| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Comments:
<0> FreeTrade: Finally we agree on something.
<1> But regardless of what Israel does with its nukes I think we have to stop Iran.
<0> I would like to disarm the whole bunch, frankly.
<0> Israel *and* everyone else.
<1> Armon, You will find if you are a liberal (Not a leftist) you and I will agree on a number of things.
<0> Left, right... I disown the concepts as obsolete... like white and black in a color image. :) But that's me.
<2> I'm not so sure that Iran will be a clear danger to America with nukes.
<3> FreeTrade is a berkeley leftie!
<0> "Uncommon sense from the radical middle", if you will. ;)
<2> definitely a threat, sure.
<0> God damn commies. Nothin' but a bunch of tree-huggin' hippies.
<2> PETA needs to be shot. ****ing hypocrites...
<0> tweek: Not to America, to Israel, which is on America's team.
<2> **** 'em?
<0> It's a common misperception that the Arab world has any interest in attacking America. It would be the stupidest thing they could do.
<2> I mean, seriously. we gave 'em enough already.
<0> PETA? HAH!
<2> I'd rather keep my money.
<1> Tweek, we dont shoot people for being for their idiotic opinions.
<4> FT: why are you attacking people for being pro-Israel, one of the few reliably pro-American nations in the Middle East?
<2> FreeTrade: you, maybe. :)
<0> We shoot people for shooting people for their idiotic opinions.
<2> I wouldn't
<1> I disagree completely with PETA but I support their right to speak 100%
<4> I mean, I know you have some relationship with the Saudis, but..
<0> tweek: Heyh... freedom of expression does not mean, "the freedom to express what I agree with".
<0> FreeTrade: Amen!
<1> Timur, I am not attacking people who are pro Israel, dont exagerate as usual.
<4> FT: no?
<0> Besides. Without their right to speak out, our right to debunk their ridiculous opinions wouldn't happen.
<2> Voltaire is credited with saying this but I think it was someone else
<0> And it *must* happen.
<4> <1> But I prefer for my elected officials to be neither pro Israel nor anti Israel. <-- meaningless
<2> 'I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'
<1> Someone said they supported someone politically because they are pro Israel, I find that a very queer reason to support an american politician.
<0> tweek: Ah.
<0> Yeah, Voiltaire is supposed to have said that, but it has never been confirmed, sadly enough.
<5> has Iran surrendered yet.?
<2> the most I do is joke about that ****. I respect their right to be idiots, and I wouldn't attempt to dissuade them in any other way besides calling those ****s out.
<4> <1> I am american not a Dutchman not an Irish man, and Not an Israeli <-- denies the point made that Israel is pro-American vs. the Arabs
<4> <1> And I put US interests over Israel any day. <-- implying that the two don't converge often
<4> (they do)
<1> when there are 1000s of domestic issues and or multiple issues with which to support people, Why do i Support Bush? Can I say it in one word ? He supports america ? No, It would take me 30 minutes to adequately explain why I support bush.
<0> FreeTrade: You're making so much sense that it scares me.
<4> <1> Why are you for him simply because he is pro Israel ? <-- as if that's a problem
<1> Substitute Israel for any other nation my statement would of been exactly the same.
<0> Well, Hitler supported Nazi Germany.
<0> (I'm not saying they're the same, just that patriotism isn't always good.)
<6> the left wing nuts
<4> <1> Why is Israel so important as to why you would vote for someone. <-- only reliable ally in the mideast? I'd say even for a non-Jewish American, that's important.
<6> are nutty, and they seem to come out with antiamerican rethoic
<0> There are plenty of allies in the Middle-East.
<2> so Iraq's newly established gov't isn't reliable all of a sudden?
<4> FT: except not all nations outside the US are the same vis-a-vis US interests and are as equivalently as supportive of the US
<1> Meaningless ? Timur I dont want any politician to be supported because they support Israel, I want them to support a lot of issues i agree with and also I want them to look at Israel on a case by case Basis.
<4> you ***ume they don't?
<2> ****, America is pouring billions of ****ing dollars into a potential Middle East ally
<4> 300 bil so far, aint' it?
<1> Do they support the intentional murder of scores of Americans in international waters in 1967 ? I Hope not. Do they support their right to exist ? I hope so.
<0> tweek: And 87 billion dollars on an illegal war.
<6> tweek what wrong with defending america,
<0> Don't forget that.
<2> and it's not as if Israel will immediately turn their nukes on us if we stop feeding them
<1> Same is true of the UK or any other nation.
<2> goppp: zero.
<4> FT: only a complete idiot would still bring up the 67 incident as if it had anything to do with current policy, or should.
<0> Yeah, anything bad you can say about the United States, you can say about the United Kingdom, and more.
<6> tweek the only people who seem to be antiwar are antiamerican
<2> Armon: I'm not so sure it was illegal...
<4> how about the last 35 years
<2> goppp: when did I say I was antiwar?
<1> Tweek. There nukes support a double standard in the middle east.
<0> tweek: Well, the United Nations sure as **** is. :)
<4> FT: and in South Asia
<4> so, oh well
<2> FreeTrade: very ... good ... point.
<4> the NPT is contingent upon not having any *more* nukes proliferated for those already having them
<2> perhaps that's the only reason Iran desires them?
<1> And muslims around the world say well why should Iran disarm when Israel is nuclear power, When Israel doesntr need nukes because they know we would retaliate on any nation which used wmd against Israel.
<7> the rest of the middle east is not surrounded by enemies who call for their destruction
<4> FT: because maybe the US wouldn't
<1> And we are much more powerful militarily
<0> tweek: It's not really debatable anymore. Resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences", and the US and UK decided on their own that it meant war, when in fact, Germany, France (I know they're silly) and Russia all specifically stated that it did *not* include war unless Iraq attacked someone first.
<1> Timur, of course the US Would.
<2> why subject America to a higher authority?
<0> It was clearly illegal, and remains illegal. But I suppose we'll have to get p***ed that and figure out a way to make the best of Iraq.
<0> tweek: Two words.
<0> tweek: WORLD
<0> tweek: PEACE
<0> :)
<4> FT: and because people in the US who bring up *one single* event that could be interpreted as anti-US might hold sway in the US
<2> **** peace. seriously.
<0> tweek: It's easy to say that when you're not being invaded.
<4> as opposed to, say, the daily outrages by Arab and Muslim nations
<2> my core philosophy is that *nothing* happens without conflict.
<2> perhaps this is desirable.
<2> most likely not.
<1> And if you want to give anti Israeli states an arguemnt for having nukes, Israel has given them one which is unnessary. I worry abotu double standards applied all the time,. Only major powers in the world shold have nuckes in my opinion and the opinion of most people. Israel is not a major power, its a small country.
<7> there's one major reason to deny Iran nuclear arms---they are our enemy but their own admission
<0> tweek: So you are literally in favour of war?
<0> The problem with Iran is not weapons of m*** destruction.
<0> The problem with Iran is sheer ignorance.
<1> I wish France didnt have them but they are a major country historically, same with China and Russia.
<4> FT: no, the argument is, if Iran gets them, then Iraq will want them and Turkey and others much closer by.
<2> I'm not in favor of reckless diplomacy, but I don't think the UN can be trusted.
<1> Nuclear proliferation bothers me.
<4> as well it should
<4> but Israel isn't proliferating, nor a danger to the region. Iran however is.
<2> France has been *shown* to have their *** so far up in Iraq's oil, they couldn't get out.
<1> well If I was an Iranian Israel hater I would say why should we not use nuclear power (Lying) for peaceful purposes when Israel has them for military purposes ?
<4> or Saudi
<0> tweek: The UN was founded to make sure WW2 didn't happen again. That would work if countries actually followed the principle rule; "The first guy to attack, is the bad guy".
<5> Israel isn't suposed to have nukes..
<1> Thankfully they are not smart enough yet to come up with that argument on the world stage.
<0> tweek: It's not very complicated. And the US and the UK both broke that fundamental rule, contrary to the stated wishes of the international community.
<4> Armon: problem is, it ignores a lot of things, for example, m***ing troops on borders or closing shipping lanes are pretty much fine
<0> So now the US goes just like, "Well, when Hitler did it, it was bad, but when we did it... HEY, long live America, bro!"
<1> If I had my way only the US and the UK would have nukes.
<4> b|ink: well, they do. so, that's that
<1> Disrespect
<0> Timur: And what gives you the idea that the US is any more responsible in terms of world peace?
<1> But obviously CHINA and RUssia are major powers so we cant deny them
<2> and the international community responded with a barrage of missiles on American soil.
<0> Timur: I mean... the president states openly that he works for *American* interests (as is his job).
<2> ****, I lost a lot of good friends in that attack.
<1> And france historicallly has been a major power.
<5> well doesn't that make them just as bad as Iran for sneaking around to get them.?
<1> Though it is no longer.
<0> Timur: What if American interests clash with other interests? Just **** it?
<7> we can deny any country nukes so long as we have the power to do so
<0> Didn't people learn *anything* from WW2?
<8> armon-not really
<2> Hitler's attacks I don't think can be compared to Iraq
<0> America, cannot possibly, enforce world peace while at the same time primarily serving American interests.
<7> for us to not oppose our enemies nukes would be foolish...obviously trying to deny countries as strong as china and russia would not be practical
<2> the pretense of disposing a dictator is what I'm pissed off about
<9> Armon... Iraq *WAS* the first to attack. Herein lies the flaw in your argument.
<4> Armon: no, American interests will trump.
<7> denying iran nukes is not only practical and possible, I think it is imperative to do so
<9> Were you too young to remember 1990?
<1> Here is a good example, its been in the US interest to be supportive of palestinian people while not supproting of hamas or hizbollah etc, and not supporting Israels formerly hard line on the Palestinians while they were in occupation of the Palestinian areas.
<0> Timur: Exactly. Which is precisely the US *cannot* be trusted with enforcing peace around the world.
<4> in the absence of another power which enforces things like WMD proliferation
<0> Glock21: Ah! Let's explore that, shall we?
<4> except that unless and until an alternative is developed, that's exactly how it is.
<1> I think Israel has come around to a much more moderate place, and I think we want them to be in this place they are in now.
<9> I'd love to.
<10> if the UN did their job the US wouldn't have to clean up behind them
<9> The US-Iraq conflict started in 1990, militarily in 1991.
<0> Glock21: Iraq attacks Kuweit. Iraq loses and is successfully confined for 12 years.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#windows
#slackware
#politics
sexploitation movie torrent
#dsl
library loginz
142-757 W. Hastings St., Suite #777
#politics
#politics
invalid command nameTcl error in script
|
|