14 Mar 06
Originally posted by PeachyHaving a nuclear capability does not make one a threat to world peace! I have done extensive research on this because I wrote an essay on it when I was at school. Israel is a civilised country, India is almost there too, they are not a threat to security. Nobody mentioned Pakistan. Nobody mentioned Libya, who, until recently were trying to acquire nukes. This thread is about the stand-off over Iran trying to get nukes, do you not condemn them for this but still condemn Israel and India although Israel and India are evidently pretty civillised but Iranians evidently still live in the 16th Century?
How the hell did you come to this genius deduction...?
From my post you will see I disagreed with Nargaguna's statement when he said: "Neither India nor Israel threatens world peace unlike some of their neighbours."
Read my post again. You will realise that in fact I meant both India and Israel do threaten world peace due to their nuclear capabilities.. and his facts are good as used toilet paper.
¿Comprende?
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by PeachyNeither India nor Israel have mad mullahs who incite their youth to become suicide bombers
How the hell did you come to this genius deduction...?
From my post you will see I disagreed with Nargaguna's statement when he said: "Neither India nor Israel threatens world peace unlike some of their neighbours."
Read my post again. You will realise that in fact I meant both India and Israel do threaten world peace due to their nuclear capabilities.. and his facts are good as used toilet paper.
¿Comprende?
14 Mar 06
1 edit
princeoforange
I hope you are taking notes as you will need them whenever you resubmit that essay when you reset that school year.
1, Having nuclear capability causes threat to everything God created. The ONLY purpose of their invention is to KILL. How can mass murder threaten peace..? you work out.
2, Israel is civilised? Have you ever been there? I have. It exists on my homeland. And it is far from civilised.
3, What is the problem that no one mentioned any other country? as you so kindly put it "This thread is about the stand-off over Iran trying to get nukes" - Iran. Get it..?
4, Either ALL countries should have nuclear or none. What gives the right to one over the other? not religion and not colour.
5, Yes.. "Iranians evidently still live in the 16th Century" that’s why they are almost so behind as everyone else in the "16th Century" and going nuclear..
You are so bright, you shine wisdom..
Nargaguna
Is that what scares you at night..? "mad mullahs"? and you seem obsessed with the word "incite".. was it the last English word you ever learned?
Bless.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by PeachyAt least you do not dispute the fact that India and Israel do not have any mad mullahs who encourage youths to commit mass murder in the name of their God. Nor do thwy have any fanatical ayatollahs to pronounce death sentences against anyone of whom they disapprove.
[b]princeoforange
rgaguna[/b]
Is that what scares you at night..? "mad mullahs"? and you seem obsessed with the word "incite".. was it the last English word you ever learned?
Bless.[/b]
Your attempts to rebut arguments by sarcasm and scatalogical references merely expose the weakness of your position.
14 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NargagunaDid I "incite" sarcasm..? pardon meeee...
At least you do not dispute the fact that India and Israel do not have any mad mullahs who encourage youths to commit mass murder in the name of their God. Nor do thwy have any fanatical ayatollahs to pronounce death sentences against anyone of whom they disapprove.
Your attempts to rebut arguments by sarcasm and scatalogical references merely expose the weakness of your position.
No they don't have "mad mullahs" or "ayatollahs", you are right. They only have Zionists who are ever so kind with the native Arabs. And Hindu's would go to the moon and back begging Pakistan for forgiveness over the massacres committed in Kashmir and the like..
My position might be weak.
Yours is corrupt.
14 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NargagunaThe key to the developments in the Iran-dossier is in the hands of Russia and China. If they, together with the EU and the US, stand firm and do not back down a diplomatic solution to the problem will be within reach. However, if they refuse to support firm diplomatic and economic action, for whatever reason, then things will turn increasingly difficult.
Looks like the West will have to take firm action to stop the mad mullahs of Iran from aquiring atomic weapons which they would inevitably use in the name of their bogey-man, Allah.
The Iranian strategy is and will be to drive a wedge between the different world players. Of course, in the first place between the US and the EU on one side and Russia and China on the other, but also between the US and the EU. So far the Iranian diplomacy has been succesful in slowing down events considerably, time is on their side, but they haven't been succesful (yet ?) in playing the world players apart.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnd what type of "diplomatic solution" is within reach? The one where the Iranian government agrees to "regimechange"?
The key to the developments in the Iran-dossier is in the hands of Russia and China. If they, together with the EU and the US, stand firm and do not back down a diplomatic solution to the problem will be within reach. However, if they refuse to support firm diplomatic and economic action, for whatever reason, then things will turn increasingly difficult.
...[text shortened]... e is on their side, but they haven't been succesful (yet ?) in playing the world players apart.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "And what type of "diplomatic solution" is within reach?"
And what type of "diplomatic solution" is within reach? The one where the Iranian government agrees to "regimechange"?
I guess you haven't been following the developments, marauder. What do you think, genius ?
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by ivanhoe"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."
Marauder: "And what type of "diplomatic solution" is within reach?"
I guess you haven't been following the developments, marauder. What do you think, genius ?
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think you're full of it as usual. And I think someone who constantly refuses to answer pertinent questions regarding their views on issues isn't interested in any type of debate, but is simply interested in spewing propaganda. Why don't you answer the questions I ask, Ivanhoe?
Marauder: "And what type of "diplomatic solution" is within reach?"
I guess you haven't been following the developments, marauder. What do you think, genius ?
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause your questions are stupid, dumb, superfluous and aiming at another pissing match. Find someone else to play your games with.
I think you're full of it as usual. And I think someone who constantly refuses to answer pertinent questions regarding their views on issues isn't interested in any type of debate, but is simply interested in spewing propaganda. Why don't you answer the questions I ask, Ivanhoe?
14 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeNow a pissing match would be interesting.
Because your questions are stupid, dumb, superfluous and aiming at another pissing match. Find someone else to play your games with.
I bet you would win as your threads can be long-winded 😛