EPTI guess to "end the oppression of the palestinians?" another mindless myth about what I could write pages now.. there is no oppression
"if the arabs lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the israelis did there would be genocide."
mindfuck
Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iran - Pag…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
blomsterjohn
Norway472 Posts
mindfuck | ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On August 12 2010 23:27 wadadde wrote: What do you know of Obama's intentions? And why do you assume that Iran is even working on nuclear weapons? I'm not saying that there isn't or wasn't something to that claim, but there's certainly no conclusive evidence. Ah, the old appeasement line. Whenever there's the choice between war and peace some guy feels it's appropriate to reference Hitler's expansionism. Well, don't you think that the Iranian regime has displayed vastly more rational behaviour than Hitler? Maybe that's still not good enough. I'm just saying that just because Iran isn't a democracy that it merits bombing campains or anything of the sort. In fact it might be a reasonable policy if it were applied consistently. This isn't about freedom. You're free to imagine that such elevated goals are at the heart of real world considerations, but they're not. It's really complete nonsense that Israel has no other choice than to strike Iran (if it really is developing nuclear weapons). Israel could just accept that Iran is also a nuclear nation and it would have to behave accordingly in relation to it. Obviously it's always a nasty situation when two nations that consider eachother as enemies both aquire nuclear weapons. I hardly think that a situation like the India-Pakistan one is desirable. It could also be argued that the Middle-East should be a nuclear free zone, but for some reason that's the silliest idea in the world. No, we must remain determined to, in practice, support any policy of the Israelis. Why? Stability. Oh, okay. And peace. Oh yes, of course. Where would all those poor countries in the region be if it weren't for a single nuclear god towering over them. Seriously though, it's hard to know with absolute certainty what all the motivations of the US governments are/were but one could remark that the whole Israeli-Palestinian situation isn't to the disadvantage of local dictators. People in most of the Middle East lack half-decent journalism and the place is rife with conspiracy theories. The only extra thing one needs to channel thinking away from adressing the real problems in those countries is a great demon and Israel performs that role admirably. 'Stability' may seem like the best thing in the world if you're living a thousand miles away, but doing away with the oppression of Palestinians could be benificial to more than just the Palestinians (and the Israelis themselves). The US has the power to allow sanctions on Israel. Or it could choose to change its relationship; perhaps apply some mild pressure? The US could do a lot of good without even dropping one bomb. They prefer control though, which is also evident when one looks at the situation in Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and a lot of other 'allies', official or not. User was warned for this post "Please try to post on teamliquid.net using proper English. This includes spelling out words like "you" and "you're" and appropriate grammar and spelling. If you can't be bothered to make your post readable why should anyone be bothered to read it." I was warned for this? Maybe someone sent me the wrong standardized warning.. I have to say that I read my comment again, and maybe it's due to the fact that English isn't my mother tongue, but I failed to see any mistakes beyond perhaps punctuation. I'm so confused. I'm pretty sure that I'm breaking some rule now, but I'd just like to be sure of which rule I broke (=which warning I should heed), and in what way. | ||
|
DrZogg
Germany21 Posts
ye I know, those sentences are hard to swallow when one is bombarded with essentially anti-israeli propaganda, that comes along as seemingly "objective news". lets keep it simple. tell me: how, in what way does israel oppress the palestinians? they sort of rule over them in the west bank, but not because they want to...you think israel should just leave the west bank and the palestinians will accept the state of israel? and 2nd: are there not several arab countries (plus non-arabic like venezuela, iran..) that want to annihilate israel? does israel want to destroy any other country? every war israel fought was a just self-defensive war. that's a fact too. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On August 13 2010 02:39 DrZogg wrote: I know that khomenei is the one with the actual power and that the views of ahmadinejad are actually not that important. but it doesnt make a difference. to keep it simple I talked about "the regime" most of the time. its actually a little more complicated, but the important thing is that khomenei wants to hasten the coming of the 12 imam as badly as ahmadinejad does. there is obviously a power struggle going on in iran. the mullahs are losing the power (to say it in very simple, maybe too simple words) to the even more extreme revolutionary guards.the views and ideology Ive explained are of course not only those of ahmadinejad but of the whole ruling regime, which only two years ago where just the mullahs, but today even many of them are opposing the agenda of the revolutionary guards, on whose side khomenei is on. You haven't been giving any cites or proof for most of those claims, particularly for why this "extreme radicalism" applies to all parts of the regime. For instance, the claim about "more extreme revolutionary guards" isn't really true: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14324/irans_revolutionary_guards.html#p6 Wehrey doubts the guard and its commanders would go that far. For one, Wehrey notes, the organization today is overly factionalized and made up of competing currents. During the Khatami era, for instance, the guard's leadership supported conservative elements within the Iranian establishment, while the rank-and-file were more empathetic to the reformists. Under Ahmadinejad, splits have emerged most noticeably on economic policy. And to suggest that the guard would orchestrate an overt bid for power misses the "checks and balances on the system," Wehrey says. "There is so much else going on behind the scenes. It's intensely driven by personalities, by political differences that overlap the formal structures. To say that the guards are acting in lockstep to assert themselves as a political actor ignores the factional divisions ... that permeate the guard." | ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
I would also like to mention that I do not propose that Israel lays down its arms. Ending the occupation of Palestinian territories would be a good first step. Reaching/imposing a more lasting settlement (no pun intended) would be a nice second step. I also didn't call on the US to impose sanctions on Israel. It would merely be nice if it stopped vetoing UN resolutions. You're certainly right in what you said about European leaders. You forgot North American leaders, but that's probably an honest msitake. Also, Ahmadinejad often seems to behave like a (anti-semitic) lunatic bent on self-destruction. Where Israel might be perceived as the perfect villain for the East, so is Ahmadinejad the perfect villain for the West. That's where our agreement ends. Don't bother quoting Iranian speeches. I do know a thing or two about the history of modern Iran. I value actions over words in trying to understand the behaviour of states. Maybe that's a flaw, but I've just heard so much lying from the mouths of people in power that I've developed somewhat of an allergy to it. Yes, I realize exactly how problematic many strands of (Islamic) fundamentalism are. I also realize that there is hope for a more peaceful coexistence, but only if the idea of making concessions isn't automatically regarded as dangerous because the enemy is supposedly insane or evil. | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway472 Posts
how, in what way does israel oppress the palestinians? If you take the position that there's no oppression of Arabs/Palestinians in the Israel/Palestine territories then i don't think anything will convince you either way, I'm sorry I wont interfere with this thread anymore | ||
|
DrZogg
Germany21 Posts
| ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On August 13 2010 17:17 DrZogg wrote: alright whatever. I guess I tend to write a little too passionate about the topic, mostly because I think that it's very important, and because there are so many misconceptions concerning the ME conflict.. In a sense any reasonable disagreement over the behaviour of Iran, Israel, the US etc. comes down to the question whether or not it's healthy for states to adhere to an international framework of rules and laws. All the facts matter, but it's hard to escape the perception that powerful and power-hungry states feel more inclined to answer the question negatively unless they feel that they have a satisfactory degree of disproportionate control over the existing regulatory bodies. Answering the question negatively implies that it is reasonable for states/populations to engage in actions that seem barbaric at best to the 'informed', 'impartial' observer. How can there be real peace if the so-called stability is built on foundations (=power) that cannot be challenged in a non-violent way? It is misguided to regard the actions of states that do not wish to engage in building or adhering to a stabilizing international framework (based on principles that seems reasonable to all participants) as just. The seemingly inevitable chain of events that emanate from 'illegal' actions should perhaps not be used to justify the rejection of the principle of international law. I probably said this before. The reason I think it's imporatant to mention in response to your comments is that much of the reason for Iranian and Israeli paranoia is not based on mere rhetoric. It exists because there is a recognition that dominance is the only dependable currency in a system where justice depends on the goodwill of the dominant. Since some (or all) of the parties feel that is not in their (expansionist) interest to propose any kind of alternative system of international justice, the result is the current international dick-waving. Many people don't think about it exactly in this way, but rather resort to designing all kinds of elaborate mazes of reasoning, constructed to show just how fit they are for dominance and why the enemy clearly doesn't make the cut. This is not productive, even when there's some truth to it. If the desire for peace exists, then the desire for reasonable rules and adherence to those rules should exist as well. It's all too easy to concoct a rationalization for brutality when one is allowed to independently determine which events are of note and which aren't. All transgressions must be dealt with in a timely fashion. | ||
|
Headlines
United States482 Posts
| ||
|
vnlegend
United States1389 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43520 Posts
On August 14 2010 07:05 vnlegend wrote: We need to send in the Deltas or SAS and just blow up their reactors. No need for formal war. It is perhaps possible that sending soldiers into a foreign nation to blow up assets they consider vital to national security could in many ways be considered an invasion. And invasions are usually followed by formal declarations of war. | ||
|
SaYyId
Portugal277 Posts
Yes, I like USA for what they've done, but the world would be like a weghing scale in which the USA are 1000000000000 pounds and the rest of the world is at 10. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6593 Posts
| ||
|
SaYyId
Portugal277 Posts
"LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY" | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On August 14 2010 07:22 KwarK wrote: It is perhaps possible that sending soldiers into a foreign nation to blow up assets they consider vital to national security could in many ways be considered an invasion. And invasions are usually followed by formal declarations of war. I think he's talking about one of those special troops. You know, like when you go to that russian snowbase with Soap in MW2 and blow up whatever that was. | ||
|
muse5187
1125 Posts
| ||
|
Mylin
Sweden177 Posts
On August 14 2010 11:57 muse5187 wrote: Blacks ops was going on months and months BEFORE the invasion of iraq. I thought militaries just a-moved :S | ||
|
KwarK
United States43520 Posts
On August 14 2010 11:57 muse5187 wrote: Blacks ops was going on months and months BEFORE the invasion of iraq. But after they decided they wanted to do a formal war and they didn't give a fuck. | ||
|
vnlegend
United States1389 Posts
| ||
|
Jackafur
United States116 Posts
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon web bot predicted world war 3 on November 15th of this year. My birthday is the 16th. I'm not saying the web bot is all knowing or anything. Just food for thought. | ||
| ||
