Team America - World Police

MiNdGaM3

Freddie59 wrote: »

No comment then on the subjugation of women, the stonings, the lashings, the severing in half of bodies, the hanging and torture of gays, adulterers, and generally anyone who disagrees with them? Thought not.

A good job that the USA's buddy, Saudi Arabia, does none of those things eh?

Millicent

Freddie59 wrote: »

Look, history has taught us that bullyboy thugs like Hitler and Ahmedinejad (and the WW2 Japanese) didn't give a fiddlers about human life. Yep, the Yanks dropped the A-Bomb, but only to save millions of their own from the Japanese fanatics.

These modern-day fanatics see nukes as a weapon of aggression - not a deterrent as the West does. Do you honestly believe that Ahmedinejad and Co. would keep them under lock and key as the West does. If you do then you are extremely naive.

Have you ever heard the expression "History is written by the victors"? Or "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?

I have no bias against America but you have to admit, their constant meddling in the affairs of the Middle East (going decades back) without invitation from the people of the countries they meddle in, isn't exactly winning the "hearts and minds" of the extremists, is it? All it does is foster anti-American sentiment, enrage those with terrorist tendencies and create unnecessary conflict.

Pissmire

Freddie59 wrote: »

No comment then on the subjugation of women, the stonings, the lashings, the severing in half of bodies, the hanging and torture of gays, adulterers, and generally anyone who disagrees with them? Thought not.

Source for all of these? No cherry-picking. Nobody with a shred of common sense will use Fox news as a source, so don't even think about it. Other sources of American propaganda won't do either.

Freddie59

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

A good job that the USA's buddy, Saudi Arabia, does none of those things eh?

Equally reprehensible. But last I heard they're not developing nukes with which to attack the West.

Freddie59

Millicent wrote: »

Have you ever heard the expression "History is written by the victors"? Or "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?

I have no bias against America but you have to admit, their constant meddling in the affairs of the Middle East (going decades back) without invitation from the people of the countries they meddle in, isn't exactly winning the "hearts and minds" of the extremists, is it? All it does is foster anti-American sentiment, enrage those with terrorist tendencies and create unnecessary conflict.

So what do you suggest. Let the bully-boys have free rein? Maybe they should have tried that with Hitler and Stalin.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

Pissmire wrote: »

Source for all of these? No cherry-picking. Nobody with a shred of common sense will use Fox news as a source, so don't even think about it. Other sources of American propaganda won't do either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0XPI403E-s&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZF9Zs9AYl8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgXgpngHf60

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYpuXpbf0jg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Kt94eesHw

But this lady has some kahunas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKERCpB7Yx0&feature=related

Millicent

Freddie59 wrote: »

So what do you suggest. Let the bully-boys have free rein? Maybe they should have tried that with Hitler and Stalin.:rolleyes:

I suggest America stop meddling where they're unwanted. The Arab Spring last year proved that people in the Middle East, when left to their own devices, are perfectly capable of fighting back against oppressive powers--and winning.

By inflicting their will on them, America only strengthens the support for those same oppressive regimes. How would you feel, for example, if Britain decided to impose sanctions on us for doing something which they were doing?

ETA: While you bring up Hitler and Stalin, what do you make of the U.S.'s support of Pol Pot?

Overheal

Largely the Arab Spring has been left alone. Libya is one exception, and I can pull up a couple threads on here of people criticizing that the US isn't going into Syria.

Millicent

Overheal wrote: »

Largely the Arab Spring has been left alone. Libya is one exception, and I can pull up a couple threads on here of people criticizing that the US isn't going into Syria.

My position would be that I support non-intervention, except where specifically requested by those the intervention would benefit. There should never be the absence of choice in the matter.

Great timeline here, btw if you're interested.

Pissmire

Freddie59 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0XPI403E-s&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZF9Zs9AYl8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgXgpngHf60

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYpuXpbf0jg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Kt94eesHw

But this lady has some kahunas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKERCpB7Yx0&feature=related

The first three links are in Farsi or other, if you had even taken the time to play the video you would have heard that for yourself. Typing in 'bad guys Iran' into Youtube is just sloppy research. Hanging for breaking the law is brutal, but then so is lethal injection or electrocution, or whatever method is used. So capital punishment isn't exclusive to Iran.

You're cheer-leading for the destruction of a nation and the deaths of countless civilians that will follow, simple as. Wonder what excuse you'll find when Venezuela's turn comes?

Freddie59

Freddie59 wrote: »

Equally reprehensible. But last I heard they're not developing nukes with which to attack the West.

Rather like Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Overheal

Millicent wrote: »

My position would be that I support non-intervention, except where specifically requested by those the intervention would benefit. There should never be the absence of choice in the matter.

Great timeline here, btw if you're interested.

That timeline is a wet dream for a research paper.

Sadly I had to settle for Ancient history. /sigh

Millicent

Overheal wrote: »

That timeline is a wet dream for a research paper.

Sadly I had to settle for Ancient history. /sigh

Boo. Now I almost wish there WAS America intervention there. :pac:

Anyone wanting to know how Iran came to have an authoritarian theocratic regime should read this.

In 1953, the CIA orchestrated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and replace it with a puppet regime controlled by a dictator. This regime was deeply unpopular due to its harsh treatment of Iranian citizens by the CIA trained secret police- SAVAK. This discontent eventually boiled over to produce the Islamic revolution of 1979.

Why did the US do this? Because the democratically elected government were about to nationalise the oil industry in Iran, which was contrary to American interests. Then, as now, it was all about oil.

The situation of the US creating its own enemies is repeated in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq, the U.S. provided Saddam with arms during the Iran-Iraq war. So any WMDs that he would have had, would have been given to him by them.

In Afghanistan, the U.S. provided arms and training to a loosely organised group of fighters known as the mujahadeen to fight against the invasion by the Soviets. Amongst them was a certain Osama bin Laden.

U.S. involvement in the Middle East only ever comes down to 3 things:

Strong pressure from the pro-Israel lobby.

Oil.

More Oil.

Freddie59

Pissmire wrote: »

The first three links are in Farsi or other, if you had even taken the time to play the video you would have heard that for yourself. Typing in 'bad guys Iran' into Youtube is just sloppy research. Hanging for breaking the law is brutal, but then so is lethal injection or electrocution, or whatever method is used. So capital punishment isn't exclusive to Iran.

You're cheer-leading for the destruction of a nation and the deaths of countless civilians that will follow, simple as. Wonder what excuse you'll find when Venezuela's turn comes?

There are links there which I would not post here because of their graphic nature.

And you're excusing torture which belongs in the Middle Ages. Stoning, amputation, beheading. FFS you cannot be serious.

Freddie59

Millicent wrote: »

I suggest America stop meddling where they're unwanted. The Arab Spring last year proved that people in the Middle East, when left to their own devices, are perfectly capable of fighting back against oppressive powers--and winning.

By inflicting their will on them, America only strengthens the support for those same oppressive regimes. How would you feel, for example, if Britain decided to impose sanctions on us for doing something which they were doing?

ETA: While you bring up Hitler and Stalin, what do you make of the U.S.'s support of Pol Pot?

Reprehensible. And as for the British/Irish example, I don't see us doing nukes anytime soon.

Freddie59

Deleted User wrote: »

More Oil.

For the West. America imports only 15% of its oil. Its main supplier? Canada.

So they're protecting the oil that YOU AND I use. Or would you rather them not?

Freddie59

Freddie59 wrote: »

So they're protecting the oil that YOU AND I use. Or would you rather them not?

Right, so we're agreed it's all about the oil.

Capt'n Midnight

Freddie59 wrote: »

For the West. America imports only 15% of its oil. Its main supplier? Canada.

So they're protecting the oil that YOU AND I use. Or would you rather them not?

Actually they were protecting the dollar.

oil is traded in dollars

Saddam was setting up a market to trade in euro instead


Alternatively

How much would oil cost today without all the sabre rattling and speculators pushing the buttons ?

Kev.OC

Freddie59 wrote: »

For the West. America imports only 15% of its oil. Its main supplier? Canada.

So they're protecting the oil that YOU AND I use. Or would you rather them not?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Actually they were protecting the dollar.

oil is traded in dollars

Saddam was setting up a market to trade in euro instead

Precisely. If they are indeed protecting the oil that you and I use, why the insistence that said oil is traded in dollars?

GavinSexby

As its Australia Day shouldnt we reflect on how bad America is doing compared to Australia, same sort of set up but the economy in Australia is a lot better than USA, could it be economical to pump your own oil instead of robbing the rest of the worlds??

Whith that in mind Happy Australia Day from Sydney
Team Americaesque Australia Day video, enjoy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRz8FWPUmpI

Millicent

Freddie59 wrote: »

Reprehensible. And as for the British/Irish example, I don't see us doing nukes anytime soon.

So do you see the point I'm making? I was getting at something specific there.

Pissmire

Freddie59 wrote: »

There are links there which I would not post here because of their graphic nature.

And you're excusing torture which belongs in the Middle Ages. Stoning, amputation, beheading. FFS you cannot be serious.

First off. Don't spare me your sensitivities re. what you think I can stomach, if you have back up for your argument, use it.

No I don't condone stoning or amputation, but it's no reason to bomb Iran back to the stone-age. Using this criteria you could be calling for the same for Saudi Arabia, but you're not. So then you use the nuclear argument to get SA off the list. Nobody, including the US believes the Iranians are anywhere near having nuclear weapons. http://tribune.com.pk/story/327484/iran-wont-move-toward-nuclear-weapon-in-2012-isis-report/

Is this really how you view the future of this planet? Military intervention for every abuse of human rights? Even Amnesty International wouldn't take on someone as radical as you. You don't care how many innocents die as a result of a US attack on Iran as long as the stoning stops. What's wrong with you, Play Station war games not doing it for you any more?

Freddie59

Deleted User wrote: »

Right, so we're agreed it's all about the oil.

Yes, but not for the Americans.

Freddie59

Kev.OC wrote: »

Precisely. If they are indeed protecting the oil that you and I use, why the insistence that said oil is traded in dollars?

So just leave it happen then. Let the Yanks not intervene. Wonder what price it would be THEN?

Overheal

Kev.OC wrote: »

Precisely. If they are indeed protecting the oil that you and I use, why the insistence that said oil is traded in dollars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

Mind you that is a disputed article bereft of citation.

Freddie59

Pissmire wrote: »

First off. Don't spare me your sensitivities re. what you think I can stomach, if you have back up for your argument, use it.

No I don't condone stoning or amputation, but it's no reason to bomb Iran back to the stone-age. Using this criteria you could be calling for the same for Saudi Arabia, but you're not. So then you use the nuclear argument to get SA off the list. Nobody, including the US believes the Iranians are anywhere near having nuclear weapons. http://tribune.com.pk/story/327484/iran-wont-move-toward-nuclear-weapon-in-2012-isis-report/

Is this really how you view the future of this planet? Military intervention for every abuse of human rights? Even Amnesty International wouldn't take on someone as radical as you. You don't care how many innocents die as a result of a US attack on Iran as long as the stoning stops. What's wrong with you, Play Station war games not doing it for you any more?

You said type in 'bad guys Iran'. Are you really that blinkered. Type in human rights Iran, or women in Iran. Maybe even adulterers or gays in IRAN.

You cannot put it all down to propaganda.

Regarding not being near a nuke, they said they same about Pakistan and India. Hell, they even put the V1 and V2 bombs down as 'gas explosion'.

And gullible people believed that as well.

Playstation war games. I'd imagine you're a little bit more familiar with those. It's about History my friend. Learn from it. Try it sometime. It will open your eyes.

Pissmire

Freddie59 wrote: »

So just leave it happen then. Let the Yanks not intervene. Wonder what price it would be THEN?

About 80c per litre. It's all the uncertainty about the availability of supply that has the price artificially high, along with reducing the supply by Saudi Arabia, with some cajoling by the US.

It makes economic sense for the US to have an oil export embargo on Iran, keeps the price of SA oil high. When the Saudis are back to cooking on camel shít the US will be nowhere to be found.

Capt'n Midnight

http://info-wars.org/2012/01/25/sanctions-dodge-india-to-pay-gold-for-iran-oil-china-may-follow/

India has reportedly agreed to pay Tehran in gold for the oil it buys, in a move aimed at protecting Delhi from US-sanctions targeting countries who trade with Iran. China, another buyer of Iranian oil, may follow Delhi’s lead.

...

India and China need to switch from the dollar in bilateral trade, since the US and EU have issued unilateral sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and financial institutions. The sanctions would ban any bank involved in oil trade with Iran from dealing with American and European counterparts.

Both India and China, two major buyers of Iranian oil accounting for 22 and 13 percent of its total export respectively, have refused to join such sanctions. This means they have to establish a reliable way of paying for crude, independently of the parts of the global financial system controlled by New York and London.

Delhi’s current plan is to effect payments through two state-owned banks, India’s UCO Bank and Turkey’s Halk Bankasi, Turkey being another country refusing to join the sanction spree.

KeithAFC

Freddie59 wrote: »

You said type in 'bad guys Iran'. Are you really that blinkered. Type in human rights Iran, or women in Iran. Maybe even adulterers or gays in IRAN.

You cannot put it all down to propaganda.

Regarding not being near a nuke, they said they same about Pakistan and India. Hell, they even put the V1 and V2 bombs down as 'gas explosion'.

And gullible people believed that as well.

Playstation war games. I'd imagine you're a little bit more familiar with those. It's about History my friend. Learn from it. Try it sometime. It will open your eyes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01bbrcc/The_Crusades_The_Clash_of_Titans/

Could history be repeating itself?

Pissmire

Looks like Europe will have to re-think it's 'feet first' embargo policy, thank you USA. If Iran gets enough of a market from India, China and others they may decide not to sell any oil to Europe, they won't need to, and if the choice is a dodgy € or 'good as gold' in payment, shure why would they .

Temptamperu

Pissmire wrote: »

Looks like Europe will have to re-think it's 'feet first' embargo policy, thank you USA. If Iran gets enough of a market from India, China and others they may decide not to sell any oil to Europe, they won't need to, and if the choice is a dodgy € or 'good as gold' in payment, shure why would they .

Only America can save us now :pac:

enfant terrible

Temptamperu wrote: »

Why do they have to hide what they are doing? If they want nuclear weapons whats the problem? America have an assload, I wouldnt trust them as far as I can piss. Russia? yikes!!! China? well they keep to themselves and dont tell us what to wear or watch. Iran have never done anything other than defy Isreal and america and are thus punished and we get nice news stories about them being crazy muslims, when infact of all muslim states they are closest to moderate.

Wht should they let them have nukes if they don't want them to have them and have the power to stop them.

Because it would be fair?, life's not fair.

Temptamperu

enfant terrible wrote: »

Wht should they let them have nukes if they don't want them to have them and have the power to stop them.

Because it would be fair?, life's not fair.

You are very right life is not fair, but who gave the states the right to tell everyone whats, what? They cant even look after themselves, why should anyone listen to them and their crumbling empire?

enfant terrible

Temptamperu wrote: »

You are very right life is not fair, but who gave the states the right to tell everyone whats, what? They cant even look after themselves, why should anyone listen to them and their crumbling empire?

They can look after themselves fine.

Thay are building new super carriers as we speak to replace their old ones at a cost of $9 billion each.

People listen to them because thay have a vastly superior military to everyone else and if you don't do what they want, bomb's will be raining down on your nuclear facalities.

orangebud

its sad how america have turned into the bad guys & now Europe

thats corporations for yeah

Temptamperu

enfant terrible wrote: »

They can look after themselves fine.

Thay are building new super carriers as we speak to replace their old ones at a cost of $9 billion each.

People listen to them because thay have a vastly superior military to everyone else and if you don't do what they want, bomb's will be raining down on your nuclear facalities.

Shoring up the military while they let the poor starve, sound plan that.

marcsignal

The War On Democracy by John Pilger

I thought the interviews with the CIA people in this interesting.

Bannasidhe

Freddie59 wrote: »

Of course its not.:rolleyes: If you leave out the subjugation of women, the stonings, the lashings, the severing in half of bodies, the hanging and torture of gays, adulterers, and generally anyone who disagrees with them and the rest they're actually quite sane, normal people. Hmm, where did we see that in the 20th Century?



I refer you to the points above.

So the US should invade Saudi Arabia? It is an absolute monarchy...oh...but it's also a customer of the US....silly, silly me. Apparently 'the subjugation of women, the stonings, the lashings, the severing in half of bodies, the hanging and torture of gays, adulterers, and generally anyone who disagrees with them' is ok if the country concerned is a customer of the US. Funny that.

Capt'n Midnight

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So the US should invade Saudi Arabia? It is an absolute monarchy...oh...but it's also a customer of the US....silly, silly me. Apparently 'the subjugation of women, the stonings, the lashings, the severing in half of bodies, the hanging and torture of gays, adulterers, and generally anyone who disagrees with them' is ok if the country concerned is a customer of the US. Funny that.

Well 15 out of the 19 hijackers during 911 were from Saudi,
the planning and funding was by Saudi nationals.

But the Bin Laden family are well in with the powers that be in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family

Bannasidhe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Well 15 out of the 19 hijackers during 911 were from Saudi,
the planning and funding was by Saudi nationals.

But the Bin Laden family are well in with the powers that be in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family

So well in that according to the Orlando Sentinel :

]Bin Laden Family Fled Orlando
9-11 COMMISSION
Panel Asks Why They Weren't Questioned Before Catching A Jet At Oia.

June 19, 2004|By Pedro Ruz Gutierrez and Jim Leusner, Sentinel Staff Writers

On Sept. 19, 2001, a sheriff's motorcade escorted a well-connected Saudi businessman and his family from their estate in west Orange County to Orlando International Airport.

Khalil bin Laden -- one of dozens of siblings of al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden -- sought protection for his family, fearing reprisals from a nation still reeling from the worst terrorist attacks on U.S. soil only days before.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2004-06-19/news/0406190324_1_bin-laden-family-laden-relatives-flight-crew

Freddie59

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So the US should invade Saudi Arabia? It is an absolute monarchy...oh...but it's also a customer of the US....silly, silly me. Apparently 'the subjugation of women, the stonings, the lashings, the severing in half of bodies, the hanging and torture of gays, adulterers, and generally anyone who disagrees with them' is ok if the country concerned is a customer of the US. Funny that.

Indeed. I would also condemn those.

Overheal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So the US should invade Saudi Arabia? It is an absolute monarchy...oh...but it's also a customer of the US....silly, silly me. Apparently 'the subjugation of women, the stonings, the lashings, the severing in half of bodies, the hanging and torture of gays, adulterers, and generally anyone who disagrees with them' is ok if the country concerned is a customer of the US. Funny that.

What bothers me almost as much as that, is that nobody else seems bothered about it either. I mean, people hate that the US is choosy about where it goes into, complaining it isn't [where you want them to be] but at the same time, who else is? When was the last time Ireland said "Alright that's fcuking it" and went to go liberate a small under-militarized defunct country to call it's own? Maybe Ireland could try out solving Somalia. I dunno. Give it a shot?

Fishooks12

Fisk said it best comparing the lack of a **** America gives to North Koreas many Nuclear weapons and Irans tiny nuclear program

Funny that there's no oil in Korea, just a coincidence?

Overheal

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Funny that there's no oil in Korea, just a coincidence?

There is also no other foreign presence interested in reforming Korea though either, so I'm not sure I feel that your argument holds any water (or oil)

Excedion

Ah see Iran are going about this thing all wrong. You have to show the americans the carrot before the stick like the UAE are doing. As long as your polite and play nice at the start you can build all the nuclear devices you want. You can't start making a stand when youve got nothing to make the neighbours think twice about coming over the fence.

Millicent

Overheal wrote: »

What bothers me almost as much as that, is that nobody else seems bothered about it either. I mean, people hate that the US is choosy about where it goes into, complaining it isn't [where you want them to be] but at the same time, who else is? When was the last time Ireland said "Alright that's fcuking it" and went to go liberate a small under-militarized defunct country to call it's own? Maybe Ireland could try out solving Somalia. I dunno. Give it a shot?

There is that pesky issue of neutrality. :pac:

Overheal

Millicent wrote: »

There is that pesky issue of neutrality. :pac:

Which isn't even Real Neutrality if you poke at it with a reading glass. But in fairness any country could try invading another for human rights abuses, just nobody else really wants to. In the case of Korea that seems to also include the United States. In essence, nobody gives enough fcuks about the North Koreans.

Millicent

Overheal wrote: »

Which isn't even Real Neutrality if you poke at it with a reading glass. But in fairness any country could try invading another for human rights abuses, just nobody else really wants to. In the case of Korea that seems to also include the United States. In essence, nobody gives enough fcuks about the North Koreans.

It's not at all real neutrality--I was just teasing.

Tbh, Overheal, I don't think it's any country's right to "invade" another for human rights abuses. There are international sanctions and bodies set up to deal with such cases (toothless as they seem to be, though). The answer is strengthening those institutions and international laws, not riding to the rescue of every country with human rights issues.

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

In essence, nobody gives enough fcuks about the North Koreans.

apart from the Chinese and South Koreans.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-31/s-korea-plans-50b-fund-for-reunification.html