|
7th February 2007, 17:49 | #121 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th February 2007, 17:58 | #122 |
SHG
|
Aside from its President calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, you mean?
|
7th February 2007, 17:59 | #123 |
|
Hah, yeah was just thinking that. Some may perceive that as somewhat of a threat...
|
7th February 2007, 18:45 | #124 |
|
The statement was wilfully misinterpreted by the Western media, he was actually saying he wanted to wipe the current Israeli regime from the map, not the entire country.
Israel have actually threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran, however for some reason that threat does not get repeated ad infinitum by the Western media. |
7th February 2007, 18:51 | #125 |
|
I had no idea that was the case till i just read what Hory said.
<-------- Brainwashed |
7th February 2007, 18:59 | #126 |
|
edit.. will post link later.
Last edited by hsh : 7th February 2007 at 19:00. |
7th February 2007, 19:07 | #127 | |
|
Quote:
His comments pretty clearly indicate Israel and not specifically the current regime to me. Here's a report from non-western media for you: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ar...rchiveId=15816 |
|
7th February 2007, 19:13 | #128 |
|
His comments properly translated were
"the occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" How that gets twisted into a threat of a second Jewish holocaust is another example of the laziness that passes for journalism nowadays. |
7th February 2007, 19:34 | #129 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th February 2007, 22:01 | #130 | |
|
Quote:
Regardless, even if he just means the current government then that is still a very aggresive statement. |
|
7th February 2007, 23:37 | #131 | |
|
Quote:
Using 'it's hypocritical' as a means to justify a move which quite obviously would make the world even more unstable is just fucking bizarre to me eh. The insane anti-americanism which seems to destroy peoples ability for critical thinking is the biggest danger in the world if you ask me. We have people actually cheering Iran on. What the fuck is wrong with you all? |
|
7th February 2007, 23:41 | #132 |
|
It only leads to more instability if your definition of stability is haivng 1 country above the rest. I'm not saying that isn't stability, just that stability is up for interpretation :P
__________________
You ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers! |
7th February 2007, 23:43 | #133 |
|
No, that isn't my definition of stability - that definition can produce stability however.
|
7th February 2007, 23:56 | #134 |
|
But you get what i'm getting at though right, it could prolly be put in a light that shows it creating stability if you feel having a balance of power as creating stability.
__________________
You ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers! |
8th February 2007, 00:03 | #135 |
|
What Wandarah is saying makes sense...its just that i really want Iran to win and Israel to get sent home with a sore ass and two black eyes.
|
8th February 2007, 00:25 | #136 | ||
|
Quote:
When we go into WWIII it will because of the actions of the US, Israel and others of the coalition of the willing. http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...le_23898.shtml Quote:
Last edited by Draco T Bastard : 8th February 2007 at 00:27. |
||
8th February 2007, 00:27 | #137 | |
|
Quote:
As far as I know, every country that has nuclear power, also has nukes and/or a military alliance with a country which says on paper, that said ally would be willing to use nuclear weapons in the nations defense. This is why there isnt wouldnt be any such thing as a regional nuclear war. Any scenario would quickly become global. Iran has neither, yet. When it does (and it will) get nuclear weapons, it wouldnt surprise me if they relatively quickly proliferate throughout the middle east. As it would make sense for Iran to lead a bloc of nations 'against' the west. That is the real danger here as I see it. All we end up with in the end, is more motherfuckers with nukes, and more fingers in a position to press the buttons. How any thinking human being could say - 'Oh! But America has Nukes! Everyone should be allowed to have nukes!' is entirely fucking beyond me eh. Is it so it becomes more of a fair fight? Huh? Wha? Who wants a fair fight when it comes to nukes? Oh, and I'm far less confident in the Iranian ability to hold off on pressing that button. |
|
8th February 2007, 00:30 | #138 | |
|
Quote:
The UN is entirely ineffective. The UN is the one that gave nations veto votes. 'Instability' exists with or without the UN. Lots of nations aside from the demonic US and the evil beyond compare Israel break UN sanctions and orders. Iran is one of them too. The UN is ineffective, because no one is scared of the UN. |
|
8th February 2007, 08:52 | #139 | |
|
Quote:
Of all the nuclear states including Pakistan and North Korea, I'm most nervous about Israel having nuclear capabilities given that they are already threatening to use them against Iran. Any sense of restraint and deterrent other nuclear nations have against using them does not exist for Israel due to the unwavering military, financial and diplomatic support of the world's sole superpower they enjoy. Iran are not going to launch an unprovoked attack on Israel, given the military strength of Israel and the US, that would be completely insane. I'm not saying Iran is a great place with a well-balanced leadership and government but they are not a rogue state and they are not going to act against their own best interests. And of course Iran does not have nuclear weapons and will not have them for at least a decade, so I think fretting about them now is just buying into the American and Israeli propaganda created to justify invading yet another country. |
|
8th February 2007, 09:44 | #140 | |
|
Quote:
It's not just sanctions and orders that are being disobeyed but the actual base rules as well. The invasion of Iraq was against those rules. The actions of the US in Nicuragua in the 80s was against them as well and several other actions by the US. The US keeps breaking the rules and usually with no consequence. So does Israel. Counter to what the US says Iran hasn't actually broken any of the rules. They've bent a few but they've made an effort to correct that. Having to have nations afraid of the UN won't help stability as nations would just leave the UN. Having all nations abide by the rules that they agreed to in the UN would. Iran have every right to develop nuclear power including the ability to enrich uranium under the terms of the NPT. The actions of the UN security council at the behest of the US to put sanctions on Iran for doing so was against the rules. |
|
8th February 2007, 10:39 | #141 |
|
Iran has yet to break any UN resolutions or breech the nuclear non poliferation treaty in the middle east.
a civilian nuclear power plant is LEGAL under the NPT. |
8th February 2007, 11:46 | #142 | |
HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE
|
Quote:
I would prefer that no one had nukes as well. But in reality, its much easier to threaten a country knowing they don't have nukes, than threatening a country which you know is likely to cause chaos once you press your own button. From 4th form social studies, we learnt this was Mutually Assured Destruction. There is currently no mutual assurance of destruction coming from threatening Iran - but if they had nuclear weapons, things would be different. I don't encourage the use of nuclear weapons as an aggressive force and something to just "push the button" when you feel scared, but to possess them allows a sense of defence against being totally taken advantage of.
__________________
Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand... Last edited by DrTiTus : 8th February 2007 at 11:50. |
|
8th February 2007, 12:22 | #143 | |
|
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/46...ectid=10422871
Quote:
|
|
8th February 2007, 19:07 | #144 |
|
Traditionally war has been used to hold back natural and crisis driven social change.
The lost generation during the first world war. The West arming Germany before WW2 to fight the USSR and to put the Nazi's in power norrowly defeating the Communists. In the US alone Pres. FDR had Ford , the Rockerfellers , Hearst and others freaking out over the Wagner Act that greatly favoured workers. During the Sixties the racial struggles resulted in Kennedy getting killed by reactionary forces shortly after pulling out of Vietnam. LBJ changed this with the BS Bay of Tonkin incident and was followed up with Mc Namara's 100,000 conscripts from poor assed areas of the US. But the biggest effect is when massive amounts of money are diverted from education and health etc then wasted on war , much like the spending bill Bush has before Congress at the moment. 3 Trillion dollars isn't it? And that's not even counting what gets into the hands of the Iraqi insurgents. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2854955 Last edited by Rep : 8th February 2007 at 19:09. |
8th February 2007, 19:13 | #145 |
|
And this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/07/unger-article/\ Norquist: Bush’s Advisers Telling Him ‘Invade Iran. Then Everyone Will See How Smart We Are’ |
9th February 2007, 00:58 | #146 | |
|
Quote:
I do not. |
|
9th February 2007, 01:02 | #147 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
9th February 2007, 01:04 | #148 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
9th February 2007, 01:14 | #149 |
|
The UN is made weak by the major powers in the security council. They would have never joined the UN if they thought it would cost them money ,or power now would they Wanda?
War is profit remember? |
9th February 2007, 01:17 | #150 |
|
Unanswered questions in Iraq. (Worth the read).
By Bill Van Auken 6 February 2007 In its attempt to manufacture a case for military aggression against Iran, the Bush administration has made wholly unsubstantiated allegations that Iranian agents were responsible for a January 20 raid conducted on a supposedly secure US facility in the Iraqi city of Karbala. Five American military personnel were killed in the raid. The only rationale given for this charge came from American officials speaking to the media on condition of anonymity, who said that the operation—carried out by unidentified individuals in American uniforms—was too “sophisticated” for Iraqi opponents of the US occupation to have carried out on their own. Why Iran would have an interest in staging such an attack, and this attack in particular, has never been explained. The five US soldiers who were killed—one of them on the spot and the four others after being abducted—had been meeting with local authorities to coordinate security operations for pilgrims—many of them Iranian—coming to Karbala for the Shia religious festival of Ashura. Moreover, as Juan Cole, professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Michigan, pointed out on his web site, “Informed Comment,” whoever carried out the attack dumped the bodies of the captured Americans as well as the cars used in the raid in the town of Mahawil, a predominantly Sunni area—hardly a spot likely to be chosen by Iranian-backed Shia militia members. There has been little new factual reporting on the aftermath of the raid, aside from remembrances and funerals for the US troops who were killed. Who carried it out and what their motives were remain a mystery. Yet the insinuation of an Iranian connection has been widely disseminated. The New York Times carried a January 31 article with the bald headline, “Iran May Have Trained Attackers That Killed 5 American Soldiers, US and Iraqis Say.” Citing unnamed US officials, the Times reported, “The officials said the sophistication of the attack astonished investigators, who doubt that Iraqis could have carried it out on their own—one reason a connection to Iran is being closely examined. Officials cautioned that no firm conclusions had been drawn and did not reveal any direct evidence of a connection.” One of the officials added that the attacks “could be seen as retribution for three recent American raids in which Iranians suspected of carrying out attacks on American and Iraqi forces were detained.” In other words, Iranian guilt is deduced from the raids carried out by US military forces themselves against Iranian consular officials in Iraq. Aside from these sensationalist and unfounded charges, the Times article makes the following interesting observations: “Tying Iran to the deadly attack could be helpful to the Bush administration, which has been engaged in an escalating war of words with Iran.” In addition, the Times included this: “The unusual nature of the attack has made it a major topic of discussion in the upper echelons of the Iraqi government. It has spawned bizarre theories including the idea that a Western mercenary group was somehow involved.” What is the basis of this “bizarre theory?” According to all accounts of the raid, the dozen or so who carried it out were waved through checkpoints surrounding the meeting site because they were traveling in a convoy of SUVs of the type used by American forces in Iraq, wearing US uniforms and carrying US-style weapons as well as ID cards. Moreover, they spoke English. According to the Associated Press, “One Iraqi official said the leader of the assault team was blond.” At this point, no one has provided a credible explanation of the attack or identified those who carried it out. But the Iraqi theory reported in the New York Times is certainly no more “bizarre” than the claims that Iran was responsible. In short, if the attackers dressed, acted and looked like Americans and spoke English, there is always the possibility that they were indeed Americans. There are certainly an ample number of “Western mercenaries” in Iraq. As the Pentagon revealed last December, there are as many as 100,000 private government contractors in the country. Companies like Blackwater USA and DynCorp have thousands of employees—many of them former US military personnel—under arms in Iraq. In a number of instances, government contractors have been implicated in criminal activity ranging from the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, to the killing of civilians, to wholesale embezzlement and graft. They have acted, at least until very recently, as a law unto themselves, subject to neither Iraqi jurisdiction nor that of the US military. (See: “Civilian contractors in Iraq placed under US military”). As for a motive, there are any number of possibilities. Reports of bitter conflicts between uniformed troops and private military contractors—on at least some occasions involving armed violence—have come out of Iraq. (See: “Detention of US security contractors highlights ‘culture of impunity’ in Iraq”) The existence of multi-million-dollar criminally corrupt operations, such as the one involving the former head of US reconstruction contracts in the city of Hillah, could certainly generate acts of murderous violence if anything or anyone threatened to expose or disrupt them. It is also worth noting that the officer killed in the attack, Capt. Brian Freeman, was known in the military as a vocal opponent of the war. He had left the US Army in 2004 but was called back as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve and sent to Iraq as a civil affairs officer because of the growing shortage of deployable personnel. Last December, just a month before he was killed, he took aside visiting Democratic senators Chris Dodd of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts at a Baghdad helicopter-landing zone to tell them what a disaster the US occupation had become. But perhaps the most likely potential motive is suggested by the way in which the attack has been used to accuse Iran of responsibility for killing US troops. In this regard, it is useful to recall the startling testimony delivered last week by former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski on the growing danger of a US war against Iran and what he called a “plausible scenario” for Washington launching such military action. Such a war could begin, Brzezinski warned, with “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a quote/unquote ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran . . .” Could the raid in Karbala have been the type of “provocation” of which Brzezinski warned? There is an historical precedent for such staged military actions being used as the pretext for war. On September 1, 1939, Germany’s Nazi regime used SS troops dressed in Polish uniforms to “attack” a German radio station near the border in Upper Silesia. To lend greater authenticity to this self-assault, concentration camp inmates were murdered and brought to the scene to provide the necessary bodies. The provocation paved the way to the “defensive” German military invasion of Poland and the outbreak of the Second World War. There is no more concrete evidence at this point to substantiate the case that there was a US source for the Karbala attack than there is to back up the claim that there was an Iranian one. But given the record of the Bush administration—the first major government to promulgate an international policy of “preventive war” since Hitler’s Third Reich—such a scenario cannot be dismissed out of hand. |
9th February 2007, 01:21 | #151 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
9th February 2007, 07:15 | #152 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
9th February 2007, 09:45 | #153 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
9th February 2007, 10:35 | #154 | |
Laserman
|
Quote:
__________________
Are you slow? The alleged lie that you might have heard, me saying, allagedly moments ago... That's a parasite that lives in my neck. |
|
9th February 2007, 14:04 | #155 | |
Up Unt At Dem!
|
Quote:
the only place law has is in a domestic setting where it is enforceable. in international politics international 'law' is simply agreements set up between nation states to formalise national interests. |
|
9th February 2007, 14:10 | #156 | |
Up Unt At Dem!
|
Quote:
Remember, there is a gigantic gap between the great powers and the small powers. why on earth would they relinquish thier power to an international body where it could be used against them? for the UN to have any power, it would have to be granted military force, which it could use against ANY state. this would mean it would have to be more powerful then any other single state. this is obviously completely impossible. you need to get out of the mindset that the UN has any ability to control any state. states simply manipulate it to serve their own interests...power politics. |
|
9th February 2007, 14:13 | #157 | |
Up Unt At Dem!
|
Quote:
profit (ie haliburton) is a bonus |
|
9th February 2007, 17:43 | #158 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
9th February 2007, 23:03 | #159 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
9th February 2007, 23:05 | #160 | |
|
Quote:
|
|