molson_golden2002 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 The word Evil is the only common ground between the two situations. Completely different enemy. Why? Because Iran is so many times weaker and less significant than the Soviet Union was so we can't use diplomacy with them? Both are revolutionary movements fraying from within and living basically off of oil. There are similarities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 The word Evil is the only common ground between the two situations. Completely different enemy. You're on your own, tonight. I have the movie "Departed" to watch..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 You're on your own, tonight. I have the movie "Departed" to watch..... Nah, I've got money to make. With some people life is just way too black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 So what if Iraq is "all about the oil". This thread isn't about Iraq. In fact the word wasn't used in this thread until you popped in... The OP was making a point about the simplistic notion of terrorism by islamic fundies being related to oil. Then you came in ranting about Iraq and calling people stupid. Yeah, intelligent discourse my a$$... THE original post in the thread said "It's all about oil". Silly me, I assumed it was rebutting the age old liberal mantra about Iraq (on which they are correct). As I stated more than once earlier: Terrorism has been around since the dawn of man. It's a tool in the box. As far as the rest of it goes, I'm a hell of a lot more worried about our own government screwing us (and the Constitution) over to "protect" us from the Muslim extremists that their policies have given more credence to than I am about those same Muslim extremists taking over the planet (do you people know how laughable that is in the face of history?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 THE original post in the thread said "It's all about oil". Silly me, I assumed it was rebutting the age old liberal mantra about Iraq (on which they are correct). Um... no I didn't. Go back and read it again. How many times do I need to ask you to do that before you actually do it? Maybe you just don't get obvious sarcasm. Again, I, along with the OP, was mocking those who believe that muslim extremism is rooted in oil. Nothing was said about Iraq. Nothing. It wasn't about Iraq. Actually, this all reminds me of the movie "Airplane": First there were the dinosaurs, but they died and turned into oil. Then came the arab's in their mecedes benz... Then came AD, pooping all over the thread and blathering on about Iraq... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Um... no I didn't. Go back and read it again. How many times do I need to ask you to do that before you actually do it? Maybe you just don't get obvious sarcasm. What's the title of the goddamn thread, sparky? Again, I, along with the OP, was mocking those who believe that muslim extremism is rooted in oil. Nothing was said about Iraq. Nothing. It wasn't about Iraq. Muslim extremism isn't rooted in oil. Our response to it is. For good reason. Otherwise we'd ignore it, like we do extremism in other parts of the world. Let's grow the military/industrial complex even further because there's a new boogieman to defeat. That isn't going to have any long term consequences... Actually, this all reminds me of the movie "Airplane": First there were the dinosaurs, but they died and turned into oil. Then came the arab's in their mecedes benz... Then came AD, pooping all over the thread and blathering on about Iraq... Let's keep pretending that we're on this patriotic venture to stamp out something that's been part of the human condition for all of recorded history. Are we also going to stamp out homelessness, poverty, etc? Or are the liberal Republican ventures somehow more worthy because they involve killing some people that look and speak differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 What's the title of the goddamn thread, sparky? Right and he was being sarcastic. Too bad that weas completely lost on you. How many times do I need to explain something to you before it bores it's way into your skull? I'm gonna guess the magic number is 8, so I expect this may take some more posts... Muslim extremism isn't rooted in oil. Our response to it is. For good reason. Otherwise we'd ignore it, like we do extremism in other parts of the world. Let's grow the military/industrial complex even further because there's a new boogieman to defeat. That isn't going to have any long term consequences... Oh, ok maybe you do get it now... No one mentioned the respone to it, Iraq, or any of that until you showed up. Now it would seem you are just arguing with no one for the sake of arguing. Heck, maybe you just really enjoy typing. Let's keep pretending that we're on this patriotic venture to stamp out something that's been part of the human condition for all of recorded history. Are we also going to stamp out homelessness, poverty, etc? Or are the liberal Republican ventures somehow more worthy because they involve killing some people that look and speak differently? Again, I don't know where this is all coming from. Once again, the OP's intention was to show that muslim extremism ins't rooted in the quest for oil. Then you came in and started blathering on about Iraq, when the OP was about muslim extremism in India. And by the way "sparky" don't think I didn't notice your convenient edit... If that's how you debate (or come in and act like a retard or whatever it is you are doing) then I'll take that as notice to not bother with you anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Right and he was being sarcastic. Too bad that weas completely lost on you. How many times do I need to explain something to you before it bores it's way into your skull? I'm gonna guess the magic number is 8, so I expect this may take some more posts...Oh, ok maybe you do get it now... I got it the first time, which is why I brought up Iraq. You can call it sarcasm, I call it disingenuous bullschitt. The Republican apologists like to pretend Iraq isn't about oil. Their proof is to bring up Muslim Extremism in other countries and quotes by the Iranian "President" or something someone saw from some Al Qaeda "operative" on CNN. That doesn't change the fact that the only reason we care about Iraq (and Iran for that matter), is because THEY HAVE OIL. If that wasn't the case, we'd have left Iraq to the Germans, French, and Russians. No one mentioned the respone to it, Iraq, or any of that until you showed up. Now it would seem you are just arguing with no one for the sake of arguing. Heck, maybe you just really enjoy typing. Mostly because no one else probably cares. At the end of the day, Iraq was about oil. Pointing to other terrorist acts in countries that don't sell us black gold is never going to change that fact. Again, I don't know where this is all coming from. Once again, the OP's intention was to show that muslim extremism ins't rooted in the quest for oil. Then you came in and started blathering on about Iraq, when the OP was about muslim extremism in India. No, it's rooted in the same things most "quests" are. Power over the masses. Not alot different than the current 2 parties that run the United States, just different in their execution. I'm not sure I've ever read a single thing that stated that Muslim Extremism itself was about oil, only that we're forced to find a way to deal with it because those factions are centered in the region that provides a pretty fair portion of the world's supply. And by the way "sparky" don't think I didn't notice your convenient edit... If that's how you debate (or come in and act like a retard or whatever it is you are doing) then I'll take that as notice to not bother with you anymore. Ooh, stop it. You're going to hurt my feelings. However will I get through the day without someone coming to PPP to type things like "Muslim Extremism isn't rooted in oil money"? I apologize for not noticing you weren't the original author of the thread. Doesn't change the fact that the title of the thread is all about what the left says about Iraq, whether you want that point in it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 How about asking Ronald Reagan? And I like the Lloyd George reference. Too bad I like it because it shows only how totally ignorant you are. Ignorant of what? WWII history? The appeasement policy of Lloyd George? The utter failure of that policy to produce peace? The fact that Hitler himself is on record stating that he could not believe England/France/etc. were stupid enough to negotiate with him? Hmm. Kinda like the intercepts we have gotten where Osama and his crew are laughing it up at how silly we are for not attacking them in Pakistan? On point the of Reagan's "diplomacy" - you are the ignorant one, well, intellectually dishonest is better. Reagan flat out told the Soviets to f off and WALKED OUT - after they had offered a half-measure regarding their nukes. WALKING OUT is not "diplomacy". It is walking out. In essence he made a ballsy move. All the press and and definitely all the limp dick liberals(there were some that did not support this) told us that the world was going to end. Reagan was insane - he was leading us to war, he was senile, etc. In fact - he got Gorby to blink. And having done that, at the next meeting THAT THE SOVIETS HAD TO BEG FOR because they wanted to look like they were the "rational" party, Gorby could not retract what he had already given, and therefore Reagan got him to give him the full measures he wanted, not the half. And all those limp dicks were proven COMPLETELY WRONG. Not that they will ever admit it, mind you. How convenient of you to leave out these salient details so that you can say that "technically" Reagan negotiated with the Soviets. In fact, HIS FIRST MOVE WAS NOT TO NEGOTIATE. It told you before and I'm telling you again, do not try to BS me, or other posters because I will catch you every time. You clearly don't have the skills. The simple facts are that you don't know history(or you won't be honest about it), you don't know about negotiation, and you don't know about economics. So why should we listen to you about anything? I have no interest in debating with someone who hasn't done the proper preparation. Do us all a favor - do some reading! And again, rather than debating points, you continue to call me names. What, are you too scared to attempt to directly contradict me? I doubt you can but let's see if you can do anything besides call people names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Because Reagan called the Soviet's the Evil Empire, yet he negotiated with them anyway. There is a place for diplomacy. Like I have said before, the world is getting smaller, technology--destructive technology--is spreading as wealth spreads and we all have to learn to get along or kill each other. I'd rather get along. And you are really smart The Soviets, as evil as they were, were RATIONAL. They didn't send children wrapped in Semtex to attack us. Islamic Radicals CAN NOT be talked to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 The Soviets, as evil as they were, were RATIONAL. They didn't send children wrapped in Semtex to attack us. Islamic Radicals CAN NOT be talked to. Hey, how much oil are we getting from Thailand ? At least 28 bombs exploded Sunday in apparently coordinated attacks in parts of southern Thailand plagued by a Muslim insurgency, killing three people and wounding more than 50, the military said. The bombings targeted hotels, karaoke bars, power grids and commercial sites in the country's southernmost provinces, the only parts of predominantly Buddhist Thailand with Muslim majorities. Two public schools were torched. Police said three Thais of Chinese descent were also gunned down in Pattani province in what was believed to be the act of insurgents. The killings occurred as the country's Chinese community was celebrating the Lunar New Year Sunday. Violence in the south has been escalating in recent months despite a major policy shift by the military-imposed government, which is trying to replace an earlier, iron-fisted approach in dealing with the rebels with a "hearts and minds" campaign. In Sunday's attacks, two people were killed and 33 injured in Yala province, while one person died and 20 were wounded in a tourist town in Narathiwat province, said Col. Wichai Thongdaeng, a military spokesman. "We believe that the attacks were planned to cause division, create fear among the people. They want to show that they are still capable (of carrying out attacks)," he said, adding the military has sent additional troops to the region. Two explosions tore through electricity transmitters in Pattani province, causing blackouts in several areas, said Pattani police Maj. Gen. Kokiat Wongworachart. Five bombs exploded in the border town of Sungai Kolok, a popular destination for Malaysian and Singaporean tourists, said Maj. Gen. Yongyut Chareonwanit, the Narathiwat police chief. At least two schools in the province had been torched, he said. Wichai said nine bombs went off in the Yala provincial capital and another seven in the border town of Betong, which also attracts tourists to its entertainment venues. A sizable number of Sunday's bombings were against karaoke parlors, which are regarded as decadent by the Islamic rebels. Two bombings were also reported in neighboring Songkhla province. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts