bud

how do you feel about AIPAC and one of its top campaign donations recipients, like lindsey graham pushing for a war?

okay changed from leader to president. so how about rouhani's openness to engage in diplomatic talks?

he is the president. if you want, i can change it to that. curious, as a sometimes moderate zionist, do you agree with AIPAC's push for war with iran?

you need to improve your attention span. the CIA is admitting that the documents released, which are all in the link provided, are real and they are not denying this information. i'm assuming you missed another opportunity to learn about the situation. have a look, the copy of the CIA documents are right there for you to see. there is a difference between staying out of the syrian civil war and what u.s. did in iraq. which was giving coordinates and locations of where the iranians were, knowing that saddam was going to use its chemical weapons. this happened several times.

it looks like after three decades of stubbornness, the presidents of both nations will finally be meeting face to face. some see it as nothing more than a photo op, where both sides will go on as usual after the meet. but there is a glimpse of hope that this meeting can by the catalyst towards peaceful negotiations. so far, the inability to move forward in direct negotiations is blamed on the powers behind the scene. on one hand, you have the hardliners in iran, led by khamenei whose tone has softened (some say it's due to the economic hardship) and on the other, you have the powerful necon and israeli right lobbies, who have a strong voice in the u.s. foreign policy. the israeli government is already rejecting iran's new, so-called moderate president's offer of talk and peace, while the AIPAC biggest money recipients like lindsey graham are pushing for a war against iran. rouhani, who seems to be a lot more likable than the former iranian president, ahmadinejad, even took out a full page ad in the washington post in order to tell the world that iran is not looking to make nuclear weapons and to show his willingness to negotiate. but in a familiar tone, iran continues to stand firm on its right to have nuclear power. something that the u.s. and israeli governments, so far, are not willing to accept.

i responded to bonam's post who went on and on about how the japanese had the abomb coming and how they deserved it. i have no problem telling you how i feel about you, your post or correcting mistakes; my response was to bonam and whoever else is trying to justify dropping atomic bombs on civilians.

free information is being given to you on this board. in fact, i think you responded to the thread where it's shown that u.s. helped saddam gas his own people and the iranians. here, have a look at this: u.s. helped saddam use chemical weapons against his own people and the iranians

so you accept u.s.' culpability in the 80's when they helped saddam use chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians?

she also refuses to accept u.s.' culpability in the 80's when u.s. and saddam were good friends. they were such good friends that u.s. helped saddam to use its chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians.

everything isn't about you. i was responding to bonam (and shady before) trying to explain away why it was okay to drop the bombs on two cities.

usually there is nothing that can be done for those who are psychopaths.

only psychopaths can advocate the a-bombs being dropped on innocent people.

i suggest you pipe down. mccarthy is ridiculed for a reason. your cries of communism are empty. do my two comments prove something to you? are you seeing something i'm not? u.s. lost the war in vietnam. vietnam, over time, without intervention is going towards the right direction. the u.s. lied and cooked up evidence to go to war against iraq.

are you channeling mccarthy? your cries are empty. u.s. lost in vietnam. vietnam remained 'communist' and now, over time, without military intervention, they have an open market and the standard of living continues to climb.

this is rich. jbg wants to be honest about his bigoted and misinformed feelings. most of these dictators have been propped up by the west in order to keep control of the resources and the geopolitics. the u.s. has allowed, encouraged and helped these dictators to do what they want to do for a long time. like, for example, helping saddam gas his own people and their iranian neighbours. during this time, saddam and america were best buds. then, we get to a point where saddam doesn't want to play by the west's rules and he suddenly becomes this monster and there is a need to remove him. there isn't a day that goes by when the hypocrisy of the u.s. is excused by the sycophants.

this is not true. you are repeating misinformation:

totally jbg. it was saddam's fault that the u.s. lied about the evidence and went to war. i, as an idiot, couldn't agree more.

how about the relationship between brazil and u.s.? this is a pretty big deal: The Brazilian president's cancelled visit, over NSA spying, ought to jolt the US out of its arrogant disrespect for Latin America link

you're losing it again rue. the alwaites are shiites. i can keep citing information beyond wikipedia, but i have a feeling that you're unable to show any integrity and admit that you're wrong. let's look at what the web site, discoveringislam.org has to say: They are two separate groups, with totally different beliefs. The discussion on this page is only about the beliefs of the Arab Alawis. The Alawis of Syria & Lebanon follow Ibn Nusayr and are also known to be Nusayria. Many of their beliefs are very blasphemous from Islamic perspective. Their beliefs are probably the farthest away from Islam , compared to other Shia groups. my original point, before you came in here with your misinformation, is that the iranian and syrian governments are seen as the enemies of the sunni arabs like the saudis and qataris. saudi arabia wants the majority sunnis of syria to rule syria. the sunni, shiite rivalry was also showcased during the iraq/iran war, where the minority saddam government ruled iraq. the relationships between the muslim countries in the middle east and north africa are complicated, but one thing is certain, there is a rivalry between the sunnis and shiites. at the moment, the sunni governments (against the wishes of the majority of the people who realize that their governments are puppets, in one way or another), have succumbed to the west. the only countries who have not yet are syria and iran who are ruled by shiites.

rue. you are wrong. alawites are a sect from shiites. they may have their own distinct characteristics, but they are considered a shiite sect, by, well, everyone but you. there are many different sects in both sunni islam and shiite islam. alawites are a shiite sect. i'm not sure why you are denying this simple fact, but i guess you have be rue, who, in the face of indisputable facts, will still deny. here is more: more?

that is probably the worst argument for advocating spying on citizens i've read. hopefully the government of israel will also be able to set our morals straight after looking at our emails.

it could very well be both. at least the u.s. has suddenly turned around from supporting a dictator who used chemical weapons over 20 years ago to being so outraged with a dictator for possibly using chemical weapons. but then again, this outrage is accompanied by a strange silence towards the evidence that the guys they're supporting against the dictator have used chemical weapons in this war.

oh and the NSA is giving all of this information to a foreign country, israel.

well said. it's baffling since i'm sure majority of these people don't really have anything to gain from these things.