What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
216 Comments
- tanxadillo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41Wow, I guess people didn't pick up on the irony or the internet term.
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Get+A+Brain+Morans%22&btnG=Search - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -18/+37"Iran is abiding by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty!"
And your evidence is the pronouncements of the leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Council?
"They have the right under the treaty to pursue nuclear technology for power generation purposes. Should their rights be eroded because another nation makes baseless accusations?"
As has already been pointed out, there are several nations, even those who oppose santions against Iran, who agree that Iran has violated the terms of the NPT. The accusations are not baseless.
"I would also remember before you answer that that nation has lied repeatedly in order to justify wars."
Which war would that be? Chechnya? Ivory Coast? Tibet?
Which war are you referring to?
"It is also the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war, on civilians, without warning,..."
If you are referring to the US, we warned the Japanese on both occasions of our intent to bomb the Japanese mainland. In fact, we killed more Japanese civilians in the firebombing of Tokyo than in either of the nuclear bombings.
Would you rather the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed to death?
"..twice, in a war they provoked."
The US provoked Japan into war? Sure they did.
"The U.S. on the other hand is the one planning to further violate the treaty by building more nukes... This is a classic case of deception through mis-direction."
No, Iran signed the NPT. Now they want it both ways. They CAN just walk away from it. North Korea did. But they also give up the right to legally purchase technology related to nuclear energy production.
See how that works?
"This is not to say that they will not use this tech to produce nukes,"
Bingo.
"I would put the probability very high that they will. But pre-emptively charging people for things is not what America is supposed to stand for. I can also understand their desire to have nukes, America has been a bully for far too long in the middle east(and the world). They are seeking to even the odds."
Is that why they have funded Hamas to blow up Isreali civilians? Is that why they support global terrorism?
You are one sick ***** if you think that is how you even the odds.
"Knowing the history of what the U.S. has done to these countries(and how it makes 9/11 look like a drop in the bucket), I can understand their desire."
Great! Then if we live up to your hateful view of the US we should just nuke the ***** out of Iran until it glows.
Hate America some more pal. You probably live in some eurotrash country that has lived under our protection for decades and resents having been neutered. - quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20"Why then, exactly, is it safe for us to have them but no one else?"
No one else? France, Israel, US, Russia, UK, China, India, Pakistan, and maybe North Korea. The list is even longer if you include possible nuclear states -- states that could become nuclear if given the need to do so within a very short time. (Places like Canada, Germany, Japan, and South Korea.)
Truth is, it is different for democracies to have nuclear weapons than non-democracies, like Iran. (Iran is not a true democracy, although better than some -- like Saudi Arabia.) Why? Because democracies almost never war with other democracies. Almost all true international (non civil wars) conflicts in the world are between dictators and the like -- or between these states and democracies. As such, I think it's reasonable to say that democracies can have them to protect themselves from non-democracies. Non-democracies are too dangerous to be trusted.
Oh yeah, and that "whipe Israel off the map" comment -- that too. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Mirrored:
http://www.epicconstructions.com/mirror/ogleearth/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -33/+46"Shut up you moran."
I believe you mean, "MORON", moron.... - sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13For bonus points see if you can spot the easter eggs hidden around the facility
- olliholliday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10there is no coalition.
it's the US vs. the world again on this one. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22"Iran has repeatedly said they seek to refine for power generation purposes, and nothing else. They are entitled to that by law."
But radionuclides don't lie. The isotopes found by IAEA inspectors prove that the way that Iran is using nuclear material is not just for power production.
"Nations which are all have a very good MO for staying in complete control."
Yeah, we control Russia really well.
"If you are referring to the US, we warned the Japanese on both occasions of our intent to bomb the Japanese mainland. In fact, we killed more Japanese civilians in the firebombing of Tokyo than in either of the nuclear bombings."
"If by warning you mean the standard propaganda leaflets that were dropped by planes throughout the whole war then yes. There was no specific warning nor a valid reason to test the bombs on non-military targets."
No, by warning I mean we were already bombing the ***** out of the Japanese mainland.
"Howabout a simpler solution, the U.S. quits provoking other countries into wars..."
Yes, it is the "Blame America" crowd.
"Declassified in 1994, known about for a lot longer. Here is the document:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/mccollum.htm"
Oh, I see. The US *forced* Japan to bomb Pearl. Did they also force Japan to slaughter people in Manchuria? I must have missed that in the paper you have linked to.
You see, all the "Blame America" crowd would like people to believe is that Japan was a peaceful country just letting off a bit of steam on a weekend free-for-all.
Are there any Chinese or Korean posters who can set Nichevo straight? After all, I'm sure Nichevo will tell you that your countries provoked the Japanese into invading and slaughtering your families.
"They have the right to their own research for their stated purpose. Clear and simple. Read the NNTP before you comment further on this."
I have. They can do research. But when evidence is uncovered of activities outside of the NTP, they are referred to the UN Security Council for action.
As I said before, they CAN pull out of the NPT but it means losing legitimate access to nuclear technology.
"Is that why the U.S. funds Israel to blow up and intimidate the entire region? I guess it's not terrorism if Uncle Sam or the 51st state does it."
I don't support the use of US dollars for destruction of Palestinian homes. As for blowing up an entire region, Iraq and Iran did a pretty good job on their own without any help from Israel. What part of the region is Israel responsible for destroying again?
Oh, that was just your pointless rhetoric.
"The west has held absolute power for too long and has been corrupted. Millions have died for our lust for oil, power, and money. I thinkn it is time that our stranglehold is loosened. What we are doing is wrong."
No. You mis-read history. To have ABSOLUTE power, we would have destroyed the Arabs long ago and taken their land. That is what conquering nations do. Take a look at every empire before us. Provide me with one other historical example of what the US did in rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII.
"How is it hateful to own up to a history of terror through foreign policy?"
Own up, or just parrot the Hate America crowd?
"I was speaking of their desire to have a viable means to defend themselves."
Defend themselves? When was Iran invaded by Israel or the US last?
Oh, it wasn't! It was invaded by a Soviet-supplied Iraq!
Don't look now, but your excuses are lame.
"They have repeatedly demanded to be left alone, we keep on doing the opposite, finally after years of our terror they repay us with a miniscule percentage in return."
So you support the murder of thousands at the hands of terrorists because of some perceived slight to the Arab world? Let me know so that I can disabuse you of that notion too.
"Keep on living in your dichotomy fantasy world."
Which one would that be?
"Your country whom you love so much will chew you up and spit you out one day too."
Perhaps. But your country is safe because my friends and family stand ready to take bullets for your family and friends. - sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Despite all the rhetoric, I have a feeling that this "war" will be a cold one.
- geomon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Did you know that the United States has 60-70% of the worlds Oil Shale reserves but we cant harvest it due to the wildlife so we must keep buying oil from the middle east."
No, we don't "harvest" oil shale. We dig it up and process it.
"Alaska has huge ammounts of crude but we cant harvest that because of some snow owl. Good point about not being able to use our own oil."
Neither of your points is true. The reason that we don't pump oil from Alaska (other than the North Slope fields) or produce oil from shales is that it is CHEAPER TO PUMP IT FROM A BOAT IN GALVESTON, TEXAS.
Pure and simple economics - no conspiracy. - joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10you still have to take the government at their word about what they are building.
there is no dispute over what they are doing as far as their facilities, construction, etc.
they say it's for good, we say it's for evil. at what point do these photos change this. THEY DON'T!!!
i'll give you some google earth overlays that show you are busy building a nuclear silo on your property. can i invade you? - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Geomon:
I disagree that the documents show that Iran has weapons grade uranium. I cant really cut and paste lines to back up my opinion as its very late in England and I need to sleep.
My opinion is this. Iran does not at present have nuclear weapons nor do they have the infrastructure required for weapons grade uranium. Realistically they probably are going down this route. The evidence at the moment is at best suspicious behaviour but nothing really concrete. Looking at the state of play around them, its hardly surprising they want it. Israel has nuclear weapons, and being named in the axis of evil hasn't helped. Bush brackets them with Iraq, then invades Iraq. There is also the 1953 military coup with US assistance. No wonder they want a deterent.
I hope that lessons from Iraq have been learned and communication is maintained with Iran rather than just warmongering and threatening behaviour. I hope that this time we let the UN do its job. If a pre-emptive strike occurs, the US will well and truly be on its own. The problem really is when the Iranian president shouts off about wiping Israel off the map, the world thinks its just crazy ramblings, and Iran wont be that stupid. When Bush administration mentions pre-emptive nuclear strike, the rest of the world believes Bush really will be that stupid.
Looking at your website we probably agree about a lot of other things. It's been good to debate about something worthwhile for once. I dont really care about OSX vs Vista - sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10FYI: I am an history student, being educated at a liberal American university. I am in the last semester of my education, and one of the foci of my studies is the modern history of Palestine.
Israel, of course isn't perfect, but has done little except to attempt to defend herself against overwhelming odds. All of her neighbors claim that Israel stole land from the Palestinians. However, the land that Britian granted to the state of Israel was nearly uninhabited at the time of the founding of the state of Israel. These nationless "Palestinians" are the direct result of Arab agression against Israel. The only land that Israel has seized, has been from neighbors that have aggressed against her. This was done in an attempt to create a buffer-zone, so that Israel might more effectively defend herself against further aggression. The nationless people that we have come to know as Palestinians have been abandoned by their countries of origin, and purposely left in abject poverty ... to be used as a propoganda tool against Israel.
Frankly, claiming that Israel is reponsible for the Palestinians' plight is indicitave of ignorance, bigotry, or both. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Boner try looking at the internal law definition of genocide. No mention of numbers there;
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
You dont need to kill 6 million people for it to be genocide - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Boner what the ***** are you talking about? You going to apply the same principle to the holocaust or Rwanda or Bosnia? There's still some of them left so that ethnic cleansing argument isnt going very far?
- boxomojo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19"Should their rights be eroded because another nation makes baseless accusations?"
i'm not for invading iran but it's really many nations that are making accusations and i think the word baseless is generous. when you have the whole western world holding its breath because of iran there's probably some underlying problem that should be thoroughly explored before they allow it to even have the potential to build nuclear weapons. - syowr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10You might wanna look at the history of Israel. They attacked other nations claimed the land and kept it illegally. Oh yea they commited genocide too... So why aren't you all gung-ho for hitting Isreal when they have done all the things Iran has? AND they already have nukes.
To paraphrase an above poster U.S. propaganda machine 1 , common sense 0 - syowr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I figured since you guys felt free to use it so should I
I can find ya LOTS of other sources if you like.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-isr/news
This one lists off the point of international law involved
http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis1.html
There are more but ill let you do some homework. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Geomon:
Why do you think that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is the way to go with this? I'm more scared of Bush's reaction than what Tehran are going to do. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Frankly, claiming that Israel is reponsible for the Palestinians' plight is indicitave of ignorance, bigotry, or both."
That is a dangerous generalization.
Over 80 U.N. violations(the most of any country), countless executions without trial, illegal settlements, mass punishment, apartheid citizenship, indescriminate mortar retaliation, etc. ad nauseum. has nothing to do with the Palestinian plight? Even before the intifada hundreds of Palestinian children were being murdered, that is before a single Israeli child was harmed!
The truth of the matter is that if the Zionists had accepted any of the prior alternative locations none of this would have happened. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that putting together 2 groups who have been involved in a feud for thousands of years(since Jacob+Esau) wouldn't end nicely. The early Zionists are to blame for the current woes plain and simple. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6And the mass murder of palestinians in 1982 :
On 6 June 1982, the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in what it described as 'retaliation' for the attempted assassination of Israeli Ambassador Argov in London on 4 June. The invasion, soon dubbed "Operation Peace for Galilee," progressed rapidly. By 18 June 1982, Israel had surrounded the Palestine Liberation Organisation's (PLO) armed forces in the western part of the Lebanese capital. A cease-fire, mediated by United States Envoy Philip Habib, resulted in the PLO evacuation of Beirut on 1 September 1982.
On 11 September 1982, Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon, the architect of the invasion, announced that "2,000 terrorists" had remained inside the Palestinian refugee camps around Beirut. On Wednesday 15 September, the day after the assassination of Israeli-allied Phalangist militia leader and Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel, the Israeli army occupied West Beirut, "encircling and sealing" the camps of Sabra and Shatila, which were inhabited by Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. By mid-day on 15 September 1982, the refugee camps were entirely surrounded by Israeli tanks and soldiers, who installed checkpoints at strategic locations and crossroads around the camps in order to monitor the entry or exit of any person. During the late afternoon and evening of that day, the camps were shelled.
Around mid-day on Thursday 16 September 1982, a unit of approximately 150 Israeli-allied Phalangists entered the first camp. For the next 40 hours members of the Phalangist militia raped, killed, and injured a large number of unarmed civilians, mostly children, women and elderly people inside the encircled and sealed camps. The estimate of victims varies between 700 (the official Israeli figure) to 3,500. The victims and survivors of the massacres have never been deemed entitled to a formal investigation of the tragedy, since Israel's Kahan Commission did not have a judicial mandate and was not backed up by legal force.
You can read eye witness reports etc at http://www.indictsharon.net
Why not read up on international law before typing your generalised statements.
Obviously there has been mass murder on both sides but lets not get carried away. Israel arent exactly whiter than white. And they did elect a war criminal to president (Sharon)> Any different to Hamas being elected? - olliholliday, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13"Perhaps. But your country is safe because my friends and family stand ready to take bullets for your family and friends."
you really don't get it do you, the rest of the world wants you to STOP blowing the ***** out of other countries because this DOESN'T lead to peace. it doesn't lead to threats to other countries either, just to yours - don't try and make it sound like you're defending the rest of the world in this warmongering quest, you're trying to defend US interests in the most uncivilised manner possible. - syowr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Here ya go because it must be SO hard to google from that far right of your keyboard.
In general, accusations against Israel relate to systematic killing of hundreds of civilians during the war of 1947-1948, as well as the forcible expulsion of many Palestinians from their homes in what became Israel. The Palestinians point to Israeli forces' destruction of over three hundred Palestinian villages that they had fled or been expelled from by Jewish forces in what they view as an effort to prevent their return to the areas conquered by Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Other acts and policies of the Israeli government that have also been seen by the Palestinian side as promoting ethnic cleansing and/or genocide:
* Opposition to what they view as a Palestinian Right of return, at least in part for the purpose of preserving Israel as a majority Jewish state.
* Collective punishment of Palestinians, e.g. punishment of family members of alleged terrorists, or general restrictions on all Palestinians as a response to violence committed by individuals.
* Establishment of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and creation of the Israeli West Bank barrier, which has been ruled as illegal in a non-binding decision by the International Court of Justice, and which Palestinians and their supporters consider to be a "land grab" or outright ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from captured areas. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@nichevo "I proved my case, the U.S.'s actions were pure evil, your either bitter at the loss of your fantasy world or a govt shill."
"the U.S.'s actions were pure evil"
--> Nievo - you obviously have no idea what 'pure evil' is. Besides, I would not use the word 'pure' anything to describe any instance of human society/nation-state. It simply isn't real, and therefore has no argumentative value.
"I proved my case"
--> Your case is 'proven' only within your own mind. I don't think you helped you cause (whatever that may be) when you ket your ego speak ahead of your intellect. But I think there is potential in your current argument. However, your (really sad) revisionist view of history calls the rest of your line of thinking into question.
Geomon is a "govt shill"
As for whether geomon is a "govt shill"- I laughed at that one! I sort of agree with you (in a way).
Given the lucidity of his arguments, I think geomon would make a damned improvement over what we currently have! I HONESTLY was wondering if this guy shouldn't work for the tell-it-like-it is division of the State Department. Do we even have one of those? :)
Today was the first time I read any of his posts. My reaction? Sign geomon up for the captain of the debate team! Sorry to say it, but he kicked your intellectual ass, Nievo.
I know, I'm gonna get modded for this. Mod-hammer accepted.
Have a good one, dude. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11The European Jews in Israel have no claim to any land in the Middle East. They won it in a war but keeping land taken in warfare is illegal under the Geneva Convention.
The Palestinians deserve their land back so they can establish a state but Israel was too interested in doubling the size of its stolen land with more stolen land in 1967 and occupying Arab East Jerusalem because they are greedy and they want the whole city. Now the Palestinians are willing to accept just 22% of Palestine (The West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem) while letting the Jews keep the 88% of Palestine they stole.
Israel is a destablizing presence in the middle east.
There should be one state for everyone to live in, not the racist apartheid entity that is Israel. - yensed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Sounds like the perfect easter game for any family!
- Galaxion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Really, I don't see what all this fuss is about. Let Iran make nuclear power if they want. Let them research nuclear boms if they want... it doesn't matter because they will never, ever use them.
Firstly, the Iranian leadership may be Islamic extremists but that doesn't make them stupid. Any nuclear aggression by Iran would almost certainly lead to an overwhelming (nuclear) reprisal. Same reason South Africa didn't use theirs.
Secondly, who would they use it on?? I mean, really. Any even semi-worthwhile targets in the Middle East ain't worth a nuclear bomb... and could just as easily be taken care of with conventional means. No point using a bazooka when a fly-swatter would do, especially a multi-billion dollar bazooka. Of course, there is Israel. That said, refer to point one. You'd have to be pretty f**king dumb to nuke Israel.
Thirdly, most Americans don't really want to be world police. Iran is about 10000 miles from the USA, and the Iranians have nothing like the technology to get a nuke that far. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11@geomon
Your responses were well parsed - nicely said.
Relative to terorists and extremist nations that support them:
- If the west does nothing - we are hated (and then bombed).
- If we reach out to them to broker peace- we are hated (and weakened).
- If we fight back, we are hated all the more.
- In a region where hatred has flourished for thousands of years, we didn't create that hatred and we surely won't end it.
Can we just sit back and let Iran develop Nuclear Weapons? With their current stated geo-political ambitions, hell no.
One thing is clear to me - we cannot act alone in this conflict. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran. When does it stop and how does it stop?
Yet, the further the human race moves down the collective nuclear path, the more likely our extinction surely becomes (especially with mad-men ~yearning~ to use this dark force of war).
What's the solution here? The US, the EU, Russia and China must adopt a common (no-nonsense) approach to this problem and then execute it consistently. If the US fails to develop that solidarity - then we will lose... even if we 'win.' - txrat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+61. if someone fires a nuke at us they won't have a country left... we have more of them than they do
2. iran is using a "he just might be crazy enough" type of message about going nuclear
3. are they crazy enough? - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Forgot this bit:
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide." - mikal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sooo, belmeloro, how much is a job at Hill & Knowlton paying these days? Because this is part of "softening the public" program, isn't it?
- sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The reason that their acquisition of the technology wasn't looked upon with as much dread is that:
They don't daily threaten a close ally of ours with annhilation.
They haven't threatened the US. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So come on then geomon, what did the IAEA say about iran's nuclear weapon capability?
I don't have a text book
Yeah the plutonium was a typo. Thinking about Back to the Future.
Care to point me to this evidence that Iran isnt abiding by the NPT on the IAEA website? - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I seriously doubt Israel is going to drop bombs on Iran, because it would trigger a full-blown war against Israel, most likely (although they have a history of winning such conflicts). Most likely, the US will bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. The wild card here is what Iran plans on doing--if they make nukes and use them against Israel, we'd probably do a full scale air bombardment while Israel would probably respond with some missiles of their own. I doubt this would happen because the other Islamic countries don't really want to fight, they want the oil money to keep flowing.
One thing's for sure, we will not invade Iran by land. The Iranians are not some fragmented country with a hated dictator. They have a strong Persian cultural identity, and though their government may be disliked by many Iranians, they will back their own government against a Western invasion force. Their armies aren't likely to fade away at the sight of advancing troops like in Iraq. China and Russia would probably oppose such a land invasion, causing all kinds of diplomatic problems. I don't think Bush plans on starting Armageddon. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"Even less would have dies had you not provoked a war to begin with. "
Nichevo's defense strategy for despots: Blame the Victim.
He would convict a rape victim for being the wrong place at the wrong time and for being "too seductive". "She was asking for it!", said Nichevo. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5And if you don't know what enrichment means that it's obviously you who doesnt understand nuclear weapons? Or are you a nuclear physicist too?
Something from wiki to help you out
Enriched uranium is uranium whose uranium-235 content has been increased through the process of isotope separation. Natural uranium consists mostly of the 238U isotope, with about 0.72 % by weight as 235U, the only isotope existing in nature in any appreciable amount that is fissionable by thermal neutrons.
Reactors use 20% U235 and weapons 85%U235.
What what IAEA find? U235 is present in both. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4On the report - I havent read all of it (but I doubt you have either).
Firstly this is from 2005. If you read the last report from the IAEA directory general in march
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/bog080306.html
doesnt mention anything about weapons grade uranium.
How so are you wrong? You say that IAEA found radionuclides. So? Both U235 and U238 are present in uranium used in reactors and weapons. The presence of either means nothing. If they found weapons grade enriched uranium (U235 85%) then its obvious they have nuke capability. At present it doesnt appear that Tehran does. The report from 2005 states that Iran has accounted for all the uranium (but that the IAEA can't be 100% certain that its all of it) - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Prove it,
I think the reason why we don't see eye to eye is that I don't get my info from FOX or whitehouse press releases.
WAKE UP YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.
History will record you sheeple as fools. Mark my words. - 3leggedHorse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yeah great let pakistan and india get nuclear weapons, two countries most likley to use them on each other.
- PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Scan read something and mis read it. I apologise. But you're wrong on the uranium dude.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8mirunit@
Israel launched a sneak attack in 1967 on Egypt. Please stop with the rewriting of history. Then it illegally kept the land it conquered, moved its population onto the stolen land, and ethnically cleansed portions as well. All of those acts are outlawed by the Geneva convention. Israel also violates countless UN decrees.
As for you claiming well nobody follows the Geneva Convention, well it is Israel that claims to be a "light unto all nations" yet demands special treatment to protect its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So rather than use the international law definition of genocide and ethnic cleanising, we should just use yours? Just pointing out that it definately is ethnic cleanisng.
Is it genocide? If you read into it further, it could well be called that. If you look at what points are addressed I don't think it's quite as generalised as you believe. Transfer of children, prevention of births etc. - Gerfervonbob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is quite an interesting debate. No matter what anyones stance is on a givin subject Im sure everyone here agrees that we should always debate subjects like this or else we would risk making a disasterous premature move.
- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hi! Would you like another strawman to go with your argument?
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10"This reminds me of the bushtards UN presentation on Iraq's imaginary WMD facilities."
THe FACTS are we saw them moving via satellite, Israel saw them moving via satelitte, and Saddams own people have told us as much...
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/talk_tikriti.htm
Yeah, and while we're at it let's ignore the admission from Saddam himself on the recently released tapes and the documents released on the web....
To ignore all that evidence is disingenuous at best....friggin' 'tard at worst. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My main bone of contention was the fact that you appeared to state that Israel's massacres of Palestinians was barely ethnic cleansing. You appear to think that numbers is purely the only way to define genocide. Without mass graves it cant be genocide.
Ethnic cleansing does cover a wide spectrum of actions from forceable eviction of groups to genocide. Looking at Israel's behaviour and statements made by its politicians in the past, you can say that it has indulged in ethnic cleansing (although I take your point not necessarily genocide.) And to say that Israel is purely retaliatory is clearly false. Israel didnt just miraculously appear. The land on which it stands didnt just rise from the Earth after WW2. It was taken from Palestine as part of the UN mandate. The behaviour of both Israel and Palestine is both aggressive and retaliatory, don't just paint Israel as the victim. - 3leggedHorse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3 The last thing im gonna say is that the middle east is the wests achilles heal of the world. western culture is all about democracy, principles and morales, and since WW2 western influence in the middle east has been mostly a greedy glutinious farce.
Oh yeah M.A.D mutualy assured destruction that acronyme always cracks me up. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"geomon@ please, stop associating America with Israel."
I will when Ahmadinejad does.
"Israel is not the 51st state even though it seems to dictate US foreign policy for the last 50 years."
Neither is Ireland the 51st state, but if you head to Massachusetts you will get an earfull of what they think of British rule in the northern counties.
We are a nation of immigrants. Deal.
"A threat to Israel is not the same as a threat to the USA."
We have treaties. A threat to our ally is a threat to America.
"You can't even call Israel an ally."
Why not?
"But the pro-Israel propagandists want us to think so."
Take a look at the UN voting record again, dude. The US has never had a more reliable friend in foreign policy throughout the world than Israel.
"But we can't forget when unmarked Israeli warplanes attacked the USS Liberty killing dozens of US sailors, or the Jewish spy Pollard that stole thousands of state secrets."
Yes, let us compare Israel to our other "friends": the British attacked and burned the US Capitol, the French have left us hanging in votes in the UN (and sank a Greenpeace vessel in the South Pacific), Germany allied with Japan to declare war on the US, Russia and China both adopted governments that swore to destroy the US....
Why should we look at the Liberty incident and the Pollard spy case as more than what they are? They are isolated incidents that do not add up to a conspiracy.
Your rant sounds just like the crap I used to hear from people I knew as a kid growing up in Northern Idaho.
"And the Iranian's leaders words to his own people do not add up to a casus bellum for Israel and especially not America, no matter how you spin it like you spin everything."
Yeah, why should we take the President of Iran at his word?
I didn't put those words in his mouth. - ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12geomon is spot on here. Also, I guarantee you less Japanese people died in the bombing of Japan than would have died had the United States invaded Japan and fought its meager land army off, forcing the Japanese to use their multi-million man untrained reserves.
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@geomon
Constructive feedback from your "puppet account" Still chuckiling at this egghead.
My opinion: you wasted WAY too much time with nitsche-evo (reminded me of the "pearls before swine" addage from scripture). Quite honestly, he really epitomizes the Iranian position: he thought that he can agressively ***** everyone on this forum into 'submission.'
I would have preferred a longer debate with PapaLazarou (though I suspect the 'debate' would have been shorter).
I honestly yearn for a peaceful solution to this "crisis" (and I believe that word ot be precisely appropriate).
I think the Iranian people are an extraordinary people. But the rhetoric coming out of Teheran makes me believe that what that extremist regime really seeks is an Islamic vs. Israeli/American Middle East war (with Nuclear weapons as a bonus). Their rhetoric is that of idiots or a rhetoric born of a larger calculated strategy. I don't believe them to be 'idiots.' I think they are playing a very dangerious game. But they have already seen the North Koreans play this game successfuly already.
-- Iran already knows with 100% certainty that Israel will eventually attack. Israel can either wait, be attacked and respond in kind or attack pre-emptively.
-- Israel will NOT wait for a nuclear attack from Iran on Tel Aviv. They obviously want the US to assert itself on this matter (by any means necessary).
-- Regardless of the conventional form of attack (aka bunker busters) - you have to assume the Iranians have learned all the lessons they need to from Iraq.
-- Furthermore, they have already tipped their tactical hands this weekend when they indicated that they have had US forces in Iraq under surveilance for the last 2 years (with the implicit threat that these forces will be attacked on day 2 of any attack against Iran). Credible or not, Iraq and Afgahnistan would become secondary theatres of conflict.
-- We all know the Persian Gulf would require a massive Naval presence to insure that the Strait of Hormuz remain open. Recent Chinese weaponry aquisitions by Iran clearly indicate Irans ambitions to attack prized US Carriers. In the end, I believe the Persian Gulf could be stabilized (with a reasonable probability it will cost the US significant military personel and assets).
-- Nuclear targets: at best we could only prolong Iranian development of WMDs. Short of ground forces, there is no CONFIDENT solution to eliminiating Iran's ability to create Nuclear Weapons (assuming they do not already have them - yes I know the arguments on this).
-- Political/Diplomatic Collateral Damage: Hate to say it, but I think the Russian assessment of this part of the equation is correct. If we attack Iran, the US will likely not recover in the Mid-East for decades (and large parts of the rest of the World). Just looking at this 'component' - the best option would be to let Israel take the lead on this problem. As Bush has already indicated we will defend Israel, our eventual participation in a pan-Arabic response to Israel's attack would be inevitable. If that occurs, similar damage political/diplomatic damage would ensue.
-- Russia/China scenario: we need their help here. It is in their long term interest. But as Russia has old memories and China has new super-power ambitions (which WILL be realized one day), it is in their interest to see the US fail here. I don't believe, however, they have properly calculated the effects of a nuclear Iran that supports terrorists. Russia will likely feel the terrorist nuclear threat after Israel/US (thru Chechnya). China - not so sure.
-- In the final analysis, all of these scenario elements (and more) will be 'gamed-out' thru military software. And Bush, at historically unpopular approval levels, will be faced with 2 choices: a] be patient and increase our vulnerability by not acting (right or wrong) or b] attack and neutralize the threat.
If Bush has nothing, poliitically, to lose (and we already know where he stands on 'defending' the US) - will he 'seize the moment' and 'solve' the Iranian problem knowing he can leave the political clean-up to the next President? Bush has already made it clear, he doesn't care about the polls. We know he does, of course. We also know he'll act inspite of the polls. Most importantly, his strategic telegraph system (Condi Rice) has already begun to use the words "Time To Act"
Make no mistake about it: The drums of war have begun to beat.
How does an International community effectively avoid war, when there is every indication the opposing nation in question is planning for it?
I realize the Iran's intentions are not certain to us, but sooner or later when the military/diplomatic calculus that searches for reasons to avoid conflict cannot find 'excuses' for prolonging discussions amidst escalating tensions - conflict becomes THE clear option (like a crescendo finale in a nightmarish film).
Inaction is not a viable option (as inaction will lead to war).
War is not a viable option (unless the International community is of one mind on this issue).
A military solution ~may~ be needed. But we must find a way for diplomacy and internartional pressure to work. We absolutely must.
That's my "2 cents". -
Show 51 - 100 of 216 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is