So has everyone decided if this is or isn't a bad thing?
Trying to figure out if this is good or bad misses the point. If Israel and Iraq figure out that they want to do it then ... well then WTF cares besides them?
Everyones all up in arms when the Jews, ooops sorry I mean Israelis, are interested in reviving an old source of oil. Meanwhile the French, Germans and Russians use real underhanded methods to do the same thing and more and no one starts a thread on that. Maybe because they are not Jews, crap there I go again I can't stop I mean they are not, "Israelis"?
Trying to figure out if this is good or bad misses the point. If Israel and [US-installed government in] Iraq figure out that they want to do it then ... well then WTF cares besides them?
When Iraq elects its first president, whose first name will almost certainly be 'Mullah', this pipeline will be plumbed into the nearest sewage processing plant and we can all fall about laughing at the folly of the current administration's imperialist foreign policy.
Until they threaten us, and then I guess we'll have to stop.
Everyones all up in arms when the Jews, ooops sorry I mean Israelis, are interested in reviving an old source of oil. Meanwhile the French, Germans and Russians use real underhanded methods to do the same thing and more and no one starts a thread on that. Maybe because they are not Jews, crap there I go again I can't stop I mean they are not, "Israelis"?
I don't get this.
Ariel Sharon says that it'll be "painful" letting the settlements go because they're so important to Jewish history, and Reuven Rivlin says "I can't imagine the Prime Minister wants to transfer Jews", but when people object to the actions of Israel (which can be, let's face it, controversial) all we want to do is dis the Jews.
OK.
Even though the Prime Minister of Israel and the Speaker of the Knesset seem in no doubt that Israeli foreign policy is implemented in the interest of Jewish people and Israel is a Jewish state, and aren't shy about saying so, those of us who bend over backwards saying 'Israeli' instead of 'Jewish' are anti-semitic the second we criticise Israel.
Well Israel can piss off. This stinks. I don't care if Israel were a state for Madagascan animists. This hums.
Meanwhile the French, Germans and Russians use real underhanded methods to do the same thing and more and no one starts a thread on that.
And while I'm at it, Scott, it would be lovely if you could point me to a newspaper article or link that provides some details about how either France, Germany and Russia have a foot in the door with regard to Iraqi oil right now.
If they're not even allowed to bid for reconstruction contracts.
What with them scuppering the vote at the UN and all.
Well Israel can piss off. This stinks. I don't care if Israel were a state for Madagascan animists. This hums.
Well if you don't care why then does it "hums"? Whatever that means. Had this been "Iran wants oil pipeline" would it still "hums". So what's the difference? Israel want's it? Why is that bad?
The Guardian piece was flat out anti-Semeitc but we'll all pretend it wasn't.
We all know France had it's Dictators Special Deal ready to go. The underhanded part being they're willing to sell out the rest of the UN for cheap oil. Why would Saddam think he had to comply when France was ready to deal the whole time
I guess you may or may not believe the reports about Russia spying for and sending arms to Iraq (as well as France and Germany).
I originally found the link through warblogs.cc where there are some interesting articles also dailycos.com
USA says it doesn't want to interfere with the running of Iraq........ what a load of b@ll@x!! Let Iraq have democracy as long as it is with leadership that America okays first...... Hmmmmm iffy!
Originally posted by alcimedes but giant gets so cute when he's fiesty.
i just wanna pinch his widdle cheeky weekies!
I know you meant that to be mean, but the imagery made me smile.
Argento, I sent you a PM since that's the appropriate place for comments entirely unrelated to the thread topic. I also replaced 'chimp' with 'boy,' which probably is a more adequate. Scott maybe clouded by heavy dogma , but you can tell he at least looks at the letters when he reads.
As for the rest of the thread, it seems the worst I did was call alcimedes and scott 'normal.' I guess that would be considered offensive to little suburban rock kids, were there any reading this.
Well if you don't care why then does it "hums"? Whatever that means. Had this been "Iran wants oil pipeline" would it still "hums". So what's the difference? Israel want's it? Why is that bad?
The Guardian piece was flat out anti-Semeitc but we'll all pretend it wasn't.
Iran is not Israel. Israel is not Iran.
Here are some differences!
Israel is America's ally. Iran isn't.
Israel gets loads of aid from America to buy arms it uses against an occupied population in the face of almost three decades of UN objections vetoed by the United States. Iran... etc.
And this hums (which is a good British slang word meaning 'stinks to high heaven') because now this war-that-wasn't-about-oil is over (a war to rid the world of a dicatator whose country had links to Al-Qaeda, which was a lie, and weapons of mass destruction, which appear to be invisible, and only THEN came to be a war about liberating the Iraqis) Israel appears to be the first country to be rewarded.
Rather than having its energy crisis solved at a stroke, Israel should face some sort of sanctions or incentive to stop its violent destabalisation of the Middle East. It's an expansionist state that can only get away with what it does because of American support. That is a stone cold fact. And now America can buy all the oil it wants by putting a bucket under the faucet in Haifa?
is a state expansionist only if the land it gained is in wars it didn't start?
or is a state expansionist if it starts wars in order to gain land?
i would think that the latter definition supersedes the former.
Any land gained by israel has been gained in wars it didn't start. in wars with countries who were trying to take land from Israel. Israel has made peace with many of these very same countries by using land-for-peace negotiations - which would contradict the description of Israel being expansionist. If Israel is expansionist, it is infinitely less so than those neighboring countries who tried to invade Israel with the purpose of taking Israeli land.
Why is it so hard for those who claim Israel to be expansionist to see this?
Is it because of the shame inherent in having talked a big talk -"drive the jews into the sea" - only to have had their asses soundly handed to them in every war they started?
Expansionist countries attacked Israel. These countries tried to take Israeli land. These countries lost their wars, and some of their land. The young soldiers of these countries were defeated by 18 year old Jews.
That must be what is so hard to swallow for hateful people unable to tolerate the existence of Israel.
However, Israel will be there - tomorrow, next week, next year, and next century. And when the leaders of lands/countries who have disputes with Israel over land are willing to negotiate without the use of violence at the negotiating table, there will be more land for peace deals. All this - from expansionist Israel.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
So has everyone decided if this is or isn't a bad thing?
Trying to figure out if this is good or bad misses the point. If Israel and Iraq figure out that they want to do it then ... well then WTF cares besides them?
Everyones all up in arms when the Jews, ooops sorry I mean Israelis, are interested in reviving an old source of oil. Meanwhile the French, Germans and Russians use real underhanded methods to do the same thing and more and no one starts a thread on that. Maybe because they are not Jews, crap there I go again I can't stop I mean they are not, "Israelis"?
Originally posted by Scott
Trying to figure out if this is good or bad misses the point. If Israel and [US-installed government in] Iraq figure out that they want to do it then ... well then WTF cares besides them?
the Iraqi people.
When Iraq elects its first president, whose first name will almost certainly be 'Mullah', this pipeline will be plumbed into the nearest sewage processing plant and we can all fall about laughing at the folly of the current administration's imperialist foreign policy.
Until they threaten us, and then I guess we'll have to stop.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
When Iraq elects its first president, whose first name will almost certainly be 'Mullah'
That's only if those neo-cons can't pull off getting someone named Ahmed 'elected'
Originally posted by Scott
Everyones all up in arms when the Jews.... Maybe because they are not Jews....
Why do you keep dissing on Jewish people? Have some compassion dude, it's Passover time.
Originally posted by Scott
Everyones all up in arms when the Jews, ooops sorry I mean Israelis, are interested in reviving an old source of oil. Meanwhile the French, Germans and Russians use real underhanded methods to do the same thing and more and no one starts a thread on that. Maybe because they are not Jews, crap there I go again I can't stop I mean they are not, "Israelis"?
I don't get this.
Ariel Sharon says that it'll be "painful" letting the settlements go because they're so important to Jewish history, and Reuven Rivlin says "I can't imagine the Prime Minister wants to transfer Jews", but when people object to the actions of Israel (which can be, let's face it, controversial) all we want to do is dis the Jews.
OK.
Even though the Prime Minister of Israel and the Speaker of the Knesset seem in no doubt that Israeli foreign policy is implemented in the interest of Jewish people and Israel is a Jewish state, and aren't shy about saying so, those of us who bend over backwards saying 'Israeli' instead of 'Jewish' are anti-semitic the second we criticise Israel.
Well Israel can piss off. This stinks. I don't care if Israel were a state for Madagascan animists. This hums.
Originally posted by Scott
Meanwhile the French, Germans and Russians use real underhanded methods to do the same thing and more and no one starts a thread on that.
And while I'm at it, Scott, it would be lovely if you could point me to a newspaper article or link that provides some details about how either France, Germany and Russia have a foot in the door with regard to Iraqi oil right now.
If they're not even allowed to bid for reconstruction contracts.
What with them scuppering the vote at the UN and all.
Please provide them, do.
I might just have to call you a huge great fat liar if you don't!
A big old lying liar type. You know. A liar.
If you don't provide some information, etc.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
...
Well Israel can piss off. This stinks. I don't care if Israel were a state for Madagascan animists. This hums.
Well if you don't care why then does it "hums"? Whatever that means. Had this been "Iran wants oil pipeline" would it still "hums". So what's the difference? Israel want's it? Why is that bad?
The Guardian piece was flat out anti-Semeitc but we'll all pretend it wasn't.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
In point of fact, you might have to supply some information about these how these nations are suddenly being so awfully underhand.
Please provide them, do.
I might just have to call you a huge great fat liar if you don't!
A big old lying liar type. You know. A liar.
If you don't provide some information, etc.
Here's one on Germany.
German spies offered help to Saddam in run-up to war
We all know France had it's Dictators Special Deal ready to go. The underhanded part being they're willing to sell out the rest of the UN for cheap oil. Why would Saddam think he had to comply when France was ready to deal the whole time
I guess you may or may not believe the reports about Russia spying for and sending arms to Iraq (as well as France and Germany).
USA says it doesn't want to interfere with the running of Iraq........ what a load of b@ll@x!! Let Iraq have democracy as long as it is with leadership that America okays first...... Hmmmmm iffy!
Originally posted by Scott
The Guardian piece was flat out anti-Semeitc but we'll all pretend it wasn't.
This from the boy that thinks any criticism of bush signifies anti-americanism.
Giant I think there is one post that you don't insult somebody directly. What the hell?
i just wanna pinch his widdle cheeky weekies!
Originally posted by alcimedes but giant gets so cute when he's fiesty.
i just wanna pinch his widdle cheeky weekies!
I know you meant that to be mean, but the imagery made me smile.
Argento, I sent you a PM since that's the appropriate place for comments entirely unrelated to the thread topic. I also replaced 'chimp' with 'boy,' which probably is a more adequate. Scott maybe clouded by heavy dogma
As for the rest of the thread, it seems the worst I did was call alcimedes and scott 'normal.' I guess that would be considered offensive to little suburban rock kids, were there any reading this.
Originally posted by Argento
Giant I think there is one post that you don't insult somebody directly. What the hell?
This post you're talking about wasn't an insult, it was the truth.
This post you're talking about wasn't an insult, it was the truth.
Bunge, can't you amount to anything more than a toadie for someone who's last attempt at logic concluded that human beings live on the sun?
Although I suppose you could just take the bus to visit your friends there.
Post edited by powerdoc due to offensive image
Originally posted by Scott
Well if you don't care why then does it "hums"? Whatever that means. Had this been "Iran wants oil pipeline" would it still "hums". So what's the difference? Israel want's it? Why is that bad?
The Guardian piece was flat out anti-Semeitc but we'll all pretend it wasn't.
Iran is not Israel. Israel is not Iran.
Here are some differences!
Israel is America's ally. Iran isn't.
Israel gets loads of aid from America to buy arms it uses against an occupied population in the face of almost three decades of UN objections vetoed by the United States. Iran... etc.
And this hums (which is a good British slang word meaning 'stinks to high heaven') because now this war-that-wasn't-about-oil is over (a war to rid the world of a dicatator whose country had links to Al-Qaeda, which was a lie, and weapons of mass destruction, which appear to be invisible, and only THEN came to be a war about liberating the Iraqis) Israel appears to be the first country to be rewarded.
Rather than having its energy crisis solved at a stroke, Israel should face some sort of sanctions or incentive to stop its violent destabalisation of the Middle East. It's an expansionist state that can only get away with what it does because of American support. That is a stone cold fact. And now America can buy all the oil it wants by putting a bucket under the faucet in Haifa?
Stinks, hums, reeks.
or is a state expansionist if it starts wars in order to gain land?
i would think that the latter definition supersedes the former.
Any land gained by israel has been gained in wars it didn't start. in wars with countries who were trying to take land from Israel. Israel has made peace with many of these very same countries by using land-for-peace negotiations - which would contradict the description of Israel being expansionist. If Israel is expansionist, it is infinitely less so than those neighboring countries who tried to invade Israel with the purpose of taking Israeli land.
Why is it so hard for those who claim Israel to be expansionist to see this?
Is it because of the shame inherent in having talked a big talk -"drive the jews into the sea" - only to have had their asses soundly handed to them in every war they started?
Expansionist countries attacked Israel. These countries tried to take Israeli land. These countries lost their wars, and some of their land. The young soldiers of these countries were defeated by 18 year old Jews.
That must be what is so hard to swallow for hateful people unable to tolerate the existence of Israel.
However, Israel will be there - tomorrow, next week, next year, and next century. And when the leaders of lands/countries who have disputes with Israel over land are willing to negotiate without the use of violence at the negotiating table, there will be more land for peace deals. All this - from expansionist Israel.