Name ONE time, that Israel attack a country unprovoked............you carefully say pre-emptive. that really means, the nations were that were "pre-emptivly attacked were building up its military on their borders, massing to attack Israel. Those nations also blockaded Israels ports. Israel was justified for their "pre-emptive strike. Put it all in context and let me know what "peaceful" nation Israel attacked because they "agressive."jonsimon wrote:
But Israel does have a history of pre-emptive attacks. They started a pre-emptive war and pre-emptively bombed lebannon. They are a threat to the world, and esspecially to their neighbors. They DO have nukes, we know that. The UN also believes they are a threat to many. By all your justifications for invading Iraq, we should be doing the same to Israel, but you do not support it. You are a hypocrit.lowing wrote:
According the UN, Iraq and its weapons programs was a threat to the world, go read some resolutions.jonsimon wrote:
That's not what he asked. He said the same pretext, which is not the same as circumstances, but the same reason. Besides, who was Iraq threatening?
Oh, and if Israel destroyed egypt right now, you'd be cool with it, because egypt fought with them decades ago? I guess you approve of the NK nuking America, after all, we've attacked them before.
We didn't attack NK we were their to help defend SK the N Koreans over ran the 38th parellell into the South Korea.....nice try.
Nope I would not approve of Israel attacking Egypt now. Egypt is not threatening Israel.
YES I SAID..........IF Israel had a history of attacking its neighbors UNPROVOKED then yes I would say put your thumb on Israel..HOWEVER, like I said, Israel HAS NEVER attacked any nation that did not FUCK WITH IT.
What I said has everything to do with WMD, including nukes and bio/chemical. read the resolutions come back and post telling me I am wrong and the UN DID NOT think Iraq was a "grave" threat to world security.JimmyBotswana wrote:
What you just said has nothing to do with having nuclear weapons.
And you are in no position to lecture people on attitude.
and you likethe "old" shipbuilder has a huge history of acting like a pompous jack off to everyone you disagree with.......consider yourself "lectured"
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-06 15:19:53)
I'm still waiting for an answer. If your criteria for action is the flaunting of UN dictates then would you also support military action against Israel?
Thinking he had nuclear weapons is not the same as him having them. That's where your buddy George W. Bush went wrong too.
already answered it, read upMasques wrote:
I'm still waiting for an answer. If your criteria for action is the flaunting of UN dictates then would you also support military action against Israel?
No not really. Just you. Gee I wonder why.lowing wrote:
and you likethe "old" shipbuilder has a huge history of acting like a pompous jack off to everyone you disagree with.......consider yourself "lectured"
already answered you, the time line makes sense.........he started violating the UN in 91......11 years later he was still violating.....He was re attacked.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Thinking he had nuclear weapons is not the same as him having them. That's where your buddy George W. Bush went wrong too.
thats fine, as long you are admitting you act like a pompous jack off..JimmyBotswana wrote:
No not really. Just you. Gee I wonder why.lowing wrote:
and you likethe "old" shipbuilder has a huge history of acting like a pompous jack off to everyone you disagree with.......consider yourself "lectured"
as for why??........maybe because everytime you try and argue with meyou get your face shoved in the mud??
Another example of the right interpreting the facts however they like. No problem I'm used to it by now.
please show where I am wrong.none of your opinions, based on the UN resolutions and the time lines and news articles of the time.....show where I am wrong. just don't tell me.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Another example of the right interpreting the facts however they like. No problem I'm used to it by now.
You answered that you would support it under the same circumstances, but you didn't refer to pretext (flaunting of UN resolutions). I want to know about pretext. You do know the difference between circumstance and pretext right?lowing wrote:
already answered it, read upMasques wrote:
I'm still waiting for an answer. If your criteria for action is the flaunting of UN dictates then would you also support military action against Israel?
And lowing, Israel had invaded and captured the Sinai in 1956 (with French and British assistance) when Egypt nationalized the Suez and attacked a Jordanian village in 1966 (with a force of around 4000 soldiers) even after informing King Hussein of Jordan in peace meetings that they wouldn't attack Jordanian territory.
On the Suez WarIn "Operation Shredder", Israel's largest military operation since 1956, a force of around 3,000-4,000 soldiers backed by tanks and aircraft divided into a reserve force, which remained on the Israeli side of the border, and two raiding parties, which crossed into the West Bank. The larger force of eight Centurion tanks followed by 400 paratroopers mounted in 40 open-topped half-tracks and 60 engineers in 10 more half-tracks headed for Samu, while a smaller force of 3 tanks and 100 paratroopers and engineers in 10 half-tracks headed towards two smaller villages, Kirbet El-Markas and Kirbet Jimba, on a mission to blow up houses. In Samu, Israeli soldiers destroyed the village's only clinic, a girls' school, the post office, the library, a coffee shop and around 140 houses.
...
Two days later in a memo to President Johnson his Special Assistant Walt Rostow wrote "retaliation is not the point in this case. This 3000-man raid with tanks and planes was out of all proportion to the provocation and was aimed at the wrong target" and went on to describe the damage done to U.S. and Israeli interests: "They've wrecked a good system of tacit cooperation between Hussein and the Israelis... They've undercut Hussein. We've spent $500 million to shore him up as a stabilizing factor on Israel's longest border and vis-à-vis Syria and Iraq. Israel's attack increases the pressure on him to counterattack not only from the more radical Arab governments and from the Palestinians in Jordan but also from the Army, which is his main source of support and may now press for a chance to recoup its Sunday losses... They've set back progress toward a long term accommodation with the Arabs... They may have persuaded the Syrians, who are the main troublemakers, that Israel didn't dare attack Soviet-protected Syria but could attack US-backed Jordan with impunity."
In the months that followed Egypt's nationalization of the canal company, with the support of the former managers of the company that operated the canal, Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez, a secret meeting between Israel, France and Britain took place at Sèvres, outside Paris. Details on the Protocol of Sèvres emerged only years later, as records of the meeting were suppressed and destroyed. All parties agreed that Israel should invade and that Britain and France would subsequently intervene, instruct the Israeli and Egyptian armies to withdraw their forces to a distance of ten miles (16 km) from either side of the canal, and then place an Anglo-French intervention force in the Canal Zone around Port Said.
I already said..........GIVEN the same CIRCUMSTANCES, I would approve of such attacks on Israel.......Your question is unfair by saying under the same "pretext".......compare apples and apples......not apples and organges.........A lot of varibles comes into play in dealing with this issue. Since Iraq and Israel different.Masques wrote:
You answered that you would support it under the same circumstances, but you didn't refer to pretext (flaunting of UN resolutions). I want to know about pretext. You do know the difference between circumstance and pretext right?lowing wrote:
already answered it, read upMasques wrote:
I'm still waiting for an answer. If your criteria for action is the flaunting of UN dictates then would you also support military action against Israel?
. I will not let you try and back me into a corner on this.
MY answer is ..........If Israels history was that of Iraq I would support putting a thumb on Israel. THat is not the case though.
I finfd it humorous that you refuse to accept putting both nations on the same playing field when answering the question......You refuse to let me say "under the same CIRCUMSTANCES"...........why pray tell.is that??
Isn't comparing apples and apples the fair way to compare anything??
I have n oinclination to play your word games.
good job picking and choosing paragraghs......please don't choose the 6 days war as your shinning example of Israel agression,you will lose.Masques wrote:
And lowing, Israel had invaded and captured the Sinai in 1956 (with French and British assistance) when Egypt nationalized the Suez and attacked a Jordanian village in 1966 (with a force of around 4000 soldiers) even after informing King Hussein of Jordan in peace meetings that they wouldn't attack Jordanian territory.On the Suez WarIn "Operation Shredder", Israel's largest military operation since 1956, a force of around 3,000-4,000 soldiers backed by tanks and aircraft divided into a reserve force, which remained on the Israeli side of the border, and two raiding parties, which crossed into the West Bank. The larger force of eight Centurion tanks followed by 400 paratroopers mounted in 40 open-topped half-tracks and 60 engineers in 10 more half-tracks headed for Samu, while a smaller force of 3 tanks and 100 paratroopers and engineers in 10 half-tracks headed towards two smaller villages, Kirbet El-Markas and Kirbet Jimba, on a mission to blow up houses. In Samu, Israeli soldiers destroyed the village's only clinic, a girls' school, the post office, the library, a coffee shop and around 140 houses.
...
Two days later in a memo to President Johnson his Special Assistant Walt Rostow wrote "retaliation is not the point in this case. This 3000-man raid with tanks and planes was out of all proportion to the provocation and was aimed at the wrong target" and went on to describe the damage done to U.S. and Israeli interests: "They've wrecked a good system of tacit cooperation between Hussein and the Israelis... They've undercut Hussein. We've spent $500 million to shore him up as a stabilizing factor on Israel's longest border and vis-à-vis Syria and Iraq. Israel's attack increases the pressure on him to counterattack not only from the more radical Arab governments and from the Palestinians in Jordan but also from the Army, which is his main source of support and may now press for a chance to recoup its Sunday losses... They've set back progress toward a long term accommodation with the Arabs... They may have persuaded the Syrians, who are the main troublemakers, that Israel didn't dare attack Soviet-protected Syria but could attack US-backed Jordan with impunity."In the months that followed Egypt's nationalization of the canal company, with the support of the former managers of the company that operated the canal, Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez, a secret meeting between Israel, France and Britain took place at Sèvres, outside Paris. Details on the Protocol of Sèvres emerged only years later, as records of the meeting were suppressed and destroyed. All parties agreed that Israel should invade and that Britain and France would subsequently intervene, instruct the Israeli and Egyptian armies to withdraw their forces to a distance of ten miles (16 km) from either side of the canal, and then place an Anglo-French intervention force in the Canal Zone around Port Said.
also..........from your same source on the Suez...........
Meanwhile, the Gaza Strip — a part of the former British mandate, now occupied by Egypt — became a haven for masses of Palestinian refugees and a hotbed for guerilla activity against the fledgling Jewish state. In response, from 1953–1956 the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a number of strikes. These attacks were assisted by the future prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, who interrupted his studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to become the military leader of the first special forces unit of the IDF: the elite Unit 101. This policy of reprisals was a major source of internal dispute between hawks, led by David Ben-Gurion, and doves, led by his successor for a short time, Moshe Sharett. It sometimes led to strong external criticism from the United Nations and even Israel's supporters.
The Gaza raid on February 28, 1955 marked yet another turning point in relations between the two enemies. In retaliation Egypt began to sponsor official Fedayeen and commando raids on Israel, sometimes through the territory of Jordan, which also officially opposed these raids, while still publicly discouraging Palestinian infiltration. There were secret talks, through various intermediaries and methods, between Egypt and Israel, but the escalating tensions between the IDF and the Fedayeen put an end to them.
Throughout 1956, tensions increased between Israel and Egypt, with Egyptian fedayeen launching frequent incursions into Israeli territory and Israel launching retaliatory raids into Egyptian territory.
A pre-emptive attack is agressive. It is not defensive, it is offensive. At no time is offensive action defensive, no matter what idioms might say. Sorry, but it is a fact that israel pre-emptively attacked others, and you do not dispute that. Thus, they have taken offensive, agressive action against other nations. You lose lowing.lowing wrote:
Name ONE time, that Israel attack a country unprovoked............you carefully say pre-emptive. that really means, the nations were that were "pre-emptivly attacked were building up its military on their borders, massing to attack Israel. Those nations also blockaded Israels ports. Israel was justified for their "pre-emptive strike. Put it all in context and let me know what "peaceful" nation Israel attacked because they "agressive."jonsimon wrote:
But Israel does have a history of pre-emptive attacks. They started a pre-emptive war and pre-emptively bombed lebannon. They are a threat to the world, and esspecially to their neighbors. They DO have nukes, we know that. The UN also believes they are a threat to many. By all your justifications for invading Iraq, we should be doing the same to Israel, but you do not support it. You are a hypocrit.lowing wrote:
According the UN, Iraq and its weapons programs was a threat to the world, go read some resolutions.
We didn't attack NK we were their to help defend SK the N Koreans over ran the 38th parellell into the South Korea.....nice try.
Nope I would not approve of Israel attacking Egypt now. Egypt is not threatening Israel.
YES I SAID..........IF Israel had a history of attacking its neighbors UNPROVOKED then yes I would say put your thumb on Israel..HOWEVER, like I said, Israel HAS NEVER attacked any nation that did not FUCK WITH IT.
This article is about republican pressure to post them on the internet and what a HUGE mistake it was. Not about Saddam having WMD's. LOL
You are wrong jonsimson, Israel had their waterways blockaded, and their borders surrounded by massing armies. That was an act of war. ANYONE else would have done the same damn thing, unless you were a liberal then I am sure surrender/ negotiations would prevail.jonsimon wrote:
A pre-emptive attack is agressive. It is not defensive, it is offensive. At no time is offensive action defensive, no matter what idioms might say. Sorry, but it is a fact that israel pre-emptively attacked others, and you do not dispute that. Thus, they have taken offensive, agressive action against other nations. You lose lowing.lowing wrote:
Name ONE time, that Israel attack a country unprovoked............you carefully say pre-emptive. that really means, the nations were that were "pre-emptivly attacked were building up its military on their borders, massing to attack Israel. Those nations also blockaded Israels ports. Israel was justified for their "pre-emptive strike. Put it all in context and let me know what "peaceful" nation Israel attacked because they "agressive."jonsimon wrote:
But Israel does have a history of pre-emptive attacks. They started a pre-emptive war and pre-emptively bombed lebannon. They are a threat to the world, and esspecially to their neighbors. They DO have nukes, we know that. The UN also believes they are a threat to many. By all your justifications for invading Iraq, we should be doing the same to Israel, but you do not support it. You are a hypocrit.
ONLY AN IDIOT would say someone was agressive because they prevented someone from putting a gun to his head and shooting him. YOu really gotta get real jonsimon
If Israel is such an agressive nation wh othreatens the world like you maintain, you should be able to come up with examples that are better than Israel stopping a blockade of their waterways, a canal that was diverting water from Israel, and armies massing on its borders ready to attack it.
This is pretty much the "IRAQ HAS WMDS" crowd saying "Told you so" when they have just proven that they did in fact NOT have weapons of Mass destruction.
All that article tells me is that the "Where are, (grammar, please,) the WMDs" crowd was right.
All that article tells me is that the "Where are, (grammar, please,) the WMDs" crowd was right.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
another repost: Since it is ignored by you guys it must be pretty good. The following is an analogy that describes that it was about.Ty wrote:
This is pretty much the "IRAQ HAS WMDS" crowd saying "Told you so" when they have just proven that they did in fact NOT have weapons of Mass destruction.
All that article tells me is that the "Where are, (grammar, please,) the WMDs" crowd was right.
If you have been doing drugs, and you get grounded for that by your parents, and they only way you can get realeased to go play outside is to allow your parents full access to your bedroom so they can go through your stuff. Now, all of a sudden, you refuse to let your parents into your room, for weeks you refuse, then you let them in once, but they are not allowed to look in the second drawer down on your dresser. When they insist that they have full access to your dresser, you kick them out of your room. A month later you say they can now come back in and look in your dresser all they want, but, you do not allow them access to your closet. When they insist, you kick them out of your room again. A month later you say they can come back and inspect your closet now, but when they go to look under your bed you refuse to let them amd you throw them out of your room. After about 10 months of these games, they finally say enough, they re-ground you and THEN TAKE full access to your room, just like you agreed on in the first place. What do they find??.....roach clips, papers, books on drugs. EVERYTHING you need to actually roll your your own joints, just no joints. Ya think you have your parents convinced that you were not doing drugs???? 1 + 1 = 2
hope that helps
We benefitted from WW2 by removing Nazi Germany, because they posed a danger to the world, not just Europe. Japan was also a danger to the world, and not just East Asia.arabeater wrote:
Ok I can say the same thing about Nazi Germany. How did we benefit from going to war in Europe? We had to go to war with Japan but why with Germany? We lost alot more than 3,000 troops there and spent billions there as well. So what your saying is every war we fight we should benefit from it somehow. Correct? In that case we have numerous contracts to rebuild Iraqs infrastucture worth billions paid for by the sale of oil from the Iraqi government. As far as the 3,000 dead troops I understand what your saying. I have served there and had several friends die and become seriously wounded. The Iraqi people will benefit from the war but as to when is another question. I'm not saying the war in Iraq was a justified war, all i'm saying is that something needed to be done with Saddam and it just so happens that the US did it and we are paying the human toll for it. Is it worth it? In my opinion I say yes, but hey what do I know according to John Kerry i'm just an uneducated drone. LOL!
Iraq's oil revenue will go to corporations mostly. We're going to see very little of it go to paying off our current debts -- if any of it does so....
Saddam was a contained threat, so no, nothing had to be done about him.
NOT knowing what Saddam was doing behind closed doors, doors that were supposed to kept open, IS NOT having him contained.........He was caught with illegal long rang missles......There is no "containment" whith NOT knowing Iraq's weapons posture.Turquoise wrote:
We benefitted from WW2 by removing Nazi Germany, because they posed a danger to the world, not just Europe. Japan was also a danger to the world, and not just East Asia.arabeater wrote:
Ok I can say the same thing about Nazi Germany. How did we benefit from going to war in Europe? We had to go to war with Japan but why with Germany? We lost alot more than 3,000 troops there and spent billions there as well. So what your saying is every war we fight we should benefit from it somehow. Correct? In that case we have numerous contracts to rebuild Iraqs infrastucture worth billions paid for by the sale of oil from the Iraqi government. As far as the 3,000 dead troops I understand what your saying. I have served there and had several friends die and become seriously wounded. The Iraqi people will benefit from the war but as to when is another question. I'm not saying the war in Iraq was a justified war, all i'm saying is that something needed to be done with Saddam and it just so happens that the US did it and we are paying the human toll for it. Is it worth it? In my opinion I say yes, but hey what do I know according to John Kerry i'm just an uneducated drone. LOL!
Iraq's oil revenue will go to corporations mostly. We're going to see very little of it go to paying off our current debts -- if any of it does so....
Saddam was a contained threat, so no, nothing had to be done about him.
It's no word game. You can't very well expect to use UN resolutions to justify military action when you excuse other states that disobey UN mandates.lowing wrote:
I already said..........GIVEN the same CIRCUMSTANCES, I would approve of such attacks on Israel.......Your question is unfair by saying under the same "pretext".......compare apples and apples......not apples and organges.........A lot of varibles comes into play in dealing with this issue. Since Iraq and Israel different.Masques wrote:
You answered that you would support it under the same circumstances, but you didn't refer to pretext (flaunting of UN resolutions). I want to know about pretext. You do know the difference between circumstance and pretext right?lowing wrote:
already answered it, read up
. I will not let you try and back me into a corner on this.
MY answer is ..........If Israels history was that of Iraq I would support putting a thumb on Israel. THat is not the case though.
I finfd it humorous that you refuse to accept putting both nations on the same playing field when answering the question......You refuse to let me say "under the same CIRCUMSTANCES"...........why pray tell.is that??
Isn't comparing apples and apples the fair way to compare anything??
I have n oinclination to play your word games.
I asked you a simple question and your evasiveness only highlights your hypocracy. As I said, I'm not talking about circumstances, I'm talking about pretext (which you initiated by using Iraq's violation of UN mandates as some kind of justification). Now, you can just come out and say that it's okay for Israel to disregard UN mandates, but you can't very well expect to use the same process for your own argument.
Furthermore, if it's okay for some countries to disregard UN resolutions compelling to this or that action then why should any state obey a given resolution? That sticking point really complicates the US's efforts to try to get semi-hostile (and sometimes even friendly) states to cooperate (especially when such cooperation is necessary).
First of all. The resolution for Iraq, was a PEACE TREATY......A CEASE FIRE...FROM WAR.Masques wrote:
It's no word game. You can't very well expect to use UN resolutions to justify military action when you excuse other states that disobey UN mandates.lowing wrote:
I already said..........GIVEN the same CIRCUMSTANCES, I would approve of such attacks on Israel.......Your question is unfair by saying under the same "pretext".......compare apples and apples......not apples and organges.........A lot of varibles comes into play in dealing with this issue. Since Iraq and Israel different.Masques wrote:
You answered that you would support it under the same circumstances, but you didn't refer to pretext (flaunting of UN resolutions). I want to know about pretext. You do know the difference between circumstance and pretext right?
. I will not let you try and back me into a corner on this.
MY answer is ..........If Israels history was that of Iraq I would support putting a thumb on Israel. THat is not the case though.
I finfd it humorous that you refuse to accept putting both nations on the same playing field when answering the question......You refuse to let me say "under the same CIRCUMSTANCES"...........why pray tell.is that??
Isn't comparing apples and apples the fair way to compare anything??
I have n oinclination to play your word games.
I asked you a simple question and your evasiveness only highlights your hypocracy. As I said, I'm not talking about circumstances, I'm talking about pretext (which you initiated by using Iraq's violation of UN mandates as some kind of justification). Now, you can just come out and say that it's okay for Israel to disregard UN mandates, but you can't very well expect to use the same process for your own argument.
Furthermore, if it's okay for some countries to disregard UN resolutions compelling to this or that action then why should any state obey a given resolution? That sticking point really complicates the US's efforts to try to get semi-hostile (and sometimes even friendly) states to cooperate (especially when such cooperation is necessary).
Several other countries, including Israel, has disobeyed UN resolutions....We did not go to war with them.
IRAQ was under a cease fire from war.......there is your difference.
You are trying to play word games.....You are CAREFULLY choosing your words to try and manuver me into a corner. I will not let you do that
COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES.......GIVEN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES THAT UNFOLDED WITH IRAQ< I WOULD CONDONE GOING TO ISRAEL.....THAT SHOULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Surely, you don't think Iraq was the only country that was/is like that. There are a number of countries that we don't know much about as far as weapons go. North Korea is a good example of a rogue state that is far from transparent in its capabilities, and they've been more threatening in recent years. Why didn't we target them?lowing wrote:
NOT knowing what Saddam was doing behind closed doors, doors that were supposed to kept open, IS NOT having him contained.........He was caught with illegal long rang missles......There is no "containment" whith NOT knowing Iraq's weapons posture.Turquoise wrote:
We benefitted from WW2 by removing Nazi Germany, because they posed a danger to the world, not just Europe. Japan was also a danger to the world, and not just East Asia.arabeater wrote:
Ok I can say the same thing about Nazi Germany. How did we benefit from going to war in Europe? We had to go to war with Japan but why with Germany? We lost alot more than 3,000 troops there and spent billions there as well. So what your saying is every war we fight we should benefit from it somehow. Correct? In that case we have numerous contracts to rebuild Iraqs infrastucture worth billions paid for by the sale of oil from the Iraqi government. As far as the 3,000 dead troops I understand what your saying. I have served there and had several friends die and become seriously wounded. The Iraqi people will benefit from the war but as to when is another question. I'm not saying the war in Iraq was a justified war, all i'm saying is that something needed to be done with Saddam and it just so happens that the US did it and we are paying the human toll for it. Is it worth it? In my opinion I say yes, but hey what do I know according to John Kerry i'm just an uneducated drone. LOL!
Iraq's oil revenue will go to corporations mostly. We're going to see very little of it go to paying off our current debts -- if any of it does so....
Saddam was a contained threat, so no, nothing had to be done about him.
Was any other country breaking a peace treaty???Turquoise wrote:
I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Surely, you don't think Iraq was the only country that was/is like that. There are a number of countries that we don't know much about as far as weapons go. North Korea is a good example of a rogue state that is far from transparent in its capabilities, and they've been more threatening in recent years. Why didn't we target them?lowing wrote:
NOT knowing what Saddam was doing behind closed doors, doors that were supposed to kept open, IS NOT having him contained.........He was caught with illegal long rang missles......There is no "containment" whith NOT knowing Iraq's weapons posture.Turquoise wrote:
We benefitted from WW2 by removing Nazi Germany, because they posed a danger to the world, not just Europe. Japan was also a danger to the world, and not just East Asia.
Iraq's oil revenue will go to corporations mostly. We're going to see very little of it go to paying off our current debts -- if any of it does so....
Saddam was a contained threat, so no, nothing had to be done about him.
in regards to your "matter of opinion". Is it really your opinion that we had Iraq "contained" when no one was allowed to inspect his weapons programs?? As mandated by the peace treaty
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-06 18:13:31)