Liverpool FC Forum

[LFC2007]

It's pretty obvious that the U.S. aren't involved in the middle east purely out of their own compassion, but what is the alternative? You can criticise all day long about motive but without suggesting alternatives for situations such as Afghanistan and Kuwait there's little point in criticising.

[puroresu]

It's pretty obvious that the U.S. aren't involved in the middle east purely out of their own compassion, but what is the alternative? You can criticise all day long about motive but without suggesting alternatives for situations such as Afghanistan and Kuwait there's little point in criticising.

How about for a start to stop supporting those that oppress then decades later come marching in against that same oppressor.  Saddam was a monster the US and others created.

The alternitave is stay out other peoples business and let the people of this region develop there own political systems.  This region then just might have the chance of reaching some level of stability and progression.

Its not just the Middle East either. Africa, South America.  The US has her mucky hands in conflicts in both these regions.  Sudan is a humantarian crisis.  Yet again when one looks deeper they see how the US has been involved in the region and how untapped oil reserves in sudan is the real goal for the americans.

[LFC2007]

Funny how it's only the that U.S. takes criticism from you. Iran get away with saying they want Israel wiped off the map, Iran get away with supporting the Iraqi insurgency. Syria and Iran get away with meddling in Lebanon yet you only criticise the U.S.

Saddam is responsible for himself and only himself, the only criticism of the U.S. is that they supplied him weapons in the 80's, nevertheless, the monstrous acts of violence he authorised are down to him alone and only him - not the U.S. The U.S did not create the monster that was Saddam, he created it himself.

As for Sudan, which other countries have been doing much about it? Yet again the U.S. alone get the blame, what about middle-eastern countries, why can't they help out?

So we stay out of Afghnaistan is what you are saying aswell? Let al qaeda breed terrrorists who attack civilization as a whole? You haven't said of an alternative to Afghanistan.

[puroresu]

Funny how it's only the that U.S. takes criticism from you. Iran get away with saying they want Israel wiped off the map, Iran get away with supporting the Iraqi insurgency. Syria and Iran get away with meddling in Lebanon yet you only criticise the U.S.

Saddam is responsible for himself and only himself, the only criticism of the U.S. is that they supplied him weapons in the 80's, nevertheless, the monstrous acts of violence he authorised are down to him alone and only him - not the U.S. The U.S did not create the monster that was Saddam, he created it himself.

As for Sudan, which other countries have been doing much about it? Yet again the U.S. alone get the blame, what about middle-eastern countries, why can't they help out?

So we stay out of Afghnaistan is what you are saying aswell? Let al qaeda breed terrrorists who attack civilization as a whole? You haven't said of an alternative to Afghanistan.

The Iranian leader didnt actually say that.  The Western media reported it as such but if u actuall dig deeper u will see that plenty of western journalists have rightfully translated his words correctly and "wiping Israel off the map is not what he said".

So the US didnt support Saddam in his war v Iran. 

Have the US actually produced any evidence which proves Iran is operatin in Iraq?  From what I have seen its just accusations and efforts to deflect attention from there own failures.

I wont dispute Hezbollah has links with Iran.  Syria gets blamed for a lot of things in Lebanon but again with no real evidence to back up these claims.

Sudan - I wish Muslim leaders would do something to come up with a solution there.  I wish the Sudanese government was held accountable.  But hey these are despotic regimes and I dont expect nothing but the worst from them.

[LFC2007]

If you want to be pernickety about the translation fine, but he said words to the effect of that idiom. If you want to ut it another way he said: "Must be eliminated from the pages of history". Please tell me the difference.


The U.S. did support Saddam, that is shirking the point. The U.S. didn't "create" Saddam, that's absolute rubbish, they supported him, but he was an inherently evil person.

The U.S. have provided evidence that Iran is active in supporting insurgent militias in Iraq in the form of munitions.

You talk about the U.S. having its dirty hands all around the world and provide little evidence for your examples in the Sudan or in South America, yet you dismiss the links between Iran and Iraqi insurgents - a very anti-western bias if you ask me.


And you still haven't suggested an alternative for Afghanistan.

[kobashi]

The Iranian leader doesnt believe state of Israel has a right too exist.  I would say 90% of muslims worldwide feel the same way.  people in the west find it hard too understand this but that is the reality.

As for Iran helping the resistance in Iraq.  I have not seen any concrete proof but if they are then again I see no problem with this.  The US is occupying Iraq which is a muslim country.  Iran should be helping the resistance.  damn America support Israel with weapons and finance but I don't see anybody complaining.

Afghanistan needs the population too decide it's future with US involvement.  At the moment you have a leader who is an American Puppet who cannot leave Kabul.  Afghanistan now has the large poppy fields providing the drug trade which the taliban stopped.  it now is country in where prostitution is on the streets, shops sell alcohol in Kabul.  America and the west know that if the people were left too decide there own political destiny an Islamic Party would probably win.

I am not saying the Taliban were a good government because they wasn't.  I just don't think this new government is doing anything for the country.  it will always be sub-servant too the west so there is the problem.

[kobashi]

If you want to be pernickety about the translation fine, but he said words to the effect of that idiom. If you want to ut it another way he said: "Must be eliminated from the pages of history". Please tell me the difference.


The U.S. did support Saddam, that is shirking the point. The U.S. didn't "create" Saddam, that's absolute rubbish, they supported him, but he was an inherently evil person.

The U.S. have provided evidence that Iran is active in supporting insurgent militias in Iraq in the form of munitions.

You talk about the U.S. having its dirty hands all around the world and provide little evidence for your examples in the Sudan or in South America, yet you dismiss the links between Iran and Iraqi insurgents - a very anti-western bias if you ask me.


And you still haven't suggested an alternative for Afghanistan.

Oh come on.  There are de-classified CIA documents that are well known that show all the dirty work which the US has done in South America.

"The U.S. have provided evidence that Iran is active in supporting insurgent militias in Iraq in the form of munitions."

Just like the evidence the US showed the world of Iraq's WMD's.  Oh yes we must believe what the US tells us.

[LFC2007]

1) It's a very unwise statement to make on Ahmedinijad's part, regardless of whether or not you think Israel has a right to exist.

2) I find it shocking that you are happy for Iran to supply Iraqi insurgents, these are the insurgents that are killing British and American troops. You can go feck yerself if you think this is acceptable. America support Israel with munitions, they have been a political ally ever since their existance. It is common for allies to share and support each other with supplies, what Iran are doing is contributing to the mess in Iraq by supporting paramilitary groups whose sole objective is to kill as many allied troops as possible.

3) You miss the ENTIRE point on Afghanistan, I was asking PURORESU what alternative there was to invading. You may be happy to see the Taliban in power harbouring Al qaeda who trained people for terrorist attacks around the globe, I don't see that as acceptable. I'd rather see the poppy trade flourish, prostitutes on the street and alcohol being sold in shops rather than the former which created a GLOBAL terror threat to everybody.


4) This typically anti-western sh!t is just pathetic when some are unwilling to acknowledge the actions of Muslim governments.

[LFC2007]

If you want to be pernickety about the translation fine, but he said words to the effect of that idiom. If you want to ut it another way he said: "Must be eliminated from the pages of history". Please tell me the difference.


The U.S. did support Saddam, that is shirking the point. The U.S. didn't "create" Saddam, that's absolute rubbish, they supported him, but he was an inherently evil person.

The U.S. have provided evidence that Iran is active in supporting insurgent militias in Iraq in the form of munitions.

You talk about the U.S. having its dirty hands all around the world and provide little evidence for your examples in the Sudan or in South America, yet you dismiss the links between Iran and Iraqi insurgents - a very anti-western bias if you ask me.


And you still haven't suggested an alternative for Afghanistan.

Oh come on.  There are de-classified CIA documents that are well known that show all the dirty work which the US has done in South America.

"The U.S. have provided evidence that Iran is active in supporting insurgent militias in Iraq in the form of munitions."

Just like the evidence the US showed the world of Iraq's WMD's.  Oh yes we must believe what the US tells us.

You're just an anti-western bigot.

Dirty work in South America?

What about Iran's dirty work, Syria's dirty work, Saudi Arabia's dirty work?

You're more than happy to recognise the very tenuous evidence that accuses America of meddling, yet you are unwilling to recognise the meddling of Middle-eastern nations. There is no balance to what you say, you're a free-loader who would jump on the anti-U.S. bandwagon at EVERY opportunity.

[kobashi]

1) It's a very unwise statement to make on Ahmedinijad's part, regardless of whether or not you think Israel has a right to exist.

2) I find it shocking that you are happy for Iran to supply Iraqi insurgents, these are the insurgents that are killing British and American troops. You can go feck yerself if you think this is acceptable. America support Israel with munitions, they have been a political ally ever since their existance. It is common for allies to share and support each other with supplies, what Iran are doing is contributing to the mess in Iraq by supporting paramilitary groups whose sole objective is to kill as many allied troops as possible.

3) You miss the ENTIRE point on Afghanistan, I was asking PURORESU what alternative there was to invading. You may be happy to see the Taliban in power harbouring Al qaeda who trained people for terrorist attacks around the globe, I don't see that as acceptable. I'd rather see the poppy trade flourish, prostitutes on the street and alcohol being sold in shops rather than the former which created a GLOBAL terror threat to everybody.


4) This typically anti-western sh!t is just pathetic when some are unwilling to acknowledge the actions of Muslim governments.

I am no fan of muslim governments.  Pakistan has Musharraf who is a tyrant supported by the West.

Egypt has Maburak who again is a brutal dictator propped up by the west. The Saudi government is propped up by the US and only came into power through the work of the british after the fall of the ottoman caliphate.

the general mass muslim population do not like there governments and want change but the US keeps supporting these tyrants.

also you don't feel the resistance in iraq has a right to fight occupation so what about the resistance groups in France who were blowing up trains, cafe's etc in WWII.

these are seen as hero's.  do you think they were wrong?

[babu]

let me sing you a song,

i hate these times in between
there never seems to be anything on the screen
tennis is good, but theres nothing to discuss
hence a thread like this, which is puss!

When you walk through a storm......

(i know, i know, don't give up my day job    , but can't wait for the season to start    )

[metalhead]

Funny how it's only the that U.S. takes criticism from you. Iran get away with saying they want Israel wiped off the map, Iran get away with supporting the Iraqi insurgency. Syria and Iran get away with meddling in Lebanon yet you only criticise the U.S.

Saddam is responsible for himself and only himself, the only criticism of the U.S. is that they supplied him weapons in the 80's, nevertheless, the monstrous acts of violence he authorised are down to him alone and only him - not the U.S. The U.S did not create the monster that was Saddam, he created it himself.

As for Sudan, which other countries have been doing much about it? Yet again the U.S. alone get the blame, what about middle-eastern countries, why can't they help out?

So we stay out of Afghnaistan is what you are saying aswell? Let al qaeda breed terrrorists who attack civilization as a whole? You haven't said of an alternative to Afghanistan.

1) There is no evidence that Iran is meddling in Lebanon, NO evidence. The Lebanese government is a U.S puppet! they take orders from the U.S, and actually the Prime minister himself said that lebanon can't do anything without U.S help.

2) LFC2007, whats the difference if you went to afghanistan or not? ok the NATO forces are there, but have they at least wiped out 50% of terrorisim in the region? I think barly 2 or 3%! so what are they waiting for? Al-quada and Taliban are still flourishing and no one is stopping them. I'll say this again, You can't send an army to destroy a terrorist organization! YOU CAN'T! it doesn't work! The only way is to send individuals (secret agents) to infeltrate such organizations. Using secret intelligence you can defeat extremist terrorist organization. Look what happened to Israel, they send a whole army to wipe out hizballah, who aren't terrorists FACT, but a resistance organization, well israel forces failed misrably!

3) Also, you shouldn't call arab government muslim government, they aren't muslim government except for 2 or 3 countries, you can say Arab government.

Everyone is meddling with each other, all of them want whats best for them. This is a U.S-Iran conflict, and they are using small countries to their advantage. I don't want my country to turn into a battlefield.

[metalhead]

let me sing you a song,

i hate these times in between
there never seems to be anything on the screen
tennis is good, but theres nothing to discuss
hence a thread like this, which is puss!

When you walk through a storm......

(i know, i know, don't give up my day job    , but can't wait for the season to start    )

[puroresu]

1) It's a very unwise statement to make on Ahmedinijad's part, regardless of whether or not you think Israel has a right to exist.

2) I find it shocking that you are happy for Iran to supply Iraqi insurgents, these are the insurgents that are killing British and American troops. You can go feck yerself if you think this is acceptable. America support Israel with munitions, they have been a political ally ever since their existance. It is common for allies to share and support each other with supplies, what Iran are doing is contributing to the mess in Iraq by supporting paramilitary groups whose sole objective is to kill as many allied troops as possible.

3) You miss the ENTIRE point on Afghanistan, I was asking PURORESU what alternative there was to invading. You may be happy to see the Taliban in power harbouring Al qaeda who trained people for terrorist attacks around the globe, I don't see that as acceptable. I'd rather see the poppy trade flourish, prostitutes on the street and alcohol being sold in shops rather than the former which created a GLOBAL terror threat to everybody.


4) This typically anti-western sh!t is just pathetic when some are unwilling to acknowledge the actions of Muslim governments.

So its ok for the US to provide weapons to a terrorist state who's existance was built on the back of terrorists.  A state which continues to occupy other people's land.  Yet its not ok for the Iraqi people to resist an invasion by the US and British forces?  It does not matter where the resistance gets there weapons.  Even under the UN Charter an occupied people have the right to self determination and a right to resist occupation.

[Big Niall]

The Iran leader said something like "he believes that the state of Israel will cease to exist" that doesn't mean bomb it and kill them all.

The ussr, yugoslavia, east germany etc have all ceased to exist without any killing.

Don't believe Murdock's news. Research the truth yourself.