Troubling Times

[vn_Tanc]

They're going to want to kill us no matter what we do, because they hate anyone that's not exactly like them.

There is no appeasement, or negotiation.

We have to fight. HOW do we fight?

1) Your first point is an oversimplification. Whether or not you agree these people see real reasons for attacking the US and her allies.

2) Lumping negotiation in with appeasement is dangerous thinking. To my knowledge there has never been any resolution to a terrorist problem without negotiation. The UK negotiated with the IRA. Israel negotiated with Arafat. It does not necessarily equate with appeasement.

3) You remove the root causes of the problem instead of trying to attack the symptoms. Then you can marginalise the militants while bringing more moderate elements back to the path of peace. This gives you a more limited and realistic target to aim at. At the moment AQ is having no recruiting problems because the injustices they cite are not being addressed. You certainly DO NOT go attacking unrelated countries under false pretences.
Or alternately you just let the terror problem rumble on for a few decades until the weary populace on both sides loses it's stomach for the fight and negotiates a compromise of any kind just to stop the pointless suffering and loss of life.

[nobody]

Or alternately you just let the terror problem rumble on for a few decades until the weary populace on both sides loses it's stomach for the fight and negotiates a compromise of any kind just to stop the pointless suffering and loss of life.

Hell, they've already been fighting for ages. i don't see them losing their stomach over it. they love it because it's the only thing they know. it's either go out and fuck some goats or go out and kill some Jews and Christians. they need not only McD's but a few strip clubs to take their minds off the hatred. in reality though, providing a better them way of life is the only way to do it. that's why we have such a hard time in Falujah (sp). that city was financially supported but Saddam more than the rest of Iraq, and now that its gone they're pissed.

thanks for letting me stay. believe it or not i'm not always right so liberals flame away. when in doubt i'll just quote Rush Limbaugh or something.

[Kelshara]

I think you and Brotha will become best buddies fast.

[Adex_Xeda]

Tanc, remove all of your people from my country, I dont' care if you need our oil, leave or I'll kill you. Oh and BTW you people in France, either repeal your no headscarfs law or I'll kill you.

Feel free to "negotiate" with me.

Ok Tanc, how do you reach a compromise with someone like this? How do you negotiate? Seriously and with no sarcasm I ask.

Also,

Your "Bush invaded under false pretenses" assumption currently stands in the realm of speculation.

It is too early to be resting arguments upon it.

[Krurk]

The main objective of AQ is to simply kill every person on the face of the earth who does not share their particular interpretation of Islam.

As such, the only way to deal with the ORGANIZATION is to kill every last one of them.

As far as dealing with the root of the problem, that involves multiple approaches ranging from improving the standard of living in the Middle East, reforming governments in the region, upgrading the education by reducing the impact of religious education, and improving the recor of the western world when dealing with the Middle East.

There are other organizations who have slightly more realistic goals who can be enganged in diplomacy to resolve their differences. AQ is not one of them. As Adex touched on his last post, simply removing our presence from the mid east would not appease these groups. Just limit the number of targets they have.

[Kelshara]

Thing is, you wont be able to kill every last one of AQ because the more you kill, the easier it is for them to recruit. You have to remove the basis for their recruitment if you want to have any succes at all.

And Adex, for goodness sake.. the French law wasn't against head scarves. It was for all major religious symbols.

Your "Bush invaded under false pretenses" assumption currently stands in the realm of speculation.

Not so sure about that, with the lies they have been caught in afterwards (the Rumsfeld movie posted here is a good example), Powel's recent comments about the material they based his presentation to UN on etc..

[Xzion]

Tanc, remove all of your people from my country, I dont' care if you need our oil, leave or I'll kill you. Oh and BTW you people in France, either repeal your no headscarfs law or I'll kill you.

Feel free to "negotiate" with me.

Ok Tanc, how do you reach a compromise with someone like this? How do you negotiate? Seriously and with no sarcasm I ask.

Also,

Your "Bush invaded under false pretenses" assumption currently stands in the realm of speculation.

It is too early to be resting arguments upon it.

Funny you say that, becouse Bush's pretenses for invading iraq stand under higher speculation.
You cant execute someone and then speculate there innocense

Either way there would have been NO CONSEQUENSES to at least waiting a year or two and researching the WMD theory more closely then rushing in irresponsibly people some stupid douche like Wolfowitz was willing throw away over 500 American lives for nothing other then to feed his personal hatred and discrimination towards arabs.
There is no redemption for that. With a few exceptions that entire administration deserves nothing less then to be tried for war crimes and serve the appropriate consequences.

[nobody]

FACT: Saddam used WMD's in the past

FACT: Saddam constantly shot at US and British warplanes patroling the northern and southern no-fly zones

FACT: Saddam tortured innocent civilians whom he felt didn't agree with him

Let's see, whether Bush went about Iraq is one thing but warcrimes? God Almighty!

[noel]

Post with your real name or STFU.

Let's see, whether Bush went about Iraq is one thing but warcrimes? God Almighty!

And try posting a coherent thought.

[Bojangels]

How bout you post with your real name or STFU.

[Adex_Xeda]

And Adex, for goodness sake.. the French law wasn't against head scarves. It was for all major religious symbols.

Kel,

Sadly the fine points of French law did little to silence AQ condemnation of the act.

Be like us or we'll blow you up.


How do you respond to the inflexible? How do you negotiate?

[Kelshara]

FACT: Saddam used WMD's in the past

FACT: So has the US done, and in fact they have given it to quite a few nations.

FACT: Saddam constantly shot at US and British warplanes patroling the northern and southern no-fly zones

FACT: US shot down Iranian airliner in international airspace. And if I recall correctly the no-fly zones were not UN supported.

FACT: Saddam tortured innocent civilians whom he felt didn't agree with him

FACT: A large part of the world considers the death penalty which Bush has used more than anyone else to be inhumane. Also, prisoners have not only gone through fairly inhumane treatment on Guantanomo (sp.. I'll get that right one day) but some have also been sent to allied countries with far less strict torture laws.

Let's see, whether Bush went about Iraq is one thing but warcrimes? God Almighty!

Not sure if war crimes is the correct thing, but imho he has quite a few lies to answer for and they are worse than lying about a blowjob.

Sadly the fine points of French law did little to silence AQ condemnation of the act.

That was not my point. Quite a few people who share your viewpoint of things keep saying the law was aimed against muslims. As do a lot of muslims. And that is simply not true.

[nobody]

FACT: Saddam used WMD's in the past

FACT: So has the US done, and in fact they have given it to quite a few nations.

touche (sp) i'm not defending going to iraq by any means but Saddam is a bastard and deserved what he got

[Adex_Xeda]

WHOA hold on Kel,

I did NOT say that that French law was against muslims.


I said that if we don't absolutely submit to AQ type islamic fundamentalism, they're going to attack us.

Apples and oranges.

[Kelshara]

No you didn't say it directly, but the way you worded yourself in the original post about it you made it sound like it was aimed purely at muslims. In other words: Somebody who did not know anything about it and read your post would get the idea that it was. The way of angling the comments about the law is quite common from people of your political viewpoint

Oh and nobody.. I wont deny that Saddam was a bad person, far from it. That wont change the fact that there are way worse than him aroun the world, and I wont agree with how it was handled.

[Krurk]

If you really wanna get technical, you can also point out how during the early 1980's the Reagan administration arranged several arms transactions to Iraq even though there was a military embargo against Iraq.

Some of the things that were sent to Iraq

HAWK anti-aircraft missiles, shipped to Iraq via Jordan (USA)

Tanks, Missiles, Artillery (Britain)

Mirage Fighters, Exocet missiles (One was used to attack the USS Stark, killing 37) (France)

Chemical precursors (Germany)

155mm Howlitzers via Egypt (US Support, sold via France)

Source: The Iraq War Reader, Article by Murray Waas

Let's not forget the Bush Sr. administration deflecting criticism against Iraq for the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 while trying to blame it on Iran.

Was Saddam a saint? Hell no.

Neither were we.

What would have happened had the U.S. NOT supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war?

Odds are Iran would have won since they were defeating Iraqi forces prior to U.S. and foreign intervention. Iraq would have likely fallen to Iran, creating a single state under Iranian control. That, is a bad thing. Should Iran have succeeded in consolidating control of Iraq and began to regroup and bolster its military, it would have been able to strike against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and possibly gone to blows with Israel if they were ballsy enough.

[Adex_Xeda]

No you didn't say it directly, but the way you worded yourself in the original post about it you made it sound like it was aimed purely at muslims.

Chalk it up to a my failure ot communicate. That was not my intent. I tried to use that French law as an example of the inflexiblity of the people trying to kill us. And I did that in response to Tanc's suggestion that we can somehow negotiate with them.

Yet that question still remains unanswered. If you belive we should negotiate with these guys. "What" would you negotiate?

These guys are all or nothing. How do you negotiate with these people short of totally submitting to their religion?

[Xyun]

What would have happened had the U.S. NOT supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war?

Odds are Iran would have won since they were defeating Iraqi forces prior to U.S. and foreign intervention. Iraq would have likely fallen to Iran, creating a single state under Iranian control. That, is a bad thing. Should Iran have succeeded in consolidating control of Iraq and began to regroup and bolster its military, it would have been able to strike against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and possibly gone to blows with Israel if they were ballsy enough.

You have no fucking clue as to what you are talking about. No fucking clue.

[Zaelath]

What would have happened had the U.S. NOT supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war?

Odds are Iran would have won since they were defeating Iraqi forces prior to U.S. and foreign intervention. Iraq would have likely fallen to Iran, creating a single state under Iranian control. That, is a bad thing. Should Iran have succeeded in consolidating control of Iraq and began to regroup and bolster its military, it would have been able to strike against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and possibly gone to blows with Israel if they were ballsy enough.

You have no fucking clue as to what you are talking about. No fucking clue.

Interesting assertion, I would love to see you back it up though...

The US bolstered Iraq just enough to stop either side winning and weaken both states. What would theorise is a more plausible reason for that?

[vn_Tanc]

Tanc, remove all of your people from my country, I dont' care if you need our oil, leave or I'll kill you. Oh and BTW you people in France, either repeal your no headscarfs law or I'll kill you.

Feel free to "negotiate" with me.

Ok Tanc, how do you reach a compromise with someone like this? How do you negotiate? Seriously and with no sarcasm I ask.

Clearly you don't as I pretty much said in my post. The problem at the moment is that the hardliners are getting broad support from the wider muslim world. If you address the problems and perceived injustices you choke off the supply of volunteers and other support until the hardcore maniacs are left pretty much alone and then you have a finite target to hit. Also, over time, I'd imagine their zeal would soften as it becomes evident even to them that they have started a war they can never win.

Also,

Your "Bush invaded under false pretenses" assumption currently stands in the realm of speculation.

It is too early to be resting arguments upon it.

It might still be speculation in your world but I seem to recall saying before the war there would be no WMD found so the reason for said war was a sham. Sooner or later you're going to have to admit that us filthy liberals were right. The "Iraq was behind 9/11" line was always bullshit and anyone with a nose should have smelled it.

[Sirton]

Nice way to back up your point and counter the other Xyun. You have no fkin clue is strong Keep it up ...so far I think Krurk is the only one thats posted any sense on this topic...well and Adex..How ya deal with someone thats like do this or we will kill you? Negotiating with people of that ilk is appeasment...they will spin it as so like your seeing with Spain now. Hell the west media will do it for em.

Ohh and another thing in the world today, there are not many people worse than Saddam Kelsh. Maybe one of his sons. There are some that are more of a threat, but barely any if any that are worse.....And pls dont give me the saying...Well its to your view of worse...maybe there view of worse would be you!!!...you know fk that stupidity....show me were theres 300,000 buried in mass graves from a past leader of 2yrs and a Current leaders regime...and dont give me WMD!! I heard all the speeches with my own ears and that wasnt the only reason...I was gunning for this since 1991 and was for it just on Saddam being such a bad guy leading a country alone. Hell Dictators suck in my book.

[Xyun]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0028632 ... eader-page

[Krurk]

"America's efforts to secretly arm Saddam Hussein began in the early years of the first term of the Reagan Administration. In March of 1982, reports began filtering back to the State Department from the U.S. embassy in Amman that Jordan's King Hussein was pressing for the U.S. to militarily assist Iraq. Iraq was suffering serious reverses in its war with Iran. The Ayatollah's forces had leveled many of Iraq's major oil facilities and were laying siege to Basra, Iraq's second-largest city and only port. King Hussein urged that the U.S. must find some way to help arm in order to prevent a total victory by Iran."

P 31.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846

Why don't you connect your brain to your fingers before you mash them on the keyboard next time?

[Brotha]

FACT: So has the US done, and in fact they have given it to quite a few nations.

This is like the argument of "the US has nukes, why can't N Korea?" I don't see how you can equivocate between a military dictator who is willing to slaughter thousands upon thousands of his own people with WMDs with Hiroshima...but to each his own.

FACT: US shot down Iranian airliner in international airspace. And if I recall correctly the no-fly zones were not UN supported.

I did some research on this and I have to admit I laughed my ass off- this is so in keeping with the tradition of the UN.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074302

American and British war planes have been fired on several times in recent days while patrolling "no-fly" zones over Iraq. The Bush administration calls these attacks a breach of the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. Russia and other U.N. members disagree. Who's right?

The Nov. 8 resolution states that Iraq must not "take or threaten hostile acts against any representative or personnel of the United Nations … or of any member state taking action to uphold any council resolution." So the real question is whether the no-fly zones were authorized by the U.N. Security Council. If so, then Iraq cannot interfere with U.S. and British attempts to patrol them.

Following the Gulf War, no-fly zones were set up north of the 36th parallel to protect Iraq's Kurdish minority and, later, south of the 32nd parallel to protect the country's Shiite Muslims. They were implemented by the United States (under President George H. W. Bush), Great Britain, and France. As justification, the trio of nations cited U.N. Security Council Resolution 688, adopted in 1991 to condemn Iraq's brutal repression of the Kurds and Shiites. The resolution demanded that Iraq cease its "repression of the Iraqi civilian population."

However, the New York Times editorialized at the time that Resolution 688 provided a "dubious justification" for setting up the no-fly zones because it did not authorize the use of force to stop Iraqi abuses. And in 1993, the U.N. legal department announced that it could find no existing Security Council resolutions authorizing the United States, Britain, and France to enforce the no-fly zones. They are never explicitly mentioned in Resolution 688 or elsewhere. Furthermore, Resolution 688 was not enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, the section that is used to authorize and legitimize the use of force.

France later backed away from its involvement in the no-fly zones, leaving the United States and Britain to enforce them. Other U.N. Security Council nations have never accepted their legitimacy. So the dispute over whether Iraq's firing at planes over the no-fly zones constitutes a "material breach" actually exposes a long-standing divide at the United Nations. No wonder the administration has been hesitant to cite Iraq's recent anti-aircraft fire as cause to demand further military action from the Security Council.

So let's go over it. Basically the UN had a resolution with no way to enforce it. France backed down. The US and Britain got shit done. Did I miss anything?

[nobody]

So let's go over it. Basically the UN had a resolution with no way to enforce it. France backed down. The US and Britain got shit done. Did I miss anything?

lol, i like this guy

[Kelshara]

This is like the argument of "the US has nukes, why can't N Korea?" I don't see how you can equivocate between a military dictator who is willing to slaughter thousands upon thousands of his own people with WMDs with Hiroshima...but to each his own.

They were not his own people, I know you have been spoonfed that before because I (among others) have told you over and over. Of course, that doesn't fit in with your personal beliefs so it is promptly ignored.

As for North Korea and nukes.. I am way more worried about Israel using them than anyone else.. and who can we thank for giving the technology to Israel? Oh yeah, the only country that has ever used nukes.. I'll let you fill in the blanks there.

So let's go over it. Basically the UN had a resolution with no way to enforce it. France backed down. The US and Britain got shit done. Did I miss anything?

Quite a bit actually. You missed the fact that even your slanted BS Slate agreed with me (read: it was not UN supported). And you also talk extremely big about how the US are the saviours of the Kurds considering how your glorious leader Dumbass Sr left them high and dry to be slaughtered after Gulf War I.

lol, i like this guy

Figured you would since you are both moronic, narrow-minded rednecks. In fact, would be interesting to see an IP check for you.

[Brotha]

They were not his own people, I know you have been spoonfed that before because I (among others) have told you over and over. Of course, that doesn't fit in with your personal beliefs so it is promptly ignored.

...and I laughed it off as arguing semantics, which is what I'm going to do now as well.

As for North Korea and nukes.. I am way more worried about Israel using them than anyone else.. and who can we thank for giving the technology to Israel? Oh yeah, the only country that has ever used nukes.. I'll let you fill in the blanks there.

Are you fucking kidding me? In my opinion Israel has every right to have nukes. You have a tiny country surrounded by nations that for the most part don't think they should even exist and actively support people trying to blow its civilians up. Under those circumstances Israel has every right to have nukes as a deterrance. Are you trying to say that Israel is more of a threat to the world than N. Korea?

So what if we're the only nation to have used nukes? What point are you trying to make? This is such a non issue...

Quite a bit actually. You missed the fact that even your slanted BS Slate agreed with me (read: it was not UN supported). And you also talk extremely big about how the US are the saviours of the Kurds considering how your glorious leader Dumbass Sr left them high and dry to be slaughtered after Gulf War I.

I completely agree that it wasn't UN supported. Did you see me try to argue against that? My point was that the UN did exactly jack and shit to enforce their resolution, and left it up to the US and Britain to take unilateral action. Ring any bells?

[Kelshara]

...and I laughed it off as arguing semantics, which is what I'm going to do now as well.

How can you laugh it off as semantics? When it is the very foundation of everything you try to argue? Kurds are not Saddam's people, it's that simple.

Are you trying to say that Israel is more of a threat to the world than N. Korea?

Yes I am, in the way that I believe Israel is way more likely to use a nuke than North Korea. North Korea is all talk, they love to rattle their guns and play tough. And that's the end of it. Not to mention that Israel can live with the reprecussions from it way easier than North Korea could (read: Israel can do whatever they want and still have the support of the US). Oh and then there is Sharon.. who quite lives up to his nickname of the "Butcher".

And I don't think Israel has any more right to have nuclear weapons than any other country. And for somebody who bitches and whines about WMDs as much as you do it comes across as quite hypocritical, especially since I don't see you arguing for arming every small country surrounded by enemies (have fun arming Africa).

So what if we're the only nation to have used nukes? What point are you trying to make? This is such a non issue...

Of course it is a non-issue, it doesn't go along with your viewpoint. Hell I think I will argue this way as well! Everything I disagree with is a non-issue! It worked for Bush!

Ring any bells?

Yeah it sounds like last time the US did that.. you know, when they lied to the UN in Powel's presentation?

[Sueven]

Brotha, would you mind clarifying exactly what attributes a nation must have in order to have the "right" to have nukes?

Further, Israel:

1. Is led by a war criminal nicknamed "the butcher"
2. Is involved in a decades long civil war / terrorist fight
3. Has committed repeated and varied human rights abuses

So exactly what makes Israel a better security risk than North Korea?

Additionally:

You have a tiny country surrounded by nations that for the most part don't think they should even exist and actively support people trying to blow its civilians up.

Well, the reverse is also basically true. While the enemies of Israel are not "tiny" or "surrounded" in a geographical sense, as Israel is, they certainly are metaphorically tiny and surrounded when it comes to military technology, logistical support, and finances. Last time I checked, Israel was still launching cruise missiles at Palestinians.

The impression I get is that you think that Israel is less likely to launch a nuke at us.

[Brotha]

How can you laugh it off as semantics? When it is the very foundation of everything you try to argue? Kurds are not Saddam's people, it's that simple.

Of course it's arguing semantics. The Kurds that Saddam killed lived in Iraq. Saddam was the ruler of Iraq. This would be like saying if Bush killed a bunch of Jews who lived in the US and I said he killed "his people" and you tried to say that Jews weren't "his people." It makes absolutely no sense.

Yes I am, in the way that I believe Israel is way more likely to use a nuke than North Korea. North Korea is all talk, they love to rattle their guns and play tough. And that's the end of it. Not to mention that Israel can live with the reprecussions from it way easier than North Korea could (read: Israel can do whatever they want and still have the support of the US). Oh and then there is Sharon.. who quite lives up to his nickname of the "Butcher".

So when would Israel use a nuke? When they're being slaughtered by their hostile neighbors? Does Israel use nukes to intimidate other nations for their own gain? Does Israel sell arms to rogue nations? Does Israel support terrorism? No, no, and no.

Of course it is a non-issue, it doesn't go along with your viewpoint. Hell I think I will argue this way as well! Everything I disagree with is a non-issue! It worked for Bush!

So me asking why you're even bringing it up is equal to me trying to shut anything out that doesn't agree with my point of view? The fact that the US used nukes against Japan during World War II has absolutely no bearing on today's arguments. If you want to try to explain to me what bearing it does have and possibly change my mind then go for it, but I suspect you won't since it doesn't hold any water and doesn't "go along with your viewpoint."

Yeah it sounds like last time the US did that.. you know, when they lied to the UN in Powel's presentation?

Powell admitted the intelligence on the mobile labs was wrong. Was the intelligence wrong? Yes. Did he lie? No.

[Voronwë]

there were rumors that Israel sold nuclear technology to South Africa.

as for israel supporting terrorism? well they have faked a terrorism strike on an American embassy(think embassy) in Egypt in the early 70s to gain US support for their military effort at the time.

Israel has been rumored to send military 'consultants' to various groups in South America some of which were anti-government forces if i recall.

of course all those rumors could be anti-semitic propaganda...

[Brotha]

1. Is led by a war criminal nicknamed "the butcher"

What war crimes has Sharon been convicted of?

Just to go off on a side note here, last night I was hanging out w/ my gf and mentioned what was going on in Iraq and Al-Sadr, the cleric who we have an arrest warrant out for now (I didn't mention his name though). She said "yeah I read something about that. Isn't his name Sharon or something?" It really cracked me up that she thought Sharon was a muslim cleric. She didn't understand why I was laughing so hard, I guess it was a nerd moment.

2. Is involved in a decades long civil war / terrorist fight

So? Are they going to nuke Palestine?

3. Has committed repeated and varied human rights abuses

Can you even COMPARE the human rights abuses in Israel with those of N. Korea?

So exactly what makes Israel a better security risk than North Korea?

Israel is a democracy. North Korea is a military dictatorship led by an erratic psychotic who has shown a lack of judgement, an hostility to the outside world, and support for just about every rogue nation. Nukes in the hands of N. Korea have a much better chance of being used for nefarious purposes than nukes in the hands of Israel.

[kyoukan]

The basis of your argument is what war crimes a person has been convicted of? I guess that gets Hussein off the hook in your eyes. See you at the next peace rally, you fucking asstard.

[Voronwë]

Mr Sharon was born in Palestine in 1928, when it was a British mandate.

As a young man he joined the Jewish underground military organisation Haganah and fought in the Arab-Israeli war in 1948-49 after the creation of the Jewish state.

POLITICAL CAREER
1975-77: Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's special security adviser
1977-81 : Minister of Agriculture
1981-83: Minister of Defence
1984-90: Minister of Trade and Industry
1990-92: Minister of Construction and Housing
1996-98: Minister of National Infrastructure
1998-99: Foreign Minister
2001-today: Prime Minister

In the 1950s he led a number of punitive military operations - one incident in 1953 when 50 houses in the village of Qibya were blown up, killing 69 residents.

...

Mr Sharon masterminded Israel's disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

As defence minister, and without explicitly telling Prime Minister Menachem Begin, he sent the Israeli army all the way to Beirut, a strike which ended in the expulsion of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from Lebanon.

The move stopped the PLO using Lebanon to launch attacks against Israel, but also resulted in the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians by Lebanese Christian militiamen in two Beirut refugee camps under Israeli control.

Mr Sharon was removed from office in 1983 by an Israeli tribunal investigating the 1982 Lebanon invasion, finding him indirectly responsible for the killings.

didnt take long to find that info...

[Sueven]

I will quote what I said earlier, because you blatantly ignored it.

Brotha, would you mind clarifying exactly what attributes a nation must have in order to have the "right" to have nukes?

I asked you a reasonable and relevant question that you entirely ignored because you have no answer and you're simply pretending that your opinions have a shred of theoretical backing. If you're going to bust out some shit about how one nation has the "right" to nukes and another does not, then you really have an obligation to back up your statement. If you're not going to bother to answer this question, then please don't bother to respond to any other parts of my post.

What war crimes has Sharon been convicted of?

What war crimes has Saddam Hussein been convicted of? What war crimes has Slobodan Milosevic been convicted of? Talk about completely fucking irrelevant... (Edit: Or you could refer to Voronwe's post to see an actual answer.)

So? Are they going to nuke Palestine?

No, they're not, since Palestine doesn't exist. I know you know that, making this another completely worthless comment. My point was that Israel has demonstrated a predisposition to conflict and has a variety of enemies (targets...)

For instance, if Switzerland claimed they wanted to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent, it would seem more credible, because Switzerland has avoided military conflict for years. Israel, on the other hand, has shown a vast willingness to initiate military conflict, so any claims of defensive nuclear development are more suspect. Does this alone mean that they will launch nuclear attacks? Of course not. But it's something to think about (and a stark contrast to, say, North Korea. When was the last time North Korea initiated offensive military action? When was the last time Israel did so?).

Can you even COMPARE the human rights abuses in Israel with those of N. Korea?

Umm, yes. Israel bulldozes peoples homes, "relocates" individuals who have been living in their homes for years, represses free speech, represses freedom of assembly and the press, practices torture and assassination... there's a whole body of literature on it that I'm sure you could look into.

I'm not saying that North Korea is clean. That regime practices a wholly different set of widespread and varied human rights abuses. Really, I'd prefer that neither nation possess nuclear weapons, but that's not really a viable option at this point.

Now I am not anti-Israeli. In fact, while I hold the conventional view that both sides share some blame, I probably land a little more on the Israeli side than then Palestinian side. However, part of being intelligently pro-Israeli, or intelligently pro-anything is acknowledging the flaws and limitations of yourself and your allies. Israel has flaws in spades, and I'm amazed that you so blatantly ignore them.

Finally, you said:

Of course it's arguing semantics. The Kurds that Saddam killed lived in Iraq. Saddam was the ruler of Iraq. This would be like saying if Bush killed a bunch of Jews who lived in the US and I said he killed "his people" and you tried to say that Jews weren't "his people." It makes absolutely no sense.

Watch how that quote can still be factually accurate with a few minor changes:

Of course it's arguing semantics. The <Palestinians> that <Sharon> killed lived in <Israel>. <Sharon> was the ruler of <Israel>. This would be like saying if Bush killed a bunch of Jews who lived in the US and I said he killed "his people" and you tried to say that Jews weren't "his people." It makes absolutely no sense.

[kyoukan]

The BBC is leftist propaganda. Me and Brotha only read the national review for hard hitting, factual journalism.

[Brotha]

Mr Sharon was removed from office in 1983 by an Israeli tribunal investigating the 1982 Lebanon invasion, finding him indirectly responsible for the killings.

If you're trying to say he was found guilty of war crimes, that's not it.

To quote directly from the Kahan Commission's report:

"We cannot accept this position. If it indeed becomes clear that those who decided on the entry of the Phalangist camps should have foreseen--from the information at their disposal and from things which were common knowledge--that there was a danger of a massacre, and no steps were taken which might have prevented this danger or at least greatly reduced the possibility that deeds of this type might be done, then those who made the decisions and those who implemented them are directly responsible for what ultimately occurred, even if they did not intend this to happen and merely disregarded the anticipated danger. A similar indirect responsibility also falls on those who knew of the decision: it was their duty, by virtue of their position and their office, to warn of the danger, and they did not fulfill this duty. It is also not possible to absolve of such indirect responsibility those persons who, when they received the first reports of what was happening in the camps, did not rush to prevent the continuation of the Phalangists¹ actions and did not do everything within their power to stop them."

The Kahan Commission goes on to declare, "The Minister of Defense, Mr. Ariel Sharon--We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility."

Anyways, this is going way off topic. I'm not trying to argue that Sharon is a saint. What I am trying to say is that what Sharon has done cannot be compared to say, what Saddam or Kim Jong Ill have done.

I asked you a reasonable and relevant question that you entirely ignored because you have no answer and you're simply pretending that your opinions have a shred of theoretical backing. If you're going to bust out some shit about how one nation has the "right" to nukes and another does not, then you really have an obligation to back up your statement. If you're not going to bother to answer this question, then please don't bother to respond to any other parts of my post.

In my opinion Israel has every right to have nukes. You have a tiny country surrounded by nations that for the most part don't think they should even exist and actively support people trying to blow its civilians up. Under those circumstances Israel has every right to have nukes as a deterrance.

You want me to elaborate on that? Nothing but good has come from Israel having nukes IMO. How many wars will/have be prevented from Israel having nukes? How many wars in the past have been prevented by the US having nukes? A deterrence, like I said.

And I'm still laughing my ass off about how we can be comparing N. Korea and Israel, then you mention the oppression of people in Israel and the fact that they are being led by a "war criminal"-COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that oppression and the crimes against humanity by Kim Jong Ill are EXPONENTIALLY worse. Are you begining to see some of the hypocrisy some people have in this regard?

No, they're not, since Palestine doesn't exist. I know you know that, making this another completely worthless comment. My point was that Israel has demonstrated a predisposition to conflict and has a variety of enemies (targets...)

1. I'm not going to clarify every comment I make for the purpose of semantics.

2. This even further emphasizes my point- they CAN'T nuke them.

For instance, if Switzerland claimed they wanted to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent, it would seem more credible, because Switzerland has avoided military conflict for years. Israel, on the other hand, has shown a vast willingness to initiate military conflict, so any claims of defensive nuclear development are more suspect.

Israel has shown a vast willingness to initiate military conflict to DEFEND ITSELF. How can you even try to make a comparison between that and any kind of purely offensive behavior? And Switzerland isn't surrounded by hostile nations, etc, etc. It boggles my mind that you'd even try to make a comparison as shallow as this.

Umm, yes. Israel bulldozes peoples homes, "relocates" individuals who have been living in their homes for years, represses free speech, represses freedom of assembly and the press, practices torture and assassination... there's a whole body of literature on it that I'm sure you could look into.

Represses free speech? Palestinians in Israel have more freedoms than in just about every Arab country. Targeted killings on militants are completely justified. Bulldozing the homes of people who were involved in slaughtering innocent Israelis is completely justified. Furthermore, in the context of what we were talking about, they can't even be compared to N. Korea's violations. If you really want me to I'll find some and show just how insignificant Israel's are compared to their's. And if you must know, I'm against a lot of the settlement BS.

And comparing Israel to Iraq in and Sharon to Saddam in regards to "his people" is comparing apples to oranges.

[Xorian]

Out of the topic of the last replies, i think that one of the major reason the governement changed in spain was because, Aznar (sp?) the former prime minister said right after the bombing that the ETA was involved in it.

I think on interior politic he was strongly against the ETA and saying it was them was pushing his party for the elections...when ppl realzied it wasnt ETA they blame him and his party.

Not saying it makes all, but dont think this aspect been mentionned very well in the thread (or i missed it !)

[Ashur]

How many wars will/have be prevented from Israel having nukes?

One. The one that will never end until they have been wiped off the map that will never start while they have nukes.

[Sueven]

You want me to elaborate on that?

Yes. And I want you to speak in generalities and theory, not specifics. That "it has done a lot of good" is not an answer, regardless of whether or not it is true. I want you to tell me what attributes a nation must have in order to have the right to have nukes. I want a list of attributes.

For example, you could say "I think a country has the right to have nukes if they are regularly threatened with military action from other countries." You could say "I think a country has the right to have nukes if they have demonstrated historical military restraint." You could say "I think a government has the right to have nukes if they're a pro-western democracy." You could give a combination of a number of factors. All you have to do is provide the theoretical backing for your assertion that Israel has the right to nukes. I don't understand why this is such a complex question.

Then you say:

And I'm still laughing my ass off about how we can be comparing N. Korea and Israel, then you mention the oppression of people in Israel and the fact that they are being led by a "war criminal"-COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that oppression and the crimes against humanity by Kim Jong Ill are EXPONENTIALLY worse. Are you begining to see some of the hypocrisy some people have in this regard?

Apparently you completely fucking ignored this:

I'm not saying that North Korea is clean. That regime practices a wholly different set of widespread and varied human rights abuses.

That is a direct quote from my post- to which you are supposedly responding. Either you haven't read my post, you ignored it, or you're just a fucking idiot. My point is and has consistently been that a comparison between North Korea and Israel is possible- not that North Korea is better than Israel. You should know that.

2. This even further emphasizes my point- they CAN'T nuke them.

Again, I will quote from my post. You asked whether Israel would nuke Palestine. I said:

No, they're not

Do you see how you're completely ignoring what I'm saying? You also seemed to ignore the part where I said:

My point was that Israel has demonstrated a predisposition to conflict and has a variety of enemies (targets...)

Clearly, I was not worried that Israel would nuke Palestine. Your continued harping on the topic is irrelevant.

Israel has shown a vast willingness to initiate military conflict to DEFEND ITSELF. How can you even try to make a comparison between that and any kind of purely offensive behavior?

What purely offensive behavior? North Korea invade someone that I missed recently?

You know what, fuck it, I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. I am not going to participate in an argument where all I do is paste my prior comments because, for whatever reason, you're completely ignoring them. I've been trying to get you to explain the theoretical beliefs that form the basis for your practical beliefs. It doesn't seem that you've ever thought about what those theoretical beliefs are. If you do have theoretical ideas behind all your rhetoric, please, I would love to hear them. Just fucking post them. I have no desire to read more of this stubborn, blockheaded, dogmatic shit.

The way a conversation of this sort should go:

Step 1: Person A states an opinion.
Step 2: Person B inquires as to why Person A holds this opinion.
Step 3: Person A states their reasoning.
Step 4: Person B can now accept this reasoning or take issue with the actual, concrete argument.

So feel free to post some reasoning that I can take issue with any day now. I can't argue with your unfounded opinions.

[Kelshara]

Of course it's arguing semantics. The Kurds that Saddam killed lived in Iraq. Saddam was the ruler of Iraq. This would be like saying if Bush killed a bunch of Jews who lived in the US and I said he killed "his people" and you tried to say that Jews weren't "his people." It makes absolutely no sense.

If the Jews were doing everything they could to take California out of the union and were fighting a guerrilja war for it while they themself claim they are not his people? Uhm yeah, I would say the same about that situation, even though I wouldn't really put Kurds and Jews side by side.

Just to go off on a side note here, last night I was hanging out w/ my gf and mentioned what was going on in Iraq and Al-Sadr, the cleric who we have an arrest warrant out for now (I didn't mention his name though). She said "yeah I read something about that. Isn't his name Sharon or something?" It really cracked me up that she thought Sharon was a muslim cleric. She didn't understand why I was laughing so hard, I guess it was a nerd moment.

Shows what a dumbass female it takes to be your gf, anyone halfway intelligent would see you for the idiot that you are and simply laugh at you. I would argue more points with you but frankly, this illustrates everything perfectly.

Good luck in the military, I am sure you will enjoy it. Seems a perfect fit for you!

[Brotha]

Yes. And I want you to speak in generalities and theory, not specifics. That "it has done a lot of good" is not an answer, regardless of whether or not it is true. I want you to tell me what attributes a nation must have in order to have the right to have nukes. I want a list of attributes.

First off, if we're talking about Israel we need to talk in specifics. For just about every "attribute" I say I'm sure you could turn it around somehow and use it in the specific argument of Israel against me.

But if we're talking in generalities:

Peaceful, democratic, with the express purpose of using it as a deterrence, NOT for any offensive means (eg blackmail, intimidation, invasion, etc).

Apparently you completely fucking ignored this:

Quote:
I'm not saying that North Korea is clean. That regime practices a wholly different set of widespread and varied human rights abuses.


That is a direct quote from my post- to which you are supposedly responding. Either you haven't read my post, you ignored it, or you're just a fucking idiot. My point is and has consistently been that a comparison between North Korea and Israel is possible- not that North Korea is better than Israel. You should know that.

I know exactly what you said after I called you on it. The fact of the matter is (using YOUR words) we were comparing N. Korea to Israel and which would be more dangerous with regards to nukes than the other and you said:

Further, Israel:

1. Is led by a war criminal nicknamed "the butcher"
2. Is involved in a decades long civil war / terrorist fight
3. Has committed repeated and varied human rights abuses

So exactly what makes Israel a better security risk than North Korea?

That's PURE hypocrisy. I'm sorry if I didn't take into consideration your quote trying to make up for it after the fact.

Israel is a nation that has had to defend itself several times in the past. None of its military actions has had any purpose other than TRYING TO KEEP ITS CITIZENS FROM BEING SLAUGHTERED. It's hard for me to even take you seriously when you try to compare THAT to N. Korea.

[Sueven]

First off, if we're talking about Israel we need to talk in specifics. For just about every "attribute" I say I'm sure you could turn it around somehow and use it in the specific argument of Israel against me.

If I can do that, it means you're wrong. What you're saying is that you refuse to provide justification for your beliefs because by so doing you would allow me to construct an effective rebuttal.

But then you answered my question, for which I am grateful.

Peaceful, democratic, with the express purpose of using it as a deterrence, NOT for any offensive means (eg blackmail, intimidation, invasion, etc).

Now, my questions about this:
1. Why is democracy a prerequisite?
2. What is it about Israel and North Korea that makes you feel that Israel better fulfills the last two criteria?
3. Isn't North Korea more peaceful than Israel?

I know exactly what you said after I called you on it. The fact of the matter is (using YOUR words) we were comparing N. Korea to Israel and which would be more dangerous with regard to nukes than the other and you said:

Sueven wrote:
Further, Israel:

1. Is led by a war criminal nicknamed "the butcher"
2. Is involved in a decades long civil war / terrorist fight
3. Has committed repeated and varied human rights abuses

So exactly what makes Israel a better security risk than North Korea?


That's PURE hypocrisy.

I don't see how. You're right, according to my words, which I stand by, I wanted to compare North Korea with Israel. If you will notice, I never said that North Korea was better than Israel, preferable to Israel, or should have nukes over Israel. I asked a question, and I never stated an opinion. This entire time, I have been seeking clarification of your opinion.

I challenge you to quote a single place where I claimed that North Korea should have nukes and Israel should not, or a single time when I claimed that such a setup would be preferable to the current situation. I have never said such a thing, and never expressed such an opinion.

Israel is a nation that has had to defend itself several times in the past. None of its military actions has had any purpose other than TRYING TO KEEP ITS CITIZENS FROM BEING SLAUGHTERED. It's hard for me to even take you seriously when to try to compare THAT to N. Korea.

Why is it hard to compare? Despite repeated requests, you still have not provided examples of any recent military action by North Korea, whether offensive or defensive.

Your argument is completely nonsensical. Why do you find it hard to take me seriously when I make such a comparison? A logical thing to say would be "well, Israel's military action has been in order to prevent it's citizens from being slaughtered, and North Korea performed such and such an offensive action at such and such a time, and threatened offensive military action at another time, so it seems that Israel's claims of wanting nuclear weapons as a deterrent are valid, and North Korea's are not." That's all you have to do. So far, you've done fucking nothing but claim shock and indignation that I would have the temerity to make such a horrendous, un-American statement. Perhaps you should consider looking at the fucking statement, thinking about why you disagree with it, and then post.

Unless you've already made all your arguments on the subject, in which case I SEVERELY underestimated your intelligence.

[Sueven]

I would like to point out a fair criticism you could make of me in this circumstance.

I'm currently in an advantageous position because I haven't stated an opinion on the issue. You have. Because of this, you have made a number of statements that I can probe and question. Since I have not made any such statements, I have no obligation to defend them, and you cannot examine my beliefs in kind.

This would be unfair on my part, if I was trying to make an argument for a view opposite yours. But I'm not. I'm examining your opinions, not my own. If you don't like it, you don't have to respond to my posts. However, it should be noted that if you plan to make a habit out of making uninformed, controversial statements and then refusing to explain them, you're going to run into a little bit of trouble next time you actually have to make an argument.

Additionally, you could consider asking me questions about my beliefs, which would transform the discussion entirely. You could say, "what do you think gives a country the right to have nukes?" You could say, "how would you compare the two countries?" You could say, "why don't you think democracy is a prerequisite?"

As it is, you're arguing against a position that's never been taken, in the form of a person who hasn't expressed an opinion. It's not a very sensible way to go about it.

[Sirton]

Brotha Quote:
Peaceful, democratic, with the express purpose of using it as a deterrence, NOT for any offensive means (eg blackmail, intimidation, invasion, etc).

Sueven:
Now, my questions about this:
1. Why is democracy a prerequisite?
2. What is it about Israel and North Korea that makes you feel that Israel better fulfills the last two criteria?
3. Isn't North Korea more peaceful than Israel?

North Korea every so often talks about blowing up Tokyo, Seoul, L.A., Califonrnia, Japan ect ect...If the U.S. bombs there nuc. plant, or if the international community doesn't come more to there view ect ect ect. If we dont feed em..Or if we just dont sit down at the table with em. Theyll spout off about blowing xomething up at times for the hell of it...Also N. Korea can actually use there weapons if Kim freako is just having a bad day since hes the TOTAL dictator..its his decision theres not a large chain or line of safe gaps or commands a democratic society would have to do, plus it would be political suicide, but not in a dictatorship. Bush, Shiron ect cant just say HEY!!! let me push the red button and Bam the end of the world a dictator can..hence democracy over dictator.

I dont see Israel yelling at Syria Iran Palestine and Egypt ect ect ect...telling them if they dont sit down and talk or give up this ect ect ect were going to launch our missles at you and blow up your citys like Mecca!! ect.....more people have died by N. Korean actions over 100 fold then by Israel actions in the past 100 years..and theres is for conquest and they still claim South Korea as a renogade colony of N. Korea.

North Korea has used nukes already as black mail and intimidation to the world community. The majority of Both Democrats and Republicans will tell you N. Korea IS MUCH MORE OF A THREAT.

Most of Israels actions are targeting military targets...they are having suicide bombers targeting the civilians..Israel after the Holocaust is a very paranoid society...exspecially since they goto a pizzaria and there familys get blown up because they are a Jew. Also food for thought: take note Arafat's auncle was and ally of Hitlers. And no I am not jewish I am Catholic.

[Sueven]

Thank God.

Sirton, you figured out exactly what I was asking. Thank you. Now I know that I'm communicating a little bit.

N. Korea can actually use there weapons if Kim freako is just having a bad day since hes the TOTAL dictator..its his decision theres not a large chain or line of safe gaps or commands a democratic society would have to do

That is a very valid point.

[Kelshara]

Except that Sharon has showed he doesn't care too much about the democracy part before. Quote previous post here:

As defence minister, and without explicitly telling Prime Minister Menachem Begin, he sent the Israeli army all the way to Beirut, a strike which ended in the expulsion of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from Lebanon.

[Adex_Xeda]

Also,

Your "Bush invaded under false pretenses" assumption currently stands in the realm of speculation.

It is too early to be resting arguments upon it.

It might still be speculation in your world but I seem to recall saying before the war there would be no WMD found so the reason for said war was a sham. Sooner or later you're going to have to admit that us filthy liberals were right. The "Iraq was behind 9/11" line was always bullshit and anyone with a nose should have smelled it.[/quote]

I don't think liberals are filthy. They consist of well meaning people who are concerned about the welfare of others.

I never held that Iraq was behind 9/11. I said at the time that Saddam's not coming clean about WMD created a threat that was too great to not act on.

I also stated that Iraq shared in the motivations of the terrorists and the potiential for colaboration between those too groups was too great not to act.


Saddam didn't come clean about WMD, and he was positioned to make America haters like AQ vastly more powerful than they were without him.

Those two threats were too great to ignore.

Please don't assume incorrect things about me. It just serves to confuse things.

[Kelshara]

Saddam didn't come clean about WMD, and he was positioned to make America haters like AQ vastly more powerful than they were without him.

Adex can you elaborate what you mean with the last part? Not sure if I follow you and I hate not understanding what people mean

[Xzion]

You all tend to forget that Sharon WAS A TERRORIST himself, read up on the organization he was a part of in his younger years. Both the leaders of Israel and Palestine have once been directly engaged in terrorist organizations, Sharon moreso i believe. Leaders like that do WONDERS for the middle east and "peace".