| A sad but expected turn of events |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Phoebus ® 04/13/2003, 23:57:21 Author Profile Mail author |
You all know my opinion about the war in Iraq by now. Well, check this: Now that the 'war' in Iraq is finished, the US propaganda machine is working like crazy to provoke a war against Syria. (Will it ever stop? You wish!)
Sometimes I just hate when I'm right! Phoebus Modified by Phoebus at Mon, Apr 14, 2003, 00:02:00 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
It's "IRAQ" for pete's sake! Re: A sad but expected turn of events -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/13/2003, 23:59:27
Author Profile Mail author
It's IRAQ! With a "Q"! Do you begin to understand why I observe you as a high school student yet?
Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, Apr 14, 2003, 00:09:22
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: It's "IRAQ" for pete's sake! Re: It's "IRAQ" for pete's sake! -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
04/14/2003, 00:15:32
Author Profile Mail author
I thought you didn’t do spelling....Hummm
Yes, “Iraq” it is. Seems to me that I saw that somewhere.
Sorry, this was a serious discussion.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: It's "IRAQ" for pete's sake! Re: Re: It's "IRAQ" for pete's sake! -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/14/2003, 00:19:08
Author Profile Mail author
Why aren't you helping Phoebus with his/her spelling words? I thought I assigned that to you? I definitely do spelling, it is math I do not do. I do not count green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I am.
Victoria
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Oh right, Phoebus! Like no one noticed! Re: Re: It's "IRAQ" for pete's sake! -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/14/2003, 00:20:28
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Talking to self again, aye Re: Oh right, Phoebus! Like no one noticed! -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
04/14/2003, 00:24:08
Author Profile Mail author
You are talking to YOURSELF again. That could be a bad sign. I watch for signs. That IS a sign. I see another. It says Crackerbarrel.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
aye? Pirates say "aye" don't they? Re: Talking to self again, aye -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/14/2003, 00:25:59
Author Profile Mail author
Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, Apr 14, 2003, 00:27:41
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: aye? Pirates say "aye" don't they? Re: aye? Pirates say "aye" don't they? -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
04/14/2003, 00:31:26
Author Profile Mail author
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
When... Re: Re: aye? Pirates say "aye" don't they? -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/14/2003, 00:33:47
Author Profile Mail author
I jumped aboard a pirate ship and the captain said to me
Oh you go this way, that way, forward, backward
Over the deep blue sea!Thus spake the rhyming,
Victoria!
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, Apr 14, 2003, 00:34:18
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What Re: When... -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
04/14/2003, 00:42:37
Author Profile Mail author
And no more posting for me -- over -- and -- OUT (not to be confused with down and out.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Pirates certainly don't say nay......... Re: Re: aye? Pirates say "aye" don't they? -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
04/14/2003, 11:49:28
Author Profile Mail author
Terry
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I've been swimming Re: Pirates certainly don't say nay......... -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/15/2003, 00:41:50
Author Profile Mail author
Victoria
;-)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I've been swimming Re: I've been swimming -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
04/16/2003, 15:15:03
Author Profile Mail author
Keep on swimming,
Terry
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
*cough* Re: It's "IRAQ" for pete's sake! -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/14/2003, 00:28:44
Author Profile Mail author
I would like to bring to your attention that I edited my post (renaming Irak to Iraq) before you wrote (the content) your flame.
Also, if YOU had education, YOU would know that 'Iraq' can also be spelled as 'Irak', thus if, before I post, I am to read from a place where they spell it 'Irak' and not 'Iraq', then I'm subconsciously influenced into writing 'Irak' where I should write 'Iraq'.I would, also, like to apologize publicly for frustrating the great and magnificent Queen Vicky with my grotesque spelling mistakes!
Phoebus
PS.: Up yours! ;)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Sophomore or Junior? Re: *cough* -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/14/2003, 00:36:45
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Victoria! Re: Sophomore or Junior? -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
04/14/2003, 00:48:42
Author Profile Mail author
:-)JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
It is not Re: Victoria! -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/14/2003, 01:01:37
Author Profile Mail author
Victoria
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Maybe you should take something... Re: *cough* -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/14/2003, 00:42:45
Author Profile Mail author
1. You are not in a position to "re-name" a foreign country.
2. I do not write flames though I have been known to throw them.
3. Your grammar, sentence structure and spelling are that of a high school student.
4. You misspelled my name.
5. It's p.s. not PS.
6. No thank you.
Victoria
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Don't waste our time with this Re: Maybe you should take something... -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/14/2003, 01:25:52
Author Profile Mail author
You are not in a position to "re-name" a foreign country ether.
> 3. Your grammar, sentence structure and spelling are that of a high school student.
Sorry, can't argue there, I never studied to distinguish the grammar, sentence structure and spelling of the different population groups. (Not that I beleive in population groups.)
> 4. You misspelled my name.
Yep, that was the point... Vicky.
> 5. It's p.s. not PS.
Hooo! Useful! ... I'll remember to spell it 'p.s.' in the future to avoid being flamed by (insane) trolls.
> 6. No thank you.
It was figuratively speaking... of course.
Phoebus
PS.: I gave up being nitpicky on grammar or syntax when I figured out that, usually, when people tend focus on how things are said, they don't tend to focus on what is said.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Your WORDS are not a waste of time! Re: Don't waste our time with this -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/14/2003, 19:45:01
Author Profile Mail author
Your WORDS are not a waste of time. Your words (especially here) are your tools. They represent YOU. They are the world's impression of you. Before the world lays eyes on you, learns what you know how to do, what your character and ethics are, it sees your WORDS.
Your words are your vehicle. They take you where you want to go in life. They get you into good colleges, they get you honors, they get you the job and promotions that lead to the lifestyle you want to achieve.
In your p.s. you stated: "I gave up being nitpicky on grammar or syntax when I figured out that, usually, when people tend focus on how things are said, they don't tend to focus on what is said."
That's exactly my point. People DO tend to focus on HOW things are said and here, where the written word is the conduit of your ideas--they focus on what is fluid and readable. Why give up on grammar, spelling and syntax when you have the ability (and you do) to produce excellence? You have ideas to share with us, you have a good intellect--why dress it in rags?
How is it that you expect to get your points across to us when even your point about misspelling my name (did I misspell misspell?) was lost in a sea of spelling errors? Your posts give the impression of carelessness. Run a spell check on them so people will read and consider what you write.
My words to you are not flames. They are an observation followed by challenge that you are well able to meet. If you are a high school student, which I believe you are, you have courage to be on this forum. Take your courage and arm it in excellence. Do justice to your intellect and the words that carry them to us.
I am not sure what a "troll" is. I doubt I fit the definition. Be glad you encountered me first, others will not be so kind.
Peace out,
Vicki
(with an "i")p.s. I was in Super Wal Mart today and caught a scene from someone's life. There was a young couple (early 20's I think) with a young daughter (definitely 18 months old--I'm good at pegging children). The husband turned to his wife and said "F*CK you! It's not MY f*cking purse, it's yours!". Apparently there was some dispute over the location of a purse. My point Phoeb, is this--this young man's words (verbal) gave an impression about him. He was obviously old enough to spawn a child yet not mature enough to behave like an adult in public. Do you get it?
p.p.s. I am making this second p.s. mainly for JAK who corrected ME on another thread. He'll be that I did it the right way! It might even make his day--sad, isn't it? ;-)
Modified by Victoria! at Tue, Apr 15, 2003, 00:24:05
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Hey troll Re: Your WORDS are not a waste of time! -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
04/14/2003, 22:01:59
Author Profile Mail author
I probably shouldn't feed you...You being a troll and all.lol I thought trolls were hit and miss? That would make you a long term troll. Ahh but wait, you are a queen. I never thought this one out before, but you are the queen of trolls?
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I am Re: Hey troll -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/15/2003, 00:44:38
Author Profile Mail author
Victoria
;-)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Take your spanking like a woman Re: It's "IRAQ" for pete's sake! -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
04/14/2003, 12:32:11
Author Profile Mail author
While Americans like to use the transliteration "IRAQ," it is NOT a necessity. In case you forgot, those in Iraq use the Arabic language not the English Language and all words must be transliterated.
I bet you are thrilled to have me back.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I love strawmen. N/t Re: It's "IRAQ" for pete's sake! -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
04/14/2003, 12:34:57
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
The U.S...........World's Orkin Man Re: A sad but expected turn of events -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
04/14/2003, 10:25:07
Author Profile Mail author
As far as I am personally concerned, Liberalism and Terrorism are in the same boat, when I consider the huge potential danger that they both represent.
What is going happen now, as the only true super power left on the earth, the U.S. is in the responsible position of going around the world, country by country,(the bad guys know who they are) and cleaning out each and every "Rat's nest" and pest infested refuge that represents a threat to us and world peace. Like it or not!!!
If I hear one more person mention oil as our prime interest in freeing Iraq, I am going to fornicating scream! The Iraqi oil reserves are the sole property of the Iraqi people now, not Saddams!! We are insuring that this stays the case. We will continue buying the oil from them as required, and the revenues will be buying food and a decent life for them and not outlandish palaces and weaponery.
The huge requirement and dependency that our unprecedented western economy has on foriegn oil feeds our industrial society to a point that we can offer so many goods, services and humanitarian aid to the rest of the world. And besides, it was British and American Engineering companies that built the middle eastern oil fields anyway.
"The United States is the last hope for the world"
Abraham Lincoln 1864
Bone up on your facts,
TLC
Modified by TLC at Mon, Apr 14, 2003, 11:33:50
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
All your oil field are belong to US Re: The U.S...........World's Orkin Man -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/14/2003, 13:06:45
Author Profile Mail author
Phoebus> First, I'm not liberal.
You calling me a liberal only shows your weak black'n'white psychology. (There's only liberals and conservatives right?)
TLC> As far as I am personally concerned, Liberalism and Terrorism are in the same boat, when I consider the huge potential danger that they both represent.Phoebus> Btw, terrorism is a branch of conservatism.
- They call themselves righteous, and their enemies wretched. (Terminology will vary)
- They put on themselves to defend their values at whatever cost.
- And when people suffer from their actions, they say it's for the greater good.
TLC> We will continue buying the oil from them as required, and the revenues will be buying food and a decent life for them and not outlandish palaces and weaponery.Phoebus> What tells you they are willing to sell 'you' oil? Or that the revenue is going to buying food and 'a decent life'.
Most parts of the world are able to buy food and have a decent life without the help of oil. But of course, I guess you beleive Iraquis are invalid people unable to sustain themselves, and that you need to go there and hold them by the hand and teach them how to feed themselves and have 'a decent life'. *slap TLC behind the head*
It's the US' economic sanctions that prevented Iraquis from feeding themselves or having 'a decent life'. Talk about hypocrisy: cause irreversible damage to someone, and then, come back later, harms open, and say your going to help that same person.
TLC> The huge requirement and dependency that our unprecedented western economy has on foriegn oil feeds our industrial society to a point that we can offer so many goods, services and humanitarian aid to the rest of the world.Phoebus> First, you (are definitely an idiot who beleive you are the US) are not offering 'so many goods, services and humanitarian aid' to the rest of the world.
The US is bringing ALOT more harm than help to the rest of the world.
Common 'charity' psychology: Steal alot, give a little back, and get the impression you are the most benevolent person on the planet. Simply pathetic.
TLC> And besides, it was British and American Engineering companies that built the middle eastern oil fields anyway.Phoebus> Ho boy, I'm not the one who needs the teaching here.
Sure, and you must beleive that no other countries in the world knows how to build oil fields.
Phoebus
Modified by Phoebus at Mon, Apr 14, 2003, 13:08:51
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: All your oil field are belong to US Re: All your oil field are belong to US -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
04/16/2003, 16:17:53
Author Profile Mail author
You seem to have it in for the U.S. somehow. Why? Tell me what kind of world you envision if the U.S. did not exist. Be honest now.
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: All your oil field are belong to US Re: Re: All your oil field are belong to US -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/17/2003, 02:51:31
Author Profile Mail author
TLC - How would you describe yourself?Phoebus - I'm open-minded.
I beleive that every good side has an equal bad side (Equilibrium). So I don't tend to take sides. When I do take a side, it's usually only temporarily, and to balance out another force (like on this forum, for example).
TLC - You seem to have it in for the U.S. somehow. Why? Be honest now.Phoebus - I do not hate the U.S., if I did I wouldn't be arguing on this board. If I wanted to proselytize, I wouldn't do it here, and I wouldn't be using dialectics.
My current gripe about the U.S.:
It's democratic values and individual freedom are weakening.
It's nationalism and imperialism are strengthening.
The U.S. has started a 'War against Terrorism' that can only realisticaly be won by imposing a world-wide 'big-brother' police state.
The U.S. has started a war against the 'Axis of Evil'. Why am I against that? That's the same justification Bin Laden & friends are using.
The U.S. is becoming extremely aggressive relatively to fossil fuel. (I'm not only talking about Iraq & Middle-East)
Phoebus
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: All your oil fields belong to U.S. Re: Re: All your oil field are belong to US -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
04/18/2003, 11:59:33
Author Profile Mail author
What kind of world do you envision where the U.S. does not exist?Our "war on terrorism" that you feel can only be won by imposing a world wide "big brother" police state, is to me, akin to the way that the city of Chicago was able to defeat the likes of Al Capone in the 1930s by imposing a strong effective police presense. I'm quite sure Big Al was able to rationalize his point of view as well as Bin Laden does.
Of course ,there are always two sides to every issue.
You say we are losing our democratic values and personal freedoms. Would you please give me one example of each , that would disappoint Thomas Jefferson if he were still around?
With respect,
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
I swear Re: All your oil field are belong to US -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/16/2003, 21:36:09
Author Profile Mail author
You: What tells you they are willing to sell 'you' oil?
Me: You aren't serious, are you? Oil is Iraq's most lucrative comodity.
You: Or that the revenue is going to buying food and 'a decent life'.
Me: It's called making a living, Phoeb.
You: Most parts of the world are able to buy food and have a decent life without the help of oil.Me: Most parts of the world don't have massively productive oil resources.
You: But of course, I guess you beleive Iraquis are invalid people unable to sustain themselves, and that you need to go there and hold them by the hand and teach them how to feed themselves and have 'a decent life'.Me: The Iraqi's are not invalid. They are people who have lived under oppression and dictatorial rule for 25-30 years. They have been told what not to do, what TO do, how to do it and when to stop doing it for their lifetimes. They DO need a leg up in becoming self governed and self feeding. Their lives have been DICTATED by a small group of power mad fanatics backed by a huge army that didn't bat an eye at gassing them for general purposes. They need assistance in order to organize, set up infrastructure to become autonomous and economically competitive.
Modified by Victoria! at Wed, Apr 16, 2003, 21:38:02
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I swear Re: I swear -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/17/2003, 01:41:02
Author Profile Mail author
TLC - We will continue buying the oil from them as required.Phoeb - What tells you they are willing to sell 'you' oil?
Vicki - You aren't serious, are you? Oil is Iraq's most lucrative comodity.
Phoeb - I wasn't saying that Iraq would stop selling it's oil.
I just pointed out that TLC didn't even consider the opinion of Iraquis concerning if and who they would be selling oil to.
Victoria - They have been told what not to do, what TO do, how to do it and when to stop doing it for their lifetimes.Phoebus - Saddam's Iraq was dictatorial, not totalitarian.
Iraquis do not need to be led by the hand, they are very resourceful people, and had no problem running their economy before the economic sanctions.
And before you compare, Germany and Japan where industrialist countries before the U.S. rebuild them, that's why they have a good industry today.
Phoebus
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Driving me crazy... Re: Re: I swear -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
04/17/2003, 15:48:08
Author Profile Mail author
If you don't mind, I'd like to help you spell a certain word correctly. Don't take this as an insult--the spelling is simply driving me crazy.
The past plural tense of is is were, not where.
"where" is the word that asks the location of something, e.g., "where is it?"--"it is there/here". It's a small difference, I know, but it makes reading your sentences hard sometimes.
"were" is the plural of "was", both being past tense of "is."
Since you consistently make this mistake, I thought you might not realize the difference. Thus, it should say
"Germany and Japan were industrialist countries before the U.S"
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thanks, but don't go crazy over this! Re: Driving me crazy... -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/17/2003, 16:20:47
Author Profile Mail author
I tend to automaticaly add a 'h' to any 'were' I write. Then I must consciously check if it's a 'where' or a 'were'. It seems my 'check' isn't tight enough! ;)Phoebus
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Short sited... Re: The U.S...........World's Orkin Man -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
04/14/2003, 13:48:14
Author Profile Mail author
> freeing Iraq, I am going to fornicating scream! The Iraqi oil
> reserves are the sole property of the Iraqi people now, not
> Saddams!! We are insuring that this stays the case. We will
> continue buying the oil from them as required, and the revenues
> will be buying food and a decent life for them and not
> outlandish palaces and weaponery.First off, this has yet to be established. The U.S. currently controls Iraq, and has stated its intention of turning control over to the people. It has not happened yet, so please wait until we actually fulfill our promise before getting self-righteous.
Secondly, you are blindly assuming that the U.S. would have to actually OWN the oil in Iraq to garner a benefit from it. Such is not the case. Talk has already begun (see here) in reference to increasing Iraq's oil production.
Vice President Dick Cheney estimated that Iraqi oil production could rise as much as 50 percent from 2002 levels by the end of the year if the country is given outside help in restoring its fields' capacity to pump crude.
He said production could hit 2.5 million to 3 million barrels a day by the end of this year -- raising as much as $26 billion at current prices. Last year, Iraq was producing about 2 million barrels of oil per day, down from a high of about 3 million barrels in 1988.
Some Arab oil-producing countries have complained that if the amount hits 4 million/day (which is feasible) it will destroy their economies. This, obviously, would lower the price the U.S. has to pay for oil. In addition, the U.S. will play some role in governing Iraq for quite some time. It is invaluable to have a large oil-producing nation be on "friendly" terms with the U.S., which Iraq will have to be.
I hope you are right that the U.S. does not intend to control Iraq's oil in any way. I am not convinced of this yet, however. The administration has claimed this, but it doesn't make it true. On the other hand, the U.S. stands to greatly benefit even if they do not explicitly control Iraq's oil. It's not so black and white, TLC.
-Dan
Modified by nofaith at Mon, Apr 14, 2003, 13:49:36
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Short sighted....... Re: Short sited... -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
04/15/2003, 11:19:54
Author Profile Mail author
With the Iraqi oil fields under U.S. control for probably a good spell, it is obvious to me that our dependence on Saudi oil will be greatly reduced and will obviously have an impact on their thoughts of us and our influence in the region. With the financing of the likes of UBL with what we all know is oil money reduced in volume, it could possibly reduce the terrorist threat to us somewhat overall.
Iraq, like all countries that we have saved from tyranny in the past, will be on good terms with us and thankful for a while. But when I consider others that we have helped in the past going sour on us lately, mainly France, Germany and Russia, I have to assume that the honeymoon won't last forever. In the meantime ,we have to use the opportunity to further stabilize the region and hope that it never returns to the old ways.
When I see camels in the background of military tanks and people still wearing long robes, it only reinforces the fact that the middle east is still a volatile mixture of the old and the new. More so than we ever experience in our newer western world.
Time will tell,
Terry
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: A sad but expected turn of events Re: A sad but expected turn of events -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
04/14/2003, 15:01:19
Author Profile Mail author
Perhaps you might want to perform a bit of research on the Ba'athe party which exists/existed in Syria and Iraq. So, I hate to break this to you, no surprise to me regarding Syrian wmd rhetoric.
Are you aware that though Saddam claimed Muslim beliefs, he would not allow Southern Iraqis (Shiites) the call to prayer? This under the strong arm of Ba'athe.
Will the U.S. invade Syria? No. I don't believe it will. Chemical weapons are permitted in Syria because of the Nukes in Israel. The EXTENT of WMD is what is important, not the having.
Follow??
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: A sad but expected turn of events Re: Re: A sad but expected turn of events -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/14/2003, 19:57:58
Author Profile Mail author
I understand your point of view.
But there are things you don't seem to know/consider that change the whole picture.
There has been plans for several years for the US to invade Iraq and then Syria (that's nothing new, even if the propaganda wants people to beleive it is new). The goal is to occupy/control the whole middle-east.
There are several reason for this:There is the oil. The US wants a monopoly on oil. By controling who gets or do not gets oil, the US will gain an incredibly powerful subversion tool against other countries, let alone incredible extortion profits. A step toward world control.
There is Israel. Powerful influences want to prevent Arab countries from politicaly supporting and protecting the Palestinian state. By destroying all the independent Arab governments, Israel will be free to do as they wish.
There is political segregation. Syria is not 'pro-American', and that the US wants to destroy any countries that is not submissive to the US. Another step toward world control.
Syria can own WMD legaly. And they don't need Israel to have nukes for them to be allowed to have Chemical Weapons. The only thing that would make it illegal for a country to develop/own WMDs is a resolution by the UN saying so. And I don't think there's any UN resolution against Syria.
A last thing, Shiites is not Muslims, in the same way that Protestants are not Catholics. Shiites are a majority in Iraq, but a minority in the large Muslim community. Saddam is a Sunni,
so he was threatened by the Shiites and did his best to contain them. A religious equivalent to economical sanctions.
Phoebus
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Chicken Little or is it Holy Batman? Re: Re: A sad but expected turn of events -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
04/14/2003, 21:57:59
Author Profile Mail author
Holy mother of all infidels!! I don't know where to start on your errors. I will start with the end and work forwards.
Shias are indeed Muslim as Catholics are Christians. Sunnis are also Muslim as Protestants are Christians.
Shiites are 40% of the Muslims in Iraq.
The U.N. allows Syria to own Chemical weapons for defense of country. It appears that you do not understand that concept of self-defense.
There is Israel with powerful influence? Really? My perception is that Israel is painfully impoverished. You anti-semitic rhetoric is rather clearly unstudied.
There is Oil. Yes and so what! We do not own the oil in Iraq. Last I heard, we were not an occupying nation. You do understand that Saddam ordered the mass murder of Kurds and Shias? Ah, but Entertainment Tonight News is so much more informative than real world news. I hate to again break this to you, but we will not control the oil. Extortion profits?? Damn, is the sky falling again? Are you familiar with the UAE?
World control?? You must be kidding? Ever hear of South Central? We can't even control that.
As far as me not understanding some things regarding Iraq and Syria. Perhaps I do not know some things, but I feel quite confident in this conversation that I am quite versed. I hate to break more bad news but Iraq and Syria have been problematic with one another and elsewhere for more than a scant few years. You may want to visit your local library for a good read. It really is a wonderful place to visit.
Ramona
BTW France isn't pro-american either, but they make damned good food. What to do about that problem, but I can't worry about that now, your sky is still falling.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
US / Middle-East Re: Chicken Little or is it Holy Batman? -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/15/2003, 02:08:09
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona> Shiites are 40% of the Muslims in Iraq.Phoebus> Shi'ites are the majority (60-65%) in Iraq.
Here are my sources:
http://www.yahooligans.com/reference/factbook/iz/popula.html
http://www.middleeastdirectory.com/cs_iraq.htm
http://populations.com/country.asp?ID=78
Ramona> There is Israel with powerful influence? Really? My perception is that Israel is painfully impoverished. You anti-semitic rhetoric is rather clearly unstudied.Phoebus> Israel is a Jewish state, the ONLY Jewish state in the world, hence Jews throughout the world are quite partial to Israel (actually, Israel laws allow any Jews to become a ciziten of Israel at anytime). So Israel's REAL population, wealth & influence is much greater than what's to be found inside the country.
And about calling me 'anti-semitic'. There's not even a statement in my post that talks about Jews (beside, Arabs are semites too), geez, I didn't even talked against Israel.
You clearly have been brainwashed by the holocaust industry.
Ramona> There is Oil. Yes and so what! We do not own the oil in Iraq. Last I heard, we were not an occupying nation.Phoebus> True, the US just create puppet governments. A country's ressources can just as easily be exploited through a puppet government.
And about Iraq's, so called, non US owned oil profits.
Iraq's oil profit is going to be used to REBUILD Iraq. Of course, the reconstruction of Iraq will be in the hand of US interests (friends of Bush, of course), not Iraquis. Thus, the oil profit will simply pour into the pockets of those people. And since the reconstruction of Iraq is both forced and a monopoly, you can expect those US interests to take large amounts of profit for little work.
Yes, that's what I call 'owning ressources' and 'occupation'.
Ramona> World control?? You must be kidding? Ever hear of South Central? We can't even control that.Phoebus> I never said it would succeed. I definitely don't think the US can succeed. But it doesn't prevent those influent megalomaniacs from giving it a shot.
Phoebusp.s.: Stop insinuating that YOU are the US. You are not.
p.p.s.: I used post-scriptums correctly! WHOOHOO! *cough* *cough*
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: US / Middle-East Re: US / Middle-East -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
04/15/2003, 07:14:57
Author Profile Mail author
And about calling me 'anti-semitic'. There's not even a statement in my post that talks about Jews (beside, Arabs are semites too), geez, I didn't even talked against Israel.
You clearly have been brainwashed by the holocaust industry.Really?? Try here.
Phoebus - There is Israel. Powerful influences want to prevent Arab countries from politicaly supporting and protecting the Palestinian state. By destroying all the independent Arab governments, Israel will be free to do as they wish.
You clearly have been brainwashed by the holocaust industry.
And what bizarre thought went into that statement? Perhaps you are a real-live holocaust deniar.
p.s.: Stop insinuating that YOU are the US. You are not.
This is just an odd statement. I did not insinuate that I am us, we, or even them. I speak for myself and myself only.
Phoebus> True, the US just create puppet governments. A country's ressources can just as easily be exploited through a puppet government. And about Iraq's, so called, non US owned oil profits. Iraq's oil profit is going to be used to REBUILD Iraq. Of course, the reconstruction of Iraq will be in the hand of US interests (friends of Bush, of course), not Iraquis. Thus, the oil profit will simply pour into the pockets of those people. And since the reconstruction of Iraq is both forced and a monopoly, you can expect those US interests to take large amounts of profit for little work. Yes, that's what I call 'owning ressources' and 'occupation'.
Most of these statements are uneducated Chicken Little responses. Are you even aware of the U.N.'s "Oil for Food Program?" Monopoly is define as exclusive control. Is that really what you think is happening? Your definition of owning and occupying is so skewed as to be not worth my effort. Visit the library.
Ramona
p.s. You would enjoy conversing with Eric. His writing style and argument style is similar to yours. As for me, I don't have the patience with you.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: US / Middle-East Re: Re: US / Middle-East -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/15/2003, 13:44:40
Author Profile Mail author
Phoebus> I didn't even talked against IsraelRamona> Really?? Try here.
(Quote) Phoebus> There is Israel. Powerful influences want to prevent Arab countries from politicaly supporting and protecting the Palestinian state. By destroying all the independent Arab governments, Israel will be free to do as they wish.
Phoebus> Yes, I did talk ABOUT Israel, but not AGAINST Israel.
Like I said before, you have been brainwashed by the holocaust industry. You think that anyone that talks about Jews or Israel , without being totaly 'pro-Jew'/'pro-Israel', is an 'anti-Semite'.
Phoebus> p.s.: Stop insinuating that YOU are the US. You are not.Ramona> This is just an odd statement. I did not insinuate that I am us, we, or even them. I speak for myself and myself only.
Ramona> ... -WE- do not own the oil in Iraq. Last I heard, -WE- were not an occupying nation. ... I hate to again break this to you, but -WE- will not control the oil. ... Ever hear of South Central? -WE- can't even control that. ...
Phoebus> It seems that your words betray you.
Ramona> Most of these statements are uneducated Chicken Little responses.Phoebus> That's a 'Chicken Little' response. If you can't bring up some valid arguments, please shut-up.
Ramona> Are you even aware of the U.N.'s "Oil for Food Program?"Phoebus> Yes, that's a program that was designed to allow Iraq to sell Oil in exchange of only humanitarian support. It's to prevent Iraq from selling Oil to finance it's military.
Ramona> Monopoly is define as exclusive control.Phoebus> True. Do you beleive that the US currently does NOT have a monopoly on Iraq's oil?
Ramona> Your definition of owning and occupying is so skewed as to be not worth my effort. Visit the library.Phoebus> Skewed? How?
To own something is to have the right to control something.
Owning doesn't give control by itself.Currently, the US claims that Iraq's oil and it's profits is owned by Iraquis. Yet, it's the US that now CONTROLS the development of oil field, who the oil is sold to, and where the oil profits is spent.
Bush decided that Iraq's oil profits is going to be used to rebuild Iraq.
Bush also decided which companies (his friend's of course) are going to get the contract to rebuild Iraq.
Hence, Iraq's oil profits is going into Bush friend's pockets.Is that simple and clear enough? Can you understand now?
The Bush administration decided to not to pay to rebuild Iraq. (Like I explained above, it's Iraquis who are going to pay Bush's administration for rebuilding Iraq, completely upside down)
Bush offered $26 billion for the military cooperation of Turkey.
It will cost $17 billion a year to support 75,000 troops in Iraq. (That's $227,000 per soldier per year, hmm, that's ridiculously high)
Yet, the administration isn't willing to spend more than $3 billion a year on the actual reconstruction. That's nothing more than an insult.Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/12/sprj.irq.costs/
Phoebus
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: US / Middle-East Re: Re: US / Middle-East -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
04/15/2003, 15:50:13
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona> Really?? Try here.(Quote) Phoebus> There is Israel. Powerful influences want to prevent Arab countries from politicaly supporting and protecting the Palestinian state. By destroying all the independent Arab governments, Israel will be free to do as they wish.
Ramona - Hello, you don't consider your statement anti-semetic? Wow. I am so impressed that hatred can feel so comfortable to you and roll off your tongue like water.Phoebus> Yes, I did talk ABOUT Israel, but not AGAINST Israel. Like I said before, you have been brainwashed by the holocaust industry.
Ramona - Please explain your "holocaust industry." I'm sure that wouldn't be remotely anti-semite either.
Phoebus - You think that anyone that talks about Jews or Israel , without being totaly 'pro-Jew'/'pro-Israel', is an 'anti-Semite'.
Ramona - Nope, that would not be true. It's the type of wording that you use that betrays you.
Phoebus> p.s.: Stop insinuating that YOU are the US. You are not.
Ramona> This is just an odd statement. I did not insinuate that I am us, we, or even them. I speak for myself and myself only.
Ramona> ... -WE- do not own the oil in Iraq. Last I heard, -WE- were not an occupying nation. ... I hate to again break this to you, but -WE- will not control the oil. ... Ever hear of South Central? -WE- can't even control that. ...
Phoebus> It seems that your words betray you.
Ramona - That was a non-response to your own error.
Ramona> Most of these statements are uneducated Chicken Little responses.
Phoebus> That's a 'Chicken Little' response. If you can't bring up some valid arguments, please shut-up.
Ramona - I have you avoid.
Ramona> Are you even aware of the U.N.'s "Oil for Food Program?"
Phoebus> Yes, that's a program that was designed to allow Iraq to sell Oil in exchange of only humanitarian support. It's to prevent Iraq from selling Oil to finance it's military.
Ramona - Yeah, finally some knowledge.
Ramona> Monopoly is define as exclusive control.
Phoebus> True. Do you beleive that the US currently does NOT have a monopoly on Iraq's oil?
Ramona - That would be no.
Ramona> Your definition of owning and occupying is so skewed as to be not worth my effort. Visit the library.
Phoebus> Skewed? How? To own something is to have the right to control something. Owning doesn't give control by itself.
Ramona - I don't understand what you are attempting to say. Please try again.
Phoebus - Currently, the US claims that Iraq's oil and it's profits is owned by Iraquis.Ramona - Yes.
Phoebus - Yet, it's the US that now CONTROLS the development of oil field, who the oil is sold to, and where the oil profits is spent.
Ramona - Your grammar is making me twitch. This is not a simple question, though you attempt to make it one. Until a new government is established, who pray tell should handle things? The U.N. (an international good ole boy network) greedy money grabbers with fingers in pockets when convenient? Or should we allow warring tribes to let the best fighters win control? But at this point, the oil for food program is where the money IS going.
Phoebe - Bush decided that Iraq's oil profits is going to be used to rebuild Iraq. Bush also decided which companies (his friend's of course) are going to get the contract to rebuild Iraq. Hence, Iraq's oil profits is going into Bush friend's pockets.Is that simple and clear enough? Can you understand now? The Bush administration decided to not to pay to rebuild Iraq. (Like I explained above, it's Iraquis who are going to pay Bush's administration for rebuilding Iraq, completely upside down) Bush offered $26 billion for the military cooperation of Turkey. It will cost $17 billion a year to support 75,000 troops in Iraq. (That's $227,000 per soldier per year, hmm, that's ridiculously high) Yet, the administration isn't willing to spend more than $3 billion a year on the actual reconstruction. That's nothing more than an insult.
Ramona - I think you need to sit down and reread the site you posted. You seem to have drawn conclusions that are pure fiction.
Ramona
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/12/sprj.irq.costs/ Phoebus
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Anti-
