View Full Version : Anotherdinnerjacket speaks at the UN
Devastatin Dave
09-23-2008, 22:37
So what's your opinion? I couldn't decide whether he sounded more like a crazed right wing religous nutcase or some euroweenie socialist prophet. It was hard to concentrate for me, hairy little genocidal maniacs make me horny. So whats your opinion of the entire speech and the reactions from the nations he called out today?
wanna throw me a few more details so i know where to start? :beam:
Linky (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRcJGft_Pr8uMaY1Bz9ieBSwBNTgD93CLKDG2). I guess it didn't make the news cycle in the U.S.
Reverend Joe
09-23-2008, 23:18
Ahmadinejad.
I can spell it. And without copy/paste.
~;p
Why would I watch a UN speech? :inquisitive:
I thought that organization is useless anyway or so I've been told here...
Why would anyone care what he says there then?
And apart from that he probably says roughly the same things all the time anyway. :juggle2:
Banquo's Ghost
09-24-2008, 05:53
Thank you Lemur.
Until your link, I thought Dave was talking about President Bush.
:wink:
my opinion:
statements about peaceful intentions regarding nuclear programs mean nothing when the head of state makes repeated claims that his country will wipe another off the map, and when military parades include ballistic missiles daubed with messages approximating to; "death to israel".
the two do not co-exist, and until iran grows up it will be contained, squashed, reprimanded, bullied, kept poor and more, all with my wholehearted support.
statements about peaceful intentions regarding nuclear programs mean nothing when the head of state makes repeated claims that his country will wipe another off the map, and when military parades include ballistic missiles daubed with messages approximating to; "death to israel".
Ya.
Israel should be whiper of the map but I like you very very much want to come in for a cup of tea? My wive has made cookies.
LittleGrizzly
09-24-2008, 12:54
DinnerJacket just talks off wiping israel off the map to play up to the domestic crowd, even if he/they wanted to they couldn't, even if thier nuclear program was finished iran could not inflict the same damage on israel that israel could inflict on iran.
The iranians just want it to protect themselves and considering the amount of enemys they have and the size and the power of these enemys i can't really say i blame them...
CountArach
09-24-2008, 13:01
Until your link, I thought Dave was talking about President Bush.
:laugh4:
CrossLOPER
09-24-2008, 14:35
..repeated claims that his country will wipe another off the map...
The fact that there is an entire wiki page dedicated to dissecting what that statement meant without actually agreeing what it is he actually said bothers me to a degree.
HoreTore
09-24-2008, 15:26
Anyway, why is it wrong of him to say that he wants Israel gone?
I'd say he's fully justified in saying that. I'd be surprised if he didn't.
aminadinnerjacket stating "wipe israel off the map" + death to israel written on 'his' ballistic missiles = not acceptable.
DinnerJacket just talks off wiping israel off the map to play up to the domestic crowd,
even if he/they wanted to they couldn't, even if thier nuclear program was finished iran could not inflict the same damage on israel that israel could inflict on iran.
two points:
1. not an acceptable public stance for a nation state and will result in frequent smacking until delinquent behavior is curbed.
2. yes israel has many more nukes, but it would only take one or two to gut israel so no nukes will be given to the ayran children.
HoreTore
09-24-2008, 15:51
aminadinnerjacket stating "wipe israel off the map" + death to israel written on 'his' ballistic missiles = not acceptable.
But it was all okay for Bush to do the same before Iraq, right? :dizzy2:
Suddenly it's unacceptable to state that you want a country gone? When was that change made? Last thursday, or what?
Ser Clegane
09-24-2008, 16:03
But it was all okay for Bush to do the same before Iraq, right? :dizzy2:
I do not quite remember Bush making statements along the lines of "wipe Iraq of the map" or "death to Iraq"
I think there is a slight difference between wanting a (non-democratic!) leadership of a country removed and questioning the right of existance of a country (and potentially its citizens) as such.
HoreTore
09-24-2008, 16:06
I think there is a slight difference between wanting a (non-democratic!) leadership of a country removed and questioning the right of existance of a country (and potentially its citizens) as such.
In the case of a country that was established 50 years ago by outsiders with the people living there given no option to it, I'd say it's very justified to question the rightfulness of its existence.
Can you honestly say that you would prefer to live in a world where a huge event like that isn't met with any debate at all....?
Ser Clegane
09-24-2008, 16:41
Can you honestly say that you would prefer to live in a world where a huge event like that isn't met with any debate at all....?
"wipe of the map" does not qualify as "debate" IMHO (even in the Backroom we do better than that).
Your Bush comparison is still invalid ~;)
Ahmadinejad.
I can spell it. And without copy/paste.
~;p
I'd give it a 7 but you can't dance to it...:dizzy2:
But it was all okay for Bush to do the same before Iraq, right? :dizzy2:
Suddenly it's unacceptable to state that you want a country gone? When was that change made? Last thursday, or what?
we (the US/UK/Others) went in to remove a regime, not to destroy a country that is defined by the cutural/religious group that iran professes to despise so much. to further clarify the point; "we will push them into the sea".
further more, we did not have public military parades where we broke out the ballistic missiles daubed with the words; ":daisy: and die you iranian bastards!" or words to that effect.
you are so far off-base it's unbelievable!
Incongruous
09-24-2008, 18:47
we (the US/UK/Others) went in to remove a regime, not to destroy a country that is defined by the cutural/religious group that iran professes to despise so much. to further clarify the point; "we will push them into the sea".
Hahaha! What a load of crap!
Hey can you tell me how much has been spent on Afghan reconstruction?
NATO and the U.S may not have wanted to destroy Afghanistan, we know they didn't because they went in to bolster up the nations security in order to secure oil pipelines, but the sum affect has been just that. Utter destruction.
To be quite honest it would be good if Iran got some nukes, finally something to counterbalance the Western backed fascists in Israel.
CrossLOPER
09-24-2008, 19:28
Anyway, why is it wrong of him to say that he wants Israel gone?
I'd say he's fully justified in saying that. I'd be surprised if he didn't.
I'm believe he was referring to the regime, not the country.
LittleGrizzly
09-24-2008, 19:56
To be quite honest it would be good if Iran got some nukes, finally something to counterbalance the Western backed fascists in Israel.
pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue
Hahaha! What a load of crap!
Hey can you tell me how much has been spent on Afghan reconstruction?
NATO and the U.S may not have wanted to destroy Afghanistan, we know they didn't because they went in to bolster up the nations security in order to secure oil pipelines, but the sum affect has been just that. Utter destruction.
To be quite honest it would be good if Iran got some nukes, finally something to counterbalance the Western backed fascists in Israel.
did. we. intend. or. attempt. to. detsroy. the. nation. of. afghan. (or iraq for that matter)?
don't be an idiot, we did not, and we do not intend to do so.
TevashSzat
09-24-2008, 20:20
did. we. intend. or. attempt. to. detsroy. the. nation. of. afghan. (or iraq for that matter)?
don't be an idiot, we did not, and we do not intend to do so.
Well.....I hardly doubt the US intended to destroy anything but the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Saddam's government, but it has hardly turned out that way.
Edit:
I find it funny how the media in the US barely reported on Ahmadinejad's visit. I actually thought this thread was referring to Sarah Palin at first
Tribesman
09-24-2008, 20:44
we (the US/UK/Others) went in to remove a regime
Isn't that the same as people talking about the zionist regime .
Hosakawa Tito
09-24-2008, 22:15
I'm surprised Chavez wasn't there to hold his coat...oh well, get in line. May those that love us, love us. And those that don't love us, may God turn their hearts. And if he cannot turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles, so we shall know them by their limping.
Samurai Waki
09-25-2008, 03:40
I'm pretty sure Iran is the only nation state in the region that has any claim to any historical borders beyond 80 years ago. So this gives Iran just as short a leg to stand on when it comes to Israel as the US does when it comes to Iraq.
Papewaio
09-25-2008, 03:40
To be quite honest it would be good if Iran got some nukes, finally something to counterbalance the Western backed fascists in Israel.
Follow that through and think what a ship with a nuke could do to Lebanon or to Israel. Lebanon is split into several factions. One of which is backed by Iran. A nuke supplied to that faction could be devastating.
Calling the state of Israel facists is hyperbole. To which facists are they to compare? They do not even have camps to compare to those in the second Boer War let alone WWII. Nor does the entire population agree with the democratically elected leadership. So do you seriously want to see a nuke let off in Israel that will harm far more innocents then 'bad guys'? With the wholly likely reaction being a counter nuking of every major population center of Iran?
And yes you can tell the place a nuke is manufactured from after the fact by potentially from:
Yield
Seismic waveform
Isotopic fingerprint
And then standard investigative work.
So in the long run, no country probably can successfully nuke another and not be found out.
So do we really want millions of people to die because we don't like the current Israeli and/or Iran government? Or do we think that diplomacy including the UN might be a better solution?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-25-2008, 03:46
To be quite honest it would be good if Iran got some nukes, finally something to counterbalance the Western backed fascists in Israel.
Why is that a good thing? Paraphrasing someone, they may be bastards, but they're our bastards.
LittleGrizzly
09-25-2008, 03:47
I believe an Iranian nuke would be useful as it may stop aggression against iran and lessen the people's fear of attack, this combined with a coordinated middle east peace process could leave the iranians feeling happy and safe with no need for a hardline nutcase as a leader to make them safe...
I am of the belief that the iranians are neither stupid nor suicidal enough to use a nuke or supply terrorists with one, pakistan imo has far more extreme elements and they have managed not to supply terrorists with one, they will use it exactly as every other country that has developed nukes (after US) has used them, except they probably will actually make a difference as they would divert potential aggressors whereas the UK's have done nothing....
Incongruous
09-25-2008, 05:38
As if Iran would actually use a nuke, they only want one to protect themselves from Israel and the U.S & Co. I would if I was an Iranian, stuff the U.S (& NATO) and its absurd neo-Imperialist pretensions.
Israel are ours? Well I find that offensive, neither I or my family have ever supported those "bastards", I choose my views based upon sound judgment not ridiculous sentiments like the one EMFM spouted.
The sum effect of the U.S & NATO invasion and conquest of Afghanistan has been to destroy it and then leave it to rot. $350 million, yeah we really want that country to be strong and vibrant. Democracy? sure but when only bloodthirsty warlords run for office and are bequeathed their positions why bother?
It just bollocks, all of it.
PanzerJaeger
09-25-2008, 06:08
Israel are ours? Well I find that offensive, neither I or my family have ever supported those "bastards", I choose my views based upon sound judgment not ridiculous sentiments like the one EMFM spouted.
You seem to have a lot of internalized anger. Have a seat on the couch and lets discuss the motivations behind it, ok? :holmes:
Now then, neither Israel nor Iran(or any of the muslim nations aligned against Israel) have been angelic in their motives or methods, but there are perfectly valid reasons for any Westerner to support Israel over Iran, in this latest flare up particularly. Iran's rhetoric alone removes all the credibility it never had in the first place.
Oh, and the only person who seems to be spouting ridiculous sentiments - such as the desire for a nuclear armed Iran - is you. :shrug:
Koga No Goshi
09-25-2008, 07:56
I don't think we have the right to arbitrarily set a technology cap on how far people are "allowed" to develop, personally. I don't want to see dictators waving nukes around, but neither do I think "having them first" translates into "inherently more moral in their use of power in the world rendered by military might and nuclear arms superiority."
All of Ahmadinejad's statements in that speech are 100% spot on. The unjustiified occupations and warmongering have indeed killed or displaced millions. It is sheer hypocrisy/double standards that the USA and Israel are allowed to have nukes yet Iran can't even have a peaceful nuclear program.:wall:
The corrupt powers need to get off their high horses and pretending that they have some sort of self-proclaimed 'moral superiority'.
CountArach
09-25-2008, 11:01
I think there is a slight difference between wanting a (non-democratic!) leadership of a country removed and questioning the right of existance of a country (and potentially its citizens) as such.
The idea that we went in there for Democracy only came about when Bush realised that there was not any Nuclear Weapons.
Hypocrite or not, I don't care. Is it a good idea that a country like Iran has the means to build a nuclair bomb? No it isn't, it's in fact a very bad idea. I just justified an attack.
LittleGrizzly
09-25-2008, 11:43
Iran's rhetoric alone removes all the credibility it never had in the first place.
And it is just that, rhetoric. We didn't dismiss the black civil rights movement simply because malcom x came out with some crazy rhetoric, and we should dismiss muslim rights in the middle east because they have a few looneys with crazy rhetoric, Israel have basically got thier own way in the middle east, thanks partially to huge western support, and then when the other countrys in the middle east complain about this and use fiery rhetoric is essentially justifies thier actions, or justify's thier actions in other peoples eye's, i see above this ruse....
I see the situation as quite similar to me walking up to someone in the street and hitting them, when they then strike back it justifies my original attack as a pre emptive strike...
Edit: Is it a good idea that a country like Iran has the means to build a nuclair bomb?
Yes, the gaurenteed peace and reduced fear of attack from israel and usa will calm the fears of the local population, without an outside power to fear they can concentrate more on domestic issues, the youth are already fairly westernised and without us (bush) aiming fiery rhetoric at iranians and trying to turn them into extremists they can continue on thier path to progress, once the west has shown iranians that were friendly and aren't going to harm them they won't have any need for hardline extremists leaders which make them feel better by being stubborn and pig headed (or strong leadership as some like to call it) they can instead go for someone more progressive...
Why is that a good thing? Paraphrasing someone, they may be bastards, but they're our bastards.
speak for yourself....I don´t have any preferences in that part of the world.
[B]Yes, the gaurenteed peace and reduced fear of attack from israel and usa will calm the fears of the local population, without an outside power to fear they can concentrate more on domestic issues, the youth are already fairly westernised and without us (bush) aiming fiery rhetoric at iranians and trying to turn them into extremists they can continue on thier path to progress, once the west has shown iranians that were friendly and aren't going to harm them they won't have any need for hardline extremists leaders which make them feel better by being stubborn and pig headed (or strong leadership as some like to call it) they can instead go for someone more progressive...
It wouldn't be Iran using it but one of the many terrorist groupings it supports. A nuclair Iran means a nuclair hamas.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-25-2008, 13:25
Israel are ours? Well I find that offensive, neither I or my family have ever supported those "bastards", I choose my views based upon sound judgment not ridiculous sentiments like the one EMFM spouted.
I'd say Israel is a little more Western-aligned, and more friendly towards us, than Iran is. Just because an individual doesn't like them doesn't mean the West shouldn't support them. Whether we like it or not, a strong Israel is in our interests - certainly more than a strong Iran. It's just practical.
HoreTore
09-25-2008, 13:34
"wipe of the map" does not qualify as "debate" IMHO (even in the Backroom we do better than that).
Your Bush comparison is still invalid ~;)
No, I think his Axis of Evil stuff more than qualifies for this.
Ahmadinejad wants the state of Israel gone(yes, the state, if he wanted to kill jews he would've started with those in Iran, like Hitler starting with the german jews), so what else should he say...? That he "wants israel slowly rubbed off the map by a red pencil with an eraser on the other side" or something?
we (the US/UK/Others) went in to remove a regime, not to destroy a country that is defined by the cutural/religious group that iran professes to despise so much. to further clarify the point; "we will push them into the sea".
If that was true, why are you still there? ~;) You want to install the kind of state you want. Kinda like Ahmadinejad wants to install the kind of state he wants in Israel. Where's the big difference?
further more, we did not have public military parades where we broke out the ballistic missiles daubed with the words; ":daisy: and die you iranian bastards!" or words to that effect.
So.... Something done in public is now worse than something done while hidden away...? Iran is honest about what they're doing. The same cannot be said about most bickering western governments.
Why is that a good thing? Paraphrasing someone, they may be bastards, but they're our bastards.
Yeah, the Iranians are indeed ours, our fellow humans ~:)
@PJ; Adrian also longs for a nuclear armed Iran ~;)
Isn't that the same as people talking about the zionist regime .
at the risk of repeating myself:
we (the US/UK/Others) went in to remove a regime, not to destroy a country that is defined by the cutural/religious group that iran professes to despise so much. to further clarify the point; "we will push them into the sea".
further more, we did not have public military parades where we broke out the ballistic missiles daubed with the words; ":daisy: and die you iranian bastards!" or words to that effect.
you are so far off-base it's unbelievable!
they will use it exactly as every other country that has developed nukes (after US) has used them, except they probably will actually make a difference as they would divert potential aggressors whereas the UK's have done nothing....
to quote Gen Rupert Smith in his book The Utility of Force:
Britains nukes are useful because it removes us from the paradigm of industrial war, so we are not at the mercy of larger continental powers. they are very useful.
How many times do I need to repeat this on these Iranian nuke debates? Iran is a signatory of the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. Production of weapons grade material is forbidden, and they are subject to inspections of their nuclear facilities. If Iran withdraws from the treaty legally with the 90-day notification, they can do what they want. Until then, they are subject to inspections and sanctions if found violating the treaty.
Israel, India, and Pakistan did not sign the treaty, and are not bound by it's restrictions.
All of Ahmadinejad's statements in that speech are 100% spot on. The unjustiified occupations and warmongering have indeed killed or displaced millions. It is sheer hypocrisy/double standards that the USA and Israel are allowed to have nukes yet Iran can't even have a peaceful nuclear program.:wall:
The corrupt powers need to get off their high horses and pretending that they have some sort of self-proclaimed 'moral superiority'.
but that is the problem, nobody really believes that iran's nuclear program is peaceful.
and we are on a high horse, we don't have military parades where our military daubs "death to iran" on ballistic missiles. in short we are better than iran.
and when the above two points are combined we can see why iran having nukes is a no-no whereas with the US and israel its 'cool'.
in short we are better than iran.
I'm sure Ahmadinejad would disagree.
Sarmatian
09-25-2008, 17:44
but that is the problem, nobody really believes that iran's nuclear program is peaceful.
and we are on a high horse, we don't have military parades where our military daubs "death to iran" on ballistic missiles. in short we are better than iran.
and when the above two points are combined we can see why iran having nukes is a no-no whereas with the US and israel its 'cool'.
Well, I do.
It makes sense. Iran is a type of country which is going to end up in a very difficult position once oil and gas gets scarce. They'll need some alternative sources of energy if they want to have functioning economy in several decades.
Their main foreign policy ally is Russia at the moment, which is probably the only thing stopping US from forming another coalition of the willing and invading. Putin, when he was still president, emphasized that Iran will enjoy Russia's support as long as its nuclear program is peaceful. If it turned out not to be peaceful, Iran would find itself strangely alone and vulnerable....
I'm sure Ahmadinejad would disagree.
i'm sure he does, and..............................?
Well, I do.
It makes sense. Iran is a type of country which is going to end up in a very difficult position once oil and gas gets scarce. They'll need some alternative sources of energy if they want to have functioning economy in several decades.
Their main foreign policy ally is Russia at the moment, which is probably the only thing stopping US from forming another coalition of the willing and invading. Putin, when he was still president, emphasized that Iran will enjoy Russia's support as long as its nuclear program is peaceful. If it turned out not to be peaceful, Iran would find itself strangely alone and vulnerable....
i don't doubt the logic that iran want's nuclear power generation or dispute that they have a right to nuclear power generation.
yet i cannot ignore the fact that Mohamed ElBaradei's boys and girls in the IAEA are totally unable to satisfy themselves that iran is abiding by the treaty.
which given that they behave like a dangerous children with regards to israel, compels me support any and every pressure point that can be brought to bare on that benighted nation.
Strike For The South
09-25-2008, 19:34
How many times do I need to repeat this on these Iranian nuke debates? Iran is a signatory of the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. Production of weapons grade material is forbidden, and they are subject to inspections of their nuclear facilities. If Iran withdraws from the treaty legally with the 90-day notification, they can do what they want. Until then, they are subject to inspections and sanctions if found violating the treaty.
Israel, India, and Pakistan did not sign the treaty, and are not bound by it's restrictions.
Facts have no place here! People have their ideologies to spew!
Koga No Goshi
09-25-2008, 20:57
Just throwing this out there... because the people who argue and push the most for hostile action against Iran tend to be people who really emphasize Akmedinijad (sp) and his "insanity" and "dangerousness"... we are all aware, aren't we, that he doesn't actually command his military or make any decisions that the behind-the-curtains mullahs don't essentially hand down, right? People keep trying to make him out to be a Hitler or something but he's about as much in control of Iran's foreign policy as Mel Gibson is in charge of the Catholic Church.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-25-2008, 23:18
Yeah, the Iranians are indeed ours, our fellow humans ~:)
That is certainly true, but they are not humans that are friendly to the West. It is in our best interests to support Israel over Iran. Practicality, practicality, practicality. Why would we support a regime that can safely be termed an enemy in acquiring nuclear arms, while criticizing our allies for acquiring those same arms? It's madness, it's illogical, and no good will come of it.
Koga No Goshi
09-25-2008, 23:30
That is certainly true, but they are not humans that are friendly to the West. It is in our best interests to support Israel over Iran. Practicality, practicality, practicality. Why would we support a regime that can safely be termed an enemy in acquiring nuclear arms, while criticizing our allies for acquiring those same arms? It's madness, it's illogical, and no good will come of it.
Judging Iranian people as a whole by Akmedinijad is like judging all Americans by George W Bush. Do you even know any personally? Iranians love the west. A majority of their population is under 30. The government runs around trying to shut down "sexy" American style nightclubs all the time. People who say the Iranians are some sort of monolithic West-haters simply don't know any.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-25-2008, 23:34
Judging Iranian people as a whole by Akmedinijad is like judging all Americans by George W Bush. Do you even know any personally? Iranians love the west. A majority of their population is under 30. The government runs around trying to shut down "sexy" American style nightclubs all the time. People who say the Iranians are some sort of monolithic West-haters simply don't know any.
I didn't say Iranians - I said Iran. Who really runs Iran? You said it yourself.
Koga No Goshi
09-25-2008, 23:36
I didn't say Iranians - I said Iran. Who really runs Iran? You said it yourself.
but they are not humans that are friendly to the West
The people who run Iran are Iran's version of neocons. They suffered enormous unpopularity UNTIL the U.S. started barking and saber rattling. People tend to rally behind strongmen when they feel threatened externally, so we made their extremist regime more popular than it was. Though, this style of government is not going to last with Iran's youth population on the way up. They are dinosaurs and they are hugely outnumbered in their attitudes.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-25-2008, 23:40
The people who run Iran are Iran's version of neocons. They suffered enormous unpopularity UNTIL the U.S. started barking and saber rattling. People tend to rally behind strongmen when they feel threatened externally, so we made their extremist regime more popular than it was. Though, this style of government is not going to last with Iran's youth population on the way up. They are dinosaurs and they are hugely outnumbered in their attitudes.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not friendly to the West.
You've said it yourself - who really controls Iran? I'm not sure either. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khameni)
At any rate, I can't find any evidence that U.S. "sabre rattling" was a direct cause of Ahmadinejad being voted into power. At any rate, you wouldn't think that they're care much about U.S. sabre rattling if they were out friends, now would they? The West hasn't been on excellent terms with Iran for a fair amount of time.
Koga No Goshi
09-25-2008, 23:58
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not friendly to the West.
You've said it yourself - who really controls Iran? I'm not sure either. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khameni)
At any rate, I can't find any evidence that U.S. "sabre rattling" was a direct cause of Ahmadinejad being voted into power. At any rate, you wouldn't think that they're care much about U.S. sabre rattling if they were out friends, now would they? The West hasn't been on excellent terms with Iran for a fair amount of time.
This is very circular. And if you don't know the history of the U.S. and Iran after 9/11, when Iran was actually trying to help and we not only rebuffed them, but then started posturing towards them as part of an "Axis of Evil", then don't judge their stances.
Didn't North Korea detonate a bomb a little while back? Why all the focus on Iran?
CrossLOPER
09-26-2008, 00:14
Didn't North Korea detonate a bomb a little while back? Why all the focus on Iran?
You really don't know?
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 00:16
Didn't North Korea detonate a bomb a little while back? Why all the focus on Iran?
North Korea doesn't have oil. If you don't have oil, have all the nukes you want.
gaelic cowboy
09-26-2008, 00:54
Didn't North Korea detonate a bomb a little while back? Why all the focus on Iran?
Speaking of that event does anyone know what that was I read speculation it was either a failed nuke test or a really large conventional weapon N Korea been a country run by probably the weirdest and most paranoid regime around todays who knows what it was.
Sarmatian
09-26-2008, 01:51
That is certainly true, but they are not humans that are friendly to the West. It is in our best interests to support Israel over Iran. Practicality, practicality, practicality. Why would we support a regime that can safely be termed an enemy in acquiring nuclear arms, while criticizing our allies for acquiring those same arms? It's madness, it's illogical, and no good will come of it.
This is where your Realpolitik fails. Practical thing would be to support Arab states against Israel, because western backing is the only thing that keeps Israel in existence. Instead of wasting countless resources on support of Israel, battling (in one way or another) Muslim states, fighting terrorism the West could just support an attack on Israel and that would be the end of story. On the other hand, although I see how Palestinians were wronged in the past, making another injustice to correct that injustice that was made because another injustice was made several or several thousand years ago etc... is wrong.
And you don't know for sure if Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons. I'm fairly certain it isn't. We (by that I mean Europeans and Americans and a few other nations that adopted western ways) often think that other nations which aren't members of that exclusive club are willing to destroy the world or themselves in the very least just to hurt us or even inconvenience us, that they aren't worth of trust, that they are devious, lying, murderous bastards that won't stop short of anything to achieve their evil goals.. It took some time before some people realized that although USSR had different ideology, it's not going to use nukes against the West. It took some time to get through some peoples heads that, oh wonder, communists love their children, too.
Iranians are no different. They love their children, their relatives, their friends just as much as we do ours. Their set of values is not so much different than our own. We often think that we have exclusive right to those values, we try to claim them as our own by calling them "western values", but the truth is that most of them are really universal values which most of the humanity shares. It's not Iran that we should be afraid of. I'm still more worried about having one idiot in Washington, Moscow, Brussels or Beijing than having fifty in Tehran.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-26-2008, 02:07
This is where your Realpolitik fails.
I disagree. It is in our best interests to keep Israel alive, even only as a counterbalance. I wouldn't say Israeli interests generally conflict with our own, they are our allies, and I would say that they are to our advantage. Contrary to Israel being left to die with realpolitik, Israel should be kept alive.
And you don't know for sure if Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons. I'm fairly certain it isn't.
I generally would agree with this.
We (by that I mean Europeans and Americans and a few other nations that adopted western ways) often think that other nations which aren't members of that exclusive club are willing to destroy the world or themselves in the very least just to hurt us or even inconvenience us, that they aren't worth of trust, that they are devious, lying, murderous bastards that won't stop short of anything to achieve their evil goals..
Whether Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons is irrelevant - is it in our best interests to have another nuclear-armed nation?
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 02:11
Whether Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons is irrelevant - is it in our best interests to have another nuclear-armed nation?
If the West is serious about not wanting to give unstable or potentially hostile outsider nations a huge incentive to develop nuclear weapons, then stop this b.s. "we don't do diplomacy with them" crap to anyone who is off our birthday party A-list, until they get a nuke.
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 02:48
just had to put my jewish/israeli/american opinion out there-
heres the thing why israel can have nukes and iran shouldnt be allowed to:
israel is TINY.
if youve ever been to israel, one nuke in the north will wipe literally a third of israelis. and with irans prez preaching about destroying israel, that worries me. in general, i like the iranian people. some of my best friends are iranian (seriously). the people are nice. but their leaders arent. thats what worries me. the guy who has the ultimate authority over irans nukes hates israel.
on the other hand, israel isnt preaching to wipe anyone off the map. thier nukes are as a deterrant for the hostile nations around them to not attack.....
i'm sure he does, and..............................?
Looks like it's his word against yours now, in dubio pro reo so I guess Iran is off the hook..............................!
Sarmatian
09-26-2008, 03:23
I disagree. It is in our best interests to keep Israel alive, even only as a counterbalance. I wouldn't say Israeli interests generally conflict with our own, they are our allies, and I would say that they are to our advantage. Contrary to Israel being left to die with realpolitik, Israel should be kept alive.
Really? I'm wasting my time and risk injury by protecting one guy from a band of ruffians, while I could just as easily let them beat him up and instead be friends with them. I would understand the need to protect him from a moral point of view, but not within concept of Realpolitik you usually advocate.
Whether Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons is irrelevant - is it in our best interests to have another nuclear-armed nation?
Generally, no. I'm arguing that threats and intimidation won't stop them. If I was an Iranian, after Iraq and other stuff, I wouldn't feel completely safe that some Western nation won't invade my country and put me and persons I love at risk. I'd feel the need to have a something that will ensure they won't try to do that. If on the other hand their policy changes, I'd feel less of a need for that. The current approach is only making normal people people feel threatened and feeding paranoia of already paranoid people. Building up trust would be much safer and more effective than threats, IMHO...
Incongruous
09-26-2008, 03:34
just had to put my jewish/israeli/american opinion out there-
heres the thing why israel can have nukes and iran shouldnt be allowed to:
israel is TINY.
if youve ever been to israel, one nuke in the north will wipe literally a third of israelis. and with irans prez preaching about destroying israel, that worries me. in general, i like the iranian people. some of my best friends are iranian (seriously). the people are nice. but their leaders arent. thats what worries me. the guy who has the ultimate authority over irans nukes hates israel.
on the other hand, israel isnt preaching to wipe anyone off the map. thier nukes are as a deterrant for the hostile nations around them to not attack.....
Good grief! What do you mean Isreal does not want to wipe a people off the map? Or have they already completed the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians frm the region?
The biggest threat to my security comes from my nationas and the U.S's continued support of Israeli brutality and ridiculous neo-Imperialists pretensions, such as trying to bully a regional power like Iran.
Israel is probabaly the most volatile nation in the Midle-East, its a rogue state, just like the U.S and the U.K.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-26-2008, 03:36
Really? I'm wasting my time and risk injury by protecting one guy from a band of ruffians, while I could just as easily let them beat him up and instead be friends with them. I would understand the need to protect him from a moral point of view, but not within concept of Realpolitik you usually advocate.
Yes, but that one guy is the only one who is really on your side, not advocating hate against your nation. That one guy is also very, very strong, and it would take more than a band of ruffians to beat him up.
Generally, no. I'm arguing that threats and intimidation won't stop them. If I was an Iranian, after Iraq and other stuff, I wouldn't feel completely safe that some Western nation won't invade my country and put me and persons I love at risk. I'd feel the need to have a something that will ensure they won't try to do that. If on the other hand their policy changes, I'd feel less of a need for that. The current approach is only making normal people people feel threatened and feeding paranoia of already paranoid people. Building up trust would be much safer and more effective than threats, IMHO...
I don't think a single Iranian nuclear bomb concerns the West if it is used conventionally, only if it is used by an organization such as Hezbollah, or if it detonates over Israel.
Here are my 5 cents.
- Yes, it is quite stupid to say "ISRAEL SHOULD BE WIPED OFF THE MAP!!!1"...repeatedly, then come on the International Show saying they are all peaceful and wish to use technology peacefully, which could otherwise be used to fulfill what the president of the country has for so long being saying he will do. Imo, Iran has destroyed all it's credibility in the International Stage by it's agressive declarations towards Israel.
- I am of the belief that Israel is just an imposition of Great Powers upon the locals. The sort of Kosovo and Abkhazia. I agree, therefore that the land should really have been of the Palestinians, and that the attrocities that the Jews have practiced upon the Arabs (And still do) only further gives reason to the Arabs. That would be the same has suddenly creating a country between India and Pakistan for the gypsies/Roma, without absolutely no valid reason or pretext to do so.
- People are indeed correct that the vast majority of the cosmopolitan population of Iran is VERY different from the ideal Iranian that the regime intends to transform everyone into. Currently, the regime has had and still massive problems in controlling a country which is democratically minded, contrarily to most of the other Arab countries: Educational problems, with huge protests have been known since the implementation of the religious regime, thousands of students who protest are regularly arrested and some killed. And now the country has increased difficulty in stopping the proliferation of cable and satellite TV (I saw an awesome documentary of that), which shows channels 'not fit to be seen' according to the government.
- In theory, I believe that due to the democratically practice that exists in the culture of Iran, if invaded, it wouldn't become the hellhole that Iraq has become. Iraq had only seen authoritarian regimes for centuries. Iran has had the practice of democracy for decades and the people understand the concepts of a democracy and trust the democratic tools.
- I think Iran could florish greatly under a secular regime. It would certainly begin recieving a much needed foreign investment, as well as recieve a huge boon in tourism, which would mount up on the revenues of oil and gas, and could very well improve the overall situation of Iran greatly, becoming a gigantic source of stability for Iraq, and cutting short the support of Syria and the Hezbollah.
You really don't know?
Question was to prove a point. We're focusing all our energy on a country that has no nuclear weapons, and is as much to us as a threat as Iraq was to the US, while we have a country right next to one of our good allies that either has a small nuclear weapon or very large conventional weapon.
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 04:25
Question was to prove a point. We're focusing all our energy on a country that has no nuclear weapons, and is as much to us as a threat as Iraq was to the US, while we have a country right next to one of our good allies that either has a small nuclear weapon or very large conventional weapon.
Japan doesn't have oil either. Who cares if North Korea threatens to nuke them.
Why do you hate America? ;)
As I have said once before - let them build the nuclear weapon and invite them into the club - and the club of mutual assured destruction, its really rather simple.......
If the Iranians don't realize it by now any nuclear weapon that explodes near Israel will be blamed on them and the weapons will begin to fly all around the world in response........
And if one blows in India or Pakistan the other nation will be blamed and again the weapons will fly all around the world......
Nuclear weapons are not all the problematic when one realizes exactly how the system works.....
But then as it was stated earlier and then ignored - Iran's problem isn't that they are wanting to develope nuclear power - its that they are not honoring the treaty that they signed and haven't withdrawn from.
So Iran really can reslove the issue by simply allowing the inspections that they agreed to in the first place or simply remove themselves from the treaty.
Incongruous
09-26-2008, 09:59
How it has been spun http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080625_selling_the_fireball.php
I agree with Redleg that Iran is not helping with its wish to breach an international treaty, though I do not find that a valid reason for Western governements to condemn it with any semblence of credability.
Adrian II
09-26-2008, 10:30
@PJ; Adrian also longs for a nuclear armed Iran ~;)Pardon? I think that it can not and should not be avoided.
Iran borders on five nuclear powers (including the US occupation in Iraq), it has strategic oil reserves, it is located in a strategically important and highly volatile region, and it has a history of western intervention that it does not want to see repeated. That's reason enough for Iranians to let their strategic safety come before a lot of other considerations.
By the way, A. never siad that Israel should be wiped off the map. He said that the occupying regime of palestine should vanish from the page of time. In other words, he called for regime change. Check it out. His words usually aren't as foolish and primitive as depicted by western media. There are reasons enough to despise Mr A. without construing fake quotes.
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 19:17
Good grief! What do you mean Isreal does not want to wipe a people off the map? Or have they already completed the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians frm the region?
The biggest threat to my security comes from my nationas and the U.S's continued support of Israeli brutality and ridiculous neo-Imperialists pretensions, such as trying to bully a regional power like Iran.
Israel is probabaly the most volatile nation in the Midle-East, its a rogue state, just like the U.S and the U.K.
ok, let me tell you something.
the jews were in israel before the arabs. its common knowledge, unless you refuse to believe it. our atifacts there date way before any arab artifact, ie, the western wall, and the ruins in judaea and samaria. plus, there were always jews there, at least a few thousand.
also, israel is the only homeland for jews. theres no where else for us to go. every other religion has a place were they are always welcome, except for the jews. you can argue that america is one, but not really.
the arabs have many countries they can go to.
about your claim that we oppress the Palestinians, have you ever been there? i have many friends within the israeli army. any oppression on Palestinians unprovoked is harshly punished. we give food and medical supplies to them. thats what you dont hear. last summer i joined an israeli aid group that helped the Palestinians. trust me, we treat the Palestinians much better than hamas/fatah does.
so in short, israel treats the Palestinians much better than any other arab country.
@jolt- no, the Palestinians were given a piece of land twice the size of the land given to jews. so your claim that it should have been given to the Palestinians is false. the Palestinians were given all of jordan + half of present day israel.
was that not enough? not our fault that all the arab countries attacked us and we defeated them.
and how exactly are we volatile? we only attacked countries that attacked us. the recent Lebanon war was because hezbollah was raining rockets on israeli settlements. pretty good reason to attack, right?
i mean, if rockets were raining down on your home, you would want to stop it, right?
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 19:24
By the way, A. never siad that Israel should be wiped off the map. He said that the occupying regime of palestine should vanish from the page of time. In other words, he called for regime change. Check it out. His words usually aren't as foolish and primitive as depicted by western media. There are reasons enough to despise Mr A. without construing fake quotes.
um, what? :inquisitive:
by saying "the occupying regime of palestine should vanish from the page of time" he means israel should be wiped off the map. its implied. hes not that dumb to just say out in public "israel should be wiped off the map."
but he definitely wants israel destroyed.
By the way, A. never siad that Israel should be wiped off the map. He said that the occupying regime of palestine should vanish from the page of time. In other words, he called for regime change. Check it out. His words usually aren't as foolish and primitive as depicted by western media. There are reasons enough to despise Mr A. without construing fake quotes.
OK regime change should be whiped of the map. Sorry, but commom?(?)
@jolt- no, the Palestinians were given a piece of land twice the size of the land given to jews. so your claim that it should have been given to the Palestinians is false. the Palestinians were given all of jordan + half of present day israel.
was that not enough? not our fault that all the arab countries attacked us and we defeated them.
I meant that the the Israelis shouldn't even have gotten the land in the first place. Giving land and countries to opressed minorities (ethnical, religious et al.) doesn't figure in the international law.
I'd be very pissed if my country (Portugal) was conquered by England, and divided to give lands to Jews, just because they had no "homeland", and they were oppressed throughout history wherever they went, and that they were a strong presence in my country hundreds of years ago.
If that happened, believe me, I'd be one of the first to volunteer to drive them to the sea.
My example is quite perfect as well. Gypsies are a minority everywhere. They have been oppressed throughout the history. They have no "homeland", heck, why not give them their own homeland as well?
What about the Kurds? The Inuit? They have no homeland now because of the historical right. They lost those lands and can't get them back. Same thing happened to the Jews. Only that the Jewish community had financial power inside the Great Powers to force them into making a country for their ethnical brethren.
the jews were in israel before the arabs. its common knowledge, unless you refuse to believe it. our atifacts there date way before any arab artifact, ie, the western wall, and the ruins in judaea and samaria. plus, there were always jews there, at least a few thousand.
Assyrians were in Iraq before the Arabs. Assyrians still exist. The Kurds once again, they too are older than the Arabs. Iraq is currently occupied by the USA. Why not follow the example of Israel and create "Assyria" and "Kurdistan" which the Assyrians & Kurds have been demanding since WW1 (Very much like the Jews)
also, israel is the only homeland for jews. theres no where else for us to go. every other religion has a place were they are always welcome, except for the jews. you can argue that america is one, but not really.
the arabs have many countries they can go to.
And to argue that Israel was created as a home nation for a religion is just aberrant and goes exactly against the secularism that both the countries who created Israel, and Israel itself preached. Once again: Where is the country for the Zoroastrians, who still exist in major numbers and had been created a millenia before Christianism? Where is the country for the Sikhs, who were conquered by the British in India, but apparently, their calls for independence were not listened to as loud as the Jewish ones?
It is not that I support the creation of these states, since creating a country due to religious background is as valid as recreating the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 20:19
the push for israel was becasue of the holocaust. common knowledge.
but the difference between most of those people who you mentioned who need homelands (which i dont deny that they need one just as well) is that the jews, unlike the others, strongly advocated for themselves. petitions to leaders, a push in the UN, ect.
we worked.... hard..... plus the holocaust created a sympathy.... i mean, considering in 1945 no one wanted us. literally. USA closed its doors, so did UK and every other country. there were millions of DPs in europe, nowhere to go. so it made sense to make a country. but few believed that we would do anything with it. before many jews got there in 1948, it was a wasteland....
now look at it. one of the most beautiful countries on earth, b/c of the jews....
also, i can see your points are valid, but one. the gypsies. they will never have a homeland, b/c, true to their name, they are nomadic, and have no place to live in the first place. them having a homeland will destroy what it means to be a gypsy.
today, many people ignore pleas for nations for them. its sad, but theres not much we can do.
but israel is here to stay, and irans threat to israel is valid to fear for israelis and jews alike.
now, getting back to iran, i came across an interesting article....
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080926152921.p3wozs19&show_article=1&lst=1
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 20:27
Akmedinijad was absolutely correct in pointing out that taking the Jews, who had suffered atrocity in Europe at the hands of Europeans, and simply displacing someone else entirely to make Israel, was just piling one atrocity on top of another. And that atrocity has been in continuous playout ever since. It doesn't matter how humane the Israelis try to be to the Palestinians. Keeping them in a stateless condition of disposession and landlessness without government or voice is still a crime and if the situation TRULY is "well, we have to do that or else Israel can't exist", then the blame falls on all of us in the west who put Israel there where other people had already been living.
I don't want to see Jews killed or "wiped off the map." But I would not shed a single tear for the end of Zionism.
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 20:30
we didnt displace most of the palestinians. if u know the history of the war for israeli independence, we invited the palestinians to come back, but they refused and ran away to jordan.
anyhow, please state the "atrocities" that "has been in continuous playout."
the push for israel was becasue of the holocaust. common knowledge.
but the difference between all thosepeople whp you mentioned who need homelands (which i dont deny that they need one just as well) is that the jews, unlike the others, strongly advocated for themselves. petitions to leaders, a push in the UN, ect.
we worked....
Only that the Jewish community had financial power inside the Great Powers to force them into making a country for their ethnical brethren.
The truth is, that Jews have had a significant influence in the power circles of the West, and that is the main reason.
How could Assyrians and Kurds, already under Iraq, a country created by the UK, going to petition Western leaders? How would they even get to the UN half-way across the world? With what money?
The truth is that Kurds, Assyrians, Sikhs and the rest couldn't do a damn thing no matter how hard they worked. And the Kurds had been promised a homeland of their own at the end of WWI. That shows that they weren't wholly devoid of "work". Pity is that they didn't have the power to actually make the Western Powers back up their words, something which the Jews had.
Whereas to the mocking of the link. Bleh, their "Islamists", brainwashed by the Islamic Republic to hate jews and support everything that harms them. It's really sad.
Islamists have that much more religious claim after all I mean they really believe it.
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 20:36
so do we. in the tanach (an extended version of the bible for jews), israel is our homeland.
in the koran, its not.
now how about that? in fact, it doesnt mention jerusalem ONCE. in the tanach, HUNDREDS of times.
our forefathers lived there, moses took us to there, and we lived there for thousands of years.
the muslims..... not that i know of...... im pretty sure, even though i havent read the koran, mentions no/little about israel.
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 20:37
we didnt displace most of the palestinians. if u know the history of the war for israeli independence, we invited the palestinians to come back, but they refused and ran away to jordan.
anyhow, please state the "atrocities" that "has been in continuous playout."
If you have at all followed the state of the Palestinian people for the last 40 years it should not be necessary to say anything. And if you do not consider the state of the Palestinian people to be an affront to human rights, then we don't share an even remotely similar value system and will have to agree to disagree. Your question is like saying "Huh? Something bad happened to Native Americans? When? Prove it."
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 20:43
The truth is, that Jews have had a significant influence in the power circles of the West, and that is the main reason.
How could Assyrians and Kurds, already under Iraq, a country created by the UK, going to petition Western leaders? How would they even get to the UN half-way across the world? With what money?
The truth is that Kurds, Assyrians, Sikhs and the rest couldn't do a damn thing no matter how hard they worked. And the Kurds had been promised a homeland of their own at the end of WWI. That shows that they weren't wholly devoid of "work". Pity is that they didn't have the power to actually make the Western Powers back up their words, something which the Jews had.
Whereas to the mocking of the link. Bleh, their "Islamists", brainwashed by the Islamic Republic to hate jews and support everything that harms them. It's really sad.
i never said that they didnt work for it, its just that not everyone was as lucky as we were in getting the worlds approval.
and i know we've had big influence over leaders in the west. but israel is here to stay. i mean, do you really think israel should just pack up and leave? not happening. all israelis are fiercely loyal and would shed blood. so would i. actually, im due in a year to join the israeli army.
and if you want to kick me out of my homeland i invite you to come over here and try.... :smg:
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 20:46
If you have at all followed the state of the Palestinian people for the last 40 years it should not be necessary to say anything. And if you do not consider the state of the Palestinian people to be an affront to human rights, then we don't share an even remotely similar value system and will have to agree to disagree. Your question is like saying "Huh? Something bad happened to Native Americans? When? Prove it."
im not saying that bad things havent happened to the palestinians. we israelis are doing a lot to help them.2 years ago we tried building them houses. but the builders came under fire from the people who we tried to help, so we abandoned the project. the sad fact is, a lot of the supplies that we give are taken by hamas/fatah and withheld from the suffering people, to argue the fact that we are opressing them.
just go to there are see for yourself. you cant really asses the situation there unless youve been on the front lines. i have. hell, ive been shot at, plus had a friend die in front of my eyes by a suicide bomber, and had 2 more cousins die by another suicide bomber.
so dont say i dont know whats going on there.
Mucho respect to the israeli's from here.
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 20:53
if you dont want to respect us thats fine with me, but dont say we dont have a right o be there.
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 20:54
im not saying that bad things havent happened to the palestinians. we israelis are doing a lot to help them.2 years ago we tried building them houses. but the builders came under fire from the people who we tried to help, so we abandoned the project. the sad fact is, a lot of the supplies that we give are taken by hamas/fatah and withheld from the suffering people, to argue the fact that we are opressing them.
just go to there are see for yourself. you cant really asses the situation there unless youve been on the front lines. i have. hell, ive been shot at, plus had a friend die in front of my eyes by a suicide bomber, and had 2 more cousins die by another suicide bomber.
so dont say i dont know whats going on there.
Israel can build all the walls it wants and patrol them but as long as the Palestinians are a displaced people with no state or government or voice and no powers of self-determination, Israel is going to have problems with terrorism. Waiting until Israel feels "secure enough" before working on this problem means there will never be any solution until every Palestinian is dead or expatriated to somewhere else in the world. That is why the U.S. has always had an important role as mediator and friend of both parties, a role which has been largely abdicated for the last 8 years in favor of pure "go ahead" endorsement of Zionist policies.
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 21:01
ya, i know they are displaced. but there isnt much we can do about it. i mean, leaving israel isnt an option, and there simply isnt enough room in israel, unless you want them to settle in the desert....
and actually, the walls have been a real help for us. stopped many a suicide bomber.
the reason to wait until its more secure is to keep tensions down between the leaders. i mean, would you talk to soemone who was responsible for an attack a few hours earlier that killed dozens and injured many more or your people?
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 21:03
ya, i know they are displaced. but there isnt much we can do about it. i mean, leaving israel isnt an option, and there simply isnt enough room in israel, unless you want them to settle in the desert....
and actually, the walls have been a real help for us. stopped many a suicide bomber.
the reason to wait until its more secure is to keep tensions down between the leaders. i mean, would you talk to soemone who was responsible for an attack a few hours earlier that killed dozens and injured many more or your people?
I think it is a delusion that tensions will go down if you just stay behind the wall long enough.
i mean, would you talk to soemone who was responsible for an attack a few hours earlier that killed dozens and injured many more or your people?
If it would help to stop further blodshed, yes. As a politician one should consider that one's duty. Especially if not talking will lead to even more dead of your own people, which means that being hard = shooting into your own foot.
Other than that I think you have a point, Israel is there now and people should learn to deal with it, on both sides. I wouldn't be surprised though if many of the warmongering people on both sides aren't really interested in what's happening to "their people" though and instead just see a good chance to show their cojones and gain money and power. :no:
Hooahguy
09-26-2008, 21:52
israel talks and is in suppport of a peace agreement. we just need the palestinians to agree to one....
Incongruous
09-26-2008, 23:28
we didnt displace most of the palestinians. if u know the history of the war for israeli independence, we invited the palestinians to come back, but they refused and ran away to jordan.
anyhow, please state the "atrocities" that "has been in continuous playout."
The Israelis have the Palestinians living in a massive prison, the Israelis stole the land they currently rule from the Palestinians Arabs. The Israelis have consistently refused to accept deals from both the PLO and Hamas which required a great many concessions by the Palestinians, Hamas has come to accept the existence of Isreal. Israel will never come to accept the existence of a Palestinian people.
Have I been to Palestine? No, but trust me as soon as I finish my degree I'm there
i never said that they didnt work for it, its just that not everyone was as lucky as we were in getting the worlds approval.
and i know we've had big influence over leaders in the west. but israel is here to stay. i mean, do you really think israel should just pack up and leave? not happening. all israelis are fiercely loyal and would shed blood. so would i. actually, im due in a year to join the israeli army.
and if you want to kick me out of my homeland i invite you to come over here and try.... :smg:
"Luck" doesn't apply in International Affairs. It wasn't about 40% chance Israel would be created/40% Kurdistan created/20% Assyria created. It is about influence. And as I said, other people who were at least as oppressed as the Jews don't have as bigger influence, thus they continue to suffer.
I didn't say Israel was leaving. Israel is now a firm member of the International Community (And has been so since it's beginning), it's borders are internationally recognized (Except by the Arab nations) and it is the most highly developed country in the Middle East, turning a desert, which was Palestine, into one of the most productive lands in the region. It is well established and well defended. Doing that still doesn't justify its creation.
I don't want to kick you out of your homeland, nor do I to the Kosovars or Abkhazians. If Israel happened to be created in Portugal (Which isn't all that unrealistic, since Portugal had been a safe haven of Jewish people through the times until their expulsion), you bet that I would and despite it would be morally wrong, I would do it gladly (Since it would be meant to correct an unjustice done to my brethren), and thus I understand why the Arabs have attacked Israel, as would I incase the event happened not in Judea but in Portugal.
But do not confuse this with me thinking Israel should be wiped off the map. I have sympathy for the Israeli's. My utopical solution (Which obviously won't happen) would be for the creation of a Palestine-Israel joint country, where Jews and Arabs live together (As they actually did before the creation of Israel) in peace and equally, without the overlapping and inherent Jewish religious and ethnical domination (Zionism) that Israel has been created with.
now how about that? in fact, it doesnt mention jerusalem ONCE. in the tanach, HUNDREDS of times.
our forefathers lived there, moses took us to there, and we lived there for thousands of years.
the muslims..... not that i know of...... im pretty sure, even though i havent read the koran, mentions no/little about israel.
So, at one point you're saying that the Quran does not mention Yerushalayim once, and then you state that you have never read the Quran. Dude, what the hell? Seriously, what the hell are you trying to say here? This is a typical example of prejudice.
Something else;
our forefathers lived there, moses took us to there, and we lived there for thousands of years.
Okay, you start out with saying "our forefathers lived there", fine with me, even though it could be questioned that your forefathers were Jews living in Israel. Now yo usay "Moses took us there". Wait, when did that become "us"? Unless I'm quite mistaken, you nor any Jew that is alive now is thousands of years old, as you state a moment later "we lived there for thousands of years". Actually, I'm willing to go further. I think that you are as related as the Jews living in Palestina 2000 years ago, as I am related to Alexander the Great. Eg; not really.
But do not confuse this with me thinking Israel should be wiped off the map. I have sympathy for the Israeli's. My utopical solution (Which obviously won't happen) would be for the creation of a Palestine-Israel joint country, where Jews and Arabs live together (As they actually did before the creation of Israel) in peace and equally, without the overlapping and inherent Jewish religious and ethnical domination that Israel has been created with.
:2thumbsup:
and if you want to kick me out of my homeland i invite you to come over here and try....
Good way to start would be to stop threatening other people.
if you dont want to respect us thats fine with me, but dont say we dont have a right o be there.
As much right as any other people who regards Palestine/Israel as a good place to live.
the jews were in israel before the arabs. its common knowledge, unless you refuse to believe it. our atifacts there date way before any arab artifact, ie, the western wall, and the ruins in judaea and samaria. plus, there were always jews there, at least a few thousand.
also, israel is the only homeland for jews. theres no where else for us to go. every other religion has a place were they are always welcome, except for the jews. you can argue that america is one, but not really.
Cool, I suggest something;
Year 1 - Jews
Year 2 - Arabs
Year 3 - Egyptians
Year 4 - Iran (Persian Empire, anyone?)
Year 5 - Greeks (hey, Alexander did conquer it
And then we start over again! Sounds good?
if you dont want to respect us thats fine with me, but dont say we dont have a right o be there.
What right do you have to be their, anyway? I'm honestly lost...isn't the same right that Israel has to exist the same right the Native American tribes have to exist as an independent nation, they both have lived in their homelands for centuries, but I have yet to see the Iriquois in the UN.
CountArach
09-26-2008, 23:58
anyhow, please state the "atrocities" that "has been in continuous playout."
1) The annexation of territories beyond the boundaries of what they were given by the UN.
2) The building of the "security fence".
3) Displacing Palestinians.
4) Cutting off Palestinians from water in their conquests
5) Continuous oppression of the Palestinians.
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 23:58
What right do you have to be their, anyway? I'm honestly lost...isn't the same right that Israel has to exist the same right the Native American tribes have to exist as an independent nation, they both have lived in their homelands for centuries, but I have yet to see the Iriquois in the UN.
Not a good comparison. I know what you meant, but the Iroquois DO have their own passports, civil laws, courts, etc. Of course their full sovereignty is oppressed by the Federal Government but, in principle, they do have it. The fact that Congress declares Plenary Power over Native peoples is pretty much just an illegal, unconstitutional law that no one bothers about. It has about as much legal validity as the U.S. declaring complete power over Canada tomorrow in an ethical sense.
The really sad thing is that if the Palestinians even had the arrangement that Natives (not all, but most) do in the U.S., they'd be better off.
Tribesman
09-27-2008, 18:26
the push for israel was becasue of the holocaust. common knowledge.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Wow that zionist federation really had some crystal ball didn't they .
before many jews got there in 1948, it was a wasteland....
now look at it. one of the most beautiful countries on earth, b/c of the jews....
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:OMG what tripe have you been reading ?
all israelis are fiercely loyal and would shed blood. so would i. actually, im due in a year to join the israeli army.
Are they really ? That explains the big peace movement in Israel doesn't it :oops:
Actually since you have this thing about God giving you the land through Moses it would suggest that you are somewhat religious , why not avail of the great religious waver and shirk your patriotic duty by availing of the draft exemption offered to really serious zionists who think that god telling them to slaughter the locals and take their land means its theirs forever ?
Hooahguy
09-28-2008, 03:49
So, at one point you're saying that the Quran does not mention Yerushalayim once, and then you state that you have never read the Quran. Dude, what the hell? Seriously, what the hell are you trying to say here? This is a typical example of prejudice.
my father is a professor in Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, as well as many other religions, and tells me that Yerushalayim isnt mentioned once.
while i havent read it, my dad has.....
@Triblesman-
to quote Mark Twain-
"..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." (The Innocents Abroad, p. 361-362)
now look at it- the arabs ruin the land, we help it. look at the golan and the gaza strip. before they were desolate and the like. now they are fertile and some of the best wine is made int he golan. now that we gave the gaza strip to hamas, they ruined it.
btw they would shed blood. when push comes to shove, we can beat anyone, even the peace-lovers.
just becasue i am releigious doesnt mean i have an obligation to serve my homeland.
Cool, I suggest something;
Year 1 - Jews
Year 2 - Arabs
Year 3 - Egyptians
Year 4 - Iran (Persian Empire, anyone?)
Year 5 - Greeks (hey, Alexander did conquer it
And then we start over again! Sounds good?
um, you can argue that, but we always had a presence in the land.
---------------------------
to tell you the truth guys, i really cant fight with dozens of you anti-Zionists, especially when many of your points are valid, ill admit.
so i just am going to point you to an article.....
which you may not agree with anyhow because most of you are probably anti-american anyhow.... :2thumbsup:
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2006/07/26/does_israel_have_a_right_to_exist_does_the_us?page=full&comments=true
Hooahguy
09-28-2008, 04:00
1) The annexation of territories beyond the boundaries of what they were given by the UN.
2) The building of the "security fence".
3) Displacing Palestinians.
4) Cutting off Palestinians from water in their conquests
5) Continuous oppression of the Palestinians.
have you read what i said earlier with the exception of gaza, weve given ALL their supplies. unfortunately according to UN regulations we must give them to the Palestinian government, hamas, who withholds it from the masses. not our fault.
about the security fence, what do you expect us to do? we built it at the peak of the suicide bombings in the 2nd intifada.
our right to do so.
and about the "annexation" thing- we conquered the land, we get it. pretty simple, isnt it. works for every other country.
bear in mind that we conquered most of our land in the 60's, when the opinion on conquering land wasnt as liberal as it was back then....
CountArach
09-28-2008, 04:22
about the security fence, what do you expect us to do? we built it at the peak of the suicide bombings in the 2nd intifada.
our right to do so.
Alright, build it around the '49 boundaries. I would have no real problem with that. When you use it to cut Palestinians off from water and to encircle the territories that aren't yours - then I have a problem.
and about the "annexation" thing- we conquered the land, we get it. pretty simple, isnt it. works for every other country.
bear in mind that we conquered most of our land in the 60's, when the opinion on conquering land wasnt as liberal as it was back then....
First off - "The other kids are doing it" isn't a valid argument in International relations
Secondly - What is stopping you from going back to the '49 or even the '67 borders?
Thirdly - If we take the conqerors to be the rulers of the territory, Israel shouldn't even exist.
Hooahguy
09-28-2008, 04:29
if we did go by the conqerors to be the rulers of the territory israel should have the sinai and the entire golan.
when you say the 1949 boundaries, do you mean before or after the war for independence?
yes, i know it isnt a real valid argument, but few condemmed it, its ours.
and hell, if youve been reading up onisraeli polictics they are thinking of giving back the west bank, leaving only the golan to give back to bring us to pre-1949 borders.
the reason we have a blockade of the gaza strip is becasue missiles rain down on israeli settlements every day from the gaza strip. we do give water tot he palestinians, but its continually stolen by hamas, who wants to use the fact that thouands of palestinians are starving and such in gaza becasue of hamas and turn it to "thouands of palestinians are starving and such in gaza because of israel"
in short, we have every right to blockade the sea side of gaza, for most of thier weapons are brought in through that way.
EDIT: also, your point that "If we take the conquerors to be the rulers of the territory, Israel shouldn't even exist" isnt valid because the british had the territory, then they gave it to us- no conquest at all. we didnt conquer it, we were given the land, ie- a present. you really should read up on the debate in the UN about israel. quote interesting. but we did conquer the golan, gaza, and west bank.
I believe CA is referring to the borders Israel had when it was created. I, for one, have no problem with Israel being a country, I do, however, have a problem with the increasing amounts of reports of occupation and cutting off resources to Palestinians. Until I require more information, I am neutral in this.
Hooahguy
09-28-2008, 04:49
I believe CA is referring to the borders Israel had when it was created. I, for one, have no problem with Israel being a country, I do, however, have a problem with the increasing amounts of reports of occupation and cutting off resources to Palestinians. Until I require more information, I am neutral in this.
in that case, have you seen them? very restrictive to the jews.
here is a picture of it-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png
as you can see, the arabs got the better land. the land under beersheba is %95 desert. most of the land which the arabs got was fertile. were they happy with that AND jordan? noooooo......
they had to have it all, didnt they.
the reports you are getting of the blockade are true, to an extent.
to quote myself,
"the reason we have a blockade of the gaza strip is becasue missiles rain down on israeli settlements every day from the gaza strip. we do give water tot he palestinians, but its continually stolen by hamas, who wants to use the fact that thouands of palestinians are starving and such in gaza becasue of hamas and turn it to "thouands of palestinians are starving and such in gaza because of israel"
in short, we have every right to blockade the sea side of gaza, for most of thier weapons are brought in through that way."
in short, we have every right to blockade the sea side of gaza, for most of thier weapons are brought in through that way.
No, you don't. You do not stop the flow of weapons by blocking off the entire coast, that creates enemies with the people suffering. You're giving the militants something to work with. Show the Palestinians you're willing to help, don't blockade their coasts, but make sure you can control the supposed weapons that are being shipped through (May I ask, who is shipping it, where from and what source backs this up?)
Hooahguy
09-28-2008, 04:57
im going to quote myself again-
"the reason we have a blockade of the gaza strip is becasue missiles rain down on israeli settlements every day from the gaza strip. we do give water to the palestinians, but its continually stolen by hamas, who wants to use the fact that thouands of palestinians are starving and such in gaza becasue of hamas and turn it to "thouands of palestinians are starving and such in gaza because of israel"
we give food and medicine through the EAST SIDE of gaza. nothing, except weapons and the like are brought through the west side. but hamas scoops up the food and medicine and refuses to give it to thier people, while they rain missiles down on us.
i really hope the palestinians throw out hamas and install a good form of government so we can get supplies through.
as for sources, i bring only myself, one who has personally delivered food to hundreds of grateful palestinians. the sad fact is many of them would like to be under israeli control, where they are given food and water and such, instead of in gaza. but they cant speak out or the will be killed by their government.
HoreTore
09-28-2008, 05:08
I'd like a one-state solution. Not a jewish state, not a muslim state, but a secular one, like everywhere else in the west. The idea that a nation has some divine right to exist is quite frankly utter rubbish. One secular, democratic state incorporating both jew and palestinian. The Israeli armed forces are more than enough to stave off neighboring states and any potential enemy within. It would be a lot better for both parties, but particularly the palestianians, of course. The palestinians would be able to live like regular people instead of cattle, and with the end of the suffering, the breeding ground would for terrorism would be greatly reduced, meaning that the israelis would be safer. I see no real drawbacks at all here, this is a win-win IMO. Unfortunately, it won't be more than a dream because of two things:
1. The israeli idiots who won't accept living as a minority because they see the land as "theirs" because of some silly old bookie-book.
2. The palestinian idiots won't accept it because they want a muslim state, not a godless secular one.
But hey, if some day in the future those two kinds of idiots aren't running the show anymore, it may happen :2thumbsup:
as for sources, i bring only myself.
We cannot have a constructed argument, seeing as you're staunchly pro-Israel and can't provide sources.
A take on the occupation: http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/ending-the-israeli-occupation-of-palestine-includes-repaying-debts-20080214.html
Koga No Goshi
09-28-2008, 06:31
I'd like a one-state solution. Not a jewish state, not a muslim state, but a secular one, like everywhere else in the west. The idea that a nation has some divine right to exist is quite frankly utter rubbish.
Agreed 100%. I would like to ideally see this but I think at this point the problem with this proposition (despite any public political statements) is Israel. Asking them to one-state with Palestinians seems to have the emotional reaction of asking Americans to admit Afghanistan or some other Muslim country as a new state. I think, frankly, the change is either going to have to come from Israel and its leadership, or more likely, from a change in the international community's stance towards Israel, for things to change. If Israel is not forced to make serious concessions towards either a one or two state solution, nothing is going to change, and I honestly don't see them doing it on their own. Any political solution under the conditions of "The Palestinians must be contained, powerless, pose no threat and we don't really want to give up very much land, either" isn't going to work.
Asking them to one-state with Palestinians seems to have the emotional reaction of asking Americans to admit Afghanistan or some other Muslim country as a new state.
Bad comparison. There has never been an American civilian presence in Afghanistan, culturally, religiously, none. However, there has always been Jewish presence in modern Israel, and their religion puts Israel as their homeland, and Jerusalem as it's most important city. I believe the reasons for Israel to deny a united Arab-Jewish-Christain (Can't leave them out :2thumbsup:) state is cultural and religious reasons. Asking them to one-state with the Palestinians would probably be like asking Albanian Kosovans to fall back in line with Serbia.
CountArach
09-28-2008, 08:27
in that case, have you seen them? very restrictive to the jews.
here is a picture of it-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png
You are right! We should let the Vatican invade Italy! That's too restrictive on the Catholics.
We cannot have a constructed argument, seeing as you're staunchly pro-Israel and can't provide sources.
:2thumbsup:
Let's leave it there.
Tribesman
09-28-2008, 11:37
@Triblesman-
to quote Mark Twain-
Well that answers the question ...
OMG what tripe have you been reading ?
...its just like having Gawain back again:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
you do know that that book is a satire don't you ? a work of comedy :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
now look at it- the arabs ruin the land, we help it. look at the golan and the gaza strip. before they were desolate and the like. now they are fertile and some of the best wine is made int he golan. now that we gave the gaza strip to hamas, they ruined it.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
How anyone can say that when one of the main reasons for the conflict over golan was an arab irrigation project is quite beyond me .
we give food and medicine through the EAST SIDE of gaza. nothing, except weapons and the like are brought through the west side. but hamas scoops up the food and medicine and refuses to give it to thier people, while they rain missiles down on us.
:dizzy2:
Actually you block shipments of food medicine fuel and power from the Israeli and occupied territories side on a regular basis as an illegal form of collective punishment on civilians and control the crossing to the egyptian side which you kept closed for nearly 90% of the time before you fully closed it .
as you can see, the arabs got the better land. the land under beersheba is %95 desert. most of the land which the arabs got was fertile. were they happy with that AND jordan? noooooo......
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: AND Jordan:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
so what part of of the bit about the territory of Jordan being nothing to do with the creation of an arab and jewish state in Palestine is it that you fail to understand ?
if we did go by the conqerors to be the rulers of the territory israel should have the sinai and the entire golan.
No , because your state is a signatory to an agreement that says you cannot take land through force , and that you cannot move your civilian population into territory that you occupy militarily ...that is why the current regime based in Jerusalem is illegal and should be removed from the map .
yes, i know it isnt a real valid argument, but few condemmed it, its ours.
Actually everyone condemned it , and every year since then they vote on it again and condemn it by a near total majority...so that does suggest that you are absolutely clueless on the topic :dizzy2:
now look at it- the arabs ruin the land, we help it. look at the golan and the gaza strip. before they were desolate and the like. now they are fertile and some of the best wine is made int he golan. now that we gave the gaza strip to hamas, they ruined it.
Although this sentence is clearly aligned with racism, I'd like to point out that in politics, the best concessions are just make-believe concessions. Hitler did it in the Munich Agreement, when he "conceeded" in prolonging the date given to the Czech government to yield Sudetenland, when all along he never even changed his schedule for the invasion, and all he did was prolong the date until the actual time of invasion was planned all along.
The same thing happened with the Gaza Strip. Israel didn't conceed that piece of land out of good will.
1. The fact is, the government already knew that the resources of that small strip of land were at it's end. An overpopulated strip of land with very poorly developed infrastructure, and little resources, which were drained to near-extinction. Gaza has very little water remaining in it's land. It has no strategic or valuable resource whatsoever, therefore, there was no reason of sticking around, and under Western pressure to make some concessions, they left an area which offered them nothing anymore. That is the said "make-believe" concession.
2. Now, some settlers had indeed built some greenhouses in Gaza which had been turned over to the Palestinians with USA financial backing and could be used to give a boost in agricultural production of the Gaza Strip, whose exports could have been used as a way to jump start the economy of the Gaza Strip and begin building some relatively valuable minor Industries as a complement. Turns out, Gaza had no water to supply those efforts to obtain maximum output of the greenhouses, and Israel, who had originally supplied water to the greenhouses, now showed little disposition to do so, furthermore what was produced with the available water allocated to the greenhouses had remarkable difficulties in getting exported and generating wealth due to Israeli's restrictions on Palestinian movements of goods. Palestinian corruption also played a part in it's demise to be fair. As the economical situation deteriorated, the greenhouses were looted and destroyed.
The point is that the arabs don't ruin the land.They aren't inherently inferior to the Jewish mighty race. The primary difference is that one people don't have money, and has garguantuan, colossal, gigantic support from the USA. They aren't allowed to develop it properly in great part due to the restrictions imposed by Israel. Palestinians live miserable, miserable, miserable lives (60% below poverty line, the general majority of the population is unemployed (70%?) and thus has no access to wealth, being dependant on what humanitary goods Israel allows to be passed into Gaza, little electricity is available to them, most of which is produced by Israel, little access to water, because there is little remaining. I'm not sure how food production is, in the Gaza Strip, therefore I won't mention it). Honestly, I can't actually know why people still wonder why many Palestinians turned to extremism. They live under an Israeli leash, who doesn't allow them to develop the most basic goods in their own lands. Rockets is the only way they have of letting out their life-long frustration of seeing their famillies, their friends, their Arab brethren struggle to live from one day to the next one, and they see Israel as the reason for why they a wretched life, which isn't incorrect.
EDIT: Actually, looking at the major commodities exported from Gaza, I can't help but get angry and greatly revolted myself. One of the major exports of Gaza is flowers...Flowers for :daisy: sake. How I pity them.
Too good to not share
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/guns-g.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/hitandmiss-g.jpg
KukriKhan
09-28-2008, 15:22
Having strayed quite a distance from the OP's: "Anotherdinnerjacket speaks at the UN
So what's your opinion? [...snip...] So whats your opinion of the entire speech and the reactions from the nations he called out today?"
I thank all for their contributions, close the thread, and invite anyone interested in a discussion of Israel v Palestine to begin another thread.
:bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.