News articles, events, announcements |
Thread locked by a moderator or admin. |
|
|
|
|
IRAN-NUCLEAR WEAPONS-BUSH
|
| 80. |
07 Dec 2007 Fri 01:14 pm |
|
Quoting AlphaF: Quoting excalibur89: My turkish friend "thehandsome" seems intent on expressing his anti american views, can you express those views in Iran? or in Iraq when Saddam was in power? I'm sure feedom of speech is quite popular with the Taliban "NOT!" North Korea would be a fun place to express your views. To criticize those areas from within their own borders would most definitely result in some sort of physical discomfort!Yet you can come to the U.S.A. and curse the government aloud, even burn it's flag which is protected by the U.S. constitution then go have lunch when you are all done expressing your views.Join a protest in China and see how fast your day gets ruined.I am assuming you are in Turkey, Dont hate the U.S.A too much, If it werent for the U.S. military presence in Turkey all these years you just might be speaking russian right now. |
This total crap. US presence in Turkia was never for Turkish interests nor protection. Slimy spying operations from US bases in Turkia, without knowledge of Turkia (betraying Turkia's trust to a so called ally) eventually lead to U2 crisis,
The US financial help to Turkia was spent on keeping an army of million strong Turks, only to be sacrificed in the first few days of a possible Russian attack. The cost of keeping this force was probably less than 1/10 of the cost of keeping an American army of the same size. |
doesnt matter why we were there, it kept the russians away.
We didnt force the turks to let us stay there.the turks are smart enough to know that our presence is a great deterent.
|
|
| 81. |
07 Dec 2007 Fri 01:19 pm |
|
Check your own history. US forces were no great deterrents in Korean WAR.
Few more similar idiotic remarks from our allies, they will have to move their bases out, in two days.
|
|
| 82. |
07 Dec 2007 Fri 01:21 pm |
|
Is that why there is a south korea today? If we were as blood thirsty as you think we would have taken the north.
|
|
| 83. |
07 Dec 2007 Fri 01:30 pm |
|
Quoting excalibur89: Is that why there is a south korea today? If we were as blood thirsty as you think we would have taken the north. |
Read my revised post above.
|
|
| 84. |
07 Dec 2007 Fri 01:35 pm |
|
South Korea said that it has completed the takeover of 14 US military bases where environmental clean up work is complete.
Under an agreement reached in July last year, South Korea will take over the land occupied by 15 US military bases. The only base yet to be returned is Kooni Range in Maehyangri, southwest of Seoul.
According to the Land Partnership Plan between the two countries, the US will return 59 bases to South Korea by 2011. Of them, 29 bases have undergone environmental surveys.
About 29,000 US troops are currently stationed in South Korea. The US plans to reduce the number to 25,000 by 2008.
THE USA IS NO LONGER NEEDED. A JOB WELL DONE BY UNCLE SAM I SAY. YOU READ THINGS ONE WAY, AND I SEE THEM ANOTHER.
|
|
| 85. |
07 Dec 2007 Fri 01:43 pm |
|
you really must stop getting your information from al jazeera.
|
|
| 86. |
07 Dec 2007 Fri 01:44 pm |
|
Both North Koreans and South Koreans are now seriously negotiating a reunion.
They have finally realised, that both sides have been royally screwed. Half a century lost for nothing !
|
|
| 88. |
07 Dec 2007 Fri 02:11 pm |
|
Quoting thehandsom: femme, I hope you are not a history teacher or a teacher tries to teach logic to students
Ok Ok
I will try to simplfy it for you (because I am getting quite dissapointed here)
|
i wont comment this.
Quoting thehandsom:
Where is Vietnam? (in asia)
where is USA (in north america)?
What is the distance between USA and vietnam? (thousands of miles)
what do you call a country leaves from its own soil and lands on another country's soil with its army? (it is called invaders)
A simple logic here femme!! USA in that conflict is called the 'invading country'.
|
you are disappointing me, man. i thought you came into discussion because you have some basic knowledge on wars history or even the definition of the war.
im impressed by your knowledge on geography.
and tell me what does the distance have to do with the military intervention?
so, are you telling me that turks that took part in korean war were there to invade? what did turks do far away from home?
to you dear logics, USA invaded vietnam, so now vietnam is the part of USA? so what was the purpose of this 'invasion'?
did you read the links i gave to you?
Quoting thehandsom:
And the result of invasion is huge number of civilian dead. Millions of civilian deads.
|
there was no war in soviet union during years 30-39, yet 1,5 - 3 million kazakhs (im not mentioning here other nationalities) died out of hunger and another million died in death camps.
and yet one more time i advise to learn the definitions of military actions.
and im asking you again for any war that took place without civilian casualties.
Quoting thehandsom:
You can not just say 'ah the real reason many died is eastern mentality' and get away with it!!
|
i suggest you learn a bit about vietnam war (actually the whole indochina wars) how and what they did to their own civilians, how they used them as bites, how they shielded themselves with children and women, or how they cut ears of their children in order to show them as the ears of enemies etc etc.
Quoting thehandsom:
Even if you tell this to your childeren in a simply way, they will ask you ' ama ama mom, dont you think if USA army did not invade there would not be millions of civilians dead?'
I am sure when they learn how much napalm was used in that war and how many civilians burnt alive, they will ask more different questions!!
|
im not commenting this.
Quoting thehandsom:
when it comes to Iraq war:
where is IRAQ? (in middle east)
where is USA ? (see above! )
what is the distance between usa and iraq (again thousand of miles)
|
as above
Quoting thehandsom:
Was Iraq a thread to europe or usa (not really, never!!)
|
there were always speculations he had the bio-chemical weapons (actually he had and used on about 300 000 kurds)
and saddam was indeed a threat to the world (stating here he was insane and extremely cruel), therefore UN inspectors were sent to iraq many times to check the situation whom saddam would often kick out of iraq.
Quoting thehandsom:
what happened there usa? army invaded iraq.(then of course removed the army, removed the government)
The result of the invasion?( so far) 1 million dead.4 million displaced.
|
actually, this war was called a war on terrorism, and speculated nuclear bombs saddam supposedly had (lately re-changed into the intervention to bring the democracy to iraq).
all the aims arent reasonable to me.
1. there were no terrorists in iraq (the logics say that saddam being himself a domestic terrorist would not tolerate any other terrorist groups led by osama).
2. we knew now he didnt possess a nuclear weapon.
3. democracy cant be imported. there will be no democracy in the middle east within 500-1000 years so far.
oh, i see today you ve changed your mind and say that 1mln victims are the result of the war, not the victims of allied bullets.
thanks.
and i dont support this war, and any war at all.
Quoting thehandsom:
You can not say femme 'trained terrorists bombing everywhere, they are responsible' and get away with it.
|
why cant i? if there was no terrorist resistance there would be less civilian casualties.
i know many died by aircraft bombings, there were mistakes after mistakes, we all heard about them, and we were all shocked, bombed weddings, funerals. the US army even by mistake attacked british troops, other allied armies. which also was known and took place in the vietnam war, japanese war.
Quoting thehandsom:
Your childeren will turn around ask 'ama ama, if the usa army did not invade, there would not be 1 million dead and 4 million displaced'
And again, I am sure when they learn in depth, they will ask 'ama ama, is it true that shooting is not the only way to kill people? is it true that even before the invasion sunctions killed 500.000 iraqi childeren every year?'
|
no comment
Quoting thehandsom:
About Israel:
Actually, the number of childeren and civilians got killed speak for themselves.
119 israeli to 971 palestinians (childeren)
700 israeli to 2000 plastinians (civilians)
|
look, handsome, you are trying to show how evil are US and israel armies and how innocent are all those terrorists that disturb the peace.
let me tell you one thing, again, back to the eastern mentality, they use women and children as a shield.
why do those mentally sick parents send their little children against armed tanks? why dont they keep them safe away from the conflict areas, like do jews?
why does hezbollah keep ammunitions at schools? why dont they evacuate civilians from the buildings before the warnings given to the lebanese gov?
i could tell you more things.
the thing is that, they never fight soldier against soldier. they hide nehind their 'half human' women and children. isnt there professional army in any of those middle eastern countries? no, they send young women (prostitutes in the past to purify their souls by killing infidels) to blow off in the crowd.
in one word they are cowards, they use their civilians (unlike jews) they have no professional armies, they never accepted the state of israel, and they will never stop being cowards training more terrorists out of poor students, former prostitutes and naive brainwashed youngs from the west.
Quoting thehandsom:
And you are the first person calling westbank settlers legal (even Ariel Sharon could not say it. )
ve ve
|
i wasnt talking about westbank settlement when i mentioned the legality of the israeli state, you knew it perfectly and you are playing with me (typical to an easterner when out of arguements).
you havent read the links i gave you yesterday 
Quoting thehandsom:
legality of Israel, mandated by great britan etc (I was reading this really funny book from yalcin peksen and laughing a lot..I wont be reading it tonight..I had enough laugh  )
|
dont wanna comment on this (you are running out of arguments)
and i dont know the man, hes obviously not a significant authority in the aspect of international sources.
|
|
| 89. |
07 Dec 2007 Fri 02:16 pm |
|
Quoting AlphaF: Both North Koreans and South Koreans are now seriously negotiating a reunion.
They have finally realised, that both sides have been royally screwed. Half a century lost for nothing ! |
wow!
what a news! we cant let them be re-united today! we should stop them!
so what holds them to embrace each other, omega?
maybe its evil USA again? 
|
|
| 90. |
07 Dec 2007 Fri 02:42 pm |
|
Evil USA sure tries...But,
1. People know better now,
2, There is also a good USA
|
|
|
