News Stories

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Narona

Hey hey, don't bury him already. He has still the time to do some good things. Plus, while a part of the americans see him, for example, as bad president because of his healthcare reform, another part of the americans and many people from europe (like france) think it's something really good.

and despite his popularity aboard he hasn't got a single foreign policy achievement in his name, unless you want to count his noble peace prize. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how popular he is around the world, it is how the voters in America views him that matters.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

and despite his popularity aboard he hasn't got a single foreign policy achievement in his name, unless you want to count his noble peace prize. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how popular he is around the world, it is how the voters in America views him that matters.

Yeah, but what I meant was that he's currently seen as a bad president only by a part of the americans, not all; and is not seen as that bad in many other countries.

I'll add that some americans should also start to wonder why some things obama is doing is popular aboard. I don't say they should decide things based on that, but at least to think about it instead of believing whatever lies some american medias can put in their mouth (like lying about how healthcare works in some other countries like France. IIRC, a member wrote about it, how some medias lie about how it works in europe).

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

Yeah, but what I meant was that he's currently seen as a bad president only by a part of the americans, not all; and is not seen as that bad in many other countries.

Yeah, part of the americans don't like him, and another part does. But like I said earlier, people's support counts for nothing. It's support from the media that's everything, and the media doesn't support Obama right now, at least in America.

Originally Posted by Narona

I'll add that some americans should also start to wonder why some things obama is doing is popular aboard. I don't say they should decide things based on that, but at least to think about it instead of believing whatever lies some american medias can put in their mouth (like lying about how healthcare works in some other countries like France. IIRC, a member wrote about it, how some medias lie about how it works in europe).

Well, there are those who probably are wondering, but as long as people are fed information about Obama being bad for the country, they'll believe in that more than outside sources. Like I said earlier as well, it's not the French or the Italians who will vote for the next US president, it'll be the Americans. It's not like foreigners can do much about that.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Yeah, part of the americans don't like him, and another part does. But like I said earlier, people's support counts for nothing. It's support from the media that's everything, and the media doesn't support Obama right now, at least in America.

I would rather say that the opinion of many people can change overnight, and sometimes it's not logical. Just like what I said about French and their opinion about chirac.

Well, there are those who probably are wondering, but as long as people are fed information about Obama being bad for the country, they'll believe in that more than outside sources.

Yep

Like I said earlier as well, it's not the French or the Italians who will vote for the next US president, it'll be the Americans. It's not like foreigners can do much about that.

That makes me think. I wonder if the hate towards Bush from the foreign countries played a role when Bush got re-elected. I mean, many americans might not have liked what many foreigners said about Bush and america at that times. Which might have led them to be patriotic and re-vote for him, maybe?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

2. I'm sure you'd notice Lee Kuan Yew's call to US to stay involved in Asia, to "counterbalance" China. Effectively, what the Sage of Asia is letting up is that China and US are now equal, so it isn't the case anymore that US is the largest military power now. What Obama should do now is to plan, by 2012, to not only exit Iraq, but Afghanistan as well, and stop draining the resources of their allies, especially those in Asia (effectively just Singapore, Japan and South Korea) as all three have their own sensitive borders (Malaysia for Singapore, China for Japan and DPRK for South Korea).

Spoiler for Completely OT:

I mean effective, not largest. Russia, technically, has the strongest force in the world, followed by China, then US. Efficiency-wise, US has the best due to extensive maintenance of the supply and control through technology as well as quick mobilisation of immediate strike forces like the Rangers and Marines, allowing almost immediate force projection. The only thing they screwed up is the fudicial support and subsequent incursion of troops, the bureaucracy and red tape disallows the follow-up force of regular infantry and mop-up parties (like MPs) to plug the gaps.

Iraq is a good example. They failed to immediately train a local security force and maintain the good military intelligence they had during the invasion that allowed Baghdad to fall in a few days.

From my POV, I think the military differences between China and US are still the same as the Korean War, which the China pressed forward by sheer force and simple disorientation tactics, while US adapted accordingly to their aggressors. Conventional warfare will still hit a stalemate unless someone uses the nuke.

Malaysia and Singapore are not really having sensitive borders anymore, unless you count the idiots always trying to stir up trouble over the water, crab, separation, Malay-vs-Chinese/racism, etc small issues. Many of the locals on both sides are mongrels or descended from immigrants, so I don't see much difference between the races. The separation issue is long gone, and so is the bumiputera issue which many youths, even Malays, on both sides tout as a "hegemony of a long gone era". A good sense of maturity has developed, for example, the F-16 Singapore sent to a Malaysian airshow, in which the latter government simply told off the outcry of a "Singaporean show-off" with a simple "nobody is trying to start a war here".

We may keep our Guardsmen and Renjas on 24/7 standbys to massacre the opposition, but the need for the military solution is microscopic. I won't rule out the possibility of such happening, but there is little chance of that if everyone wants the region to prosper as a whole.

While the Arctic ice caps haven't fully melted, SEA will be an important sea route to the rest of the world. Start a war here, and the whole world economy ceases to function.

You are right about the rest though, but you forgot to add Taiwan to the list of borders China is threatening. NK and SK, I can't wait for them to duke it out somewhere in the next decade, the war has been held on for a little too long.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

I would rather say that the opinion of many people can change overnight, and sometimes it's not logical. Just like what I said about French and their opinion about chirac.

Yes, it can change overnight because of the influence the media has over people. All it needs is a piece of breaking news, some fabricated evidence decorating the actual fact, and the game's done. That's why I say it's the media's support that means everything.

Originally Posted by Narona

That makes me think. I wonder if the hate towards Bush from the foreign countries played a role when Bush got re-elected. I mean, many americans might not have liked what many foreigners said about Bush and america at that times. Which might have led them to be patriotic and re-vote for him, maybe?

Not quite. The general population did hate Bush but not their governments. For one thing, the UK (and Italy) supported Bush for the longest time, especially the UK. The main reason he got re-elected was because the media diverted people's hatred away from Bush and toward Iraq and Afghanistan (specifically Saddam and Bin Laden), both of whom were once allies of the US. Saddam was placed in Iraq by the CIA, and the US fought alongside Bin Laden to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in their quest for oil and black marketing. Bush changed the people's opinions of both of them nearly overnight, as you said above. All he needed was a catalyst to produce that hatred. Thus you have 9/11.

Even if you want to believe that Bush was not directly responsible for the attacks, he was still responsible in a way because he had received all sorts of warnings and threats from Bin Laden that they were going to attack him in some way. Bush didn't do anything to stop them. And that's because, as I said, Bush needed a catalyst to divert the hatred away from himself. He needed a scapegoat. The media was his tool, and his used it to his advantage, not to mention he had the military support begotten from being a Republican. Despite the misgivings foreigners had toward Bush, US media supported him and provided people with a diversion.

And don't get me wrong, there were quite a few people in the US against Bush. My old history teacher in France has a friend in Texas who actually saw a road sign poiting toward "Bush Street" and someone spray-painted the word "dictator" before Bush to make it look like "Dictator Bush Street," so it's not as if Bush had undivided support in the US.

[Shadow Kira01]

Hatoyama, Xi agree to further deepen Japan-China strategic ties

''Much to our pleasure, the China-Japan relationship is currently moving in the right direction through efforts by both of our governments and people,'' Xi said in a speech during the banquet held at the premier's office in Tokyo.

''I came to Japan this time to make efforts primarily to develop China-Japan friendship and assume my responsibilities in my own way,'' the Chinese vice president, who is seen as the front-runner to succeed President Hu Jintao, said.

Hatoyama said during their meeting, ''I believe that the great power of Vice President Xi is necessary (to realize strategic, mutually beneficial relations).''

[Zu Ra]

Just saw the Berlusconi video . Though Berlusconi is pure scum who is making mockery of office . Beating up a 73 year old man is going to far IMO . Regardless of personality, age should be taken as a factor . Personally think a Pie on the Face was more suited . Violence towards seniors or weak always gets me squeamish . He deserved the humiliation but not the brutality

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Saddam was placed in Iraq by the CIA, and the US fought alongside Bin Laden to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in their quest for oil and black marketing. Bush changed the people's opinions of both of them nearly overnight, as you said above. All he needed was a catalyst to produce that hatred. Thus you have 9/11.

Ok first off, and I've pointed this out to you before, Afghanistan does not have that much oil, nor do they have much of an oil industry. It's estimated there are 3.6 billion barrels of oil in Afghanistan. Now sure that sounds like a lot until you realize that the US alone consumes about 19.5 million barrels a day and the world as a whole consumes just over 85 million barrels of oil every day. In other words, Afghanistan only has enough oil to supply the US alone for 184 days or the world as a whole for 42 days. For comparison ANWR in the US is believed to have between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of oil. The main argument against drilling for oil there is that it isn't worth the effort or disruption to the wildlife there. Yet, you're claiming the US killed 3000 of it's own people spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, which killed thousands more American soldiers and at a very minimum tens of thousands of Afghanis, all to get less oil then they could have gotten by simply drilling in Alaska and killing a few caribou, for a lot less money. Even if the US government cared more about not killing caribou then they did about not killing people, the US could still have simply bought more oil then Afghanistan is even thought to have for less then they spent on the war. In what way does Afghanistan being about oil make any sense at all?

Second off, I have in the past linked you a point by point refutation of 9-11 conspiracy claims n this very thread. I'm not going to do that again, since obviously it didn't convince you. What I am going to do is ask you to think about what a conspiracy like that would involve. Think abut the number of low level people that would have to be involved to successfully pull off such a thing. Now, do you honestly believe that out of the hundreds of people who would need to be involved, not one of them has had second thoughts about it and blew the whistle?

Even if you want to believe that Bush was not directly responsible for the attacks, he was still responsible in a way because he had received all sorts of warnings and threats from Bin Laden that they were going to attack him in some way. Bush didn't do anything to stop them. And that's because, as I said, Bush needed a catalyst to divert the hatred away from himself. He needed a scapegoat. The media was his tool, and his used it to his advantage, not to mention he had the military support begotten from being a Republican. Despite the misgivings foreigners had toward Bush, US media supported him and provided people with a diversion.

What hatred? Prior to 9-11 Bush's approval ratings weren't great, but they weren't horrible either. Also, you're probably right that Bush should have done more before 9-11 to stop a terrorist attack. However, what you're actually arguing is that, assuming 9-11 wasn't done by the US, Bush knew it was going to happen and let it. However, your premise does not in any way support your conclusion. Knowing that there's a general threat of a terrorist attack does not mean you know of specifics that would allow you to successfully stop a specific attack against a specific target. Even if Bush had taken the threats more seriously and taken more action, 9-11 probably still would have happened. Maybe someone would get lucky, pick up one of the hijackers, and he'd tell them all that he knew. While that likely would have stopped one of the hijackings, it may not have stopped all of the hijackings and it'd only take one to cause some damage. If none of the hijackers were caught though, 9-11 goes off as it did despite a security crackdown.

[Cyrus17]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Ok first off, and I've pointed this out to you before, Afghanistan does not have that much oil, nor do they have much of an oil industry.

Afghanistan = pipelines from the former Soviet republics, like Turkmenistan (4th largest natural gas reserves) or Kazakhstan (11th on both gas and oil). It will allow US to control Central Asia.

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Not quite. The general population did hate Bush but not their governments. For one thing, the UK (and Italy) supported Bush for the longest time, especially the UK. The main reason he got re-elected was because the media diverted people's hatred away from Bush and toward Iraq and Afghanistan (specifically Saddam and Bin Laden), both of whom were once allies of the US. Saddam was placed in Iraq by the CIA, and the US fought alongside Bin Laden to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in their quest for oil and black marketing. Bush changed the people's opinions of both of them nearly overnight, as you said above. All he needed was a catalyst to produce that hatred. Thus you have 9/11.

Hey Yoko-san. I loved Loose Change too! It was real useful when i needed it the most; I ran out of toiler paper, and the only thing lying around was the DVD cover. Dylan Avery is a genius mate. Charlie Sheen too....

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Ok first off, and I've pointed this out to you before, Afghanistan does not have that much oil, nor do they have much of an oil industry. It's estimated there are 3.6 billion barrels of oil in Afghanistan. Now sure that sounds like a lot until you realize that the US alone consumes about 19.5 million barrels a day and the world as a whole consumes just over 85 million barrels of oil every day. In other words, Afghanistan only has enough oil to supply the US alone for 184 days or the world as a whole for 42 days. For comparison ANWR in the US is believed to have between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of oil. The main argument against drilling for oil there is that it isn't worth the effort or disruption to the wildlife there. Yet, you're claiming the US killed 3000 of it's own people spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, which killed thousands more American soldiers and at a very minimum tens of thousands of Afghanis, all to get less oil then they could have gotten by simply drilling in Alaska and killing a few caribou, for a lot less money. Even if the US government cared more about not killing caribou then they did about not killing people, the US could still have simply bought more oil then Afghanistan is even thought to have for less then they spent on the war. In what way does Afghanistan being about oil make any sense at all?

It does when you consider the Soviets were after it during the Cold War. Like Cyrus said, there are pipelines there with some of the world's largest oil and gas reserves. If the US has that, it can control the oil market in that area quite easily. Right now, it's only producing that much because the market there is underdeveloped, but it also has one of the greatest potentials along with cheap labor. Bush knew that, and he wanted to exploit that opportunity, go into Afghanistan and at the same time get rid of a potential threat there. That threat was Bin Laden. I'm sure you know that the US fought alongside Bin Laden against the Soviets. Osama wasn't going to give up Afghanistan without a fight, and Bush had to put pressure on him.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Second off, I have in the past linked you a point by point refutation of 9-11 conspiracy claims n this very thread. I'm not going to do that again, since obviously it didn't convince you. What I am going to do is ask you to think about what a conspiracy like that would involve. Think abut the number of low level people that would have to be involved to successfully pull off such a thing. Now, do you honestly believe that out of the hundreds of people who would need to be involved, not one of them has had second thoughts about it and blew the whistle?

What hatred? Prior to 9-11 Bush's approval ratings weren't great, but they weren't horrible either. Also, you're probably right that Bush should have done more before 9-11 to stop a terrorist attack. However, what you're actually arguing is that, assuming 9-11 wasn't done by the US, Bush knew it was going to happen and let it. However, your premise does not in any way support your conclusion. Knowing that there's a general threat of a terrorist attack does not mean you know of specifics that would allow you to successfully stop a specific attack against a specific target. Even if Bush had taken the threats more seriously and taken more action, 9-11 probably still would have happened. Maybe someone would get lucky, pick up one of the hijackers, and he'd tell them all that he knew. While that likely would have stopped one of the hijackings, it may not have stopped all of the hijackings and it'd only take one to cause some damage. If none of the hijackers were caught though, 9-11 goes off as it did despite a security crackdown.

That may be correct, Bush couldn't have known where Bin Laden would attack from, but putting down more control over who comes in or out of the US by commercial transport or otherwise would've been a good start and likely would've avoided everything very easily. More security around the Pentagon, which was also subject to an "attack" and other places. Either way, it would've looked like he tried to do something to stop the "incident" from happening. The fact is he didn't do anything, which is probably why most people, like me, and especially outside the US, think Bush was behind it as well as anyone. Also, I don't buy that article you showed me about the planes being delicate. Tons of Titanium don't just vaporize into thin air.

Also, in America, the ratings were not that bad, I know that. We're referring to Europe and possibly other places more than anything. Bush wanted to obtain more support and decided to provide the people with a common enemy.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Also, I don't buy that article you showed me about the planes being delicate. Tons of Titanium don't just vaporize into thin air.

Planes are not made of titanium, except for certain parts like the turbine blades. They're made mostly out of aluminium. Not only that but they need to fly, so they're made as light as possible. A crash at over 500 mph is not going to leave much left of one. Here's a video showing a test with an F-4 phantom crashing into a concrete wall at close to the same speed as the planes on 9-11 were flying. Notice how it practically disintegrates upon impact. Planes are not designed to survive high speed impacts.

Also, in America, the ratings were not that bad, I know that. We're referring to Europe and possibly other places more than anything. Bush wanted to obtain more support and decided to provide the people with a common enemy.

You were talking about Bush winning re-election. Why would Bush care what people in Europe think of him? Europeans don't exactly vote in the US.

Originally Posted by Cyrus17

Afghanistan = pipelines from the former Soviet republics, like Turkmenistan (4th largest natural gas reserves) or Kazakhstan (11th on both gas and oil). It will allow US to control Central Asia.

That's not really about oil then though, is it? It's about political power in the region. However, if the US wanted to go into Afghanistan they really didn't need a 9-11. The Taliban were providing enough of a reason for foreign intervention on their own, considering they were perhaps the single most oppressive regime on the planet at the time.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Planes are not made of titanium, except for certain parts like the turbine blades. They're made mostly out of aluminium. Not only that but they need to fly, so they're made as light as possible. A crash at over 500 mph is not going to leave much left of one. Here's a video showing a test with an F-4 phantom crashing into a concrete wall at close to the same speed as the planes on 9-11 were flying. Notice how it practically disintegrates upon impact. Planes are not designed to survive high speed impacts.

I only meant that as a figure of speech. My point is that the engines on the planes that crashed on both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (as well as Pennsylvania), couldn't have been vaporized without a single trace. I saw a documentary on this as well a long time ago. Even common sense should be able to tell you this though. When a plane crashes, it doesn't vaporize. The engines operate to work at extreme heat and speed. The heat expelled from the crash sites in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, at least, could not have been greater than the heat in which the engines normally operate in. That being said, it's impossible for the engines to have vaporized.

Also, that vid you showed me in no way reflects what happened in either the Twin Towers or The Pentagon. It proves a plane can disintegrate on impact, but are you trying to tell me the concrete walls of the Pentagon or more importantly a random clearing in a forest are as tough and durable as a concrete wall of a nuclear power station? Sorry, but that vid doesn't prove anything to me.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

You were talking about Bush winning re-election. Why would Bush care what people in Europe think of him? Europeans don't exactly vote in the US.

If you look back and read my posts, that's exactly what I said. Go through it again.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

That's not really about oil then though, is it? It's about political power in the region. However, if the US wanted to go into Afghanistan they really didn't need a 9-11. The Taliban were providing enough of a reason for foreign intervention on their own, considering they were perhaps the single most oppressive regime on the planet at the time.

It was for the oil, and what I mean by oil is the potential market for the oil there. One of the largest oil reserves in the world and one of the most extensive pipelines formerly used by the Soviets would have given Bush great influence over the oil industry in general, especially in that part of Asia. And yes, the oil would've also given Bush great political power and leverage considering oil is one of the biggest industries in the world today. As for the Talibans, they're an offshoot of Bush's "war on terrorism." What the media says about the Talibans is that they offered refuge to Al Queda, and Bush, wanting to go against Bin Laden, would have to face them as well. If it wasn't for that, the Talibans wouldn't be a problem. They don't have any considerable reasources to start a war to begin with. Also, considering Russia and China are in the vicinity, they cannot have the advantage its neighbours do from a geographical position.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

...

And don't get me wrong, there were quite a few people in the US against Bush. My old history teacher in France has a friend in Texas who actually saw a road sign poiting toward "Bush Street" and someone spray-painted the word "dictator" before Bush to make it look like "Dictator Bush Street," so it's not as if Bush had undivided support in the US.

The US is split almost exactly 50/50 in most national elections for the most part (unless one party really screws up and their registered voters just stay home in protest). Even on a state-by-state basis, if you look at the popular counts - its often almost 50/50.

The present-day US really seems to be two separate countries culturally speaking. Of course,that's ignoring the enormous misinformation and manipulation machines of the power interests.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The US is split almost exactly 50/50 in most national elections for the most part (unless one party really screws up and their registered voters just stay home in protest). Even on a state-by-state basis, if you look at the popular counts - its often almost 50/50.

The present-day US really seems to be two separate countries culturally speaking. Of course,that's ignoring the enormous misinformation and manipulation machines of the power interests.

To me it seems more like 60-40, majority to the party that wins, thanks to the swing voters. Which, as we saw in Florida 2000, and US party primaries 2008, can definitively change the game. Remember Clinton vs Obama early last year? Clinton was leading all along against all the other candidates in the Democrat primaries, until Obama came along and took the swing votes.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The US is split almost exactly 50/50 in most national elections for the most part (unless one party really screws up and their registered voters just stay home in protest). Even on a state-by-state basis, if you look at the popular counts - its often almost 50/50.

The present-day US really seems to be two separate countries culturally speaking. Of course,that's ignoring the enormous misinformation and manipulation machines of the power interests.

IMHO, regarding the part about the disinformation, Fox News needs to go. They are doing alot of shit and untrue stuff, saturating the media with heavily opinionated POVs that usually doesn't have alot of evidence.

If this goes on, it will be the 21st century's American Civil War.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

If this goes on, it will be the 21st century's American Civil War.

That's what I was going to ask

Could it happen again to see a part of america starting a fight against the other half?

There are some things that could play against that though imo. If for example, the USA are threatened by terrorists (again) or by another country, I can see all the americans fighting together against it under the same flag. That's the kind of situations that can make people remember that they are all americans and can work together.

[Xellos-_^]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6956044.ece

A businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs after his family were threatened has been jailed for 30 months.

...

Munir Hussain is said to feel that he let down his wife, Shaheen Begum, sons Awais, 21, Samad, 15, and 18-year-old daughter Arooj, by failing to defend them against Salem and his gang. Mrs Begum had told the court that she feared the raiders had killed her youngest son. She said: “They were hitting my husband. When I asked them to stop or looked up they started hitting him again. They told us to lie face down and not speak, or they would kill us. It was very terrifying.”

Salem was the only intruder caught after the incident in September last year, but his injuries meant that he was not fit to plead after being charged with false imprisonment. Salem, who has 50 past convictions, was given a two-year supervision order in September this year. He is now in custody awaiting trial for an alleged credit card fraud.

1. in the US we would have give him a medal not a prison sentence.

2. he should have finish the job before calling the police

3. what happen to being able to defend his life, family and property against vicious criminals?

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I only meant that as a figure of speech. My point is that the engines on the planes that crashed on both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (as well as Pennsylvania), couldn't have been vaporized without a single trace. I saw a documentary on this as well a long time ago. Even common sense should be able to tell you this though. When a plane crashes, it doesn't vaporize. The engines operate to work at extreme heat and speed. The heat expelled from the crash sites in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, at least, could not have been greater than the heat in which the engines normally operate in. That being said, it's impossible for the engines to have vaporized.

Also, that vid you showed me in no way reflects what happened in either the Twin Towers or The Pentagon. It proves a plane can disintegrate on impact, but are you trying to tell me the concrete walls of the Pentagon or more importantly a random clearing in a forest are as tough and durable as a concrete wall of a nuclear power station? Sorry, but that vid doesn't prove anything to me.

How is the condition of the remains of each plane relevant to your argument? The attacks were documented on film, so you can't deny that airplanes were used. Whether bombs were on board or not is not indicative of who did it or knew about it. Second, who started the lie that the planes "vaporized?" There were enough bits and pieces and melted remains, along with missing planes, missing crews, and missing passengers to know what happened. You don't seriously expect the media to take pictures and publish each and every single piece of debris, do you? You don't actually expect each and every piece of visually unidentifiable scrap in the WTC to be analyzed for remains of iron, aluminum, titanium, oxygen, and nytrogen, do you?

Being a New Yorker, your conspiracy theory is extremely offensive, to say the least.