We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avangi
+
545955
Thu, 24 Jul 08 05:36 PM
I can't even imagine how terrifying that must have been. We've never experienced anything even close to that, unless you want to count Santa Ana's huge Mexican army attacking a couple dozen patriots at the Alamo. (I don't think Texas was officially part of the US at that time.)
Joined on
Mon, Nov 19 2007
Veteran Member
8,172
". . . le plaisir delicieux et toujours nouveau d'une occupation inutile." - Henri de Regnier
|
|
|
|
|
Gencebay90,
1 yr 120 days ago
 New2grammar“I wonder why the US spend so much energy, time and money in countries like Israel, Afghanistan, Korea, Japan and Iraq. What does it gain from intervening in those countries' politics? Please, no hateful messages. I'm curious about it. I would appreciate American and international replies. ”
First of all I want to say that Israel means the US and the US mean Israel; I see no difference between the two countries. Then it will be a good thing to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq, and Korea and Japan and possibly China. I think everyone agrees that the USA supoorts Israel in all respects from fiscal issues to war. Israel may have a much older origin as a nation, but it was established aftermath of the WW 2 as a country by the USA to make its aims in Middle East simpler. Actually I can't help admiring the USA in this respect because it preplans all its actions, as in Middle East. Israel was the starting point for the US in Middle East. In the past Russia tried to invade Afghanistan as well, but it couldn't. Now the US is trying to complete what Russia wasn't able to. Afghanistan is most important for narcotics. Iraq: a country which the US has now left in civil war. The late president of Iraq, Saddam, was nothing more than the man of the US; I mean he did what he did just for the interests of the US, and when he meant nothing for the US, he was executed. That's all. The primary reason of the intervention of the US is, as nearly everyone knows, the oil. As we know, the oil is not renewable, and when the US, which is one of the biggest countries of petroleum, has depleted its oil reserves, it aims to use the oil in Middle East. Another reason is, I think, that the US wishes to approach Russia especially by realising the Great Middle East Project. How can you deduce that The US wishes to be near Russia? It was the US that caused some countries in Balkans to experince coup d'etat, and thus the ones that favors the politics of the US begin to govern. We all know what Japan did to the US in the Second World War. China is the prospective threat for the American dominance, and some argues that the Jews capital has already begun to flow towards China, which means that The US will be deprived of money, which is sine qua non for the power 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avangi
+
545963
Thu, 24 Jul 08 05:56 PM
China owns the US already. If the Jews buy China, then everything will be in balance again, since Israel = Us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New2grammar
+
546165
Fri, 25 Jul 08 08:29 AM
Avangi “China owns the US already”
I can't understand this point. I'm sure you mean economically, China is growing strong and perhaps, has bought a few major insitutions in the US with its foreign reserves which has been growing exponentially over the past decades due to the economy boom. Avangi “If the Jews buy China”
What? Avangi “ since Israel = Us”
I know Isreal received full support from the US. They have a close relationship. But I don't think Israel is a part of America. Are you saying it's a puppet state and US pulls its strings?
Joined on
Tue, Nov 21 2006
Veteran Member
7,676
Who wants to go sailing around the world with me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New2grammar
+
546169
Fri, 25 Jul 08 08:55 AM
Gencebay90 “In the past Russia tried to invade Afghanistan as well, but it couldn't. Now the US is trying to complete what Russia wasn't able to. Afghanistan is most important for narcotics.
”
Oh that's a good point. Let me provide reasoning for it. Drug wars are very expensive especially when a country has huge borders to look after. Rather than fighting drug smuggling at the borders, it might as well wipe off the sources of drugs. Since Aghanistan is a major drug exporter, (I think I have watched a documentary on extensive poppy growing in the poor country) it's more efficient for a country like the US to invade it by making up an excuse and attack the poppy fields. What do you think? Gencebay90 “The primary reason of the intervention of the US is, as nearly everyone knows, the oil.”
That's what everybody says but Isn't it up to the local government to decide who gets the contract to drill? I don't see how the US can pressure the Iraqi officials into giving it the concessions. Perhaps, they can threaten with troop withrawal but as far as I know, Iraqis would be happy to see that. They are tired of being 'occupied' by the US and think they are capable of maitaining their national security on their own. Gencebay90 “Another reason is, I think, that the US wishes to approach Russia especially by realising the Great Middle East Project. ”
I have no idea what the Middle East Project is. A global missile defense system that the US is trying to set up but got rejected?
|
|
|
|
|
Gencebay90,
1 yr 119 days ago
Oh that's a good point. Let me provide reasoning for it. Drug wars are very expensive especially when a country has huge borders to look after. Rather than fighting drug smuggling at the borders, it might as well wipe off the sources of drugs. Since Aghanistan is a major drug exporter, (I think I have watched a documentary on extensive poppy growing in the poor country) it's more efficient for a country like the US to invade it by making up an excuse and attack the poppy fields. What do you think?”
Excuses, excuses! The thing that the US makes for everything: in Iraq, in Balkans, in Palestine and so on. The USA has always masked (and will mask) everything it does, and it says that whatever it does is for the benefit of that country and its people. However, that is a big lie. The USA, which tries to invade and colonizes Afghanistan since Afghanistan smuggles drugs and produces it. Actually the invisible intention of the USA is to use the potential of Afghanistan for drugs for its own benefit. That's what everybody says but Isn't it up to the local government to decide who gets the contract to drill? I don't see how the US can pressure the Iraqi officials into giving it the concessions. Perhaps, they can threaten with troop withrawal but as far as I know, Iraqis would be happy to see that. They are tired of being 'occupied' by the US and think they are capable of maitaining their national security on their own.”
The USA doesn't pressure Iraqi officials; namely, it doesn't need to do so because the present (and the past) government in Iraq is (and was) governed / controlled by the USA; I mean the Iraqi government is nothing but puppet government as the one under Saddam. As all the great powers do, the USA uses "disinformation" by expoliting press, newspaper, and magazines worldwide, and I can say that the USA is the best in doing so. No country in the world has friend, but at the same time every country is each other's friend; I mean what is most important for every country (particulary the greats) is the interests Footnote: I wanted to write more, but I have no time for now; sorry :). Next time I'll write more Footnote-2: Sorry for the grammar mistakes and the wrong choice of word
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avangi
+
546560
Sat, 26 Jul 08 07:42 AM
Gencebay90 “No country in the world has friend, but at the same time every country is each other's friend; I mean what is most important for every country (particulary the greats) is the interests ”
Hi Gence, Has there ever been a government in history which placed the good of all mankind first in importance, and the interests of the country it was governing second? I'll grant you there have been multinational corporations which have succeeded in obtaining favors from government officials which neither benefited manking nor the country. Sometimes we confuse the good of the country with the good of special private interests. It's not always governments which want to rule the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New2grammar
+
546563
Sat, 26 Jul 08 08:11 AM
The way I see it the US is trying to bring peace to the world and of course, to its own country. I'm not sure about others but I'm not a big fan of N. Korea. The sanctions imposed by the UN against the country must stay as long as it's a threat to other nations. I hate leaders who put their own interests first before their own people. Kim Jung En (spelling?) drives luxury cars, dines fine meals, and has expensive hobbies while some of his people are starving. Look at Zimbabwe. Mugabe is another example. Without the US intervention, (actually I prefer UN to be involved rather than solely the US), our world is a dangerous place to live in. I just wish the US would follow what the UN says though it's, without a doubt, strong enough to go to war with almost any nation. You might say it goes to war for its own sake. Who doesn't. But I think we don't loose much as those are usually the bad guys though sometimes they are not. I think we have to achieve peace through UN which is represented by majority. Unfortunately, it's not as strong as we would like. I still can't figure out whether the US gains anything from the Iraq war, how to pay its war debt that has cost it trillions of dollars. Avangi, any idea? Are the citizen going to foot the bill? That's really a huge burden. If so, I really sympathize the taxpayers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avangi
+
546581
Sat, 26 Jul 08 08:51 AM
Cheney and Rumsfeld convinced Bush that the war would cost nothing and the Iraquis would view us as liberators. When it turned into a total disaster, Colin Powell said, "You broke it, you fix it." It ain't quiet fixed yet. Our grandchildren and great grandchildren will pay for the war. (It made a few people rich.) Generally speaking, the Republicans (conservatives) do not support the United Nations. The US economy is clearly in the toilet, just waiting for someone to flush.
|
|
|
|
|
|