What do u think about Iran, its government and its people?

the topics name is clear ... i really want to know what u think about iran , plz tell me what u really think about iran !

The only Iranian person I have ever met was a very nice lady perhaps in her 50s but I couldn't tell.
I was tutoring her for a computer technician course she was doing to help her understand technical jargon and basic electronics.
Very classy lady, very nice, and well mannered.

Iran as a country, I don't know much about... seems to mind its own business and keep to itself... unlike those accusing it of being evil.

I find it amusing when people point to it and the religious controls as part of government and suggest it is wrong considering that while is spend centuries fighting against democracy because it usurped its power the christian churches have somehow become part of western governments... though they will never admit to the links.

As far as I am concerned Iran is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East.

GarryB wrote:As far as I am concerned Iran is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East.

wow,
what kind of democracy ? Garry

You can find pic like that for every democracy on the world.

There's no such thing as "guenine democracy" in this world

Viktor wrote:You can find pic like that for every democracy on the world.

it's something different,,real democracy don't use bullets against protesters !

in iran there is only just aman who control this country for long time



since ARDESHiR,, they putting the rules of ( accept and don't argue !),we called it in arabic (طاعه),only khomeini who control the whole country, you shouldn't argue him in any thing,you just should accept it or you will be in prison...

i think those youth can change this backward thinking !
they try in the last (green revolution ),but as you see the pic.s above,so they failed...



but there is always ahope ..!

Democracy is a political system that gives people the chance to have a say.

Is means nothing in regard to the judicial system or police actions.

it's something different,,real democracy don't use bullets against protesters !

Hahahahahaha... really?

Then there is no such thing as democracy... in the US students protesting the war in Vietnam were shot and killed by police and militia.

All governments use bullets to retain order/power.


In different countries the definition of what a criminal is is different.
In one country they might torture and kill someone for trying to overthrow the government. In another they might kill someone for drug trafficing.
In some countries child molestors get that sort of treatment. Depends on the culture... what offends the people.

Democracy and dictatorship no longer have real meaning in the west anyway when the US can call Chavez a Dictator even though he is an elected official they overthrew illegally once.

Most people in the west think royal families go back thousands of years, and so when they hear about the Saudi Royal Family they think Saudi Arabia and its royal family have been there for centuries. It is not widely known, or ignored in the west that the Saudi Royal family were picked from obscurity in the 1920s because the defeat of Germany meant that German territory had to be divided up by Britain and France and Yes the US as well. New lines on the map, new upper caste people to run the new countries in the imperial powers interests. This normally meant picking a weak minority and putting them in power. To keep the majority in check they tended to be brutal and were loyal to the imperial power that put them in their position of control because there was no way they could get there on their own.

Lots of people in American Samoa with German last names...

Then there is no such thing as democracy... in the US students protesting the war in Vietnam were shot and killed by police and militia.

All governments use bullets to retain order/power

.

i didn't say that this will never happen ! ,but there is adifference between happening just in apecial cases and aconstant way of agovernment !

kent state shootings was something like asingle event 40 years ago, killed 4 students and the guardsmen be charged, and here is the difference,, in iran who will charge policemen, may be Khomeni ,he the one that should be jailed..

if you took kent state as asupport of your view,i can talk about hundred and thousands of protesters in USA against war on iraq, afghanistan and low jobs,anyone killed them ?!

In different countries the definition of what a criminal is is different.

thats what i'm talking about,
do u know what they said about protesters ?
they said they enemies to god and his messenger ..

so,they put these fake reasons to jail and torthure everyone protesing in streets,
gov. closed newspapers that encourge protesters ,jail reporters of these newspapers and tortured them,,snatched youth and womens from streets, i believe that admocracy is levels and countries differ in these levels , but what happening in iran is the lowest level (and really this is good for them !)...

Democracy and dictatorship no longer have real meaning in the west anyway when the US can call Chavez a Dictator even though he is an elected official they overthrew illegally once.

here is another difference between the manner of gov inside country and outside it,,usa when dealing with other countries there is no democrcy now in her real dictionary,just benefts from politics ,if Mubarak agreed to establish US military base in egypt,already he will be the biggest fair democratic man in middle east !
it differ from dealing with your people and other govs..

in my opinion,Khomeni is the biggest dictator in that area..

GarryB wrote:Democracy is a political system that gives people the chance to have a say.

Is means nothing in regard to the judicial system or police actions.

it's something different,,real democracy don't use bullets against protesters !

Hahahahahaha... really?

Then there is no such thing as democracy... in the US students protesting the war in Vietnam were shot and killed by police and militia.

All governments use bullets to retain order/power.


In different countries the definition of what a criminal is is different.
In one country they might torture and kill someone for trying to overthrow the government. In another they might kill someone for drug trafficing.
In some countries child molestors get that sort of treatment. Depends on the culture... what offends the people.

Democracy and dictatorship no longer have real meaning in the west anyway when the US can call Chavez a Dictator even though he is an elected official they overthrew illegally once.

Most people in the west think royal families go back thousands of years, and so when they hear about the Saudi Royal Family they think Saudi Arabia and its royal family have been there for centuries. It is not widely known, or ignored in the west that the Saudi Royal family were picked from obscurity in the 1920s because the defeat of Germany meant that German territory had to be divided up by Britain and France and Yes the US as well. New lines on the map, new upper caste people to run the new countries in the imperial powers interests. This normally meant picking a weak minority and putting them in power. To keep the majority in check they tended to be brutal and were loyal to the imperial power that put them in their position of control because there was no way they could get there on their own.

Lots of people in American Samoa with German last names...

But do they change the Result of Votes ? Do they Kill people in the name of GOD ? and show every one like Iran hates Israel or USA or UK !? well , id like any one who Tries to rule people with power ! but when i see my own gov ... i dont care about others !
Israel kills Muslims , OK , im sad , but do they kill their own people like iran ? NO ! a big NO !
If u didnt know , let me tell u , in Iran - Iraq war , iran Got We pones from USA and Israel too ! this is just a game !

In America votes are bought all the time.

The US has the balls to call Russia out for its corruption but any big business in the US can spend billions of dollars on what they call a lobby group that will harass politicians or bribe them to get certain laws passed or certain laws not passed... and you can be sure these laws have nothing in the interests of the general public in mind.

If US politicians were honest they would have jackets that showed who their sponsors were... they would look like race car drivers... and even their underpants would have adverts on them... every square cm of real estate would be covered with a name and picture.

You get a real democracy with a free press, but there is no free press. Big business in the west owns the newspapers and TV stations and they just want people to not think and keep buying their products. They didn't get big for no reason so their style of business suits the current system. There is no way they want change so poor people will get a better deal. Poor people are seen as stupid or criminal or lazy.

You ask if they change the result of votes?

An election in the US takes about a year and is rigged especially to make it near impossible for the person with the most votes to actually get elected. If you are not a Democrat or a Republican then forget it.

You asked if they kill in the name of god... they invented strategic bombing.
The Eastern Front is always depicted as hell on earth... those damn ruthless evil Russians. In moral terms... which is the way the west like to look at things, the Soviets were killing mostly German soldiers on their own territory till they pushed them back into Germany... after which there was a lot of rape and looting. The Germans on the other hand spend most of the war killing and looting and raping Soviet civilians and killing Soviet soldiers. The West killed some Germans in north Africa but for the vast majority of the war they were killing millions of German civlians with their strategic bombing campaign.

The German strategic bombing of London made them knuckle down and become more determined to fight the Germans. It is taught in the west however that it was western strategic bombing that won the war... even though German production only increased during that period.

They would talk about ball bearing factories that if hit would have shortened the war by 2 years... but they never seemed to hit them.

But that is 60 years ago.

I ask you what has changed?

The west is still happy to send its air planes to bomb people who don't do as they are told.

It has nothing to do with morality. Mugabe has not been bombed. No UN bombs falling on Rwanda. But the Serbs are friend with the Russians so they get bombed. The Iraqis have oil and owe the Russians 6 billion dollars for arms and they get bombed. Iran is having nuclear reactors built by Russia. UAVs are seen nearby.

The West is made up of all the former imperial powers except Russia. In fact you could say it is an Imperial Navy boys club that has killed more over the last century than hunger has. Especially when you consider that WWII was a direct result of the terms of WWI imposed on Germany which was no more to blame for WWI than Britain or France or Russia.

if you took kent state as asupport of your view,i can talk about hundred and thousands of protesters in USA against war on iraq, afghanistan and low jobs,anyone killed them ?!

If everyone who protested in Iran was killed show me the huge piles of bodies there must be hundreds of thousands killed each year.

thats what i'm talking about,
do u know what they said about protesters ?
they said they enemies to god and his messenger

Bush said God told him to invade Iraq.

Ronny Raygun used to listen to his wife for advice and she got her wisdom from an Astrologer.

in my opinion,Khomeni is the biggest dictator in that area..

The term dictator has a meaning. Someone voted into power is not a dictator till they refuse to be voted out and remain against the will of the people.

Queen Elizabeth is not an elected official and is in power based on birthright. In technical terms she is a dictator too and the fact that she chooses not to wield the power she has does not take away from the fact that she is not an elected figure.

In fact she is the head of the Church of England and is therefore a religious figurehead too... she is the direct equivalent of the pope for catholics.

Leader must be fair & kind to the ruled ones don't giv a sh!t whether he/she be a military or civil. In the case of Iranians the problem is that their president is so much intrigued with the age-old demagogic mullahs happen to mask themselves as vanguards of faith!! You can't have a dress you like, damn you can't have a personal hair-cut choice..LOL to such democracy

What a load of crap.

Throughout the entire 3 months of violence in Iran back in 2009, only 36 ppl died. I was there and I saw all that shit that lasted a week, if that.

Just yesterday 36 Egyptians got slaughtered like pigs in Egypt.....what to talk about Iran?

Equally there is a difference between the US shooting students protesting the US involvement in Vietnam, and Iran shooting at protesters likely supported by foreign elements wanting the overthrow of the government.

It is the Saudis promoting the spread of muslim fanaticism around the world, not Iran. Of the 19 hijackers on 11/9 15 were Saudi nationals...

Iran gets involved in the internal affairs of its neighbours, but that is perfectly normal everywhere.

The west has done far worse to Iran than Iran has ever done to the west.

I think the west should just leave them alone... the country with the perfect human rights record can interfere (which means none of them).

Better be quiet Garry.......if you say too much like what you just said, the Jews, right wing shit-billy christian right will come out of the woodwork, and brand you a fukkin anti-Semitic Nazi.

You will lose all privileges in life, and be thrown out to the wolves. Worse, you might just be carted away in one of those CIA rendition programs somewhere in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, where sunni muslim puppets of the West torture you for crumbs.

Better accept the holocaust which is the only thing sacred left in the West as your religion, and kow-tow to the 'intellectual' and fukkin 'academic' think tank party line run by the Zionists.

If you don't do that, you'd even get banned on this site!

I am happy to admit I am anti zionist, but I am hardly anti semetic.

There are jewish people around the world doing great things, not all jews support the existence of Israel.

One of my favourite directors is Mel Brooks... especially when he manages to include himself as Adolf Hitler in the movies he does... I think it is delicious... a Jewish man prancing around saying "Heil Myself" dressed as Hitler...

Blazing Saddles is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen.

I have no problems with Jewish people and I hope I have made that pretty clear in all my rants to date on this forum.

If a group of Christians got together and invaded a place in the Middle East mentioned in their bible and created a new state I would be just as anti them as well as I am anti zionist.

If a group of very wealthy Jews got together and offered Vlad a million dollars to ban me, well I would say ban me and enjoy the cash Vlad... the thing is that I can't see that happening... rich people don't get rich by throwing their money around... if they did then there wouldn't be this big gap between rich and poor that is only going to get worse because it is always easier to make money with money.

I also don't accept the Holocaust because it is racist.

The holocaust, as taught in western society is all about the big mean nazis killing Jews.

In actual fact those big mean nazis actually killed lots of different groups of people including the mentally and physically handicapped, the gypsies, the homosexuals, the communists, and the people in the countries they wanted to occupy like Russia and the Ukraine.

Everyone knows the figure of 6 million jews killed, but we don't know how many in the other groups died because they didn't have a lobby group telling everyone who would listen.

It is a bit like the 57,000 odd Americans killed in Vietnam... everyone knows that figure, but how many Canadians died in that conflict? How many New Zealanders? How many Australians? How many French? How many Vietnamese? ...I don't know, and the Americans telling the story don't even care. It was their war and they lost and there are 57,000 odd names on a wall somewhere.

Vietnam is a war, not a country to them.

For Vietnam of course the war continues to kill with all that UXO and of course the ever lasting effects of agent orange and all the other coloured agents tested by the Americans during that conflict.

And of course the neighbouring countries like Laos that got bombed too.

GarryB wrote:An election in the US takes about a year and is rigged especially to make it near impossible for the person with the most votes to actually get elected. If you are not a Democrat or a Republican then forget it.

Yes, it's a system overwhelmingly dominated by the two major parties, but no, the system isn't rigged against the popular vote per se. It is an archaic and ridiculous system to continue using to elect the President, but the popular vote is not what gets you elected, nor is it explicitly intended to.

GarryB wrote:It has nothing to do with morality. Mugabe has not been bombed. No UN bombs falling on Rwanda. But the Serbs are friend with the Russians so they get bombed. The Iraqis have oil and owe the Russians 6 billion dollars for arms and they get bombed. Iran is having nuclear reactors built by Russia. UAVs are seen nearby.

Of course it has nothing to do with morality. It's all about national interest. Morality is just the justification politicians use to sell the cause to the voters. However, while you (not you explicitly, but people in general) can object to the reasons/results/etc. of US/Western military action in various places, you cannot on one hand blame the West for interfering where it shouldn't yet blame them for not interfering in other places. That's just hypocritical.

Serbia? They got bombed for a lot of reasons, but being friedly with Russia is a very large stretch. My take: we had no business bothering with the internal affairs of the FRY.

Iraq? Oil had nothing to do with it (we still import less from them now than we ever did with Saddam in charge...go figure), it was about 1) finding an easy win to distract people from the fact that, oh yeah, that Osama guy was really hard to find and Afghanistan was turning into a mess, and 2) ridding ourselves of a problem that the world hadn't solved in the intervening decade-plus since DESERT STORM. Completely misreading the situation and deluding ourselves into what would happen once we were finished bombing targets certainly did not help one bit. My take: we wanted (and expected) an easy win and an easy transition, but whoops, you can see how well that worked out.

Iran? Well, here's a thought: live up to your IAEA obligations, or just tell everyone to screw off and leave the NPT and therefore IAEA oversight. Then nobody has a leg to stand on whatsoever. My take: talking about a nuke-free Middle East is pointless until you get Israel to ditch its bombs. However, if Iran builds a bomb, then classify state-sponsored terrorism as a weapon of mass destruction suitable for retaliation in kind.

I see there being two problems here.

1. The West continually interferes where it shouldn't, and often does so based on contradictory reasoning. For example: it's ok to support Kosovo wanting to become independent, but if Ossetia wants to it's not. It's OK to bomb the crap out of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but Pakistan is considered to be an ally. It's OK to wage a war on terrorism, but the FARC runs free in Colombia. It's OK to hate Cuba because they're commies, but China is granted MFN trading status. The West (not just the US, but NATO, the EU, all of it) needs to step back and stop for a minute. First of all, we've got more than enough internal economic and social issues to deal with of our own. The nice bonus here is that it would force someone like Iran to stop with it's own interference and rhetoric or be exposed. Second of all, I fully support self-determination on a national level. This applies two ways. One, if a nation like Saudi Arabia chooses to live under a set of rules that are different from ours and impose different sets of values/rules/restrictions on society, so be it. That's their choice to make. Two, if a nation like Rwanda chooses to exist as a perpetual craphole, then again, also their prerogative. Realizing that being free can result in being free to make different choices than a western nation would make would go a long way to ending a lot of interference. OK, maybe not a long way, but it'd be a start. Want the US to bomb the crap out of somebody? Sign a Mutual Defense Treaty. Then actually get bombed yourself. There'd be nothing wrong with bombing the crap out of Pyongyang if Kim decides tomorrow that he wants to see how far south his artillery can fire. Let the world police itself for once, and worry about internal problems and later the problems of your actual allies. And while we're at it, disband the useless UN Security Council.

2. The West can hold a grudge like nobody's business. Look at all of the Arab Spring nations. Who got bombed? That's right, Moammar. Who did Bush 2 begin planning to go after soon after he took office the first time? That's right, Saddam. Go a little bit further back, and you get Germany failing to get over the ridiculous Treaty of Versailles and taking it out on Europe.

GarryB wrote:Equally there is a difference between the US shooting students protesting the US involvement in Vietnam, and Iran shooting at protesters likely supported by foreign elements wanting the overthrow of the government.

The Kent State protesters were protesting the invasion of Cambodia, to be specific. And while the incident itself was inexcusable and still remains largely unexplained, it's not like the Guard went in at first protest and opened fire. This was building over a few days, with constant physical assaults on law enforcement and military personnel by the protesters, who also figured that it was a good idea to go about lighting things on fire (and then attack the firefighters) and loot.

GarryB wrote:I am happy to admit I am anti zionist, but I am hardly anti semetic.

The problem is that people cannot separate the two and insist on labeling you as both. They also tend to get very irritated when you ask them why they can be so outraged at terrorist bombers trying to create a homeland out of explosions when that certainly played a part in the creation of Israel in the first place.

However, while you (not you explicitly, but people in general) can object to the reasons/results/etc. of US/Western military action in various places, you cannot on one hand blame the West for interfering where it shouldn't yet blame them for not interfering in other places. That's just hypocritical.

Blaming the victim there aren't we?

If I justify something using a specific defence... ie A female is the victim of child abuse by three uncles in separate incidents... murders (bombs) one with the abuse as the excuse, has the other put in jail (Sanctions) with the abuse as the justification, and marries the other uncle because the "loves them".

I can blame the west for using morality to justify invasions, bombings and sanctions if it does not apply that morality fairly or equally.

If the west was honest and admits to interfering for direct gain or personal interest then they are practicing what they are preaching and I can only fault them on being the imperial bullies they are.

Serbia? They got bombed for a lot of reasons, but being friedly with Russia is a very large stretch. My take: we had no business bothering with the internal affairs of the FRY.

The US found itself in a conflict where it had to pick sides... who was going to be the bad guy? Was it the countries that sided with the Nazis during WWII? Nope...Germany is an ally now so we will ignore such recent history even though the protagonists certainly have not.
Serbia got to be the bad guy because they were associated with Russia.

Iraq? Oil had nothing to do with it (we still import less from them now than we ever did with Saddam in charge...go figure), it was about 1) finding an easy win to distract people from the fact that, oh yeah, that Osama guy was really hard to find and Afghanistan was turning into a mess, and 2) ridding ourselves of a problem that the world hadn't solved in the intervening decade-plus since DESERT STORM.

Oil had everything to do with it... bomb Iraq back to the stone age and what are they going to do? Rebuild? Sure. But how do they pay for that? Pump oil. Now if they pump more oil they pay for things faster, but the price of oil goes down as production increases... does the US benefit from reduced oil prices? I think they do.
Saddam stopped being a problem to the US when he was pushed back from Kuwaite in 1991.
HE WAS NEVER A PROBLEM FOR THE WORLD.

That is US government BS rhetoric.

My take: we wanted (and expected) an easy win and an easy transition, but whoops, you can see how well that worked out.

Because the American government believes its own propaganda.
Everyone wants an American style democracy.
Of course if everyone on the planet lived like Americans the planet would be in a much worse state than it is now... no offense meant.

Iran? Well, here's a thought: live up to your IAEA obligations, or just tell everyone to screw off and leave the NPT and therefore IAEA oversight. Then nobody has a leg to stand on whatsoever. My take: talking about a nuke-free Middle East is pointless until you get Israel to ditch its bombs. However, if Iran builds a bomb, then classify state-sponsored terrorism as a weapon of mass destruction suitable for retaliation in kind.

Israels justification for having nukes is in case their neighbours get some... therefore it doesn't matter if Iran has nuclear weapons.

Your logic of leaving the IAEA would work fine if they actually wanted nuclear weapons. If they wanted civilian nuclear power generation then... well... they would have to do what they have been doing.

For example: it's ok to support Kosovo wanting to become independent, but if Ossetia wants to it's not.

And more importantly the UNSC resolution 1244 stating that Kosovo was part of Serbia was completely ignored even though it was explicit. In the case of the invasion of Iraq there was no suggestion of force being justified, so in both cases the UNSC resolutions were abused to justify their antics... and look at the no fly zone resolution on Libya... became a regime change air support role for the rebel forces.

Let the world police itself for once, and worry about internal problems and later the problems of your actual allies. And while we're at it, disband the useless UN Security Council.

The actions listed above show that it is the US in particular that makes the UNSC useless.

I find it amusing the US uses the term world police for itself, because the rest of the world sees them as a lynch mob. That is what a self appointed police officer that ignores the (international) law and intervenes only when he has a vested interest.
It isn't new, powerful countries have done this for a long time and will continue to do so... and hold themselves as the moral centre of humanity... it makes it easier to sleep at night.

What I don't get is why so many Americans don't understand why everyone doesn't love them. We are not jealous... and we are not all in enormous queues to line up to get a green card. I am sure the US is a very nice place, but I already live in a nice place thank you very much.
The people you bomb and bully don't like you because you bomb and bully them and then expect you to be grateful.

Every country has a few morons who hate their government for this or that reason and will go to the US embassy with claims of WMD programmes and secret labs... you don't have to believe all of them. In many ways the KLA played the US and the result is that criminals now run another country in Europe... like anyone would notice.

Go a little bit further back, and you get Germany failing to get over the ridiculous Treaty of Versailles and taking it out on Europe.

In Germanys defence a century on, the British and French blaming the Germans for WWI is outrageous, and up until 1933 when Hitler took power it actually drew the Germans much closer to the Soviet Union. Much of the German armour theory was seeded in those years based on joint experience between the Soviets and Germans. Remember the static trench warfare of WWI was on the western front... not the Eastern front where combat was mobile and fluid.

And while the incident itself was inexcusable and still remains largely unexplained, it's not like the Guard went in at first protest and opened fire.

If the Syrians or Iranians for that matter just opened fire on any large gathering I would suggest the fatalities would be rather higher than estimated. The protesters at Kent state were not protesting for a change of government... you know... insurrection? I rather doubt the protesters went unarmed in Syria or Iran.

The problem is that people cannot separate the two and insist on labeling you as both.

The people who can't separate the two are either Zionists or Zionist supporters and I don't care what they think... as you said, their Israel was founded on terrorism and guilt.

Indeed the skill with which they bombed and murdered their way to Israel makes you wonder about their claims of being innocent sheep led to the Nazi slaughter houses during WWII.

GarryB wrote:Blaming the victim there aren't we?

How? Either the West should or should not get involved in other nations' internal affairs. If it's should, then they should've gone into the FRY and should go into Rwanda. If it's shouldn't, then they shouldn't have gone into the FRY and should stay out of Rwanda. That's what I mean by contradictory reasoning.

GarryB wrote:If I justify something using a specific defence... ie A female is the victim of child abuse by three uncles in separate incidents... murders (bombs) one with the abuse as the excuse, has the other put in jail (Sanctions) with the abuse as the justification, and marries the other uncle because the "loves them".

That's more contradictory reasoning. I think our thought processes are more alike than we realize, I'm just failing with the putting words to screen bit today.

GarryB wrote:I can blame the west for using morality to justify invasions, bombings and sanctions if it does not apply that morality fairly or equally.

I'd argue that morality is not a sufficient reason in the first place.

GarryB wrote:The US found itself in a conflict where it had to pick sides... who was going to be the bad guy? Was it the countries that sided with the Nazis during WWII? Nope...Germany is an ally now so we will ignore such recent history even though the protagonists certainly have not.
Serbia got to be the bad guy because they were associated with Russia.

Or, Serbia got to be the bad guy because the West (specifically the US) had already sided with the KLA. Albright screwing up Rambouillet didn't help anything either.

GarryB wrote:Oil had everything to do with it... bomb Iraq back to the stone age and what are they going to do? Rebuild? Sure. But how do they pay for that? Pump oil. Now if they pump more oil they pay for things faster, but the price of oil goes down as production increases... does the US benefit from reduced oil prices? I think they do.

Then why is the price of oil still so high? Answer: OPEC.

GarryB wrote:Saddam stopped being a problem to the US when he was pushed back from Kuwaite in 1991.
HE WAS NEVER A PROBLEM FOR THE WORLD.

That is US government BS rhetoric.

That depends on your perspective. Through SOUTHERN and NORTHERN WATCH, who had the bulk of the mission (and expenses) to monitor Saddam?

GarryB wrote:Because the American government believes its own propaganda.
Everyone wants an American style democracy.

And therein lies our third largest foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years. #2 is supporting Israel, and #1 is not driving south in 2003 instead of invading Iraq.

GarryB wrote:Of course if everyone on the planet lived like Americans the planet would be in a much worse state than it is now... no offense meant.

I'm not sure I buy that. You're gonna have to explain.

GarryB wrote:Your logic of leaving the IAEA would work fine if they actually wanted nuclear weapons. If they wanted civilian nuclear power generation then... well... they would have to do what they have been doing.

They've got what they need for nuclear power already. Why stay in the NPT now?

GarryB wrote:And more importantly the UNSC resolution 1244 stating that Kosovo was part of Serbia was completely ignored even though it was explicit. In the case of the invasion of Iraq there was no suggestion of force being justified, so in both cases the UNSC resolutions were abused to justify their antics... and look at the no fly zone resolution on Libya... became a regime change air support role for the rebel forces.

There's another argument I find hilarious...Iraq and the UN. Military action in Iraq was already justified under existing UNSCRs. We had no legal obligation to make the EU feel good about itself by getting another one. The only smart argument, which people always fail to make, is that there was no legitimate justification for occupation or regime change.

GarryB wrote:The actions listed above show that it is the US in particular that makes the UNSC useless.

I can't disagree with that statement.

GarryB wrote:What I don't get is why so many Americans don't understand why everyone doesn't love them.

You can turn that around and ask why other nations are clearly so stupid to not comprehend the fact that the US government, as well as its foreign policy goals, can change every four years. The whole "we hate America," "death to America," or "Americans are the scourge of the world" arguments are a clear indication of a lack of political education. They aren't smart enough to separate the regime from the population. We do it too.

GarryB wrote:We are not jealous... and we are not all in enormous queues to line up to get a green card. I am sure the US is a very nice place, but I already live in a nice place thank you very much.

Even though I know you're a weird Kiwi, statements like this do dispel any doubt that you're a Mexican

GarryB wrote:The people who can't separate the two are either Zionists or Zionist supporters and I don't care what they think... as you said, their Israel was founded on terrorism and guilt.

GarryB wrote:Indeed the skill with which they bombed and murdered their way to Israel makes you wonder about their claims of being innocent sheep led to the Nazi slaughter houses during WWII.

I don't doubt the Holocaust, but I do agree that it's interesting how it's become an all-Jewish event to most of the world.

Either the West should or should not get involved in other nations' internal affairs.

There is a mechanism for international debate and discussion called the UN. It is not the world police... because there is no such thing as a world police. There are powerful countries acting unilaterally by applying force to create conditions that suit them that have little to do with international law or any other law.

Might is not right.

The west spies on everyone including each other... the information they collect does not go in some big warehouse somewhere for future generations, it is used to manipulate everyone on all sides when bribery and force fail.

"getting involved" has different levels too... there are nofly zones that actually are no fly zones, or there are no fly zones as a pretext to invasion and subjugation... and there is some minister going on TV telling the people of Rwanda that what the bad people are doing is bad.

No oil and no white people in Rwanda.

To go back to the original quote:

However, while you (not you explicitly, but people in general) can object to the reasons/results/etc. of US/Western military action in various places, you cannot on one hand blame the West for interfering where it shouldn't yet blame them for not interfering in other places. That's just hypocritical.

The west justifies its interventions by claiming morality or humanitarian need. When they do this then of course you have to raise the point if it really was done to "save lives" and not for any personal interest, then bringing up situations where lives were lost and the west did not choose to intervene is of course a contradiction... it contradicts the logic that the west cares and will intervene for the purpose to save lives.

The hipocrasy is with the West choosing to save lives when there are factors involved that they benefit from.

Kuwaite wasn't saved to preserve democracy in the Middle East. Kuwaite is still not a democracy. If Iraq had invaded Syria or Iran (again) the west would have applauded and given him financial aide and support. Saddam would be a hero in the west.

That's more contradictory reasoning.

Very contradictary... that is the point because it all has nothing to do with morality. The uncle she murdered was a sadistic ahole that enjoyed burning her arms with cigars, so you can understand her killing him. The one she put in prison just used her as a sexual object and discarded her, so prison was her revenge. The one she wanted to marry... who knows, but the point is that just like the west because she used abuse or in the wests case morality to justify the things they do it is hard to explain the different results for the same "crime" and it makes her/the west look flaky and unpredictable... not an attractive feature of a powerful country that is happy to bomb and kill to get its way.

I think our thought processes are more alike than we realize, I'm just failing with the putting words to screen bit today.

I think we agree on many things...

The fact that you don't hate Russia and Russian things is one obvious one.

I'd argue that morality is not a sufficient reason in the first place.

Totally agree... we both know it is the justification rather than the actual reasons which are often totally different.

In 1991 the Iraqis were the bad guys, but it turned later into Saddam and his crowd were the bad guys and suddenly it was realised most Iraqis opposed Saddam just like the US government did. Of course that was too late because support for those opposition Iraqis just after 1991 and they could have done the job for you... but your friends in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia didn't want Saddams Sunni government overthrown to be taken over by a Shia majority that looks to Iran for religious leadership... so your potential allies were left high and dry and were rounded up and slaughtered... No wonder you had so few friends when you rolled into Iraq... how could they trust you now?

Or, Serbia got to be the bad guy because the West (specifically the US) had already sided with the KLA. Albright screwing up Rambouillet didn't help anything either.

But why would they side with Albanians? Unless it was all about who those Albanians were fighting against.

Castro wasn't a communist till the US rejected him and the Soviets embraced their new hero. Castro didn't want communism... he wanted to get rid of all the imperial foreign land owners and the US mob run casinos and let Cubans take back the land and the businesses.
Lots of rich sugar cane producers went to the US government and complained that the land they had stolen fair and square from the damn natives has now been stolen by Castro.

It is the same in Venezuela... the rich 1% mostly foreign or ethnically related to the imperial powers don't like Chavez, but Chavez is elected so you can't call him a commie... they call him a dictator... if they had called him a hero of the people he would be buying new F-16s and all sorts of flash weapons from the US, but the CIA tried to overthrow him and the US tried to punish him by withholding spare parts for his ancient F-16s and the result is huge orders for the Russians and Chinese and another country hostile to the US in the American continents.

Then why is the price of oil still so high? Answer: OPEC.

It is not really that high at the moment... it has been much higher in the past. Once Libya starts producing the price will fall too.

Note Russian production has never been moderated to try to control the price... I think in the future the Russians might realise their efforts with oil and gas supplies are not appreciated and that perhaps they can use such things for leverage too.

That depends on your perspective. Through SOUTHERN and NORTHERN WATCH, who had the bulk of the mission (and expenses) to monitor Saddam?

What sort of warped perspective are you talking about. Even if both no fly zones were never implimented Saddam could bomb the hell out of the Kurds in the north... so what? Bad for the Kurds, but they are blowing things up anyway. After 1991 Kuwaite greatly strengthened and together with Saudi Arabia could have stopped any attack by a greatly weakened Iraqi armed force. Iraq would be no problem at all to Syria or Iran.

Monitor Saddam to what end?

The keep him in the corner strategy was doomed to failure and was totally pointless.

After Georgia attacked South Ossetia, the Russians didn't impose a no fly zone over Georgia for 10 years and periodically attack SAM sites.

Iraq was no threat to anyone except tiny little Kuwaite, and after Desert Storm even an idiot (which Saddam was not) knew that that was no longer an option.

And therein lies our third largest foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years. #2 is supporting Israel, and #1 is not driving south in 2003 instead of invading Iraq.

Further evidence that we do think alike.

I'm not sure I buy that. You're gonna have to explain.

If 7 billion people lived for the next 50 years the way 300 million people have for the last 50 years the world would look like the before photo in the Wall-E movie.

The sad thing is that Americas addiction to oil has destroyed or stunted any work towards cleaner greener technology.
The huge irony is that by now we would probably have lots of high tech innovations that were clean and green and efficient and America could have led the way and stuck up two fingers at the Middle East saying they don't need their filthy oil.

Unfortunately oil was cheaper and made other technologies easier to buy out and then bury.

The best thing that could happen is Oil at $500 US dollars a barrel because then alternatives will suddenly become viable and with work and money the result is that instead of the US and the west importing energy from lots of unsavory nations, they could be making money exporting the new clean technology that doesn't pollute the planet.

But the oil... sorry Energy companies have the US government (and most of the others) by the balls so it will never happen now.

The disapointment hearing the witch clinton telling China off for investing in clean energy was so ironic... where is the leadership... you still seem to be dreaming.

They've got what they need for nuclear power already. Why stay in the NPT now?

They have said they have plans for 15-20 nuclear power stations to create a reliable power grid for the whole country.
They might have oil, but they have no oil refining capability so they export oil and import oil fuel and coal for power.
Nuclear power will be much more reliable and allow economic growth.

The first nuclear reactor was started by the West Germans in the 1970s and the current reactor was a hybrid of West German and Russian technology. Their next reactors will be built from scratch and will be quicker and cheaper to make.

Military action in Iraq was already justified under existing UNSCRs. We had no legal obligation to make the EU feel good about itself by getting another one. The only smart argument, which people always fail to make, is that there was no legitimate justification for occupation or regime change.

But that is the point... there was no legal justification for invasion or regime change... you clearly overstepped the bounds there. The entire premise was that Iraq was violating agreements regarding WMDs and we now know that all the evidence for that was totally fabricated so in actual fact the entire use of force was unjustified.

In many ways the western reaction to the Russian intervention in Georgia mirrored the reality of the western invasion of Iraq.

The difference of course was that the Russian intervention had no goals of invasion and occupation or regime change and that was simply an unfounded western fear.

Conversely the western action in Iraq was clearly an over reaction to nonexistent evidence. It was the west losing patience and doing what it wanted and temporarily fabricating evidence to justify its actions to its own public.

The action in Iraq was totally unwarranted and had a very negative effect on the standing of the US in the international community (outside the west). Even within the west I doubt Americas allies appreciated being dragged into yet another conflict.

I can't disagree with that statement.

I should add for the sake of balance that it is not only the US or the west that abuses their veto, of their interpretation of UNSC resolutions, but it bothers me when westerners claim the UN is useless... it was never set up to be the worlds police, it was a forum for dialogue. With the 21st Century trend of regime change and occupation, and using the UN as a rubber stamp to justify such actions of course there will be friction by those in the UN that feel used.

You can turn that around and ask why other nations are clearly so stupid to not comprehend the fact that the US government, as well as its foreign policy goals, can change every four years. The whole "we hate America," "death to America," or "Americans are the scourge of the world" arguments are a clear indication of a lack of political education. They aren't smart enough to separate the regime from the population. We do it too.

Indeed, but can you understand a patriotic Cuban whose country is rather poor as a direct consequence of direct and indirect action by the US over the past few generations, or a Serb whose apartment was right next to a TV station that the US bombed might not see the American people as innocent victims of the governments they have elected.
It doesn't matter whether the guy in the bomber 20,000ft up voted democrat or republican, or whether the bomb that shatters your windows was made in Ohio or Detroit or China and imported to the US to get that made in USA stamp on it.

Like it or not, you government acts on your behalf and what we have forgotten in the west is that if we don't remind the government that it is the people in charge then they will continue to do as they please.

Of course you just have to watch the British comedy series "Yes, Minister" and the later series "Yes, Prime Minister" to see that no matter what ideals one enters politics with eventually they all turn out the same...

Even though I know you're a weird Kiwi, statements like this do dispel any doubt that you're a Mexican

So my KGB cover is working... damn!!!

I don't doubt the Holocaust, but I do agree that it's interesting how it's become an all-Jewish event to most of the world.

It is the story of the blind men and the elephant... the jews tell the story, but only their part... which I can understand.

The problem is that the west got the Jews perspective... but then they got the West German perspective and they treated the Soviet perspective as suspect because of the cold war.

This means we hear about the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, when we should actually be talking about the 32 odd million people murdered by the nazis for living space in the east that included jews and gypsies and eastern slavic people, and homosexuals and the physically and mentally handicapped etc etc.

Holohoax never happened. Not once in a five volume set by Winston Churchill did he ever mention the Holohaox - Not one of the leading generals of the Second World War ever mentioned the Holohoax; in fact not a single autobiography or history of the Second World War, written immediately post war by people who were there ever mentions the Holohoax.

The Holohaox was/is a Joo invention to garnish sympathy for the establishment of an illegal state called Israel. It has also been used to blackmail the German people into paying reparations for 70 years and to get stupid Americans to pay Israel “guilt money” since 1948.

The supposed number of Joos killed in the Holohoax has progressively increased over the years from 1.5 million , to 2.5 million to now 6 million. According to official census, there never was than many in Germany – 435,000 in the pre-war census and many of them left to go to Britain/Amerika.

The real holocaust was the Allies killing 6 million [yes, actually lost from the censuses] Germans post war [1945 – 50] in detention camps and the loss of 26 million Russians in the war.

GarryB wrote:I am happy to admit I am anti zionist, but I am hardly anti semetic.

There are jewish people around the world doing great things, not all jews support the existence of Israel.

One of my favourite directors is Mel Brooks... especially when he manages to include himself as Adolf Hitler in the movies he does... I think it is delicious... a Jewish man prancing around saying "Heil Myself" dressed as Hitler...

Blazing Saddles is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen.

I have no problems with Jewish people and I hope I have made that pretty clear in all my rants to date on this forum.

If a group of Christians got together and invaded a place in the Middle East mentioned in their bible and created a new state I would be just as anti them as well as I am anti zionist.

If a group of very wealthy Jews got together and offered Vlad a million dollars to ban me, well I would say ban me and enjoy the cash Vlad... the thing is that I can't see that happening... rich people don't get rich by throwing their money around... if they did then there wouldn't be this big gap between rich and poor that is only going to get worse because it is always easier to make money with money.

I also don't accept the Holocaust because it is racist.

The holocaust, as taught in western society is all about the big mean nazis killing Jews.

In actual fact those big mean nazis actually killed lots of different groups of people including the mentally and physically handicapped, the gypsies, the homosexuals, the communists, and the people in the countries they wanted to occupy like Russia and the Ukraine.

Everyone knows the figure of 6 million jews killed, but we don't know how many in the other groups died because they didn't have a lobby group telling everyone who would listen.

It is a bit like the 57,000 odd Americans killed in Vietnam... everyone knows that figure, but how many Canadians died in that conflict? How many New Zealanders? How many Australians? How many French? How many Vietnamese? ...I don't know, and the Americans telling the story don't even care. It was their war and they lost and there are 57,000 odd names on a wall somewhere.

Vietnam is a war, not a country to them.

For Vietnam of course the war continues to kill with all that UXO and of course the ever lasting effects of agent orange and all the other coloured agents tested by the Americans during that conflict.

And of course the neighbouring countries like Laos that got bombed too.

Garry, did I just see what I thought I saw ? Don't Admit Holocaust? What makes you different than Ahmedjad then?

Seriously, it time you read accounts of the victims...

Thats all I can say colleague! but literally keep that off this board, or in a pm!


And Kysusha: Of course there was not the number of Jews in Germany because German Nazi's didn't document ,just killed them,( examples Birkneau, Auschwitz , Dacha, Soblenitz , so I go on?)while for the Allies it was a touchy subject so that's why no general mentioned it.

[quote="Russian Patriot"]

GarryB wrote:[color=darkred] And Kysusha: Of course there was not the number of Jews in Germany because German Nazi's didn't document ,just killed them,( examples Birkneau, Auschwitz , Dacha, Soblenitz , so I go on?)while for the Allies it was a touchy subject so that's why no general mentioned it.

Don’t be so naive. The camps were work camps – the German war effort needed labour – all able bodied men were at war so someone had to keep the materiel coming for the war. Look at the location of the camps – they are all in [or were in] locations of industry – so that the labour force was readily available. The Joos had declared war against Germany in 1933 – Their decision was to have Judaism declare war on Germany. They would boycott all German goods, sabotage German industry, in fact, do everything possible to undermine and destroy the German economy and social fabric – rather like they did in the First World War. This time, they didn’t do it clandestinely, they were overt about it. There was huge media coverage – supported by all the Jewish press, public posters and rallies of Jews. Posters were published declaring “Judea Declares War on Germany”.

Hitler’s response to this 5th Columnist type attack was to declare the Jews as persona non gratis. Effectively, if you want to have a war against the state, then you are no longer welcome in the country. The expulsion of the Jews from Germany was seized up by the Zionists and in their newspapers and by their mouth-piece [Winston Churchill] and made into some German anti-Jewish persecution. So successful was this propaganda campaign that it is still believed today.

The Zionist manipulated the exodus of “their own people”, caused unimaginable hardship and in many cases, death, simply to fulfil a political aim. [Sound very familiar?]. The world uproar against this “German persecution” of the Jews was music to the Zionist ears. Money and world opinion flooded to the support of the Zionist. Germany was erroneously labelled the evil one and vilified so as to facilitate the starting of World War Two and the establishment of the illegal state of Israel in 1948.

Quote:

“Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema 'Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.

And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labour leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations”. From The Amazing Warnings Of Benjamin Freedman – [Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.]

As a result of the economic war raged against Germany by the Zionists, the Zionists were regarded a fifth columnists in Germany – if you like, saboteurs. Those that were active against Germany were put into labour camps to work for Germany, along with those who would not fight for Germany, the 7th Day Adventist, gypsies, insane, etc. and the Slav prisoners of war. You should note here that not all Joos were Zionists or active against Germany and as such were treated with respect and honour; many of the top Generals in the Germany Army were Joos. Goering’s 2IC was a Joo and at Nuremburg he was asked about that and he famously said ‘I decide who is a Joo”. Zionist propaganda doesn’t acknowledge this fact as it is incompatible with their lies about Germans hating Joos.

Allied interdictory bombing, concentrated on infrastructure and areas of civilian population [quite contrary to the rules of War]. The effect of the bombing mean that the transport of food, medicines and vital supplies was greatly restricted in Germany – the population were to suffer. Coincidentally, the labour camps also had to suffer as it was impossible to get supplies to them because of prioritising of what materiel that could be moved.

Disease and starvation killed the inmates of the camps. THERE IS NOT ONE GAS CHAMBER in any of the camps. The ridiculous claim that somehow showers were used to gas people is laughable. Supposedly, they made the flimsy wooden doors gas tight by plugging them with mud! Anyone with any knowledge of pressure chambers knows that would never work; the only chamber in the cams that was actually used for gassing was a small chamber approximately 2 cubic metres with large metal air-tight doors and it was in the laundry and was used for DELOUSING clothes with Zyklon B gas.

The most effective and safest way to dispose of badly diseased bodies [typhus, cholera and the like are serious diseases] is to incinerate them – and that is what the furnaces were for. You will note that the furnaces were build later in the war, they were not an initial part of the camps.

There were orchestras in the camps – inmate performed, there were marriages in the camps, there were kindergartens in the camps [so both parents could work], there were hospitals in the camps – oh, the Zionists say that they were for performing experiments. What actually took place, is that because of the extreme shortage of medicines and equipment there had to be some improvisation and alternative cures sought – but that is quite different to the lies we have been feed.

Ask yourself one simple question – and try to be completely objective in answering it; why on earth would Germans waste their time tattooing everyone in the camp, simply to put them into the oven? The answer, if you really want to accept it is; because of the huge variety of languages in the camp recording out-put for each person would have been a nightmare. The simply solution was to give each person a number and then all they needed to do was show their number at the end of each shift!

When British troops liberated Belssen camp, there is no record of mass killing of Joos, no record of any systematic extermination of the Joo inmate. What they did find was inmates so emancipated because of the shortage of food and a camp so infested with diseases that their only solution was to ring the camp with flame-throwers and burn the camp to the ground.

The so-called eye witness reports are easily debunked, same as the fake Anna Frank’s Dairy nonsense – it was written by a New York Joo and her uncle had to pay him $50,000 in royalties – it’s in the NY Court records.

Zionist media control and their influence over American political life meant that there was only one version of the stories spread around the world, and that was done deliberately to solicit support for Joos and initially to get the establishment of Israel; when they realised what a cash-cow they had, they continued to milk it for all it was worth. Hollywood pumped out more of the propaganda and soon we manufactured history. We have two generations now that believe the lies and garbage – quite a few on this forum it seems.

The Holohoax does not stand up to any objective investigation. It is supported by a litany of lies, deceit and intimidation; by people who will suppress discussion about it and censor reports about it.

Without open discussion, we will always live in the shadow of dark lies.

Garry, did I just see what I thought I saw ? Don't Admit Holocaust? What makes you different than Ahmedjad then?

Seriously, it time you read accounts of the victims...

Thats all I can say colleague! but literally keep that off this board, or in a pm!

The Holocaust, as it is known in the west is like the story of the 4 blind wise men and the elephant.
One handles the elephants leg and says an elephant is like a tree, another handles the trunk and says an elephant is like a huge snake, another handles its ear and says an elephant is big and flat like a stingray, another handles its tail and says it is like a rope... they are all right and they are all wrong.

The Holocaust as told by jews in the west happened but Germany didn't just do this to the jewish people... they lumped the Jew in with a large group of several different categories, which is usually briefly mentioned in the west then largely ignored.

I will care a bit more about the suffering of the 6 million jews killed by germany when the jew start caring more about the 5 odd million Soviet prisoners worked to death, or just starved... locked up in trains and pushed onto unused rails for a month or two because they didn't have the resources to guard or feed them.
Or the 20 million civilians in the east that suffered fates as bad as any Jew in a concentration camp, yet don't have the powerful jewish lobby to bring their fate to everyones attention every chance they get...

If I had the power to change what happened I certainly would, but for all the victims of WWII, not just a relatively small group with a powerful lobby in the west.

Of course considering that Britain lost about 3/4ths of a million people and the US lost about a quarter of a million, I am sure the 6 million jewish people killed sounds like a lot, but when the 20 mllion killed on the eastern front are mentioned... well nothing. It doesn't compute. Blame shifts from Hitler to Stalin and his frontal charges and using numbers to win... and of course the winter. Strange that Germany was able to defeat the much larger number of the rest of europe.. perhaps the European way (ie running away like Britain across the channel, or surrendering like the rest) was more successful than the Soviet way of fighting back, and suggestions of the evil of Stalin... that he would like to see war between the west and Germany where he would wait till one was about to win (didn't matter much who), and then at the last minute he would enter the war with the forces he had built up over that time and reap the rewards... except that is pretty much what the west did in europe.

Garry, did I just see what I thought I saw ? Don't Admit Holocaust? What makes you different than Ahmedjad then?

I am taller.

Really though... what is the difference if I do or do not believe in something... I thought western civilisation is supposed to be built on tollerance?

There are plenty in the west who saw the Soviets as being just as bad as the Nazis during WWII... is that better or worse than denying that the Germans killed only jewish people on their "new" territory.

Someone show me WHERE the 6 million Joos came from???

This is a complete fabrication – there just weren’t that many in Western Europe. The Joo’s own figures , published immediately post war support around 400,000 Joos in Germany.

These stories get repeated ad neasum by people who do not check the facts and by repetition, they become mythology.

Rather than emotive garbage, show by proven facts where these Joos came from.

BTW, nothing wrong with Ahmedjad, or Assad for that matter, or Saddam, or the Colonel. They are simply vilified by the greatest terrorists in the world - ZOGUSA. Watch as they now try to do the same to Val Putin – anyone who stands up to their lies is vilified. HATO is nothing more than an organized [by Zionist], mercenary terrorist organization, that bombs and kills innocent civilians and bombs civilian infrastructure, contrary to the Rules Of War. We need the Russian/Chinese/ Pakistan/Indian Pac to counter this rogue organization.

GarryB wrote:The keep him in the corner strategy was doomed to failure and was totally pointless.

Yup...but it worked for the guy in the White House at the time. Throw a few cruise missiles or airstrikes around, and pretend there isn't a problem.

GarryB wrote:But the oil... sorry Energy companies have the US government (and most of the others) by the balls so it will never happen now.

That's hilarious. Let's look at gas, as in the stuff that goes into your car so you can drive around (at high velocity, if you're like me...). Take Exxon. The US government takes far more in taxes from the sale of a gallon of gas than Exxon takes in profit. If you're going to get pushback from trying to actually do away with oil, I'm going to guess that it'll be the government with the loudest voice coming up with a bunch of BS reasons as to why it's a bad idea, as they are the ones who are actually making the most pure profit from the whole endeavor. At least with gas for propellant. I'd have to dig around to look at who makes what off of other uses of oil, but that one is easily the largest user.

GarryB wrote:The disapointment hearing the witch clinton telling China off for investing in clean energy was so ironic... where is the leadership... you still seem to be dreaming.

I'm not dreaming. I never expected anything resembling leadership from this administration.

GarryB wrote:But that is the point... there was no legal justification for invasion or regime change... you clearly overstepped the bounds there. The entire premise was that Iraq was violating agreements regarding WMDs and we now know that all the evidence for that was totally fabricated so in actual fact the entire use of force was unjustified.

Yes. Totally fabricated. The chemical weapons shells and munitions that were located and used as IEDs were planted by the CIA. But that's another story of which I have no personal experience with whatsoever.

Look at the UNSCRs. Saddam was in breach of cease-fire the minute he didn't hand over every single SCUD launcher, for one.

GarryB wrote:Indeed, but can you understand a patriotic Cuban whose country is rather poor as a direct consequence of direct and indirect action by the US over the past few generations, or a Serb whose apartment was right next to a TV station that the US bombed might not see the American people as innocent victims of the governments they have elected.
It doesn't matter whether the guy in the bomber 20,000ft up voted democrat or republican, or whether the bomb that shatters your windows was made in Ohio or Detroit or China and imported to the US to get that made in USA stamp on it.

I can understand their perspective. I can even support their desire to not buy American, travel to America, etc. But to take that as an excuse to start killing American civillians who likely have nothing to do with their problems is where I draw the line. I bet a lot of my personal views and opinions would line up quite nicely with those of people in various other nations, but they'd never give me the time of day purely because of my passport.

GarryB wrote:Of course you just have to watch the British comedy series "Yes, Minister" and the later series "Yes, Prime Minister"

Sorry, I'm much too busy with Blackadder, 'Allo 'Allo and Fawlty Towers