Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal

page: 12
81
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee
 


No. And since you acknowledged not having any information about this, perhaps you should do some research before you ask something so gratuitous.

This issue goes back to the late 50's. Israel was reprimanded then by numerous parties for pursuing nuclear weapons.

Link

Of course, the major parties - America in particular - looked the other way, knowing that Israels survival depended on their having nuclear weapons to dissuade their enemies from overrunning them.




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shminkee Pinkee
Has anyone ever considered that Israel might not have Nuclear weapons and just perpetuates the idea for it's own gain. I'm not really clued up on this so forgive me, but it could be a bluff on a huge scale, they won't confirm or deny they have them to my knowledge, and because they haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty, they don't have to answer to anyone. So could they be bluffing?


I'll forgive you for not having a clue on the matter, but tell you that you are terribly lazy if you can't be bothered to do a 10-sec google search on "Israel nuclear weapons" before throwing out your supposition, which you acknowledge is made out of ignorance.

For starters, check this article by the Federation of American Scientists, which cites CIA reports, amongst other sources:

FAS - Israel nuclear weapons

It's very well documented that they do have these weapons. So well so, that I am not going to waste my time looking up any more sources for you. There are plenty of articles and a few books on the subject, as well as any number of pertinent webpages. It is documented that Israel was in cahoots with Apartheid South Africa: Israel supplied the technology and SA supplied the Uranium. There was a blast of the coast of Madagascar, sometime in the 1970's. The US looked the other way or at least never made it known that they knew what occurred. There was an Israeli scientist/engineer/technician (not sure which), Mordechai Vanunu, who was involved in Israel's nuclear program, went public on the matter and got thrown into prison for a number of years for releasing state secrets. Do a search on the Dimona complex in the Negev desert. Even most US government apologists for Israel acknowledge that Israel is believed to have nuclear weapons in the hundreds (250-500).



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall

I don't deny their is an enormous military-industrial complex. With that comes higher risk of abuse but overall the US military has kept the world more peaceful. The Iraq war was a prime example of abuse of the system taking place but you can't wash away all the good that's been done because of a couple rogue leaders.


I'd say the damages wreaked in Viet Nam and Iraq alone far outweigh any good that we've done militarily since WWII, and in WWII we still committed mass war crimes with the strategic bombing and dropping of two atomic bombs. US and British military leaders from the period have acknowledged as much.


Originally posted by libertytoall
I think that depends if these are sales to legitimate places or not. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman are responsible for the majority of those sales and the sales consisted of warplanes and missile defense systems. In this case I don't see it as a good example of producing a powder keg. I mean most of it was missile defense.. Can you come up with something better?


No, a lot of these sales go to Israel, Egypt and Pakistan. Other go to Africa for conflicts there. The weapons going to the Gulf states are not all missile defense; some are for conventional weapons to fight popular uprisings in those countries. We gave military aid to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, before Iraq invaded Kuwait. That worked out well. We gave aid to the the Afghans fighting the Soviets. That worked out REALLY WELL. Never mind that all the planes an tanks we sell (and those we use in conflicts) help to dwindle petroleum resources and spur climate change (ask all the parts of the US facing droughts and wildfires how climate change is affecting them).


Originally posted by libertytoall
Don't they have to be somewhat oppressive if the people are being somewhat rebellious and violent? Iraq and Vietnam aren't the only wars the US has been in. Did you forget saving the world in WWII? How about countless missions in south America and Africa to remove brutal drug lords and murderous dictators? How about Korea? How about stopping Saddam in the first Gulf war from taking over Kuwait? When Turkey invaded Cypress? The Congo? The Philippines, Panama, or Columbia? Countless rescue operations in Africa? I think you get the point..


Man, you have the most ironic name EVAR, "libertytoall", but you're all for oppressive governments keeping their people down. Rebellious and violent? I believe that is what the Founding Fathers of the US were -- last time I checked.

We overthrew a Democratic government in Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah. We helped overthrow a democratic government in Chile in ~ 1974. Ever hear of the School of the Americas? It's where the US Army teaches South/Latin American soldiers to torture and other violent counter-insurgency methods to keep their peoples oppressed. The only dictator we ever took out was Noriega, and he wasn't all that bad, and we killed about 2,000 Panamanians living in the poor part of town doing so. Otherwise, we have a history of supporting dictators down there. We didn't do anything in Cypress or the Congo. We helped to keep a dictator in the Philippines for years -- as well as one in South Korea. I acknowledge that we have kept SK from being attacked or overrun since 1950, and that, of course we kept the USSR out of western Europe. All these other cases you cite are not paragons of US benevolence. And as for fighting drug lords, what about the Iran/Contra affair when the CIA was flying/selling coc aine to fund the Contras. It did the same thing with Heroin during the Vietnam war.


And you're just plain wrong with respect to Uranium. Normal Uranium is in DU -- not to mention trace amounts of more radioactive isotopes as well as Plutonium and other nasty radionuclides. And any form of Uranium is a nastier, toxic, heavy metal than lead. And all forms of Uranium are radioactive to some degree. Swallowing some will cause some radiation damage, but far worse is breathing it in, as it will get stuck in the lungs. And a large proportion of DU munitions vaporize aerosolize upon explosion. These particles get blown into the air and breathed in. There is a reason western countries are very concerned about dirty bomb terrorism, and it could make use of just such material. That said, all the spraying of lead by US forces all around the world is doing no environmental good either, and is leaving a terrible legacy.

You say DU is safe, that all the health issues are myths, but provide no back-up evidence of this.

The WHO report is biased and selective in its statements, as DU-using countries wield the most weight in the UN. Do a google search and look for non-government reports, as DU-using governments are not to be trusted in their claims about the safety of DU munitions. Here is but one link:

DU health risks

There are many.

edit on 5-9-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by libertytoall

blah blah blah kidnapping Canadians and sending them overseas for torture etc..


Could you provide some evidence of that?


Google "Canadian rendition victim" or "Maher Arar" or look him up in wikipedia, but here is one link regarding testimony of his to the US Congress:

Canadian victim of US rendition

It's very well documented, and his is not the only such or similar case. It blows my mind that you have never heard of this or other cases. Did you not just hear that the Obummer DoJ just shutdown its investigation of murders by CIA interrogators?:

DoJ ends CIA torture investigation without charges



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 





because we pay no mind to various religions' mumbo jumbo?


When the government in question is BASED on that 'various religious mumbo jumbo' - YES - absolutely you should pay attention to it.

Were not talking about a liberal democracy here. Were talking about an Islamist - an Islamic political entity. This is what Islamism means. Above Iran's parliamentary system stands the Islamic Guardian Council, who's duties undermine the very purpose of democracy:



  • Increases the role of the army in everyday life

    The Council favors military candidates at the expense of reform candidates. This ensures that the ideological Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (separate from the Iranian army) holds a commanding influence over the political, economic, and cultural life of Iran.[11]

  • Arbitrarily disqualifies candidates from elections

    After conservative candidates fared poorly in the 2000 parliamentary elections, the Council disqualified more than 3,600 reformist and independent candidates for the 2004 elections.

  • Rule by unelected leaders

    Link


  • What you're saying is dumbfounding in it's stupidity.

    Are you Muslim? If you were Muslim, what would you think of the Hadiths and their predictions?? You take the leaders of Iran for European moral relativists and secularists - who put utilitarian issues above that of religious concerns i.e. the raison d'etre of the 1979 Iranian revolution.

    Iran SUPPLIES Hezbollah and Hamas with financial support. They are the leading supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. And you have the haughtiness - or sheer idiocy - to think religion and Islamic philosophy is unimportant to the regime in Tehran??? That we should just ignore Islamic eschatology - which already fuels so much of their foreign policy - and it's significance for Israel - and ignore that it's religious fundamentalist shi'ite dogma of the Imam Mahdi bodes ill to Israels existence?




    Talking about religious myths/prophesies, what about the Second Coming of Christ and the End of Times?


    If America were OFFICIALLY a theocratic Christian nation, yes, that would be a concern. But no. There is no 'guardian council' overlooking US politics. US politics is more than balanced enough to subvert any religious imposition in politics.




    You think countries that are in part or fully controlled by such nut jobs should have nuclear weapons?


    It's as if you have difficulty distinguishing an official stance of government: of a government being founded on a religious doctrine - as in Iran - and the presence of religious fanatics on the periphery of mainstream politics

    Yes, Israel has far right wing fanatics. Same with America. Neither of them have sufficient influence on government policy to effect their goals.

    Thus, your argument, as is obvious to anyone with a brain, is moronic.
    edit on 5-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:40 AM
    link   
    reply to post by MrInquisitive
     


    Using your same source, the Federation of American Scientists, we see Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons as well.

    FAS - Nuclear Weapons - Iran

    Recent Developments:
    Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2009.
    There are ongoing investigations by the IAEA concerning Iran's compliance with the NPT. At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. In June of 2003, an IAEA Director General report stated that Iran had not met the obligations required of it by the NPT. A November 2003 report identified further violations. In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors. In December 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. The protocol was signed as an addition to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Remaining uncertainties surrounding Iran's uranium enrichment activities were addressed in the IAEA's November 2004 report. IAEA Deputy Director for Safeguards, Pierre Goldschmidt, reported in June 2005 that Iran had admitted to separating out small amounts of plutonium as recently as 1998.

    Despite suspending its enrichment and conversion programs in 2003, Iran resumed uranium conversion in 2005 and enrichment in 2006. In 2009, it was revealed that Iran had secretly constructed a second enrichment facility within a Revolutionary Guards military base twenty miles from the city of Qum. The enrichment facility near Qum is smaller than the Natanz enrichment facility. The smaller size of the Qum enrichment facility combined with its location within a military base suggests to some that this second enrichment plant is not for enriching uranium required for generating civil nuclear power. Iran maintains that the facility is necessary for enriching uranium for its research reactor and it was built due to worries that the Natanz facility is vulnerable to attack. One study notes that the Qum enrichment facility is potentially too small to be an effective enrichment plant for weapons grade material. In the study’s conclusion, the authors note that the Qum enrichment facility is “neither ideal for commercial nor military purposes.”


    Visit link above for remainder of article and resources.

    I wonder why they are refusing to allow inspectors into some of their military facilities that are being used in their "civilian"nuclear program?

    Also so we can keep this somewhat on topic -
    Israel is not a signatory to the NPT nor a member of the IAEA - meaning they are not subject to inspections. Iran on the other hand signed both, and if they wish to pursue a weapons program all they need to do is pull out of the treaties, like North Korea did.

    If people insist on inspecting israeli facilities by force when they are not subject to the treaty then the very same should apply to Iran, who by the way ARE subject to the treaties.

    To answer a question people keep asking about Israel attending the IAEA meetings - plerase practice what you preach to others by doing some research. If people did this they would see the answer was provided on page 1 -

    IAEA - Rules of Procedure of the General Conference

    V. Representation of Other Organizations and of States not Members of the Agency


    Rule 30. Representatives of States not Members of the Agency

    Representatives of States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies which are not Members of the Agency shall be invited to attend the General Conference and may participate without vote on matters of direct concern to them.


    One last thing - The Israeli government has neither confirmed nor denied a nuclear weapons pogram. To state as fact that they have one allows the same to be applied to Iran - that Iran is in fact developing a nuclear weapons program.

    The claim for Israel is based on intelligence and classified documents, just as Irans program is based on, and might I add both sources are the US.

    So if its against Israel is reliable but if its against Iran its not?

    The constant invocation of Israel every time Irans nuclear program comes up is about as useful as the invocation of Bush every time Obama comes up.

    Its nothing more than a deflection coupled with an excuse.
    edit on 6-9-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:17 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Xcathdra
    reply to post by MrInquisitive

    Using your same source, the Federation of American Scientists, we see Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons as well.

    FAS - Nuclear Weapons - Iran

    ...Also so we can keep this somewhat on topic -
    Israel is not a signatory to the NPT nor a member of the IAEA - meaning they are not subject to inspections. Iran on the other hand signed both, and if they wish to pursue a weapons program all they need to do is pull out of the treaties, like North Korea did.

    If people insist on inspecting israeli facilities by force when they are not subject to the treaty then the very same should apply to Iran, who by the way ARE subject to the treaties.

    One last thing - The Israeli government has neither confirmed nor denied a nuclear weapons pogram. To state as fact that they have one allows the same to be applied to Iran - that Iran is in fact developing a nuclear weapons program.

    The claim for Israel is based on intelligence and classified documents, just as Irans program is based on, and might I add both sources are the US.

    So if its against Israel is reliable but if its against Iran its not?

    The constant invocation of Israel every time Irans nuclear program comes up is about as useful as the invocation of Bush every time Obama comes up.

    Its nothing more than a deflection coupled with an excuse.


    You know, I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that Iran is not possibly developing nuclear weapons. But WHAT does that have to with countries in the region wanting Israel to face inspections of Its nuclear program, similar to what Iraq and Iran have been forced or are continuing to be forced to do??? At the end of your post you claim that I and others wishing to have Israel face similar inspections as deflecting and making excuses, when it is, in fact, people like yourself who are doing the deflecting and excuse making. This thread is supposed to be about M.E. countries wanting Israel -- a country HIGHLY REGARDED as already having nuclear weapons since the late 1960's -- to allow international inspection of Its nuclear program. This thread is not about Iran and Its nuclear program or whether or not Muslim nations are fit to be trusted with nuclear weapons. It's about forcing Israel to bow to the same standards as it is insisting on with respect to Iran. Yet, all you Israel defenders and Islamphobes want to turn the topic onto tangents -- SURPRISE, SURPRISE!

    BTW, your quotes from the FAS only talk about the fact that Iran has an uranium processing program. It mentions nothing specifically about a nuclear weapons program. Your headline is flat-out false, based on the evidence you provide. But that's par for the course for Israel defenders and warmongers looking to attack Iran, another oil rich country in the M.E.

    No one here has said Iran shouldn't be required to allow inspections. All that is being asked for is Israel to be held to the same standards. I fully realize that Israel has not signed the NPT, but the fact that it is lobbying for attacks against Iran for not coming completely clean with Its program is the hight of hypocrisy and thuggery. If it wants the international community to put pressure on Iran, then it needs to hold itself to the same standard. THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

    And as for your claim that Israel's nuclear program is pure speculation, there is abundant evidence suggesting it is a fact. Did you look into the case of Mordechai Vanunu? The FAS report I cited cites CIA reports that Israel very likely has nuclear weapons. There are many articles and books that also document this fairly certain fact. I believe information on Israel's nuclear collaboration with South Africa came out after the change in government there. Also if I remember rightly, there have been reports of nuclear contamination near the top secret Israeli Dimona nuclear facility -- which is definitely a nuclear facility, no speculation about it. Why would it be top secret if it were purely for non-military purposes.

    On the other hand, the last CIA reports that have come out have said that there is no evidence that Iran is currently engaged in a nulcear weapons program. But I digress, because this thread is about Israel and Its program.

    To equate the likelihood of Israel's nuclear weapons program with Iran's is just specious or ignorant. But again, that is not the point of this thread. Want to talk about Iran's possible nuclear weapons program? THEN START YOUR OWN THREAD!!! This one is about subjecting Israel to international inspections of Its VERY probable (i.e. 99.9% likely) nuclear weapons program.



    posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:54 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by dontreally
    reply to post by MrInquisitive
     


    When the government in question is BASED on that 'various religious mumbo jumbo' - YES - absolutely you should pay attention to it.

    Were not talking about a liberal democracy here. Were talking about an Islamist - an Islamic political entity.
    ...
    You think countries that are in part or fully controlled by such nut jobs should have nuclear weapons?
    ...
    Yes, Israel has far right wing fanatics. Same with America. Neither of them have sufficient influence on government policy to effect their goals.


    So since all American politicians and both major parties spout rhetoric about being God-fearing Christians and insist on "In God We Trust" stamped on our money and "one nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance, and rightwingers insist on their claims that we our a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, then should all countries consider the US a bit of a theocracy too? After all Bush II claimed God told him to go to war against Iraq. So should peoples around the world of other religious backgrounds make a big deal out of Christian religion and how it makes the US dangerous?

    So what if Iran is not democratic to our liking? Neither was the Soviet Union, nor is Russia or China and they have nuclear weapons, and they haven't done crazy things with them. The US has lost hydrogen bombs in Spain and just off the Gulf coast of the US, not to mention actually using them on civilian targets in WWII. Seems the US is the crazy nuclear armed country. In fact, during the Bush II administration, the Pentagon was studying a change of policy to using pre-emptive nuclear weapons upon countries possibly developing nuclear weapons, which is in contravention of the NPT, so if anyone is breaking the NPT, it is the US.

    The US has been controlled by nut jobs, to wit: Bush II. It was Bush who started a bunch of wars, not Iran, so I trust Iran to act more rationally and less belligerently than the US.

    The US had a nut job president who claimed God talked to him and told him to go to war. Romney's campaign rhetoric is very bellicose towards Iran; Obama's is only marginally less so. Israel's rhetoric towards Iran is EXTREMELY bellicose. Israel engages in piracy on the high seas, killing citizens of it former best ally in the region, Turkey. Israel is controlled by Its extreme right-wing political parties, and the country is essentially an apartheid state with some theocracy thrown in. And it has been involved in many wars, many of Its choosing, while Iran was only engaged in a defensive war against Iraq, in which the US provided military intelligence and economic aid to the aggressor, Iraq.

    So Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas. So what? The US supported the Taliban when it was the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets. It was also giving aid to the actual Taliban up to 9/11. We give billions in aid to Pakistan which supports terrorist Islamic groups such as the Haquani network as well as terrorist groups that fight India. Israel supports the Iranian terrorist organization, the MLK. So again, your kind apparently wants a double standard: the US and Israel can support terrorist groups, but Iran can't. Moreover, I'd argue that Hezbollah and Hamas are military/political organizations that have a terrorist wing. The US and Israel engage in terrorist activities too, but nobody in the media or politics has the balls to state this fact. If you start a war to cause regime change that is de facto terrorism.

    But again, this thread is about the international community insisting that Israel face international inspections of Its nuclear facilities. It is not about Iran's possible nuclear weapons program, the rationality of Iran's government, or the mindset/ideology of Muslim governments in general. All such rhetoric is only meant to deflect from the original point of this thread -- but that's the only game the Israel defenders have.



    posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:13 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by dontreally
    To just highlight the Jewishness - and Hebrew foundations of - the land of Israel, just look at these Arabizations of Hebrew names:

    Town Names Betray Their True History
    Finally, Ettinger says that almost all Arab localities in Judea and Samaria have retained Biblical Jewish names, thus reaffirming their Jewish roots. Examples include the following:

    * Anata is Biblical (and contemporary) Anatot, the dwelling of the Prophet Jeremiah.
    * Batir is Biblical (and contemporary) Beitar, the headquarters of Bar Kochba, the leader of the Great Rebellion against the Roman Empire, which was suppressed in 135CE.

    blah, blah, blah


    The same can be said of Native American names of various place names in the US. THEY'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE! So are you for giving these people their homelands back? They were taken away more recently than Judea from the Jews. They did not want to go on the reservations and many tribes have had their most sacred lands taken away and often developed. Are you a US citizen? You do realize that most US citizens migrated here? In fact all humans living here had ancestors who at some point migrated here.

    The Judeans made the mistake of pissing-off the Roman Empire and got scattered to the four winds. That's their problem. It shouldn't be the problem of Arabs who have lived their for thousands of years. And these Hebrew place names you mention, I am sure they are called by their Hebrew names by the Jews, but I'll bet dollars to falafel (or donuts, if you prefer) that the Arabs have their own Arabic place names.

    I've been told by Jewish Israelis that there aren't swear words in Hebrew, but rather they use Arabic terms as swear words. Does this mean the Jews don't have a legitimate culture and have stolen from the Arabs? My point is I wouldn't go by semantics to make a case for a Jewish homeland.



    posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:05 AM
    link   
    reply to post by dontreally
     


    n.b.: I'm tired of trying to quote things from previous posts, so I am just going to address issues and do my best to provide the context of what I am replying to.

    You say that Palestinians are a subgroup of Arabs. This is not disputed, but because of this, you claim that the Palestinians should claim Palestine has their home, but should go back to Jordan or elsewhere. The same argument can be made of Americans of various European descents. In particular those of English-speaking peoples. The British, Scotts, Welsh, Irish, "Americans", Australians and New Zealanders share, in large part, a common history, culture and language. They should go back to Europe and give the place back to the native peoples. Are you for this? If not, then your argument for giving long-lost homelands back to Jews is lost.

    Your citing an Amazon summary of a book points to the fact that the Philistines migrated to the Levant about 1200 BC. So they migrated to there at one time. And are you going to claim that the Judeans didn't migrate from somewhere else besides Judea proper? As I understand it, King David lead his people out of the desert and ethnically cleansed Judea and Samaria for this Jewish tribes folk, so they weren't the first humans there either.

    Reading the wikipedia entries on the Philistine and Palestinian peoples, it says that the Philistines were absorbed into the various cultures that moved into the region. It also says that the Palestinians are genetically the descendents of Christians, Jews and other EARLIER inhabitants of the Levant (seems like this would include the Philistines), but are primarily Muslim in culture. And the similarity in names is striking. Notice how "Judean" and "Jew" are exactly spelled or pronounced the same, but essentially refer to the same ethnic/religious group? You claim the Palestinians didn't arrive on the scene until the 1920's/1930's. Clearly this is not the case. Did waves of migrating peoples come to hitherto Judea? Yes, and this included cultural waves, Including Islam. In any case, there were people living there all along, and no doubt an intermixing with the inhabitants already there. It's not a case of the Jews only being there and the Palestinians being the new guys on the block in the 20th century.

    More on the origin of the word "Palestine":

    origin of the term "Palestine"



    Where did the name Palestine come from? The name Palestine is given to the region spreading from eastern Mediterranean coast to the Jordan Valley to the area covering Galilee Lake in the north and southern Negev Desert. The origin of this word lies in “Plesheth”. This is a name appearing frequently in the Bible and have started being known as “Philistine” in English. The world root of “Plesheth” lies in the word “palah” was is a term used generally in the sense of migratory, referring to the Palestinian’s conquest of the coast of Mediterranean.


    You say that the advent of Islam spread the Arabs into historical Judea, displacing the local populations. My understanding is that, yes people moved in, but there was intermixing as well, not to mention the conversion of the indigenous peoples to the Muslim faith. Human history has been one migration/invasion/displacement after another. However, with the advent of the United Nations, this was no longer the case; a fundamental human right is to have a homeland, and there are to be no further wars of aggression and land grabbing. Yet this is what the creation of Israel was, in fact.


    And as for political boundaries in the area, most of the current boundaries were established by the US and the victorious European countries after WWI, with the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. The people living there abouts didn't have a lot to say in the matter. Furthermore, the British helped establish the ruling clans that still dominate many of these countries.

    My notion of relocating the European Jews to the US after WWII is meant as the best solution for a people no longer really wanting to live in Europe where they were done severely wrongly. It is a solution that would cause the least dislocation of other peoples. The creation of Israel caused the uprooting of over 700,000 people and now their descendents, numbering in the millions, are kept in squallid reservations by the Israeli conquerors. This should not stand in the 20th or 21st centuries. And by all rights of the UN Charter, it shouldn't. The US, on the other hand, particularly at the time, had plenty of land to spare for a few more million immigrants. Furthermore, a fraction of all the money we have given as military or economic aid to Israel could have been used to buy property for and to set up the Jewish refugees.



    posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:29 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by MrInquisitive

    Originally posted by libertytoall

    I don't deny their is an enormous military-industrial complex. With that comes higher risk of abuse but overall the US military has kept the world more peaceful. The Iraq war was a prime example of abuse of the system taking place but you can't wash away all the good that's been done because of a couple rogue leaders.


    I'd say the damages wreaked in Viet Nam and Iraq alone far outweigh any good that we've done militarily since WWII, and in WWII we still committed mass war crimes with the strategic bombing and dropping of two atomic bombs. US and British military leaders from the period have acknowledged as much.


    US and British military leaders have acknowledged we committed mass war crimes in WWII?? That doesn't sound like the kind of comments our military leaders would make. I think you're making up your own argument. We had to drop the bombs and I'm damn glad they did it rather than watch another US city go up in smoke.



    Originally posted by libertytoall
    I think that depends if these are sales to legitimate places or not. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman are responsible for the majority of those sales and the sales consisted of warplanes and missile defense systems. In this case I don't see it as a good example of producing a powder keg. I mean most of it was missile defense.. Can you come up with something better?


    No, a lot of these sales go to Israel, Egypt and Pakistan. Other go to Africa for conflicts there. The weapons going to the Gulf states are not all missile defense; some are for conventional weapons to fight popular uprisings in those countries. We gave military aid to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, before Iraq invaded Kuwait. That worked out well. We gave aid to the the Afghans fighting the Soviets. That worked out REALLY WELL. Never mind that all the planes an tanks we sell (and those we use in conflicts) help to dwindle petroleum resources and spur climate change (ask all the parts of the US facing droughts and wildfires how climate change is affecting them).

    You're completely making up crap. "Key U.S. weapons sales in 2011 included:

    - $33.4 billion to Saudi Arabia for 84 Boeing Co F-15 fighters, dozens of helicopters built by Boeing and Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp,

    - $3.49 billion for Lockheed Martin Corp's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, an advanced missile shield, to the United Arab Emirates, and $940 million for 16 Chinook helicopters built by Boeing,

    - $1.4 billion for 18 F-16 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin,

    - a $4.1 billion agreement with India for 10 C-17 transport planes built by Boeing,

    - and a $2 billion order by Taiwan for Patriot antimissile batteries."

    in.reuters.com...

    I see NOTHING in there for Israel, Egypt or Pakistan. Stop making up crap..



    Originally posted by libertytoall
    Don't they have to be somewhat oppressive if the people are being somewhat rebellious and violent? Iraq and Vietnam aren't the only wars the US has been in. Did you forget saving the world in WWII? How about countless missions in south America and Africa to remove brutal drug lords and murderous dictators? How about Korea? How about stopping Saddam in the first Gulf war from taking over Kuwait? When Turkey invaded Cypress? The Congo? The Philippines, Panama, or Columbia? Countless rescue operations in Africa? I think you get the point..


    Man, you have the most ironic name EVAR, "libertytoall", but you're all for oppressive governments keeping their people down. Rebellious and violent? I believe that is what the Founding Fathers of the US were -- last time I checked.

    Now you're going to paint a picture of me that's also COMPLETELY MADE UP? You love to fib don't you? When did I say I support oppressive governments? So what are you trying to say if the founding fathers found themselves in a rebellion they would have shook hands and given up their power? You make some asinine assumptions..


    edit on 6-9-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:42 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    And you're just plain wrong with respect to Uranium. Normal Uranium is in DU -- not to mention trace amounts of more radioactive isotopes as well as Plutonium and other nasty radionuclides. And any form of Uranium is a nastier, toxic, heavy metal than lead. And all forms of Uranium are radioactive to some degree. Swallowing some will cause some radiation damage, but far worse is breathing it in, as it will get stuck in the lungs. And a large proportion of DU munitions vaporize aerosolize upon explosion. These particles get blown into the air and breathed in. There is a reason western countries are very concerned about dirty bomb terrorism, and it could make use of just such material. That said, all the spraying of lead by US forces all around the world is doing no environmental good either, and is leaving a terrible legacy.

    Do you drink coffee? That's bad for you too.. DU has been PROVEN to be safe in it's current applicable use.


    You say DU is safe, that all the health issues are myths, but provide no back-up evidence of this.

    "However, the World Health Organization, the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations which is responsible for setting health research norms and standards, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends, states that no risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans due to DU exposure."

    Want to continue making up bullsh__?


    The WHO report is biased and selective in its statements, as DU-using countries wield the most weight in the UN. Do a google search and look for non-government reports, as DU-using governments are not to be trusted in their claims about the safety

    You mean I should find some reports on tribes.net or newagewizard.net? I only follow reports by people recognized.. You could write a report and put it on the web therefore I'll stick with what NATO, WHO, and the UN have said..
    edit on 6-9-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:56 PM
    link   
    reply to post by MrInquisitive
     


    So your argument appears to be: the present injustice - the fact that Americans occupy America - obviates the past i.e. that this land rightfully belonged to the Natives of America.

    The Europeans stole America from a weak opponent. Therefore, it was strength and power which procured them that right.

    The Jews moved into Palestine not with guns and coercion, but with simple dreams of returning to their ancient homeland - deeply rooted in their historical psyche, in their image as a people. They bought land from the absentee landlord Effendis for above what it was worth. This is the Tel Aviv - Haifa area. The North western portion of the western Palestinian mandate (before the Eastern portion, i.e. Jordan, was splintered and given away to a foreign prince from the Hedjaz - whose brother Faisal - just to show the nepotistic politics going on - was given Iraq) was the part given to the Jews. No more than 100,000 Arabs lived in this area.

    How did Israel grow??? It couldn't have been ANYMORE just and fair. They BOUGHT land. They WORKED the land. THEY transformed the arid deserts and wasteland described by earlier explorers - such as mark Twain - and turned into arable land.

    Only after struggling so hard to achieve their dream of nationhood - to return to their spiritual homeland - did the Arabs decide to initiate an attack against the nascent Jewish state. This being the period between 1947 and 1948. The EXPANSION of Israel occurred through fighting a DEFENSIVE war. It is nothing short of astounding that the Jewish Zionists - who bought land legitimately - and enlarged their territory through fighting a defensive war, can be accused of being conquerers of Arab territory.

    This is the same story with the expansion that occurred after the 1967 war. Again, the Egyptians closed the strait of Tiran - which is a waterway the Israeli's used, particularly for oil transports from Iran - which is a CASSUS BELLI under international law. Israel needed no further provocation. Still, they waited 3 weeks under these conditions while the Egyptians piled up troops along Israels southern border, some 100,000 soldiers and thousands of tanks. Israel preempts the fighting by attacking Egypts airfields - and bam - Israel, despite Egyptian provocation - is accused of being the instigator.

    It is sick. You people are sick. You have no concept of justice.




    I've been told by Jewish Israelis that there aren't swear words in Hebrew, but rather they use Arabic terms as swear words. Does this mean the Jews don't have a legitimate culture and have stolen from the Arabs?


    Quite the opposite. Hebrew is a holy language. Modern Hebrew - which is based on Biblical Hebrew, has borrowed hundreds of words from other languages, mostly from latin, to deal with mundane situations.




    So Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas. So what?


    You are actually quite a lazy debater. So what?? So what if they've already started a war with Israel vicariously through the parties they provide financial, military and intelligence support to? so what?? What kind of crap is that??

    How come it's "so what" when Iran does a wrong to Israel, but when you perceive a wrong in Israel, its a huge fricken deal that we cannot let rest?




    My understanding is that, yes people moved in, but there was intermixing as well, not to mention the conversion of the indigenous peoples to the Muslim faith. Human history has been one migration/invasion/displacement after another.


    Lets be serious for a moment. A nation is only a nation if they preserve basic facts of their nationhood. To call Palestinians the descendants of Philistines - based on nothing more than Hadrian - the roman emperor - deciding to rename the Roman province of Judea "Palestina" after the Biblical nemesis of the Jews, the Philistines, thereby changing the name of the land - and not the people who lived there, is a gross and flagrant misrepresentation of historical fact.

    The Palestinians by the way, if they're historically savvy, will claim descent from the Caananites - not the Philistines - since the Philistines only lived in the little portion in the Gaza area. Therefore, Palestinians like to claim they are descendants of the Canaanites. But how?? How did the Canaanites survive when the vast majority were eliminated in the conquest of Israel by the 12 tribes? And then over Israels 1000 year monarchical period, between the founding of the kingdom in 1000 BCE by David and the fall of the Hasmonean dynasty when the Romans came in. When?? It's a lie. A pure fabrication. To assume that as fact is to ignore the intervening history between the Canaanites and the Muslim invaders i.e. the 1400 year period, between Joshua, in 1300 BCE, and the dispersion of the Jews from Judea in 135 CE by Hadrian.

    Fact is, the Palestinians are a melange of Arabs, some indigenous to the area, going back some 1000 years at most, but the majority are migrants - since migration is the way of living in the desolate and highly unstable regions of the Middle East and North Africa. Many come from Egypt, from Northern Syria, some as far as Libya, Iraq and the Hedjaz.

    And as for what makes the Palestinians unique? Please. Show me your evidence from the wikipedia pages you apparently get your knowledge from. A unique language? nope. Arabic, just like the rest of the Arab world. Religion? Nope. Islam, particularly Sunni. Culture and tradition? As many Arabists maintain, the Palestinians are near identical to residents of Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. So what makes them a nation? What's the fuss over their being deprived a 'land of their own', if, when compared to the Jews, they are as different as a New Hampshirite is from a Vermontinian.

    The pressing concern should be for those REAL people . I.E Jews, or Kurds, Basque, Tibetans, Berbs etc - who have been deprived a nation state of their own.
    edit on 7-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:57 PM
    link   
    I would be upset also if my neighbor told me he was going to blow me up
    as soon as his weapon of choice was made and no one would help me take care
    of the psycho



    posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:22 PM
    link   
    reply to post by MrInquisitive
     





    The creation of Israel caused the uprooting of over 700,000 people and now their descendents, numbering in the millions, are kept in squallid reservations by the Israeli conquerors.


    Do you know why the Palestinians have their own UN agency - UNRWA - to deal directly with them? Why do you think that is??? I'm sure you know.

    The Palestinians are given special exemptions from official UN definition of what qualifies as a refugee. Refugees are people who need to be politically relocated.

    After the Arabs ATTACKED Israel after '48 - a war THEY initiated, did they take on the burden of the peoples they were mostly responsible for displacing?? No. That would be the just and right thing to do. Instead, they placed the problem on Israel. They accused Israel of creating it, when it was mostly they - the Arabs and their war calls to residents of Judea and Samaria to abandon their homes for the Arab offensive; when they lost, and the Refugees were displaced...did they do for them what EVERY country is required to do for refugees? Nope. They used their political clout and their alliances with other blocs - such as the communist bloc - to create a brand new agency for the Palestinians, giving them a 'special definition' different from all others. They were stuffed in refugee camps - as POLITICAL PRISONERS ransomed by Arab governments in their psychological war against Israel. They would be an open wound that would remind the world of how "evil" Israel is - when it is THEIR doing.

    Even the Palestinians which live in other countries, who have never known Israel, whose grandparents were one of the thousands made refugees from the '48 war, are DENIED citizenship by the arab countries of their residence. What does that imply to you?? That the Arab League is not interested in the persons harmed - but rather - in challenging the Jewish claim to Israel, which they do by creating the Palestinian refugee problem. These 'refugees' so many of whom live in UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, or in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, could easily be assimilated into the larger population. But are they?? No. Now they have this remarkably invidious plot to bolster the refugee numbers by allowing them to multiply with each generation to greater numbers. Now it's not 700,000 - but 4 million! And the longer this problem is made to persist - by their own doing - Israel is expected - by them at least - to allow these Arabs the "right" to return!



    posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:14 PM
    link   
    reply to post by MrInquisitive
     


    Interesting, Will do, it's not that I can't be bothered, but, I just wondered if anyone had ever thought that, it's a whole new conspiracy right there, for instance there is tons of evidence on lot's of subjects, and yet people still argue over said evidence.



    posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:58 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    You know, I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that Iran is not possibly developing nuclear weapons. But WHAT does that have to with countries in the region wanting Israel to face inspections of Its nuclear program,
    It has everything to do with this thread / topic because the action is based on a faulty premise, which is Israel should be inspected not because of treaty obligations but simply because they are Israel and 17 ME countries are pushing it.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    similar to what Iraq and Iran have been forced or are continuing to be forced to do???
    Iraq is a signatory to the NPT
    Iran is a signatory to the NPT
    Iraq is a signatory to the IAEA
    Iran is a signatory to the IAEA

    Israel is NOT a member of either and therefore are not bound by those rules, which includes inspections.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    At the end of your post you claim that I and others wishing to have Israel face similar inspections as deflecting and making excuses, when it is, in fact, people like yourself who are doing the deflecting and excuse making.
    Deflecting? Iran refuses to honor their treaty obligations while at the same time Arab countries are pushing an action towards ISrael that does not apply. I think if you look closely you will see the only deflection occuring is by Iran and 17 ME nations. Where are those demands when it comes to Iran?


    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    This thread is supposed to be about M.E. countries wanting Israel -- a country HIGHLY REGARDED as already having nuclear weapons since the late 1960's --
    Based on intelligence reports and not official confirmation by the Israeli government. If you are going to accept the reports on Israel then you also must accept the reports on Iran.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    to allow international inspection of Its nuclear program.
    They are not a signatory to the treaty which means they are not required nor obligated to comply with inspections.


    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    This thread is not about Iran and Its nuclear program or whether or not Muslim nations are fit to be trusted with nuclear weapons.
    Actually it is related and to answer the statement above no, Iran cannot be trusted.


    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    It's about forcing Israel to bow to the same standards as it is insisting on with respect to Iran. Yet, all you Israel defenders and Islamphobes want to turn the topic onto tangents -- SURPRISE, SURPRISE!

    Surprise surprise - A person who is willing to ignore the law in order to force compliance under the law. Israel does not have to bow nor do the same standards apply. Israel is, once again, NOT a signatory to either treaty and is therefore NOT bound by them.

    Iran on the other hand is a signatory to both treaties and therefore should comply with their obligations.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    BTW, your quotes from the FAS only talk about the fact that Iran has an uranium processing program. It mentions nothing specifically about a nuclear weapons program.
    Then you should go back and read the entire info contained in the link, where you will see -


    More recently, on November 9, 2011, the IAEA reported that it still had serious concerns that Iran’s nuclear program continued to have potential military dimensions to them and that Iran has been carrying out activities relating to developing explosive nuclear devices. This report stated that evidence suggests that Iran has likely continued to have an organized nuclear weapons program going back to 2003. The conclusions of the November 9, 2011 IAEA report have been reiterated in more recent reports, indicating that concern over Iran’s nuclear program has not diminished.

    ........ In late May 2012, satellite imagery revealed that Iran has potentially engaged in “ground-scraping activities” in Parchin to conceal facilities and equipment that could be associated with developing nuclear weapons before United Nations inspectors could visit the site.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    Your headline is flat-out false, based on the evidence you provide. But that's par for the course for Israel defenders and warmongers looking to attack Iran, another oil rich country in the M.E.
    For starters the info is not false. Simply ignoring what you dont like does not mean the info is not valid. Ironically enough I provided links to my sources where as you have not for your rebuttal.

    Hardly par for the course for Iranian apologists.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    No one here has said Iran shouldn't be required to allow inspections. All that is being asked for is Israel to be held to the same standards.
    The standards are not the same and again ignoring info you dont like or that does not fit your position does not make it invalid.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    I fully realize that Israel has not signed the NPT,
    Respectfully you don't.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    but the fact that it is lobbying for attacks against Iran for not coming completely clean with Its program is the hight of hypocrisy and thuggery. If it wants the international community to put pressure on Iran, then it needs to hold itself to the same standard. THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

    While Iran lobbies to wipe Israel off the map. Lets see, threats against specific military targets as opposed to threats against an entire nations existence.

    Israel is NOT a signatory to either treaty.
    Iran IS a signatory to both treaties.

    Maybe Iran should hold itself to the standards they voluntarily agreed to?



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    And as for your claim that Israel's nuclear program is pure speculation, there is abundant evidence suggesting it is a fact.
    Funny enough the claim Israel has nuclear weapons is pure speculation. However if you are going to use "evidence" against Israel then the "evidence" aginst Iran is valid.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    Did you look into the case of Mordechai Vanunu? The FAS report I cited cites CIA reports that Israel very likely has nuclear weapons. There are many articles and books that also document this fairly certain fact. I believe information on Israel's nuclear collaboration with South Africa came out after the change in government there. Also if I remember rightly, there have been reports of nuclear contamination near the top secret Israeli Dimona nuclear facility -- which is definitely a nuclear facility, no speculation about it. Why would it be top secret if it were purely for non-military purposes.
    While at the very same time you ignore those very same sources when it comes to Iran and their program.

    Also - Israel is NOT a signatory to either treaty where as Iran is.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    On the other hand, the last CIA reports that have come out have said that there is no evidence that Iran is currently engaged in a nulcear weapons program. But I digress, because this thread is about Israel and Its program.
    Again had you read your own source you would see -


    In November 2007, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) undertaken by the United States Intelligence Community concluded “with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” The NIE further stated that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons until the fall of 2003 and that it was likely that international pressure persuaded the Iranians to end its nuclear weapons program. The NIE went on to say that Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program was ongoing and that some commercial and conventional military research programs Iran was conducting could potentially have limited use in a nuclear weapons program although the NIE asserted that Iran’s nuclear weapon program was suspended.


    Lets be clear - suspended. It means Iran had an active nuclear weapons program that was suspended in 2003. Take note it does not say there was no nuclear weapons program.


    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    To equate the likelihood of Israel's nuclear weapons program with Iran's is just specious or ignorant.
    While arguing Israel should be held to a standard they are not obligated to be held to is hypocritical and ignorant.



    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    But again, that is not the point of this thread. Want to talk about Iran's possible nuclear weapons program? THEN START YOUR OWN THREAD!!! This one is about subjecting Israel to international inspections of Its VERY probable (i.e. 99.9% likely) nuclear weapons program.
    It is one of the point of this thread actually. Feel free to research which countries are pushing the issue with Israel. Being the source is Presstv (Iranian government) and it specifically points out in the article the Israeli position on Iran, its very much relevent to this thread.

    If you are just wanting to go down the road of an anti israeli thread feel free to choose one of the many on this site.
    edit on 8-9-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:13 AM
    link   
    I don't think MrInquisitive is coming back. He must realize he's lost the argument.



    posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:05 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by libertytoall
    I don't think MrInquisitive is coming back. He must realize he's lost the argument.


    Mr. Inquisitive is coming back, but he has better things to do than spend every day refuting the crap you warmongers, zionists and dissemblers of misinformation on the health effects of depleted uranium have to say.

    This is particularly the case with you, who quotes your own post about how it is beneficial to supply weapons to countries to oppress their own rebellious people, in a response to my post about the irony of your name, "libertytoall", your point being that you claim you never said anything about supporting oppressive governments.

    By definition, a government that oppresses its people is an oppressive government. That you can't see this shows your lack of intelligence and/or cognitive dissonance, and it goes a long way to explaining why I am not going to bother responding to every one of your posts. It's like responding to a kid who's only response to everything you say is, "I know you are, but what am I?" There's no point to it.



    posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:46 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Xcathdra

    Originally posted by MrInquisitive
    You know, I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that Iran is not possibly developing nuclear weapons. But WHAT does that have to with countries in the region wanting Israel to face inspections of Its nuclear program, similar to what Iraq and Iran have been forced or are continuing to be forced to do???[\quote]


    It has everything to do with this thread / topic because the action is based on a faulty premise, which is Israel should be inspected not because of treaty obligations but simply because they are Israel and 17 ME countries are pushing it

    Iraq is a signatory to the NPT
    Iran is a signatory to the IAEA

    Israel is NOT a member of either and therefore are not bound by those rules, which includes inspections.



    Yes, how ridiculous of 17 ME countries to want the one country in the region that almost certainly has several hundred nuclear weapons to acquiesce to the same inspections Israel is insisting another country have, and which Israel is threatening to attack and/or lobbying the US to attack. The nerve of those 17 countries. The fact that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT nor apparently a member of the IAEA, but in all likelihood has had a nuclear weapons program since 1967 (this is about the time of its first bomb, the program has been going on since the 1950's) and is threatening to attack a signatory to the NPT is all the more reason that Israel should be forced to open itself to inspections.

    Your argument is essentially: Israel has not joined the civilized family of nations by signing the NPT and joining the IAEA, so it doesn't have to do anything, BUT it has every right to demand other countries follow rules that itself won't abide by. And by the way, Iran has abided by the NPT and opened itself to IAEA inspections. There are criticisms that Iran has not opened up completely and this may well be, but it has done a whole lot more than Israel in this respect. Furthermore, the demands the US, Israel's proxy, is making of Iran include some that would take away rights Iran has under the NPT. In other words, the US and Israel want to make Iran a second-class NPT signatory, and yet Israel refuses to abide by any of these international rules.

    The fact that you have this massive double standard for Israel compared to other countries, shows how extremely biased you are in your views. There is no point in trying to carry on a discussion with such a dogmatic person. That you can't see how neighboring ME countries can be legitimately concerned about Israel's nuclear weapons program, and want international action to be taken to correct this, shows how one-sided your views are, and that you can't see the point of view of anyone else.

    Contrary to what you may believe, I am not a fervent defender of Iran. My point is Iran may well be developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Israel's and against the obvious and ongoing aggression of the US, the only superpower in the world, in the region. However, if the US and Israel are serious about not wanting Iran or other countries in the region having nuclear weapons, then Israel needs to abide by the same rules and the US needs to get the hell out of the region militarily -- at least leave the countries bordering Iran. Yet the US and Israel will not even consider discussing these topics with Iran, and the US has initial demands of Iran, which are essentially non-starters that will curtail rights it presently enjoys as a NPT signatory. In other words the US doesn't want to negotiate; it wants to bully and coerce to get what it wants. And I can't blame a country for refusing to go along with such self-harming measures that another country is trying to force on it -- particularly a superpower that is notorious for waging wars of aggression, which are what "preventative" wars, such as that against Iraq, are.

    If you can't get it around your head that Israel needs to be a fair player in this field if it expects others in the region to do the same, then there really is no point in continuing this discussion.





    new topics
    top topics
     
    81
    << 9  10  11    13 >>

    log in

    join