caparo Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 When did you decide to push your non belief onto others? I never have. I'm just asking the question. When did you decide to become a muslim and what other options were you offered? It clearly bothers you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckerslike Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 When I post in response to your posts I'm not attacking you it's the country you live in, I think it's good that we have special guests from the USA posting on SF myself. Seriously though what I'm saying Harleyman is that for every innocent person killed by USA there is a risk that relatives of that person may decide to turn to the terrorist route against America due to what has happened, people are not born hating the USA are they? By the way I should have stated had no interest in ever living in the land of the free and mc donalds as I can see it comes across as having me saying i have no interest in the US so can understand why you put the comment with the loopy smilie. People in Iran are not born hating the USA but are brainwashed into believing that the USA is "THE GREAT SATAN" by the nutters in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 No the relationship is not over, and will not be for a long time if ever. Why, because we pay TRIBUTE to the USA Industrial Military Corporate Machine, through buying their goods, regardless if they have any use. Trident, and other nuclear weaponry deter no one as no one can use them. So if you had a choice of using conventional weaponry or having weapons that cannot be used what would you choose? So we pay tribute, thus keeping people employed in the USA helping the economy and social cohesion, as the privately run military corporations are the only real industry left in the USA. So we give them out money, and thus we have a special relationship, and like anyone buying friendship there are rules. One cannot easily stop tribute, as the |USA has ways to make life difficult through crippling sanctions, as it does periodically to the EEC, and other countries. So we will never not have this symbiotic parasitic special relationship, come additional financial crash, or until the USA self implodes socially and economically. From that I take it that Britain is in process of a massive military build up buying up every piece of weaponry possible. And here's me thinking that the British military have been downsizing for over a decade. Duh! ---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 17:23 ---------- Hang on a bit. Reagan offered fuel for the Vulcans sent out as part of the Falklands campaign. He was limited in that he had a pact of non aggression with Argentina and the OAS. Britain didnt need much help anyway. It's military forces were quite capable of dealing with the Argentinian army alone. The Royal Navy could have used an AWAC system though. That might have prevented the sinking of HMS Sheffiled by an Excocet. The US wont need any help dealing with a short limited air war against Syria. It should be just a matter of taking out WMD and a few air defence sites and avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible. Obama would have liked to have had Britain and France aboard if only for political reasons ---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 17:27 ---------- People in Iran are not born hating the USA but are brainwashed into believing that the USA is "THE GREAT SATAN" by the nutters in charge. I know quite a few Iranians living here. They are intelligent, well educated people and for that reason it's why they left Iran in the first place. Many Iranians in Iran hate the Ayatollahs. These mobs you see chanting "death to America" are just staged shows for the media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted August 31, 2013 Author Share Posted August 31, 2013 Hang on a bit. Reagan offered fuel for the Vulcans sent out as part of the Falklands campaign. He was limited in that he had a pact of non aggression with Argentina and the OAS. He also offered the use of US aircraft carriers if we had lost ours. ---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 18:46 ---------- From that I take it that Britain is in process of a massive military build up buying up every piece of weaponry possible. And here's me thinking that the British military have been downsizing for over a decade. Duh! ---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 17:23 ---------- Britain didnt need much help anyway. It's military forces were quite capable of dealing with the Argentinian army alone. The Royal Navy could have used an AWAC system though. That might have prevented the sinking of HMS Sheffiled by an Excocet. The US wont need any help dealing with a short limited air war against Syria. It should be just a matter of taking out WMD and a few air defence sites and avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible. Obama would have liked to have had Britain and France aboard if only for political reasons ---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 17:27 ---------- I know quite a few Iranians living here. They are intelligent, well educated people and for that reason it's why they left Iran in the first place. Many Iranians in Iran hate the Ayatollahs. These mobs you see chanting "death to America" are just staged shows for the media As the Iranians suffered nerve gas attacks in their war against Iraq they have campaigned vigorously against the use of such weaponry in the UN and elsewhere, I would have thought with a new leader now would be a good time for the US administration to make an approach to them to cooperate with the US to end the slaughter. Such an initiative could lead to a completely new outlook for the whole area if successful. I suspect however that US politicians will look back to the Embassy siege, hostages etc., and conclude that until the Iranians are on their knees no rapprochement is possible. The Iranians are a proud people it is such a shame that no statesman from either side has been big enough to attempt some form of bridge building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Any war with a South American country puts a US President in a difficult position politically and diplomatically. Reagan and Thatcher had a trans Atlantic closeness that has never been repeated since then so Reagan was bound to have provided some covert help During the Falklands war every S.A country was fully behind Argentina even Mexico which isnt a south American country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Any war with a South American country puts a US President in a difficult position politically and diplomatically. Reagan and Thatcher had a trans Atlantic closeness that has never been repeated since then so Reagan was bound to have provided some covert help During the Falklands war every S.A country was fully behind Argentina even Mexico which isnt a south American country Augusto Pinochet and Thatcher also had a trans Atlantic closeness for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 During the Falklands war every S.A country was fully behind Argentina even Mexico which isnt a south American country And Chile who gave Britain quite a lot of assistance in one way or another, and even considered making a ground attack on Argentina during the conflict. ---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 10:18 ---------- Augusto Pinochet and Thatcher also had a trans Atlantic closeness for some reason. That was something to do with intelligence assistance from Chile in exchange for a cut price deal on military jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 People in Iran are not born hating the USA but are brainwashed into believing that the USA is "THE GREAT SATAN" by the nutters in charge. Are the US sanctions and threat of war to the Iranians not good enough reasons for some Iranians to hate the US? Muslims are the big Spartans of today due to butters who run some countries and the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckerslike Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Are the US sanctions and threat of war to the Iranians not good enough reasons for some Iranians to hate the US? Muslims are the big Spartans of today due to butters who run some countries and the media. Perhaps you should work on your history as you seem to have a habit of putting events in the wrong chronological order. I haven't a clue about the gibberish in your 2nd sentence. Perhaps you could translate it into English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Augusto Pinochet and Thatcher also had a trans Atlantic closeness for some reason. Maggie hated Communists. She blamed the economic and industrial decline of Britain in the 60s/70s to Communist agitation in the unions. In Pinochet she recognized a kindred spirit ---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 18:49 ---------- And Chile who gave Britain quite a lot of assistance in one way or another, and even considered making a ground attack on Argentina during the conflict. ---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 10:18 ---------- That was something to do with intelligence assistance from Chile in exchange for a cut price deal on military jets. Didn't know that. Surprised since both Chile and Argentina were ruled by Right Wing juntas at that time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.