A Can of Man
Je suis aware
You really love putting things out of context don't you?
Possiblity of a total nuke war during the cold war
UnitedSomalia
Banned
"With some people its not about stupid or smart, its how bad they want to kill the other guy. Iran's leader (I refuse to call him their president) says he'd love to Erase Israel off the map, do you think he'd hesitate to use a nuke?"-Wolfen
As you can see Redneck I didn't take anything out of context, a legitimate question was asked by a fellow member and I gave my answer in how i see things in regards to Iran..... So what is it that i took out of context Redneck? or do you just enjoy stoking, hope you have a great time trying to always find ways to come after me.
As you can see Redneck I didn't take anything out of context, a legitimate question was asked by a fellow member and I gave my answer in how i see things in regards to Iran..... So what is it that i took out of context Redneck? or do you just enjoy stoking, hope you have a great time trying to always find ways to come after me.
UnitedSomalia
Banned
"Because non of those countris said it wants t owipe someone off the map.Also Iran may not have invaded anyone but they support terror groups around the world and their hands are red with western blood."-Sherman
Well the thing is that if Iran has the blood of Westerners on its hands, Israel and U.S also are not benevolent they too have the blood of Muslims and Arabs on their hands. You never see Iranian blowing himself up or terrorizing others, Iran's political and moral support of Hezbollah and Hamas can't be translated as Iran itself carrying those acts out, just like U.S supports Israel but can't be held responsible for every act Israel carries out.
If Israel does not want to be bothered by Hezbollah it needs to give up the every inch of Lebanese territory such as the Sheba farms and if it does not want to be bothered by Hamas it needs to end the occupation of Palestine. Israel just like the U.S. does not have the moral authority to accuse others of warmongering while it occupies others and wages wars on nations. Iran has better track record than both Israel and U.S when it comes to wars and attacking others, its plain simple lets compare records.
Well the thing is that if Iran has the blood of Westerners on its hands, Israel and U.S also are not benevolent they too have the blood of Muslims and Arabs on their hands. You never see Iranian blowing himself up or terrorizing others, Iran's political and moral support of Hezbollah and Hamas can't be translated as Iran itself carrying those acts out, just like U.S supports Israel but can't be held responsible for every act Israel carries out.
If Israel does not want to be bothered by Hezbollah it needs to give up the every inch of Lebanese territory such as the Sheba farms and if it does not want to be bothered by Hamas it needs to end the occupation of Palestine. Israel just like the U.S. does not have the moral authority to accuse others of warmongering while it occupies others and wages wars on nations. Iran has better track record than both Israel and U.S when it comes to wars and attacking others, its plain simple lets compare records.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Let's put it this way: Korea's record of invading other countries is actually quite low. In fact, other than Korea's intervention in Vietnam, the only major invasions or fights it's ever had is with itself.
This is not because Koreans are nice. It's because that was the limitations of Korea's means.
Iran's record of invading hasn't been very good because for the most part, they were the weaker side in the Iraq-Iran conflict until the 1991 Gulf War. But we know they have a hostile intent and will as they admit it themselves quite freely.
As for the whole thing with having Muslim blood. I guess you are right in a way... but having grown up around Muslims I find it fascinating how it is so easily forgotten that:
In 1993 when Muslim Somali gunmen used poor and starving Muslim Somalis as bait to lure in foreign aid so they could plunder and steal even more, America took the lead and many other countries followed in an effort to HELP Muslims get food.
Throughout the '90s when Muslims throughout the former Yugoslavia were getting slaughtered by Slobodan Milosevic, NATO with America's lead helped bring that to a close. Americans spilled blood protecting Muslims.
In 1991 when Iraq (under a Muslim Saddam Hussein .. yes he ran his government as a secular government but he was a Muslim nonetheless) and its thousands of Muslim soldiers invaded Muslim Kuwait and slaughtered innocent Muslim civilians there, many countries following America's lead drove the Iraqis out. I'm pretty sure you'll be hammering away about the motivations but the truth of the fact is, Americans HAVE DIED protecting Muslims, often from other Muslims.
Oh and I'm totally leaving out Afghanistan in the 80s.
It's funny... it's like that over here as well. If a North Korean soldier or sailor kills a South Korean serviceman, no one cares. No one gives a damn. But if a civilian dies in a road accident involving a member of the US Army.... HOLY SH1T half the city's on fire.
I guess if a Korean kills another Korean, that's not really dying so it's okay.
So if a Muslim kills another Muslim, that's not really dying. No, they'll get up and go to work tomorrow. The usual.
This is not because Koreans are nice. It's because that was the limitations of Korea's means.
Iran's record of invading hasn't been very good because for the most part, they were the weaker side in the Iraq-Iran conflict until the 1991 Gulf War. But we know they have a hostile intent and will as they admit it themselves quite freely.
As for the whole thing with having Muslim blood. I guess you are right in a way... but having grown up around Muslims I find it fascinating how it is so easily forgotten that:
In 1993 when Muslim Somali gunmen used poor and starving Muslim Somalis as bait to lure in foreign aid so they could plunder and steal even more, America took the lead and many other countries followed in an effort to HELP Muslims get food.
Throughout the '90s when Muslims throughout the former Yugoslavia were getting slaughtered by Slobodan Milosevic, NATO with America's lead helped bring that to a close. Americans spilled blood protecting Muslims.
In 1991 when Iraq (under a Muslim Saddam Hussein .. yes he ran his government as a secular government but he was a Muslim nonetheless) and its thousands of Muslim soldiers invaded Muslim Kuwait and slaughtered innocent Muslim civilians there, many countries following America's lead drove the Iraqis out. I'm pretty sure you'll be hammering away about the motivations but the truth of the fact is, Americans HAVE DIED protecting Muslims, often from other Muslims.
Oh and I'm totally leaving out Afghanistan in the 80s.
It's funny... it's like that over here as well. If a North Korean soldier or sailor kills a South Korean serviceman, no one cares. No one gives a damn. But if a civilian dies in a road accident involving a member of the US Army.... HOLY SH1T half the city's on fire.
I guess if a Korean kills another Korean, that's not really dying so it's okay.
So if a Muslim kills another Muslim, that's not really dying. No, they'll get up and go to work tomorrow. The usual.
UnitedSomalia
Banned
Here it goes I'm about to dissect and dismember you argument
"Let's put it this way: Korea's record of invading other countries is actually quite low. In fact, other than Korea's intervention in Vietnam, the only major invasions or fights it's ever had is with itself.
This is not because Koreans are nice. It's because that was the limitations of Korea's means."-Redneck
Well South Korea had to worry about its Northern brethern, who has invaded it once already and who was much stronger than it for much part of their hostile history. So South Korea could never really afford to engage in other wars in a much larger scale because of their need of having their army available to take on the defense of their territory from North Korea, they could never deploy in foreign wars and leave their homeland defenseless they need as much of their military within South Korea to defend themselves so this is a bad comparison attempt.
"Iran's record of invading hasn't been very good because for the most part, they were the weaker side in the Iraq-Iran conflict until the 1991 Gulf War. But we know they have a hostile intent and will as they admit it themselves quite freely."-Redneck
Iran has always been the dominant power in the Persian Gulf region even in times of the imperial army of the Shah, also lets remember the Shah was America's biggest ally in the region at the time besides Israel. Iran had the luxury of having a powerful military and the diplomatic support of America they could have invaded their weak neighbors if they wanted to their was nothing stopping them, they were quite powerful at the time. Lets remember also when Iran diplomatically settled their border disagreement peacefully with Saddam in Algiers with an accord in the 70s when they could have taken it militarily because Iran was stronger than Iraq at the time, Iran has never been the one to wage wars it only fights when someone attacks them. Iran had the means to expand their borders from the 50s to the 90s and never attempted to, this is a testament to their non aggression foreign policy.
"As for the whole thing with having Muslim blood. I guess you are right in a way... but having grown up around Muslims I find it fascinating how it is so easily forgotten that:
In 1993 when Muslim Somali gunmen used poor and starving Muslim Somalis as bait to lure in foreign aid so they could plunder and steal even more, America took the lead and many other countries followed in an effort to HELP Muslims get food."-Redneck
America was never suppose to go into Somalia, the only countries that were suppose to be their were only countries that contributed UN peacekeepers and were flying the UN flag, America sent their military without it being under the UN command; therefore, they did what they pleased such as going into Mogadishu in helicopters and trying to capture a warlord Hussein Aidid, they expected the Somalis not to react. Who wouldn't react when a foreign troops are raiding their capital, no one takes foreign troops in their capital kindly. They could have put their troops under the UN mandate and the UN flag and carried out that mission a lot more peacefully, but America aggressiveness and gun ho mentality took over and that mission ended horribly.
"Throughout the '90s when Muslims throughout the former Yugoslavia were getting slaughtered by Slobodan Milosevic, NATO with America's lead helped bring that to a close. Americans spilled blood protecting Muslims.
In 1991 when Iraq (under a Muslim Saddam Hussein .. yes he ran his government as a secular government but he was a Muslim nonetheless) and its thousands of Muslim soldiers invaded Muslim Kuwait and slaughtered innocent Muslim civilians there, many countries following America's lead drove the Iraqis out. I'm pretty sure you'll be hammering away about the motivations but the truth of the fact is, Americans HAVE DIED protecting Muslims, often from other Muslims.
Oh and I'm totally leaving out Afghanistan in the 80s."-Redneck
Americans were never about saving Muslims give me a break, were all intelligent people and we see right through the politician's lies and deceptions. They went into Yugoslavia not to save the Muslims but because their European allies such as France, Germany, Britain and etc asked for American involvement, their military or air forces I should say didn't have the capabilities to strike Yugoslavia around the clock which was needed in order to subdue Milosevic army and bring them to the table; they needed the U.S. air force to do most of the bombings and heavy work and they were obligated to help their European allies.
Saddam after the war with Iran became very powerful with a million man army, thousands of armor, 800 jets air force, long range missiles and WMDs, so America viewed him as a liability now that he crippled Iran and was no longer useful. The American Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam:
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."(Saddam smiles)
During their meeting when Saddam was discussing with her the Kuwait situation and how Kuwait was angle drilling and stealing oil from the Rumeila oil fields that were well within Iraq. The Americans set Saddam up, they gave him the green light by saying his problem with Kuwait doesn't concern them, they could have explicitly told him not to go into Kuwait, so naturally he though this was an implicit support and that America in the end will back him up like they did in Iran. The fault here lies in America for misleading Saddam. And when he invaded Kuwait they used that opportunity to cut him down to size and also to gain a foothold in the strategic Persian Gulf.
America didn't help Afghanistan in the 80s, they used the Mujaheddin as proxies to bloody the Soviets and for revenge in the Vietnam debacle, American politicians remarked how they would make Afghanistan the Soviet's Vietnam. The Americans support for Afghanistan ended as soon as the Soviets left, America was furthering America's interests not Afghanistan. Also The American's accused Saddam in 1991 for invading Kuwait who is a sovereign country, the UN charted states no member nation shall attack or invade another member nation without the authorization and backing of the UN but they hypocritically turned around and did exactly what they accused Iraq of in 1991, they invaded and trespassed on Iraqi sovereignty without the authorization of the UN in 2003.
So to sum up, Americans did not die to save Muslims, Americans died furthering America's interests and foreign policies, it may look like they are helping the Muslims because that is how they portray themselves in order to look legitimate but lets get pass the media and their politicians lies, America never intervenes unless something is in it for them.
"It's funny... it's like that over here as well. If a North Korean soldier or sailor kills a South Korean serviceman, no one cares. No one gives a damn. But if a civilian dies in a road accident involving a member of the US Army.... HOLY SH1T half the city's on fire.
I guess if a Korean kills another Korean, that's not really dying so it's okay.
So if a Muslim kills another Muslim, that's not really dying. No, they'll get up and go to work tomorrow. The usual."-Redneck
Their are Christians that kill other Christians too. The fact of the matter is, people within the same culture or religion may fight each other but when a foreigners come and attacks them they set aside their differences in order to fight the outsiders. Its like to brothers fighting and when some other neighbor's kid comes and fights them, no matter how mad they were at each other they would set aside their infighting to fight the other kid. Just because Muslims are killing each other doesn't give the Americans the right to kill them, if they kill each other that is their prerogative but its not right when the Americans go in and kills them in order to control their oil. Fighting each other is not the same as getting killed by an outsider who comes to occupy your land and steal your resources.
"Let's put it this way: Korea's record of invading other countries is actually quite low. In fact, other than Korea's intervention in Vietnam, the only major invasions or fights it's ever had is with itself.
This is not because Koreans are nice. It's because that was the limitations of Korea's means."-Redneck
Well South Korea had to worry about its Northern brethern, who has invaded it once already and who was much stronger than it for much part of their hostile history. So South Korea could never really afford to engage in other wars in a much larger scale because of their need of having their army available to take on the defense of their territory from North Korea, they could never deploy in foreign wars and leave their homeland defenseless they need as much of their military within South Korea to defend themselves so this is a bad comparison attempt.
"Iran's record of invading hasn't been very good because for the most part, they were the weaker side in the Iraq-Iran conflict until the 1991 Gulf War. But we know they have a hostile intent and will as they admit it themselves quite freely."-Redneck
Iran has always been the dominant power in the Persian Gulf region even in times of the imperial army of the Shah, also lets remember the Shah was America's biggest ally in the region at the time besides Israel. Iran had the luxury of having a powerful military and the diplomatic support of America they could have invaded their weak neighbors if they wanted to their was nothing stopping them, they were quite powerful at the time. Lets remember also when Iran diplomatically settled their border disagreement peacefully with Saddam in Algiers with an accord in the 70s when they could have taken it militarily because Iran was stronger than Iraq at the time, Iran has never been the one to wage wars it only fights when someone attacks them. Iran had the means to expand their borders from the 50s to the 90s and never attempted to, this is a testament to their non aggression foreign policy.
"As for the whole thing with having Muslim blood. I guess you are right in a way... but having grown up around Muslims I find it fascinating how it is so easily forgotten that:
In 1993 when Muslim Somali gunmen used poor and starving Muslim Somalis as bait to lure in foreign aid so they could plunder and steal even more, America took the lead and many other countries followed in an effort to HELP Muslims get food."-Redneck
America was never suppose to go into Somalia, the only countries that were suppose to be their were only countries that contributed UN peacekeepers and were flying the UN flag, America sent their military without it being under the UN command; therefore, they did what they pleased such as going into Mogadishu in helicopters and trying to capture a warlord Hussein Aidid, they expected the Somalis not to react. Who wouldn't react when a foreign troops are raiding their capital, no one takes foreign troops in their capital kindly. They could have put their troops under the UN mandate and the UN flag and carried out that mission a lot more peacefully, but America aggressiveness and gun ho mentality took over and that mission ended horribly.
"Throughout the '90s when Muslims throughout the former Yugoslavia were getting slaughtered by Slobodan Milosevic, NATO with America's lead helped bring that to a close. Americans spilled blood protecting Muslims.
In 1991 when Iraq (under a Muslim Saddam Hussein .. yes he ran his government as a secular government but he was a Muslim nonetheless) and its thousands of Muslim soldiers invaded Muslim Kuwait and slaughtered innocent Muslim civilians there, many countries following America's lead drove the Iraqis out. I'm pretty sure you'll be hammering away about the motivations but the truth of the fact is, Americans HAVE DIED protecting Muslims, often from other Muslims.
Oh and I'm totally leaving out Afghanistan in the 80s."-Redneck
Americans were never about saving Muslims give me a break, were all intelligent people and we see right through the politician's lies and deceptions. They went into Yugoslavia not to save the Muslims but because their European allies such as France, Germany, Britain and etc asked for American involvement, their military or air forces I should say didn't have the capabilities to strike Yugoslavia around the clock which was needed in order to subdue Milosevic army and bring them to the table; they needed the U.S. air force to do most of the bombings and heavy work and they were obligated to help their European allies.
Saddam after the war with Iran became very powerful with a million man army, thousands of armor, 800 jets air force, long range missiles and WMDs, so America viewed him as a liability now that he crippled Iran and was no longer useful. The American Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam:
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."(Saddam smiles)
During their meeting when Saddam was discussing with her the Kuwait situation and how Kuwait was angle drilling and stealing oil from the Rumeila oil fields that were well within Iraq. The Americans set Saddam up, they gave him the green light by saying his problem with Kuwait doesn't concern them, they could have explicitly told him not to go into Kuwait, so naturally he though this was an implicit support and that America in the end will back him up like they did in Iran. The fault here lies in America for misleading Saddam. And when he invaded Kuwait they used that opportunity to cut him down to size and also to gain a foothold in the strategic Persian Gulf.
America didn't help Afghanistan in the 80s, they used the Mujaheddin as proxies to bloody the Soviets and for revenge in the Vietnam debacle, American politicians remarked how they would make Afghanistan the Soviet's Vietnam. The Americans support for Afghanistan ended as soon as the Soviets left, America was furthering America's interests not Afghanistan. Also The American's accused Saddam in 1991 for invading Kuwait who is a sovereign country, the UN charted states no member nation shall attack or invade another member nation without the authorization and backing of the UN but they hypocritically turned around and did exactly what they accused Iraq of in 1991, they invaded and trespassed on Iraqi sovereignty without the authorization of the UN in 2003.
So to sum up, Americans did not die to save Muslims, Americans died furthering America's interests and foreign policies, it may look like they are helping the Muslims because that is how they portray themselves in order to look legitimate but lets get pass the media and their politicians lies, America never intervenes unless something is in it for them.
"It's funny... it's like that over here as well. If a North Korean soldier or sailor kills a South Korean serviceman, no one cares. No one gives a damn. But if a civilian dies in a road accident involving a member of the US Army.... HOLY SH1T half the city's on fire.
I guess if a Korean kills another Korean, that's not really dying so it's okay.
So if a Muslim kills another Muslim, that's not really dying. No, they'll get up and go to work tomorrow. The usual."-Redneck
Their are Christians that kill other Christians too. The fact of the matter is, people within the same culture or religion may fight each other but when a foreigners come and attacks them they set aside their differences in order to fight the outsiders. Its like to brothers fighting and when some other neighbor's kid comes and fights them, no matter how mad they were at each other they would set aside their infighting to fight the other kid. Just because Muslims are killing each other doesn't give the Americans the right to kill them, if they kill each other that is their prerogative but its not right when the Americans go in and kills them in order to control their oil. Fighting each other is not the same as getting killed by an outsider who comes to occupy your land and steal your resources.
I think your stepping out of history and into propoganda. Firstaly, PLO and other palestinian troor groups operated long before the 67 war, so oviously the claim ending the occupation will stop trror is false. secondly,Israel dose not hold one inch of lebanese land, the shbaa farms are syrian not lebanese. thirdly, hezbollah, supported by iran, launched attacks to specifically hurt civilians which is somthing that neither the israeli or american army dose intentionaly. I whole, your supporting the nuclear arming a country that wants to wipe another country off the map. Israel never once threatend to do that, and never did it denie its enemies right to exist. what the irani president is duing is prelude to mass murder. Its against morality and last i checked against islam. but since you oviously share zero precent of my poltical and moral ideas, ill put it in simpler terms:
I am western. The west dose not want Iran to have a bomb. THe west is far stronger, in any way, than Iran. We there for can and should enforce this on Iran to prevent it from risking our intrests.
Dose that real-politics statement make it easier for you?
UnitedSomalia
Banned
"I think your stepping out of history and into propoganda. Firstaly, PLO and other palestinian troor groups operated long before the 67 war, so oviously the claim ending the occupation will stop trror is false. secondly,Israel dose not hold one inch of lebanese land, the shbaa farms are syrian not lebanese. thirdly, hezbollah, supported by iran, launched attacks to specifically hurt civilians which is somthing that neither the israeli or american army dose intentionaly. I whole, your supporting the nuclear arming a country that wants to wipe another country off the map. Israel never once threatend to do that, and never did it denie its enemies right to exist. what the irani president is duing is prelude to mass murder. Its against morality and last i checked against islam. but since you oviously share zero precent of my poltical and moral ideas, ill put it in simpler terms:
I am western. The west dose not want Iran to have a bomb. THe west is far stronger, in any way, than Iran. We there for can and should enforce this on Iran to prevent it from risking our intrests.
Dose that real-politics statement make it easier for you?"
I don't mean to digress from the original topic, but bear with me while I explain and dismember you argument.
In 1948, Palestine was partitioned into an Israel section and a Arab-Palestinian section. The Arab population was larger at the time, they also received the larger chunk of Palestine. The Palestinians felt all of Israel belonged to them, the Israelis felt that they should have received more share of land, so they started fighting. The Israelis had the upper hand in 1948 so they conquered many Palestinian areas that the UN gave to the Arabs. Then the Palestinian groups such as PLO were formed to win back the territories that were allocated to the Arabs by the UN in 1948. As decades passed and in 1967 when Israel conquered the rest of Palestine, the Palestinians knew that trying to get back the territories that were lost in 1948 was lossed cause, so they settled for trying to reclaim the territories that were lost in 1967 and Jerusalem.
So you state that, "Firstaly, PLO and other palestinian troor groups operated long before the 67 war, so oviously the claim ending the occupation will stop trror is false." This is were you statement falls apart, the reason that Palestinian groups existed in before 1967 is because at that time those Palestinian groups were trying to regain the Arab territories that were allocated to them by the UN that the Israelis captured in 1948 war. So I doubt those groups would have existed before 1967 if their was no Palestinian territory lost before 1967, so you statement would have had some truth and substance if only we forget the territories lost in 1948.
The Sheba farms is Lebanese, the Israelis are the only ones that claim it belong to Syria. The Syrians themselves say its not theirs, who ever heard someone disclaiming their own territory if it was really theirs? No one, its all Israeli propaganda that its Syrian territory in order to portray that Hezbollah has no reason to exist because Israeli is not occupying Lebanese territory, since Hezbollah says they exist in order to liberate all Lebanese land, so basically its an Israeli attempt to take the carpet right under the Hezbollah feet and deny them credibility in the eyes of the Lebanese. The international community even recognizes that the Sheba farm is Lebanese territory, because when Syria and Lebanon demarcated their border it went to Lebanon, it also was historically Lebanese.
Yes Hezbollah did launch 4,000 rockets at Israel, but you are also absolving Israel of all wrong doing themselves by stating "thirdly, hezbollah, supported by iran, launched attacks to specifically hurt civilians which is somthing that neither the israeli or american army dose intentionaly."Both parties showed no mercy in that war, Israel completely leveled large sections of Lebanon, they launch an air blitz, bombing Lebanese infrastructures, airports, highways, towns, electricity and water supplies, the ports, complete towns leveled. I can post pictures of how complete towns were leveled, the houses demolished, how can you say that you don't attack civilians intentionally when you attack locations and level town knowing that their are civilian occupants? If that is not intentional I don't know what is. The use of cluster bombs in cities knowing their are civilians everywhere, that is not intentional? What did the civilians just magically disappear when the Israelis are bombing civilian centers. The Israelis deliberately wanted to punish the Lebanese people, by bombing towns and infrastructure as a message that this is a wholesale collective punishment for their support of Hezbollah. This is the 21st century where communication and information is the click of a button, the news videos and pictures alone are a testament of the civilian damage that Israel did.
I don't support the nuclear arming of any country, if it could be possible I would love to have a world and Middle East free of WMD. But I believe that if Israel has 200-400 nuclear arsenal, with no IAEA inspections, with no oversight of any kind, what gives them the moral authority to say Iran can't develop nuclear energy capability. The IAEA has stated that Iran abandoned any research that may have seemed nuke related in 2003, that their is no prove Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels, that their is no prove that Iran is doing anything more than nuclear energy research. I say if Iran wants to be technically independent in nuclear energy research and to secure the future of their country, once the oil dries out, I see that a prudence and a nation that is trying to secure their energy and development in the future once oil dry out. The Israelis and the Americans are just beating the war drums again and creating false pretexts like Iraq in order to eliminate yet another challenge to Israeli military might in the region.
Lets look at this, Egypt and Jordan are no longer a threat they made peace with Israel, Iraq is eliminated as a military obstacle in the drive to have Israel reign over the Middle East, and now they want to eliminate Iran as the other major obstacle to Israeli supremacy dictates in the region. Then after Iran is eliminated Syria will be left alone and vulnerable surrounded by Israel or American leaning regimes, and they will be left with 2 choices A. Sign peace with Israel on Israeli terms or B. You will be eliminated the same way as Iraq and Iran. Then Israel will have reign supreme over the whole Middle East. You see I believe its not a coincidence that America is going after one Muslim country after another who had nothing to do with 9/11 under the false pretexts of war on terrorism and nukes. North Korea tested a nukes and the missiles capable of carrying them, but America never once stepped up to them militarily in order to control their nuke building. But they militarily go after Muslim countries that have no nukes, while they make peace and sit at the table with North Korea as equal partners. If they can negotiate without preconditions and dictates with the erratic, WMD proliferating, Hermite regime of North Korea, they can't negotiate with Iran without preconditions and dictates which is more responsible and less erratic than the North Korea regime?
You may see things differently, and I'll agree to disagree. But I am educated and what I said is not propaganda, its just how things seem. Its not more than coincidence that one Muslim country after one is eliminated as an obstacle to Israeli designs in the Middle East while North Korea test, builds and taunts America and the world?
I am western. The west dose not want Iran to have a bomb. THe west is far stronger, in any way, than Iran. We there for can and should enforce this on Iran to prevent it from risking our intrests.
Dose that real-politics statement make it easier for you?"
I don't mean to digress from the original topic, but bear with me while I explain and dismember you argument.
In 1948, Palestine was partitioned into an Israel section and a Arab-Palestinian section. The Arab population was larger at the time, they also received the larger chunk of Palestine. The Palestinians felt all of Israel belonged to them, the Israelis felt that they should have received more share of land, so they started fighting. The Israelis had the upper hand in 1948 so they conquered many Palestinian areas that the UN gave to the Arabs. Then the Palestinian groups such as PLO were formed to win back the territories that were allocated to the Arabs by the UN in 1948. As decades passed and in 1967 when Israel conquered the rest of Palestine, the Palestinians knew that trying to get back the territories that were lost in 1948 was lossed cause, so they settled for trying to reclaim the territories that were lost in 1967 and Jerusalem.
So you state that, "Firstaly, PLO and other palestinian troor groups operated long before the 67 war, so oviously the claim ending the occupation will stop trror is false." This is were you statement falls apart, the reason that Palestinian groups existed in before 1967 is because at that time those Palestinian groups were trying to regain the Arab territories that were allocated to them by the UN that the Israelis captured in 1948 war. So I doubt those groups would have existed before 1967 if their was no Palestinian territory lost before 1967, so you statement would have had some truth and substance if only we forget the territories lost in 1948.
The Sheba farms is Lebanese, the Israelis are the only ones that claim it belong to Syria. The Syrians themselves say its not theirs, who ever heard someone disclaiming their own territory if it was really theirs? No one, its all Israeli propaganda that its Syrian territory in order to portray that Hezbollah has no reason to exist because Israeli is not occupying Lebanese territory, since Hezbollah says they exist in order to liberate all Lebanese land, so basically its an Israeli attempt to take the carpet right under the Hezbollah feet and deny them credibility in the eyes of the Lebanese. The international community even recognizes that the Sheba farm is Lebanese territory, because when Syria and Lebanon demarcated their border it went to Lebanon, it also was historically Lebanese.
Yes Hezbollah did launch 4,000 rockets at Israel, but you are also absolving Israel of all wrong doing themselves by stating "thirdly, hezbollah, supported by iran, launched attacks to specifically hurt civilians which is somthing that neither the israeli or american army dose intentionaly."Both parties showed no mercy in that war, Israel completely leveled large sections of Lebanon, they launch an air blitz, bombing Lebanese infrastructures, airports, highways, towns, electricity and water supplies, the ports, complete towns leveled. I can post pictures of how complete towns were leveled, the houses demolished, how can you say that you don't attack civilians intentionally when you attack locations and level town knowing that their are civilian occupants? If that is not intentional I don't know what is. The use of cluster bombs in cities knowing their are civilians everywhere, that is not intentional? What did the civilians just magically disappear when the Israelis are bombing civilian centers. The Israelis deliberately wanted to punish the Lebanese people, by bombing towns and infrastructure as a message that this is a wholesale collective punishment for their support of Hezbollah. This is the 21st century where communication and information is the click of a button, the news videos and pictures alone are a testament of the civilian damage that Israel did.
I don't support the nuclear arming of any country, if it could be possible I would love to have a world and Middle East free of WMD. But I believe that if Israel has 200-400 nuclear arsenal, with no IAEA inspections, with no oversight of any kind, what gives them the moral authority to say Iran can't develop nuclear energy capability. The IAEA has stated that Iran abandoned any research that may have seemed nuke related in 2003, that their is no prove Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels, that their is no prove that Iran is doing anything more than nuclear energy research. I say if Iran wants to be technically independent in nuclear energy research and to secure the future of their country, once the oil dries out, I see that a prudence and a nation that is trying to secure their energy and development in the future once oil dry out. The Israelis and the Americans are just beating the war drums again and creating false pretexts like Iraq in order to eliminate yet another challenge to Israeli military might in the region.
Lets look at this, Egypt and Jordan are no longer a threat they made peace with Israel, Iraq is eliminated as a military obstacle in the drive to have Israel reign over the Middle East, and now they want to eliminate Iran as the other major obstacle to Israeli supremacy dictates in the region. Then after Iran is eliminated Syria will be left alone and vulnerable surrounded by Israel or American leaning regimes, and they will be left with 2 choices A. Sign peace with Israel on Israeli terms or B. You will be eliminated the same way as Iraq and Iran. Then Israel will have reign supreme over the whole Middle East. You see I believe its not a coincidence that America is going after one Muslim country after another who had nothing to do with 9/11 under the false pretexts of war on terrorism and nukes. North Korea tested a nukes and the missiles capable of carrying them, but America never once stepped up to them militarily in order to control their nuke building. But they militarily go after Muslim countries that have no nukes, while they make peace and sit at the table with North Korea as equal partners. If they can negotiate without preconditions and dictates with the erratic, WMD proliferating, Hermite regime of North Korea, they can't negotiate with Iran without preconditions and dictates which is more responsible and less erratic than the North Korea regime?
You may see things differently, and I'll agree to disagree. But I am educated and what I said is not propaganda, its just how things seem. Its not more than coincidence that one Muslim country after one is eliminated as an obstacle to Israeli designs in the Middle East while North Korea test, builds and taunts America and the world?
03USMC
Active member
Yeah ......well you have your facts confused, there high speed.
The 15th MEU (SOC) deployed to Somalia in Dec of 1992 in support of UNSOM II , Operation Restore Hope II. BLT 2/9 was the lead element that secured the port and air field at Mogadishu to allow the UN aid coming into the country to actually make it to distribution points before it was stolen and redistributed to the War Lords.
2/9 also provided security at the port and airfield and at distribution points as well as escorting convoys carrying UN aid.
All of this was done under the UN mandate UNSOM II and 2/9 was considered part of the UN force in Somalia. You would think that you would know this ....but of course it doesn't fit your agenda now does it.
Incidentally I was assigned to 2/9 during the period in question.
UnitedSomalia
Banned
How was it UN mission to go in helicopters commando style into someone else capital? The Americans may have been their to support the UN, but my main argument still stands, that the American units that were their were never under UN command or supervision they were under American command and took orders from their own leaders not the UN; therefore, the Americans were acting as they seen fit without UN authorization to go raid Mogadishu.
03USMC
Active member
BS. The 15th MEU (SOC) Units were assigned to UNSOM II under UN direction and command, as were elements of the 10th Mountain Division and 101st Airborne USN and USAF. They were there to support the United Nations mission in Somalia, as were Pakistani's, Saudi's, Malay's etc. They were there in a Country's Capital to insure UN relief missions were allowed to operate in realitive safety rather than allow relief workers to be killed or kidnapped by a bunch of criminals who styled themselves as war lords and robbed and killed their own people. For their trouble they got shot at, mortared and attacked with IED's.
What you are doing is convoluting the truth to fit your agenda and ignoring facts in your crusade to paint the US as the Great Satan (is that still an acceptable term?)
The truth is that the above mentioned units and elements were there in Support of Operation Restore Hope II, the UN mission to end famine and attempt to help Somalia back onto it's feet. An excercise in futility since even the UN pulled out eventually because it was too dangerous to stay in a lawless country who's people were so divided.
What you are doing is trying to lump the forces assigned to Operation Gothic Serpent in with troops from a totally different Operation. Operation Gothic Serpent was designed to get Adid after he declared war on the relief effort, when he didn't get his way. No Gothic Serpent wasn't a UN mission, because the UN lacks the nad's to deal with terrorists. So yes USSOCOM was tasked with that mission.
So get your facts straight.
BTW Are you in the US under refugee status? If so I'm sure given your distaste for this country and all it stands for you could find some place that would make you much happier.
What you are doing is convoluting the truth to fit your agenda and ignoring facts in your crusade to paint the US as the Great Satan (is that still an acceptable term?)
The truth is that the above mentioned units and elements were there in Support of Operation Restore Hope II, the UN mission to end famine and attempt to help Somalia back onto it's feet. An excercise in futility since even the UN pulled out eventually because it was too dangerous to stay in a lawless country who's people were so divided.
What you are doing is trying to lump the forces assigned to Operation Gothic Serpent in with troops from a totally different Operation. Operation Gothic Serpent was designed to get Adid after he declared war on the relief effort, when he didn't get his way. No Gothic Serpent wasn't a UN mission, because the UN lacks the nad's to deal with terrorists. So yes USSOCOM was tasked with that mission.
So get your facts straight.
BTW Are you in the US under refugee status? If so I'm sure given your distaste for this country and all it stands for you could find some place that would make you much happier.
UnitedSomalia
Banned
"BS. The 15th MEU (SOC) Units were assigned to UNSOM II under UN direction and command, as were elements of the 10th Mountain Division and 101st Airborne USN and USAF. They were there to support the United Nations mission in Somalia, as were Pakistani's, Saudi's, Malay's etc. They were there in a Country's Capital to insure UN relief missions were allowed to operate in realitive safety rather than allow relief workers to be killed or kidnapped by a bunch of criminals who styled themselves as war lords and robbed and killed their own people. For their trouble they got shot at, mortared and attacked with IED's. "
For this statement I only have one answer, the UN never authorized the Americans to raid Mogadishu. The Americans though supporting the UN mission were not flying under the UN flag or UN command they operated separate and they carried out a hapless and not thought out through operation in which valiant and valuable American and Somali lives were lost.
"What you are doing is convoluting the truth to fit your agenda and ignoring facts in your crusade to paint the US as the Great Satan (is that still an acceptable term?)"
I don't have any agenda, I am stating the facts as they are regardless if you can't bear it. You can try to portray me anyway you want be the facts are that the U.S. had no authorization from the UN to raid someone else capital.
"What you are doing is trying to lump the forces assigned to Operation Gothic Serpent in with troops from a totally different Operation. Operation Gothic Serpent was designed to get Adid after he declared war on the relief effort, when he didn't get his way. No Gothic Serpent wasn't a UN mission, because the UN lacks the nad's to deal with terrorists. So yes USSOCOM was tasked with that mission."
I am not trying to lump anything together, the facts are out their for anyone open minded enough to see them as they are. The U.S. was operating outside the UN command and they carried out an operation against the same warlords they are today propping up today in Mogadishu. Aidid's son himself was a Marine when his father died he took over his dad's militia.
"So get your facts straight.
BTW Are you in the US under refugee status? If so I'm sure given your distaste for this country and all it stands for you could find some place that would make you much happier."
I do have my facts straight you just want to believe the neo-con Dick Cheney propaganda and discredit and label anyone else that blows your distorted bubble. I don't have refugee status in the U.S. get you facts straight, I have no refugee status at all and don't reside in the U.S, I am about to become a junior adviser in the Somali delegation to the UN. I have no distaste for this country, I am just against imperialism and neo-colonialism.
For this statement I only have one answer, the UN never authorized the Americans to raid Mogadishu. The Americans though supporting the UN mission were not flying under the UN flag or UN command they operated separate and they carried out a hapless and not thought out through operation in which valiant and valuable American and Somali lives were lost.
"What you are doing is convoluting the truth to fit your agenda and ignoring facts in your crusade to paint the US as the Great Satan (is that still an acceptable term?)"
I don't have any agenda, I am stating the facts as they are regardless if you can't bear it. You can try to portray me anyway you want be the facts are that the U.S. had no authorization from the UN to raid someone else capital.
"What you are doing is trying to lump the forces assigned to Operation Gothic Serpent in with troops from a totally different Operation. Operation Gothic Serpent was designed to get Adid after he declared war on the relief effort, when he didn't get his way. No Gothic Serpent wasn't a UN mission, because the UN lacks the nad's to deal with terrorists. So yes USSOCOM was tasked with that mission."
I am not trying to lump anything together, the facts are out their for anyone open minded enough to see them as they are. The U.S. was operating outside the UN command and they carried out an operation against the same warlords they are today propping up today in Mogadishu. Aidid's son himself was a Marine when his father died he took over his dad's militia.
"So get your facts straight.
BTW Are you in the US under refugee status? If so I'm sure given your distaste for this country and all it stands for you could find some place that would make you much happier."
I do have my facts straight you just want to believe the neo-con Dick Cheney propaganda and discredit and label anyone else that blows your distorted bubble. I don't have refugee status in the U.S. get you facts straight, I have no refugee status at all and don't reside in the U.S, I am about to become a junior adviser in the Somali delegation to the UN. I have no distaste for this country, I am just against imperialism and neo-colonialism.
No, the Soon to be Israelis said nothing about wanting more land. The plaestinian arabs took the path of violence and forced the jews into a fight. They then lost the fight and cried for help from arab countries. These countries invaded Israel with large standing armies and also lost. The UN recognises israeli rule in all areas taken during that war.
Yes well...Firstly, Heballah is not the sovreighn of Lebanon, the lebanese gov is. Secondly, Shbaa farms were taken from Syria and that is a historic fact The syrians like hezballah and will not hurt its claims for a few sqare kms of land no one uses.
To continue, Hezballah attacked Israeli troops, on israeli soil, and launched massive rocket attacks on civilians. IDF never atacks civilian targets unless A) they are infact a cover for military activety B) they are stratgic targets(roads, bridges, power stations, etc). To say otherwise is a lie, period. You want to take me on about this thats great. But facts are i partcipated in countless operations in the Lebanese border, and i know what our ROEs are. You can show me pictures of lebanese towns that were destroyed, but istill remember looking at the bastards building bunkers inside schools and musqs. I also know for a fact that israel warned local poulation to get out of towns before the massive fighting started. If hezballah dosent want civvies hurt, perhaps they should stop shooting huge rockets and parking the launchers inside residential areas. The parts of beirut bombed were the Dachia area, which is where the entire political and military leadership of hezballah live. If you dont like bombs dont let these people live next to you. I dont live close range to stratigic targets.
On the whole, a nuclear Iran is a risk to Israel and therefore to democracy andwestern intrests in the middle east. and like i told you, it will have to be dealt with, if not now than when its nuclear.
OH - and why exactly has Israel fought so many wars???? Do you expect them to roll over and play dead?
In protection of themselves they eventually found it necessary to push Egypt back to the Suez Canal, Jordan back to the Jordan river, having begged Jordan not to get involved, and Syria off the Golan heights, to afford themselves defendable positions.
They since gave Sinai back to Egypt in return for peace and have been pacified with Jordan for a great many years.
Last edited:
03USMC
Active member
Responses are embedded. Might wanna take your time so you can untangle your facts.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Actually my reference to Korean history doesn't span the past 50 years but more like the previous two thousand or so, way before North and South Korea were a deal. Over this time there were several Korean kingdoms and times of unification. But anyways.
It's funny how a guy who starves other Somalis to death as a means to profiteer from stealing aid from international organizations is an alright guy (at least not bad enough to get a lot of flak from you... are you of the same tribe?) but people who go there to stop him and help feed and protect people who can't do it themselves is somehow imperialistic and evil. It simply blows my mind.
UnitedSomalia, thank you. The next time I see a clip of children from your country with limbs as skinny as toothpicks and bellies that look like they're about to burst from the lack of protein and vitamin B, I will not bat an eyelid since after all it's a Muslim that is doing this to them so I'm sure they're going to be just fine and they are much better off that way than have some American feed them infidel food. It's still infidel food, even if it is Halal.
Funny that you say you're going to work for the UN. I'm glad you found a place you belong to.
But I feel this argument has run its course for me. I may add a few more comments but seriously, your arguments are ridiculous.
It's funny how a guy who starves other Somalis to death as a means to profiteer from stealing aid from international organizations is an alright guy (at least not bad enough to get a lot of flak from you... are you of the same tribe?) but people who go there to stop him and help feed and protect people who can't do it themselves is somehow imperialistic and evil. It simply blows my mind.
UnitedSomalia, thank you. The next time I see a clip of children from your country with limbs as skinny as toothpicks and bellies that look like they're about to burst from the lack of protein and vitamin B, I will not bat an eyelid since after all it's a Muslim that is doing this to them so I'm sure they're going to be just fine and they are much better off that way than have some American feed them infidel food. It's still infidel food, even if it is Halal.
Funny that you say you're going to work for the UN. I'm glad you found a place you belong to.
But I feel this argument has run its course for me. I may add a few more comments but seriously, your arguments are ridiculous.
UnitedSomalia
Banned
"You are still wrong. The US Forces assigned to Operation Restore Hope II were operating under the authority of the UN Security Council's mandate of Dec 1992 Resolution 794 . The chain of command for these units included the UN.The ROE's were dictated by the UN. The mission was a result of a UN mandate. The UN flag was flown at both the Port and the Air Port. The force while including US troops was designated a UNITAF by the UNSC."
Simple, were the American forces that raided Mogadishu under UN command or authority? No. The Americans though they were their to support the UN, I must criticize them that they operated outside the UN command and they carried out missions without UN authorization, now that is something you can't deny no matter how you twist it.
"Coulda have fooled me. Because of the multinational force that was particapting in Operation Restore Hope II the only ones you seem to have issues with are the US forces. Not the Saudi's. Not the Pakistani. Not the Malay. Not Canada, Belguim, Spain, Greece, Germany, UAE, Kuwait or the rest of the countries that sent elements. Once again you refuse to acknowledge that you are combining two operations. So frankly your agenda is quite transparent as well as apparent."
I don't have an issue with any of the UN forces Saudi, Malay, Egypt or Canada you mentioned because they operated within the limits of the UN perimeters and UN authority, they didn't raid Mogadishu or carry out missions without UN authorizations like U.S. which caused the deaths of thousands of innocent Somali civilians.
"Uh yes you are. Lemme Break it down crayon style for you.
1. Operation Restore Hope II (Which replaced Operation Restore Hope I, because the UNSC decided that it needed military presence to keep the relief workers safe and the relief material flowing.
2. Operation Gothic Serpent- Was deployed to Somalia in August of 1993, it consisted of Bravo 3RD OF 75TH Rangers, C Squadron SOD-Delta and a Deployment package from 160th SOAR. It could be argued that even this force was marginally attached to the UN as it was formed and deployed as a result of UNSC Resolution 837 which was issued in June 1993. 837 called for the Capture and Prosecution of Aidid after his clan ambushed and killed 24 Pakistani UN troops .
It however became a US run and commanded mission, the 10th Mountain however remained under UN control and part of Operation Restore Hope II.
So there you have it. Two operations. US troops in both, with different missions and different chains of commands. Now maybe you have your fact's straight. But I'm not holding my breath.
Ahhhhh Yes Cpl. Aidid USMCR. A Marine Reservist from California who was activated because he was the only Marine available that spoke Somali. I understand he gave quite a rousing speech the day the BLT came ashore. I however was occupied elsewhere. Never met him although I did see him getting carted around in a HMMV being treated like his nickname-Prince Aidid. Probably shoulda actually been out on patrols translating but hey I was only a Sgt. those decisions were above my pay grade."
The point still stands that the American mission was to support the UN, they overstepped their perimeters and raid someone's else capital which cause the deaths of brave America soldiers and Somali civilians. The point still stands that those same warlords that America was trying to capture such as Aidid senior, they are today propping up in Mogadishu such as Aidid junior and his likes. Hypocrisy at its best, that is all I have to say.
"well okey dokey then. Just for your FYI, I don't need Cheney or anyone elses "propaganda" in this matter. On 9 December 1992 I went ashore in Mogadishu at the Port with Fox Company, 2nd Bn, 9th Marine Regiment ,15th MEU(SOC). I remained there until May of 1993.
My bubble is not distorted. I'm quite aware of what the mission statement was, what the ROE'S were, how the chain of command was structured and who it included. And it did include the UN. We did operate under UN ROE's and we were tasked with providing security to the UN compounds, relief points, and convoys. We were also tasked with arms reduction missions by the UN and various peace keeping and civil action missions. So my bubble is just fine,perhaps your's needs adjustment."
Well your bubble seems pretty distorted to me my friend, you may have been in Mogadishu as a low level Marine soldier but the facts are that American forces in Somalia were in never under UN command and never had authorization to raid Mogadishu, I know this for a fact and pretty familiar with this incident. You know what makes me laugh till this day? Its the hypocrisy of the American foreign policy towards Somalia. You guys are today propping up and installing the same warlords that you faught against in 1993 in Somalia.
"Good that's a load off my mind. I hate to think that you had accepted refugee status in a Country you have no use for."
I respect America for their democracy and freedom, but I am still smart enough to realize when they doing wrong and call them out for it. My only aim for working for the Somali delegation to the UN is to help my people attain freedom, independence and safety. I believe America can be a better force for good and equality if they can stop with the hypocrisy, double standards, and bias towards Muslim countries.
Simple, were the American forces that raided Mogadishu under UN command or authority? No. The Americans though they were their to support the UN, I must criticize them that they operated outside the UN command and they carried out missions without UN authorization, now that is something you can't deny no matter how you twist it.
"Coulda have fooled me. Because of the multinational force that was particapting in Operation Restore Hope II the only ones you seem to have issues with are the US forces. Not the Saudi's. Not the Pakistani. Not the Malay. Not Canada, Belguim, Spain, Greece, Germany, UAE, Kuwait or the rest of the countries that sent elements. Once again you refuse to acknowledge that you are combining two operations. So frankly your agenda is quite transparent as well as apparent."
I don't have an issue with any of the UN forces Saudi, Malay, Egypt or Canada you mentioned because they operated within the limits of the UN perimeters and UN authority, they didn't raid Mogadishu or carry out missions without UN authorizations like U.S. which caused the deaths of thousands of innocent Somali civilians.
"Uh yes you are. Lemme Break it down crayon style for you.
1. Operation Restore Hope II (Which replaced Operation Restore Hope I, because the UNSC decided that it needed military presence to keep the relief workers safe and the relief material flowing.
2. Operation Gothic Serpent- Was deployed to Somalia in August of 1993, it consisted of Bravo 3RD OF 75TH Rangers, C Squadron SOD-Delta and a Deployment package from 160th SOAR. It could be argued that even this force was marginally attached to the UN as it was formed and deployed as a result of UNSC Resolution 837 which was issued in June 1993. 837 called for the Capture and Prosecution of Aidid after his clan ambushed and killed 24 Pakistani UN troops .
It however became a US run and commanded mission, the 10th Mountain however remained under UN control and part of Operation Restore Hope II.
So there you have it. Two operations. US troops in both, with different missions and different chains of commands. Now maybe you have your fact's straight. But I'm not holding my breath.
Ahhhhh Yes Cpl. Aidid USMCR. A Marine Reservist from California who was activated because he was the only Marine available that spoke Somali. I understand he gave quite a rousing speech the day the BLT came ashore. I however was occupied elsewhere. Never met him although I did see him getting carted around in a HMMV being treated like his nickname-Prince Aidid. Probably shoulda actually been out on patrols translating but hey I was only a Sgt. those decisions were above my pay grade."
The point still stands that the American mission was to support the UN, they overstepped their perimeters and raid someone's else capital which cause the deaths of brave America soldiers and Somali civilians. The point still stands that those same warlords that America was trying to capture such as Aidid senior, they are today propping up in Mogadishu such as Aidid junior and his likes. Hypocrisy at its best, that is all I have to say.
"well okey dokey then. Just for your FYI, I don't need Cheney or anyone elses "propaganda" in this matter. On 9 December 1992 I went ashore in Mogadishu at the Port with Fox Company, 2nd Bn, 9th Marine Regiment ,15th MEU(SOC). I remained there until May of 1993.
My bubble is not distorted. I'm quite aware of what the mission statement was, what the ROE'S were, how the chain of command was structured and who it included. And it did include the UN. We did operate under UN ROE's and we were tasked with providing security to the UN compounds, relief points, and convoys. We were also tasked with arms reduction missions by the UN and various peace keeping and civil action missions. So my bubble is just fine,perhaps your's needs adjustment."
Well your bubble seems pretty distorted to me my friend, you may have been in Mogadishu as a low level Marine soldier but the facts are that American forces in Somalia were in never under UN command and never had authorization to raid Mogadishu, I know this for a fact and pretty familiar with this incident. You know what makes me laugh till this day? Its the hypocrisy of the American foreign policy towards Somalia. You guys are today propping up and installing the same warlords that you faught against in 1993 in Somalia.
"Good that's a load off my mind. I hate to think that you had accepted refugee status in a Country you have no use for."
I respect America for their democracy and freedom, but I am still smart enough to realize when they doing wrong and call them out for it. My only aim for working for the Somali delegation to the UN is to help my people attain freedom, independence and safety. I believe America can be a better force for good and equality if they can stop with the hypocrisy, double standards, and bias towards Muslim countries.
Last edited:
UnitedSomalia
Banned
"lol....
How about when Achmadinijad, Nassralla, and the rest of you friends stop calling Israel and the USA the Big Devil and the Small Devil...Maybe than the Americans and Israelis will stop having to bust arab balls every 10 years in avarage?"-Sherman
We have digressed from the original topic of the possibility of nuclear war in the cold war. But I will say this..... the bandwagon against Muslims, the character defamation against Islam, the invasions of Muslim countries is not all a coincidence. This is a military strategy to control Muslim countries. The West/Israel has 2 aims in the Middle East, A. control the Middle East for Israeli designs B. Control Middle East resources for Western exploitation. Israel has nothing much to really do with Africa but I want to mention Africa also to point out that the West has 2 aim in Africa, A. to control the natural resources for Western exploitation and B. Squeeze out China. In the next paragraph I will restate a point I have made earlier in my other post that you may disagree with Sherman, but deep down inside you know its true and can't deny that this is what is being done in the Middle East. Anyone that puts 2 and 2 together, clearly studies and watches what is being done in the Middle East, they will agree that this is the American-Israeli plan in order to gain hegemony in that region. Here it goes.....
Lets look at the Middle East; Egypt and Jordan are no longer a threat they made peace with Israel, Iraq is eliminated as a military obstacle in the drive to have Israel reign over the Middle East, and now they want to eliminate Iran as the other major obstacle to Israeli supremacy dictates in the region. Then after Iran is eliminated Syria will be left alone and vulnerable surrounded by Israel or American leaning regimes, and they will be left with 2 choices A. Sign peace with Israel on Israeli terms or B. You will be eliminated the same way as Iraq and Iran. Then Israel will have reign supreme over the whole Middle East. You see I believe its not a coincidence that America is going after one Muslim country after another who had nothing to do with 9/11 under the false pretexts of war on terrorism and nukes. North Korea tested a nukes and the missiles capable of carrying them, but America never once stepped up to them militarily in order to control their nuke building. But they militarily go after Muslim countries that have no nukes, while they make peace and sit at the table with North Korea as equal partners. If they can negotiate without preconditions and dictates with the erratic, WMD proliferating, Hermite regime of North Korea, they can't negotiate with Iran without preconditions and dictates which is more responsible and less erratic than the North Korea regime?
Now lets look at Africa..... The West wants to establish control over African resources and strategic points in Africa. Egypt controls the strategic Suez Canal and is allied with America, Algeria sits on massive oil reserves and is pro-West, Morocco sits on strategic location near the Gibraltar and Europe and is pro-West, Tunisia is pro-West, Libya with its oil is pacified and de-fanged and Qaddafi gets to keep his power instead of getting overthrown. Sudan's president is being charged with genocide and Sudan is on its way to regime change by the West in order to gain control of its oil and strategic location, a puppet regime is installed in Somalia so that when it is pacified the West will gain access to Somali natural resources and Somali is located in the strategic horn of Africa. South Africa is pro-West. So their you go America wants to squeez out China and gain Africa's resources and strategic locations, so African countries establish relations with America on their own accord, and those that don't establish relations and realign they get destabilized and regime changed, that is why Qaddafi choose to get de-fanged instead of overthrown.
Now I know we have digressed from the original topic, but that is all I have to say, you guys can shut your eyes, be in denials, but fact of the matter is that this is the American-Israeli plan for the Middle East, and America's plan for Africa I have also stated. That is why an African command is being established which never even was established at the height of the cold war.
How about when Achmadinijad, Nassralla, and the rest of you friends stop calling Israel and the USA the Big Devil and the Small Devil...Maybe than the Americans and Israelis will stop having to bust arab balls every 10 years in avarage?"-Sherman
We have digressed from the original topic of the possibility of nuclear war in the cold war. But I will say this..... the bandwagon against Muslims, the character defamation against Islam, the invasions of Muslim countries is not all a coincidence. This is a military strategy to control Muslim countries. The West/Israel has 2 aims in the Middle East, A. control the Middle East for Israeli designs B. Control Middle East resources for Western exploitation. Israel has nothing much to really do with Africa but I want to mention Africa also to point out that the West has 2 aim in Africa, A. to control the natural resources for Western exploitation and B. Squeeze out China. In the next paragraph I will restate a point I have made earlier in my other post that you may disagree with Sherman, but deep down inside you know its true and can't deny that this is what is being done in the Middle East. Anyone that puts 2 and 2 together, clearly studies and watches what is being done in the Middle East, they will agree that this is the American-Israeli plan in order to gain hegemony in that region. Here it goes.....
Lets look at the Middle East; Egypt and Jordan are no longer a threat they made peace with Israel, Iraq is eliminated as a military obstacle in the drive to have Israel reign over the Middle East, and now they want to eliminate Iran as the other major obstacle to Israeli supremacy dictates in the region. Then after Iran is eliminated Syria will be left alone and vulnerable surrounded by Israel or American leaning regimes, and they will be left with 2 choices A. Sign peace with Israel on Israeli terms or B. You will be eliminated the same way as Iraq and Iran. Then Israel will have reign supreme over the whole Middle East. You see I believe its not a coincidence that America is going after one Muslim country after another who had nothing to do with 9/11 under the false pretexts of war on terrorism and nukes. North Korea tested a nukes and the missiles capable of carrying them, but America never once stepped up to them militarily in order to control their nuke building. But they militarily go after Muslim countries that have no nukes, while they make peace and sit at the table with North Korea as equal partners. If they can negotiate without preconditions and dictates with the erratic, WMD proliferating, Hermite regime of North Korea, they can't negotiate with Iran without preconditions and dictates which is more responsible and less erratic than the North Korea regime?
Now lets look at Africa..... The West wants to establish control over African resources and strategic points in Africa. Egypt controls the strategic Suez Canal and is allied with America, Algeria sits on massive oil reserves and is pro-West, Morocco sits on strategic location near the Gibraltar and Europe and is pro-West, Tunisia is pro-West, Libya with its oil is pacified and de-fanged and Qaddafi gets to keep his power instead of getting overthrown. Sudan's president is being charged with genocide and Sudan is on its way to regime change by the West in order to gain control of its oil and strategic location, a puppet regime is installed in Somalia so that when it is pacified the West will gain access to Somali natural resources and Somali is located in the strategic horn of Africa. South Africa is pro-West. So their you go America wants to squeez out China and gain Africa's resources and strategic locations, so African countries establish relations with America on their own accord, and those that don't establish relations and realign they get destabilized and regime changed, that is why Qaddafi choose to get de-fanged instead of overthrown.
Now I know we have digressed from the original topic, but that is all I have to say, you guys can shut your eyes, be in denials, but fact of the matter is that this is the American-Israeli plan for the Middle East, and America's plan for Africa I have also stated. That is why an African command is being established which never even was established at the height of the cold war.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Usually blowing yourself up on a bus full of civilians doesn't make for very good PR.
I could educate you about why that is the case with North Korea but I feel that it's better not to educate you.
Somalia is a long way off from China. You really have no idea who those guys are, do you?
I could educate you about why that is the case with North Korea but I feel that it's better not to educate you.
Somalia is a long way off from China. You really have no idea who those guys are, do you?