It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by Starseek
Iran sometimes threatens to withdraw from the NPT because they feel they are being treated unfairly (which is what North Korea did). So perhaps Iran should withdraw from the NPT and build a weapon. That would be fine, I guess?
Yep, that would be fine. it would jerk the rug right out from under all the folks whining about "NPT this" and "NPT that". There would no longer be a legitimate (or perceived legitimate, given the rhetoric and propaganda involved) basis for complaint.
Seriously - do you really think Iran would nuke Israel? that's all tall talk. If they had a nuke - or even a few hundred of them - they'd do what everyone else with nukes does. they'd sit on it and brag about it, and that's about it. "Crazy like a fox" comes to mind. people may THINK they're crazy, but there is method to their madness, and they're not going to risk national erasure just to irradiate a few holy sites in Palestine - that would pretty much ruin the land for those "poor, poor Palestinians" too, wouldn't it?
So, as long as they can make people THINK they're crazy, people are more likely to tread lightly. People are scared of crazy people, period. they give them a wider berth. So if one can convince everyone else he's nuts, then they are more likely to leave him be.
Yeah, they're crazy - crazy like a fox.
And as far as countries 'keeping their word,' how many countries do you think are in violation of treaty obligations? The Vienna Conventions being only one example. And let's not even go into the rights and wrongs (in International Law) of regime change and the occupation of foreign states...
Pretty much all of them are in violation, at one point or another. So what's your point? it's ok to lie and cheat yourself because the guy next door does it to? You live that way if you like - I'm not going to. It catches up with you in the end, and we ALL have an end.
Do you really think that equation will hold up with people who believe there's 72 virgins waiting in paradise?
Sorry, that equation gets too many variables as the number of countries increase. Also, it leaves out the "keeping up with the Jones'", phenomena which in the long run defeats it..
Food chain issues tend to be regional. As there has been, at least in modern times, two world wars and neither of them were of the food chain variety,
...it's safe to say that the Palastinian-Israeli issue won't lead to a world war by itself.
At best, an excuse for one, by many countries who couldn't care less about the Palastinians whatsoever. Both Muslim and non-muslim.
You quote percentages of Israeli votes. That is a complete hoot. That vote split is about where the line is drawn on the issue, not the erasing of it,(the line) as in no more Israel. That vote would be somewhere around 98%..
As a matter of fact, the current regime in Iran would probably do cart-wheels if they could actually recieve 45% favorable vote. Not to mention all Muslim nations, as apparently, they bail out of their native countries as fast as they can, move to Europe, Canada, the U.S....anywhere but under the "enlightened sharia law" . Economies and democracies don't seem to flourish in those conditions.
As far as Israel being "illegal", it depends on who you talk to, doesn't it?
As far as reading books goes, you might consider doing a bit less reading, lift your head up and look at that thing called reality....it's all around you, if you could but precieve.
Israel-Muslim is a different story. Israel cannot win that one. But they can take out the vast majority of the Muslim world, starting with Mecca and Medina. The question isn't whether Israel would/will do so, the question is will the Muslim world allow Israeli survival and thus survive themselves as well??
Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by nwtrucker
Wow, it's a rare day when I'm this surprised.
Decades ago,I read and enjoyed a science fiction series by Issac Azimov entitled "The Foundation" series.
I seemed to recall the name of the chap who was supposed to be the architect of this "psychology' , I think Sheldon, if I'm not mistaken.
So in trying to check if I had the name right, I find courses that you can download to instruct this concept to people interested in learning it, to my stunned amazment. Here I thought "Trekkies" were out there.
Is there, by any chance, a connection between this concept and what your referring to? If there is, then I would relegate it to the Science Fiction department to join the psychiatric, inhumanities and other psuedo-sciences that plague this planet.
Bottem line, the thread is about Iran, not math.lol.
Originally posted by Starseek
reply to post by SplitInfinity
Umm, you say that without US support for the Shah, the Soviet Union would have swept into Iran. Do you have any evidence for this?
That's the line MI6 fed to the CIA to gain their support for a coup. Why do you believe it?
Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by milominderbinder
First, let me address the issue of "Educated". It is your idea of the "Educated" that has gotten this planet in the mess that it is in. From the "political scientists", another psuedo science, to the lawyers,political leaders who "decide" what is "Legal". This disaster lies fully at your genre's feet.
Throw in your now worn out" I'm Educated, your not, learn before you opine" . It doesn't wash any more.
Your attitude is even worse, in my opinion. You profess education, spout a biased viewpoint that's blatantly one-sided then dive behind "Education".
Any validity in your argument becomes lessened by the bias, especially when nothing is that one-sided.
You paint a picture that the Middle-east would be flourishing, sane, productive democratic nations if it wasn't for England and the U.S.
Frankly, your stance is insulting as it is incomplete/onesided.
Crusades don't even occur without invasion of Europe by these peaceful Muslims. The first war the U.S. was involved in after it became a country was against Muslims.
The idea of what was "legal" in 1948 has somewhat changed since then. The original members of the U.N. would be stunned at what the U.N. has morphed into and laugh at the current regime's definition of "Legal". In case it hasn't been pointed out in your classes, the definition of "lawful", hencde legal changes depending who's in power with what agenda.
What you completely ignore, is Israel isn't going away, isn't committing a national suicide as, apparently, you and those of your ilk would like, will NEVER, give in. No matter how you spin the political vote swings in Israel, none vote to cede the existance of their nation.
It does exist. fait accompli. Period.
A dirty little secret for you to mull on , respect for Europe as a whole sits somewhere on a par with the Mid-east overall. Both stupid, war driven to the extreme. Neither to be particularly emulated in any way.
As far as the 40's and 50's go, there was a cold war. mitigating to say the least. A reason or justification for war against Israel. Garbage! virtual suicide!!
The middle east and europe has been nothing but a pain in the U.S.'s rear! a pox on you both!! LOL
Originally posted by spy66
Anybody wonder what happened to the Al Qaeda terrorists active in Libya and Egypt? Have they all left to be relocated in Syria and Iran?
To me it seams like Al Qaeda moves parallel to US interests. And now suddenly active in Syria and Iran.
Have nobody paid any attention to this?
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Poopooplatter
Here you go
If I'm not mistaken they're all Islamic countries.
Originally posted by milominderbinder
.
It is obvious that Iran has some serious internal issues.(I know many Iranians in the U.S. who are very pro-U.S.
Sure. Right up until we start bombing Iran and a bunch of civilians who "get in the way". People have a remarkable propensity to change their opinion when their friends and family members are blown to bits.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by milominderbinder
.
It is obvious that Iran has some serious internal issues.(I know many Iranians in the U.S. who are very pro-U.S.
Sure. Right up until we start bombing Iran and a bunch of civilians who "get in the way". People have a remarkable propensity to change their opinion when their friends and family members are blown to bits.
Just to add, there's the whole "patriotism" thing. It's not just available to be exploited in the US - other countries have it, too. there's nothing like attacking a country to pull the citizens all together and get them aimed in the same direction, regardless of their previous bickering.
First, let me address the issue of "Educated". It is your idea of the "Educated" that has gotten this planet in the mess that it is in.
From the "political scientists", another psuedo science, to the lawyers,political leaders who "decide" what is "Legal".
This disaster lies fully at your genre's feet.
Throw in your now worn out" I'm Educated, your not, learn before you opine" . It doesn't wash any more.
Your attitude is even worse, in my opinion. You profess education, spout a biased viewpoint that's blatantly one-sided then dive behind "Education".
Any validity in your argument becomes lessened by the bias, especially when nothing is that one-sided.
No I don't. I can't begin to guess what would have happened in alternative timelines. What I stated was that the Middle East as a whole either had or were moving towards western-style, secular, democratically-inspired republics... but that this was ESPECIALLY the case in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. This isn't my opinion. It is 100% fact as ANYONE who has any knowledge whatsoever of ANYTHING in the Middle East already knows. Similarly, it is also indisputable fact that the US intelligence apparati toppled these governments and installed puppet dictators and religious zealots.
You paint a picture that the Middle-east would be flourishing, sane, productive democratic nations if it wasn't for England and the U.S. Frankly, your stance is insulting as it is incomplete/onesided.
Crusades don't even occur without invasion of Europe by these peaceful Muslims.
The first war the U.S. was involved in after it became a country was against Muslims.
The idea of what was "legal" in 1948 has somewhat changed since then.
The original members of the U.N. would be stunned at what the U.N. has morphed into and laugh at the current regime's definition of "Legal". In case it hasn't been pointed out in your classes, the definition of "lawful", hencde legal changes depending who's in power with what agenda.
What you completely ignore, is Israel isn't going away, isn't committing a national suicide as, apparently, you and those of your ilk would like, will NEVER, give in. No matter how you spin the political vote swings in Israel, none vote to cede the existance of their nation.