|
TATU says: "FUCK WAR" (shocking t-shirt message on NBC show) (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trintiy |
You know I really wish people would do their research before bashing my country or not supporting this war because it's about OIL its not about the ING OIL!!!!!!
Where Does Our Imported Oil Come From?
The U.S. imported 54 percent of its petroleum supply in 2001. Petroleum imports averaged 10.6 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2001 to meet a total U.S. demand of 19.6 million b/d. The balance of supply was from domestic oil production, ss can be seen in the following table. Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are the top three sources of oil imports. The average Refiner Acquisition Cost (RAC) of imported crude oil was $22.01. Based on imports of 10.6 million b/d, the total cost of oil imports to the U.S. averaged $233 million per day. Total world crude oil production averaged an estimated 76.8 million b/d in 2001.
During 2001, about 48 percent of U.S. crude oil imports came from the Western Hemisphere (19 percent from South America, 15 percent from Mexico, and 14 percent from Canada), while 30 percent came from the Persian Gulf region (18 percent from Saudi Arabia, 9 percent from Iraq, and 3 percent from Kuwait).
In general, OECD Europe depends far more heavily on the Persian Gulf and North Africa for oil imports than does the U.S. During 2001, about 35 percent of OECD Europe's net oil imports came from the Persian Gulf (mainly Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait), around one-third from Africa (mainly Libya, Algeria, and Nigeria), and much of the remainder from Russia. Japan receives over three-quarters of its oil supplies from the Persian Gulf (mainly the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and Qatar), with the remainder coming from Indonesia, China, and other sources.
Major Sources of U.S. Petroleum Imports, 2001*
(all volumes in million barrels per day)
____________Total Oil__Crude Oil Imports___Petroleum Product Imports
Canada_________1.79_______1.32________________________0.47
Saudi Arabia___1.66_______1.61________________________0.05
Venezuela______1.54_______1.28________________________0.26
Mexico_________1.42_______1.38________________________0.04
Nigeria________0.86_______0.81________________________0.04
Iraq___________0.78_______0.78________________________0.00
Norway_________0.33_______0.27________________________0.06
Angola_________0.32_______0.31________________________0.07
United Kingdom_0.31_______0.23________________________0.08
Total Imports__11.62______9.15________________________2.47
* Table includes all countries from which the U.S. imported more than 300,000 barrels per day in 2001
Predicting what would happen to oil prices should the U.S. and its allies attack Iraq is not an exact science, but the Persian Gulf War provides valuable evidence. Prices more than doubled after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August, 1990. Then they fell sharply from more than $30 a barrel to about $20 shortly after Desert Storm began in January, 1991, when it became clear that America's aerial bombardment would quickly defeat Iraq. Oil prices remained at that level for months following the initial attacks despite significant shortfalls in production from Iraq and Kuwait because Saudi Arabia and non-OPEC nations made up the deficit.
Something similar will happen this time. World oil prices probably will rise further as war with Iraq appears to be more certain. However, if the first few days indicate that Saddam will be decisively and quickly defeated, as is highly probable, then oil prices will fall sharply as the "war premium" disappears and uncertainty about world oil production diminishes. Cutbacks in Middle East output would be much smaller than during the Persian Gulf War since Kuwait's facilities would not be destroyed, and Saddam has much less power to damage other facilities than a decade ago. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups might try to destroy some pipelines and oil-production centers, but they will not do a lot of damage, partly because these facilities will be guarded closely during and immediately after any war.
Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator, and I believe he would be extremely dangerous to the world if left unchecked. Other issues are also relevant in determining whether to go to war against his reign. But fear of a sharp and prolonged rise in oil prices should not be one of them, for the most likely scenario is that oil prices will fall significantly and remain low after his regime is toppled. |
|
|
| CynepMeH |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jocker
on the serious topic of war. don't want to go to debates forum, as it will be pointless to argue with so many people involved.
so here's my two cents:
i am against this war because it's not about demoting the regime and overthrowing the dictator. it's not about fighting terrorism either. it's a war to control oil. and us military are using terrorism as a nice target, but it's just a distract.
and with this war, it will bring the new era in human civilization. the era of returning back in medieval, when wars were fought based solely on economic interests.
and what's up with that bull about russia being one of the countries that discriminate jews? half of our politics are jews, 5 out of 10 richest russian people are jews... i have a lot of friends that are jews, and i have many friends that left to izrael after ussr breakup. and nobody discriminates them in any way. yes there are headed nazis, just like in every other country, but that can't oppose the majority of people. |
Let me tear your opinion apart, one by one:
1. IT IS ABOUT OIL - but it is a bonus. Saddam must go, everyone knows it and it would be better for everyone, even Iraqi people. They cannot revolt themselves, US is doing it for them. Revolutions take lives. This is a war not only about oil but about getting Middle east stabilized. Russia does not want war for several reasons, one of those being loosing control. Duma is sponsored by the likes of Lukoil and others - oil companies control russian parliament. End of story. Europe is opposed to war because of fear of a)loosing control of oil b)falling euro c)Ameriphobia
2. IT IS ABOUT FIGHTING TERRORISM - if it ain't so, then perhaps you can enlighten me why Russia is sending thousands of its troops to die in Chechnya? Iraq sponsors and harbors terrorists - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Saddam Hussein pays families of suicide bombers $25,000 each. $25,000 in Middle east buys a lot. Saddam Hussein supplies terrorists with weapons. Palestinians/Hammas and others are sponsored by Saddam. Al Samoud missle has a range of over 150KM, enough distance to reach Israel. Do you think Saddam is planning to bomb Jordan or Iran???? Wake up!
3. GET A CLUE - every war is fought because of economic interests. It's not about or about better real estate values. IT IS ABOUT MONEY. Are we clear? so, in esssence the war has not changed its nature in the last 6000 years or so... Although back then, it was probably about better and real estate values
4. The last but not the least - RUSSIANS ARE THE BIGGEST RACISTS, ANTISEMITISTS, BIGGOTS IN THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD. THERE IS NO ONE IN THE SECOND OR THIRD PLACE. Here's why:
a)There's no equivalent in English for word "Pogrom", short of "Hollocaust"
b)russians have killed more jews over the years then Adolf Hitler, KKK, Romans, Egyptians, Palestinians, and Arabs COMBINED! Check your facts...
c)Wonder where the prase "Bei zhidov, spasai Rossiju!" ("Kill the jews, save Russia") was coined???
d)Jews are fleeing russia not because of heart-warmed welcome Russia has extended to its jewish population. Ever heard of Evreyskaya Avtonomia??? A little peice of land in the middle of nowhere that was allocated for Jews, to keep them away from the rest of Russian population?
e)Ever had your great-grandparents sent to Russian concentration camp for petitioning to save sinagogue??? I did... My great grandparents were sent and never returned from Russian deathcamp, guarded BY RUSSIAN SOLDIERS, ON RUSSIAN SOIL!
f)Please, explain to me the political moto of group "Pamyat" or russian skinheads, who desecrate jewish cemetaries, burn homes, kill jews, and go unpunished?
g)Were you ever called "Zhidovskaya morda" (Kike) and beaten daily because you are a jew??? I was - for almost 7 years. So, forgive me if I am not polliticaly correct.
People would rather live in Israel, with terrorism then live in Russia - what does it tell you?
h) who is blamed for every problem in russia - Jews! The fact that there are several jews politicians doesn't mean . They are probably going to become scapegoats at one point or another. Just look at Boris Abramovich....
i) From mid 60's through late 90's, America was accepting Jews as Refugees - why do you think it was so??? Because Russia was a humanitarian shelter for Jews???? CHECK YOUR FACTS, NIMROD - You DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANTISEMITISM, I HATE YOUR ING COUNTRY AND I AM GLAD I DON'T LIVE THERE ANYMORE.
And whatever little respect I had for Tatu was completely obliterated by their ing act of stupidity. Nothing but two dumb whores who pretend they are lesbos to get publicity. They are not dykes, they are an ACT, created by AMERICAN PRODUCER. Check your facts, again...
Take your two cents and shove them far up your.... |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by CynepMeH
2. Tatu have nice tatas. Their t-shirst should say XYù HAM B POT
|
:stongue:
I'm not gonna get drawn into another political debate. I just wanna post that the above comment by superman gets my vote for funniest post in the thread. |
|
|
| montie |
| quote: | Originally posted by CynepMeH
Let me tear your opinion apart, one by one:
2. IT IS ABOUT FIGHTING TERRORISM - if it ain't so, then perhaps you can enlighten me why Russia is sending thousands of its troops to die in Chechnya? Iraq sponsors and harbors terrorists - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Saddam Hussein pays families of suicide bombers $25,000 each. $25,000 in Middle east buys a lot. Saddam Hussein supplies terrorists with weapons. Palestinians/Hammas and others are sponsored by Saddam. Al Samoud missle has a range of over 150KM, enough distance to reach Israel. Do you think Saddam is planning to bomb Jordan or Iran???? Wake up!
3. GET A CLUE - every war is fought because of economic interests. It's not about or about better real estate values. IT IS ABOUT MONEY. Are we clear? so, in esssence the war has not changed its nature in the last 6000 years or so... Although back then, it was probably about better and real estate values
|
If it's about fighting terrorism, why don't we get involved in Iran and Pakistan who both harbor and finance terrorists and have much stronger links to Al Queda?
both of which are much stronger countries and are much more of a threat to peace than Iraq. Both have nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has been on edge with India for years, if a war broke out between them it would be very devistating.
Also if we are so obsessed with liberating people and bringing our values of freedom (which seems to be hypocritcally valued by many in this country), why don't we get involved in N. Korea. Their leader is much more "evil" than Saddam. The list of human rights violations that have gone on in that country is endless.
now, i think this war is about oil, but not solely that.
i agree that yes most wars are fought for economic reasons, as this war has alot to do with economics (WW2, probably the only just war, wasn't fought for economic reasons).
do you think its right to kill people and send our boys and girls to die just so the rich people who run our nation can have more money lining their pockets?
Bush and the republicans were losing support before the senate elections. thats when all this talk of iraq started up.
bush used the idea of going to war to gain support. now he's dug himself into a hole, and is hoping that he can go to war, win quickly and win reelection.
those are my thoughts. there are other reasons that i think we are also going to war, and id talk more indepthly about my previous stated reasons, but i have to leave in a few minutes.
now you can go ahead and "rip apart my points one by one" and shove my two cents so kindly up my ass |
|
|
| davinox |
damn.
bout time some real debatin' is happening.
this is the real my friends.
this is what im talkin about.
i saw some damn good posts there. |
|
|
| theb |
| I STILL havent seen the video yet and im getting rather annoyed : / i wanna see some sexy tartan mini skirts !! |
|
|
| Muff2K |
| i think their message would've been receivedalot better if their shirts said " US" and in little letters below it said war too |
|
|
| CynepMeH |
| quote: | Originally posted by montie
If it's about fighting terrorism, why don't we get involved in Iran and Pakistan who both harbor and finance terrorists and have much stronger links to Al Queda?
both of which are much stronger countries and are much more of a threat to peace than Iraq. Both have nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has been on edge with India for years, if a war broke out between them it would be very devistating.
Also if we are so obsessed with liberating people and bringing our values of freedom (which seems to be hypocritcally valued by many in this country), why don't we get involved in N. Korea. Their leader is much more "evil" than Saddam. The list of human rights violations that have gone on in that country is endless.
now, i think this war is about oil, but not solely that.
i agree that yes most wars are fought for economic reasons, as this war has alot to do with economics (WW2, probably the only just war, wasn't fought for economic reasons).
do you think its right to kill people and send our boys and girls to die just so the rich people who run our nation can have more money lining their pockets?
Bush and the republicans were losing support before the senate elections. thats when all this talk of iraq started up.
bush used the idea of going to war to gain support. now he's dug himself into a hole, and is hoping that he can go to war, win quickly and win reelection.
those are my thoughts. there are other reasons that i think we are also going to war, and id talk more indepthly about my previous stated reasons, but i have to leave in a few minutes.
now you can go ahead and "rip apart my points one by one" and shove my two cents so kindly up my ass |
I don't particularily see eye to eye with you and I really think the whole argument on this forum about it is rather silly. What I do think, independed of mass-media, slogans and glory cries is that you got to pick your battles one by one. I will bet you serious cash that strategists in Pentagon have thought out the plan of action a million times. We are dealing with rather small bits of info, as you can imagine. However, strategy is not always motivated by politics and vice versa. I do agree that it does seem a bit fishy because Bush Sr. did not finish the job, the oil is rather scarse commodity, terrorism is the shield for actions.
I agree that Junior's big mouth got his ass in deeper than he bargained for; I also agree that Korea, Iran, Pakistan are more of a threat. However, you also have to consider geo-political situation. You cannot go after all fishes at the same time. Russian proverb: "When one chases two rabbits at the same time, he won't catch either". So, with that said - Korea, Iran, and eventually Pakistan will get theirs. If you think like a strategist, even from military perspective, not just oil, you would position your forces where they would make the most impact. By having Iraq as a jump-off point US places the following countries in check:
1. Iraq 2.Iran 3.Sudan 4.Jordan 5.Egypt 6.Lybia 7.Saudi Arabia 8.Kuwait and bunch of other terrorist hives. You can't argue with the strong strategy behind that.
Besides, no matter what mass media tells you about protests all over the middle east, you have to realize that most of the people in those countries could care less for their head dictator leaders. They would probably have a better life and better everything even if US would outright occupy their countries. If you did your history check - US does not occupy countries. Now, that's all trivial depending on how you view military bases but nonetheless, it's not like Germany occupied Poland, Chechoslovakia, and other Eastern-european countries.
By having Afganistan and Iraq as US bases, you are surrounding Iran and within arm's reach of other threats. God forbid, next time happens - US should be in a position to deliver swift response right away.
Now, to the subject of North Korea - they are a state stuck in 1940-50 Stalinist era of former Soviet Union. Daily brainwashing of the people with "american agression" and "emperialist swine" as well as "capitalist pigs" doesn't mean . You have to realize, if country as big as USSR fell appart - North Korea is even more prone to failure. The nuclear program in NK is easy to shut down - one tactical nuke and problem is solved. I doubt Korea has a delivery system for transcontinental nukes. Even that's not needed - blokade the ******s, let them starve to death. I feel sorry for children and innocent people who suffer because of their leadership. But as the saying from "Men in Black" goes - "Person is smart, people are stupid"
Anywho. enough politics. You are entitled to your opinion, I was pissed off at Joker for uttering totally stupid about Russia not being antisemitic country - easy to say so if you've never been subjected to it or feel it on your own skin. Whatever, hope he grows up and gets a clue...
Cynep "Larry King" MeH |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by montie
If it's about fighting terrorism, why don't we get involved in Iran and Pakistan who both harbor and finance terrorists and have much stronger links to Al Queda?
both of which are much stronger countries and are much more of a threat to peace than Iraq. Both have nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has been on edge with India for years, if a war broke out between them it would be very devistating.
Also if we are so obsessed with liberating people and bringing our values of freedom (which seems to be hypocritcally valued by many in this country), why don't we get involved in N. Korea. Their leader is much more "evil" than Saddam. The list of human rights violations that have gone on in that country is endless.
now, i think this war is about oil, but not solely that.
i agree that yes most wars are fought for economic reasons, as this war has alot to do with economics (WW2, probably the only just war, wasn't fought for economic reasons).
do you think its right to kill people and send our boys and girls to die just so the rich people who run our nation can have more money lining their pockets?
Bush and the republicans were losing support before the senate elections. thats when all this talk of iraq started up.
bush used the idea of going to war to gain support. now he's dug himself into a hole, and is hoping that he can go to war, win quickly and win reelection.
those are my thoughts. there are other reasons that i think we are also going to war, and id talk more indepthly about my previous stated reasons, but i have to leave in a few minutes.
now you can go ahead and "rip apart my points one by one" and shove my two cents so kindly up my ass |
Hmmm deja vu ... feels like I've argued this with you before ;) . Anyway with regards to your argument that we should invade Pakistan and Iran, how do you know what kind of threat they pose, what their links are to Al-Qeada, and how much money they contribute to terrorists? I'm assuming that you're a private citizen like the rest of us so how can you come to the evalation that they pose a greater threat or that they have more links to terrorism? That's something that one would think the NSA or the CIA would have better information on.
At any rate you keep listing Pakistan as a threat. And you're correct that there have been some association with the taliban in the past, but the current regime is not supporting terrorist causes against the US! If I recall their intelligence services is cooperating with us and just handed over a major al-queda leader. There may be few INDIVIDUAL members that are pro-taliban/al-queda but the official stance of the government is to support the US. Don't you think it would be kind of silly if they were trying to help us and harm us at the same time?? At any rate their conflict with India is off-topic ... that has nothing to do with the war on terror.
The reason why we don't invade N. Korea is because we have a truce agreement with them. We signed an agreement to cease hostilities and there's not much we can do about it unless N. Korea invades S. Korea or committs some other SIGNIFICANT hostile act. The reason why we are threatening Iraq is because they are in violation of their truce agreement with us. N. Korea and Iraq are completely different scenarios, and this war was never originally about a humanitarian issue.
With regards to the oil and economics issue, it's simple ... it's going to cost A LOT more money to fund the buildup abroad, actually wage the war, and finally station 200,000 troops in Iraq to keep the peace than any kind of economic benefit as a result of this conflict. It's simply too infeasible for this to be about improving the economy because it's too much of an uncertain gamble. There are too many risks involved. It would have been insanely more effective to simply use all that money to reinvest in capital or invest in other oil assets overceas. Hell we have untapped oil supplies in Alaska that we haven't even utilized. Don't you think it would be more effective to utilize oil assets on our OWN territory rather than create this whole mess and invade another country to get their oil?? As a matter of fact the threat of war is seriously HURTING our economy rather than making it better. It seems counterintuitive that we would be doing this for our economy when it's obviously damaging it. |
|
|
| montie |
| quote: | Originally posted by CynepMeH
I don't particularily see eye to eye with you and I really think the whole argument on this forum about it is rather silly. What I do think, independed of mass-media, slogans and glory cries is that you got to pick your battles one by one. I will bet you serious cash that strategists in Pentagon have thought out the plan of action a million times. We are dealing with rather small bits of info, as you can imagine. However, strategy is not always motivated by politics and vice versa. I do agree that it does seem a bit fishy because Bush Sr. did not finish the job, the oil is rather scarse commodity, terrorism is the shield for actions.
I agree that Junior's big mouth got his ass in deeper than he bargained for; I also agree that Korea, Iran, Pakistan are more of a threat. However, you also have to consider geo-political situation. You cannot go after all fishes at the same time. Russian proverb: "When one chases two rabbits at the same time, he won't catch either". So, with that said - Korea, Iran, and eventually Pakistan will get theirs. If you think like a strategist, even from military perspective, not just oil, you would position your forces where they would make the most impact. By having Iraq as a jump-off point US places the following countries in check:
1. Iraq 2.Iran 3.Sudan 4.Jordan 5.Egypt 6.Lybia 7.Saudi Arabia 8.Kuwait and bunch of other terrorist hives. You can't argue with the strong strategy behind that.
Besides, no matter what mass media tells you about protests all over the middle east, you have to realize that most of the people in those countries could care less for their head dictator leaders. They would probably have a better life and better everything even if US would outright occupy their countries. If you did your history check - US does not occupy countries. Now, that's all trivial depending on how you view military bases but nonetheless, it's not like Germany occupied Poland, Chechoslovakia, and other Eastern-european countries.
By having Afganistan and Iraq as US bases, you are surrounding Iran and within arm's reach of other threats. God forbid, next time happens - US should be in a position to deliver swift response right away.
Now, to the subject of North Korea - they are a state stuck in 1940-50 Stalinist era of former Soviet Union. Daily brainwashing of the people with "american agression" and "emperialist swine" as well as "capitalist pigs" doesn't mean . You have to realize, if country as big as USSR fell appart - North Korea is even more prone to failure. The nuclear program in NK is easy to shut down - one tactical nuke and problem is solved. I doubt Korea has a delivery system for transcontinental nukes. Even that's not needed - blokade the ******s, let them starve to death. I feel sorry for children and innocent people who suffer because of their leadership. But as the saying from "Men in Black" goes - "Person is smart, people are stupid"
Anywho. enough politics. You are entitled to your opinion, I was pissed off at Joker for uttering totally stupid about Russia not being antisemitic country - easy to say so if you've never been subjected to it or feel it on your own skin. Whatever, hope he grows up and gets a clue...
Cynep "Larry King" MeH |
yeah, we both don't see eye to eye.
you seem to have a more military perspective (sorry if this seems offensive) and i a more pacifistic.
i agree with you that we can't chase all the rabbits at one time and that taking over iraq would put us at a great military advantage in the middle east.
i was just using the arguement that Pakistan and Iran are islamic countries that are much more of a threat to us than iraq, but yet we decide to go after iraq. and bush tries to justify it by saying that we are freeing the people and saddam is some big threat to the world, and makes up all this bull to try and justify it.
and i guess you can say he's right in the long run that he's trying to combat terrorism by taking over iraq so that he can put america in a more powerful position so that they can put more pressure on iran and pakistan.
the only thing i don't really agree with you on is about the people being better off under america than under a dictator (saddam). I definantly im not a supporter of saddam, i think he's a crazy , but i don't think they will be any better under an american endoresed leader. I think america will put in some other dicatotor who will do what we say, but yet be just as tyrannical over the people as saddam was. so they will be trading in one crappy leader for another just as bad.
i feel of all the countries, the biggest threat to peace is n. korea.
yeah they are definatly stuck in the 40-50's stalinist (or maoist) mentality.
anyway, my feelings are: i don't think we should go to war with any of these countries. the best thing to do is to just try to slowly get our interests out of these countries, and let them battle eachother until they reach a state of "maturity" or development as western europe and america has.
its like trying to help a person who's mentally ed up, you can't help them until they help themselves.
but anyway im more of a "" pacifist. everyone is entitled to their opinions. i think the disadvantages completly outweigh the advantages of going to war with iraq.
(sorry if this post sounds kinda dumb and incoherent, im definatly not in the right state to be responding intelligently to posts since im quite drunk right now, but oh well, i can laugh at how dumb i sound in the morning....now i gotta reply to occrider) |
|
|
| Jocker |
| quote: | Originally posted by CynepMeH
Let me tear your opinion apart, one by one:
|
i know my facts... and don't call me a nimrod. i know the history of my fatherland quite good to oppose any of your arguments. YES, there were concentration camps and there was oppression of nations (not only jews, but also chechens, dagestanians and so on), BUT it was under the rule of Stalin, which were the black history of our days. and don't tell me about american acceptance - you are forgetting about which was the country to drop the nukes on two civil cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) back in 1945 and about reservations for Indians - the only true pure representatives of American nation. There are many countries where racism is MUCH MORE observable than in Russia... Yes, there are some slogans like "Punch Jews, save Russia", screamed out occasionally by some retards, but that's because of common folk being pissed off that jews rule the media, the government, etc. etc... I don't share their hatered, but some people are - just out of envy. I remember, when Audiogalaxy closed, the first post in the forums there was something like "it's all th jews fault - they run the media", and it was said by none other than a person from America.
yes, Boris Abramovich (in couple with Boris Berezovsky) are blamed for many sins - but that's because they are multibillionaire THIEVES (grown up under Yeltzin's wing and known under a nice alias of "oligarhs", which is none but a synonym to "thief"), who made their capitals in the early 90s with speculations with privatization schemes. and even if Boris Abramovich was Boris Ivanov, I would not stop to blame him, because I don't care whether he is a jew or not - but he is a ing thief.
and jews fleed from USSR becuase they were smarter than the ordinary people. everyone wanted to flee from that communist hole of a country that it was, but only jews would actually have courage to leave everything, including mothers and fathers, behind them to taste the freedom. but in my argument, i am not talking about USSR, i am talking about modern Russia, which you obviously don't know about.
yes, again, there are certain racial organizations, that act in Russia (the best known is RNE, of course), but then again, there are such organizations in all the countries, and in Russia the repercussions of their acts are all but massive. I bitterly regret the incident, which happened last year, when the woman tried to dismount a road sign, over which the racial statement was painted ("death to jews"), and that sign was booby-trapped, but our country showed exactly how it feels about this, by president Putin awarding Medal of Courage to that woman...
now to the war... yes, i agree the world is better off without Saddam, just like it was better off without taliban government in Afganistan, but this time the interests of USA are transparently clear: US will go to war to take control over the country, hence control of oil fields, hence dramatical drop in oil prices. yes, they will fight terrorism, but the way they are trying to conspire the obvious fact of economic interest in the region is pissing the whole world off.
Finally, TaTu is produced by a RUSSIAN producer...
and just a question for yourself: how would you act, if people came to your land, took 2/3s of it away from you and said that now it's the land, where your worst enemy will live. that's exactly what happened in 1946, when Israel was formed on the 2/3 of Palestine lands. and of course, the whole world couldn't foresee what insane radical islam fanatics would be grown up on as the crops of palestine hatred toward jews, but it was at least clear, that nobody would peacefully give up their lands...
and the last question: if you hate Russia and everything about it so much, why do you try to write your nickname as "SuperMan" written in cyrillic, and why recently you put up an avatar of a russian cartoon hero, Masyana?
the last couple of word about your remark of me saying utter about antisemetism: my grandfather was sued and put in jail for 9 years as a part of a political process for nothing... After Stalin's death in 1953, in USSR they didn't care which race or nation you were... you could be a jew and lick the ass of the regime and be on top. or you could be a jew telling political anekdotes and being put to jail for the rest of your life. |
|
|
| Jocker |
| quote: | Originally posted by CynepMeH
blokade the ******s, let them starve to death. I feel sorry for children and innocent people who suffer because of their leadership. But as the saying from "Men in Black" goes - "Person is smart, people are stupid"
|
very humanistic, you know...:rolleyes:
now i wonder whether you really are a jew believing in God, or a frenzy ed in the head radical mother******. |
|
|
|
|
