Lol - rich. I called you redneck because you really trully are one. But i called you a redneck just after you said 10 insults at my person.

"slander", "biggotry", " hateful little fluff" ... ++.

And you yet build your case about an inoffensive "redneck" insult. You know that for me you will always remain a redneck addicted to guns. But i didn't call you a rather average idiot with doubtful morals, mean, heartless, sometimes with nazy tendencies that thinks that he`s the "center" of the universe, yet.

also, invoking the "illuminati" because i said the west does things in its strategic interest is just asinine. that's the LEAST conspiracy-addled view possible.

you did not state the last part of this most recent post in your previous post, it changes the tone a bit. regardless, the US is clearly pursuing its own interests, i doubt anyone will argue with that. but some have implied in this thread that it is all about oil, and in the case of ISIS, it really isnt. there is a pervaying view among a lot of people that the US government is some sort of puppet master playing other countries behind the scenes in some movie like evil plot. that is what i was referring to. if you are not in that demographic, then i apologize.

maybe im guilty of grouping you in with others in this thread, but you used verbiage that caused me to do so.

i said it in the post before that one, which you apparently didnt readso you skimmed/skipped that post and then accused me of seeing the US gov't as hyper capable... hehe...

i believe that post was made as i was wasting my time responding to one of Alin's and is probably why i missed it.

probably a simple misunderstanding.

in alin's defense

if i am labeled a libtard, then mrford, a redneck label is quite fitting for you, imho

oh, im proudly a redneck. but i wont have someone who is hateful and ignorant using it as a derogatory word because they lack the capacity or desire to understand.

I still have a hard time figuring if blid is a communist or not. Might be the barrier of my language or mrford`s brain one.

Man and seeing him using words like hateful and ignorant is just rich... I can make a 5 rows resume of his person using his own words in this thread, only.

can we get more discussion on topic rather than on people's validity to discuss the subject? heh

For instance, it's been my opinion that there is a vested interest for the rest of the world to keep the middle east ablaze/divided. it's been that way since the collapse of the Ottoman empire. that makes it easier for foreign powers (or companies, now-a-days) to exert their influence over the region without a ton of local oversight.

I always try to look at people's actions or inactions through that prism

How does one argue with someone that admittingly know nothing about whats being discussed in a thread. Your english is good enough to understand, but it sucks. Just like your knowledge on current events and how you come to you opinions. I guess through osmosis you obtain the wealth of information you store in your pea brain.
You expect to debate on these terms? Its not about your opinion, its about you not knowing fluff. Im not alone in this line of thought.
Nice touch throwing a reference to sof here. fluffing retard. Lol
Christ you are predictable.

well it's clear, it's overtly clear, that we're trying to put our hand picked ppl in charge in these states... we're trying to install friendly regimes in the region, regimes that will be 'open for business' (oil etc) and military partners and so on. that's why, despite saudi arabia being a deeply repressive undemocratic kingdom - where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from btw -, we don't intervene, because they are cooperative with us and are our friends over there. and israel is our greatest friend, despite the violence and aparatheid they reign over in israel and the occupied territories.

it's no secret whatsoever that saddam hussein was not a friend of the US or the west. same for qaddafi (although he had been compromising somewhat at the time before his overthrow). same for assad, who is more in russia's sphere of influence. therefore, we overthrow these regimes or sponsor their overthrow, either ignorant of the consequences or without care of the consequences. obviously funding and arming "moderate rebels" (whoever heard of moderate rebels) often ended up assisting isis and they ended up with US-made weapons. the fighting of those we sponsored against the assad regime is a major reason why syria's government wasn't able to stop isis from grabbing power in some regions of the country.

whether that was purely our own incompetence and short-sightedness or not is really the only thing that's hard to figure. did we sincerely believe it would work? despite what happened in iraq and libya? and we're just that incompetent? maybe. did we sincerely HOPE it would work out, but not really care either way? that's possible too... i mean thanks to isis emerging and beheading a couple of westerners we now are politically able to get more directly involved in syria; we are now bombing syria when previously we couldn't get political support for that despite wanting to.

You and mrford are really like Beavis and Butthead. Otherwise, altought is in plain pure english, your text is lame at best.

maybe you are thinking too short term, or maybe im thinking too long term. it definitely isnt an overnight solution to factions that have been fighting for thousands of years. history will ultimately be the only judge of these last 2 decades, but i affirm that we need to keep at it. It is more of a damned if you do damned if you dont situation. Let a dictator that is against you remain in power, with the resources and support to actually carry out attacks in the region, or destroy the government and deal with a decade of localized fighting and religious extremists blaming the west for all their problems until another regime surfaces?

neither situation is favorable, but if you intervene atleast you have a chance at coming out ontop, more of a chance than negotiating with a dictator more concerned with keeping his own people inline than foreign policy. i dont really see many other options. letting things just play out for the next 20 years would even be worse imo.

This is the type of open mind american that will always understand what is going on and you(as a rather neutral outsider) will always have a line of discussion with him about anything that is going on in this world. Because he sees further than the walls of fluffy propaganda he is served every day. His view over the events is correct and accurate.

you notice that despite isis being so evil and dangerous and so on and so on, we're still refusing to ally with the assad gov't in putting them down. what does that tell you about our priorities

im not sure what you are getting at here, but i agree with you that the US dictated that assad had to go. now weather it was because he didnt like us, aligned with russia, or the human rights violations, you can pick your reasoning.

in addition, Assad regime supports ISIS no? i remember reading that most of current ISIS leadership was released from jail by the regime. maybe i read incorrectly.

No.

It's more like a free for all. SAA vs. FSA/AN vs. ISIS

No. Ford and i are not alike. Ford resents that.

if it's "human rights violations" why are we fine with saudi arabia? qatar? etc. "human rights violations" is almost always an excuse, a veneer to put on an internvetion to earn domestic or international acceptance.

isis is trying to take over parts of syria, so of course assad doesn't support isis. he is battling them and the smaller faction of "moderate rebels" to attempt to restore order to syria.

lolz

you cant fix all the human rights violations at once? fluff if i know.

from a pure tactical point of view, you try to fix the countries that dont like you before you fix the ones that do. Also, from a purely uninformed guess, i would assume the violations in syria were worse than the saudis. saudis are more freedom and equality violations, not right to life like in syria and some other african nations the UN is intervening in. even if not, at least they are letting in western culture. maybe mcdonalds and justin beiber can pascify them.

you dont even hear the phrase "human rights violations" thrown around if the organs of power don't want you to.

for example, after the 'arab spring,' the egyptian people democratically elected the muslim brotherhood, yes? then there were some protests against them and the egyptian military overthrew the elected government, executing a coup d'etat and taking power. they rounded up MB officials and jailed them and tried them with crimes, they fired on and brutalized MB supporters when *they* were protesting in the streets. we don't hear about "human rights" then though... instead we hear the term used in reference to libya and qaddafi, when he's fighting against an armed rebellion in his country, or assad, etc. it's funny when people frame what qaddafi or assad does as "slaughtering their own people." have you heard that phrase? ive heard it a ton. would be funny to read about the US civil war in that light. abraham lincoln slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people! and so on...

in regards to the US civil war, you arnt acknowledging the paradigm shift in the value of human life in the western world over the last 60 years or so, especially in regards to civilians. A lot of this shift can probably be attributed to widely avaliable coverace of world events and graphic images of war avaliable to everyone almost immediately. look at japan and WWII re: US firebombings and the Japanese occupation of China. and now the Iraq war where 4,500 US casualties and 100,000-200,000 Iraqi is an absurd number over 10 years, especially since saddam wasnt exactly great in the human rights arena either. Im not going to argue the merit of those numbers in regards to what should or should not have happened, it isnt my point. still, it was close enough of an analogy for your point to be made i suppose lol. it is a different argument entirely, the value of human life vs conflict.

you are bordering on conspiracy theories though. i agree that government uses key terms to rally public support, but the human rights violations in egypt were well documented. It is a tactic used by anyone rallying support to their cause, even companies like Apple and BP practice it. I suppose the game changes when you are talking about human life and war though huh? fair enough.

Egypt wasnt an immediate threat is the only real excuse i can come up with. you wont see me here praising the government for consistency, honor, and philanthropy, but im not going to throw them under the bus for things they did in good faith in addition to serving their own agenda. they will always be accused of having an alternate adgenda by their opponents. It isnt all about the oil, but i will agree with you that it is usually about power and aligning leaders with our goals.

Wow - i rarely am silent on this forum, but that just put a complete gag on my keyboard.

Read your comments on the first page regarding oil and other interests and the fact that (and i quote you) this time is not about the oil or other interests. You surely change your opinion often when you get pawned big style ...

the other thing is i guess you can say when the US overthrows saddam hussein or what have you, "well, they're acting in their own interest, why wouldnt they, who can blame them." but then you look at the immense human cost, the 3-5m people displaced in the iraq war, the million killed, the loss of infrastructure and living conditions, and you start questioning, well, just because it's in our interest (or attempting to be in our interest... whether it actually succeeds at that is up for debate)... can that really make it right
http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/

The gawddamn muslim religion is a huge problem right now for the world. I dont give two fluff how they live or what they do, so long as i dont have to be effected in any way. Political correctness is tyranny with manners.
For fluffs sake, there is a wealth of oil in that region that would be the cherry on top of wiping out the threat. Why say thats a bad thing? Reap what you sow?

million dead? most figures i see are less than 250,000, but i supose that is semantics, your point stands.

my counter would be that even though it was poorly planned, there was no way of knowing that the conflict would take so long. The factions and religious incompatibilities in the region are pretty much too different to exist peacefully in a democratic nation right now. But because of that, should you of allowed the dictatorship to remain in place? That country was ruled by death squads and gas attacks on his own citizens. He attacked 2 of his neighbors in 10 years. To say the Iraq conflict wasnt worth it i cant really agree with. Poorly planned and executed, sure. But this was a different kind of war, one we had to adapt to, and it took us a while.

And in all fairness, Saddam had WMDs at one point in time. what he did with them is what worries me.

maybe it is you who needs to go back in read. i have not reversed my position at all.

You didn't?!?!?

you started your case with:
" this is not about oil and interests this is about eradicating a dangerous group of terror".

You momentum status is :
" it isnt all about the oil, but i will agree with you that it is usually about power and aligning leaders with our goals "

you are unable to see in all the direction. you see things like a horse - just in front.
blid (as a counter example) sees like a Chameleon (180 grades view angle).

Sometimes i wish all this world powers to build a 1 kilometer high wall at their borders and leave anyone else alone. I would like to see that to happen to Russia China USA Germany UK and a couple more.
Everyone else in the world will just live a better life. But that is impossible.

This world does not need what you want to believe to be "a world police that fights evil" and what i believe to be a mirage of a "world police" that actually seeks for resources, influence, markets and ultimately power.

The "world police" actually needs the world to maintain their "bosses" status.

So there are 2 scenarios here :

1. One is just easy to manipulate and does not understand what this is all about. He will always believe propaganda, and think they are searching for WMDs, terrorists and "human rights" in middle west.
2. One realizes that most of the "war" reasoning are just a wave of fog thrown in his eyes. He also realize that while he pays an average of 3 USD / gallon of gasoline, the rest of the world pays 6-10 USD / gallon.

You are a mixture of both 1 and 2. You pay 3 usd for the gasoline and you want people like me to believe that`s because your Government fights the evil of this world. Otherwise i am ignorant, hate, a little fluff, jealous, and have not experimented freedom. You use also a Chameleons skill, but is the color change.

who going win

im in favor of making glass over there lol

1.) the international community fully agreed that there were WMD's the UN agreed, nato agreed, and most intel we had showed he did. the "he didn't have WMD's" argument is a strawmans argument, he just moved them in the 3 months between us telling him we are attacking him and actually attacking him. Whereto? We don't know, likely Syria.

2.) That is what happens when you have a little bit of a free market and low gas taxes in comparison. Kinda neat huh?
Your European-socialist gas taxes and auto taxes are insanely high because they help offset the outrageous costs for your public transportation and infrastructure.

Sure - Saddam moved the WMDs ( and did not used them instead ) because that`s exactly what "evil" dictators do when they have WMDs. They don`t attack their enemies with the WMDs, they just die hanged and move the WMDs to the next "evil" dictator ( Assad ? Gadaffi?).

And the answer to your tax thing is NO. Whatever tax rate you want to figure into the scheme there there is no justification ( in tax ) for that. Europe is not exactly a whole like the US is. Taxes apply different from country to country. There is VAT that varies in all the UE countries, there are the outside UE countries. UE does not work like the states, and the tax justify is weak.

Further more - The asians pay the same expensive price for it. So is "almost" everybody. You must understand that your country did not necesarlly invented "hot water and the wheel" thus while you pay an amount for gasoline - the rest of the world pays double or triple. And 80% of the answer for that is "Middle East" Oil while maybe 20% can be debated in taxes and infrastructure.

I really don't understand how you take your self seriously with stateements like this. You clearly have no grasp of the English language if you believe what you are saying. It is the only explination. I suggest you try to understand what someone is saying before you run around looking like an idiot. You are dangerously close here.

What the actual fluff. Ok maybe this is a language barrier. But didn`t you just said up there that

"this is not always about the oil ( which implies sometimes it is), but i agree with you that it is usually about power and aligning leaders with our goals ( which in middle east means that you align leaders with the goals of ExonMobile and Chevron )."

Ford are you really that stupid, or that ignorant ? You really sound like a communist at this point. Stop calling me names if you don`t want 5 rows of how incompetent you sound here. Because i had this freaking talk, in real life, in groups of 20 and 30 persons, with all the sides involved ( pros, neutrals, contra). I had this debate sober, i had this debate drunk and i had this debate starting with 1998.

Stop fluffing with me and calling me names, asshole.

That is a rich request comming from you.

Now go back and read both posts in their entirety. They arnt even about the same conflict, or country. They arnt even responding to the same idea. But they both say it isn't about the oil.

You have a problem of taking things out of context and using and twisting the words. I don't know if this is a language barrier, maybe it is your style, but it is getting tiring debating with someone who acts in this manner. Maybe you should stick to arguing in a language you understand


You don't see me debating in spanish, even though I speak it fluently.

I rest my case. Unfreakingbelivible ... One can never debate with you. You always spin this fluff like is a matter of life and dead. You can not take a conversation as it is and learn something, like i truly did from blid. You will always spin the fluff out of everyone, troll me because of earth 2025 ( this thread is not about it ) and try to mock me because i am doing this in my 3rd. Weak.

Aligning leaders in Egipt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran UAE or whatever other fluffing country you want in that zone, has the ultimate goal the Oil. You don`t want the sand, or the camels, or the curved swords, but THE OIL. This movie started in 1989-1990 ( with the Gulf War) after USSR finally disbanded and they were in their weakest phase. Same year, i got my freedom.

Why the fluff am i even doing this - i don`t even know.

You rest your case? Lol. Never change alin. The world needs people like you.

Playing the victim card here is quality entertainment though. Thanks.

fluff off - martiana redneck 36 guns Ford

There is the classy alin I was waiting on.

you are as ignorant as an pig when it`s having sex.

you talk about classy you redneck ? go look over your 35 posts in this thread - and count the numbers of "names" you have called me.

ASS HOLE!!!

Angry angry alin here to save the day! Anyone that dissagrees is ignorant and should go away!

neah - Trife mdevol and others disagrees. Others agrees or partially agrees. But you are the only truly ignorant redneck that was pwned by 4 different persons in 2 different threads ( because you have a brainwashed fluffed opinion) until you got so Soft and you started to change your opinion and backed off.

Additionally, you still havnt shown where I changed my stance, or where I was "PWNed" Have fun with that proof.

Well your discussion with Detmer and HW in the "brother" thread started like a typhoon and ended with you in a state of submission and acceptance. you softed the talk down and started to view "strong points" and "weak points" in both USA and Canada systems.

Meanwhile here you started the discussion with blid from the point where you named him a straight communist. Than you softed it down ( using like a child excuse, "i didn`t read that part") to the same submission and acceptance stance ( but that`s because blid made some brilliant points ). Ended up in the same status Que:
"yea i agree here, but see maybe we should talk a little more about that - your point stands - yea yea yea i agree " stuff like that.

With me ? i could shake the hand with you and give you a white ball and tell you " here ford take this white ball as a gift ". That ball will never be white for you, but black - because you consider me inferior ( race, world zone, education ) altough i am almost sure i am superior to you on many levels ( maybe not at english and wording ).

Yep, it is clear you are having trouble with the English language and differentiating between a joke (blid is communist) and serious responces.

Correct that fallacy and maybe this might make a bit more sense. Until then you are just as ignorant and biased as you accuse me of being. It would be funny if you wernt so serious and convinced in your righteousness.

In 2-3 years since we chase our tails around here did i ever made a righteousness point to you ? If yes - please give it as an example.

What I've learned in this thread thus far...

-blid is a commie
-Alin has a language barrier
-fordy is a gun happy red neck
-Trife is and will always be a libtard
-auto correct sux balls

To be continued...

Wait... that was only a joke? Are you telling me blid isn't a communist?!