Azərbaycan dili Bahasa Indonesia Bosanski Català Čeština Dansk Deutsch Eesti English Español Français Galego Hrvatski Italiano Latviešu Lietuvių Magyar Malti Mакедонски Nederlands Norsk Polski Português Português BR Românã Slovenčina Srpski Suomi Svenska Tiếng Việt Türkçe Ελληνικά Български Русский Українська Հայերեն ქართული ენა 中文
Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
 ¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!

Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

2013-10-29 19:59:03
dennis...US army is so huge and there are so many weapons and equipments and ammo that US just need war to have their modern army updated. And it is much better if the war can bring some economics benefits.

For example, wars in middle east are not just for oil....it is very important region where russia has big influence and it is problem too...

Look on war reason in last years:

1. Iraq - Saddam wanted start selling oil not for dollar but for another currency or currencies. If he succeed and some countries join him US economy would have collapse via weak dollar. So you stop them but nobody know this is US, I suppose. The war was easy to start cos there are economics benefits if US win it (contracts, companies and so...) and lowering russia influence .

2. Syria. There is very important oil/or gas cube in that region. It will be second stable route to europe so russia will lost its power on some countries via russian gas/oil. So Saudi wanted help US to help start them war and made that country unstable. I suppose that there were no benefits for US to start there war, just one maybe, next country close to Iran :-). So Saudi make fail chemical attack to make it much easier for Obama start there war. This time Europe stop it, or Russia.

3. Lybia... same problem with dollar and also, Quaddafi stop buying some french war products :-D


So oil is important and US is makeing war cos of it, but oil was never the only one reason, it just help start there a war faster :-)
2013-10-30 05:24:03
oh, god. it all comes back to oil. *sigh*

oil is a fungible commodity. the only way a country does not get oil is if they can not buy it. so a country does not need an army to obtain oil. only money.

as to all you other conspiracy theories, I just give up.
2013-10-30 08:21:58
:-), you are wrong.

First... it is better use (no matter that for money) foreign oil reserves that own reservers.
Second, as I try to explain it to you, it is not just about oil. Oil and dollar are connected too much so if somebody want leave selling oil for dollar can hurt your economy too much. So you need not just oil as a commodity, you need have oil business under control and that is what is happening.

so ? Do you agree now or I just explained it wrong again :-) ?

2013-10-30 08:25:45
or... you explain me why is US involved in middle east?
There is really noting important except oil and history and maybe strategic religion.
But US doesn't need fanatic religion and doesn'tneed sand.
One reason can be territory but Russia dont need religion and sand too, so if it is not oil russia doesn't have reason have that region too.

So remain just one thing oil. Oh no, I forgot, oil and democracy :-D. So If US dont need oil and oil business under controll then US is fighting just for "democracy" :-) ?
I got the point now, right ? :-D
2013-10-30 16:15:32
Rumpil are you just plain stupid ? You never mentioned the most important thing why USA is actice in Middle east : RETALIATION

2013-10-30 19:24:27
so you tell me....will be fun :-)
2013-11-02 13:09:07
You can repeat those childish oil conspiracy theories for as long as you want but you can be sure that the US military forces would never ever be responsible for handing over 25.000 civilians to a war criminal for genocide and mass rape.

Here, see how your Dutch commandant Thom Karremans looks before the war criminal Ratko Mladić, like a naughty boy before an angry school master.

This Karremans guy is definitely no conspirator. He's just scared shitless and trying to save his ass. So, I would always choose any brave American "conspirator" for an ally over a spineless coward like your Dutch "peacekeaper" Karremans.
2013-11-02 15:03:09
Can you read ? Where in my post what you are obvious referring to am I juding the USA army about there retaliation ? I never stated I taught it was good or bad.

And whats your point ? He tries to save hiss ass thats very possible but what does that has to do with the dutch army in general ? I don't see ur point.

But two can plan that game if you like ;) Dutch people are civilized the people in croatia,bosnia and serbia are not so civalized they either tend to behave like animals like you see in the video above or the tend to believe in imaginary story's like god.
(editado)
Even for your standards, that's a hit far below the belt. Not only is it irrelevant, it's also quite ironic coming from any party involved in the Yugoslav Wars.
2013-11-02 21:41:03
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought that you were sarcastically referring to the retaliation to complement rumpils post. Sorry if I was wrong.

It does have a lot to do with Dutch army in general. Where else did it play such a significant role? Read the testimonies of Srebrenica victims or check out pictures of grafitti left behind by the Dutch soldiers in Srebrenica. The fact remains that Dutch army sponsored the greatest post WWII massacre in Europe.

It's easy to be civilized under a glass bell. In those testimonies you can read about the manners of Dutch soldiers when their civilized values were put under pressure. If turning your head the other way in such circumstances is called civilized, well then I am proud that I do not fall within such definition.

Yes, Mladić is an animal. But then how do you call a person that bows down to such animal and toasts with him to job well done?
The ironic part may only be that Croatians commanders had to go to court to that same "civilized" country and explain why they also did not turn their heads the other way but instead defended their homeland.
Nope, you missed the irony; guess again.

(I'm not defending the Dutch army to be clear.)
2013-11-02 22:53:15
Mensaje borrado

2013-11-02 22:56:17
A good evening to you too, Sir.
2013-11-03 03:28:22
We should not forget that the Dutch army was operating under NATO flag. I read and heard story's that soldiers couldn't do there job properly because there were alot of restrictions. For instance you could only pull your gun(not shoot just pull) if your life was in danger.

I knew a person wo did pull his gun when some people from militia had a roadblock with 2 cars and didnt wanted to move the cars, they were also armed. So he pulled his gun first and orderd them to move. Afterwards he almost was fired for that "incident" So I don;t think its fair to blame it all on the dutch.
(editado)
2013-11-03 13:48:49
The difference between the Dutchies on the one side and the 'Yugoslavs' (so Croatians, Serbians, Bosniaks, ...) on the other side is this: the Netherlands are not proud of what the Dutch army (under NATO flag) did. Croatians still defend Croatian inhumanity (ethnic cleansing) during the war, just like the Serbs. Why is it that hard for them to admit their army also made mistakes? (I'm not saying the Croatians had to accept what the Serbs said. I'm saying they shouldn't have made the mistake by doing the same.)