BF2S Forums Al Qaeda message blames Obama, Egypt for Gaza violence

JahManRed wrote:

As lowing said. The fact they are now naming Obama as an enemy shows their fight is not with a a particular administration and their policies. But then again the US isn't going to close its hundreds or military bases around the world. Suspend clandestine operations or with draw from the middle east under any president.

Do you think the US should?

Suppose the US abandons the ME and goes home, do ya think the world will be a safer place then?

Last edited by lowing (2009-01-07 03:41:26)

lowing wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

As lowing said. The fact they are now naming Obama as an enemy shows their fight is not with a a particular administration and their policies. But then again the US isn't going to close its hundreds or military bases around the world. Suspend clandestine operations or with draw from the middle east under any president.

Do you think the US should?

Suppose the US abandons the ME and goes home, do ya think the world will be a safer place then?

If done over time and and in a respectable manor atleast the US will become better for it's own citizens ... the rest will take a long time to recover ...

As it is now the world is not a safer place with the US in the ME ...

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

As lowing said. The fact they are now naming Obama as an enemy shows their fight is not with a a particular administration and their policies. But then again the US isn't going to close its hundreds or military bases around the world. Suspend clandestine operations or with draw from the middle east under any president.

Do you think the US should?

Suppose the US abandons the ME and goes home, do ya think the world will be a safer place then?

If done over time and and in a respectable manor atleast the US will become better for it's own citizens ... the rest will take a long time to recover ...

As it is now the world is not a safer place with the US in the ME ...

Really, we've just given the Middle East even more of a reason to hate us.

And when I say Middle East, I really mean the people who already hated us.

Ironically enough, while we're trying to spread democracy, the vehicle we're using to do so isn't the least bit democratic.

ThomasMorgan wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

If done over time and and in a respectable manor atleast the US will become better for it's own citizens ... the rest will take a long time to recover ...

As it is now the world is not a safer place with the US in the ME ...

I wonder what could have happened if the ME went largely unmonitored for the past 30 years.  Do you think the world would have been better off?

It probably wouldn't exist anymore had it gone entirely unmonitored.  So...yes and no.

I agree it may ot exist anyomore, however, I think they would have taken a lot of nations with them.

ThomasMorgan wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Do you think the US should?

Suppose the US abandons the ME and goes home, do ya think the world will be a safer place then?

If done over time and and in a respectable manor atleast the US will become better for it's own citizens ... the rest will take a long time to recover ...

As it is now the world is not a safer place with the US in the ME ...

Really, we've just given the Middle East even more of a reason to hate us.

And when I say Middle East, I really mean the people who already hated us.

Ironically enough, while we're trying to spread democracy, the vehicle we're using to do so isn't the least bit democratic.

You got that a tad wrong TMo ... there was not much hate for the US in the ME before you started sending in troops, the hate has escalated proportionally with the number of actions in the area ...

Varegg wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

Varegg wrote:

If done over time and and in a respectable manor atleast the US will become better for it's own citizens ... the rest will take a long time to recover ...

As it is now the world is not a safer place with the US in the ME ...

Really, we've just given the Middle East even more of a reason to hate us.

And when I say Middle East, I really mean the people who already hated us.

Ironically enough, while we're trying to spread democracy, the vehicle we're using to do so isn't the least bit democratic.

You got that a tad wrong TMo ... there was not much hate for the US in the ME before you started sending in troops, the hate has escalated proportionally with the number of actions in the area ...

Well we were already allied with Israel, which pissed off the Palestinians.  And us helping out in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm certainly didn't please Iraq.  And Iran is just filled with bastards.

...well, mainly Ahmadinejad.

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

Really, we've just given the Middle East even more of a reason to hate us.

And when I say Middle East, I really mean the people who already hated us.

Ironically enough, while we're trying to spread democracy, the vehicle we're using to do so isn't the least bit democratic.

You got that a tad wrong TMo ... there was not much hate for the US in the ME before you started sending in troops, the hate has escalated proportionally with the number of actions in the area ...

Well we are already getting bitched at about Africa, and not being there, if we let the ME have at each other everyone would be screaming about our lack of humanity and shit.

Oh?

That was a rather hypotethical statement i think, i'm not blaming your initiatives to try to create peace and democracy ... the mistake you guys have made is thinking you could do it alone and dictate to both parties what the end result should be forgetting about the values and interests of the people actually living there ... the British did the exact same thing and failed when they colonized half the planet ...

We have the UN now and if all of this was a joint UN operation with participants from all regions the US wouldn't have been left with the rotten end of the stick like you do now ...

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

You got that a tad wrong TMo ... there was not much hate for the US in the ME before you started sending in troops, the hate has escalated proportionally with the number of actions in the area ...

Well we are already getting bitched at about Africa, and not being there, if we let the ME have at each other everyone would be screaming about our lack of humanity and shit.

Oh?

That was a rather hypotethical statement i think, i'm not blaming your initiatives to try to create peace and democracy ... the mistake you guys have made is thinking you could do it alone and dictate to both parties what the end result should be forgetting about the values and interests of the people actually living there ... the British did the exact same thing and failed when they colonized half the planet ...

We have the UN now and if all of this was a joint UN operation with participants from all regions the US wouldn't have been left with the rotten end of the stick like you do now ...

The UN is a major part of the problem. Since it is the members of the UN in that region that refuse to act in the best interests of the region and only in the interest of destroying Israel.

Varegg wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

Varegg wrote:

You got that a tad wrong TMo ... there was not much hate for the US in the ME before you started sending in troops, the hate has escalated proportionally with the number of actions in the area ...

Well we were already allied with Israel, which pissed off the Palestinians.  And us helping out in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm certainly didn't please Iraq.  And Iran is just filled with bastards.

...well, mainly Ahmadinejad.

Ya well ... taking sides in a conflict costs ...

Honestly, I'm more annoyed at the media bias we're fed here in the states.  Everything is so pro-Israel it's ridiculous.

san4 wrote:

imortal wrote:

Okay, PM me your submissions, so I can go ahead and delcare san4 the winner (since I will be the only one who knows what all the submissions will be, right?)




...oh, that is what you meant by "trusted."  I am guessing you will want to add the words 'imparital' and 'honest' to your requirement list?

never mind.

Done.

Ok.  Since you both actually did PM me (even though I was joking), here is the results.  There were 3 throws.


1.  A.R.- Rock       san4-paper  Winner, san4
2.  A.R.- Rock       san4-scissors  Winner, A.R.
3.  A.R.- Rock       san4-rock    Tie

So, officially, it is a tie.

oh, and here in the US it is called "Rock-Paper-Scissors"

ThomasMorgan wrote:

Varegg wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

Well we were already allied with Israel, which pissed off the Palestinians.  And us helping out in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm certainly didn't please Iraq.  And Iran is just filled with bastards.

...well, mainly Ahmadinejad.

Ya well ... taking sides in a conflict costs ...

Honestly, I'm more annoyed at the media bias we're fed here in the states.  Everything is so pro-Israel it's ridiculous.

We had that alot earlier also ... it's been better the last years with imho a more unbiased view of the conflict ...

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

The whole of the UN is biased, we get it.

Neh I am wrong, the UN is a well oiled machine with world peace and prosperity as a priority. It is not a corrupt  organization full of self serving nations with self interests in mind at the expense of the citizens of the world.

Since when wasn't any organisation corrupt in one way or another?

At least you are not denying it I see

lowing wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

As lowing said. The fact they are now naming Obama as an enemy shows their fight is not with a a particular administration and their policies. But then again the US isn't going to close its hundreds or military bases around the world. Suspend clandestine operations or with draw from the middle east under any president.

Do you think the US should?

Suppose the US abandons the ME and goes home, do ya think the world will be a safer place then?

Yes I do. After you finish the mission in Afghanistan where the threat was. Pull out. How you finish that mission, I have no idea tbh.

Iraqi has only succeeded in creating a nation of terrorist from a nation of oppressed dictated citizens.
Iraqi seams to be stabilizing abit now, so the US must be doing something right atm. They can't just pull out en-mass. Its got to be fazed with the induction of better trained Iraqi force.
I agreed with the Afghan Mission. Am against the Iraqi mission. The USA shook the hornets nest in Iraqi and caused total break down of a functioning sociatity, be it a dictatorship or not (world is full of them). The US is responsible for the future of the Iraqi ppl.

To answer your question.
Pull out of Afghanistan=proliferation of the Taliban and re-establishment of a Terrorist harbouring nation, which is a threat to world peace.
Quick Pull out of Iraqi=Civil war. Thousands of deaths. Re-establishment of a dictator. Majority of Iraqi's will return to their lives now their country is no longer occupied. The country is destroyed. It can not pose any threat to the west apart from harbouring terrorists.

Typical of Westerners, we think of ourselves.
Colonial imperialism, WW1, WW2 & Holocaust, British mandate in Palestine, Regime change, Oil & gas pipelines, Cold war with Russia.
All these factors have helped insure the ME could be nothing but chaotic. All the above is intervention in the ME by the west. Our country men helped create this mess, yet all we ever talk and think about is "is the west safe?" I d like to hear more ppl stand up admit that the Arab ppl are not prim-evil savages but victims of circumstance and mans lust for power.