08 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieWar is a large scale armed robbery and murder. People have their thoughts boxed in so tight they will fall for just about anything. True self defense is another matter, but if it wasn't for the warmongers thieves and murderers, it would be obsolete as well. These warmongers create a crisis, allow fear to take hold in the populace, then provide the solution over and over again. Control is a big factor in modern war as is the spoils.
In what countries' hands is nuclear weapons evidently the most dangerous? Anyone?
I agree with FF. But I think the treaty should involve all nations in the world. In fact, I think military
as such should be thrown away all together as the obsolete obstacle to peace it is, once and for all.
What was it George Carlin said about military solutions for peace again? "Fighting for peace is like
screwing for virginity." He had it right, that man.
08 Oct 09
Originally posted by joe beyserWhat really bugs the hell out of me is that they keep succeeding. How dumb is the general populace anyway?
War is a large scale armed robbery and murder. People have their thoughts boxed in so tight they will fall for just about anything. True self defense is another matter, but if it wasn't for the warmongers thieves and murderers, it would be obsolete as well. These warmongers create a crisis, allow fear to take hold in the populace, then provide the solution over and over again. Control is a big factor in modern war as is the spoils.
08 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76I get where you're coming from, but don't you think the US should stay out of this one (at least once)?
But Israel having nukes being "manifestly exacerbating an exceptionally dangerous situation" is only because Iran and others choose to make it that way by threatening Israel's existence. If, all of a sudden, say, Monaco, starts a nuclear program because it suddenly views France as a threat, would you demand that France disarm to diffuse the situation?
I mean, the US has interfered many times in the middle-east, and every time, it either ended in s**t, or it just contributed to the anti-american feeling in the region (and then some people stupidly ask "why does everybody hates?"😉.
08 Oct 09
Originally posted by generalissimoShould the US stay out of the Middle East? Maybe. But the US seems to be one of the few bodies in the World with enough political capital to achieve a just and lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Certainly, Israel is not going to trust the UN or Russia. The UK and France probably don't have the political capital to pressure both sides as may be necessary during a negotiation. I'm sure Germany wouldn't get involved for obvious historical reasons and so the EU doesn't seem like it would have much weight to bear.
I get where you're coming from, but don't you think the US should stay out of this one (at least once)?
I mean, the US has interfered many times in the middle-east, and every time, it either ended in s**t, or it just contributed to the anti-american feeling in the region (and then some people stupidly ask "why does everybody hates?"😉.
I'm not sure a true settlement could be reached so easily without US involvement. A deal struck with US involvement would do a lot to restore the US' image in the ME as well. I also think that Obama gives the Us a bit more cred in the Arab World and that he should take advantage of that and try to work out a deal (especially after he criticized Bush so heavily for failing to do so).
Should the US stay out of the Iranian situation specifically? Well, not if it's sure that it doesn't want New York or Washington to be nuked.
09 Oct 09
Should the US stay out of the Iranian situation specifically? Well, not if it's sure that it doesn't want New York or Washington to be nuked.[/b]Is the US really worried about an Iranian nuclear strike on New York or Washington?
Do you think that the opposite might be true? That it is Iran who is worried about an American or Israeli strike against its country? And, if not a nuclear strike, then a military invasion? And that is why it is seeking a nuclear deterrent?
Iran was branded as being part of 'an axis of evil' along with Iraq and North Korea. Iraq had no nuclear capabilities and got invaded. North Korea has a very limited nuclear capability and gets negotiated with. Do you think that it is possible that Iran is thinking that after Iraq, they are going to be next for invasion unless they achieve nuclear status?
There is also the fact that Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers (Russia, Pakistan and Israel) and huge US military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Gulf. Do you not think that they may feel a little bit vulnerable?
Consider the hypothetical, what if the US did not have nuclear capability but say Canada, Cuba and Venzuela did. And that Mexico was occupied by 200 000 Russian troops. How would it feel?
09 Oct 09
Originally posted by The Snapper"Consider the hypothetical, what if the US did not have nuclear capability but say Canada, Cuba and Venzuela did. And that Mexico was occupied by 200 000 Russian troops. How would it feel?"
Is the US really worried about an Iranian nuclear strike on New York or Washington?
Do you think that the opposite might be true? That it is Iran who is worried about an American or Israeli strike against its country? And, if not a nuclear strike, then a military invasion? And that is why it is seeking a nuclear deterrent?
Iran was branded as being ...[text shortened]... a and Venzuela did. And that Mexico was occupied by 200 000 Russian troops. How would it feel?
Pfft ! Nucaler weapons are Way overblown.
GRANNY.
09 Oct 09
Originally posted by generalissimoYou, my friend, are turning into a communist!
I get where you're coming from, but don't you think the US should stay out of this one (at least once)?
I mean, the US has interfered many times in the middle-east, and every time, it either ended in s**t, or it just contributed to the anti-american feeling in the region (and then some people stupidly ask "why does everybody hates?"😉.
09 Oct 09
Originally posted by The SnapperThat's not the point. I'm not saying I don't understand why Iran wants nukes. Of course I understand why they want nukes. I'm explaining why certain other countries may want to do their utmost to make sure that doesn't happen.
Is the US really worried about an Iranian nuclear strike on New York or Washington?
Do you think that the opposite might be true? That it is Iran who is worried about an American or Israeli strike against its country? And, if not a nuclear strike, then a military invasion? And that is why it is seeking a nuclear deterrent?
Iran was branded as being ...[text shortened]... a and Venzuela did. And that Mexico was occupied by 200 000 Russian troops. How would it feel?
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotYes of course, who is surprised? Who wants others to interfere with their internal affairs?
Analysis / Expect more trickery from Iran in nuclear talks
As long as Israel has nukes, then they think Iran has the same right. If others interfere, what would you exoect? That they would lay flat down for their enemies? Israel doesn't, why would Iran?
We see the same kind of trickeries in Iran as in Israel. In the Israel case, noone seems to bother. In the Iranian case, everyone bothers. Why? Because Israeli terrorists are more trustworthy?
I say - Let the same rules apply to everyone in the region!
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnaswould you give a gun to a guy who keeps saying he's going to kill his neighbor?
Yes of course, who is surprised? Who wants others to interfere with their internal affairs?
As long as Israel has nukes, then they think Iran has the same right. If others interfere, what would you exoect? That they would lay flat down for their enemies? Israel doesn't, why would Iran?
We see the same kind of trickeries in Iran as in Israel. In the ...[text shortened]... terrorists are more trustworthy?
I say - Let the same rules apply to everyone in the region!
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasthe thread title is:
Yes of course, who is surprised? Who wants others to interfere with their internal affairs?
As long as Israel has nukes, then they think Iran has the same right. If others interfere, what would you exoect? That they would lay flat down for their enemies? Israel doesn't, why would Iran?
We see the same kind of trickeries in Iran as in Israel. In the ...[text shortened]... terrorists are more trustworthy?
I say - Let the same rules apply to everyone in the region!
anyone still believe Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons?