Haha war, haha!
Idiots...
Idiots...
These are all good points but unfortunately for the US they have lost a lot of credibility on the global stage as a result of their misguided invasion of Iraq and their horrible double standards over Israel's development of nuclear weapons. But like you say it is not just the US, though they do appear to be the ring leaders to a certain extent.FEOS wrote:
I'm not the one "on" about anything. You're the one making accusations you can't back up.Dilbert_X wrote:
I have no idea what you're on about.
The US wants Iran to bend to its will and is threatening military action if it doesn't.
It couldn't be any simpler.
You clearly either don't understand or refuse to understand the situation. I'll try to explain in simple terms:
1. It's not the US. It's the US, EU, Russia, China, GCC, and the UN.
2. Iran claims their nuclear pursuit is only peaceful, but then reject any offers of help from the international community. Those offers of help would both 1) speed up their obtainment of peaceful nuclear energy and 2) ensure that it can't be used for military purposes. Since they claim their pursuit of nuclear technology is purely peaceful and has no military component, why do they refuse?
3. The IAEA has stated repeatedly that Iran is not cooperating enough to ensure that their program is what they say it is.
4. When negotiating with anyone, you don't ever take any of your options off the table. Saying you won't take military options off the table is negotiating 101...otherwise, diplomacy has nothing to back it up. It's not a threat, it's negotiating without preconditions...something you seem to feel the US should be doing, only it's Iran who shouldn't have preconditions imposed upon them. How do you not see your own double standard here?
BL: No threats, it's not just the US, Iran isn't cooperating with the UN/IAEA, you expect the US to enter negotiations with preconditions but not Iran.
That's it in a nutshell.
Okay, you're drunk but it's also quite clear that you sit very much on the American propaganda side of the Middle Eastern debate. To say that Israel are the only people in the Middle East who want peace is to completely negate the fact that they established an apartheid nation (one that gives preferential treatment to Jews) in a land where another people already lived. Any indigenous Palestinians who got in the way of their plans were simply thrown out of their homes, which were mostly demolished, and forced to flee to refugee camps. This oppression still continues to this day and thanks to Israeli law a Jew living anywhere in the world has more right to live in Palestine than a native Palestinian. Israeli authorities also try to strengthen their hold on the region by building plantations in disputed territories and relocating ardent Zionists there. But I'm guessing when you see a rocket attack on the news it's just terrorism...it's just not that simple. While terror attacks on innocent Israelis cannot be condoned neither can the crimes of the Israeli Government.Dr.PhiL wrote:
Im sorry, im a bit drunk here, by why in the world, does people here argue for Iran, these people would kill us if they could, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped of the map.
Israelian people is the only people in the ME, that has a desire for peace.
But of course they have to defend themself for their own well being, its called self defence.
Anyway as i stated before im drunk, and maybe i should not write this nonsense (mods delete if you want) but just my 2 cents.
On the issue of Iran. What makes you think the average Iranian would want to kill a Westerner? Iran is actually one of the more moderate Islamic nations in the Middle East, it's nowhere near as extreme as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan. What is going on in Iran is quite similar to what is going on in America...they have a trouble-making President who is playing the Nationalist card to deflect attention away from domestic issues. Also, the comment about "wiping Israel off the map" has been widely disputed in terms of its translation and interpretation; it could be considered similar to Bush's description of his Middle Eastern policy as a "crusade".
Iran can print it's warnings, role it in the small paper tube, and stuck it in the ass!
I used to work with an Iranian, at any moment she could have easily murdred me and probably the rest of the people in the office. Oddly she seemed more interested in her work than death to westerners.Dr.PhiL wrote:
Im sorry, im a bit drunk here, by why in the world, does people here argue for Iran, these people would kill us if they could, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped of the map.
Oh and the 'wipe Israel off the map' thing is a piece of propaganda. The idiom 'to wipe something off the map' doesn't even exist in their language. If he actually said that is would have sounded like jibberish to everyone listening. Plus the place is a theocracy and their supreme leader makes the big decisions. He openly supports the position of the Arab League, a two state settlement.
I personally would prefer it if no one in the Middle East had nuclear weapons but because Israel went and acquired them illegally it has pretty much changed the gameplan for everyone else. You can look at it two ways really...Lisik wrote:
Iran can print it's warnings, role it in the small paper tube, and stuck it in the ass!
1. Israel are defending themselves in the face of opposition on all sides and need nuclear weapons as a last ditch deterrent, especially in relation to Iran because they continually use aggressive rhetoric and are possibly attempting to acquire nukes themselves.
or...
2. Iran are attempting to defend themselves in the face of a two-front opposition that have effectively established a pincer position on either side of them with Israel also continually staging practice attacks and engaging in aggressive rhetoric. They need nuclear weapons as a last ditch deterrent.
...nice little mess you've got over there.
This is an excellent point and one that shows the flaws in how many propagandist media outlets report "the news". The expression "to wipe something off the map" is a very Western expression, we take this for granted and presume it translates the same across any language while retaining its meaning but that is very rarely the case with sayings and expressions; for example if you said "the coast is clear" to a Russian he would think you were talking about the weather along the coastline. The media got a translation for what Ahmedinijad said and put their own slant on it to make it a little more 'catchy' for the headlines.PureFodder wrote:
Oh and the 'wipe Israel off the map' thing is a piece of propaganda. The idiom 'to wipe something off the map' doesn't even exist in their language. If he actually said that is would have sounded like jibberish to everyone listening.
There was no any anti-Iranian rhetoric from Israel before Ahmed.. told he will wipe Israel and started the crazy rush for nukes.
No, but Israel have been known to strike targets in their neighbour's regions whenever they please, build up illegal weapons stockpiles and also there's the whole oppression of the Palestinians issue...which doesn't exactly put the Israelis in a good light among Arab nations.Lisik wrote:
There was no any anti-Iranian rhetoric from Israel before Ahmed.. told he will wipe Israel and started the crazy rush for nukes.
I actually believe Ahmedinijad is a cynical scoundrel who is using the Israel issue as a means to play the Nationalism card and deflect attention while things are going bad domestically but I also think that Israel have started this de facto arms race and can't really complain about other nations engaging in it too...especially a nation that seems to be next on America's "to do" list.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-01 05:04:48)
Since Arabs newer saw Israel in a good light i have nothing to worry about.Braddock wrote:
...which doesn't exactly put the Israelis in a good light among Arab nations.
Well then why bother debating the subject?Lisik wrote:
Since Arabs newer saw Israel in a good light i have nothing to worry about.Braddock wrote:
...which doesn't exactly put the Israelis in a good light among Arab nations.
Sorry Your Majesty, i will stop.Braddock wrote:
Well then why bother debating the subject?Lisik wrote:
Since Arabs newer saw Israel in a good light i have nothing to worry about.Braddock wrote:
...which doesn't exactly put the Israelis in a good light among Arab nations.
I didn't mean that, my point is if you are so steadfast in your opinions why bother discussing it at all? If everyone took the attitude that they were not going to budge on their position then there would never be any progress...you can see what compromise has achieved in Northern Ireland and there were some big compromises there.Lisik wrote:
Sorry Your Majesty, i will stop.Braddock wrote:
Well then why bother debating the subject?Lisik wrote:
Since Arabs newer saw Israel in a good light i have nothing to worry about.
Do you honestly believe Israel can hold out forever in the face of opposition on all sides...given that no empire, no matter how strong, has ever survived indefinitely? Israel needs to build some bridges with its neighbours and that will be a long and painful process for all those involved but it has to be done if a lasting and meaningful peace is ever to be achieved.
What would you think if a peace plan involved all countries in the region getting rid of their nuclear capabilities, including Israel? That would be fair to all sides wouldn't it?
Israel do build bridges with it's neighbours... Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon are the examples. And btw Barak shakes hands with Iraqi president just today.
Last edited by Lisik (2008-07-01 06:08:38)
progress! Zionist shakes hand with a US puppet!
Hoooooray!! We're all saved.
Hoooooray!! We're all saved.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Whatever.
All you have to do now is build bridges with the rest of your neighbours...the onus is on Israel, they are the nation that established themselves in someone else's back garden. Israel needs to work towards a proper two-state solution where no one is given preferential treatment just because of race or religion.Lisik wrote:
Israel do build bridges with it's neighbours... Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon are the examples. And btw Barak shakes hands with Iraqi president just today.
And Barrack shaking hands with Israel is somehow supposed to represent progress for the region? A couple of weeks ago he pretty much pledged unwavering support for Israel in its current form with Jerusalem as its capital...he's hardly sitting on the fence.
Why can't the muslims fuck off.Braddock wrote:
All you have to do now is build bridges with the rest of your neighbours...the onus is on Israel, they are the nation that established themselves in someone else's back garden. Israel needs to work towards a proper two-state solution where no one is given preferential treatment just because of race or religion.Lisik wrote:
Israel do build bridges with it's neighbours... Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon are the examples. And btw Barak shakes hands with Iraqi president just today.
And Barrack shaking hands with Israel is somehow supposed to represent progress for the region? A couple of weeks ago he pretty much pledged unwavering support for Israel in its current form with Jerusalem as its capital...he's hardly sitting on the fence.
They have two fucking holy cities already, what the fuck do they need Jerusalem for? City hoggers.
Ermm i meant our Barak, not the Obama. lolBraddock wrote:
All you have to do now is build bridges with the rest of your neighbours...the onus is on Israel, they are the nation that established themselves in someone else's back garden. Israel needs to work towards a proper two-state solution where no one is given preferential treatment just because of race or religion.Lisik wrote:
Israel do build bridges with it's neighbours... Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon are the examples. And btw Barak shakes hands with Iraqi president just today.
And Barrack shaking hands with Israel is somehow supposed to represent progress for the region? A couple of weeks ago he pretty much pledged unwavering support for Israel in its current form with Jerusalem as its capital...he's hardly sitting on the fence.
You mean like 'fuck off' back to where they came from?....doh, they're already there. Oh noes, I guess the goy Jews are the only ones who can 'fuck off' back to where they came from if we're going down that route.icecold2510 wrote:
Why can't the muslims fuck off.Braddock wrote:
All you have to do now is build bridges with the rest of your neighbours...the onus is on Israel, they are the nation that established themselves in someone else's back garden. Israel needs to work towards a proper two-state solution where no one is given preferential treatment just because of race or religion.Lisik wrote:
Israel do build bridges with it's neighbours... Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon are the examples. And btw Barak shakes hands with Iraqi president just today.
And Barrack shaking hands with Israel is somehow supposed to represent progress for the region? A couple of weeks ago he pretty much pledged unwavering support for Israel in its current form with Jerusalem as its capital...he's hardly sitting on the fence.
They have two fucking holy cities already, what the fuck do they need Jerusalem for? City hoggers.
So if Mexico took over Texas and used the excuse that you already had New York and LA and should stop moaning that excuse would sit just fine with you?
dont forget the oilicecold2510 wrote:
Why can't the muslims fuck off.Braddock wrote:
All you have to do now is build bridges with the rest of your neighbours...the onus is on Israel, they are the nation that established themselves in someone else's back garden. Israel needs to work towards a proper two-state solution where no one is given preferential treatment just because of race or religion.Lisik wrote:
Israel do build bridges with it's neighbours... Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon are the examples. And btw Barak shakes hands with Iraqi president just today.
And Barrack shaking hands with Israel is somehow supposed to represent progress for the region? A couple of weeks ago he pretty much pledged unwavering support for Israel in its current form with Jerusalem as its capital...he's hardly sitting on the fence.
They have two fucking holy cities already, what the fuck do they need Jerusalem for? City hoggers.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Ah, so the Israeli leader has shaken hands with the American backed leader of Iraq, I see...I thought you were talking about something that would make no difference whatsoever to how Israel are perceived by the majority of the Arab population of the Middle East...oh, wait!Lisik wrote:
Ermm i meant our Barak, not the Obama. lolBraddock wrote:
All you have to do now is build bridges with the rest of your neighbours...the onus is on Israel, they are the nation that established themselves in someone else's back garden. Israel needs to work towards a proper two-state solution where no one is given preferential treatment just because of race or religion.Lisik wrote:
Israel do build bridges with it's neighbours... Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon are the examples. And btw Barak shakes hands with Iraqi president just today.
And Barrack shaking hands with Israel is somehow supposed to represent progress for the region? A couple of weeks ago he pretty much pledged unwavering support for Israel in its current form with Jerusalem as its capital...he's hardly sitting on the fence.
No, they have two holy cities. They do not have to own Jerusalem. Why can't they get over it? They have no care in the world for other people's religion it seems like...Braddock wrote:
You mean like 'fuck off' back to where they came from?....doh, they're already there. Oh noes, I guess the goy Jews are the only ones who can 'fuck off' back to where they came from if we're going down that route.icecold2510 wrote:
Why can't the muslims fuck off.Braddock wrote:
All you have to do now is build bridges with the rest of your neighbours...the onus is on Israel, they are the nation that established themselves in someone else's back garden. Israel needs to work towards a proper two-state solution where no one is given preferential treatment just because of race or religion.
And Barrack shaking hands with Israel is somehow supposed to represent progress for the region? A couple of weeks ago he pretty much pledged unwavering support for Israel in its current form with Jerusalem as its capital...he's hardly sitting on the fence.
They have two fucking holy cities already, what the fuck do they need Jerusalem for? City hoggers.
So if Mexico took over Texas and used the excuse that you already had New York and LA and should stop moaning that excuse would sit just fine with you?
Is Mexico full of Muslims that are always fighting over Texas which is a 'holy' land for different religions?
Why should they have to get over it? They had their land taken from them. Palestine as it was in the 1940's was not responsible for the exodus of the Jewish people or for any of the atrocities suffered by the Jewish people during the holocaust and yet they have to pay the price by losing their land including one of their holy cities. Why should Israel be allowed Jerusalem? If anything Jerusalem should be made a neutral UN property (like the HQ in New York) with equal access to all for religious purposes.icecold2510 wrote:
No, they have two holy cities. They do not have to own Jerusalem. Why can't they get over it? They have no care in the world for other people's religion it seems like...
It's called drawing a comparison mate, usually the person you draw the comparison for can spot the similarities and fill in the blanks themselves ...instead of just taking it completely literally.icecold2510 wrote:
Is Mexico full of Muslims that are always fighting over Texas which is a 'holy' land for different religions?
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-01 07:56:45)
I agree with the UN neutral land. I just don't understand why Muslims don't want to accept that Israel is there and why they don't want to share.Braddock wrote:
Why should they have to get over it? They had their land taken from them. Palestine as it was in the 1940's was not responsible for the exodus of the Jewish people or for any of the atrocities suffered by the Jewish people during the holocaust and yet they have to pay the price by losing their land including one of their holy cities. Why should Israel be allowed Jerusalem? If anything Jerusalem should be made a neutral UN property (like the HQ in New York) with equal access to all for religious purposes.icecold2510 wrote:
No, they have two holy cities. They do not have to own Jerusalem. Why can't they get over it? They have no care in the world for other people's religion it seems like...