-
04-12-2004, 10:11 AM #161
Same deal with Canada. Problems at home are of paramount concern to me, I do agree that foreign poicy has to come into play to soem degree but I think the money is better spent in many other ways. The money the USA has spent on this lost cause could have probably funded the cure for cancer.
Originally Posted by Carlos_E
Originally Posted by OGPackin
-
04-12-2004, 11:03 AM #162alevok GuestOriginally Posted by BOUNCER
In Turkey there are many ethnic groups live in peace but kurds are provoked by other countries France for example and damages our financial development. Because of the PKK 1/3 of the taxes went to national security, that money could be spent on education instead. Other countries just dont wish my country get better so they purposely undermine our economy by creating problems in that region.
Cyprus (whole island) belonged to Ottoman empire for centuries, after our national war against european invaders it became home to both turks and greeks. In 1974 cypriots (cyprus greeks) attacked on turkish civilians and killed many. That year turkish army answered back, and new territories were formed. We are not occupying cyprus because we were there already. Greeks and Turks lived in peace till 1974, but they drew the first blood not us. Comparing this situation to israels is like comparing oranges to apples, just not the same. It is south cyprus who does not want us there, we are ok with their presence at the south.
Cyprus is very important to us, we know greece would plant their missiles right there if the north part was given, do you know how close the northern side to Turkey?, you are a military man you know the importance of strategic points.
-
04-12-2004, 11:15 AM #163Originally Posted by chicamahomico
Sooo what ur saying is, since its not a Christian problem (yet) who cares?
OG
-
04-12-2004, 11:17 AM #164Originally Posted by CYCLEON
-
04-12-2004, 11:20 AM #165alevok GuestOriginally Posted by Rak_Ani
Those terrorists purposely chose Turkey because they know we have high tolerance over non-muslims (Christians-Jews) so you are right at this point, they hate us as well for loving you (remember I said arabs and turks dont get along well)
-
04-12-2004, 11:23 AM #166Originally Posted by alevok
Just a little more info on the Kurds and Kurdistan..
Since the end of World War I, Kurdistan has been administered by five sovereign states, with the largest portions of the land being respectively in Turkey (43%) , Iran (31%), Iraq (18%), Syria (6%) and the former Soviet Union (2%).
The Iranian Kurds have lived under that state's jurisdiction since 1514 and the Battle of Chaldiran. The other three quarters of the Kurds lived in the Ottoman Empire from that date until its break-up following WWI. The French Mandate Syria received a piece, and the British incorporated central Kurdistan or the "Mosul Vilayet" and its oil fields at Kirkuk into their recently created Mandate of Iraq. Northern and western Kurdistan were to be given choice of independence by the Treaty of Sevres(August 10, 1920) which dismantled the defunct Ottoman Empire, but instead they were awarded to the newly established Republic of Turkey under the term of the Treaty of Lausanne (June 24, 1923). The Russian/Soviet Kurds had passed into their sphere in the course of the 19th century when territories were ceded by Persia/Iran.
The Kurds remained the only ethnic group in the world with indigenous representatives in three world geopolitical blocs: the Arab World (in Iraq and Syria), NATO (in Turkey), the South Asian-Central Asian bloc (in Iran and Turkmenistan), and until recently the Soviet bloc (in the Caucasus, now Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia). As a matter fact, until the end of the Cold War, Kurds along with the Germans were the only people in the world with their home territories used as a front line of fire by both NATO and the Warsaw Pact forces.
-
04-12-2004, 11:29 AM #167alevok GuestOriginally Posted by OGPackin
-
04-12-2004, 11:35 AM #168Originally Posted by alevok
OG
-
04-12-2004, 11:36 AM #169Originally Posted by alevok
And on a different note, if you're into basketball, can you maybe tell me what Hussein Beshok is up to these days? He's not back with Efes Pilzen, is he?
-
04-12-2004, 11:43 AM #170Originally Posted by alevok
OG
-
04-12-2004, 11:44 AM #171
No, maybe it came out wrong if that's how I came across.
What I am saying is this is not a Canadian problem so I don't think Canada should commit one shiny nickel to a Israel's cause. I think the money is literally being flushed down the toilet as I don't see this situation ever being resolved given the way the it is currently being handled. No sense throwing money at a dead horse when there are many other equally legitimate problems directly facing Canadians which also require funding.
If I was a Yankee, I would be seriously disappointed with my government for funding another soveriegn nation's activities to such an extent.
Originally Posted by OGPackin
-
04-12-2004, 12:04 PM #172Originally Posted by chicamahomico
I will refer u to my response to Carlos on this subject.....
Originally Posted by OGPackin
-
04-12-2004, 01:03 PM #173Originally Posted by Carlos_E
I'll vote for that . . .
-Tock
-
04-12-2004, 01:14 PM #174Originally Posted by alevok
Especially from Pat Robertson . . . as mixed up as he is in the Christian Dominionist movement, and as much of a bald-faced liar as he is . . .
I'm surprised he hasn't been struck down by lightning by now . . .
-Tock
-
04-13-2004, 07:13 AM #175alevok GuestOriginally Posted by Rak_Ani
Sorry I am not interested in basketball ( I know the guy, I let u know if I hear anything )but you could tell me about Revivo? Is he playing football over there? or he retired?
-
04-13-2004, 10:45 AM #176Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 792
This was one long a$$ thread for me to read. Lots of good points made, but also a lot of dumb ones too. Good to see no one hijacked the thread at any time. Hehe.
-
04-13-2004, 10:50 AM #177AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Location
- Wherever necessary
- Posts
- 7,846
Originally Posted by Tock
-
04-13-2004, 12:27 PM #178Originally Posted by alevok
-
04-13-2004, 05:41 PM #179Originally Posted by CYCLEON
1) Yah, and the fact that one doesn't strike him dead speaks volumes FOR atheism . . .
It's all a bunch of BS.
If he and the folks who fund the 700 club want to run a big ol' jet like that, that's their decision, but I see no reason why the US taxpayer should be dragged into funding such an inefficient use of $$$.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archi...20021007a.html
http://www.baptists4ethics.com/artic...l.cfm?AID=1666
Robertson Receives Faith-based Funding, Criticism
Jodi Mathews
10-14-02
Despite his criticism of “faith-based” funding, Pat Robertson is poised to receive $500,000 in federal funding for his charity, Operation Blessing.
Operation Blessing is one of 25 organizations to receive funds from the Compassion Capital Fund, which will award $30 million to religious organizations that provide social services, according to the Washington Post.
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.o...cle.cfm?id=180
"Operation Blessing says its mission is hunger relief, certainly commendable. But can it be trusted?
A few years ago the state of Virginia openly questioned what the Virginia-based organization was doing.
TV preacher Robertson used the "700 Club" to raise funds for the charity, saying in one appeal that Operation Blessing was using cargo planes to aid refugees from Rwanda fleeing civil war. Then it was discovered that the planes were being used to haul mining equipment for Robertson's diamond mining company."
3) He's a lot closer to politicians than he is to any deity, that's for sure.
--Tock
-
04-13-2004, 05:46 PM #180Retired Vet
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- IRELAND.
- Posts
- 4,185
Originally Posted by BOUNCER
Right now that we're all settled down again. I'd really like to see Cycleon's view on this editoral I found. if anyone else want to post the usual 'nuke em all' rubbish please hold off, you can see where it decended.
Cycleon ?
-
04-13-2004, 05:59 PM #181
This quote looks awfully familiar, and I'm sure I commented on it a little while ago. Since I know y'all have such excellent memories, I won't bother to refresh 'em . . .
-Tock
-
04-13-2004, 06:14 PM #182Originally Posted by Da Bull
Imagin some 1 comes 2 ur land claiming that its his land & then he start killing ur family friendz & all the ppl u love
so who u'll despise the palestinians that defend there land or isralel that invaded the land at 1940 if u dont beileve it go back to b4 1940 & c if the land was ruled by jews or arabs
& ofcourse u'll despise the middle east coz ur media is 100% controlled by jews wht do u expect & unfortunately all europe got the wrong idea bout the arabs & the middle east all of u think ther arab r killers lol it makes me laugh
-
04-13-2004, 06:57 PM #183
Again................
We don't care about your religion, or cultures......... when we are attack, and our interest attacked........... we will take action...........
Just like we did with Hitler.........
Originally Posted by ][-][ ][-][ ][-][The answer to your every question
Rules
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
Don't Let the Police kick your ass
-
04-14-2004, 01:19 AM #184alevok GuestOriginally Posted by Rak_Ani
-
04-14-2004, 02:29 AM #185Originally Posted by Carlos_E
Originally Posted by Tock
-
04-14-2004, 03:56 AM #186LM1332 Guest
Hey guys just read this history site. It will explain how Palestine and State of Israel was formed. Cause when i was reading some facts about formation of Israel and Palestine were WAY OFF
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
-
04-14-2004, 06:10 AM #187Retired Vet
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- IRELAND.
- Posts
- 4,185
50%, Carlos and Tock abviously haven't read what American's backing of Israel means to America. Without Israel in the middle east Russia and China would have all that lovely oil. Now if thats not in America's interest what is?..
Anyway, I'm looking for Cycleons imput as he's risen above all the 'nuke em' and 'couldn't careless' guys. I think Rak_Ani and I have posted just about everything to enlighten people here. Thankfully some people took the time to read both sides of the story, I'd value Cycleons input on that editorial I posted.
-
04-14-2004, 10:06 AM #188AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Location
- Wherever necessary
- Posts
- 7,846
well, first of all - Israel is not the only one with a problem due to a country being recently established (we will say reestablished in this case) with displaced populations of disparate religions - Kashmir is a fine example - but it is true that the Jewish states gets more than its fair share of blame, mostly because it has not only the origional palestinians to protest, but it is in the interests of most of the arab surrounding states to get rid or at least weaken Israel - since many of them are oil producing, they have a lot of influence in the EU who has no natural petroleum resources of its own.
As to whether their presence there kept the US from having to cede the middle east to the USSR, I say that the US would have found other allies, as we did with both Iran under the Shah and Iraq earlier and now Saudi, Kuait, Yemen, etc. But there is no doubt that the Israeli intelligence has served the US well during the Cold war period and they could always be generally counted upon to stay our allies without too much backstabbing (which seems pretty inimical in the spy biz).
As for today, having Israel as an ally is a great benefit and a great problem at the same time - abenefit because they still do have much better intelligence in many ways than we do in that region (but we are working on that and give us a few years and we will improve) - they also take the bulk of the money and anger of the Arab problem in their direction - on the other hand, the US would not really have that much of an Arab problem except for Israel, whom it is supposed we support in every action. We would much more effectively be able to buy off and keep the arabs working against each other and working with us if the Israeli issue wasnt there - without that one common cause, they are pretty easy to manage, as disorganized and individually greedy as they are.
But noooooo Bush just has to go and give them democracy and a chance at a real country - and I hope we succeed but it is awefully hard to change people who have been indoctrinated from birth like Militiaguy to see the truth - it is possible tho - look at all the former communists
-
04-14-2004, 12:33 PM #189Originally Posted by BOUNCER
-
04-14-2004, 01:48 PM #190AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Location
- Wherever necessary
- Posts
- 7,846
I will admit that was convenient for us to let you do that since everyone hated you anyway - but obviously that was a US sanctioned hit - still, it was well done and very neccessary or indeed they would have had nukes - now, what interests me is whether we will see a similar action just before Iran's major facility comes online, when it is to late without killing a lot of people. I am sure old Sharon has been thinking about it
-
04-14-2004, 02:06 PM #191Originally Posted by CYCLEON
What do you say?
-
04-14-2004, 02:11 PM #192
so........... President Bush was on a news conference with the prime minister of Israel, together they answered questions.........
The end results...... Isreal can keep it's wall, and alot of land..... and Israel agrees to take direct action to facilitate the creation on a Palestinian State.............
what do ya think?? CNN 1:30 centralThe answer to your every question
Rules
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
Don't Let the Police kick your ass
-
04-14-2004, 02:33 PM #193
sounds good....but....people over there will still be pissed and bitching about something....mark my words!! They came true the last time....remember?!
peace,
ttgb
-
04-14-2004, 02:43 PM #194Originally Posted by spywizard
This is a link to the American document:
http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/doc/bush/page1.htm
On the top right there's a small gray triangle pointing to the right. Press it to go to the next page.
And this is the Israeli document: http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/doc/sharon/page1.htm
From what I'm reading, the results of the meetings were very good, and hopeufully, as Sharon said, the withdrawal from Gaza and some WB will be completed in 2005.
You know, I don't know about internal issues in the US, but from the way Bush speaks and acts regarding Israel-Palestinian issues I can't understand why some people take him for a stupid man. The fact that he has managed to understand many things that presidents before him didn't understand, that gives him a lot of points in my book. He's not stupid, and if only more people in the US could see things with a more global view and not just "my back yard" view, they would understand what he's doing and why.
-
04-14-2004, 02:46 PM #195
Yeah....Bush is very intelligent and likes to surround himself with extremely intelligent people for his staff....He just isn't a good public speaker....that's what most people harp on him about....personal attacks on his public speaking ability....that's usually all they have though....
peace,
ttgb
-
04-14-2004, 02:48 PM #196Retired Vet
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- IRELAND.
- Posts
- 4,185
Originally Posted by Rak_Ani
-
04-14-2004, 03:30 PM #197
yep that was it.......
It was actually funny some of the things that were said..... and meant to be by Pres. Bush to Sharon..... and they both laughed at the reporters....
Originally Posted by Rak_AniThe answer to your every question
Rules
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
Don't Let the Police kick your ass
-
04-15-2004, 12:59 AM #198Originally Posted by Rak_Ani
I daresay that if Israel didn't exist, the Arabs would most likely have not been stirred up to the frenzy they are in today. After all, the Arabs don't hate America because we want to buy their oil, they hate us because they see us supporting their arch enemy who stole a chunk of their prime real estate.
Ya, probably without the arab-israeli tensions, no one over there would have bothered with nuclear bombs at all . . .
-Tock
-
04-15-2004, 01:17 AM #199
Well, the idiot Bush has just about guaranteed that the Arabs are going to fight the Israelis even harder and hate the US even more, thanks to his latest foreign policy flub, planting the US squarely behind 99% of what Israel wanted and 99% against what the Palestinians wanted.
I really can't beleive this . . . I can't think of any possible way Bush could have made things more irresolvable than what he just did. It's like the guy simply does not want to see a fair and equitable resolution of the conflict over there; like he's taking sides not because of anything to do with justice, but only because they happen to be of a "Judeo-Christian" religion, like he is.
GDMF what an idiot.
--Tock
AP news story follows . . .
==============================
Bush Endorses Israel's Plan on West Bank
1 hour, 7 minutes ago
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON - In a historic policy shift, President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday endorsed Israel's plan to hold on to part of the West Bank in any final peace settlement with the Palestinians. Bush also ruled out Palestinian refugees returning to Israel, bringing strong criticism from the Palestinians.
An elated Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) said his plan to pull back from parts of the West Bank and Gaza, hailed by Bush, would create "a new and better reality for the state of Israel."
But Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia — with whom the Bush administration deals while boycotting leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) — called Bush "the first president who has legitimized the (Israeli) settlements in Palestinian territories."
"We as Palestinians reject that," Qureia said. "We cannot accept that. We reject it and we refuse it."
Arafat earlier called the idea "the complete end of the peace process." And Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said of Bush's statement: "This is like someone giving a part of Texas' land to China."
"If Israel wants to make peace, it must talk to the Palestinian leadership," Erekat said.
Palestinian leaders had previously said they had been assured by the Bush administration they would be consulted before any endorsement of Sharon's plan.
Bush's statement on settlements "will be read by the Arab world as justification of Sharon's sovereignty over major (settlement) blocs," Edward S. Walker, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and to Egypt, said in an interview.
Previous U.S. administrations have described Jewish settlements as obstacles to peace. One of Bush's predecessors, Jimmy Carter, went even further and called them illegal.
A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Sharon thought that no American president had ever made concessions so important to Israel as Bush did on Wednesday.
Sharon, in gaining Bush's backing of his unilateral plan to withdraw all Jewish settlers and military installations from Gaza and from some areas of the West Bank, offered several concessions in a letter to Bush.
The Israeli leader said he would limit the growth of Jewish settlements and remove all unauthorized outposts on the West Bank. And Sharon said a security fence Israel is building to deter Palestinian attacks was "temporary rather than permanent."
Also, Sharon renewed his commitment to the so-called road map for peacemaking backed by the United States but said the Palestinian Authority (news - web sites) had failed to stop terror and to reform its security service.
Bush called Sharon's plan historic and urged Palestinians to match Israel's "boldness and courage."
In his break with long-standing U.S. policy, Bush said it was unrealistic to expect Israel to disband all large Jewish settlements in the West Bank — or to return to the borders it held before capturing the territory in the 1967 Mideast war — in any final peace deal.
Behind the scenes, Bush administration officials tried to cast the day's events as Bush gaining concessions from Sharon. A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Palestinians' statements were viewed as simply reflecting anxiety that would be eased once they read Bush's and Sharon's statements on the issue, released separately.
But Bush, in a news conference with Sharon at his side, gave a key concession the Israeli leader had sought, saying there were "new realities" on the West Bank since Israel captured the land along with Gaza and east Jerusalem in the 1967 war.
Past U.S. presidents have operated on the assumption there could be some changes in Israel's borders. But Bush went much further.
He committed himself to Israel's retention of parts of the West Bank settlements in a letter to Sharon in which he said that approach was necessary for Israel's security — an approach long taken by the former general.
In another major concession sought by Sharon, Bush said a final peace deal should provide for Palestinian refugees to be resettled in a Palestinian state, not in Israel.
Palestinian leaders have argued that tens of thousands of Palestinians are from families evicted by Israel upon creation of the Jewish state in 1947-48 and have a right to return to Israel. Arafat rejected a peace proposal by former President Clinton (news - web sites) that would have turned over virtually all of the West Bank to the Palestinians because it did not include that right.
Bush said the "realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly" since 1967 and should be reflected in any final peace deal.
He again held out the prospect of Palestinian statehood. But Palestinians, wanting all of the West Bank and Gaza and part of Jerusalem for a state, fear that Sharon is sacrificing Gaza and parts of the West Bank as a prelude to keeping other disputed areas.
Sharon, smiling broadly during the news conference with Bush, said he was encouraged by the president's support for his plan, which the Israeli leader had sought as a way to win support within his own Likud political party at home.
Asked outright if the United States recognized Israel's right to keep some settlements in the West Bank, Bush said Sharon had started the process of removing settlements and conclusive decisions had to wait for "final status" negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians on a Palestinian state.
___
-
04-15-2004, 04:19 AM #200
There's no reason in the world the refugees should be allowed back in Israel. Not only they were the ones who opened the war, they were also the ones who chose to leave. Those who stayed are now Israeli citizens. Those who left - though luck. Besides that, in history there were many refugee problems resulting from a war, and what you're asking of Israel - to take back the refugees, has never been done by any other country nor had it been asked to be done of any other country. Never before had an attacked country taken back refugees after it won a war. Not only that, but the Jewish refugees, for some reason, in your eyes have no rights. One of my grandmothers' family was kicked out of Spain many generations ago. Does that give me a right in your eyes to demand a Spanish citizenship? Do you think the Spanish people will be right denying me one? And what about the Mexicans. What if the Mexicans demanded that your government gives them citizenship because some of your land was once theirs? Do you think the Mexicans should have a "right of return" to the US?
The Israeli leader said he would limit the growth of Jewish settlements and remove all unauthorized outposts on the West Bank. And Sharon said a security fence Israel is building to deter Palestinian attacks was "temporary rather than permanent."
That's being done already. As of today funding of settlements was frozen.
Tock, either you don't read what I post, or you lack the knowledge to answer me, but for some reason you keep repeating the same things over and over ignoring facts that are presented to you. Do I have to drag you down to Egypt and introduce you to Muslim Brotherhood members so that an Arab (who are the only ones you seem to believe) will tell you they have hated your guts before Israel was a state? Is that what it will take to make you stop repeating the same chant over and over about how Israel is the cause of hatred of the Arabs for the US? You sound too smart to be that ignorant. Does your understanding of the conflict really start and end with "they hate us and it's your fault"?
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Filtered draw syringe
Today, 10:16 AM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS