Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Egypt Protests

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: Egypt Protests Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Egypt Protests - 20/3/2011 11:48:49 AM   
JessFranco


Posts: 2523
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: London
The US vetoed the Israeli settlement bill - 130 countries supported it along with 14 out of 15 members of the Security Council.

The US pretty much dragged its heels on Libya, for some good reasons (fear that it wouldn't do much good, concern that it might turn people against the rebels, etc). It doesn't look like they were agitating for intervention. The people who were agitating for intervention - France, the UK and the other Arab states generally had better previous relationships with Gaddafi. This doesn't seem to be about forcing regime change so much as preventing humanitarian disaster - something not currently on the cards in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.

Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, this is legal, UN-mandated intervention. It's also supported by Human Rights Watch.If the bombing is limited to carefully disabling the machinery of aerial war the government is using to attack its own people (machinery i'm aware the UK and Russia sold him), i'm keeping an open mind on it.




< Message edited by JessFranco -- 20/3/2011 11:55:16 AM >


_____________________________

Even the French know better than to fuck with me

http://closer-to-perfection.tumblr.com/

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 91
RE: Egypt Protests - 20/3/2011 2:24:42 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
I find it impossible to keep an open mind on anything which goes on in that part of the world - like I said before there's been massive humanitarian disasters all across Africa and no one has lifted a finger. The civil war in Congo was crying out for someone to intervene but we just stood by and let millions dies. Suddenly it's kicking off in Libya (oil and gas) and it's time to help out.

It remains to be seen what happens afterwards - Gaddafi is just another Saddam, the latest dictator backed by the West to go a bit too loopy. There will be no backing for anyone fighting for freedom in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia

(in reply to JessFranco)
Post #: 92
RE: Egypt Protests - 20/3/2011 3:07:03 PM   
JessFranco


Posts: 2523
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: London
This isn't about backing freedom, it's about preventing the use of airstrikes against rebel targets. The factions in Congo weren't using planes to bomb their own people, they were using guns and machetes. Intervention might have been justified but it would have meant troops on the ground.

The coalition for intervention in Libya seems to be falling apart already though. The Arab League (who actively pushed for a no-fly-zone) and Russia / China (who refused to veto it) have criticised the use of missile strikes. There seems to be confusion over whether that was actually part of the deal.


_____________________________

Even the French know better than to fuck with me

http://closer-to-perfection.tumblr.com/

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 93
RE: Egypt Protests - 20/3/2011 5:00:47 PM   
tarantinofan

 

Posts: 1194
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: JessFranco

This isn't about backing freedom, it's about preventing the use of airstrikes against rebel targets.


Actually, I believe its purely civilian targets. I'm not sure how you can distinguish between the bombing of loyalist forces to protect civilians and the bombing of loyalist forces to aid the rebels though. They seem one in the same, which, like you stated, makes this whole intervention rather confusing.

(in reply to JessFranco)
Post #: 94
RE: Egypt Protests - 30/5/2011 3:57:07 PM   
Your Funny Uncle


Posts: 11995
Joined: 14/11/2005
From: The Deepest Depths Of Joypad.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/western-troops-on-ground-libya

Spotted! This could turn out to be quite a big deal over coming days...

_____________________________

Empires Top 100 Movie Characters of All Time! - VOTE NOW by clicking HERE

(in reply to tarantinofan)
Post #: 95
RE: Egypt Protests - 30/5/2011 6:25:29 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
It's not that big a deal - the bigger deal was that we started bombing the place in the firstplace, everything else that comes will be in the name of freedom, democracy and oil. It's amazing how quickly we move to bomb countries with resources while ignoring places in Africa who are crying out for intervention - another damning stat about the Congo - 40,000 rapes a year to go with the 5,000,000 dead - barely even gets a mention in the news.

(in reply to Your Funny Uncle)
Post #: 96
RE: Egypt Protests - 31/5/2011 11:50:16 AM   
shool


Posts: 10158
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
"Oil Found in the Congo... US and UK set to Invade ASAP"

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 97
RE: Egypt Protests - 31/5/2011 1:00:34 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
I'm just waiting for the US to declare war on us so they can get their hands on all the oil in Dorset.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 98
RE: Egypt Protests - 31/5/2011 6:22:53 PM   
Chief Wiggum


Posts: 1919
Joined: 30/9/2005
Yeah Fuck the System! it's not like Congo has any Oil is it?

none at all.

not even 180 million barrels sitting underground. or just under a billion cubic metres of natural gas. Or 30% of the worlds diamond stocks, which are needed to make drills so we can get oil from underground.


oh.

_____________________________

The Empire Forum Photo Competition - join now for fun and profit. okay no profit, or fun. but do it anyway!

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 99
RE: Egypt Protests - 31/5/2011 8:28:06 PM   
Ghidorah

 

Posts: 2932
Joined: 6/10/2005
While I do agree there are worst crimes going on compared to Libya. However Libya has the resources to prevent future infighting, generate wealth and create a stable country. A good example is Iraq.
I think everyone should also remember before the attempted revolution, Britain had trade deals with Libya and now they all broken. It was because Cameron who knows a lot about military believed the revolution would succeed in days and did his best to alienate Libya's government. That worked well but at least the navy has the aircraft carriers and harriers to undo the massive mess.

(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 100
RE: Egypt Protests - 31/5/2011 9:00:44 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Wiggum

Yeah Fuck the System! it's not like Congo has any Oil is it?

none at all.

not even 180 million barrels sitting underground. or just under a billion cubic metres of natural gas. Or 30% of the worlds diamond stocks, which are needed to make drills so we can get oil from underground.


oh.


Interesting fact there - but do you know who controls Congo's oil? The US oil companies. That's why they don't need to go in there, they've managed to steal the oil using the classic CIA trick of funding guerilla groups to destabilise countries from within, fermenting civil war (with millions dead) and assassinating democratically elected leaders. Libya and Iraq were a lot tougher because the power the state has over the people, so the direct route of bombing/ invasions is required to appropriate their resources.

Once again - if humanitarian reasons are behind this attack on Libya why haven't we lifted a finger to help those in the Congo?

BECAUSE WE ALREADY CONTROL THEIR RESOURCES




< Message edited by Fluke Skywalker -- 31/5/2011 9:03:02 PM >

(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 101
RE: Egypt Protests - 1/6/2011 1:21:12 PM   
Chief Wiggum


Posts: 1919
Joined: 30/9/2005

So your saying that, the only reason that we're bombing Libya is to gain access to their oil?

the same oil, that US, UK, EU, and Asian Oil firms already have contracts to drill for and export. The majority of which were awarded to US and UK companies.

The same drilling places that we had to evacuate when this all kicked off.

Surely if this was all about getting our hands on Oil, we would have stayed out of it, and quietly let gaddaffi murder and repress his people like he has for the last 42 years.

_____________________________

The Empire Forum Photo Competition - join now for fun and profit. okay no profit, or fun. but do it anyway!

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 102
RE: Egypt Protests - 1/6/2011 3:04:58 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Invading Libya for oil isn't worth it either. 

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 103
RE: Egypt Protests - 1/6/2011 8:17:26 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Wiggum


So your saying that, the only reason that we're bombing Libya is to gain access to their oil?

the same oil, that US, UK, EU, and Asian Oil firms already have contracts to drill for and export. The majority of which were awarded to US and UK companies.

The same drilling places that we had to evacuate when this all kicked off.

Surely if this was all about getting our hands on Oil, we would have stayed out of it, and quietly let gaddaffi murder and repress his people like he has for the last 42 years.


There's one thing having export contracts, there's another thing entirely controlling a country's leadership because then you effecively own the oil. You can then move in and get a much heavier return on the 'investment'.

Libyan oil will be privatised allowing foreign corporations to take over production - it's a pattern that's been seen before a hundred times when it comes to appropriating the resources of non-Western countries and a classic US tactic - identify a resource, buy off the government, if you can't then knock them off, privatise the country and sell off to the corporations.

It's amazing people are buying the bullshit about 'humanitarian intervention' when there's been so many cases for intervening (like the Congo) which have been completely ignored.

(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 104
RE: Egypt Protests - 1/6/2011 9:26:13 PM   
Chief Wiggum


Posts: 1919
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker


There's one thing having export contracts, there's another thing entirely controlling a country's leadership because then you effecively own the oil. You can then move in and get a much heavier return on the 'investment'.

Libyan oil will be privatised allowing foreign corporations to take over production - it's a pattern that's been seen before a hundred times when it comes to appropriating the resources of non-Western countries and a classic US tactic - identify a resource, buy off the government, if you can't then knock them off, privatise the country and sell off to the corporations.

It's amazing people are buying the bullshit about 'humanitarian intervention' when there's been so many cases for intervening (like the Congo) which have been completely ignored.



Fluke, we already have control of the production, BP alone has spent $900million on an exploration and production deal with the previous regime. and that's before they even put a drill into the ground and see any money on their return. I'm also fairly sure you don't know how E&P actually works in the real world (you know compared to the guardian)

and I wouldn't say that the congo has exactly been ignored, there have been UN Peacekeepers there for years. and what's the betting that as soon as any white troops did go in, it would all of a sudden be "neo-imperialism" motivated purely by oil.

I also fail to see the problem with intervening in libya, surely backing a popular movement against a dictatorial regime is a good thing. unless I'm very much mistaken, so what if we do benefit on the side of this, or do you think that as we can't do all of the humanitarian actions we shouldn't do any? 'cos that arguments a lot like saying "we can't stop every instance of domestic violence, so lets just go down the pub instead".



_____________________________

The Empire Forum Photo Competition - join now for fun and profit. okay no profit, or fun. but do it anyway!

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 105
RE: Egypt Protests - 1/6/2011 10:07:24 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
It's about directly stealing the oil and gas wealth of a nation, it goes way above E+P deals and is worth slightly more than a 900million BP contract. The Congo has been ignored which is why five million people have died in ten years - a UN peacekeeping force is not comparable to what a direct military intervention could acheive - but of course none of this matters because the resources of the Congo have already been accounted for. Robert Mugabe is another case in point, we could easily have taken this guy out and saved an enormous amount of suffering but we haven't lifted a finger.

In terms of helping popular movements against dictatorial regimes, the US (and sadly at times us along with them) have spent decades routinely backing dictators, helping them to power, arming them and training them to torture and kill their own. There is an absolute mass of evidence to back this up.

Strangely we are not doing much to push for democracy in Bahrain aside from a few strong (weasel) words from Obama - if we can help it we'll cut the dictators under our control some slack. The ones we don't control we attack and knock off and ensure they get a taste of 'democracy' like Iraq, an occupied and destroyed country with it's oil production privatised and it's wealth creamed off by foreign oil companies.

Libya will have a puppet government installed and it's resources will be privatised and opened up to US/ Western corporations - it's been done before on many a occasion across South America, the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia, and of course it will happen again.

To quote Alan Greenspan, former head of the US Federal Reserve about the Iraq War :

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."

It's ALL about the control of resources


< Message edited by Fluke Skywalker -- 1/6/2011 10:11:56 PM >

(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 106
RE: Egypt Protests - 2/6/2011 5:50:03 PM   
Chief Wiggum


Posts: 1919
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

It's about directly stealing the oil and gas wealth of a nation, it goes way above E+P deals and is worth slightly more than a 900million BP contract. The Congo has been ignored which is why five million people have died in ten years - a UN peacekeeping force is not comparable to what a direct military intervention could acheive - but of course none of this matters because the resources of the Congo have already been accounted for. Robert Mugabe is another case in point, we could easily have taken this guy out and saved an enormous amount of suffering but we haven't lifted a finger.



so let me get this straight, because there are a couple of points here.

1 - I'm fairly sure you have the word "stealing" and the phrase "acquiring through legal means, the contracts that generally require an investment of around a billion pounds (which includes contract signing fee, the construction of infrastructure neccessary to get any oil out, the drilling of test wells, employment of local staff), to pump oil out of the ground within a certain geographic area and paying roughly 50% (depending on the contract) of the profits to the sovereign nation that owns the oil for the privelidge, all without the guarantee that there will be any actual oil under the piece of land that you bid on". and this suggests that the only way that oil should be obtained is through state-owned oil companies - which tend to be hugely inefficient, require significant investment that 3rd world countries (sorry LDCs) generally don't have and cause rampant corruption within the organisation and locale of the mining.

2 - so it's ok to invade a soverign nation without the backing of the UN (which is what you're suggesting should happen when you say direct military intervention, which would be in vilation of international law) just as long as there isn't any oil or resources.

3. it's perfectly ok to assasinate foreign leaders / feasible to mount an invasion in a landlocked country where we would have no friendly countries neighbouring (thereby precluding any significant supply chain to our troops), against a force whose prime antagonism is the British are the colonial oppressors.


quote:


In terms of helping popular movements against dictatorial regimes, the US (and sadly at times us along with them) have spent decades routinely backing dictators, helping them to power, arming them and training them to torture and kill their own. There is an absolute mass of evidence to back this up.

Strangely we are not doing much to push for democracy in Bahrain aside from a few strong (weasel) words from Obama - if we can help it we'll cut the dictators under our control some slack. The ones we don't control we attack and knock off and ensure they get a taste of 'democracy' like Iraq, an occupied and destroyed country with it's oil production privatised and it's wealth creamed off by foreign oil companies.


Bahrain - home to the US fleet in the Arabian gulf as well as the site for the US central command in the middle east. the uprising in Bahrain - dominated by Shia that would like to see closer links with Iran. You can probably see why we're not making too much noise about this. but suffice to say it's not so much to do with Oil, as it is to do with the strategic centre for the US in the Middle East being in downtown Manama.



quote:


Libya will have a puppet government installed and it's resources will be privatised and opened up to US/ Western corporations - it's been done before on many a occasion across South America, the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia, and of course it will happen again.

To quote Alan Greenspan, former head of the US Federal Reserve about the Iraq War :

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."

It's ALL about the control of resources



Except we already had a fairly pliant dictator in Libya already - sure he had a state owned oil company, but sure as hell all the profits from the oil were sent through the Libyan Investment Company to be invested in UK markets, Sure he may have celebrated the return of al-meghrahi a bit hard - but since 2003 gaddafi has been our guy, need a friendly arab voice? Muammars our man. need an E&P contract? go and see Sayf.

why, when we already had access to the Oil and BP were about to start producing, did we decide that "yeah fuck it, we'll just go and back these rebels, no idea if they'll give us the oil or not, but lets bomb the shit out the guys that we've just got back into the international fold" it makes no fucking sense.


The thing is Fluke - you are very adamant in your chomskian view of international politics, I think that the view is far too simplistic and we can spend all day and all night arguing about it, I'm fairly sure it's not worth my time (or yours) to continue this

_____________________________

The Empire Forum Photo Competition - join now for fun and profit. okay no profit, or fun. but do it anyway!

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 107
RE: Egypt Protests - 2/6/2011 6:59:52 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
OFF TOPIC

Isn't oil in Iraq dwindling and it has been for some time?


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 108
RE: Egypt Protests - 2/6/2011 7:12:38 PM   
Chief Wiggum


Posts: 1919
Joined: 30/9/2005
apparantly not...

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200963093615637434.html

contracts worth $30billion to oil companies were awarded in 2009.

same contracts are worth $1.7 Trillion to Iraqi government. if these guys are stealing the oil they seem to be doing a pretty bad job of it.

I think they have the third largest proven oil reserves in the world (and that's using Data from the late 80s and oil tech has vastly improved since then.

_____________________________

The Empire Forum Photo Competition - join now for fun and profit. okay no profit, or fun. but do it anyway!

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 109
RE: Egypt Protests - 2/6/2011 7:21:06 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
What I read (soooooooooooome long time ago) that the oil reserves were dwindling and they've been from the 90s or at least production shortages becuase of the situation. Can't find the link right now.

Oh well I could have been wrong.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 110
RE: Egypt Protests - 2/6/2011 7:43:00 PM   
Chief Wiggum


Posts: 1919
Joined: 30/9/2005

The production rates were certainly down - but in the 90's this was due to sanctions on the ba'ath regime, and in the "noughties" (ugh) it was due to the war and the associated chaos that comes with an invasion, a civil war, huge sectarian divides over where the Oil actually is (and this also fuelled the civil war as well)

I think this is the case from the 80s as well, before he invaded Kuwait Saddam was trying to persuade OAPEC to reduce the output of oil so the price would increase and the profits increase. (the Kuwaitis responded by increasing production, Saddam did not take kindly to this). Before this Iran had occupied some of the south, during the Iran-Iraq war, which would have cut off the main point of export for Iraqi oil.

basically one of the reasons that the reserves are so high in Iraq is that the production has been low compared with other oil-rich countries, coupled with the surveys that existed (and the ones that the official estimates are based on) were made with 2d seismic charts as opposed to far more up to date technology. even so I think the proven reserves (i.e. the ones made with outdated tech, which might be where the dwindling reports come from) rank it as 3rd highest in the world, with more fields being found even now.

either way, there's a lot of dino blood in them there sand dunes.


_____________________________

The Empire Forum Photo Competition - join now for fun and profit. okay no profit, or fun. but do it anyway!

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 111
RE: Egypt Protests - 3/6/2011 7:34:24 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Ok, thanks for the information Chief.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 112
RE: Egypt Protests - 5/6/2011 4:15:31 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Wiggum


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

It's about directly stealing the oil and gas wealth of a nation, it goes way above E+P deals and is worth slightly more than a 900million BP contract. The Congo has been ignored which is why five million people have died in ten years - a UN peacekeeping force is not comparable to what a direct military intervention could acheive - but of course none of this matters because the resources of the Congo have already been accounted for. Robert Mugabe is another case in point, we could easily have taken this guy out and saved an enormous amount of suffering but we haven't lifted a finger.



so let me get this straight, because there are a couple of points here.

1 - I'm fairly sure you have the word "stealing" and the phrase "acquiring through legal means, the contracts that generally require an investment of around a billion pounds (which includes contract signing fee, the construction of infrastructure neccessary to get any oil out, the drilling of test wells, employment of local staff), to pump oil out of the ground within a certain geographic area and paying roughly 50% (depending on the contract) of the profits to the sovereign nation that owns the oil for the privelidge, all without the guarantee that there will be any actual oil under the piece of land that you bid on". and this suggests that the only way that oil should be obtained is through state-owned oil companies - which tend to be hugely inefficient, require significant investment that 3rd world countries (sorry LDCs) generally don't have and cause rampant corruption within the organisation and locale of the mining.

Countries that have that much oil don't have the investment? Of course they do, except it's in our interests for them not to be state controlled (as when we knocked off the democratically elected Iranian leadership in 1953 who decided to nationalise thier oil).


2 - so it's ok to invade a soverign nation without the backing of the UN (which is what you're suggesting should happen when you say direct military intervention, which would be in vilation of international law) just as long as there isn't any oil or resources.

My point is you can go around the world knocking off dictators all day long and I'll applaud you for it. But the facts show that a) we seem to knock off more governments with resources, and b) quite a few of the dictatorships are actually our stooges. When they get out of hand our press conditions the sheep and then we can attack.


3. it's perfectly ok to assasinate foreign leaders / feasible to mount an invasion in a landlocked country where we would have no friendly countries neighbouring (thereby precluding any significant supply chain to our troops), against a force whose prime antagonism is the British are the colonial oppressors.

I don't see your point here - we either send our armies to war for humanitarian reasons or we don't. We wouldn't pick and choose if we really cared, and the fact that we pick and choose is the telling point - we don't care, we just pretend we do to excuse the next round of attacks on resource rich nations.


quote:


In terms of helping popular movements against dictatorial regimes, the US (and sadly at times us along with them) have spent decades routinely backing dictators, helping them to power, arming them and training them to torture and kill their own. There is an absolute mass of evidence to back this up.

Strangely we are not doing much to push for democracy in Bahrain aside from a few strong (weasel) words from Obama - if we can help it we'll cut the dictators under our control some slack. The ones we don't control we attack and knock off and ensure they get a taste of 'democracy' like Iraq, an occupied and destroyed country with it's oil production privatised and it's wealth creamed off by foreign oil companies.


Bahrain - home to the US fleet in the Arabian gulf as well as the site for the US central command in the middle east. the uprising in Bahrain - dominated by Shia that would like to see closer links with Iran. You can probably see why we're not making too much noise about this. but suffice to say it's not so much to do with Oil, as it is to do with the strategic centre for the US in the Middle East being in downtown Manama.

You said it yourself, the US fleet is based here so it's alright to shoot protesters? Bahrain is a US backed dictatorship, a sunni leadership presiding over a shia majority, they have a right to protest.



quote:


Libya will have a puppet government installed and it's resources will be privatised and opened up to US/ Western corporations - it's been done before on many a occasion across South America, the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia, and of course it will happen again.

To quote Alan Greenspan, former head of the US Federal Reserve about the Iraq War :

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."

It's ALL about the control of resources



Except we already had a fairly pliant dictator in Libya already - sure he had a state owned oil company, but sure as hell all the profits from the oil were sent through the Libyan Investment Company to be invested in UK markets, Sure he may have celebrated the return of al-meghrahi a bit hard - but since 2003 gaddafi has been our guy, need a friendly arab voice? Muammars our man. need an E&P contract? go and see Sayf.

why, when we already had access to the Oil and BP were about to start producing, did we decide that "yeah fuck it, we'll just go and back these rebels, no idea if they'll give us the oil or not, but lets bomb the shit out the guys that we've just got back into the international fold" it makes no fucking sense.

It makes perfect sense for US oil companies and corporations who will cream the money off once they control the country. There's the rather big matter of removing China from the equation - they have significant energy investments in Libya and have been targeting Africa as a way to cover their energy needs. These are power games of the highest order.


The thing is Fluke - you are very adamant in your chomskian view of international politics, I think that the view is far too simplistic and we can spend all day and all night arguing about it, I'm fairly sure it's not worth my time (or yours) to continue this


You think Chomsky, arguably the foremost intellectual commentator on US foreign policy is simplistic? He totally and utterly dissects US foreign policy, the use of media to propagate lies and condition people to wars and exposes the dark underbelly of Western foreign policy that is hidden from the vast majority of people.

We have spent 100+ years backing dictators, knocking off democracies, destabilising and invading countries to appropriate their resources - I'd love to believe like you clearly do, that we are doing this because we've suddenly woken up and turned our backs on decades of Machiavellian foreign policy but honestly Chief - I'm just not that naive.



(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 113
RE: Egypt Protests - 5/6/2011 5:55:01 PM   
Chief Wiggum


Posts: 1919
Joined: 30/9/2005
e]ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Wiggum

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker


You think Chomsky, arguably the foremost intellectual commentator on US foreign policy is simplistic? He totally and utterly dissects US foreign policy, the use of media to propagate lies and condition people to wars and exposes the dark underbelly of Western foreign policy that is hidden from the vast majority of people.

We have spent 100+ years backing dictators, knocking off democracies, destabilising and invading countries to appropriate their resources - I'd love to believe like you clearly do, that we are doing this because we've suddenly woken up and turned our backs on decades of Machiavellian foreign policy but honestly Chief - I'm just not that naive.





Whilst he can write well, my feelings on Chomsky can be pretty much summed up by the following - I wouldn't go to an engineer to explain particle physics, in the same way I wouldn't go to a linguist to explain International Relations.

The thing with Chomsky is that he starts off with the view that Imperialism is the worst atrocity out there, and that western imperialism is the worst of the worst, he then goes and finds information that reinforces this belief, no matter what the source. he's more of a polemicist rather than an intellectual, the latter, I would say, should look for evidence that challenges their starting point. He fails to look rigourously at the regimes that the west is fighting, or criticise them at all. a case in point would be his position on Serbia in the late 90s, evidence was found that showed the existence of Serbian concentration camps housing bosnian muslims. did this evidence, or the Srebrinica massacre challenge his assertion that we only intervened for hegemonic purposes? did it fuck - he even went as far as to allege that the photographs in question were not of starving inmates looking out, but refugees trying to get in.

did he question the use of rape, wanton murder and repression of the Kosovars by serb forces, did he think that this was quite a good time to use western military power to good effect? no, he asserts that this action was purely to promote NATO's prestige.

He also fails to see that whilst it is harder to find evidence of Human Rights abuses in the enemies of the west, this is not necessarily because they didn't happen, but rather an indictment that larger abuses are occurring - if you look at a country like North Korea you don't read of human rights scandals on a daily basis, yet in countries with freer presses you hear of regular abuses

He also dismisses the factor of US fear of the soviet military in the cold war, citing that economic and social factors were more important - again I believe that he is wrong on this - in a bipolar world (as it was then) with both sides having atomic (and later nuclear) weapons, I think that this is the most important of all the factors in the cold war, if you and another person are pointing guns at each other it's pretty much the starting point of any discussion on what you're doing.

However my main criticism of him is that he is exactly that a critic, and as far as I can see has made no suggestions on making the world a better place, or a better system of government that liberal democracy that would actually work. he describes himself as a "libertarian socialist" for my mind the two are exclusive trains of thought as socialism requires a strong state to enforce the redistribution of wealth, where as libertarianism requires a weak state to allow it to flourish.



_____________________________

The Empire Forum Photo Competition - join now for fun and profit. okay no profit, or fun. but do it anyway!

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 114
RE: Egypt Protests - 5/6/2011 8:03:55 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Wiggum

e]ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Wiggum

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker


You think Chomsky, arguably the foremost intellectual commentator on US foreign policy is simplistic? He totally and utterly dissects US foreign policy, the use of media to propagate lies and condition people to wars and exposes the dark underbelly of Western foreign policy that is hidden from the vast majority of people.

We have spent 100+ years backing dictators, knocking off democracies, destabilising and invading countries to appropriate their resources - I'd love to believe like you clearly do, that we are doing this because we've suddenly woken up and turned our backs on decades of Machiavellian foreign policy but honestly Chief - I'm just not that naive.





Whilst he can write well, my feelings on Chomsky can be pretty much summed up by the following - I wouldn't go to an engineer to explain particle physics, in the same way I wouldn't go to a linguist to explain International Relations.

I'm sorry but just because he is an internationally renowned expert in linguistics does not mean he is incapable of commenting on US foreign policy. He is a deep political thinker and it's no wonder that so many in the West don't like him, because quite simply he lays out the facts (like John Pilger).


The thing with Chomsky is that he starts off with the view that Imperialism is the worst atrocity out there, and that western imperialism is the worst of the worst, he then goes and finds information that reinforces this belief, no matter what the source.

Have you examples of him using unreliable sources? Because he seems pretty well researched to me.


he's more of a polemicist rather than an intellectual, the latter, I would say, should look for evidence that challenges their starting point.

Nope he's a bona fide 100% intellectual.

He fails to look rigourously at the regimes that the west is fighting, or criticise them at all. a case in point would be his position on Serbia in the late 90s, evidence was found that showed the existence of Serbian concentration camps housing bosnian muslims. did this evidence, or the Srebrinica massacre challenge his assertion that we only intervened for hegemonic purposes? did it fuck - he even went as far as to allege that the photographs in question were not of starving inmates looking out, but refugees trying to get in.

Serbia is a really interesting case because the truth is so well hidden : Milosevic was a tyrant but the reason for the NATO attack was (like with so many other attacks) because he did not want to give up soverignty and bow down to IMF reforms, have a read of this eye opening piece by John Pilger which makes parallels with the lies surrounding Iraq.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7439.htm


did he question the use of rape, wanton murder and repression of the Kosovars by serb forces, did he think that this was quite a good time to use western military power to good effect? no, he asserts that this action was purely to promote NATO's prestige.

You're saying he denied rape and murder took place?

He also fails to see that whilst it is harder to find evidence of Human Rights abuses in the enemies of the west, this is not necessarily because they didn't happen, but rather an indictment that larger abuses are occurring - if you look at a country like North Korea you don't read of human rights scandals on a daily basis, yet in countries with freer presses you hear of regular abuses

I don't think I've ever heard him say he doesn't believe human rights abuses aren't occuring outside the West. It's pretty blatantly obvious they do occur.

He also dismisses the factor of US fear of the soviet military in the cold war, citing that economic and social factors were more important - again I believe that he is wrong on this - in a bipolar world (as it was then) with both sides having atomic (and later nuclear) weapons, I think that this is the most important of all the factors in the cold war, if you and another person are pointing guns at each other it's pretty much the starting point of any discussion on what you're doing.

Nope for example Operation Condor in South America and the rise of Suharto in Indonesia are both examples of where America were apparently fighting the 'Commie Threat', but once they'd got the dictators in power we saw the classic carving up of the wealth of the nations for US corporations. The Russians (like the War on Terror) were a useful excuse to propagate conflict and steal resources and pile on the defence spending.

However my main criticism of him is that he is exactly that a critic, and as far as I can see has made no suggestions on making the world a better place, or a better system of government that liberal democracy that would actually work. he describes himself as a "libertarian socialist" for my mind the two are exclusive trains of thought as socialism requires a strong state to enforce the redistribution of wealth, where as libertarianism requires a weak state to allow it to flourish.

That's a pretty weak criticism - he has fundamentally exposed Western foreign policy for what it is and your problem is he (apparently) has no ideas for how to make the world a better place? Surely you can work that one out for yourself.



Plus for once I'd like to ask you what you think of the numerous dictatorships the US has backed over the years, in South America, South East Asia, Africa, the Middle East. You seem to support all of these actions - how do you justify them?

(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 115
RE: Egypt Protests - 6/6/2011 5:59:22 PM   
Ghidorah

 

Posts: 2932
Joined: 6/10/2005
 There were a number of attacks on Syria's security forces. The number of police officers etc been killed in an armed rising is constantly increasing. Around thirty minutes ago the figures were 37 but now Syria state TV are now saying as high as 80.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13672725





(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 116
RE: Egypt Protests - 7/6/2011 1:44:04 PM   
Chief Wiggum


Posts: 1919
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker


I'm sorry but just because he is an internationally renowned expert in linguistics does not mean he is incapable of commenting on US foreign policy. He is a deep political thinker and it's no wonder that so many in the West don't like him, because quite simply he lays out the facts (like John Pilger).



you miss my point, as somebody that studied IR, we quickly learnt that Chomsky is not the person to cite in essays or subjects. in fact I'm not sure that you would find Chomsky on any reading list for any decent university course in Politics. hell even in my "Globalisation and its malcontents" and "US Foreign Policy" modules he wasn't on either the required or the recommended reading lists.

that could me being snobby, or it could be an indictment on the quality of his work.

quote:



Have you examples of him using unreliable sources? Because he seems pretty well researched to me.



well lets start of with his statement that brought him back to prominence after years of slowly fading into insignigficance, in which he claimed moral equivilance between the events of september the eleventh 2001, an attack designed to kill as many civillians as possible, and the 1998 bombing of the al-shifa pharmaceutical factory (which happenned at night when most of the people working in the surrounding industrial area wouldn't have been there)

He alleges that this caused the deaths of 10,000 people through the decrease in the availability of medicines in Sudan. in this statement he cites the former German Ambassador and Human Rights watch with supplying this information.

Human Rights watch never produced any such information.

The German Ambassador, in the statement that chomsky cites, even admits that he was taking a guess.

looking at data from the aid agencies that work in Sudan, such as Oxfam, Medicines sans frontiers to name a couple. they reported no increase in deaths following the attack.

now should you look at september the 11th, the word bank has said that the lack of economic growth that resulted from the attacks cost the lives of 40,000 children.

so yeas I do find his moral equivilance a little nauseating.

quote:


Nope he's a bona fide 100% intellectual.


in the field of linguistics, yes.

quote:



Serbia is a really interesting case because the truth is so well hidden : Milosevic was a tyrant but the reason for the NATO attack was (like with so many other attacks) because he did not want to give up soverignty and bow down to IMF reforms, have a read of this eye opening piece by John Pilger which makes parallels with the lies surrounding Iraq.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7439.htm

You're saying he denied rape and murder took place?


Fluke do you remember Living Marxism, and how they disputed that Serbian concentration camps existed, and that an ITN story on the subject was wilfully misleading? Well Noam is of the opinion that LM was right, and that ITN should never have sued for libel, despite the fact that ITN were awarded so much damages that LM went out of business.

I also think that Marko Atilla Hoare puts it better than I ever could

quote:


In Chomsky’s words, Turkey is guilty of “massive atrocities” against the Kurds; Indonesia of “aggression and massacre” of “near-genocidal levels” in East Timor; Israel of “murderous and destructive” operations in Lebanon; but there is no mention of Kurdish, East Timorese, or Palestinian atrocities.[3] By contrast, Chomsky uses no such emotive language when discussing the Serbian killing of Albanians; they are a “response” and “reaction” to Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) attacks. Meanwhile the KLA was guilty of “targeting Serb police and civilians”; “killing six Serbian teenagers”; the “killing of a Serb judge, police, and civilians”; and so on. The picture Chomsky consequently sketches is of atrocities by both sides and, since KLA actions were “designed to elicit a violent and disproportionate Serbian response”, the implication is that the Milosevic regime was less to blame than the KLA.[4] When a US client massacres innocent civilians it is wholly to blame; when a ‘socialist’ regime does so it is the victims who are primarily to blame.




I don't think I've ever heard him say he doesn't believe human rights abuses aren't occuring outside the West. It's pretty blatantly obvious they do occur.



Ok Fluke I'll admit that he does on occassion admit that HR abuses do occur outside of the west, but the admissions are normally couched. for an example lets take Cambodia.

he says that violence that came from Pol Pot's regime, was a response to the the brutality that had happenned when the US was in Vietnam, and the large amount of bombing that went on. well in that case how on earth does he explain the lack of bloodshed that happenned in Laos, after all we'e constantly reminded that more bombs were dropped in Laos than in WW2, but that didn't see massacres that saw the end of 25% of the population?


Nope for example Operation Condor in South America and the rise of Suharto in Indonesia are both examples of where America were apparently fighting the 'Commie Threat', but once they'd got the dictators in power we saw the classic carving up of the wealth of the nations for US corporations. The Russians (like the War on Terror) were a useful excuse to propagate conflict and steal resources and pile on the defence spending.


well that's not really saying that the primary reason behind the deposing of democratic leaders was not the fear of communism, it's identifying that these things happenned afterwards.

quote:


That's a pretty weak criticism - he has fundamentally exposed Western foreign policy for what it is and your problem is he (apparently) has no ideas for how to make the world a better place? Surely you can work that one out for yourself.


OK, so I actually checked out what he thinks would be a system of government and life that would be a good thing, turns out he advocates small, self controlled anarchic communities, that failed to work in the 30s.

he also cited that the collectivism and communalism of the great leap forward in China were a good way to go, but to be fair to him this was about 5 years before the reports came out saying that these were the greatest factors in the famine that caused the deaths of 30million chinese.

quote:


Plus for once I'd like to ask you what you think of the numerous dictatorships the US has backed over the years, in South America, South East Asia, Africa, the Middle East. You seem to support all of these actions - how do you justify them?



Me? well I think they were despicable regimes, but necessary to prevent the spread of Marxism/Leninism across the globe, which I believe was responsible for more suffering in the last century than the crimes of the west.

I also note that this, again is a typical chomskian tactic, if somebody alleges that the removal of a dictator that opposes the west is a good thing, the next step is generally to say "but what about x" which invariably is a western ally oppressing somebody (it doesn't even have to be that recent). which handily pushes the original point that the dictator is generally doing awful things away from the argument.

So Fluke, what makes you think that Milosevic, The Taliban, Hussein and now Gaddafi are such good examples of fair and modern government that they deserve to stay in power?

_____________________________

The Empire Forum Photo Competition - join now for fun and profit. okay no profit, or fun. but do it anyway!

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 117
RE: Egypt Protests - 9/6/2011 9:25:08 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Wiggum


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker


I'm sorry but just because he is an internationally renowned expert in linguistics does not mean he is incapable of commenting on US foreign policy. He is a deep political thinker and it's no wonder that so many in the West don't like him, because quite simply he lays out the facts (like John Pilger).



you miss my point, as somebody that studied IR, we quickly learnt that Chomsky is not the person to cite in essays or subjects. in fact I'm not sure that you would find Chomsky on any reading list for any decent university course in Politics. hell even in my "Globalisation and its malcontents" and "US Foreign Policy" modules he wasn't on either the required or the recommended reading lists.

that could me being snobby, or it could be an indictment on the quality of his work.

Or what does it say about the quality of your degree?
The way you carry on it seems to me that you have been trained up to be another apologist for Western foreign policy. Have you read any John Pilger by the way, was he on any of the reading lists?

quote:



Have you examples of him using unreliable sources? Because he seems pretty well researched to me.



well lets start of with his statement that brought him back to prominence after years of slowly fading into insignigficance, in which he claimed moral equivilance between the events of september the eleventh 2001, an attack designed to kill as many civillians as possible, and the 1998 bombing of the al-shifa pharmaceutical factory (which happenned at night when most of the people working in the surrounding industrial area wouldn't have been there)

He alleges that this caused the deaths of 10,000 people through the decrease in the availability of medicines in Sudan. in this statement he cites the former German Ambassador and Human Rights watch with supplying this information.

Human Rights watch never produced any such information.

The German Ambassador, in the statement that chomsky cites, even admits that he was taking a guess.

looking at data from the aid agencies that work in Sudan, such as Oxfam, Medicines sans frontiers to name a couple. they reported no increase in deaths following the attack.

To be fair I've not read about this so I'd have to find out before getting back to you.


now should you look at september the 11th, the word bank has said that the lack of economic growth that resulted from the attacks cost the lives of 40,000 children.

so yeas I do find his moral equivilance a little nauseating.

Lack of economic growth caused the deaths of 40,000 children? Are you taking the piss here - do you know how many people have been actually killed by US foreign policy adventures as opposed to an estimate by an organisation which is a corporate neo-colonial tool? (According to former CIA agent John Stockwell about 6 million).


quote:


Nope he's a bona fide 100% intellectual.


in the field of linguistics, yes.

quote:



Still an intellectual - are you saying experts in one field cannot comment on subjects outside of their field with any degree of authority? That's rubbish and you know it.

Serbia is a really interesting case because the truth is so well hidden : Milosevic was a tyrant but the reason for the NATO attack was (like with so many other attacks) because he did not want to give up soverignty and bow down to IMF reforms, have a read of this eye opening piece by John Pilger which makes parallels with the lies surrounding Iraq.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7439.htm

You're saying he denied rape and murder took place?


Fluke do you remember Living Marxism, and how they disputed that Serbian concentration camps existed, and that an ITN story on the subject was wilfully misleading? Well Noam is of the opinion that LM was right, and that ITN should never have sued for libel, despite the fact that ITN were awarded so much damages that LM went out of business.

I also think that Marko Atilla Hoare puts it better than I ever could

quote:


In Chomsky's words, Turkey is guilty of "massive atrocities” against the Kurds; Indonesia of "aggression and massacre” of "near-genocidal levels” in East Timor; Israel of "murderous and destructive” operations in Lebanon; but there is no mention of Kurdish, East Timorese, or Palestinian atrocities.[3] By contrast, Chomsky uses no such emotive language when discussing the Serbian killing of Albanians; they are a "response” and "reaction” to Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) attacks. Meanwhile the KLA was guilty of "targeting Serb police and civilians”; "killing six Serbian teenagers”; the "killing of a Serb judge, police, and civilians”; and so on. The picture Chomsky consequently sketches is of atrocities by both sides and, since KLA actions were "designed to elicit a violent and disproportionate Serbian response”, the implication is that the Milosevic regime was less to blame than the KLA.[4] When a US client massacres innocent civilians it is wholly to blame; when a 'socialist' regime does so it is the victims who are primarily to blame.



The KLA have recently been exposed as CIA backed organisation (as exist in many countries where civil war has taken place). Considering the CIA's history in knocking off governments you have to forgive me for buying Chomski's argument, there is a weight of evidence exposing how America's finest operate. In terms of balancing levels of killing, I think it's safe to say that in the examples you mentioned, the Palestinians, East Timorese and the Kurds have been the subject of significantly more aggression and suffered more death than the powers Chomsky is supposedly biased against, especially when you consider in all of these examples the power of state is brought against civilians.


I don't think I've ever heard him say he doesn't believe human rights abuses aren't occuring outside the West. It's pretty blatantly obvious they do occur.



Ok Fluke I'll admit that he does on occassion admit that HR abuses do occur outside of the west, but the admissions are normally couched. for an example lets take Cambodia.

he says that violence that came from Pol Pot's regime, was a response to the the brutality that had happenned when the US was in Vietnam, and the large amount of bombing that went on. well in that case how on earth does he explain the lack of bloodshed that happenned in Laos, after all we'e constantly reminded that more bombs were dropped in Laos than in WW2, but that didn't see massacres that saw the end of 25% of the population?

Are you saying because the same thing didn't happen in Laos it disproves the argument that America's illegal bombing of 650,000 Cambodians to their deaths had no impact on the rise to power of the Khmer Rouge? Completely ridiculous I'm afraid - once again look at that figure 650,000, - it's amazing when you consider something like 9/11 with 2,500 deaths will never be forgotten but US atrocities have been slowly whitewashed from the pages of history (and your Uni course).



Nope for example Operation Condor in South America and the rise of Suharto in Indonesia are both examples of where America were apparently fighting the 'Commie Threat', but once they'd got the dictators in power we saw the classic carving up of the wealth of the nations for US corporations. The Russians (like the War on Terror) were a useful excuse to propagate conflict and steal resources and pile on the defence spending.


well that's not really saying that the primary reason behind the deposing of democratic leaders was not the fear of communism, it's identifying that these things happenned afterwards.

Once again was it a fear of Communism or was it an excuse?


quote:


That's a pretty weak criticism - he has fundamentally exposed Western foreign policy for what it is and your problem is he (apparently) has no ideas for how to make the world a better place? Surely you can work that one out for yourself.


OK, so I actually checked out what he thinks would be a system of government and life that would be a good thing, turns out he advocates small, self controlled anarchic communities, that failed to work in the 30s.

he also cited that the collectivism and communalism of the great leap forward in China were a good way to go, but to be fair to him this was about 5 years before the reports came out saying that these were the greatest factors in the famine that caused the deaths of 30million chinese.

Have you got a link to this

quote:


Plus for once I'd like to ask you what you think of the numerous dictatorships the US has backed over the years, in South America, South East Asia, Africa, the Middle East. You seem to support all of these actions - how do you justify them?



Me? well I think they were despicable regimes, but necessary to prevent the spread of Marxism/Leninism across the globe, which I believe was responsible for more suffering in the last century than the crimes of the west.

Totally unbelievable comment - you're basically saying it was right to back brutal dictatorships who murdered and tortured their own people. And in terms of comparable suffering, millions of people in the Third World have died due to Western foreign policy, literally millions.

I also note that this, again is a typical chomskian tactic, if somebody alleges that the removal of a dictator that opposes the west is a good thing, the next step is generally to say "but what about x" which invariably is a western ally oppressing somebody (it doesn't even have to be that recent). which handily pushes the original point that the dictator is generally doing awful things away from the argument.

So Fluke, what makes you think that Milosevic, The Taliban, Hussein and now Gaddafi are such good examples of fair and modern government that they deserve to stay in power?


Take them all out, but a) do it for the right reasons (humanitarian), and b) don't pick and choose your fights. On both a + b the West falls down heavily and history has shown this time and time again. We back the dictators in our pockets, we attack those that aren't. It's happening right now across the middle east as we very speak - you can't find any more blatant evidence than that. It's right in front of your eyes mate!



(in reply to Chief Wiggum)
Post #: 118
RE: Egypt Protests - 9/6/2011 9:43:00 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
STOP ARGUING WITH FLUKE EVERYONE. HE WILL NEVER EVER AGREE WITH YOU.

EVER.


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 119
RE: Egypt Protests - 9/6/2011 9:53:31 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
Chief is like Anakin Skywalker - clearly a talented fucker, but has gone over to the dark side! 

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: Egypt Protests Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109