If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
Sjoerd wrote: "Binyamin Dissen" schreef in bericht news 19 is above curfew age. Is there a curfew in the US? Why? To keep the trouble - making little buggers off the streets, natcherly... In some localities it's 16. -- Best Greg |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those onvisa waiver
Vareck Bostrom wrote:
Then the agreement seems to be that fundamentalists or extremists are the problem, and they view any strong representitive of the mainstream demos as an enemy? No. democracy has nothing to do with it. That is an excuse used by the US govermnent (and its loyal terrier Bliar) which has nothing to do with reality. It is a PR ploy aimed at the ameican masses to make it look like their cherished democracy is at stake. Arabs couldn't care less how the USA lives inside its own borders. They care about the USA imposing its values in the middle east. Where there is a "not the USA's fault" portion is with technology/communications. Fundamentalists are aware that the advent of satellites, television and internet will prevent any isolation and that the younger crowds will grow up to be more western. Iran is a good example of this. The 1979 revolution was exactly to return Iran to a isolated fundamentalist state and isolate it from the western world. But the ayatolas couldn't prevent this forever and more and more, young Iranians are getting contacts with the western world. And more and more, the younger generation are demanding more open government and democracy. And the process is moving ever so slowly, but it is happening from within. (and yes, with some help from CIA, but it is more subtle). What happens is that some of the fundamentalists who do not accept this "evolution" want to revolt against this natural evolution towards a global village. The leaders are from the old generation, and they use PR to recruit young ones ready to kill themselves for a "good" cause. The only way to fix this properly is simply to cut off the supply of young people and let the older fundamentalists die off peacefully. Yes, this takes time, and during that time, you need to be patient. What the USA is doing is fueling anger and motivating younger ones to replace the older ones and spearhead the war against the USA. It's not as if the USA doesn't have nations telling it what to do as well, through international structures and systems. The US wanted to protect steel lately through tarrifs, yet this was brought down because other nations (through the body of the WTO) told the US what to do. Works both ways. It wasn't the other nations who told the USA that steel tarrifs were illegal, it was the USA who helped setup the WTO in order to prevent protectionism. Works both ways. If the USA wants other countries to lift tarrifs so the USA can export more goods, then the USA must do as it says. I don't have any argument with that at all, that's completely fine by me. Other countries should accept that the US has it's own values and priorities and also accept that if the US decides not to do business with a country that has values it doesn't like (through means such as trade sanctions) that other country should except our own values on the subject. Correct. But the USA has no business telling other countries not to deal with country X because the USA doesn't like the leader of X. (Helms Burton comes to mind). Not at all, at least, that's not how I see it. I see the current administration agressivly pursuing US interests through *completely legal* means Wait till Gantnamo kidnapping camp goes to the USA supreme court. And the UN NEVER sanctioned the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, so that invasion was illegal. The USA invasion of Iraq had as much legal standing as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Both were unprovoked. And find me the text in any UN resolution that gave any one country the right to decide if Iraq was in breach or not, and find me the text that says that invasion of the country was to be the sanction should Iraq be found in breach. You won't find this text. Iraq was cooperating and the UN had made significant progress in getting its inspectors total and free access to all of Iraq and the inspectors were reporting significant progress. But the USA didn't want this to happen because they had wanted the inspectors to be blocked by Hussein so that the USa could then push a resolution to invade. When when Hussein cooperated, the USA realised that the UN would never authorize the invasion, thus the USA acted illegally, outside of UN mandate. No, it just seems that senior US officials have finally done a little research on North Korean negoation tactics. Go back and read the 1998 documents at newamericancentury.org web site (the axis of evil website from Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz). They clearly state that the Clinton deal with North Korea (supply of oil in exchange for N Korea stoppping its nuclear development) shoudl be scrapped the minute the republicans take power. It took a few months, but Rumsfeld did scrap that agreement even though it was workling and North Kirea was quiet and submitting itself to UN IAEA inspections. There is no doubt in my mind at all that the DPRK is a dangerous country under dangerous leadership, much more so than Iraq or Iran was or is. They have a very long history of dangerous behaivor throughout the cold war and on. Generally dangerous animals don't bite the hand that feed them. But the second you cut the feeding, they get angry at you. North Korea is a bankrupt country with limited resources but very high pride and ego. The Bush regime gave Korea a shot of adrenaline when they cut the oil supply, motivating N Korea to act like a big bad boy again. They are like a hungry kid who will beg for attention until it gets fed. The USA could have simply told China, Japan and South Korea to take care of their problem child instead of forcing that kid to throw a tamper tantrum, which played right into the hands of the Bush Regime which needed to show North Korea as a bad kid in order to be able to use the speeches that had been prepared in 1998 by the newamericancentury.org people. Citizens of territories of the US under the US constitution have US citizenship. The US has not recognized Iraq as a territory, But international law has recognized the USA as an occupation force in Iraq and holding the USA responsible for all damages and governance of Iraq. Just like Iraq was recognized as being responsible for the damages it caused to Kuwait and forced to pay (although they were pushed back so they were never recognized as governing authority). Incidently, who is the chief of state of Canada? If you answered Queen Elizabeth II can you explain under your logic how Canada is not occupied by the UK and how Canada does not have its own government? Canada has its own constitution, government structures and its own head of state (governor general which is a representative of the queen). The USA destroyed all government infrastructure of Iraq, including the parliament buildings, destroyed Iraq's exsiting currency, totally ignored Iraq's constitution, dismantled its army and police forces and has to rebuild everything from scratch. The USA had 0 intentions of simply catching Hussein. They wanted to build a country in the USA's image and use it as a marketing ploy to show other middle eastern countries how good a USA-controlled Iraq was with wealth, democracy, no conflicts, clean streets etc etc. Any UN applied status only has effect under the UN, which is not really a soverign body. So, who cares? The security council has powers. It is the general assembly which doesn't have any binding powers. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
"Gregory Morrow" schreef in bericht link.net... Sjoerd wrote: "Binyamin Dissen" schreef in bericht news 19 is above curfew age. Is there a curfew in the US? Why? To keep the trouble - making little buggers off the streets, natcherly... In some localities it's 16. Wow. I learn something every day. Last time we had a curfew here was when the Nazis occupied our country. Sjoerd |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those onvisa waiver
PTRAVEL wrote:
theoretically, here). Second, I'm not sure that there's any constitutional basis for requiring a US citizen to be fingerprinted before he is allowed back in the country. Is a US citizen considered "USA citizen" when in international airside prior to him having proven his identity/citizenship ? Doesn't a government have lots of leeway in how it phsycally identifies a person as a USA citizen ? (after which, his right to enter the USA would be assured). There is no question in my mind that the USA has a right to strip everyone down naked at the immigration checkpoint to verify their identity, take pictures, fingerprints, blood samples, DNA samples, urine samples (for drug testing) etc. And the USA has a right to refuse entry to anyone it wants. However, when you start to implement drastic measures, then travellers should, just like for airside security, have the option to refuse such treatment and be given a chance to return to their home countrty without submitting to the USA immigration procedures. In the current case, it seems that the USA have well defined who must undergo privacy invasion and identity theft (those needing visas to enter USA). However, there is no telling how soon those rules will go overboard and immigration agents will be given total control on who they choose for indentity theft. I say identity theft because the USA doesn'T have strict data confidentiality laws and the USA refuses to define who will have access to all the information it is gathering. With picture, passport information, fingerprints, that database is a serious risk to one's identity if one is unsure what happens to that database. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
Sjoerd wrote: "Gregory Morrow" schreef in bericht link.net... Sjoerd wrote: "Binyamin Dissen" schreef in bericht news 19 is above curfew age. Is there a curfew in the US? Why? To keep the trouble - making little buggers off the streets, natcherly... In some localities it's 16. Wow. I learn something every day. Last time we had a curfew here was when the Nazis occupied our country. Well here it's one of those "for the children" types of things (I guess). Didn't you ever see that famous movie _Rebel Without A Cause_ , Sjoerd? : http://www.ci.chi.il.us/cp/AboutCPD/.../PR000614.html Police Superintendent Issues Reminder "Curfew Laws Will be Enforced" 13 June 00 With the regular school year coming to a close, Chicago Police Superintendent Terry Hillard is issuing a reminder to parents that city curfew law will be strictly enforced during the summer months. Officials from the Chicago Police Department, Chicago Public Schools, Chicago Fire Department and the Chicago Park District will gather at the Chavez Resource Center, 4946 South Paulina, at 11:30 a.m. on June 13, 2000 to discuss safety and summer recreation and educational programs. In Superintendent Terry Hillard's absence, Deputy Superintendent Harvey Radney of the Bureau of Investigative Services and Fire Commissioner Jarnes Joyce of the Chicago Fire Department will speak on the safety aspect of curfew law enforcement. According to Chicago's curfew law, children under the age of 17 must be at home, or accompanied by a responsible adult, between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday. On Fridays and Saturdays, the curfew is between 11:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. While enforcing the curfew law, officers are required to pick up violators and return them to their homes. At which time, parents must sign a curfew notification form. An accumulation of three signed notifications within a 12-month period could result in a parent, or legal guardian, being issued a non-traffic citation that requires a court appearance and a possible fine of up to $100.00. "The most precious resource we have is our children. We must ensure their safety by making a strict commitment to fully enforce the curfew law," said Deputy Superintendent Harvey Radney." / |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
In article , Fly Guy wrote:
Vareck Bostrom wrote: Because the US is the largest, most powerful democracy. India is the largest democracy (by population). India has also had a certain amount of trouble with muslim and other terrorists. So? Is Al Queda attacking India? Has OBL mentioned India in his periodic messages? The point is that many nations are targeted by terrorists and specifically muslim terrorists, not just the US. Once the word fundamentalist comes into play, you can't expect that faction to be reasonable. Islamic, or any other ... Exactly. The Christian fundamentalists in the US south, and in the White House, are also unreasonable as their domestic and foreign policy agenda shows. I agree that Christian fundamentalists are just as bad as Islamic ones, and I personally don't like the feeling that US foreign policy or domestic policy is being directed with a religious ideal behind it. However, at the same time, I don't think Christian ideals are the basic driving force of US foreign policy. there are going to be extreme elements both within and outside of the US that feels that the US government or the US as a whole is an oppressor. This is the argument that is typically used to explain-away the legit argument that the arab world has with the US by saying it's only a small handfull of arabs that are making the noise. And it works domestically because Americans are incredibly ignorant of how the average arab lives or what the average arab thinks about various issues. The Arab world has no legitimate argument with the US, above arguments that any nation has with any other nation. Having spent some time in the mid-east and holding very similar discussions as to the one I'm holding with you now, I feel that generally the average Arab was quite friendly and open to conversation, perhaps doesn't like everything about US policy in the same way that perhaps a french person wouldn't. My complaint with them come mainly from what seems to me as how they get information: rumor. Of the few I talked to about the subject, most thought that the 9/11 attacks were executed by either Israel or the US itself, and strangely enough the only one of the few I talked to with a university degree agreed with me and thought that it was indeed Al Queada that performed the attacks, and in doing so hurt the arab and muslim world more than they hurt the US. Though the UAE was not like this at all, Egypt seemed to be a country completely driven on corruption at all levels. Every thing you'd ever do there seemed to be accompanied by a bribe. The Emariti that I talked to agreed with this impression of Egypt as well. People in the UAE (Dubai at least) seemed much more open and educated, and I was told that when 9/11 occured the defense minister came on the radio and announced that this was the worst possible thing that could happen to the UAE. The US also has an extremely large economy and US corporations and citizens can be found in every country in the world and that makes the US a very obvious target. Then why didn't the planes on 9-11 fly into IBM, or Microsoft, or Boeing, an oil refinery, an auto factory? There are extremely large corporations in Germany, France, Netherlands, Scandinavia, etc. Again a popular myth that Al Queada has a real problem with how we live in the west and how our corporations operate. This myth helps build and maintain popular support in the US that it's their very way of life that's at stake. Fear combined with ignorance. Al Queada is not a rational faction. They are extremist and fundamentalist, their target selection and choice of targets can't be considered rational. France has also been the target of external terrorist threat from the same source as the US in the form of Libya. I'm not familiar with what specific French actions or policies have led to specific actions against it by Libya. The French did nothing wrong, just as the US did nothing wrong. South Korea and Japan have had citizens kidnapped by the North Korean government - not just a few either, hundreds over the years. An action designed and executed by a gov't and were not designed to terrorize or harm the general South Korean or Japanese population but were (stupid or misguided) covert activities with foreign-intelligence gathering objectives at it's roots. Again, how many Al Queda planes crashed into buildings in Korea and Japan? How many times has Japan been the subject of some sort of attack by a foreign group with radically different ethnic or religeous beliefs? North Korea has engineered events designed to terrorize, I'm sure you're aware. From assassination of a South Korean diplomat in a third country to the destruction of civilian airliners (a boeing 707 enroute from Abu Dhabi to Bangkok). So far as I'm aware, Al Queda never attacked Korea or Japan in any way. That doesn't mean Korea and Japan have not been the victims of terrorist actions though, which is my point. In some future time, North Korea may well attack the US because the US helps repel an armed invasion by the DPRK into the ROK. More FUD. It is uncertainty and doubt, but not fear, just a statement of a possible future conflict. Every economic or military contingency planned for by almost any nation on earth is based on "FUD". If there were certainty in the knoweldge of future events, there'd be no need for contingency planning. Much of the US oil comes from Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela (in that order, roughly, in 2002 at least), It doesn't matter where it comes from. It matters if the global supply can comfortably exceed the global demand. If it can't then world oil prices rise. That's the beauty of a free market, free-enterprise system. It's also half the reason why the US has maintained a political or military presence in the middle east. The US maintains a political or military presence (on invitation) from many countries around the world. South Koreans, for example, generally support US soliders being present in Japan, or at least did so in the 1990s. which are all stable and friendly supplying states And Canada should impose an export tarrif on it's oil sold to the US in retaliation for all the trade crap (softwood lumber for one) that the Bush admin is pulling. And the US should ban Canadian citizens from studying or working in the US. We all have our little irrational "shoulds" that we want our governments to perform. Fortunately, our governments are more rational and long-term thinking than we are. Oil is efficient and american industrial processes are geared to it. If the Americans were to seek out an alternate energy source we would lower the price of oil until that alternate energy source was not economically viable. Look people! I'm having a conversation with Dick Cheney! It's impossible for you to believe another American besides Dick Cheney could have this viewpoint? Do you honestly believe that there are no Americans besides the administration that have some support for this view? If so, you are far more ignorant about Americans than you accuse Americans of being ignorant about the Middle East. Was I looking for a PR speech from the Petroleum Marketing Board? In a sense it was. It was the viewpoint of the Saudi Oil Minister, which I had mentioned at the start of the paragraph, which was the point of the paragraph: the Saudis are doing their best to keep the US dependent on Oil. That the US has an oil based energy system is not only through the actions of the US. You've just admitted that the US is vulnerable to world oil supply and prices, and by extension that the US has a dire interest in the stability of various gov'ts in the middle east and in the free flow of oil from that region, so much that they stationed thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia to essentially hold the House of Saud hostage to their oil needs. The US is vulnerable to the world supply of uranium, tungsten, zinc, even food. Some of these things the US can supply itself, some for which internal demand exceeds internal supply - as is the case for some resource or another by almost every country in the world. How would the average god-fearing american act if an Islamic foreign power stationed troops on US soil to insure the stability of an un-popular regime for the sake of efficient and controlled extraction of a US natural resource? I think the average American would dislike it. The US didn't station troops in Saudi Arabia to support the Sauds against internal threats though. American troops would not have become involved in a revolution within Saudi Arabia on either side. American troops are located in many dozens of countries around the world Tell me what other country is doing the same. Many are, either as part of NATO or UN stabilization forces. this is hardly "occupation". Again how would the US public feel or react to having foreign troops stationed on US soil. We have foreign soliders stationed on US soil. A Canadian air force officer is present at NORAD, for example. I imagine though, the feeling would be very similar to how New Yorkers feel about the obscene amount of foreign diplomats (with diplomatic immunity) stationed in New York City. Something worth complaining to the government about, and if the complaints were legitimate and universal enough, our government would do something about like ask the UN to leave. But it's not really that bad. but Saudi Arabia was not occupied. You've got to be joking. When a puppet gov't allows thousands of foreign troops to be stationed on it's soil, what is do you call it? It's no puppet government. Puppet governments do not invoke oil embargos as happend by the current Saudi government against the US in 1973 when the US supported Israel after Israel was the subject of a surprise attack by arab and muslim countries. Americans for years have been invited to Saudi Arabia Invited. Did you type that word with a straight face? It's what the Saudi Government itself said. to help train their "national guard" To help keep the House of Saud in power. Whatever the saudi government wanted to do with their national guard. The Saudis have asked us to leave and we're going. It got too hot in the kitchen and now you've realized what a mistake it was to keep those troops in Saudi Arabia and you're hi-tailing it outa there. You knew it was coming to this after 9-11 so you cooked up a crock pot reason to "attack" Iraq so you could set up a puppet gov't there so you can continue to maintain some control of world oil prices and supply by putting your hand on Iraq's oil supply (second only to Saudi Arabia). You think this scheme will be self-financing because Iraq's petro dollars would flow back to the US as a way to pay for it's reconstruction because of the billions of dollars worth of cruise missles you lobbed at them in order to cause the dammage in the first place. No one would ever think we could make up the money we have alredy paid for the Iraqi operation. The Iraqi oil economy can only produce a profit of a few billion a year, compared to the $160 billion already spent by the US in the operation. And the US is not, after all, confiscating the Iraqi economy. The US has lost a tremendous amount of money in Iraq, and it will never, ever, be recovered. You attempt to use the term "occpy" to imply "control of" which was not the case in the least in Saudi Arabia. Save that drivel for the ignorant US population. Those that pay attention to world politics and world events knows better. My my, hit a nerve with Saudi Arabia did we? Not in the least. Only (extremely) ignorant, arrogant non-americans believe that the US has been the only target of external terrorist threats. Was the Boston Tea party a terrorist act? Was the US revolt against Yes, in fact, that is a way of looking at it that I won't argue with. the Brittish that led to the war of independance a terrorist act? Spin spin spin this all you want. Every terrorist group has a legit beef somewhere deep down as their root cause and those that they agress against are desperate to keep those reasons from becoming known to their citizens. No, not every terrorist group has a legitimate beef. Terrorist groups by and large are irrational, their complaints are often imagined wrongs. Sometimes a terrorist group does have a legitimate complaint, but then their methods are wrong, in my view. Hussein did not seem to consider the US a friend, even while asking for US help during the war with Iran. The US never considered him a friend the way the US would consider the UK or even France a friend - he was simply the lesser of two evils in a very bad situation. Why are you trying to cloud the issue by going down a side-track of what a friend is? Rumseld went to Iraq and sealed the deal with Saddam with a handshake in front of the cameras. The Reagan white house was such a friend to Saddam that they quashed a motion by the house and senate to condem Saddam's use of chemical weapons. What else are friends for? That's foreign diplomacy. Iraq launched the war all by itself, the US saw Iraq as a lesser evil than Iran (and by that point had quite a history with Iran) and decided to support Iraq to a small degree. That's not friendship, there was nothing altruistic in those actions. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
"nobody" wrote in message ... PTRAVEL wrote: theoretically, here). Second, I'm not sure that there's any constitutional basis for requiring a US citizen to be fingerprinted before he is allowed back in the country. Is a US citizen considered "USA citizen" when in international airside prior to him having proven his identity/citizenship ? Sure. The only time an American citizen is not one is if he renounces his citizenship or serves the army of a foreign power. Doesn't a government have lots of leeway in how it phsycally identifies a person as a USA citizen ? (after which, his right to enter the USA would be assured). I don't know about that. I imagine that any identification process would have to be constitutional per the 4th and 5th Amendments. There is no question in my mind that the USA has a right to strip everyone down naked at the immigration checkpoint to verify their identity, take pictures, fingerprints, blood samples, DNA samples, urine samples (for drug testing) etc. And the USA has a right to refuse entry to anyone it wants. Hmmm. I'm not sure about the former. The latter, yes, but only with respect to non-citizens. Exile of a citiizen is unconstitutional. However, when you start to implement drastic measures, then travellers should, just like for airside security, have the option to refuse such treatment and be given a chance to return to their home countrty without submitting to the USA immigration procedures. I think they do, don't they? In the current case, it seems that the USA have well defined who must undergo privacy invasion and identity theft (those needing visas to enter USA). However, there is no telling how soon those rules will go overboard and immigration agents will be given total control on who they choose for indentity theft. I say identity theft because the USA doesn'T have strict data confidentiality laws and the USA refuses to define who will have access to all the information it is gathering. With picture, passport information, fingerprints, that database is a serious risk to one's identity if one is unsure what happens to that database. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER JF SOCKPUPPET! (WAS: US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
HEY JF! DO YOU THINK YOU COULD PLEASE STICK TO ONE SOCK PUPPET PER
DAY...??? -- Best Greg "Fly Guy" wrote in message ... Vareck Bostrom wrote: Because the US is the largest, most powerful democracy. India is the largest democracy (by population). India has also had a certain amount of trouble with muslim and other terrorists. So? Is Al Queda attacking India? Has OBL mentioned India in his periodic messages? Once the word fundamentalist comes into play, you can't expect that faction to be reasonable. Islamic, or any other ... Exactly. The Christian fundamentalists in the US south, and in the White House, are also unreasonable as their domestic and foreign policy agenda shows. there are going to be extreme elements both within and outside of the US that feels that the US government or the US as a whole is an oppressor. This is the argument that is typically used to explain-away the legit argument that the arab world has with the US by saying it's only a small handfull of arabs that are making the noise. And it works domestically because Americans are incredibly ignorant of how the average arab lives or what the average arab thinks about various issues. The US also has an extremely large economy and US corporations and citizens can be found in every country in the world and that makes the US a very obvious target. Then why didn't the planes on 9-11 fly into IBM, or Microsoft, or Boeing, an oil refinery, an auto factory? There are extremely large corporations in Germany, France, Netherlands, Scandinavia, etc. Again a popular myth that Al Queada has a real problem with how we live in the west and how our corporations operate. This myth helps build and maintain popular support in the US that it's their very way of life that's at stake. Fear combined with ignorance. France has also been the target of external terrorist threat from the same source as the US in the form of Libya. I'm not familiar with what specific French actions or policies have led to specific actions against it by Libya. South Korea and Japan have had citizens kidnapped by the North Korean government - not just a few either, hundreds over the years. An action designed and executed by a gov't and were not designed to terrorize or harm the general South Korean or Japanese population but were (stupid or misguided) covert activities with foreign-intelligence gathering objectives at it's roots. Again, how many Al Queda planes crashed into buildings in Korea and Japan? How many times has Japan been the subject of some sort of attack by a foreign group with radically different ethnic or religeous beliefs? In some future time, North Korea may well attack the US because the US helps repel an armed invasion by the DPRK into the ROK. More FUD. Much of the US oil comes from Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela (in that order, roughly, in 2002 at least), It doesn't matter where it comes from. It matters if the global supply can comfortably exceed the global demand. If it can't then world oil prices rise. That's the beauty of a free market, free-enterprise system. It's also half the reason why the US has maintained a political or military presence in the middle east. which are all stable and friendly supplying states And Canada should impose an export tarrif on it's oil sold to the US in retaliation for all the trade crap (softwood lumber for one) that the Bush admin is pulling. Oil is efficient and american industrial processes are geared to it. If the Americans were to seek out an alternate energy source we would lower the price of oil until that alternate energy source was not economically viable. Look people! I'm having a conversation with Dick Cheney! Was I looking for a PR speech from the Petroleum Marketing Board? You've just admitted that the US is vulnerable to world oil supply and prices, and by extension that the US has a dire interest in the stability of various gov'ts in the middle east and in the free flow of oil from that region, so much that they stationed thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia to essentially hold the House of Saud hostage to their oil needs. How would the average god-fearing american act if an Islamic foreign power stationed troops on US soil to insure the stability of an un-popular regime for the sake of efficient and controlled extraction of a US natural resource? American troops are located in many dozens of countries around the world Tell me what other country is doing the same. this is hardly "occupation". Again how would the US public feel or react to having foreign troops stationed on US soil. but Saudi Arabia was not occupied. You've got to be joking. When a puppet gov't allows thousands of foreign troops to be stationed on it's soil, what is do you call it? Americans for years have been invited to Saudi Arabia Invited. Did you type that word with a straight face? to help train their "national guard" To help keep the House of Saud in power. The Saudis have asked us to leave and we're going. It got too hot in the kitchen and now you've realized what a mistake it was to keep those troops in Saudi Arabia and you're hi-tailing it outa there. You knew it was coming to this after 9-11 so you cooked up a crock pot reason to "attack" Iraq so you could set up a puppet gov't there so you can continue to maintain some control of world oil prices and supply by putting your hand on Iraq's oil supply (second only to Saudi Arabia). You think this scheme will be self-financing because Iraq's petro dollars would flow back to the US as a way to pay for it's reconstruction because of the billions of dollars worth of cruise missles you lobbed at them in order to cause the dammage in the first place. You attempt to use the term "occpy" to imply "control of" which was not the case in the least in Saudi Arabia. Save that drivel for the ignorant US population. Those that pay attention to world politics and world events knows better. My my, hit a nerve with Saudi Arabia did we? Only (extremely) ignorant, arrogant non-americans believe that the US has been the only target of external terrorist threats. Was the Boston Tea party a terrorist act? Was the US revolt against the Brittish that led to the war of independance a terrorist act? Spin spin spin this all you want. Every terrorist group has a legit beef somewhere deep down as their root cause and those that they agress against are desperate to keep those reasons from becoming known to their citizens. Hussein did not seem to consider the US a friend, even while asking for US help during the war with Iran. The US never considered him a friend the way the US would consider the UK or even France a friend - he was simply the lesser of two evils in a very bad situation. Why are you trying to cloud the issue by going down a side-track of what a friend is? Rumseld went to Iraq and sealed the deal with Saddam with a handshake in front of the cameras. The Reagan white house was such a friend to Saddam that they quashed a motion by the house and senate to condem Saddam's use of chemical weapons. What else are friends for? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER JF SOCKPUPPET! (WAS: US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:39:22 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
wrote: HEY JF! DO YOU THINK YOU COULD PLEASE STICK TO ONE SOCK PUPPET PER DAY...??? Geez, moro, give it a break. JF messages make much more enjoyable reading than your continuous "EXPOSE MESSAGES". Do we really need your exposes on JF? Nobody elected or appointed you to be a moderator of messages in RTA. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER JF SOCKPUPPET! (WAS: US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
john wrote: On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:39:22 GMT, "Gregory Morrow" wrote: HEY JF! DO YOU THINK YOU COULD PLEASE STICK TO ONE SOCK PUPPET PER DAY...??? Geez, moro, give it a break. JF messages make much more enjoyable reading than your continuous "EXPOSE MESSAGES". Not if you've been here for more than a few weeks, chum.... Do we really need your exposes on JF? For you newbies, sure :-) Nobody elected or appointed you to be a moderator of messages in RTA. I'm not...I just feel it's my "public duty" to keep everyone here "informed".... -- Best Greg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US Tourist Visa | Yaofeng | Air travel | 199 | October 8th, 2003 06:52 PM |
Thai visa costs | Tchiowa | Air travel | 0 | September 13th, 2003 06:18 AM |