sundevil777 94
Recommended Posts
Darius11 12
Sure
Here is one link that i think is written by the Israeli side. With any thing like this you have to read both sides and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
sorry for the Jpeg being the way it is but if you just do a search under
israeli nuclear weapons on google you will get a lot of information.
Here is one link that i think is written by the Israeli side. With any thing like this you have to read both sides and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
sorry for the Jpeg being the way it is but if you just do a search under
israeli nuclear weapons on google you will get a lot of information.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
sundevil777 94
I found this summary:
here
The abstract: (blame the French!
)
This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear powers. Using “bomb in the basement” nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements.
here
The abstract: (blame the French!
) This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear powers. Using “bomb in the basement” nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
champu 1
The more I learn about how religious bodies have acted in the past, particularly towards advocates of change for the greater good (intellectuals, mathematicians, etc), the more cynical I feel about religion in general.
A religion, as benign or as potent as it's teachings may seem, is like a time-bomb waiting for just the wrong person to gain influence.
Disputes in Palestine? Hell yes Palestinians have every right to be pissed off, not as Christians or Muslims, but as Palestinians. Right now it sucks to be Palestinian, Israelis are large proponents of this suckage, and Americans are guilty by association.
A religion, as benign or as potent as it's teachings may seem, is like a time-bomb waiting for just the wrong person to gain influence.
Disputes in Palestine? Hell yes Palestinians have every right to be pissed off, not as Christians or Muslims, but as Palestinians. Right now it sucks to be Palestinian, Israelis are large proponents of this suckage, and Americans are guilty by association.
w4p2 0
A friend to my enemy, is my enemy to my friends.
If the friend of my enemy, is the constant source of my terror, then it is justified for me and my friends, to bring the constant terror to my enemy and his friends, from generation to generation, until the justice prevails.
Correct or not? This has been the thinking of US and its opponents since the time I started reading and the attitude is gaining momentum every day. Guess were it leads us and US?
If the friend of my enemy, is the constant source of my terror, then it is justified for me and my friends, to bring the constant terror to my enemy and his friends, from generation to generation, until the justice prevails.
Correct or not? This has been the thinking of US and its opponents since the time I started reading and the attitude is gaining momentum every day. Guess were it leads us and US?
Darius11 12
I don't know whom do you consider an American.
It depend if you look at the laws in the world. There are blood laws and land laws. The blood laws say it depends where your parents were from. The land laws say it depends on where you are born.
My spelling is not my strong point that’s why i am not an English teacher. But i am sure you don't have a clue on how to write or speak Farsi.
Singer born too Saxon immigrant parents who came to America
Steven Wozniak is of Polish ancestry
I really don't have the time point out all the facts to you do the research your self.
It depend if you look at the laws in the world. There are blood laws and land laws. The blood laws say it depends where your parents were from. The land laws say it depends on where you are born.
My spelling is not my strong point that’s why i am not an English teacher. But i am sure you don't have a clue on how to write or speak Farsi.
Singer born too Saxon immigrant parents who came to America
Steven Wozniak is of Polish ancestry
I really don't have the time point out all the facts to you do the research your self.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
Darius11 12
well at least we can agree now that the Israelis do have nuclear weapons, and it is always ok to blame the French
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
sundevil777 94
QuoteRight now it sucks to be Palestinian, Israelis are large proponents of this suckage, and Americans are guilty by association.
Their situation sucks due largely to their own actions (despicable leaders have taken them down this path)
Please check out this old post about Arafat-KGB operative:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=673688;search_string=Arafat;#673688
I will waste bandwidth by showing the article again here because it is such a good read:
COMMENTARY
The KGB's Man
By ION MIHAI PACEPA
(Mr. Pacepa was the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected
from the former Soviet bloc. The author of "Red Horizons" (Regnery, 1987), he is
finishing a book on the origins of current anti-Americanism._
The Israeli government has vowed to expel Yasser Arafat, calling him an
"obstacle" to peace. But the 72-year-old Palestinian leader is much more than
that; he is a career terrorist, trained, armed and bankrolled by the Soviet
Union and its satellites for decades.
Before I defected to America from Romania, leaving my post as chief of Romanian
intelligence, I was responsible for giving Arafat about $200,000 in laundered
cash every month throughout the 1970s. I also sent two cargo planes to Beirut a
week, stuffed with uniforms and supplies. Other Soviet bloc states did much the
same. Terrorism has been extremely profitable for Arafat. According to Forbes
magazine, he is today the sixth wealthiest among the world's "kings, queens &
despots," with more than $300 million stashed in Swiss bank accounts.
* * *
"I invented the hijackings [of passenger planes]," Arafat bragged when I first
met him at his PLO headquarters in Beirut in the early 1970s. He gestured toward
the little red flags pinned on a wall map of the world that labeled Israel as
"Palestine." "There they all are!" he told me, proudly. The dubious honor of
inventing hijacking actually goes to the KGB, which first hijacked a U.S.
passenger plane in 1960 to Communist Cuba. Arafat's innovation was the suicide
bomber, a terror concept that would come to full flower on 9/11.
In 1972, the Kremlin put Arafat and his terror networks high on all Soviet bloc
intelligence services' priority list, including mine. Bucharest's role was to
ingratiate him with the White House. We were the bloc experts at this. We'd
already had great success in making Washington -- as well as most of the
fashionable left-leaning American academics of the day -- believe that Nicolae
Ceausescu was, like Josip Broz Tito, an "independent" Communist with a
"moderate" streak.
KGB chairman Yuri Andropov in February 1972 laughed to me about the Yankee
gullibility for celebrities. We'd outgrown Stalinist cults of personality, but
those crazy Americans were still naïve enough to revere national leaders. We
would make Arafat into just such a figurehead and gradually move the PLO closer
to power and statehood. Andropov thought that Vietnam-weary Americans would
snatch at the smallest sign of conciliation to promote Arafat from terrorist to
statesman in their hopes for peace.
Right after that meeting, I was given the KGB's "personal file" on Arafat. He
was an Egyptian bourgeois turned into a devoted Marxist by KGB foreign
intelligence. The KGB had trained him at its Balashikha special-ops school east
of Moscow and in the mid-1960s decided to groom him as the future PLO leader.
First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat's birth in Cairo,
replacing them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in
Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth.
The KGB's disinformation department then went to work on Arafat's four-page
tract called "Falastinuna" (Our Palestine), turning it into a 48-page monthly
magazine for the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah. Arafat had headed
al-Fatah since 1957. The KGB distributed it throughout the Arab world and in
West Germany, which in those days played host to many Palestinian students. The
KGB was adept at magazine publication and distribution; it had many similar
periodicals in various languages for its front organizations in Western Europe,
like the World Peace Council and the World Federation of Trade Unions.
Next, the KGB gave Arafat an ideology and an image, just as it did for loyal
Communists in our international front organizations. High-minded idealism held
no mass-appeal in the Arab world, so the KGB remolded Arafat as a rabid
anti-Zionist. They also selected a "personal hero" for him -- the Grand Mufti
Haj Amin al-Husseini, the man who visited Auschwitz in the late 1930s and
reproached the Germans for not having killed even more Jews. In 1985 Arafat paid
homage to the mufti, saying he was "proud no end" to be walking in his
footsteps.
Arafat was an important undercover operative for the KGB. Right after the 1967
Six Day Arab-Israeli war, Moscow got him appointed to chairman of the PLO.
Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, a Soviet puppet, proposed the appointment. In
1969 the KGB asked Arafat to declare war on American "imperial-Zionism" during
the first summit of the Black Terrorist International, a neo-Fascist
pro-Palestine organization financed by the KGB and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. It
appealed to him so much, Arafat later claimed to have invented the
imperial-Zionist battle cry. But in fact, "imperial-Zionism" was a Moscow
invention, a modern adaptation of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and
long a favorite tool of Russian intelligence to foment ethnic hatred. The KGB
always regarded anti-Semitism plus anti-imperialism as a rich source of
anti-Americanism.
The KGB file on Arafat also said that in the Arab world only people who were
truly good at deception could achieve high status. We Romanians were directed to
help Arafat improve "his extraordinary talent for deceiving." The KGB chief of
foreign intelligence, General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, ordered us to provide cover
for Arafat's terror operations, while at the same time building up his
international image. "Arafat is a brilliant stage manager," his letter
concluded, "and we should put him to good use." In March 1978 I secretly brought
Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. "You
simply have to keep on pretending that you'll break with terrorism and that
you'll recognize Israel -- over, and over, and over," Ceausescu told him for the
umpteenth time. Ceausescu was euphoric over the prospect that both Arafat and he
might be able to snag a Nobel Peace Prize with their fake displays of the olive
branch.
In April 1978 I accompanied Ceausescu to Washington, where he charmed President
Carter. Arafat, he urged, would transform his brutal PLO into a law-abiding
government-in-exile if only the U.S. would establish official relations. The
meeting was a great success for us. Carter hailed Ceausescu, dictator of the
most repressive police state in Eastern Europe, as a "great national and
international leader" who had "taken on a role of leadership in the entire
international community." Triumphant, Ceausescu brought home a joint communiqué
in which the American president stated that his friendly relations with
Ceausescu served "the cause of the world."
* * *
Three months later I was granted political asylum by the U.S. Ceausescu failed
to get his Nobel Peace Prize. But in 1994 Arafat got his -- all because he
continued to play the role we had given him to perfection. He had transformed
his terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority), always
pretending to call a halt to Palestinian terrorism while letting it continue
unabated. Two years after signing the Oslo Accords, the number of Israelis
killed by Palestinian terrorists had risen by 73%.
On Oct. 23, 1998, President Clinton concluded his public remarks to Arafat by
thanking him for "decades and decades and decades of tireless representation of
the longing of the Palestinian people to be free, self-sufficient, and at home."
The current administration sees through Arafat's charade but will not publicly
support his expulsion. Meanwhile, the aging terrorist has consolidated his
control over the Palestinian Authority and marshaled his young followers for
more suicide attacks.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
Darius11 12
There is an old Iranian saying. It says when you read a story remember who held the pen.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
Michele 1
QuoteIt depend if you look at the laws in the world. There are blood laws and land laws. The blood laws say it depends where your parents were from. The land laws say it depends on where you are born.
Ah, well. See, in the US, it is generally accepted that if you were born here, you are American. I'm pretty sure that's the way it is in lots of countries, but I can't be sure. I just know that it holds true for the US.
And, you can become a naturalized citizen (ie Schwarzenegger {I can't spell his name}) by going through the citizenship courses, too.
If it were blood law, then I am not wholly american, but rather scots, irish and american indian. I would then say that nobody could claim natural american status, with the exception of the native american population.
Further, extrapolating that out, you could only be american if you were in the americas during it's formation, and thus we could simply eliminate all the native population in the west, the north (Alaska), and also all the Hawai'ian natives as well.
Your examples demonstrate that heritage is important in your argument. I think, not knowing what you are arguing about, that Americans are those born here, or those naturalized here.
Did that help clarify things?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
"Disputes in Palestine? Hell yes Palestinians have every right to be pissed off, not as Christians or Muslims, but as Palestinians. Right now it sucks to be Palestinian, Israelis are large proponents of this suckage, and Americans are guilty by association"
I am sorry but you're misguided. Have you ever looked at a map of the middle east? Israel is the tiniest country by far. The rest of the Arab/muslim nations have far more land and wealth than Israel. Why dont they help the Pallies and give them a piece of land?
I'll tell you why. Its because they wouldnt have a cheesy excuse to attack the Jews.
Israel is guilty of nothing but defending itself and I am really tired of hearing America is guilty of anything.
Why dont you do a little research and see who is THE LARGEST giver of foriegn aid in the world. We give it to shithole places like Somalia who murder our soldiers and drag them thru the streets in thanks. No one ever thanks America for the good it does. They only accuses us of meddling.
I am sorry but you're misguided. Have you ever looked at a map of the middle east? Israel is the tiniest country by far. The rest of the Arab/muslim nations have far more land and wealth than Israel. Why dont they help the Pallies and give them a piece of land?
I'll tell you why. Its because they wouldnt have a cheesy excuse to attack the Jews.
Israel is guilty of nothing but defending itself and I am really tired of hearing America is guilty of anything.
Why dont you do a little research and see who is THE LARGEST giver of foriegn aid in the world. We give it to shithole places like Somalia who murder our soldiers and drag them thru the streets in thanks. No one ever thanks America for the good it does. They only accuses us of meddling.
champu 1
I think if you are talking about inventions, it would be fair to attribute those made at American universities, laboratories, and/or companies to America as a whole. (after, of course, the individual(s))QuoteI don't know whom do you consider an American.
It depend if you look at the laws in the world. There are blood laws and land laws. The blood laws say it depends where your parents were from. The land laws say it depends on where you are born.
Environment can be everything.
"I really don't have the time point out all the facts to you do the research your self. "
If you cant back up your facts....then dont post crap I have to wade through. This is a debate, without facts to back up your argument you lose.
"I don't know whom do you consider an American.
It depend if you look at the laws in the world. There are blood laws and land laws. The blood laws say it depends where your parents were from. The land laws say it depends on where you are born"
Born or naturalized, still American. By your reasoning, unless you are an Indian, you're not American.
Some of the Founding Fathers were immigrants, I believe.
If you cant back up your facts....then dont post crap I have to wade through. This is a debate, without facts to back up your argument you lose.
"I don't know whom do you consider an American.
It depend if you look at the laws in the world. There are blood laws and land laws. The blood laws say it depends where your parents were from. The land laws say it depends on where you are born"
Born or naturalized, still American. By your reasoning, unless you are an Indian, you're not American.
Some of the Founding Fathers were immigrants, I believe.
Darius11 12
You are 100 percent right Michele.
The U.S. is run by Land laws.
There are many countries that are not.
My point is only that there is more then one way of looking at a situation.
If you have read most of the posts made on this thread you will see many times that i mention i am not on a side.
I feel i have to point out things to people who have made their mind up 100 percent that one side is wrong and the other is right.
I have been lucky to live in two completely different cultures.
i have seen both good and bad people in all places. I do not like to judge. When there are statements made that punch up a billion people just because of peoples anger or misinformation it is a sad thing. I have no problem with people naming who they think is bad, Evil, or a terrorist. It is when they are named by their race or religion that I have a problem with.
It is very easy to decide if war is an option when you are not the one being bombed.
When people speak up and say things like make the region a “parking lot” those are the people that have no clue what war is. Or they don’t care as long as they are comfortable sitting at home watching it on TV.
The other reason for the posts are for learning there are people here that I do not agree with but they have good points. sundevil777 has pointed out some facts that I did not know.
Knowledge is the only way we can have peace.
I do have to say this post is not just directed at you but every one here.
The U.S. is run by Land laws.
There are many countries that are not.
My point is only that there is more then one way of looking at a situation.
If you have read most of the posts made on this thread you will see many times that i mention i am not on a side.
I feel i have to point out things to people who have made their mind up 100 percent that one side is wrong and the other is right.
I have been lucky to live in two completely different cultures.
i have seen both good and bad people in all places. I do not like to judge. When there are statements made that punch up a billion people just because of peoples anger or misinformation it is a sad thing. I have no problem with people naming who they think is bad, Evil, or a terrorist. It is when they are named by their race or religion that I have a problem with.
It is very easy to decide if war is an option when you are not the one being bombed.
When people speak up and say things like make the region a “parking lot” those are the people that have no clue what war is. Or they don’t care as long as they are comfortable sitting at home watching it on TV.
The other reason for the posts are for learning there are people here that I do not agree with but they have good points. sundevil777 has pointed out some facts that I did not know.
Knowledge is the only way we can have peace.
I do have to say this post is not just directed at you but every one here.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
Darius11 12
Well( Speaking very slowly)
There are countries that have laws considered land laws.
and there is ones that have what is commonly known as blood laws.
I think i explained what they mean.
If you look at it from the point of view of the blood laws.
They inventors you had named are not American. If you look at it from the point of view of the land law they are all Americans. It depends on what’s your point of you that’s all. I can't debate a point of view as there is no wrong or right. depends how you look at it.
Just telling you the way your looking at it is not the Only way.
Just wanted to say goodnight as i am off to bed.
We might not agree.
But peace and love to all
goodnight
There are countries that have laws considered land laws.
and there is ones that have what is commonly known as blood laws.
I think i explained what they mean.
If you look at it from the point of view of the blood laws.
They inventors you had named are not American. If you look at it from the point of view of the land law they are all Americans. It depends on what’s your point of you that’s all. I can't debate a point of view as there is no wrong or right. depends how you look at it.
Just telling you the way your looking at it is not the Only way.
Just wanted to say goodnight as i am off to bed.
We might not agree.
But peace and love to all
goodnight
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
champu 1
If you're speaking in gross terms I agree we're #1. Relative to our country's wealth, we are further down the line, historically not even falling in line with the UN's target of %0.7 of the GDP (more like %0.1 in the 1990s)QuoteWhy dont you do a little research and see who is THE LARGEST giver of foriegn aid in the world. We give it to shithole places like Somalia who murder our soldiers and drag them thru the streets in thanks. No one ever thanks America for the good it does. They only accuses us of meddling.
Even though we do provide a lot of developmental funds, it's nearly impossible to avoid bias when it comes time to dole out the foreign aid. It's also ridiculous to expect nothing but praise when you give out money to nations entrenched in military conflict.
Michele 1
I agree, Darius, that looking at things from only one perspective is pretty limiting.
What I would add, though, is that I have a personal issue with any sort of blood lines being the determinate factor in making any sort of assessment. While I understand that there are cultures wherein lineage and heritage are the most important aspects that determines a person's destiny, to me (and this is only personal...) that is something that is in fact a significant inhibitor. That leaves lots of very intelligent people out of the equasion simply because their parents were (name that race, culture, idiological reference) and that (fill in the blank) is considered not as capable. History is rife with that sort of issue - no need to name them here - and it has been the base for some of the global community's most shameful actions.
I have read a lot of the posts. You bring some interesting commentary to the table, as do others. Whether I agree with them or not is a different matter entirely. I have very strongly held views that were not come by easily nor simply; and I have changed some of them over time from one end of the spectrum to the other based on life, information, and experience.
I value commentary that is not intended to inflame, but rather that which is made to inform. I have heard both tones here on this thread, but I shan't name them.
Just some thoughts tonight...
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
What I would add, though, is that I have a personal issue with any sort of blood lines being the determinate factor in making any sort of assessment. While I understand that there are cultures wherein lineage and heritage are the most important aspects that determines a person's destiny, to me (and this is only personal...) that is something that is in fact a significant inhibitor. That leaves lots of very intelligent people out of the equasion simply because their parents were (name that race, culture, idiological reference) and that (fill in the blank) is considered not as capable. History is rife with that sort of issue - no need to name them here - and it has been the base for some of the global community's most shameful actions.
I have read a lot of the posts. You bring some interesting commentary to the table, as do others. Whether I agree with them or not is a different matter entirely. I have very strongly held views that were not come by easily nor simply; and I have changed some of them over time from one end of the spectrum to the other based on life, information, and experience.
I value commentary that is not intended to inflame, but rather that which is made to inform. I have heard both tones here on this thread, but I shan't name them.
Just some thoughts tonight...
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Quote"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death." - So kill all the gays, basically.
I think it's great how it says nothing about women sleeping with women. I guess God goes for hot lesbo action, too.
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuoteAmerica got a taste of its own medicine on 9/11
Terro= when the bad guys hit the good guys.. now who is good and who is bad?and who deside it?
only one thing is sure.. all the inocent people pays the price
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Bad = Those that blow up buildings and cars and buses and hijack planes full of people to drive them into major city's and large buildings and try to promote terrorism, as well as those that use chemical weapons on their own people for reasons like, "They disagreed with me" or have people pushed off of buildings for similar reasons. (You get the point.)
good = Those that retaliate and wage war on terrorism.
Pretty cut and dry there.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Faber 0
theres different ways to preform terro,one of the biggest are to go to war,claiming that evrybody than once own backyard is bad.Then FORCE people to change just becours we belive in one thing that dosnt hamonize whith their point of weiv,or if they dont want to trade after our rules..
Terro can be sending food for oil,even as the wrong people get the profit,but as long as the strong cuntryes get what they want,then who cares?
I DONT like Sadam or Bin Laden,and i dont like thier point of weivs,but try to find out why they has it that way(besides they are cracy)
Dont through whith rocks if you live in a glass house...
as they showed,then you cant feel safe just becours of an ocean,right as they cant feel safe aswell.
stop fight wars if you dont like to get hurt..
try to turn it 180degree,would YOU feel ok if it were them,forcing you to live another way?i dont think so...
Stay safe
Stefan Faber
Terro can be sending food for oil,even as the wrong people get the profit,but as long as the strong cuntryes get what they want,then who cares?
I DONT like Sadam or Bin Laden,and i dont like thier point of weivs,but try to find out why they has it that way(besides they are cracy)
Dont through whith rocks if you live in a glass house...
as they showed,then you cant feel safe just becours of an ocean,right as they cant feel safe aswell.
stop fight wars if you dont like to get hurt..
try to turn it 180degree,would YOU feel ok if it were them,forcing you to live another way?i dont think so...
Stay safe
Stefan Faber
QuoteIf you're speaking in gross terms I agree we're #1. Relative to our country's wealth, we are further down the line, historically not even falling in line with the UN's target of %0.7 of the GDP (more like %0.1 in the 1990s)QuoteWhy dont you do a little research and see who is THE LARGEST giver of foriegn aid in the world. We give it to shithole places like Somalia who murder our soldiers and drag them thru the streets in thanks. No one ever thanks America for the good it does. They only accuses us of meddling.
Even though we do provide a lot of developmental funds, it's nearly impossible to avoid bias when it comes time to dole out the foreign aid. It's also ridiculous to expect nothing but praise when you give out money to nations entrenched in military conflict.
Oh. The UN. That wonderfully relevant organization.
Why should we let them tell us how much of OUR money we should give. Here's an example of the UN's stupidity:
http://www.bens.org/sw_ar051702.html
Stanley A. Weiss
Articles
International Herald Tribune
Friday, May 17, 2002
A Charade of Bullies Feigning Decency
Human Rights Commision
WASHINGTON--While the international community was distracted by accusations of human rights violations in the West Bank, an outrage with global repercussions recently unfolded at the annual session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Some of the world's most brutal dictatorships are making a mockery of the world's highest human rights body. How tainted is today's commission? Just compare its membership against the ranking of democracies published annually by independent, nonprofit Freedom House, based in New York. Of the commission's 53 member nations, 29, or 55 percent, are rated only partly free or not free by Freedom House, meaning that they have little or no respect for basic civil liberties or political rights.
The commission, which is intended to "examine, monitor and publicly report" human rights abuses, includes such not-free regimes as Communist China, with its criminal record on human rights and violent repression of religious minorities.
There are Congo and Algeria, whose security forces regularly torture and murder civilians with impunity. And Communist Vietnam, which continues to stamp out any hint of dissent.
And there is partly-free Russia, whose forces in Chechnya have killed thousands of civilians, left hundreds of thousands homeless and been accused of widespread rape and torture. Of the 10 regimes ranked worst by Freedom House, half - Fidel Castro's Cuba, Moammar Gadhafi's Libya, female-oppressing Saudi Arabia, slave-trading Sudan and terrorist-supporting Syria - have seats on the commission.
How did these habitual abusers come to dominate the body designed to police them? Blame the complex dynamics of the United Nations, which too often put politics above principle. As in all UN bodies, membership on the commission is based on regional quotas - 15 seats for Africa, 12 for Asia, and so on. A nation's human rights record is not a criterion. In most cases, regions decide who will represent them during three-year terms. Only when a region offers more candidates that it has seats does something like a real election occur, by secret ballot of the 54-member UN Social and Economic Council, which oversees the commission.
It was this secret vote that booted the United States out last year for the first time since the commission's founding in 1947. The 21 nations of the so-called Western European and Other Group had offered four candidates for three seats. (The United States recently regained its seat for the 2003-2005 period.)
Meanwhile, the African bloc selected Libya and Algeria, and the Asian bloc selected Saudi Arabia and Syria.
The commission's recent session in Geneva in some cases followed the old practice of shaming by naming - for example, highlighting abuses by Iraq and Cuba. But the real shame was vote after vote in which an alliance of abusers united to defeat condemnations of their own miserable behavior. For the first time in two decades, the commission voted not to criticize Iran for its record of religious and political persecution. Among the 20 commission members providing cover for the Islamic Republic were fellow oppressors Saudi Arabia, Libya and Pakistan, joined by China and Cuba. An Iranian diplomat called the vote a "great victory."
Russia was spared criticism of its brutal Chechnya campaign, thanks to the support of China, Syria and Cuba - dictatorships which then joined in repeatedly condemning the West Bank incursions by Israel.
Instead of watching for abuse, members once again watched one another's backs. Nigeria, which stands accused of massacring thousands of its citizens in recent years, voted to prevent debate on Chinese abuses. China, in turn, backed a Nigerian motion to prevent condemnation of Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwe strongman who rigged his March re-election after violently repressing political opponents.
President Jiang Zemin then traveled to Nigeria to express China's gratitude for the African regime's help in protecting "the legitimate rights and interests of the developing world."
Nigeria took the lead in persuading the commission to end the regular human rights monitoring of its neighbor Equatorial Guinea, known for torturing and imprisoning opponents of the ruling regime. That was just weeks after the two nations resolved a long dispute over their maritime border and access to the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea.
Acknowledging allegations of the commission's "increased politicization," the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, called on members to engage in "deep reflection." African members reflected, then granted a seat to Zimbabwe.
Robinson warned delegates as they left Geneva that "if the commission is not able to act for the protection of those whose rights are being violated on a massive scale," it would "lose its essence."
If the United Nations is to realize the lofty goals of its founders, prying this important human rights body out of the bloody hands of the world's worst abusers would be a good place to start.
Ha Ha. If it wasnt so disgusting it would be funny.
jaaska 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteAmerica got a taste of its own medicine on 9/11
Terro= when the bad guys hit the good guys.. now who is good and who is bad?and who deside it?
only one thing is sure.. all the inocent people pays the price
Bad = Those that blow up buildings and cars and buses and hijack planes full of people to drive them into major city's and large buildings and try to promote terrorism, as well as those that use chemical weapons on their own people for reasons like, "They disagreed with me" or have people pushed off of buildings for similar reasons. (You get the point.)
good = Those that retaliate and wage war on terrorism.
Pretty cut and dry there.
Are you guys all this bipolar? Gee, I guess it makes life easier, huh?
Could you please define following things, too? (with relations to each other, if possible):
Terrorist
(Freedom) Fighter
Combatant
Guerilla
Partisan
Soldier
Patriot
etc. etc. etc.
When the cold war was on it's coldest, Soviets were probably thinking of "liberating" Finland. Most the men in Finland have gone trough military training. The backbone of the defense would have been (in the event Soviets would have actually attacked) guerilla warware (I'm got my training solely based on that).
Now, in Soviets eyes, I would have been _____________ (fill in appropriate)
Compare this to a little "domestic" "thing" Russians are having right now with "real" terrorists...
It's all about perspective. Someones terrorist is anothers freedom fighter or patriot. What do you think England called American patriots in 17 hundreds?
Oh, and it's not only the "real" terrorists that blow up residential areas, civilians or their houses, children etc. etc. etc.
War is very ugly. Always.
No, I just don't remember the timing.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites