Brains, beauty and poise

..well smeg ..theres hot air and then theres really super heated air ,,,when fdr promised the voters of depressin era america ..that " there would be a car in every garage and 2 chickens in every pot " ..the voters didnt really expect the us govt to buy them all a new car and bring them sunday dinner ...it was just the vision thing ,puffery ...hot air
when amanofjihad promises the voters of israel air so hot it will melt glass , well ..they kinda have to sit up and pay attention ,,,back in the thirtys the jews of europe heard hitler on the radio saying things like he would "rid europe the bloodsucking parasites that preyed on virtuous young fraulines and caused germany to lose the great war , poisoned german culture ,needed to be erradicated...
well ...they ( the jews )were really, really HOPEING IT WAS JUST POLITICAL HOT AIR ...alas , they were wrong , really really wrong ....smeg , i know you belive the zionists " have nothing to fear but fear itself "...but mossad ,mi5 ,cia and the idf would prolly hasten to point out to you that your harmless lil lawmaker amanojihad is RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK ...funding ,training and arming people who are actively shooting coventional warheads into apt buildings .shopping malls and bus stations in israel ALREADY .....this persian politician aint all talk ..he has already DELIVERED small puffs of super heated air and whizzing hot steel too ..they belive HIS BITE IS AS BAD AS HIS BARK it seems ........i mean smeg cmon ..your a smart guy ..if you were a politician in televiv you would actually advise your people ...dont worry be happy ..this guys just yankin our chain ...he is about as dangerous as a smallish vegetarian ex corporal who wears leather shorts, knee socks and gay lil hat with a feather in its band , a proffesional wall paper hanger with a stupid lil one inch mustache ( sound scarey too you?) .. he is just blowin smoke , hot air , ya know ,like ...clouds ..harmless lil mushroom clouds.. sure, no worries ,mate...he,s just a politician ..

 

I don't care if its molten dragons breath, Western Democracies like America should not go to war on unproven accusations and a few nsaty political slurs... Its undemocratic

Unfortunately I have never had the pleasure of expressing my admiration for Israel on these forums before, as the issue rarely crops up... By I assure you that you couldn't be more wrong. I too believe Israel has the right to exist As does Iran.

As they have been doing for the poast 60 years. I am confident that the IDF will be able to handle this relatively small threat comfortably, as they have also been doing for the past 60 years, and without the need to revert to a costly, bloodthirsty and ultimately pointless full-scale-war with Iran.

The difference between Hitler and Amadejedad is twofold. First, Hitler had absolute authority over the state (And Amadejedad does not) What Hitler says, goes. Ahmanijedad is just a figurehead (and a bad one at that) Secondly, people actually listened to Hitler. Not many Iranians like the way Ahmanijedad is conducting himself, most think that it is only inciting America and I agree with them. Because of his lack of support Ahmanijedad will probably be booted out by his on government in due time...

Comparing Ahmanijedad to Hitler is like comparing Bush to Hitler... Stupid

 

Woody you obviously misunderstod me. Replace word Iran with US in your rantings and Ahmedinajad is nothing comparing to you. If you would replace it with Jews you will most probably get sued for copyright infingment by Julius Streicher family. :smok:
As for your hope that Bush &co. start another war please do enlist. i hear that they are taking Vietnam vets to the National guard and ship them to Iraq (no problem for you as you served after the Nam.)

 

...guys ,i dont want a war with iran ,nor do the american voters ,nor the israelis ...and your right smeg ,muslims have been spewing raciest death threats against israel and america for a long time ...what causes everyone to get nervous is when they possess wmds and then OPENLY SAY THAT THEY INTEND TO USE THEM......after 911 and other recent events i think it behooves us to pay attention to what these people say and especially to what they actually do ... we pretty much know iran has been actively supporting jihadist terrorism .... that iran is in active pursuite of builing its own nuclear weopons .and that the leader of iran HAS SAID that he intends to use these weapons ...i guess you fellas feel that we should let him build his weapons ...then we should just wait and see if he actually lives up to his word ..you feel that he is all bluff ,that he wouldnt really fire one out of a lebanese schoolhouse or put on on a container ship to baltimore or air freight a footlocker to heathrow..yea ,,your prolly right ...lets just wait and hope for the best...lets give peace a chance !! ..we can have candle light vigels ,hold hands and sing cumbaya too ...

 

Exactly Woody, now you understand!

One of the things that America does best is protecting civil liberties and human rights... These include the right to freedom of expression, and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven... Essentially YOU have the right to do anything you like so long as it doesn't break any laws... YOU can rant and rave all you like about how much you hate Race ____, and how much you'd love to kill them all... But this won't be enough to get you arrested for attempted murder, that is, until you actually take a gun and try to shoot a member of Race ____.

The same democratic principles (ideally) should apply to American foreign policy... Iran should not be punished until they actually do something wrong, and then the punishment should only be proportional... Arming a few incompetant hooligans with RPG's and sending them into Israel is the kind of espionage thats existed for thousands of years and is countered with a few extremely-competant Mossad agents running aroung Iran... No need for War...

Thats a relief! I was just a little worried after you said "Lets nuke the *******!" in another topic

Damn straight, if the West doesn't even TRY to maintain a peaceable situation in the Middle East, who else is going to?

Unlike Iraq, which was arguably justified by Saddam's brutal human rights abuses, a war with Iran has ZERO chance of improving the living conditions in Iran, Israel, or the US Army (all three have a 100% chance of declining)...

A pre-emptive strike alone is not a justified reason for war in a RESPONSIBLE DEMOCRACY like America... There has to be some other motive based on human rights or defence... Going around attacking countries because you THINK (or at least pretend you think to the public)they might attack, without any real proof or evidence is despotic and evil...

It is like punishing someone for a crime that you THINK they might commit, and last time I checked, the US of A doesn't do that

 

Smeg, please watch your language; he used an anagram, not the actual "f" word.

 

So you think that an Amercian President should allow hundreds or thousands of Americans to die before taking action? Does the President not have the duty to hit first if he has what he considers solid information that someone is about to do another mass murder of American citizens?

 

corpcasselbury wrote:
So you think that an Amercian President should allow hundreds or thousands of Americans to die before taking action? quote]

Corp:
That is exactly the scenario I envision.
I believe it will take another massive terrorist-act to galvanize the American public. Right now, our general public believes we are safe from any threat, that diplomacy and dialogue with our enemies will solve all our problems... and we should bring all our troops home.
Tomorrow.
After the next terrorist attack on home-soil... I wonder what the American public will demand of their government?

Tim

 

Waging agressive war is a crime against humanity

Prove this claim. As far as i know Iran's WMD's are not confirmed. We all know how war can starts on unproved rumors (remember Iraq?)

What dod Iran acctualy do? Those weapons supposied to be made by Iran could be from Afganistan (they were parcticaly only significant supplier of weapons and advisors to Northern alliance) or Kurdish part ( they still supply them with weapons and advisors). EFP's? I can build one in my celler. It is fairly low tech weapon. Supplying militias in Iraq? When does US plan to invade Saudi? They are the main supplier to sunni militias and also to Lebanese current problem in Tripoli.

SFW. So did US in Afganistan. Hell US supported Pol Pot and his Khmer rouge after he was kicked out of Cambodia by Vietnamese (remember 1979?) and Saddam after he gassed Kuds in Halabja. And US is currently quite happy with MEK operating from territory under their control.

Whoa. You are better informed than most of the world's inteligence agencies (CIA doesn't count becouse of Iraq lies).

HMMMM. You are right, Let's destroy all nuclerar arsenals including Israeli, Pakistani, US...... I don't trust abody with nuclear weapons mumbling something about preventive wars.

Why not. But personaly i prefer to get drunk to cumbaya (BRRRRRRRR) and holding hands with only a pretty female protesters

 

nukes , chem ,bio weapons have been arround for a long time ..they are terrible weapons i wish they had never been invented ...haveing them in the hands of western democracys is dangerous enough ..the world survived 50 years of soviet -american sabre rattleing and flash points ...so what ,50 years is not a long time ,taken in historical perspective ...we got lucky ...thats all....NOW ..nukes in the hands of suicide islamofasciest crackheads is a new epoch ...is it not ? or do you really belive that a nuke in brittish or french or slovinian hands is no different from a nuke in iranian or syrian hands ...for example , here in the usa i can a do own firearms ...i lent my truck to a guy who works for me ,when he discovered my shotgun under the seat ( i had forgotten it after a day shooting pigieons } well .this guy had a fit ..because he is a convicted felon from long ago ...HE is not allowed to posses firearrms because society has stripped him of his gun rights ....he was a drug bust ,not a bank robber...it dont matter ...felons cannot have guns ...violent felons who openly express the intention of killing someone should not be allowed to have guns ...imo

 

Now you're putting words in my mouth... Of course I don't think that :angry: ... Of course the president has a duty to his people, a duty to protect them from harm... One way of metting that duty is not to press Americans into a situation which would uneccesarily endager their lives, such as a war where no immediate threat is apparent, as is the case with Iran... AFAIK There is none of this 'solid information' that you speak of, which suggests that Iran has the capability or the will to to to war with America. Perhaps you could point me towards it?

Then you are envisioning a nuclear apocalypse striking America with little or no actual evidence to support such a possibility. There is no more evidence of such an war than there is of a large asteroid striking New York tomorrow... Once again the American media is simply blowing everything out of proportion, not in the name of (and this may suprise you) actual American interests, but in the name of ratings...

Lets face it, nuclear war and warmongering makes a good story, and the American public seem to be lapping it up without paying any attention to the amazing lack of any real evidence that Iran is looking for a scrap Hasn't Iran actually been clamouring for peace talks for almost a year? And who, oh who, has been refusing on the basis that "we don't negoitiate with terrorists"?

The only 'threat' posed to America is the possibility that FOX might lose a few dollars if 'Nuclear Iran' ceases to be an captial-generating story... In a system where the Media is private and one has freedom of communication, the interests of the news company is often broadcasted over the interests of the State... Why report 'everything is fine in Iran' when 'Nuclear War!' gets more viewers? Again I ask, is there any mildly plausible evidence that Iran is a threat, or that attacking Iran would actually be in US interests?

Come to think of it you're right. They have one half-built nuclear power plant that doesn't work yet. By next year they might have two, maybe three plutonium rods. The Billions of dollars invested in American missile defence systems will never cut it with this kind of advanced technology, we're all doomed. In fact i'm going to go build a bomb shelter right now to prepare for the nuclear apocalypse.

 

Who did Irean attack? Up until now nobody. Israel on the other hand did start 4 wars and attacked its neighbours and is openly threthening with use of force. Yet nuclear Israel is not a problem or is it?

 

Israel did not just "start 4 wars" - prime examples of preemptive strikes if you ask me.

 

Preemptive war is by definition agressive war i.e. crime against humanity. In Nuermberg some honest soldiers were hanged for that.
BTW So was German invasion of Norvay (to preempt British-French taking of port of Narvik under guise of help for Finnland).

 

I'm worried that we will get into another Israel debate...
However...

4 Wars? Let's see...

1948 - they were attacked
1967 - they attacked
1973 - they were attacked
1980-something Infatada - they were attacked
(recently) Lebanon - they attacked.

That's 2 they started and 3 that their enemies did. Or did I miss some?

I even have sympathy for the wars they started, as their multiple enemies have given the stated aim of completely removing Israel from the map.

Oh, and is Israel definately nuclear? Last I knew nobody was quite sure and Israel weren't telling. This may have changed...

 

At least the Six-Day War can rightfully be labelled as a pre-emptive strike, in that military preperations for an attack on Israel were in process.

 

I don't think there is much doubt that Israel is nuclear capable, and has been since the 1970's.

 

It would be great if there was no ambiguity in life and everything was black or white. That isn't the case so there will always be some debate about whether a preemptive strike, whether it's Germany invading Norway or Israel striking her neighbors in 1967, amounts to a war of aggression or a wise strategic move. People have different perspectives thus will always have differing views on such issues. If a consensus is the deciding factor then there is little doubt that Germany was the unwarranted aggressor in the attack on Norway and though there was at one time a consensus that supported the Israeli premptive strike IMO that issue is still in the undecided column.

 

Ricky you missed a few wars:
1948 - they were attacked but they also attacked themselves.
1956 - Israel attacked (unprovoked i might add) Egypt
1967 - Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and was attacked by Jordania (joint command).
1973- they were attacked by Egypt
1982 - they attacked Lebanon and occupied it
2006 - they attacked Lebanon

Then you have number of Israeli land and air incursions into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq (Osiraq reactor) not counted in the upper list.

Not really. Egypt was indeed full of war rehoric, but nowdays it is considered that all they wanted was few concessions on Sinai. Their closing of sea corridor to Eilat is still duboius as no ships going to that harbour was realy stopped (quite a few ships went trough in the time of so called blockade and none were stopped).

Israel is definitly nuclear with 200+ warheads on ballistic missiles, bombs and cruise missiles.
New president was quite happy to explain his role in building and deceptions of IAEI inspectors in Demona. BTW reactor was supplied by French and paid by US.

 

The invasion of Norway in 1940 and the Six-Day wars cannot be compared as such.

Norway was no direct threat to Germany though, only a strategic asset. Egypt was a direct threat to Israel at that time. Agressive wars are not per se morally wrong IMO - NATO cleaning up in Serbia was a good thing. The invasion of France in '44 by the Allied was "agressive" in nature (what invasion isn't?) - I bet the French caught in the crossfire felt that way - but in the end, most people would agree that it was just.