iraqis to reach a resolution then. And what next? 10-12 US military installations and a giant embassy plus exclusive oil contracts to US companies don't fill one with confidence in American altruism. Shia fundamentalists in power and Shia Iran next door. Could it get any more convoluted?

No, Sam. There's a long list of countries that have no value for the lives of non-citizens, and which are greedy enough to do exactly as you say: almost 193 of them, in fact.
Click to expand...

Not really. The one only thats been stabbing allies in the back at their convenience is the US, everyone else is at least willing to talk.

This is to say that nations are much the same in their international policies, with a few exceptions. The other side of this coin is the practices of said nations domestically, which is to say how they behave to their own citizens, their minorities. In this light I can think of a few nations bad enough internationally, and needlessly vicious to their own people. It would be far better if the nations of the world abandoned state religious outlooks and simply came around to humanitarian secularism. That of course is not going to happen; now or ever.
Click to expand...

The practices of all nations towards their citizens is dependent to a great extent on education and economic prosperity. How nations treat their own also depends on their internal security. What will happen in Iran if the US succeeds in arming the al-Qaeda linked groups and they take over? Another coup? Another civil war?

Is that excusable if the US behaves well towards its own citizens? Hitler was immensely successful in Germany.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top