Actually the percentages are not that far off from the info provided on the Wikipedia map posted here.
Your percentages mean nothing, as you provide no specifics of the *individual* countries and how the situation of the common folk is any different in any other part of the world, other than provide uninformed lumping together of the nations into one basket. I've already commented on wiki's map. Look above, and take a cue.
quote: Iraq will be a much better place sooner rather than later.
Not according to your logic. Using your logic above, they'd be best serve under colonialism. What is going on in Iraq is no different from what the various African countries had been going through in the pre-"independence" days.
quote: The occupation is dwindling but it will be there long enough to ensure that the country is rebuilt, and better than before.
Indeed. The country doesn't even have a proper sewer system under the occupation, and it was better under Saddam. Unemployment is more rampant than ever. Don't mistake oil revenues with what the ordinary Iraqis bring in. Next, you'll be telling us Afghanistan will be a paradise under U.S. occupation sooner than later. LOL.
quote:
Yemen would be much better off if the US invades.
Listen here. The U.S. is not ridding Yemen off of its government, which quite tows the line with the U.S. and hence, the latter sees no reason to have beef. In fact, the goal is to strengthen that government. So, how that means that Yemen will be better of to you, with U.S. invasion - translating into the mass murder of many, is anyone's guess.
quote: Have you been to Africa, Yemen, etc?
Better question: have you? Your post suggests that you haven't.
quote:
The situations there
Where is "there"? "There" has no meaning without specifics.
quote: Lambast my opinion for all I care
They should be lambasted, regardless of how you feel about it... as anything devoid of logic or material should be. Who says your personal feelings mattered here? Not me.
quote: but what I stated here is actually plausible
The countries are in this situation, precisely because of colonialism and its neocolonialist offshoot. You are essentially saying you are ignorant of the real world, and that the solution Africa's problem is going back to what is the root of that problem, even as we speak: colonialism! Your statement is not plausible; it is in fact moronic at best. How old are you?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Actually the percentages are not that far off from the info provided on the Wikipedia map posted here.
Your percentages mean nothing, as you provide no specifics of the *individual* countries and how the situation of the common folk is any different in any other part of the world, other than provide uninformed lumping together of the nations into one basket. I've already commented on wiki's map. Look above, and take a cue.
quote: Iraq will be a much better place sooner rather than later.
Not according to your logic. Using your logic above, they'd be best serve under colonialism. What is going on in Iraq is no different from what the various African countries had been going through in the pre-"independence" days.
quote: The occupation is dwindling but it will be there long enough to ensure that the country is rebuilt, and better than before.
Indeed. The country doesn't even have a proper sewer system under the occupation, and it was better under Saddam. Unemployment is more rampant than ever. Don't mistake oil revenues with what the ordinary Iraqis bring in. Next, you'll be telling us Afghanistan will be a paradise under U.S. occupation sooner than later. LOL.
quote:
Yemen would be much better off if the US invades.
Listen here. The U.S. is not ridding Yemen off of its government, which quite tows the line with the U.S. and hence, the latter sees no reason to have beef. In fact, the goal is to strengthen that government. So, how that means that Yemen will be better of to you, with U.S. invasion - translating into the mass murder of many, is anyone's guess.
quote: Have you been to Africa, Yemen, etc?
Better question: have you? Your post suggests that you haven't.
quote:
The situations there
Where is "there"? "There" has no meaning without specifics.
quote: Lambast my opinion for all I care
They should be lambasted, regardless of how you feel about it... as anything devoid of logic or material should be. Who says your personal feelings mattered here? Not me.
quote: but what I stated here is actually plausible
The countries are in this situation, precisely because of colonialism and its neocolonialist offshoot. You are essentially saying you are ignorant of the real world, and that Africa's problems is going back to what is the root of that problem, even as we speak: colonialism! Your statement is not plausible; it is in fact moronic at best. How old are you?
Who says the US will rid Yemen of its government? You are full of yourself for someone so ignorant of what is actually transpiring in Yemen.
The South is planning to secede and it will be Saleh’s Mutamor party and Al Alhmars party versus the Southern Socialists AND the southern tribes (southern tribes that sided with Saleh in the past but have since learned their lesson).
Yemen will go into chaos, and the US will have no choice but to intervene, which will lead to occupation, which in turn will lead to 2 nations again (N & S), which will ultimately result in actual civilized nations.
Go educate yourself on matters you know nothing about. Age is but a number, you can be 50 but you are pretty ignorant in some matters.
Who says the US will rid Yemen of its government? You are full of yourself for someone so ignorant of what is actually transpiring in Yemen.
You are full of horse manure. If they aren't ridding the country off the government that has been there for decades, when how are they supposed to be better of? Elaborate.
quote: Yemen will go into chaos, and the US will have no choice but to intervene
And why do you suppose there is this threat of session in the first place, if governance wasn't an issue? Are you that much of an idiot, to think that the U.S. is going in to help the ordinary Yemeni?
quote: which will lead to occupation, which in turn will lead to 2 nations again (N & S), which will ultimately result in actual civilized nations.
You mean as in what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
quote:Go educate yourself on matters you know nothing about.
Pull you head out of your ass, before you interrupt grown folks' conversation.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Who says the US will rid Yemen of its government? You are full of yourself for someone so ignorant of what is actually transpiring in Yemen.
You are full of horse manure. If they aren't ridding the country off the government that has been there for decades, when how are they supposed to be better of? Elaborate.
quote: Yemen will go into chaos, and the US will have no choice but to intervene
And why do you suppose there is this threat of session in the first place, if governance wasn't an issue? Are you that much of an idiot, to think that the U.S. is going in to help the ordinary Yemeni?
quote: which will lead to occupation, which in turn will lead to 2 nations again (N & S), which will ultimately result in actual civilized nations.
You mean as in what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
quote:Go educate yourself on matters you know nothing about.
Pull you head out of your ass, before you interrupt grown folks' conversation.
I really do not have time to school an ignoramus that is full of himself/herself right now, so here’s some info that you should know about. The current Yemeni government has only been in been in power for less than 20 years. Before that there were 2 nations a North Yemen and A South Yemen. The government of Yemen is about to become destabilized by the secessionist southern forces who actually are massing a private army. This inevitable war will make Yemen a ‘safe haven’ for ‘terrorists’ and the USA will not intervene out of love but because of the destabilizing effect that Yemen might have on the rest of Gulf (GCC).
The Mutamor Party and Islah (ruling parties) have ruled unjustly since unification. There are already areas in the South where the North (government) has no power at all. Long story short Yemen is about to become very unstable, there’s oil there, unruly sheiks, renegade mentality and that my friend (not) is about as juicy as it gets from a USA perspective. Tensions are escalating by the day, the government is being smacked on all sides, the houthis in the north, the socialist in the south and the itsy bitsy ‘terrorists’ that manage to get the attention of small minded people like yourself.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I really do not have time to school an ignoramus that is full of himself/herself right now
I have all the time to entertain "schooling" from a dickhead, who tells people that the solution to their problem is depending on the root of that problem. LOL.
quote: . The current Yemeni government has only been in been in power for less than 20 years.
The current head of state was the administrative head of state of Yemen since 1978. And became, leader of "unified" Yemen in 1989. Since, then the government had been having issues with the Shiit groups in the northern part of the country, and the secessionist groups in the southern. There is a reason why this corrupt government hasn't been able to satisfy these bases; go ahead and "school" us on why, asshead?
quote:
Tensions are escalating by the day, the government is being smacked on all sides, the houthis in the north, the socialist in the south and the itsy bitsy ‘terrorists’ that manage to get the attention of small minded people like yourself.
fuckhead towelhead, entertain me. In what way has the "terrorist" got my attention. Is it not the "pretext" the U.S. government and Saleh's government are supposedly beefing up military action in the first place; looks like these are the "small minded people" you are referring to, the ones whose asses you lick clean, don't you agree?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: which will lead to occupation, which in turn will lead to 2 nations again (N & S), which will ultimately result in actual civilized nations.
Hey fuckhead diaperhead, your ignorant ass has skipped on the part that the U.S. is not ridding Yemen off of its government, but the goal is to strengthen. How then, do you figure the goal is to give the south independence, as your asswipe moronic mentality above suggests. If that were the case, heck the Yemeni government would not need U.S. assistance here; he could easily give them the independence that they are seeking and be done with it. Have I already told you that your are a total fuckhead? I believe I have.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I really do not have time to school an ignoramus that is full of himself/herself right now
I have all the time to entertain "schooling" from a dickhead, who tells people that the solution to their problem is depending on the root of that problem. LOL.
quote: . The current Yemeni government has only been in been in power for less than 20 years.
The current head of state was the administrative head of state of Yemen since 1978. And became, leader of "unified" Yemen in 1989. Since, then the government had been having issues with the Shiit groups in the northern part of the country, and the secessionist groups in the southern. There is a reason why this corrupt government hasn't been able to satisfy these bases; go ahead and "school" us on why, asshead?
quote:
Tensions are escalating by the day, the government is being smacked on all sides, the houthis in the north, the socialist in the south and the itsy bitsy ‘terrorists’ that manage to get the attention of small minded people like yourself.
fuckhead towelhead, entertain me. In what way has the "terrorist" got my attention. Is it not the "pretext" the U.S. government and Saleh's government are supposedly beefing up military action in the first place; looks like these are the "small minded people" you are referring to, the ones whose asses you lick clean, don't you agree?
Wow you were calm and collected an hour ago and now you’re resorting to very foul language, actually ignorance and arrogance with a mix of desperation go hand in hand.
Yeah you’re such a grown man. Yeah you’re such an intellect. Such an conversationalist
You just belittled yourself. Go entertain your own self but before that wash that foul mouth of yours.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, my ass-wipe napkin head, those questions won't be answering themselves? Get to work.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exiiled, you're not making any sense. As for being in these nation, yes I have. The problem here is you're assuming that US will dissolve the current government and allow two nations to exist independently as we saw prior to unification. That is, the unification that was fiercely backed by Saudi Arabia.
What evidence do you have that US will take a position that counteracts the current government and Saudi Arabia's interests? I haven't seen influential think tanks, of any stripes, within the US suggesting that.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exiiled is naive. His/her mind is in exile, taking for granted that colonialist dictators relinquished all control supposedly upon token "independence" issued, to stamp out instability and expensive [to the colonial dictators] "thorn-in-the-side" liberation struggles of the ordinary locals, not realizing that these same former occupying colonial dictatorship regimes still pull the strings from behind the scenes. That is what the IMF, the World Bank and the UN are used for by these regimes; i.e. where both bribery and provocation [some call it the "carrot and stick"] are the order of the day. These are not democratic institutions.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
What evidence do you have that US will take a position that counteracts the current government and Saudi Arabia's interests? I haven't seen influential think tanks, of any stripes, within the US suggesting that.
No doubt, like the U.S. will want this strategic location of interest come under control of a socialist secessionist leadership on its watch, instead of consolidating the powers of the present leadership, which is already more desirable from the U.S. standpoint?! This is what I'm referring to, about the inexperience of the exiiled in real world affairs. Of course, the Yemen thing was just a distraction from the clumsy claims about Africans needing to get re-colonized, when many are already under neocolonialism no less, which is the root of the very problems in the first place, that he is caterwauling about...it too backfired however.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: Exiiled, you're not making any sense. As for being in these nation, yes I have. The problem here is you're assuming that US will dissolve the current government and allow two nations to exist independently as we saw prior to unification. That is, the unification that was fiercely backed by Saudi Arabia.
What evidence do you have that US will take a position that counteracts the current government and Saudi Arabia's interests? I haven't seen influential think tanks, of any stripes, within the US suggesting that.
The US will not dissolve the northern government it is a legitimate government for the North and north only. For the southerners that leadership is deemed tyrannically. The US government knows very well of the injustices that are going on in the South. The State Department has released statement after statement warning the government to treat all citizens equally. They even stated that unity can only last as long as such equality existed.
If you believe that Saudia Arabia initially backed unity then that is erroneous. Saudia Arabia only did so after the Southern leader at the time (al beeth) over played his hand.
Discounting the animosity between Saudia Arabia and Northern Yemen is also wrong. North Yemen sided with Iraq during the first Gulf War. So much that Yemeni peasants demonstrated in Sanaa with their pick up trucks, they had banners that read we have the flatbeds now give us the scud missiles to launch (at Saudia Arab). Yes the morons saw scuds being launched and thought they were launched from ordinary trucks.
Saleh conveyed to Baker that it wasn't the position of the government but rather the people.
Saudia Arabia countered by expelling more than 1 million Yemenis from Saudia Arabia, Kuwait to this day bans most Yemenis from working or migrating there. This only occurred 15 or so years ago. This animosity existed when even before Saudia Arabia aided the Imam against Northern republicans (and Nasser). King Abdel Aziz warned his sons (fahd, faisel, abdullah, etc) of Yemen. This is historically documented.
The only reason that Yemen and Saudia Arabia are on good terms now are:
1- Partners on War on Terror
2- Yemen conceded greatly (border disputes) to Saudia Arabia in hopes of being allowed to the GCC, something that will never happen bcz North Yemen has like 18 million ppl, but with 23 million Klashnokovs. Yemen ever since the Gulf War fiasco has been basically begging Saudia Arabia for forgiveness.
You are asking for evidence from think tanks in the US. The reality at hand is that civil war looms and Yemen will be destabilized. The south knows that is best time for them to secede.
America will intervene and Southerners are banking on that because there is no way that the South can defeat the North. The are greatly outnumbered. Either way the result will be chaos and yes Yemen could very well turn into another Iraq, where "terrorists" will converge.
Keep in mind Unity is only 20 years old. With a Southern leadership in Exile. America will be put on the spot. As far as the interpretation of socialists, it is more of non-practicing Muslims rather than communism, or any ideology similar Chevaz.
Southern Yemen is deemed under "occupation" by the people there from Aden to Hadramoot.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This fool takes it that because the U.S. presses the present Yemeni leadership to do whatever it can to ensure "unity", that this is a prelude to giving some socialist separatist group ammunition to assume leadership in a key location in the Arabian peninsula, to U.S. geopolitical interests. LOL. Notwithstanding this comical mentality, he/she goes onto to essentially say, from the other side of the mouth, that the U.S. will press for secession of the country. Talk about contradictions!
The US military intervention in Yemen is being carried out in support of the dictatorial regime of Field Marshall Ali Saleh, who has been head of state for more than 30 years—first as president of North Yemen until 1990, and then, after the post-Cold War unification, as president of the unified country.
Yemen, with 23.8 million people, is the poorest country in the Arab world. More than half of the population lives below the poverty line. More than 40 percent are unemployed and 54 percent are illiterate. - Bill Van Auken, 29 Dec 2009.
Fool, the U.S. is intervening to give "support" to the present leadership, to "support the present leadership" -- you hear, not to undermine it. What does that mean to the south separatist group? Yeap, they want the separatist elements to win, which is why they call them "al Qaiiiida"! LOL.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
You are too simple minded for me. You only see things from what you read in the western press. I have to literally spell it out for you, step by step:
A- South will announce seccession, they already have the blessing of the Southern Tribes, So e are talking easily 50,000-100,00 men (maybe more)
B- The Government will retailate because Saleh loves war
C- The government will be greatly weakened, and Yemen will become another playground for terrorists D- The Gulf will start to **** bricks
E-The US will intervene and how that ends up will be messy, they will take on the terrorists and the unruly sheilks (all of whom are Northerners by the way)
D- They will have to negotiate with the South and what does the South want, secession
Now sing : "Now I Know My ABC"
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Fool, a simple mind is a moron who says the U.S. wants "unity", but that their military strategy will be to "separate" the country into two nations. A simple mind is one who thinks that a strategic location will be handed to a socialist separatist group, in a key location of U.S. geopolitical interests in the Arabian peninsula. A simple mind is one who think that the U.S. will do any of the above for a group that both they and the Saleh government blanketly call "al Qaeda" in the Arabian peninsula. You are too simple minded to even realize that you are an ignoramus.
quote: You only see things from what you read in the western press.
None of the things I mentioned are promoted in "western press". The only thing they ever say about Yemen, is that the U.S. is stepping up its efforts to root out the "terrorists", affiliated with al Qaeda, esp. after that flight 253 incident, who wish to do harm to U.S. interests. The alert minds will recall that they even closed U.S. embassy there, presumably predicated on "high alert" to "terrorist acts" on U.S. interests in the region. Was all this accidental dissemination in the U.S. and "western" mass media? I think not. It is meant to instill more unease into the public, to soften their reactions to open U.S. conflict in the region.
And btw, are you not that stooge, who says U.S. colonialism is the best thing that could happen to these people anyway? So, whose the "western mass media" sucker here, if not you. LOL.
quote: I have to literally spell it out for you, step by step:
Your "step by step" will get you nowhere, if not walking backwards even though your purported goal is to walk forward, because it belies logic. Your mind is still in exile.
quote: A- South will announce seccession, they already have the blessing of the Southern Tribes, So e are talking easily 50,000-100,00 men (maybe more)
Which the U.S. could give a hoot about, and which, the present leadership is determined to see not happen. And...?
quote: B- The Government will retailate because Saleh loves war
That has no bearing on the goal. His goal is to consolidate his power from north to south, in Yemen. And so does the U.S., and the Saudi Arabia.
quote: C- The government will be greatly weakened, and Yemen will become another playground for terrorists
This is what the U.S. military aid is there to stop from happening. And...? Not, according to your moronic inexperienced logic, to hand power to a socialist separatist group, and have "divided" nations.
quote:
D- The Gulf will start to **** bricks
E-The US will intervene and how that ends up will be messy, they will take on the terrorists and the unruly sheilks (all of whom are Northerners by the way)
Well, it may very well end up in a mess, as did Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. But this does not change the goal of the U.S. The U.S. actions here, will cause tragic consequences for ordinary Yemeni. That is the likely outcome of this, not prosperity, as you imagine in la la land.
quote: D- They will have to negotiate with the South and what does the South want, secession
Now sing : "Now I Know My ABC"
Fool, read the above, and educate your inexperienced amateur poor excuse of an idiot-self.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
We are at an impasse and all I can say is we will have to let this play out. My parting words are very simple (and I will look back on this thread when the sh-it hits the fan)
I truly believe Yemen will come out of it two separate nations, nations that will be on the road to being civilized. Everyone criticized Bush when he decided to invade Iraq (including myself) but Iraq (like I mentioned earlier) will come out of it a better country. The status quo of dictators in the Middle East must change. Occupations and rehabilitation seems to be working in the current model (Iraq).
I could only wish that the US invades Somalia as well to rehabilitate them too and send them on the road to being civilized.
Actually I have an impressive list of nations that I believe need to be occupied for their own good. But these two are enough for now, of course success is no guarantee as evidenced in Afghanistan but Iraq is looking pretty good and a good indicator are the refugees that are returning. The Shia are going back in droves, hopefully the Sunnis will follow suit, especially after the latest agreements in parliament.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
We are at an impasse and all I can say is we will have to let this play out.
More like, your concrete skull is impenetrable to basic education. I already know how its going to likely play it out; it's spelled out above for people who can read -- in other words, not you.
quote:
My parting words are very simple (and I will look back on this thread when the sh-it hits the fan)
I doubt your "simple words" will be nearly as simple as your mind is. I take it that you haven't traveled much.
quote:
I truly believe Yemen will come out of it two separate nations, nations that will be on the road to being civilized. Everyone criticized Bush when he decided to invade Iraq (including myself) but Iraq (like I mentioned earlier) will come out of it a better country. The status quo of dictators in the Middle East must change. Occupations and rehabilitation seems to be working in the current model (Iraq).
Now, we have a Miss Cleo on our hands. This guy must be a hammer neophyte; there resemblance cannot be dismissed out of hand.
quote: I could only wish that the US invades Somalia as well to rehabilitate them too and send them on the road to being civilized.
Actually I have an impressive list of nations that I believe need to be occupied for their own good. But these two are enough for now, of course success is no guarantee as evidenced in Afghanistan but Iraq is looking pretty good
Iraq is looking pretty good in terms of what; infrastructure, employment, wages of ordinary folk, continued violence, dictatorship; come on, give us the concrete specifics on these matters.
quote: and a good indicator are the refugees that are returning.
They are returning, because 1)they have a desire to get their country back, and hopeful, to rebuild it. 2)They are being pressured in other locations to leave, and that they have overstayed their welcome. In fact, ironic, that the U.S. is one of the places that took in the least amount of refugees, considering that they started this mess. It has nothing to do with your figment, that Iraq is better now than it was prior to the occupation.
You need to grow up kid, and smell the coffee. The real world is not make-pretend Disney land.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
There is no smoke without Iranian fire, but now Saudi Arabia has dispelled the smoke that was surrounding the Jabal Dokhan [Smoke Mountain] region from the fire which was originally ignited by Iran. However the Iranian fire continues to emit thick clouds of smoke which plague Iraq's valleys, as well as the hilltops of southern Lebanon, these toxic fumes originate at the Qom [nuclear] facility, that as of now does not actually possess nuclear capabilities, but which has raised sectarian tensions [in the region]. As for the Arab and Islamic region, Iran's mullahs are lying in wait for the opportunity to stoke their fires and plow the region into turmoil, as was seen by the [Huthi] attack on Saada, as well as the smoke emitted from the fire of [the Huthi attack on] Jabal Dokhan.
There is controversy surrounding the Huthi insurgency in Yemen, but there is national unity and fierce anger towards the Huthi aggression against Saudi Arabia and the attack on Jabal Dokhan which is located along the southern Saudi Arabian border. This is because when a foreign hand invades a free and honourable country there is no choice but to cut it off. For although the Saudis hate resorting to military solutions, perhaps they dislike something that is in fact good for them. Everybody is convinced that Iran's claws must now be removed from Yemen following this threat to regional peace and after the Huthis sought to rip apart Yemeni unity which had made long strides away from sectarian strife. In fact the Huthis sought to fan these [Iranian] flames to engulf a country that is important to all Muslims across the world.
Therefore any issue or threat against this country [Saudi Arabia] must also by necessity affect all other Arab and Muslim countries, and cause them to put aside their differences and unite against the oppressive Iranian influence. And so it is up to all political, ideological and Islamic groups and others to move away from making vague statements and taking up positions in the [ideological] grey area [with regards to Iran] and instead each group should perform their role in accordance with their ability and position on the political map.
It is time for everybody to realize that were Iran to get a nuclear weapon, it would never use this – or even threaten to use this – against Israel or the US, as Tehran knows that if it were to do so it would face destruction. Rather the Qom nuclear facility is intended to target important countries in the region in order to impose Iranian hegemony [on the region] and extend Iran's ideological agenda. Take note that the rate of Iran's escalation and intervention in Arab and Islamic affairs has increased with every step closer that Tehran has taken towards building an integrated nuclear reactor. What is taking place in the Saada mountainside and along the slopes of Jabal Dokhan is nothing more than Iran implementing the next stage of its multifaceted five-year plan.
I have referred repeatedly to the fact that the Yemeni opposition – with all of its different [political] trends – made the initial mistake of failing to adopt a clear position towards the Huthi insurgency. They also chose the wrong time to confront the Yemeni government in an attempt to hold them accountable [for this]. The Huthi insurgency is a threat to the entire country, not just the ruling regime or the president. Therefore assigning blame to the government is a waste of time and effort, and in fact aids the Huthi insurgency and those who are behind it. Therefore the Yemeni government – and other Arab governments – must learn from this hard lesson. Arab governments must be aware that corruption, cronyism, and a certain group of people monopolizing senior positions at the expense of everybody else, does nothing more than thwart national unity, as is the case with Yemen today. The opposition – along with a large segment of society – must also understand that by confronting the danger that threatens the country as a whole, they are also confronting a government that is beset by corruption. Therefore regimes must work to get rid of corruption during the good times, so that the citizens stand up for them during the bad times.
Dr. Hamad Al-Majid is a journalist and former member of the official Saudi National Organization for Human Rights. Al-Majid is a graduate of Imam Muhammad Bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh and holds an M.A. from California and a Doctorate from the University of Hull in the United Kingdom.
This is as Saudi as it comes. Please post sources that suggest the reverse. The Houthis, while not branded as Al Qaeda (who the hell would do that?) have strong ties with Iran. Saudi Arabia, having a rather fierce rivalry with the nation does not view the insurgents as legitimate.
The United States, on the other hand, is heavily focused on AQ elements. However, Saudi Arabia, also (at the higher echelons) opposes those elements. For that reason, the most parsimonuous solution for the nation would be to support a unified government. That way, Iran's hands would be minimized and Saudi Arabia/ US's strategic interests are promoted.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:In retrospect, the british were not that bad, and they sure as hell are nothing like the current Arab and African monsters that rule with iron fists. Sure initial occupation is brutal but it also results in a better situation
Not quite. In order to establish their colonies and protectorates, the British slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. Check the factual history books and you will learn how Lugard slaughtered at will. One afternoon he just erased 3,000 people from this life. This happened in what his girlfriend/concubine(Flora Shaw) named Nigeria. Imagine a whore naming an African country.
Which just brings up my next point: colonialism still continues; it just operates by remote control. The politicians in charge in most African countries are just hired hands, hit men and gangsters who are simply carrying the job ascribed to them. If not, how come no questions are asked about their bank accounts in Britain, Switzerland, France, U.S., etc.
In fact, the budgets of many African countries are underwritten by domors who are just paying small to reap big profits and access to mineral and agricultural resources.
It's a universal problem with Africans: the oppression is everywhere blacks. In the Americas, the largest population of blacks, Haiti(9 to 10 million) has been effectively strangled to death. In that neighbourhood the little islets of quarantined Africans don't really count--except as playgrounds for dissolute whites. In the bigger population centres of the U.S. and Brazil--the genocide is pushed every day by jailing blacks who have been squeezed out of the fascist system. If blacks didn't have an edge in athletics and music they would be just as sealed away and forgotten as the Native Americans.
But back to the British: have you forgotten how they slaughtered their way into all parts of Africa. Take the case of how they got Zimbabwe which they arrogantly named Rhodesia. Think of how the got the Sudan and Kenya. And when revolts occurred British cruelty was legendary.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin - While for the most part true; I still wish you wouldn't treat such complicated problems so simplistically.
And for the record, not withstanding the crimes in between, those governed by the British were better of afterward. Think U.S.A. and Nigeria.
How come you have nothing to say about those a-hole Ethiopians naming their country "Ethiopia" BURNT FACE!!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: lamin - While for the most part true; I still wish you wouldn't treat such complicated problems so simplistically.
And for the record, not withstanding the crimes in between, those governed by the British were better of afterward. Think U.S.A. and Nigeria.
How come you have nothing to say about those a-hole Ethiopians naming their country "Ethiopia" BURNT FACE!!
How can Nigeria be considered a success story? The drunken definitions used in these threads, with China, Morocco and Tunisia being introduced, makes Palestine look progressive. According to most indicators, Palestinian territories perform a lot better. That tells us that things aren't so well in these nations.
I am not saying, blame white people. Instead we need to understand the forces involved in international oppression. That is the only way we could better ourselves.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is as Saudi as it comes. Please post sources that suggest the reverse. The Houthis, while not branded as Al Qaeda (who the hell would do that?) have strong ties with Iran.
This is how it is done. It is more for the benefit of "western" nation allies like the U.S. than anything, to soften up public reaction to mounting military adventurism, where across the media concerns, any insurgents that come into collision with the "west" and its local ally are invariably labeled as "terrorists" or "al Qaeda" operatives, words which are used interchangeably. That this the pretext being given to this latest beefed up military action preparations in Yemen, which was already underway before the flight 253 incident. This is the same branding used in "western" media about Iraqi insurgents, and even the preposterous attempt to make a link between al Qaeda and Iran. Of course, the locals of the immediate theaters of military intervention are usually aware of the distinction between al Qaeda and local insurgent groups, but they are not necessarily the target audience for this sort of propaganda. When insurgents and their perceived "sympathizers" are militarily targeted, the destruction is thereof explained away by both the "western" meddling ally(s) and the local leadership as rooting out "terrorist" or "al Qaeda" operatives. Take note, for example:
(AFP) – Oct 19, 2009
SANAA — Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh accused Shiite northern rebels of taking money from Iranians and of plotting to create a Shiite zone along the Saudi borders.
"These are outlaws and terrorists... who are in the pay of foreign forces and execute a foreign agenda," Saleh said, according to a text issued on Monday by state news agency Saba of a television interview.
"Their finances come from certain Iranian dignatories... but we do not accuse the government," he said, citing documents seized and confessions of rebels captured during the fighting between the army and the rebels, which has been raging since early August.
The Zaidi rebels, known also as Huthis, have repeatedly denied being backed by Tehran.
Saleh also said that the rebels appear to have gone through combat training similar to that of Lebanon's Iran-backed Shiite Hezbollah militia, which fought a fierce guerilla war with Israel in the summer of 2006 in south Lebanon.
"They have been trained in the same manner followed by Hezbollah in south Lebanon," he said, pointing to unconfirmed reports of the presence of "trainers from southern Lebanon in Saada," the rebels' stronghold.
The Zaidi rebels are trying to establish a "Shiite zone" along the Yemen-Saudi border with the aim of harming both countries, the president said.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki postponed a scheduled visit to Yemen on Sunday due to a scheduling problem.
Saleh also claimed that the Huthi rebels have ties with the Al-Qaeda regional network, which has recently regrouped in Yemen, and with separatists in the south who are demanding their own breakaway state.
A link exists between Al-Qaeda and the Huthis, and between them and the southern movement," he said.
"I do not think that they have the same agenda or the same principles, but they share the same adversary: the political system of the Yemeni republic," he added.
Hundreds of people have been killed or wounded since the army launched Operation Scorched Earth on August 11 with the aim of crushing the five-year rebellion.
Tens of thousands have fled their homes in the mountainous northern districts where fighting is fiercest, resulting in a humanitarian crisis complicated by a dire shortage of food and other basic necessities.
I doubt that "western" audiences will rarely, if at all, hear the names "Huthi" or "Yemen Socialist Party" as the main targets of U.S. or "western" military intervention, at least not without tacitly making a link between these groups and al Qaeda in some fashion or another, no matter how dubious or tenuous. I think some of us underestimate how far the U.S. and its local stooges--like the Yemeni government--are willing to fabricate things for propaganda purposes to achieve their geopolitical interests, no matter how ridiculous they may be to those in the know.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob_01 - I wasn't saying that Nigeria was to be considered a success story. I'm just saying that those previously ruled by the British, had a little head start when it came time to rule themselves.
I can't say any more on the subject, because I am just now living down the hatreds from previous comments on Sub-Saharan's.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am not saying, blame white people. Instead we need to understand the forces involved in international oppression. That is the only way we could better ourselves. [/QB]
whay race are you??? you said previously you were not black i think
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes he is vague at times. One day he sounds like he hates white folks then the next he doesn't blame them. Witness this from him: ''Instead we need to understand the forces involved in international oppression.'' ... which are the white guys... right Bob?
then...
''That is the only way we could better ourselves.''
Maybe Bob means by understanding how the white folks do the oppressing we can learn how to join the club. But, the other hand, if the oppressors are in near total control then what does one do once armed with the information on how to better themselves given that the idea of oppression is just that, that is, international and white?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Maybe Bob means by understanding how the white folks do the oppressing we can learn how to join the club. But, the other hand, if the oppressors are in near total control then what does one do once armed with the information on how to better themselves given that the idea of oppression is just that, that is, international and white?
Its totally understandable man, once we know whos the oppressor we totally kick ass man! Grooovey. Here, have a hit Grumman...
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grumman, you've been conspicuously absent from your IngSoc meetings. Is there something the matter?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
I am not saying, blame white people. Instead we need to understand the forces involved in international oppression. That is the only way we could better ourselves.
whay race are you??? you said previously you were not black i think [/QB]
I consider myself Black and probably would be considered that in virtually all settings. Besides, even if I wasn't, how what I suggest no stand?
As inhabitants of the third world, those of color, we have an interest in seeing Western imperialism exposed. That's something that isn't very popular amongst the "white" spheres staring Grumman.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Yes he is vague at times. One day he sounds like he hates white folks then the next he doesn't blame them. Witness this from him: ''Instead we need to understand the forces involved in international oppression.'' ... which are the white guys... right Bob?
No. The West. That class that manages these nations are "white guys".
I don't see why you're so defensive about whiteness. There is no such a race, it is rather a club. There is no "white" culture, it developed out of the class.
That club was one wrapped around the Anglo-Saxon ideal. I don't give a **** about some racist donkey or kike opinions. The bigger issue is the ideology. That is why I took my position vs the uncle tom.
quote:Maybe Bob means by understanding how the white folks do the oppressing we can learn how to join the club. But, the other hand, if the oppressors are in near total control then what does one do once armed with the information on how to better themselves given that the idea of oppression is just that, that is, international and white?
Quit being Irish. Does that even make sense? To somehow ignore the international forces involved is downright blind. That component, outside of a few individuals, tend to be ignored.
Class-based...race-based...gender-based and what not. I focus on the racial aspect. That form of oppression is visibly present. These appear quite obviously in the international sphere.
Joining the white club would be a terrible waste of time. It will always define black as the extreme opposite. For that reasons, it's better to develop outside of that paradigm.
[Added Later]
When the hell I suggest that I hate people who choose to identify themselves as white? To be honest, I couldn't care less about white people (including white men) who often kill themselves in leading "White" nations. On the other hand, I definitely hate white privilege and the concept of whiteness.
If I wanted to join that club, why would I maintain my position on international politics? The truth is those NWO-esque ideas are white friendly, while suggesting that we live in a world where white (or male) privilege is a reality isn't. That these privileges perpetuate the disorder we see in our world, including European self-infliction. After all, excess power will lead to corruption.
Lastly, for Nigerians and other people of the third world to become white, it'd ultimately destroy the system. For that reason it'd make sense for that caste system to be dismantled. The majority that I've seen bank the NWO paradigm aren't looking forward to do that.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Maybe Bob means by understanding how the white folks do the oppressing we can learn how to join the club. But, the other hand, if the oppressors are in near total control then what does one do once armed with the information on how to better themselves given that the idea of oppression is just that, that is, international and white?
Its totally understandable man, once we know whos the oppressor we totally kick ass man! Grooovey. Here, have a hit Grumman...
There are no "oppressors". It's more of an ideological matter than anything else. To look for individuals is a waste of time.
I focus on whiteness due to my own development. On the other hand, women will focus on male privilege which is downright undeniable. Gays on heterosexual privilege. That is expected and should be taking place in a forum that revolves around Egyptian affairs.
All of these -isms ultimately produce the system that we live in. The fact that we live in a world that is more akin to the political relations between street gangs makes it less appealing than the Illuminati counterpart. Humans, after all, love to believe that order is one their side, when that is certainly not the case.
PS: Cut your, "he's white" nonsense. I don't where in the world would this man below (myself, btw) would be considered "white".
posted
Anguishofbeing ''Grumman, you've been conspicuously absent from your IngSoc meetings. Is there something the matter?''
An attempt at probing no doubt. Probe all you want, there is no answer.
Bob_01:
''Quit being Irish. Does that even make sense? To somehow ignore the international forces involved is downright blind.''
So now I'm ignoring international forces when I already said that they exist and use control?
''Class-based...race-based...gender-based and what not. I focus on the racial aspect. That form of oppression is visibly present. These appear quite obviously in the international sphere.''
Can I get a witness up in heah.
''Joining the white club would be a terrible waste of time.''
I agree it would be because it would represent a setback. But once the ropes are learned it can be put to good use can't it; you know, like, sock it unto others as they sock it unto you.
''It will always define black as the extreme opposite. For that reasons, it's better to develop outside of that paradigm.''
Since the paradigm is international and white, and defines black as the extreme opposite then the struggle will continue unabated.
[Added Later]
When the hell I suggest that I hate people who choose to identify themselves as white?''
Beats me, I didn't see where you said it either.
but...
Are you talking about the multiracialists, the ones who whine, or the plain ol' white folks?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Anguishofbeing ''Grumman, you've been conspicuously absent from your IngSoc meetings. Is there something the matter?''
An attempt at probing no doubt. Probe all you want, there is no answer.
Then its off to room 101 for you. You do know whats in room 101 don't you Grumman?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman So now I'm ignoring international forces when I already said that they exist and use control?
What you said didn't matter? I don't remember debating with you earlier. It was rather directed at other users who did.
quote:Can I get a witness up in heah.
Huh?
quote:I agree it would be because it would represent a setback. But once the ropes are learned it can be put to good use can't it; you know, like, sock it unto others as they sock it unto you.
It would be near impossible. How can you marginalize white people when they are armed with nuclear weapons? Such a dream would be downright suicidal.
European powers will have tremendous power for a very long time. That won't stop, but establishing convergence, acquiring the same means to defend ourselves, isn't far fetched. China and India are attempting to do the same. Who else can Blacks or "Middle Easterners", for that matter, oppress in the world system? To be honest, I am not fan of large scale empires and would rather see all ethnicities have control over their local affairs.
]
quote:Since the paradigm is international and white, and defines black as the extreme opposite then the struggle will continue unabated.
It would and thus I emphasize on the system being destroyed. Remember that paradigm isn't wholly universal, as we see tokens here and there. However,
quote: [Added Later]
When the hell I suggest that I hate people who choose to identify themselves as white?''
Beats me, I didn't see where you said it either.
Never stated that, as far as I know.
quote:Are you talking about the multiracialists, the ones who whine, or the plain ol' white folks? [/QB]
I am not talking about "white folks" but rather the identity itself. The construct and privilege associated with it is the problem. Those who associate with whiteness don't even matter. The ones who have a long time ago, such as the Irish, Jews, Russians and what not, are not that important.
Being called a [sand]nigger, savage, or spic is marginal.
Being bombed or thrown into prison due to one's place in the international hierarchy is the prime issue. Oppression of that scale is the issue, not name calling or irrational views. The latter is simply a reflection of economic and political forces that dictate the everyday lives of the third world.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
I am not saying, blame white people. Instead we need to understand the forces involved in international oppression. That is the only way we could better ourselves.
whay race are you??? you said previously you were not black i think
I consider myself Black and probably would be considered that in virtually all settings. Besides, even if I wasn't, how what I suggest no stand?
As inhabitants of the third world, those of color, we have an interest in seeing Western imperialism exposed. That's something that isn't very popular amongst the "white" spheres staring Grumman.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Yes he is vague at times. One day he sounds like he hates white folks then the next he doesn't blame them. Witness this from him: ''Instead we need to understand the forces involved in international oppression.'' ... which are the white guys... right Bob?
No. The West. That class that manages these nations are "white guys".
I don't see why you're so defensive about whiteness. There is no such a race, it is rather a club. There is no "white" culture, it developed out of the class.
That club was one wrapped around the Anglo-Saxon ideal. I don't give a **** about some racist donkey or kike opinions. The bigger issue is the ideology. That is why I took my position vs the uncle tom.
quote:Maybe Bob means by understanding how the white folks do the oppressing we can learn how to join the club. But, the other hand, if the oppressors are in near total control then what does one do once armed with the information on how to better themselves given that the idea of oppression is just that, that is, international and white?
Quit being Irish. Does that even make sense? To somehow ignore the international forces involved is downright blind. That component, outside of a few individuals, tend to be ignored.
Class-based...race-based...gender-based and what not. I focus on the racial aspect. That form of oppression is visibly present. These appear quite obviously in the international sphere.
Joining the white club would be a terrible waste of time. It will always define black as the extreme opposite. For that reasons, it's better to develop outside of that paradigm.
[Added Later]
When the hell I suggest that I hate people who choose to identify themselves as white? To be honest, I couldn't care less about white people (including white men) who often kill themselves in leading "White" nations. On the other hand, I definitely hate white privilege and the concept of whiteness.
If I wanted to join that club, why would I maintain my position on international politics? The truth is those NWO-esque ideas are white friendly, while suggesting that we live in a world where white (or male) privilege is a reality isn't. That these privileges perpetuate the disorder we see in our world, including European self-infliction. After all, excess power will lead to corruption.
Lastly, for Nigerians and other people of the third world to become white, it'd ultimately destroy the system. For that reason it'd make sense for that caste system to be dismantled. The majority that I've seen bank the NWO paradigm aren't looking forward to do that. [/QB]
I did'nt mean any harm, just curious. You talk about black and minority empowerment sometime from a 3rd person perspective sometime from a 1st person...so I had to ask.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic