Regarding our little debate on the intentions of the flotilla: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d … bled=false
I'll address the rest later.
I'll address the rest later.
More evidence seems to be arising that implies that many of the "aid" workers in the flotilla attacked IDF forces before the IDF attacked back.
No, you said a case of double standards exists, and that Israel having a nuclear program without pressure from the international community is proof of the double standard.oug wrote:
I said that a case of double standards cannot be excluded, not that it actually exists. We're saying the same thing I think.FEOS wrote:
Read what you wrote again. You're essentially saying that because a negative condition cannot be proven, that means there is greater evidence a positive condition exists. That is a logical fallacy.
Just where do the "double standards" lie again?
You're deluding yourself if you think all countries believe having a nuclear arsenal is in their national interests--particularly if they are already aligned closely with existing nuclear powers. Why endure the expense and asspain associated with a nuclear arsenal when you have friends who will do it for you?oug wrote:
I think you're deluding yourself if you think that all sovereign nations have the luxury of acting only according to their national interests.FEOS wrote:
Your assumption of pressure implies that countries don't make their own decisions and is quite frankly insulting to those sovereign nations.
Because you know... I get the feeling that having a nuclear arsenal would be vastly beneficial for any nation's interests (at least those that have enemies) - more so that anything else. Would you agree? And if that is the case, then I beg to question why almost all nations in the world agreed to sign the NPT...? What did they get in return that was better than having nukes?
They weren't.oug wrote:
I actually agree with their existence - just not today's boarders. I side with the UN position on that one. As a matter of fact I side with the UN on their domestic policies as well.FEOS wrote:
Why? Simply because they are Israel and you don't agree with their existence/domestic policies?
I just find it weird that Israel was the only nation in the world smart enough not to fall for that NPT trap...
You're right. There's nothing to deter Israel from simply ignoring those "requests" (more like demands). And there shouldn't be. They are a sovereign nation, and their national security is their number one priority--as it should be. Why should they abrogate any part of it to countries whose primary foreign policy goals start and end with the elimination of Israel?oug wrote:
I assume we can both agree in our dislike and fear of the Pakistani approach to the matter.FEOS wrote:
I've read of multiple attempts/"pressures" by the international community--largely led by the Arab nations in the UN--to get Israel to be more transparent about their nuclear program. And you're right, Israel isn't handled the same way other countries are handled--other countries don't have blocs of their Arab neighbors driving UN inspections of their non-NPT-governed programs (a la Pakistan)
Other than that I see nothing wrong with the attempt at transparency - despite maybe the irony... But I don't know if that qualifies as pressure - since there's nothing to detter Israel from simply ignoring those requests.
Again, you are arguing that Israel's policy regarding Gaza is somehow indicative of how it would handle nuclear weapons. It is not in any way indicative of it. The wars it has fought, and its dealings with aggressive neighbors are far more indicative, as those would be the targets of those weapons. Since they have never threatened to use them--even against Iran, even against the Arab coalition in its multiple wars of existence--there is ample evidence that Israel is a decent/good steward of nuclear power (assuming they have nuclear weapons). The behaviors of both North Korea and Iran would argue against them being the same.oug wrote:
So you're saying Chernobyl was worse than a nuclear bomb exploding? If that's indeed the case then ok. Like I said, I really don't know how it works - I just assumed that radiation would have a heavy impact on the entire region in the event of a nuke going off. And to be fair I will continue to believe that until someone can prove otherwise. Which brings us back to the topic, namely that I don't trust Israel with nukes - and the wars it's been involved cannot serve as proof of their reliability.
One could argue in fact, that the massive punishment of 2 million Gazans for the actions of a few extremists could steer us in the other direction - namely that the Israeli government has no regrets about punishing innocent civilians in order to achieve its goal.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Because thats what being a member of the UN involves.FEOS wrote:
You're right. There's nothing to deter Israel from simply ignoring those "requests" (more like demands). And there shouldn't be. They are a sovereign nation, and their national security is their number one priority--as it should be. Why should they abrogate any part of it to countries whose primary foreign policy goals start and end with the elimination of Israel?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Every UN resolution (besides security council ones), are not legally binding and are simply requests. No country has EVER followed a non SC resolution.Dilbert_X wrote:
Because thats what being a member of the UN involves.FEOS wrote:
You're right. There's nothing to deter Israel from simply ignoring those "requests" (more like demands). And there shouldn't be. They are a sovereign nation, and their national security is their number one priority--as it should be. Why should they abrogate any part of it to countries whose primary foreign policy goals start and end with the elimination of Israel?
I guess that means Israel should leave the UN then.Dilbert_X wrote:
Because thats what being a member of the UN involves.FEOS wrote:
You're right. There's nothing to deter Israel from simply ignoring those "requests" (more like demands). And there shouldn't be. They are a sovereign nation, and their national security is their number one priority--as it should be. Why should they abrogate any part of it to countries whose primary foreign policy goals start and end with the elimination of Israel?
Granted, the UN is pretty useless for the most part.
Yes, they did. They stated they wanted to help the Palestinians meet current demands for basic supplies, as well as break the blockade of Gaza.oug wrote:
Can't believe I'm actually responding to this, but here goes.The current crisis is the main reason why this aid was organized at this point in time. That much is true.nukchebi0 wrote:
why a group claiming to address the current humanitarian crisis includes something which has no application
The group did not claim to address only the "current" humanitarian crisis. Again you are assuming things.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010 … 90129.html
That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they carry as much as the incongruities between what they state their mission is and what they are bringing to Gaza. In this case, they stated they were attempting to alleviate the current lack of basic necessities, something which bulletproof vests and gas masks have no use for.Where is it written that you can't provide these people with usefull stuff because they will not come in handy but for some time in the future? Where does it say that the stuff on the ships must be strictly relevant to the current situation?
You're making this up, right? It sounds so far-fetched that it obliges some measure of proof from you.Here's how the aid works. The organizers announce the assembly of a fleet, and they call upon people, organizations and so forth to donate whatever they can. During the gathering process, as an organizer you might refuse to include my collection of Playboys, but sure enough you cannot refuse a few vests and masks.
I don't accept they constitute a legitimate offering, because gas masks and bulletproof vests in no way help a starving populace survive, as the flotilla was not intended to "help Gaza" in general, but to offer immediate assistance to the suffering people and aid them in the long term by weakening Israel's blockade. The organizers aren't starving for supplies, and thus shouldn't, unless they have other motivations, accept some random person giving them a box of spare defensive weaponry. This is so unrealistic, it seems, that its impossible to further respond.Now if we both accept that the vests constitute a legitimate "offering", in the sense that they are intended for use by paramedics, the only reason why they should not be included at this time, is if they take up space where something of greater value to the current events could be placed. But given that we are talking about a number of ships, I see no reason why 10 or so vests and a box full of masks should not find a spot on board. How much space do they take up anyway? If it's that much of a burden the ships could take in less people.
No, but that doesn't matter. I know it hurts. However, paramedics aren't assisting rioters immediately after tear gas is thrown. Hence the question oof how quickly tear gas disperses. If it stays in the area for a while, they might be justified. If it disperses within 10-15 minutes, the gas masks are luxurious at best and completely unnecessary at worst.Have you ever had tear gas thrown at you?nukchebi0 wrote:
The tear gas lingers long enough in the area to prevent paramedics from accessing it without gas masks? The burden of proof rests firmly with you.
'Receiving what they asked for' is a way of conveying the notion that they get what their votes resulted in - that is, have some responsibility for the action of their government. It shouldn't be interpreted to mean anything more unless you are contriving it to suit your own prejudices.No, it isn't.nukchebi0 wrote:
Yes it is."receiving what they asked for" is not deserving "some" culpability and you know it.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-20 01:16:29)
I did say that, but not there. That was my initial observation. In comparing the cases of SA and Israel I said that the differences we agreed exist between the two situations do not exclude the chance of there being double standards. I understood it was your argument that the differences excluded the possibility of double standards - and I argued that this is not necessarily the case.FEOS wrote:
No, you said a case of double standards exists, and that Israel having a nuclear program without pressure from the international community is proof of the double standard.
It's not like your "friends" will do it for free. Nothing is for free. So why not be self-sufficient instead of later having to do favors for your supposed nation-friends?FEOS wrote:
You're deluding yourself if you think all countries believe having a nuclear arsenal is in their national interests--particularly if they are already aligned closely with existing nuclear powers. Why endure the expense and asspain associated with a nuclear arsenal when you have friends who will do it for you?
And of course I take it you're not so naive as to ignore the fact that there are no friends when it comes to international relations. All there is is mutual interests. And the latter change in a jiffy.
In the above sentence just replace "Israel" with other countries and you have your answer.FEOS wrote:
You're right. There's nothing to deter Israel from simply ignoring those "requests" (more like demands). And there shouldn't be. They are a sovereign nation, and their national security is their number one priority--as it should be. Why should they abrogate any part of it to countries whose primary foreign policy goals start and end with the elimination of Israel?
I said that "one could argue". I don't necessarily agree with that. My pesonal opinion is that nukes cannot be used against one's neighbors - the end.FEOS wrote:
Again, you are arguing that Israel's policy regarding Gaza is somehow indicative of how it would handle nuclear weapons. It is not in any way indicative of it. The wars it has fought, and its dealings with aggressive neighbors are far more indicative, as those would be the targets of those weapons. Since they have never threatened to use them--even against Iran, even against the Arab coalition in its multiple wars of existence--there is ample evidence that Israel is a decent/good steward of nuclear power (assuming they have nuclear weapons). The behaviors of both North Korea and Iran would argue against them being the same.oug wrote:
So you're saying Chernobyl was worse than a nuclear bomb exploding? If that's indeed the case then ok. Like I said, I really don't know how it works - I just assumed that radiation would have a heavy impact on the entire region in the event of a nuke going off. And to be fair I will continue to believe that until someone can prove otherwise. Which brings us back to the topic, namely that I don't trust Israel with nukes - and the wars it's been involved cannot serve as proof of their reliability.
One could argue in fact, that the massive punishment of 2 million Gazans for the actions of a few extremists could steer us in the other direction - namely that the Israeli government has no regrets about punishing innocent civilians in order to achieve its goal.
Also I did explain why the wars you mentioned are not indicative of anything as far as I'm concerned - and you still haven't explained how Israel or any other country for that matter could deploy nuclear weapons against its neighbor without having the impact return right back to them.
As for your comparison of how each of these three nations handles the nuke thing: The way I see it, whoever shouts it out is doing so to defend themselves - and publicizing your nukes actually ensures you're not going to use them. On the other hand, whoever keeps it in the hush hush is allowing for a possibility to actually use them without it ever coming back to them, as they can say they never had nukes - although in the case of Israel I don't see how they could do that without catastrophic results for them.
ƒ³
nukchebi0 wrote:
Yes, they did. They stated they wanted to help the Palestinians meet current demands for basic supplies, as well as break the blockade of Gaza.oug wrote:
Can't believe I'm actually responding to this, but here goes.The current crisis is the main reason why this aid was organized at this point in time. That much is true.nukchebi0 wrote:
why a group claiming to address the current humanitarian crisis includes something which has no application
The group did not claim to address only the "current" humanitarian crisis. Again you are assuming things.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010 … 90129.html
nukchebi0 wrote:
That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they carry as much as the incongruities between what they state their mission is and what they are bringing to Gaza. In this case, they stated they were attempting to alleviate the current lack of basic necessities, something which bulletproof vests and gas masks have no use for.Where is it written that you can't provide these people with usefull stuff because they will not come in handy but for some time in the future? Where does it say that the stuff on the ships must be strictly relevant to the current situation?
What's far-fetched about it? If it sounds far-fetched then you explain how aid material is gathered.nukchebi0 wrote:
You're making this up, right? It sounds so far-fetched that it obliges some measure of proof from you.Here's how the aid works. The organizers announce the assembly of a fleet, and they call upon people, organizations and so forth to donate whatever they can. During the gathering process, as an organizer you might refuse to include my collection of Playboys, but sure enough you cannot refuse a few vests and masks.
Who said anything about random persons? Obviously the vests were given by some authority in Turkey, hence the Turkish flags. I don't know who that was, but what difference does it make?nukchebi0 wrote:
I don't accept they constitute a legitimate offering, because gas masks and bulletproof vests in no way help a starving populace survive, as the flotilla was not intended to "help Gaza" in general, but to offer immediate assistance to the suffering people and aid them in the long term by weakening Israel's blockade. The organizers aren't starving for supplies, and thus shouldn't, unless they have other motivations, accept some random person giving them a box of spare defensive weaponry. This is so unrealistic, it seems, that its impossible to further respond.Now if we both accept that the vests constitute a legitimate "offering", in the sense that they are intended for use by paramedics, the only reason why they should not be included at this time, is if they take up space where something of greater value to the current events could be placed. But given that we are talking about a number of ships, I see no reason why 10 or so vests and a box full of masks should not find a spot on board. How much space do they take up anyway? If it's that much of a burden the ships could take in less people.
If you had you'd know. You would also know that tear gas can spread in a large area and cause breathing problems - especially for people who are wounded. You'd know that paramedics need to stay close enough within the area of the riots in order to be able to assist immediately. If you think that's unnecessary or luxurious, that's your problem. The fact of the matter is that vests and masks for paramedics remain a legitimate aid.nukchebi0 wrote:
No, but that doesn't matter. I know it hurts. However, paramedics aren't assisting rioters immediately after tear gas is thrown.Have you ever had tear gas thrown at you?
Their votes did not result in this blockade. However you phrase it it still sounds the same.nukchebi0 wrote:
'Receiving what they asked for' is a way of conveying the notion that they get what their votes resulted in - that is, have some responsibility for the action of their government. It shouldn't be interpreted to mean anything more unless you are contriving it to suit your own prejudices.No, it isn't.nukchebi0 wrote:
Yes it is.
ƒ³
Update: 11 U.S. warships pass through Suez Canal en route to Red Sea...
via http://www.drudgereport.com/
US, Israel Warships in Suez May Be Prelude to Faceoff with Iran
Who will flinch first?
via http://www.drudgereport.com/
US, Israel Warships in Suez May Be Prelude to Faceoff with Iran
---Israel National News wrote:
Egypt allowed at least one Israeli and 11 American warships to pass through the Suez Canal as an Iranian flotilla approaches Gaza. Egypt closed the canal to protect the ships with thousands of soldiers, according to the British-based Arabic language newspaper Al Quds al-Arabi.
Who will flinch first?
Nothing will happen.
ƒ³
No answer to the other points? No answer to the link basically proving they were looking to fight Israel? This is pathetic.
Regardless, it fails to address why they'd have to say yes to it (assuming your ridiculous and inconsistent portrayal of the process is true). You keep asserting a lot of things you tweak to fit your biases, but you fail to really support them or answer serious questions undermining them.
With that said, you are failing miserably here, as always. You neglect to answer the question regarding dispersal, and make it sound as if paramedics are sitting at riot sites prior to them happening. Morever, you completely misread what I wrote, yet again, failing to understand nuances to my words. The vests are only luxurious and unnecessary if the gas disperses quickly, not if it doesn't, but instantly assume I meant that for all cases. The lack of reading comprehension is shocking. If you don't cease such pathetically poor interpretation, I'm going to stop debating. this isn't worth my time if I can't have a decent discussion.
Nothing is a fact of the matter unless it common knowledge, easily read in an encyclopedia, or proven through use of other sources and reasonable arguments. The stature of vests and gas masks being legitimate aid has not qualified under any of these criteria.
The depiction is far fetched because you make it sound like the organizers are desperate for materials. The burden of proof, as noted, is firmly attached to your back.oug wrote:
What's far-fetched about it? If it sounds far-fetched then you explain how aid material is gathered.
You did, above, when you said "people, organizations, and so forth" and later say "but sure enough, you can't refuse refuse a few vests."Who said anything about random persons? Obviously the vests were given by some authority in Turkey, hence the Turkish flags. I don't know who that was, but what difference does it make?
Regardless, it fails to address why they'd have to say yes to it (assuming your ridiculous and inconsistent portrayal of the process is true). You keep asserting a lot of things you tweak to fit your biases, but you fail to really support them or answer serious questions undermining them.
I don't tend to riot, sadly. I'm sorry you've deemed mindless mob action appropriate sometime in your past, but am glad that your survived it to become a better person.If you had you'd know. You would also know that tear gas can spread in a large area and cause breathing problems - especially for people who are wounded. You'd know that paramedics need to stay close enough within the area of the riots in order to be able to assist immediately. If you think that's unnecessary or luxurious, that's your problem. The fact of the matter is that vests and masks for paramedics remain a legitimate aid.
With that said, you are failing miserably here, as always. You neglect to answer the question regarding dispersal, and make it sound as if paramedics are sitting at riot sites prior to them happening. Morever, you completely misread what I wrote, yet again, failing to understand nuances to my words. The vests are only luxurious and unnecessary if the gas disperses quickly, not if it doesn't, but instantly assume I meant that for all cases. The lack of reading comprehension is shocking. If you don't cease such pathetically poor interpretation, I'm going to stop debating. this isn't worth my time if I can't have a decent discussion.
Nothing is a fact of the matter unless it common knowledge, easily read in an encyclopedia, or proven through use of other sources and reasonable arguments. The stature of vests and gas masks being legitimate aid has not qualified under any of these criteria.
You still fail to understand, and you never will. It's clearly beyond your English ability.Their votes did not result in this blockade. However you phrase it it still sounds the same.
Wrong. Being a member of the UN does not mean subjugating your country's own sovereignty.Dilbert_X wrote:
Because thats what being a member of the UN involves.FEOS wrote:
You're right. There's nothing to deter Israel from simply ignoring those "requests" (more like demands). And there shouldn't be. They are a sovereign nation, and their national security is their number one priority--as it should be. Why should they abrogate any part of it to countries whose primary foreign policy goals start and end with the elimination of Israel?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I never made that argument, so I don't understand why you would make that assumption.oug wrote:
I did say that, but not there. That was my initial observation. In comparing the cases of SA and Israel I said that the differences we agreed exist between the two situations do not exclude the chance of there being double standards. I understood it was your argument that the differences excluded the possibility of double standards - and I argued that this is not necessarily the case.FEOS wrote:
No, you said a case of double standards exists, and that Israel having a nuclear program without pressure from the international community is proof of the double standard.
It's fairly easy to see if your long-term national interests align with another nation's. If you are a democracy, your long-term national interests align with countries like the US's. You may differ on relatively short-term issues, but over-arching, enduring issues like the foundation of your political and social systems are common. Those do not change "in a jiffy".oug wrote:
It's not like your "friends" will do it for free. Nothing is for free. So why not be self-sufficient instead of later having to do favors for your supposed nation-friends?FEOS wrote:
You're deluding yourself if you think all countries believe having a nuclear arsenal is in their national interests--particularly if they are already aligned closely with existing nuclear powers. Why endure the expense and asspain associated with a nuclear arsenal when you have friends who will do it for you?
And of course I take it you're not so naive as to ignore the fact that there are no friends when it comes to international relations. All there is is mutual interests. And the latter change in a jiffy.
Name another country in that position.oug wrote:
In the above sentence just replace "Israel" with other countries and you have your answer.FEOS wrote:
You're right. There's nothing to deter Israel from simply ignoring those "requests" (more like demands). And there shouldn't be. They are a sovereign nation, and their national security is their number one priority--as it should be. Why should they abrogate any part of it to countries whose primary foreign policy goals start and end with the elimination of Israel?
Actually, I did explain it. Extensively. But to provide a bit more explanation: prevailing winds are westerly. Capitals and major installations of Israel's enemies all lie west of Israel. Think about it.oug wrote:
I said that "one could argue". I don't necessarily agree with that. My pesonal opinion is that nukes cannot be used against one's neighbors - the end.
Also I did explain why the wars you mentioned are not indicative of anything as far as I'm concerned - and you still haven't explained how Israel or any other country for that matter could deploy nuclear weapons against its neighbor without having the impact return right back to them.
In today's age, you cannot use nukes without it every coming back to you. If Israel nukes someone, it will be obvious they did it. Declaratory policy or ambiguity is strategy--nothing more. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, which have already been discussed.oug wrote:
As for your comparison of how each of these three nations handles the nuke thing: The way I see it, whoever shouts it out is doing so to defend themselves - and publicizing your nukes actually ensures you're not going to use them. On the other hand, whoever keeps it in the hush hush is allowing for a possibility to actually use them without it ever coming back to them, as they can say they never had nukes - although in the case of Israel I don't see how they could do that without catastrophic results for them.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You're supposed to put issues before the UN, not unilaterally carry out acts.FEOS wrote:
Wrong. Being a member of the UN does not mean subjugating your country's own sovereignty.Dilbert_X wrote:
Because thats what being a member of the UN involves.FEOS wrote:
You're right. There's nothing to deter Israel from simply ignoring those "requests" (more like demands). And there shouldn't be. They are a sovereign nation, and their national security is their number one priority--as it should be. Why should they abrogate any part of it to countries whose primary foreign policy goals start and end with the elimination of Israel?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Nowhere did I say they were desperate. Besides, whether they're desperate or not is none of our business as it has nothing to do with the vests and the masks.nukchebi0 wrote:
The depiction is far fetched because you make it sound like the organizers are desperate for materials. The burden of proof, as noted, is firmly attached to your back.
I used the terms "people" and "organizations" largely in a speculative manner because I have no idea who donated the vests. And for the second time, this has nothing to do with our little inquiry.nukchebi0 wrote:
You did, above, when you said "people, organizations, and so forth" and later say "but sure enough, you can't refuse refuse a few vests."Who said anything about random persons? Obviously the vests were given by some authority in Turkey, hence the Turkish flags. I don't know who that was, but what difference does it make?
I already explained that multiple times. And if you don't like my ridiculous inconsistent (how?) portrayal then feel free to give us your idea of how things are done.nukchebi0 wrote:
it fails to address why they'd have to say yes to it (assuming your ridiculous and inconsistent portrayal of the process is true).
Frankly you never did debate. You assumed ludicrous scenarios, you provided biased and laughable linksthat proved nothing, you denied without justification and you resulted to insults as if that would mask the lack of logic and fairness of your position. If my English is unsatisfactory then we can speak Greek if you like. Maybe I'll do better at that μωρή καταξεκωλιασμένη αμερικανόθρεφτη χυσομπανιέρα, τράβα πίσω στη βοθρότρυπα που σε ξέρασε.nukchebi0 wrote:
I don't tend to riot, sadly. I'm sorry you've deemed mindless mob action appropriate sometime in your past, but am glad that your survived it to become a better person.
With that said, you are failing miserably here, as always. You neglect to answer the question regarding dispersal, and make it sound as if paramedics are sitting at riot sites prior to them happening. Morever, you completely misread what I wrote, yet again, failing to understand nuances to my words. The vests are only luxurious and unnecessary if the gas disperses quickly, not if it doesn't, but instantly assume I meant that for all cases. The lack of reading comprehension is shocking. If you don't cease such pathetically poor interpretation, I'm going to stop debating. this isn't worth my time if I can't have a decent discussion.
Nothing is a fact of the matter unless it common knowledge, easily read in an encyclopedia, or proven through use of other sources and reasonable arguments. The stature of vests and gas masks being legitimate aid has not qualified under any of these criteria.You still fail to understand, and you never will. It's clearly beyond your English ability.Their votes did not result in this blockade. However you phrase it it still sounds the same.
ƒ³
Yes but will there always be another nation willing to help you out in a certain situation based on your mutual long-term interests? Surely no sovereign nation can be certain of that, and even if it were, it would be a much safer bet to cater for yourself.FEOS wrote:
It's fairly easy to see if your long-term national interests align with another nation's. If you are a democracy, your long-term national interests align with countries like the US's.
haha well if you exclude the last sentence - which is an inaccuracy if anything else - it could be any country in the world.FEOS wrote:
Name another country in that position.oug wrote:
In the above sentence just replace "Israel" with other countries and you have your answer.FEOS wrote:
You're right. There's nothing to deter Israel from simply ignoring those "requests" (more like demands). And there shouldn't be. They are a sovereign nation, and their national security is their number one priority--as it should be. Why should they abrogate any part of it to countries whose primary foreign policy goals start and end with the elimination of Israel?
Now that's a proper explanation. I have no idea what the winds are like in the region but if indeed that's true, then you're right, they can use them. There are still certain provisions, but yes...FEOS wrote:
Actually, I did explain it. Extensively. But to provide a bit more explanation: prevailing winds are westerly. Capitals and major installations of Israel's enemies all lie west of Israel. Think about it.
Effective propaganda has many a time created ambiguity where there was none, so I'd never be so sure of that...FEOS wrote:
In today's age, you cannot use nukes without it every coming back to you. If Israel nukes someone, it will be obvious they did it.
ƒ³
Not necessarily, by any means.FEOS wrote:
If you are a democracy, your long-term national interests align with countries like the US's.
Plus US democracy is a weird and limited democracy.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Sorry oug. I can accept misinterpretations to a point, but when you devolve into hypocrisy so blatant it's embarrassing you didn't notice it, I'm compelled to cease our discussion. It's been fun, but I'm not going to continue wasting my time with something that has absolutely no reward for me.
for once we agree
ƒ³
On that note, Google is failing miserably at translating your Greek. What did it say?
Wrong. Being a member of the UN does not mean subjugating your country's own sovereignty.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're supposed to put issues before the UN, not unilaterally carry out acts.FEOS wrote:
Wrong. Being a member of the UN does not mean subjugating your country's own sovereignty.Dilbert_X wrote:
Because thats what being a member of the UN involves.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
When you talk about something as expensive and dangerous as a nuclear weapons program, a "much safer bet" takes on different meanings to different people.oug wrote:
Yes but will there always be another nation willing to help you out in a certain situation based on your mutual long-term interests? Surely no sovereign nation can be certain of that, and even if it were, it would be a much safer bet to cater for yourself.FEOS wrote:
It's fairly easy to see if your long-term national interests align with another nation's. If you are a democracy, your long-term national interests align with countries like the US's.
There's nothing inaccurate about it at all, oug. And you can't exclude it without ignoring reality.oug wrote:
haha well if you exclude the last sentence - which is an inaccuracy if anything else - it could be any country in the world.FEOS wrote:
Name another country in that position.oug wrote:
In the above sentence just replace "Israel" with other countries and you have your answer.
After I posted it, I realized I had made a little mistake in my haste...oug wrote:
Now that's a proper explanation. I have no idea what the winds are like in the region but if indeed that's true, then you're right, they can use them. There are still certain provisions, but yes...FEOS wrote:
Actually, I did explain it. Extensively. But to provide a bit more explanation: prevailing winds are westerly. Capitals and major installations of Israel's enemies all lie west EAST of Israel. Think about it.
Most winds on the planet (at least the northern hemisphere) are west to east.
Propaganda doesn't trump technology, oug.oug wrote:
Effective propaganda has many a time created ambiguity where there was none, so I'd never be so sure of that...FEOS wrote:
In today's age, you cannot use nukes without it every coming back to you. If Israel nukes someone, it will be obvious they did it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
If you want to do anything besides immediate self-defence you're supposed to deal with it through the UN.FEOS wrote:
Wrong. Being a member of the UN does not mean subjugating your country's own sovereignty.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're supposed to put issues before the UN, not unilaterally carry out acts.FEOS wrote:
Wrong. Being a member of the UN does not mean subjugating your country's own sovereignty.
Hence the Israelis blockade of Gaza is illegal.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtmlThe Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Seems simple enough.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-22 06:53:32)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
So has anything interesting happened in this debate since I last looked at it 15 pages or so ago?