Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Lewinsky: Bill Clinton wanted threesomes; trashed Hillary
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:54 pm    Post subject: Lewinsky: Bill Clinton wanted threesomes; trashed Hillary Reply with quote

Just when Bill thought it was safe to go back in the water.... duh-duh-duh-duh-DUH-DUH-DUH-DUH...
Quote:
Monica's revenge: Lewinsky 'to publish secret love letters to Clinton revealing his insatiable desire for threesomes and how he trashed Hillary'
  • Former White House intern, now 39, 'will detail encounters in new book'
  • She 'will describe how he went on about his desire for threesomes'
  • Clinton 'said he thought Hillary was also looking for love outside marriage'
  • Lewinsky will also detail pain of ending pregnancy during scandal
  • She is 'writing book out of revenge as she has struggled with relationships and jobs after the scandal while Clinton escaped unscathed'
Quote:
He also laughed about his nonexistent sex life with his wife - and said he thought he was not the only one looking for love outside their marriage.

'Monica can describe how Bill went on and on about his insatiable desire for three-way sex, orgies and the use of sex toys of all kinds,' the friend added.

As well as the heartbreak she suffered after her relationship with Clinton, Lewinsky also plans to detail the pain of ending a pregnancy at the height of her liaison with the president, the source said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205490/Monica-Lewinsky-writing-tell-memoir-including-secret-love-letters-Clinton.html
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They should have poisoned her like they did with Monroe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sporkbox
n00b
n00b


Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 21
Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

<insert deity here> forbid that a man likes sex and is willing to look outside of his marriage to find it.

This isn't anything that doesn't happen every day. The difference is that it was a politician. Critics couldn't find anything else to hate on Clinton about so they focus on his sex life, which is nobody's business.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sporkbox, Clinton committed numerous crimes. You should read "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton". It lays out, in detail, the crimes of the Clinton administration... with witness tampering being probably the smallest of the lot.

@ BK, I'm definitely getting this book :lol:
_________________
I, for one, am glad to be living on a planet with 776x the mass of the super-massive black hole at the center of the milky way.
auf alten Schiffen lernt man Segeln.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sporkbox
n00b
n00b


Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 21
Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso: And? Name a politician who hasn't been crooked in one way or another. Knowing that, and the fact that Clinton is no longer president, what's relevant about this little scandal that Ms. Lewinsky's publishing? A scandal that most people capable of critical thinking would have assembled on their own.

It's stirring the pot for the hell of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sporkbox wrote:
It's stirring the pot for the hell of it.


Lewinsky was trashed in the media, and by agents of the White House. She's setting the record straight, from her own POV.
_________________
I, for one, am glad to be living on a planet with 776x the mass of the super-massive black hole at the center of the milky way.
auf alten Schiffen lernt man Segeln.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sporkbox wrote:
<insert deity here> forbid that a man likes sex and is willing to look outside of his marriage to find it.

This isn't anything that doesn't happen every day. The difference is that it was a politician. Critics couldn't find anything else to hate on Clinton about so they focus on his sex life, which is nobody's business.


and George Dubya walks FREE ffs!
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sporkbox wrote:
<insert deity here> forbid that a man likes sex and is willing to look outside of his marriage to find it.

This isn't anything that doesn't happen every day. The difference is that it was a politician. Critics couldn't find anything else to hate on Clinton about so they focus on his sex life, which is nobody's business.

They focused on the fact that he lied about it.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sugar wrote:
sporkbox wrote:
<insert deity here> forbid that a man likes sex and is willing to look outside of his marriage to find it.

This isn't anything that doesn't happen every day. The difference is that it was a politician. Critics couldn't find anything else to hate on Clinton about so they focus on his sex life, which is nobody's business.


and George Dubya walks FREE ffs!

And lying, racist, climate-destroying, stimulus squandering, bomber of innocents, wager of secret wars, taker of bribes, and assassin of Americans, Obama, not only walks free, but will be re-elected ffs! :roll:

Lying Clinton and his inability to keep his dick in his pants are ridiculous in their own right and a tale worth telling. Comparison to others is meaningless.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sporkbox wrote:
Clinton is no longer president, what's relevant about this little scandal that Ms. Lewinsky's publishing? [...]

It's stirring the pot for the hell of it.
It isn't relevant and Clinton isn't president. Agreed. So how is it stirring the pot?
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lady can't keep her mouth shut, can she?
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sporkbox
n00b
n00b


Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 21
Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
sporkbox wrote:
Clinton is no longer president, what's relevant about this little scandal that Ms. Lewinsky's publishing? [...]

It's stirring the pot for the hell of it.
It isn't relevant and Clinton isn't president. Agreed. So how is it stirring the pot?


It's attempting to create controversy when the time to have it has long since passed.

@BoneKracker: Are you aware that Dubya actually started the wars that Obama's had to deal with? Not that Obama's a saint. He's promised change that nobody could deliver, dealt with an inept and bigoted Congress, proposed a retarded health insurance idea, and has failed in getting our nation out of the Middle East, where it had no legitimate business in the first place. So yeah, not a stellar record. At least it's not an over-reaction to a suicide attack and trillions of debt to "finish what daddy started", though.

I'm of the opinion that politicians are like diapers; they should be changed often, for the same reason. Too many people focus on the party warfare instead of the issues, so in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter whether a Republican or a Democrat's in office; they all have no clue or concern for what the People want. The corporations bought this country a long time ago. If the politicians can keep the public divided on issues like religion, sexuality, and abortion, they can yank their civil rights out from under them and they'll be none-the-wiser. Then they can roll in the megabucks while we turn from a democratic republic into whatever-it-is where corporations rule in laissez-fair fashion and greed becomes the reason to exist.

The solution to all this is the very thing that will never happen in politics: accountability. As long as politicians can make decisions but not pay for them, we'll have idiots running our country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
Lady can't keep her mouth shut, can she?

:rim-shot: :lol:
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sporkbox wrote:
pjp wrote:
sporkbox wrote:
Clinton is no longer president, what's relevant about this little scandal that Ms. Lewinsky's publishing? [...]

It's stirring the pot for the hell of it.
It isn't relevant and Clinton isn't president. Agreed. So how is it stirring the pot?


It's attempting to create controversy when the time to have it has long since passed.

@BoneKracker: Are you aware that Dubya actually started the wars that Obama's had to deal with?

Oh, did Dubya start the war in Libya (which Obama bombed the fuck out of for months on end without Congressional approval despite promising our involvement there would be "support only" and "weeks, not months)? I didn't know that.

Did Dubya start the war in Yemen (to which Obama has deployed hundreds if not thousands of special operations personnel, conducted full-blown military operations and drone strikes, and waged a "secret war" that's now almost two years ongoing)? I didn't know that?

Did Dubya start the war in Somalia (to which Obama has deployed numerous special operations personnel to assist both the Ethiopian and Somali national forces)? I didn't know that (and I'd probably credit Clinton with starting that one -- you do remember Black Hawk Down, yes? Or maybe you're too young.).

Did Dubya start the war in the Maghreb (to which Obama and other NATO countries have deployed numerous special operations personnel to combat AQIM)? I didn't know that.

Did Dubya start the war in the Sinai (to which Obama deployed an entire Ranger Battalion, to deter possible Egyptian incursion)? I didn't know that.

If you could show me your sources from which you got the information that Dubya is the one who sent our troops to war in these various places, I would appreciate it, because I apparently don't know very much about what's going on in the world around me, and have been misled.

sporkbox wrote:
Not that Obama's a saint. He's promised change that nobody could deliver, dealt with an inept and bigoted Congress, proposed a retarded health insurance idea, and has failed in getting our nation out of the Middle East, where it had no legitimate business in the first place. So yeah, not a stellar record. At least it's not an over-reaction to a suicide attack and trillions of debt to "finish what daddy started", though.

You forgot: promising to close Guantanamo and failing to do so; promising to get our troops out of Iraq ASAP and then leaving them there even longer than Bush had planned (thousands are still there, by the way; and tens of thousands more are still over there but just across the border into Kuwait, so he can pretend he brought them home). Besides he didn't "bring them home"; he sent them Afghanistan (which has fucked up and turned into a Vietnam 2.0 situation by neither pulling out and reverting solely to strikes or going whole-hog and sending all the troops the military asked for). You also forgot: putting terrorists on trial as civilians (fail).

This idea that "nobody could have done it" is bullshit. Bill Clinton started that, and you know what he actually said (in true Slick Willy style, his words being accurate but the message being a lie)? He said, "No president could have fixed everything that was wrong." That's true. That's like "nobody's perfect". But there is a hell of a lot of room between "almost perfect" and the economic recover we have had. Obama squandered close to a trillion dollars that could have been used to shock the economy back to life. Instead, he parceled it out, nickle and dime, as a trickle of funds, carefully doled out to various government agencies, pet projects, cronies, and stupid ideas like "cash for clunkers". His so-called "stimulus" was an absolute failure -- a Trillion-Dollar mistake that YOU will have to pay back in taxes over your lifetime. He used it to protect the Federal and state governments from the economy, and to fund a bunch of stuff he otherwise had no way to fund.

You also forgot: complete foreign policy failure: his "sitting down without preconditions" has yielded ZERO progress with Iran, and then he stupidly bluffed (gave them until the end of 2010) but then did nothing, losing all credibility; he has pissed off the entire Arab community by leading everyone to believe he sympathized and would deliver change (human rights, democracy, solution to palestinian question), but then he threw them under the bus and sided with Israel; then he waffled on Arab Spring, supporting neither the Dictators nor the rebels (who no longer trust him), except, stupidly, in Libya, where AQIM was directly involved, because Khaddaffi happened to be an easy victim, and them bombing the shit out of his country (killing civilians, rebels, destroying infrastructure, etc.) because he was too much of a political coward to commit ground troops (and as a result, AQIM gained posession of thousands of anti-air missiles which are already shooting down aircraft in Syria and will probably shoot down many of our own). He has pissed off China through naval harassment and using trade to bully them into supporting his balls-out, uncontrolled spending, and then turning around and announcing publicly that China is the new threat and that we are re-deploying the bulk of our navy to the Pacific. China is now treating us like an enemy they need to be ready to go to war against soon. He has pissed off India through disrespect (late visit, with humiliatingly vast Imperial entourage in tow); distrust (won't sell them what we sell Pakistan); and economic bullying (over Iranian sanctions). He has ignored our own hemisphere, except to piss them all off through is balls-out printing of U.S. dollars, which severely hurts them since they all hold dollars and aren't rich to begin with.

You also forgot: he threw just about everybody under the bus who voted for him. Whether your issue was global warming, the environment, conservation, alternative energy, human rights, government transparency, gun control, immigration, legalizing marijuana, the war on drugs, being anti-war, being pro-union, wanting to improve America's image abroad, Internet freedom, privacy, the advancement of science, the revolving door in Washington, the advancement of colored people, the partisan rancor in Washington.... etc., etc. ... he set very high expectations, and let's face it - he didn't do Jack Shit. He likes to blame Republicans (or anybody he can blame, be it Europe, the British, the Chinese, Ron Paul supporters, blah blah blah), but he didn't even make reasonable-looking attempts in most of these areas. Even Bush made more progress in these areas than he did. Bush was curing AIDS in Africa, for Christ's sake. Obama is assassinating terror suspects so he won't have to suffer the political consequences of imprisoning them and putting them on trial! He's even assassinated U.S. citizens without so much as a nod from a court, has ramped up spying on citizens by an order of magnitude, and announced that he interprets the Constitution and does what he wants. He's gone George Orwell's 1984 on us, is more bloodthirsty and Bush and Cheney put together. We've jumped out of the fire into a totally hapless clusterfuck of authoritarian hell.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Clinton isn't president.


If there was a three-way (election I mean) between Bane, Obama, and Clinton, Clinton would walk it. As a politician, he's got a wow factor which the other two don't really have. If Clinton scores 10 for oratorial skills in firing up a crowd, Obama would score 3, and Bane would score -10 with the awesome power of anti-wow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sporkbox
n00b
n00b


Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 21
Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker: I was unaware that Obama had started full-on wars on Libya, et al. From what I could tell they were just little upheavals designed to remove Khaddafi. I agree that they were all unnecessary. One thing stands out to me, though; you paint Obama as horrible for squandering one trillion dollars. What do you have to say about Dubya's much higher waste, tightening of airport security (which didn't lower the incidence of "terrorism" at all), and sending the military into the Middle East on false pretense of "weapons of mass destruction" and other similarly stupid things? You're right that Obama failed to bring us out of the Middle East (and Cuba, and the other places), but who put them in Iraq, Afghanistan, et al in the first place?

Granted, they both screwed the country in their own way, but how can you say 1 trillion dollars wasted in trying to reboot the economy is worse than the tens-of-trillions spent that led to the economic collapse to begin with? If Dubya hadn't over-reacted, our economy wouldn't be as bad as it is today, even with Obama's failures.

Our exchange here is proving my point: politicians are inept and do not have the country's people in mind. They're caught up in ideas, vendettas, agendas, and warring instead of taking care of the people and ensuring the smooth operation of the nation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
pjp wrote:
Clinton isn't president.


If there was a three-way (election I mean) between Bane, Obama, and Clinton, Clinton would walk it. As a politician, he's got a wow factor which the other two don't really have. If Clinton scores 10 for oratorial skills in firing up a crowd, Obama would score 3, and Bane would score -10 with the awesome power of anti-wow.

I don't think Clinton is any better a speaker than Obama. He's just smarter and lies better. I often refer to "Clintonesque" statements made by politicians. Clinton was a master of saying something that was technically true, but would have some significant calculated effect based upon its popular interpretation (which was far from true).

The textbook case was "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Technically true: he fondled her, made out with her, stuck a cigar in her vagina, got a blowjob from her, and shot his wad on her face; but he did not have "sexual relations" with her (because, as anyone born before 1910 knows, "sexual relations" refers specifically to intercourse). However, since there was nobody alive born before 1910 who: (a) could hear what the TV was saying; (b) knew who the man on the TV was; and (c) gave a shit; he got away with the lie.

A recent similar example was, in Clinton's DNC speech, saying "No president could have repaired all the damage he found in just four years". This was broadly interpreted as "Nobody could have effected a reasonable economic recovery by now", and even, "Nobody could have done a better job"; when in reality, a sock puppet on the average Congressional Page's hand could have effected a decent recovery by now and done a better job, just by following sensible advice and not being an unethical, totally self-interested, ruthlessly partisan populist demagogue. And Clinton knows this, which is why he chose those specific words, "repair all the damage".

Obama does this too, but he's not as good at it. Clinton will only tell a bald-faced lie like this if he believes he won't get caught (i.e., if most people will believe it). Obama is far more of an extremist -- a populist demagogue -- and he will tell bald-faced lies knowing that only his deluded, brainwashed base will believe them, but that they will chant "His name was Robert Paulson" until it all makes sense (like above, I hear zombies saying, "nobody could have done a better job"). Or, being inexperienced, he will tell one group lie A, and then tell another group mutually exclusive lie B. (Case in point: I am sending it the troops asked for and we will pull them out of Afghanistan when they have achieved mission success" vs "I am sending only a fraction of the troops requested, and we will pull them out by X date"; which, once he got caught, morphed into the nonsense: "I am sending the troops necessary for success and will begin to pull troops out of Afghanistan based on conditions on the ground by date X").

He tells such lies just about weekly, on average. Clinton had good press agents tell them, and less often. He only did it himself occasionally (major speeches). Obama's press guys are a joke and an embarrassment (e.g., "there was a major firefight in the bin Laden compound"; and "the attack on the Libyan embassy was not pre-planned"), but the mainstream media have become so egregiously partisan it doesn't matter. He can do no wrong and automatically gets a pass.

So, no, Clinton is not a better speaker. Obama is actually a much better speaker. It's just that Obama has lost all credibility, so he can't get away with his tingle-up-my-thigh-sending "hope and change" bullshit any more. Whereas Clinton, people have forgot that he has no credibility. They just remember that back then they had a job and a 401k (which of course is due to him, not the economic engine fired up by Reagan and Bush before him). Being the same, gullible suckers who believed Obama, they line right up, eager to gobble the knob of the vaunted Clinton, from the golden days of yore. Even if most of them know he's almost as full of shit as Obama, they at least think he's competent, and that's worth something.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:01 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pretty great post, BK. Good job. :lol:
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sporkbox wrote:
Our exchange here is proving my point: politicians are inept and do not have the country's people in mind. They're caught up in ideas, vendettas, agendas, and warring instead of taking care of the people and ensuring the smooth operation of the nation.

There's no point in comparing Obama and Bush other than to say they both sucked. But only one of them is in the White House now and running for re-election.

As to your point here (quoted), I agree. Particularly, I would point out that President's are supposed to do exactly that: the smooth operation of the Nation. The legislators (Congress) are supposed to be the idea people). The President, and his executive branch, are supposed to execute the law. There is a limit to the scope of "policy", after which it becomes a question of law.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations were too legislatively active, in my opinon. The Bush Administration was full of neocons, who eagerly tried to exploit the U.S.'s dominant economic and military situation to expand the Western hegemony, even if they had to use a significant amount of deficit spending to do it. They have pushed way too hard to the right. The Obama administration is full of socialists, who eagerly tried to exploit the recession and their party's legislative majority by dramatically increasing wealth redistribution and spending, even if they had to use a phenomenal, inconceivable amount of deficit spending to do it. They have pushed way too hard to the left.

This is not the role of the Chief Executive. This is the role of the Board of Directors (or in a democratic republic, of the legislature). While U.S. presidents have always campaigned on the basis of what changes they will make, their proposed changes should be constrained to matters of policy alone, and beyond that they should really only champion existing causes supported (or supportable) by the majority. Above all, they are heads of state, serving both as representative of and role model to us all, and must be ethical.

If a president has to lie and bastardize what he is trying to achieve in order to secure our energy supply or provide for the welfare of the people ("WMDs and al Qaeda"; "cost reductions, no tax increase"), then maybe he's got something wrong and shouldn't invade Iraq or try to establish a National healthcare system. Maybe there's a better way that the majority will support without him lying about it.

That's also why even petty lies about dick-sucking in the Oval Office matter. If a president will tell a bald-faced lie to the people about that, what won't he lie to us about?
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NotQuiteSane
Guru
Guru


Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 471
Location: Klamath Falls, Jefferson, USA, North America, Midgarth

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sporkbox wrote:
You're right that Obama failed to bring us out of the Middle East (and Cuba, and the other places), but who put them in Iraq, Afghanistan, et al in the first place?


Not Bush. from wikipedia:

Quote:
But when the Ottoman Empire was defeated by British Empire forces after the Sinai and Palestine Campaign in 1918, the Arab population was met with what it perceived as betrayal by the British. The British and French governments concluded a secret treaty (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) to partition the Middle East between them and, additionally, the British promised via the Balfour Declaration the international Zionist movement their support in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Historically known to be the site of the ancient Jewish Kingdom of Israel and successor Jewish nations for 1,200 years between approximately 1100BC-100AD, the region now had a large Arab population also from the 7th century. When the Ottomans departed, the Arabs proclaimed an independent state in Damascus, but were too weak, militarily and economically, to resist the European powers for long, and Britain and France soon established control and re-arranged the Middle East to suit themselves.Skyes Picot Agreement: Division of Territory
Syria became a French protectorate thinly disguised as a League of Nations Mandate. The Christian coastal areas were split off to become Lebanon, another French protectorate. Iraq and Palestine became British mandated territories. Iraq became the "Kingdom of Iraq" and one of Sharif Hussein's sons, Faisal, was installed as the King of Iraq. Iraq incorporated large populations of Kurds, Assyrians and Turkmens, many of whom had been promised independent states of their own. Palestine became the "British Mandate of Palestine" and was split in half. The eastern half of Palestine became the "Emirate of Transjordan" to provide a throne for another of Husayn's sons, Abdullah. The western half of Palestine was placed under direct British administration. The already substantial Jewish population was allowed to increase. Initially this increase was allowed under British protection. Most of the Arabian peninsula fell to another British ally, Ibn Saud. Saud created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

Another turning point in the history of the Middle East came when oil was discovered, first in Persia in 1908 and later in Saudi Arabia (in 1938) and the other Persian Gulf states, and also in Libya and Algeria. The Middle East, it turned out, possessed the world's largest easily accessible reserves of crude oil, the most important commodity in the 20th century industrial world. Although western oil companies pumped and exported nearly all of the oil to fuel the rapidly expanding automobile industry and other western industrial developments, the kings and emirs of the oil states became immensely rich, enabling them to consolidate their hold on power and giving them a stake in preserving western hegemony over the region. A Western dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the decline of British influence led to a growing American interest in the region. Initially, the Western oil companies established a predominance over oil production and extraction. However, indigenous movements towards nationalising oil assets, oil sharing and the advent of OPEC ensured a shift in the balance of power towards the Arab oil producing nations.[3] Oil wealth also had the effect of stultifying whatever movement towards economic, political or social reform might have emerged in the Arab world under the influence of the Kemalist revolution in Turkey.
During the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, Syria and Egypt made moves towards independence. In 1919, Saad Zaghloul orchestrated mass demonstrations in Egypt known as the First Revolution. While Zaghloul would later become Prime Minister, the British repression of the anticolonial riots led to the death of some 800 people. In 1920, Syrian forces were defeated by the French in the Battle of Maysalun and Iraqi forces were defeated by the British when they revolted. In 1922, the (nominally) independent Kingdom of Egypt was created following the British government's issuance of the Unilateral Declaration of Egyptian Independence. Although the Kingdom of Egypt was technically "neutral" during World War II, Cairo soon became a major military base for the British forces and the country was occupied. The British were able to do this because of a 1936 treaty by which the United Kingdom maintained that it had the right to station troops on Egyptian soil to protect the Suez Canal. In 1941, the Rashīd `Alī al-Gaylānī coup in Iraq led to the British invasion of the country during the Anglo-Iraqi War. The British invasion of Iraq was followed by the Allied invasion of Syria-Lebanon and the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran.
In Palestine, conflicting forces of Arab nationalism and Zionism created a situation the British could neither resolve nor extricate themselves from. The rise to power of German dictator Adolf Hitler in Germany had created a new urgency in the Zionist quest to immigrate to Palestine and create a Jewish state there. A Palestinian state was also an attractive alternative for Arab and Persian leaders to British, French, and perceived Jewish colonialism and imperialism under the logic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (Lewis, 348–350).
The British, the French, and the Soviets departed many parts of the Middle East during and after World War II. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East states on the Arabian Peninsula generally remained unaffected by World war II. However, after the war, the following Middle states had independence restored or became independent:
17 October 1941 – Iran (forces of the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union withdrawn)
22 November 1943 – Lebanon
1 January 1944 – Syria
22 May 1946 – Jordan (British mandate ended)
1947 – Iraq (forces of the United Kingdom withdrawn)
1947 – Egypt (forces of the United Kingdom withdrawn to the Suez Canal area)
1948 - Israel (forces of the United Kingdom withdrawn)
August 16, 1960 – Cyprus
The struggle between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine culminated in the 1947 United Nations plan to partition Palestine. This plan attempted to create an Arab state and a Jewish state in the narrow space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. While the Jewish leaders accepted it, the Arab leaders rejected this plan.
On 14 May 1948, when the British Mandate expired, the Zionist leadership declared the State of Israel. In the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that immediately followed, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia intervened and were defeated by Israel. About 800,000 Palestinians fled from areas annexed by Israel and became refugees in neighbouring countries, thus creating the "Palestinian problem," which has bedevilled the region ever since. Approximately two-thirds of 758,000—866,000 of the Jews expelled or who fled from Arab lands after 1948 were absorbed and naturalized by the State of Israel.
On August 16, 1960, Cyprus gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Archbishop Makarios III, a charismatic religious and political leader, was elected the first president of independent Cyprus, and in 1961 it became the 99th member of the United Nations.


you'd be smarter to blame His Majesty's Government

NQS
_________________
These opinions are mine, mine I say! Piss off and get your own.

As I see it -- An irregular blog, Improved with new location

To delete French language packs from system use 'sudo rm -fr /'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The British and French governments concluded a secret treaty (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) to partition the Middle East between them and, additionally, the British promised via the Balfour Declaration the international Zionist movement their support in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Historically known to be the site of the ancient Jewish Kingdom of Israel and successor Jewish nations for 1,200 years between approximately 1100BC-100AD, the region now had a large Arab population also from the 7th century. When the Ottomans departed, the Arabs proclaimed an independent state in Damascus, but were too weak, militarily and economically, to resist the European powers for long, and Britain and France soon established control and re-arranged the Middle East to suit themselves.

This is why the whole Middle East problem and the problem of rising Islamist Jihadism should be dealt with by the EU. Clean up your own mess, Imperialist Europe! :P
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sporkbox wrote:
It's attempting to create controversy when the time to have it has long since passed.
If it has passed, then no controversy will be created. If it does create a controversy, then clearly the time has not passed.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
I don't think Clinton is any better a speaker than Obama.
You describe Clinton speaking and achieving the desired results of his speech, and Obama not. Your description, IMO, supports the argument that Clinton is a better speaker. Where better = more effective.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
I don't think Clinton is any better a speaker than Obama.
You describe Clinton speaking and achieving the desired results of his speech, and Obama not. Your description, IMO, supports the argument that Clinton is a better speaker. Where better = more effective.

I suppose that, for some purposes (e.g., hiring a speaker), that logic is sound. But, I think there's a difference between one's oratorical and elocutionary skills and one's veracity and credibility, which I think is the main difference in their effectiveness now.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama's oratorical and elocutionary skills are criticized as being non-existent, which is why he needs a teleprompter (or sounds like he is using one even if not). And he has no credibility. So, pretty much, he has 0 skill & 0 credibility. I don't see how he is at all comparable to Clinton. Clinton has top end skill and his credibility on the "in between" 47%ers wasn't that bad. Further demonstrating his skill, as you pointed out, about not going too far or being too blatant.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum