The Nobel Peace prize goes to Barack Obama

[Gorgon]

Don't you see, I have proven, by LotF's own logic, that invading Iraq was justified.

[Zoraptor]

Once Iran has a nuclear weapon is there any doubt in anyones mind they will give one to Hamas, Al Qaida, some one of that ilk?

There is no chance whatsoever- it's a fiction entirely within the realms of neo-con fantasy and ignorance stoking. Radical Shia and radical Sunni hate each other. Hate. Each. Other. Iran is radical Shia, Hamas and AQ radical Sunni. 90% of the support for both AQ and Hamas still comes from the Sunni Arab gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, and pretty much 100% of Hamas' arms comes through Sunni Egypt, and 100% of Palestinian arms through Sunni Egypt or Sunni Jordan. The reason for not wanting Iran to have nukes is purely because it will cripple Israel's strategic position and possibly lead to them having to *gasp* make some real concessions over issues like the Golan Heights, and because Iran's arab neighbours would pack a gigantic sad and probably feel the need to get nukes too. And that, given Saudi Arabia's links to Sunni terrorist groups, might lead to them getting nukes.

 

..Hussein wasn't exactly unfriendly to al-Quaeda.

No, he was exactly unfriendly to them. AQ's an equal opportunity sort of group, they hate infidels, Shia and the wrong sort of Sunnis, including Saddam's brand of secular Sunnism light- you wouldn't find Christians in AQ's cabinet. There has never been any credible evidence of significant links between AQ and Saddam for the simple reason that Saddam knew that AQ was as dangerous to him as the US, Iran or anyone else. He was, however, pretty friendly with Hamas as they have no real pretensions towards pan-arab worldwide caliphatism and no ability to put that into action even if they did.

 

Iraq was never friendly with the US anyway

Rumsfeld meeting Saddam.jpg

 

In an additional note my spell checker considers Shia misspelled but not Sunni.

 

:conspiracy:

Edited October 12, 2009 by Zoraptor

[lord of flies]

My point was that to call Pearl Harbor "unprovoked" is silly and ignorant, like calling Austria-Hungary's invasion of Serbia "unprovoked," or Russia's subsequent declaration of war on Austra-Hungary "unprovoked." It was a natural consequence of imperialist competition over China - the United States wanted to maintain trade relations with one of its oldest and best partners, whereas Japan wanted control of greater east Asia. Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive strike on a nation which was developing WMDs and preparing itself for a war.

 

Japan was an atrocious imperialist nation, no doubt - but it did not attack the United States for no reason.

I'm going to tell you a secret... no they haven't. Korea and Vietnam, bitch.

 

Those weren't open conflicts against the Soviet Union.

lol yeah their soldiers just shot our soldiers, they weren't "open conflicts." No, they were open conflicts. They were simply wars of limited theatre, established by major world powers, akin to what had happened for centuries. Edited October 13, 2009 by lord of flies

[Wrath of Dagon]

Once Iran has a nuclear weapon is there any doubt in anyones mind they will give one to Hamas, Al Qaida, some one of that ilk?

There is no chance whatsoever- it's a fiction entirely within the realms of neo-con fantasy and ignorance stoking. Radical Shia and radical Sunni hate each other. Hate. Each. Other. Iran is radical Shia, Hamas and AQ radical Sunni.

If you don't understand the Hamas-Hezbollah-Syria-Iran alliance, then you don't understand anything. Also Iran might hate Al-Qaida and Taliban, but they have no problems aiding them in Afghanistan and Iraq when it suits their interests.

[alanschu]

lol yeah their soldiers just shot our soldiers, they weren't "open conflicts." No, they were open conflicts. They were simply wars of limited theatre, established by major world powers, akin to what had happened for centuries.

 

Nope, they weren't.

 

Even though we're pretty sure that the MiGs that were shot down were often from the Soviet Union, they weren't open conflicts against the Soviet Union.

 

There's a keyword there, called 'open' but you'll ignore it because it's convenient. Nor was the Korean war an open conflict against the Chinese.

 

No matter how many times you want to call it that, doesn't mean that that was actually the case.

 

 

There's a reason why it's called the Vietnam War, and why the primary opponent was considered the NVA, because it was an open conflict against North Vietnam . History has shown countries circumventing "open conflicts" by lending units, such as what Germany did when it lent the Condor Legion in the Spanish Civil War. But the Republic of Spain was most definitely not in an open conflict with Germany.

 

 

 

My point was that to call Pearl Harbor "unprovoked" is silly and ignorant, like calling Austria-Hungary's invasion of Serbia "unprovoked,"

 

 

Making stupid assumptions, and fallacious claims is silly and ignorant, which you've demonstrated since your very first attempt to stir up some controversy on these boards. The moment you demonstrated that you couldn't even be bothered to look up the facts for your actual claims, demonstrated not just how ignorant you were, but how much you've been swayed and brainwashed under the guise of thinking that you're doing any critical thinking.

Edited October 13, 2009 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

If you don't understand the Hamas-Hezbollah-Syria-Iran alliance, then you don't understand anything. Also Iran might hate Al-Qaida and Taliban, but they have no problems aiding them in Afghanistan and Iraq when it suits their interests.

I understand it fine, and the idea of Iran giving any of those parties the bomb is as likely as the US giving its nominal ally, the USSR, the bomb in World War 2.

 

Iran is probably the country most appalled by the gross ineptitude being shown in Afghanistan because it has a direct and highly negative impact on them, namely getting flooded by cheap opium. They've also always strongly opposed the Taleban and their AQ allies, unlike others, and this has not changed- probably their most well known supporter in Afghanistan, Ismail Khan, had the Taleban trying to assassinate him just last month. They've never supported AQ in Iraq either as they have more than enough good Shia allies there (limited example, Moqtada al-Sadr) to not need any Sunni ones if they want to cause trouble.

[213374U]

No, he was exactly unfriendly to them. AQ's an equal opportunity sort of group, they hate infidels, Shia and the wrong sort of Sunnis, including Saddam's brand of secular Sunnism light- you wouldn't find Christians in AQ's cabinet. There has never been any credible evidence of significant links between AQ and Saddam for the simple reason that Saddam knew that AQ was as dangerous to him as the US, Iran or anyone else. He was, however, pretty friendly with Hamas as they have no real pretensions towards pan-arab worldwide caliphatism and no ability to put that into action even if they did.

 

 

Making stupid assumptions, and fallacious claims is silly and ignorant, which you've demonstrated since your very first attempt to stir up some controversy on these boards. The moment you demonstrated that you couldn't even be bothered to look up the facts for your actual claims, demonstrated not just how ignorant you were, but how much you've been swayed and brainwashed under the guise of thinking that you're doing any critical thinking.

What facts are we talking about? The ABCD encirclement? The Hull ultimatum? The "Destroyers for Bases" agreement? The Lend-Lease and Atlantic convoying? The extension of the Pan-American Security Zone to Iceland?

 

Japan was a signatory of the Tripartite Pact, as you no doubt know. Japan was also an aggressive, expansionistic power whose sphere of influence threatened US interests. Roosevelt wanted war with Japan, just like he wanted war with Germany. He couldn't just jump into the fray because of his isolationist campaigning during 1940. And, short of direct military action against Japan, he was pretty much out of options. Again, it's anyone's guess how events may have played out if Japan hadn't taken the bait, but I have very little doubt that the US would have entered the war sooner rather than later. And, of course, anything that doesn't conform to the historical version written by the victors is a "conspiracy theory".

 

I simply cannot understand why people have no problem recognizing and condemning imperialism when it comes to Japan or the USSR, but the US is always thankfully exempt in a historical context. Oh, right. It's because of "democracy".

[Walsingham]

I'd like to get credit for my immense self-restraint in not wheeling out my well-drilled counterarguments at this point, since anyone I care about here already knows them.

[213374U]

Yeah, because condescension always works as a rebuttal.

[Lare Kikkeli]

It's always kind of useless discussing politics or war history with americans. The same people who condemn 9/11, Iran etc. don't see anything wrong with the US supporting Pinochet and other right wing dictators all over the world. Nor do they condemn the completely illegal attack on Iraq (carried on despite the UN voting against it) to secure american interests regarding oil and military supremacy in the middle east. Not to mention the war on terror, illegal prisons all over the world, turning a blind eye to torture, rape and murder made by Us military personnel or private security companies, CIA black ops... I hope to god Finland never joins NATO. We're geographically in an awkward position, located right in the arm pit or Russia yet trying hard to belong in the west. I envy New Zealand.

 

I'm not defeding AQ or Iraq or Iran, but to see the US as the good guy as opposed to highly ruthless imperialists who will do anything to further their interests is really one sided and naive.

[Humodour]

I envy New Zealand.

 

Quite a beautiful country. Shame about the accent.

[Pidesco]

As far as imperialism goes, the problem isn't that the US is imperialist, but rather that they are so bad at it. Really, it's like the US government thinks imperialism is an elaborate way to undermine their own international position.

[Humodour]

As far as imperialism goes, the problem isn't that the US is imperialist, but rather that they are so bad at it. Really, it's like the US government thinks imperialism is an elaborate way to undermine their own international position.

 

Hahahaha. Frankly, the problem I see is that without America, you'd see a sharp rise in Chinese, Russian and Iranian imperialism. And that'd be a whole lot more difficult to stomach because that means, variously, communism, fascism, and Islamism.

 

Not to mention that the EU is there to play good cop to America's bad cop, but you can hardly do that when you take away the bad cop.

 

Still, bad cop doesn't mean stupid dumb**** cop like Bush & Cheney seemed to think. ****, did you know that Cheney tried to argue that America's deficits don't matter? I bet he planned to just bomb any country that tried to collect on its debt.

[Lare Kikkeli]

I envy New Zealand.

 

Quite a beautiful country. Shame about the accent.

 

I've actually been entertaining the thought of moving there. They've got a lively underground metal scene so finding a band to play in should be no problem. They also seem not to have been hit as hard by the financial crisis as europe so there might actually be some work. I know the language and hate cold weather. Maoris also fascinate me.

[Humodour]

I envy New Zealand.

 

Quite a beautiful country. Shame about the accent.

 

I've actually been entertaining the thought of moving there. They've got a lively underground metal scene so finding a band to play in should be no problem. They also seem not to have been hit as hard by the financial crisis as europe so there might actually be some work. I know the language and hate cold weather. Maoris also fascinate me.

 

Personally, I'd heartily recommend Australia over New Zealand, because we've got everything that New Zealand offers and more (such as higher income levels and over 17 years without an economic recession). New Zealand is also slightly more rural and right-wing than Australia.

 

I am not at all biased.

[Purkake]

I envy New Zealand.

 

Quite a beautiful country. Shame about the accent.

 

Don't forget the horrible internet and didn't they have the highest suicide rate or something?

[Humodour]

I envy New Zealand.

 

Quite a beautiful country. Shame about the accent.

 

Don't forget the horrible internet and didn't they have the highest suicide rate or something?

 

I think you're confusing New Zealand with Russia.

 

Easy mistake.

[Walsingham]

I'm genuinely scared and horrified that you'd consider refusing somewhere based on its internet connectivity.

[Purkake]

Obviously it's wouldn't be the only thing, but having decent internet access is pretty important these days.

 

Also, what do you know? You probably haven't even felt the awesomeness of a 100Mb fiber cable.

[Humodour]

One day I'm going to go a month, perhaps even a year, without using a computer. That also means no TV (though I don't watch it anyway, I'm not allowed to start). Just books, people, and real life.

 

I think it'll be eye-opening and fun. In fact, I was thinking of combining it with going overseas and doing aid work or something one day.

[Purkake]

Thanks for sharing.

[Gorgon]

perhaps even a year

 

 

 

Bwhahhhahahhahahha

 

 

doing aid work

 

I misread that as 'doing acid'. Either is an eye opener I guess.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Gorgon

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hahahaha. Frankly, the problem I see is that without America, you'd see a sharp rise in Chinese, Russian and Iranian imperialism. And that'd be a whole lot more difficult to stomach because that means, variously, communism, fascism, and Islamism.

Wow, Krezack actually makes sense.

 

US imposed sanctions on Japan because of their illegal and extraordinarily brutal invasion of China. There was nothing at all wrong with those sanctions. Most of you need to study up on history before you start whining about US imperialism, which by the way saved most of your dumb asses repeatedly.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Hahahaha. Frankly, the problem I see is that without America, you'd see a sharp rise in Chinese, Russian and Iranian imperialism. And that'd be a whole lot more difficult to stomach because that means, variously, communism, fascism, and Islamism.

Wow, Krezack actually makes sense.

 

US imposed sanctions on Japan because of their illegal and extraordinarily brutal invasion of China. There was nothing at all wrong with those sanctions. Most of you need to study up on history before you start whining about US imperialism, which by the way saved most of your dumb asses repeatedly.

 

The attack on Iraq was illegal and brutal. The world is not black and white.

 

Actually Finland was allied with Germany and at war with Russia, who we fought and won. Then ze germans burned half of our country while retreating. The US had their nukes aimed at Helsinki during the cold war. So you haven't saved us once.

[Gorgon]

Beware Islamic imperialism.