[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They are still weak but that doesn’t mean we should ignore them until they are strong.
[/quote]
The Afghan nation is weaker than shit. That did not stop people there from attacking us.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Is your memory not so short, that the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq illegal under International Law for the same reason that the USA’s current invasion of Iraq is illegal under international law.[/quote]
You are quickly sliding into irrelevance here - and Doc showed us some of your true colors - but the above statement is positively ridiculous.
If you think the US invasion is “illegal”, then show me the relevant UNSC Resolution condemning and demanding punishment for the US’ transgressions.
Your half-literate synopsis of your paper doesn’t accomplish much - looks like rewarmed left-wing propaganda that ignores rational information that doesn’t square with your ideological goal.
It won’t be a paper worth reading, rest assured, unless you can be objective in analyzing the subject. From your posts, I suspect you won’t be.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
I think you’re a smart guy Lixy and agree with your opinion on the subject. But you’re jumping to inflammation a little to quick, try building a base more if you want to actually present that Iran isn’t a threat.[/quote]
Lixy is in thick with these Iranians. If you are an American and you just LOOK at an Iranian, Lixy will get pissed and yell at you.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
will to power wrote:
Actually, a nuclear response to conventional warfare is exactly what I’m referring to. Whether or not you agree if an invasion occurs, that’s no justification for nuking civilian cities.
Interesting - you seem worried about justifications, but you don’t seem worried about the initial “justification” of attacking Israel. Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to the Muslim barbarians’ desire to push Israel into the sea. If they get nuclear weapons, that deterrent disappears.
You appear to be confused on the nature of the aggressor here.
[/quote]
I never said I am for invading Israel, I just don’t want to see civilians needlessly murdered because their government decided to launch an invasion. For example, I think the US invasion of Iraq was wrong, but it would have been yet more criminal for Iraqi administration to [hypothetically] launch nuclear weapons at the US when they realised they were going to be overthrown.
If you’re going to point out that I’m not a US citizen here pretend I said ‘Australia’ instead.
Also, could you stop referring to Arabs as barbarian? It is needless and offensive.
[quote]
Israel has made multiple attempts to occupy parts of Lebanon, and their methods show massive disdain towards the civilian population.
Nonsense - but just for kicks, let’s take it at face value. Let’s have an accounting - Israel gets attacked dating back to the 1940s, Israel gets threatened, Israel gets its civilians targeted by suicide bombers.
And you want to lay blame at Israel’s feet? Keep searching for the answer.[/quote]
Those hostilities were called to an end by all sides [yes, because the Arabs lost, but they were over]. They were continued during the Lebanese civil war by Israel’s invasion of parts of Lebanon. If you want to justify this by the presence of the PLO, then why did the Israeli’s not leave when the PLO was gone? Why haven’t they returned their many prisoners in exchange for total peace or returned all of the territory they occupied?
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Also if we’re taking about some sort of ethnic inhabitant concept, most of the Jews in Europe, were descended from converts from the Kingdom Of Khazaria (in the Russian Steppe) rather than, some sort of Neo-Roman Judean refuges.
[/quote]
Wow, what a concept. I read that one somewhere too. That the Jews of Europe are actually Turkish converts.
642 the Muslims attacked them lead by General Abd-al-Rahman ibn Rabiah. The second wave of attacks were in 722 lead by Maslamah ibn-abd al Malik. Finally after 100 years, the war ends. Muslim General Marwan defeats the Khazars. Khazar Khan Bulkhan converts to Judaism rather than submit to the Muslims.
[quote]will to power wrote:
I never said I am for invading Israel, I just don’t want to see civilians needlessly murdered because their government decided to launch an invasion. For example, I think the US invasion of Iraq was wrong, but it would have been yet more criminal for Iraqi administration to [hypothetically] launch nuclear weapons at the US when they realised they were going to be overthrown. [/quote]
I understand your concern, but it is the overwhelming threat of force that holds the barbarians back in the first place. Lower that deterrent, and you provide incentives to attack. That overwhelming ability to respond saves lives - because it makes the cost of attacking them so high.
It is indeed the “terrible arithmetic” of war - but you can’t escape. Ever since the Muslim nations escalated violence against Israel, the currency is force projection - and the greater the response force, the lower the chances of an original attack.
Tough stuff, but that is war.
I never referred to Arabs as barbarians - barbarians are identified by their illiberal and primitive behavior, and their ethnicity is completely irrelevant.
So, no - barbarians is a useful term that shouldn’t be offensive. It merely describes an attitude and behavior.
An end to hostilities called for by all sides? This isn’t even worth addressing.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Despite this, the USA, still is in bed with Pakistan.[/quote]
Would you feel safer if the USA abandoned Pakistan to the terrorists who seek to take it over? Then you’d have terrorists running a state armed with nukes. Those who do not like Musharaf have got to admit that he is better than a terrorist state. The US will remain friends with Pakistan as long as their government is opposed to the terrorist extremists.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
I think the ME is already as unstable as could possibly be, considering Pakistan is at the point of total collapse and has a fully equipped nuclear arsenal.
Despite this, the USA, still is in bed with Pakistan.[/quote]
Oh yeah, Pakistan is not in the Middle East.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Because it is an early step in developing nuclear weapons. How hard can it be for even a blithering idiot such as yourself to connect those two dots? [/quote]
It’s also a step for developing their own civil nuclear energy. Your argument is like saying that university chemistry and biology departments should be banned because they are “an early step in developing” weapons of mass destruction.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
This is actually what my paper is about.
My new question, is, why does everyone think Iran is insane, unstable, aggressive and otherwise evil?
[/quote]
Dude, read about the fall of the Shah, the Hostage Crisis, the situation in Lebanon (Civil War, invasion by Israel, UN and US peacekeepers driven out by Iranian backed terrorists) and you might have some insight on why many in the US feel this way about Iran.
Do some research to find out why, enless your mind is already made up by pro-leftist, commie b.s. propaganda.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
will to power wrote:
Those hostilities where called to an end by all sides [yes, because the Arabs lost, but they were over]. They were continued during the Lebanese civil war by Israel’s invasion of parts of Lebanon. If you want to justify this by the presence of the PLO, then why did the Israeli’s not leave when the PLO was gone? Why haven’t they returned their many prisoners in exchange for total peace or returned all of the territory they occupied?
An end to hostilities called for by all sides? This isn’t even worth addressing.[/quote]
So because my wording of that point was poor, you ignore everything else? The point was, hostilities were over. I acknowledging clearly that the motivation for Arab cessation of hostilities was losing, but nonetheless decades followed where Lebanon and Israel were not at war, which ended by Israel’s invasion of Lebanese territory.
[quote]will to power wrote:
Israel has made multiple attempts to occupy parts of Lebanon, and their methods show massive disdain towards the civilian population.[/quote]
Israel did not attack Lebanon because it wanted to take over Lebanon.
The reason is because (in the 80’s) the PLO was using the country as a base to launch attacks into Israel. In the last year or so, you could say the same about Hezbollah. Hezbollah said if the Israelis moved out of Lebanon, they would stop their hostilities with them. Israel moved out (as they did in Gaza), and are constantly bombarded by rocket fire.
[quote]lixy wrote:
It’s also a step for developing their own civil nuclear energy. Your argument is like saying that university chemistry and biology departments should be banned because they are “an early step in developing” weapons of mass destruction. [/quote]
Completely false, because you fail to assign any value to who is using the science. Nuclear power in Western societies - and their respective university departments - are subject to democracy, civic audit, the rule of law, liberal government, a civilian-controlled military, and criticism.
Iran - not at all. The risk is too steep to give blossoming totalitarian regimes nuclear power, even if they bat their cow-eyes at us while clasping their hands and pleading “honest, it’s just to help keep the lights on down at the Jewish orphanage”.
Don’t treat unlike countries in a like manner. There aren’t “equal rights” among nations, and there never have been.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
I agree that we see Iran differently.
[/quote]
Would you enjoy living in Iran? If not, why not?
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Because it is an early step in developing nuclear weapons. How hard can it be for even a blithering idiot such as yourself to connect those two dots?
It’s also a step for developing their own civil nuclear energy. Your argument is like saying that university chemistry and biology departments should be banned because they are “an early step in developing” weapons of mass destruction. [/quote]
If you believe that, I have a ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
[quote]will to power wrote:
I was actually concerned about, say, Bin Laden getting his hands on nukes since he operates in Pakistan and using or trying to use them on Israel.[/quote]
Yes, this is the real concern and why we will back anyone in Pakistan who will oppose this.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
will to power wrote:
I never said I am for invading Israel, I just don’t want to see civilians needlessly murdered because their government decided to launch an invasion. For example, I think the US invasion of Iraq was wrong, but it would have been yet more criminal for Iraqi administration to [hypothetically] launch nuclear weapons at the US when they realised they were going to be overthrown.
I understand your concern, but it is the overwhelming threat of force that holds the barbarians back in the first place. Lower that deterrent, and you provide incentives to attack. That overwhelming ability to respond saves lives - because it makes the cost of attacking them so high.
It is indeed the “terrible arithmetic” of war - but you can’t escape. Ever since the Muslim nations escalated violence against Israel, the currency is force projection - and the greater the response force, the lower the chances of an original attack.
Tough stuff, but that is war.
[/quote]
Oh yes, what you seem to be ignoring is that there is concern for the Arabs being attacked and having our civilians murdered by Israel. There country is plenty capable of defending itself in conventional warfare, however the rest of the region has little deterrent against this very aggressive regime.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Instead they have become business partners, a future the USA, and Iran can share. Only if we can stop acting like Iraq, and settle down and act peacably with the rest of the world.
[/quote]
Total BS. We can not be business partners if one partner (Iran) will not become a partner. If someone calls you a son of a bitch every day, would you want to become a partner with that person, hell no, same goes with Iran. They do not want to deal with us. Period.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The reason is because (in the 80’s) the PLO was using the country as a base to launch attacks into Israel. In the last year or so, you could say the same about Hezbollah. Hezbollah said if the Israelis moved out of Lebanon, they would stop their hostilities with them. Israel moved out (as they did in Gaza), and are constantly bombarded by rocket fire.[/quote]
Exactly. This is why Will To Power’s post wasn’t worth addressing. This is general knowledge.
#1 - no one actually believes Middle Eastern nations were interested in a true ceasefire (they just shifted into a proxy war after getting smoked in conventional warfare - see the manufactured “Palestinian cause” that Middle Eastern nations suddenly got angry at Israel over during the “ceasefire”)
#2 - Lebanon is nothing but a launch pad for this proxy war against Israel. Lebanon happens to be touching Israel, so suddenly Israel is “advancing” on Lebanon because it decides to fight back against the proxies being used by Middle Eastern nations
There could be a political solution overnight if Middle Eastern nations wanted merely to live in peace with Israel - they don’t, and they support terror groups in the place where conventional armies got deeply humiliated.
[quote]lixy wrote:
will to power wrote:
Having nuclear weapons won’t mean Israel is getting nuked, mutually assured destruction and all that. It will mean a stop to the threat of Israel nuking other Middle Eastern nations, and how is that a bad thing exactly?
[/quote]
Israel CLAIMS it does not have nukes. How can it nuke the middle east if it CLAIMS it does not have nukes?