Why The US Wants Civil Wars in Middle East

[d0b33]

OMW what comprehensive sources. All from the Wiki, may as well use the CIA charter!

what's wrong with wikipedia? it's not biased, besides it has the links to sources and references

 

[NewsFlash]

what's wrong with wikipedia? it's not biased, besides it has the links to sources and references

So use it then!

 

[kilo39]

OMW what comprehensive sources. All from the Wiki, may as well use the CIA charter!

Your ignorance is showing. The wiki shows all the references and the links to the original documents.

You should learn to read. (And think. Why did God give you a brain?)

 

[Nod]

OMW what comprehensive sources. All from the Wiki, may as well use the CIA charter!

If you have more reliable sources, then go and create a username/password for WikiPedia, and submit your changes.

 

[NewsFlash]

If you have more reliable sources, then go and create a username/password for WikiPedia, and submit your changes.

Ah, there we have it, So any fool can submit info as fact to please his own agenda and sick mind. Yet you all believe in these "sources". How Sordid

 

[Nod]

Ah, there we have it, So any fool can submit info as fact to please his own agenda and sick mind. Yet you all believe in these "sources". How Sordid

No, it means the information is verified by other people, and if found to be correct, it will be included. Just because everybody can add information, doesn't mean that the information is wrong or twisted to someones agenda. At least go and read the sources before shooting it down. You call yourself "NewsFlash", but you're not willing to read, how ironic.

 

[kilo39]

Ah, there we have it, So any fool can submit info as fact to please his own agenda and sick mind. Yet you all believe in these "sources". How Sordid

You don't get it do you? "Any fool?" Right, the absolute authorities on any subject (verified by THE WORLD). But they are the fool.

 

[NewsFlash]

You don't get it do you? "Any fool?" Right, the absolute authorities on any subject (verified by THE WORLD). But they are the fool.

So who is the moderators of this Wiki "source" What is their Agenda, what would they want to be allowed!

 

[Xarog]

Likelihood of them using nukes indirectly(through their terrorist henchman) is far more likely. Just look at how many counrties are concerned about Iran getting nukes. I'm sure the Ayatollahs could care less if millions of infidels from the great satan are wiped off the earth in a flash.

BS man. If Iran gave out nukes it wouldn't just start giving them out. What's to stop the people they give it to using it against the Iranian leadership? The answer : nothing. Iran's leadership isn't suicidal and it certainly wouldn't risk giving some 2bit terrorist group the ability to overthrow them.

Are you an expert on nuke tech? If not then what do the experts say?

I know enough to know that the principles behind building the nuke is extremely easy (you simply have to put two pieces of radioactive material together so that they achieve critical mass), relatively speaking. The hard part is enriching the radiactive substance so that the entire amount is consumed more or less instantaneously. That's what the centrifuges are for.

If you don't believe me go look it up.

I suppose you have to see Islamic fundamentalists armed with nukes as a threat before you can appreciate the viability of taking military action. The Ayatollahs are such tolerant people. They were just going to sit back and let Iran evolve into a country based on the ideals of the great satan.

I'm sure it would halt their attempts to build nukes.

Just because we don't like the way a country is going is not a reason to invade them. Who are we to say their way is wrong?

Who decides what is "international law" and who are these people to decide what the U.S can and can't do to protect themselves. So the U.S can't be aggresive with their enemies? Passivism worked so well in the 30's so lets try it again

International law is a binding agreement made by all nations who join the United Nations.

And basically, no, the US cannot be aggressive with their enemies. They can only be defensive. Otherwise, what's to stop the Russians being aggressive with their enemies, or the Iranians? The same standard which you would use to lend support to the US can also be used by everyone else.

*sigh*

Do we really have to go through all this again. If I remember there are threads about this on the forum.

Yup. Last I saw no conclusive agreement was reached on it, either.

They are a threat but certainly no way near as bad as Iran. Is Kim a fundamentalist who sees the west as infidels, does he believe in martyrdom, does he have links to Islamic terorrists and want to wipe a fellow nation off the planet. All Kim Jong il cares about is his personal power and he isn't gonna risk it. He's not an ideologue like the Ayatollahs. So no paradise for him and hence no pioint in becoming a martyr.

What BS. Kim is a communist. He's an idealogue and communists also see the west as the great evil (ok, they're mostly atheists so the Satan reference is out).

The Ayatollahs aren't suicidal - they get other people to die for them. When was the last time you saw the Hamas leadership or one of the Ayatollah's blow themselves up in a suicide attack? answer : never.

Kilo : I'll get to your stuff when the weather blows over.

 

[bb_matt]

So who is the moderators of this Wiki "source" What is their Agenda, what would they want to be allowed!

Use your brain and search for the answer.

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

Please note, this requires the ability to:

• concentrate for more than 2 seconds
• appreciate other peoples point of view
• understand that you can be wrong
• have an open mind
• have the ability to have your opinion swayed by overwhelming evidence

I suspect your incapable of any of the above, but I could be wrong ...

 

[kilo39]

So who is the moderators of this Wiki "source" What is their Agenda, what would they want to be allowed!

Ag please. Yes we can argue the politics of wikipedia but at the end of the day it is referencing the ORIGINAL documents. Lies and the truth are quite plain in the ORIGINAL documents.

How does somebody become an expert?

Idiot.

 

[NewsFlash]

Use your brain and search for the answer.

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

Please note, this requires the ability to:

• concentrate for more than 2 seconds
• appreciate other peoples point of view
• understand that you can be wrong
• have an open mind
• have the ability to have your opinion swayed by overwhelming evidence

I suspect your incapable of any of the above, but I could be wrong ...

Thanks bb_matt, the feeling is mutual tho. So believe the Wiki-bible if you please, these literates could of course not be wrong or biased.

 

[Nod]

Thanks bb_matt, the feeling is mutual tho. So believe the Wiki-bible if you please, these literates could of course not be wrong or biased.

You didn't read it, did you? Thought so.

 

[bb_matt]

Thanks bb_matt, the feeling is mutual tho. So believe the Wiki-bible if you please, these literates could of course not be wrong or biased.

Wikipedia is most certainly inperfect, but unfortunately you seem unable to grasp the concept of wikipedia.

I suggest you go and find out, or you can continue to make an idiot of yourself - it's up to you.

 

[Alan]

Some interesting facts about Iran.

Firstly this being MYADSL I thought this should go first.

Reporters Without Borders has released a report detailing the media censorship that now exists in Iran.

The campaign, led by Iran's Islamist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attempts to free the country of western cultural influences, via the Internet. Video sharing site YouTube, Web encyclopedia Wikipedia, and The New York Times are among the major websites blocked by Iran.

In addition, high-speed (above 128 kilobits per sec) Internet connections have been banned as well as Internet based SMS. Internet texting has been blocked in an effort to prevent the defamation of candidates in the upcoming elections.

Iran has about 7.5 million Internet surfers which is the highest number of web users in the Middle East after Israel. The country also has more than 100,000 bloggers, some of which are substitutes for Iran's suppressed, reformist press.

Iran is on Reporters Without Borders' list of the 13 enemies of the Internet. The Government has objected to their inclusion and says they only filter illegal or immoral content. Reporters Without Borders has expressed deep concern for the future of the Internet in Iran where censorship is now the rule rather than the exception.

http://www.politicsonline.com/blog/archives/2006/12/internet_censor.php


Damn and I thought we had it bad.


Womans rights are also backward. Here's a protest against their laws.

Join the great walk against anti women laws in Iran’s Islamic Republic on March 8th 2006!

If you are against death by stoning!
If you are against forced veiling!
If you are against prosecution and imprisonment of women!
If you are against lashing a woman’s body!
If you are against any form of patriarchy!
If you are against all the medieval laws of Iran’s Islamic Republic of Iran imposing inequality against women!

http://www.internationaltforum.dk/article.php3?id_article=235

How about Childrens rights?

Laws in Iran [on child sexual abuse] are really quite atrocious,” she said. “[There are] no special protections for children. The laws are very vague.” One of the solutions outlined in Shapouri’s paper is the necessity for detailed definitions of abuse.

Another issue is the age of adulthood, which in Iran is not the same as the age outlined in the Convention on Rights of the Child. In Iran, the age of adulthood is the age of puberty: nine years old for girls and 15 for boys. This definition, for Shapouri, signifies the lack of protection children can receive simply because, under Iranian law, they are considered adults.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006_spr/shapouri.htm

And dogs

In June, police banned the sale of dogs and penalised anyone walking a dog in public. The practice is seen by conservatives as a corrupting influence of decadent Western culture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2326357.stm


That's just after a few minutes of casually looking up info on Iran. One wonders what you'd dig up with indepth research.

 

[kilo39]

Some interesting facts about Iran.

Firstly this being MYADSL I thought this should go first.
-
-
That's just after a few minutes of casually looking up info on Iran. One wonders what you'd dig up with indepth research.

And your point is? That Iran is a bunch of rightwing bigots. Now why does that ring a bell?

Wikipedia: edited by the worlds experts for accuracy.

Expert in this case: the originator of the document or the source. Or an accepted authority in their field. If not correct it soon will be.

 

[Xarog]

Devil's Game
Muslim Brotherhood/Islamic Brotherhood

I'm still not convinced by these links. While I don't see anything to disagree about their content, I don't see how they prove your argument, either.

Do you really think these connections established over years "simply dry up?" NOT

So are you saying that Osama bin Laden and his ilk were secretly supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan? If not, don't you think this would have soured their relationship with American and by extension, the CIA?

Ah but the car is a primary source of 'trouble' is it not? What industries rely on the car? Who are your buddies?

I don't know. Why don't you put these parts of the analogy into context?

It is above these power structures. In many cases "it" creates them.

I do not agree with this. For instance, although the CIA might be above the law, if one of their operatives is caught in a foreign country he is more or less screwed.

No, it means the information is verified by other people, and if found to be correct, it will be included. Just because everybody can add information, doesn't mean that the information is wrong or twisted to someones agenda. At least go and read the sources before shooting it down. You call yourself "NewsFlash", but you're not willing to read, how ironic.

But it does create the possibility that it is wrong. Wikipedia is not infallible, even if it is (mostly) reliable.

You don't get it do you? "Any fool?" Right, the absolute authorities on any subject (verified by THE WORLD). But they are the fool.

Ipse dixit.

Some interesting facts about Iran.

None of those facts indicate that Iran is threatening world or even regional security, and frankly Nnorth Korea is alot worse. They don't even have a concept of individual rights there.

Do you think the people there even have the internet? 40% of the population is in the army, and the rest of the population support the army. They are destitute. At least in Iran you have a reasonable chance of being able to OWN a computer, let alone use it.

You can dig up dirt on any country you want. For instance, the USA is the only country in the world to have ever executed a minor.

 

[Nod]

But it does create the possibility that it is wrong. Wikipedia is not infallible, even if it is (mostly) reliable.

Obviously there is a chance, and information that is questionable, are marked as such. Nothing is hidden, as you can see every version of the page you are visiting, and every change that was made. It's based on peer review. You can even report information as incorrect, and it will be marked as questionable until you can proof that it is indeed wrong. WikiPedia is a community (worldwide) effort to produce and maintain, an up to date, free encyclopedia.

Just do a search on any subject, and you'll see what I mean. E.g. The Christianity page, can not be edited by new members. Here you can see the history of all the versions.

 

[typogee]

The obvious question, then, is why would the U.S. want and intend civil war raging across the Middle East, apparently threatening strategic interests like oil supplies and the security of a key regional ally, Israel?

America is not the souce of the problem. You are right in suggesting that it runs counter to what appears to be America's best interst, so let's ask why do the NeoCons want civil war in the middle east ?

The PNAC suggests they though they could play all sides off one another, I have to think.

But whole set up very well stinks of the House of Suad actually being the ones playing the Big Oil Texas Cowboys for chumps.

They are only who stand to gain anything.

They can step in , influence their interests in the Sunni/****e schism and end up with the prise, control of the oil, that Bush promised the insiders, but can deliver because it turned out to not be a cakewalk.

The Suadis are the most likely source of all of Bush's knowledge of the middle east and Islam, so ask yourself how are their interests are being served, because America's are not.

 

[Xarog]

My "argument" is that the CIA has been in bed for years with organisations like the mafia and muslim brotherhood. These type of relationships don't ever go away, ie, they are still in place and are being used.

I understand that, but I still don't agree. Relationships like that are marriages of convenience, much like Saddam was once America's (and the CIA's) best friend.

When the reason to be allied disappears, so does the alliance. That's not to say it cannot be picked up again later.

Btw, I mean argument as in a POV (or as one makes an argument in a computer programming language) - I'm not saying you're arguing with me

No, BL was/is a CIA stooge. He was their stooge which is how come the Taliban came to power. They threw the russkies out. Then america decided it wanted a route to the Caspian Sea and wanted a border with Iran. So they decided to kick the Taliban out (and human rights were a worthy excuse, never mind 911.)

This kinda proves my case. Support an ally until he becomes inconvenient and then blow him to smithereens.

I do realise it's possible for the CIA to have 'double agents', and theoretically bin Laden could be one of them.


I do agree with you that the main economic benefits are probably the fact that war props up the war industry. It's often said that America has been in a state of war, with a war economy, ever since the 2nd world war. However, that's got little to do with my point that if you co-operate on something it doesn't mean you co-operate on everything.

Your point is? How many CIA operatives have been tried in a foreign country? Um, maybe none?

Hard to say. I doubt the US would admit to their spies being part of the CIA. I do know that American spies have been tried before, though. My point is that if you're part of the CIA and you go snooping in a foreign country, you have to *evade* the law. You cannot merely go over its head. In other words, you have to observe those power structures. Being above the law suggests that those legal systems cannot touch you, and clearly that's not the case here.