Ad hominem is the futile ammunition of someone who can’t refute your argument so wishes to avert attention onto some sort of character assassination.
I can proofread myself thank you very much, I just don’t really think it’s necessary since we’re talking politics not semantics here. My writing is entirely legible. My spelling errors have to do with the speed that I’m typing, not some kind of dyslexic origin or some other assertion you’re trying to make.
O noez I mispelt a feiu wudz now I luk like a dumbazz…is that the best you got man?
Considering I used the words, fucked, dicked, and dick in my writing. I don’t really think I’m shooting to turn that into a professor, so if you’re trying to say that’s how I write my actual theses, you’d be mistaken.
Why don’t you stop acting like a little bitch, and quit the character assassination and let’s see what kind of arguments you can follow through on.
I’m reading and it looks like you just like to talk alot of shit to me. Lil bitch.
Iran, the ebil empire that is becoming more Westernized every day …
For Christ’s sake, if you are going to post on an English language site, learn how to spell! It’s e-V-i-l. Got it? I know it’s a big word, but if you try, you’ll learn it at some point.
Yeah, I know: It’s a “debilish” problem for a genius like you…
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Iran is far more progressive and forgiving than you’re ally Saudi Arabia, that was the home of I think more than half of the bombers involved in 9/11 and would behead a homosexual in a public square.
[/quote]
What country did you say you were from?[/quote]
I’m from the USA, I said YOUR ally because most of you war hawks seem to have selective alienazation in regard to the Middle Eastern states. I associate blunderous US Foriegn Policy, with the WarHawks in this thread.
Irrelevant. The “Muslim barbarians” (and condemning Zionists is racist?) are at their weakest point militarily since they came into being, there is no chance of Israel being defeated in a conventional invasion by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. Martin Van Creveld, a brilliant Israeli military historian, wrote a good book on the subject a year or two back.
Nope, not irrelevant - Israel is very powerful, Middle Eastern nations are not. That is a good thing, since the Middle Eastern nations have an ax to grind. Such an imbalance reduces the chances that Middle Eastern nations will have a conventional confrontation.
And that is a good thing.
I’m not worried what Van Creveld wrote, because I am not arguing that Middle Eastern nations can defeat Israel. My point is that the inability to defeat Israel is key to keeping things out of a traditional hot war, and if the military capabilities were ever “proportionalized” via Israel’s enemies obtaining nukes or Israel dispossessing itself of nukes, the deterrent effect is gone - and the chances of a bloody hot war go up.
I like the imbalance - and so should anyone else interested in peace in the Middle East.
[/quote]
Israel had nukes in 1973 I believe, when it was nearly defeated (and possibly extinguished) in conventional war.
And again, they have nothing to fear in terms of conventional attack. They should be a lot more worried about terrorism and about its effect on their society (i.e. not fanciful “suitcase nuke” scenarios, but the fact that they’re suffering from net emigration).
Israel had nukes in 1973 I believe, when it was nearly defeated (and possibly extinguished) in conventional war.[/quote]
You aren’t helping whatever point you are trying to make - Israel has every incentive to make sure the military gap between them and the Middle Eastern countries remains as wide as possible. If Israel almost got beat while having nukes in 1973, certainly that suggests there is all the more reason to do anything to enhance their military advantage going forward, nukes and all.
Actually, Israel does have something to fear from conventional attack - largely because no matter how much we argue Middle Eastern nations can’t beat Israel, this presupposes Middle Eastern nations are always rational actors in pursuance of their objectives. They aren’t. Arab humiliation runs deep and counter to “rational” action in geopolitics.
While it is unlikely Middle Eastern nations wouldn’t attack, it’s unwise to assume they never would - that is just dumb planning. Nor should Israel take for granted its military advantages - it should maintain them jealously and not relax.
As for planning for terror, Israel is and has been worried about terror attacks - but it is a false choice to suggest that Israel shouldn’t be prepared for both.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sikkario wrote:
Yes the ruling elite have control of their own soil, not the people. They do not enjoy the freedoms you or I do, yet, you support their tyranny.
What freedoms do you enjoy that they do not?
Are you serious? If you are you need to study up the situation. Start with the bill of rights and go from there. [/quote]
So…you will kill them, cause they are not ‘free’?
And what the democracy means?
I’am democratic, you are democratic, they are not democratic, so…we will ‘fix’ them with bombs?
And when they hate you, they are terrorists?
Cool!
Have you ever think, that there are a places where people lives well and satisfied without ‘democracy’?
To force the democracy/socialism/comunism to someone isnt democratic. Its terrorism.
Its like to put a gun on your face and tell you:
You want to be ‘free’!
than shoot a few members of his family.
And than asking myself - Why this man hates me? I let him free i make his world democratic…
Why?
I agree! Stalker, and to make it worse…Iran is a democracy… Apparently, its not ENOUGH of a democracy. I don’t really understand what the warhawk’s point is.
