| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2004 07:20:16 PM |
| Object: |
How to avoid a "first strike" |
Simple. Stay out of Iran.
"One week after successfully testing a missile capable of striking any
point in the Middle East, Iran warned the United States and Israel
yesterday that it is ready to launch a pre-emptive strike to stop them
attacking its nuclear facilities."
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=3e7916fb-210a-4109-b4a7-b9e21ea7ac4f
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "AnotherObserver®" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
19 Aug 2004 08:14:10 PM |
|
|
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Simple. Stay out of Iran.
You would prefer to allow them the development of fissile material
(per broken deal with Europe)? What sort of person would actually
want to allow Iran the eventual development of nuclear weaponry?
"One week after successfully testing a missile capable of striking any
point in the Middle East, Iran warned the United States and Israel
yesterday that it is ready to launch a pre-emptive strike to stop them
attacking its nuclear facilities."
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=3e7916fb-210a-4109-b4a7-b9e21ea7ac4f
From the linked site:
"Ali Shamkhani, the Iranian Defence Minister, said the presence of
U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is no threat to Tehran; on the
contrary, he said, American soldiers are now Iran's hostages."
....there's enough motive for much more than nuclear power plant
attacks...
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
irreligionist
You will do me the justice to remember, that I
have always strenuously supported the right of
every man to his opinion, however different that
opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another
this right, makes a slave of himself to his present
opinion, because he precludes himself the right of
changing it.
- George H. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan de SD" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
22 Aug 2004 02:06:00 PM |
|
|
<AnotherObserver®> wrote in message
news:bniai09rbn9tb9v8f64km2ovq01hrdcbmc@4ax.com...
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Simple. Stay out of Iran.
You would prefer to allow them the development of fissile material
(per broken deal with Europe)? What sort of person would actually
want to allow Iran the eventual development of nuclear weaponry?
Liberals...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "W=Waffler" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
22 Aug 2004 11:11:18 AM |
|
|
AnotherObserver® wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Simple. Stay out of Iran.
You would prefer to allow them the development of fissile material
(per broken deal with Europe)? What sort of person would actually
want to allow Iran the eventual development of nuclear weaponry?
Someone who wants a counter balance to the Israeli hegemony in the
region. Two nuclear enemies are more likely to keep the other honest.
The Iranians have thousands of years of culture and history behind them.
The Israelis have barely 1500 and precious little of that (if their
claims to a kingdom extending outside of Palestine) are to be believed.
James
From the linked site:
"Ali Shamkhani, the Iranian Defence Minister, said the presence of
U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is no threat to Tehran; on the
contrary, he said, American soldiers are now Iran's hostages."
...there's enough motive for much more than nuclear power plant
attacks...
.
|
|
|
| User: "AnotherObserver®" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
22 Aug 2004 02:39:43 PM |
|
|
W=Waffler <jwa1968@earthlink.net> wrote:
AnotherObserver® wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Simple. Stay out of Iran.
You would prefer to allow them the development of fissile material
(per broken deal with Europe)? What sort of person would actually
want to allow Iran the eventual development of nuclear weaponry?
Someone who wants a counter balance to the Israeli hegemony in the
region. Two nuclear enemies are more likely to keep the other honest.
The Iranians have thousands of years of culture and history behind them.
The Israelis have barely 1500 and precious little of that (if their
claims to a kingdom extending outside of Palestine) are to be believed.
James
I agree that counter measure is important, yet a system of nuclear
deterrence along the lines of the old cold war model would be
inappropriate for the Middle East.
The Majestic Holy War with nuclear bombings to boot. Now that's
excitement I, for one, could do without.
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
irreligionist
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
24 Aug 2004 06:52:32 PM |
|
|
AnotherObserver® wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Simple. Stay out of Iran.
You would prefer to allow them the development of fissile material
(per broken deal with Europe)? What sort of person would actually
want to allow Iran the eventual development of nuclear weaponry?
The sort of person who would bomb them into oblivion as soon as they
did?
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "AnotherObserver®" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
25 Aug 2004 08:00:16 PM |
|
|
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
AnotherObserver® wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Simple. Stay out of Iran.
You would prefer to allow them the development of fissile material
(per broken deal with Europe)? What sort of person would actually
want to allow Iran the eventual development of nuclear weaponry?
The sort of person who would bomb them into oblivion as soon as they
did?
The destruction of their reactor is far from annihilation. In the
broader spectrum, the act would save the sand and the rats.
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
irreligionist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
27 Aug 2004 10:20:54 PM |
|
|
AnotherObserver® wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
AnotherObserver® wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Simple. Stay out of Iran.
You would prefer to allow them the development of fissile material
(per broken deal with Europe)? What sort of person would actually
want to allow Iran the eventual development of nuclear weaponry?
The sort of person who would bomb them into oblivion as soon as they
did?
The destruction of their reactor is far from annihilation. In the
broader spectrum, the act would save the sand and the rats.
Hmmm... well we could use a neutron bomb and take out the rats also.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
24 Aug 2004 07:57:21 PM |
|
|
The sort of persons that let Israel, India and Pakistan develope and produce
quantities of nucleor weapons.
--
Bill
"Jd" <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote in message
news:53sni01pv5oiti0qkahuiqvma17baabj2f@4ax.com...
AnotherObserver® wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Simple. Stay out of Iran.
You would prefer to allow them the development of fissile material
(per broken deal with Europe)? What sort of person would actually
want to allow Iran the eventual development of nuclear weaponry?
The sort of person who would bomb them into oblivion as soon as they
did?
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
24 Aug 2004 09:53:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:57:21 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
The sort of persons that let Israel, India and Pakistan develope and produce
quantities of nucleor weapons.
And the sort of person that thinks that rogue states such as the U.S.
*should* have nuclear weapons, but that Iran *shouldn't* in some
bizarre twisted logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan de SD" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
01 Sep 2004 09:29:14 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:mmvni0dk7vlqggtairsph2v3u1msoit9ut@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:57:21 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
The sort of persons that let Israel, India and Pakistan develope and
produce
quantities of nucleor weapons.
And the sort of person that thinks that rogue states such as the U.S.
*should* have nuclear weapons, but that Iran *shouldn't* in some
bizarre twisted logic.
The fact that you think that US is a "rogue state" is bizarre twisted logic
in itself...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
02 Sep 2004 07:25:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:29:14 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<standesd@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:mmvni0dk7vlqggtairsph2v3u1msoit9ut@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:57:21 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
The sort of persons that let Israel, India and Pakistan develope and
produce
quantities of nucleor weapons.
And the sort of person that thinks that rogue states such as the U.S.
*should* have nuclear weapons, but that Iran *shouldn't* in some
bizarre twisted logic.
The fact that you think that US is a "rogue state" is bizarre twisted logic
in itself...
That you think that it is *not* a rogue state, clearly labels you as
an average U.S. citizen.
It's all right, I'm not blaming you for your ignorance, you can hardly
help it with your media and commentators being so highly disciplined
in feeding you the government's spin on everything.
Most of the world outside your seaboard, quite rightly, considers the
U.S. a rogue state.
That means most of the world's population.
The U.S. is at the top of the list of Rogue States.
By a long way, now that the USSR is gone.
Lets see if I can bring you up to speed, and try and counter the tripe
that Fox news is responsible for:
"Rogue State"-
"States that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms"
I'd say that about sums up the current administrations attitude.
It most certainly shows in their actions.
"Though international norms are not rigidly determined, there is a
measure of agreement on general guidelines.
In the post WW2 period, these norms are partially codified in the UN
charter, International Court of Justice decisions, and various
conventions and treaties.
The US regards itself as exempt from these conditions, increasingly so
since the cold war ended, leaving US dominance so overwhelming that
pretence could be dropped."
The US support for brutal and inhumane assaults on Cuba, Nicaragua,
Panama, East Timor etc, has been condemned by the Un, The European
Union, the Organization of American States and its Judicial body, the
Inter-American Commission Judicial Committee, which ruled unanimously
that they violate international law, as did the Inter-American
Commission on Human rights.
Washington has made it clear that it will disregard any WTO ruling,
keeping to the rogue state principle…
There are enough examples and enough evidence to fill several volumes.
But this is not the place for it.
I've held your hand for now, but its up to you to do some reading, and
educate yourself.
If you want, I can suggest some references to get you started.
The U.S. is a rogue state by every definition.
Q.E.D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AnotherObserver®" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
02 Sep 2004 12:22:09 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
"Rogue State"-
"States that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms"
A law that can't be broken can't be enforced.
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
irreligionist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
02 Sep 2004 06:06:00 PM |
|
|
O,n Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:22:09 -0400, AnotherObserver® wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
"Rogue State"-
"States that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms"
A law that can't be broken can't be enforced.
Note that I said "norms", not "laws".
In other words, behaviour that most people consider acceptable.
Most people in the world consider the current US administration's
actions unacceptable.
Norms can be considered broken without having to seek a court's
opinion, although that has happened in the case of US support for the
genocide in Nicaragua, in particular the World Court in 1986, the
General Assembly, the Security Council, the United Nations, and many
more.
The US have explicit and written policies that say that the US will
only recognise these norms when it is in what a narrow section of the
elite in the administration considers as in their direct short-term
interests.
Otherwise they will be ignored.
This complies exactly with the definition of a rogue state.
These policies have been acted out with uncanny predictability, time
and time again, most notably in the illegal invasion of Iraq.
It's all available to read in the Library of Congress if you are
interested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AnotherObserver®" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
03 Sep 2004 04:08:19 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
O,n Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:22:09 -0400, AnotherObserver® wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
"Rogue State"-
"States that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms"
A law that can't be broken can't be enforced.
Note that I said "norms", not "laws".
Exactly.
In other words, behaviour that most people consider acceptable.
Most people in the world consider the current US administration's
actions unacceptable.
Norms can be considered broken without having to seek a court's
opinion, although that has happened in the case of US support for the
genocide in Nicaragua, in particular the World Court in 1986, the
General Assembly, the Security Council, the United Nations, and many
more.
The US have explicit and written policies that say that the US will
only recognise these norms when it is in what a narrow section of the
elite in the administration considers as in their direct short-term
interests.
Otherwise they will be ignored.
Was a declaration filed improperly? Was intent not officially stated?
Was a treaty broken? Or is it that you all love to ***** about
something, anything, that the US does. If it weren't for continual US
efforts in holy war prevention, it's probable that major portions of
Europe would be suffering environmental damage by now. I really don't
know how all that works, it's just that I'd hate to keep such close
company with extremely hardcore religious fanatics, who also happen to
have nuclear power.
It's most definite that the US actions are not related to it's major
religion. Our troops are not screaming "In Jesus name!", what they're
thinking seems to be "let's stop these irrational idiots before they
do something stupid, again." Seems Allah demands Jewish-American
blood. After all, the US didn't bother to prevent those heartens Jews
from obtaining nuclear power. The US are heathen scum too, so it's
win/win for them.
Bases in Iraq seem to be the perfect location, Iraq needed discipline,
too it's a win/win situation for all of us heathen. Then there's the
oil, and I now see why additional resources is a wise thing. I had
thought there were greedy motivations behind recent US efforts, then I
became interested enough to do some research. The administration
indeed has international interests at heart.
I'll add that Iran seems to be the most logical step that's next. So
sorry if that makes the US image appear to be that of a bully,
somebody must do it. I don't see any of you critics taking a stand.
Would you rather deal with the environmental effects? You'll be first
to deal with it.
This complies exactly with the definition of a rogue state.
*****. If you want a fucking rouge state example, take a real good
look at Iraq and Iran. Israel for that matter. Damn near the whole
continent west to south and east of Israel. Might as well throw in
all points slightly north.
These policies have been acted out with uncanny predictability, time
and time again, most notably in the illegal invasion of Iraq.
You previously said that no laws were broken, just that popular
opinion doesn't agree. Officially, which is it?
It's all available to read in the Library of Congress if you are
interested.
Yeah, like the contents aren't as easily falsified as a tabloid.
"We're gonna put ALL the information on the table, for EVERYONE to
see."
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
irreligionist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: How to avoid a "first strike" |
02 Sep 2004 10:36:37 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:29:14 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<standesd@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:mmvni0dk7vlqggtairsph2v3u1msoit9ut@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:57:21 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
The sort of persons that let Israel, India and Pakistan develope and
produce
quantities of nucleor weapons.
And the sort of person that thinks that rogue states such as the U.S.
*should* have nuclear weapons, but that Iran *shouldn't* in some
bizarre twisted logic.
The fact that you think that US is a "rogue state" is bizarre twisted logic
in itself...
That you think that it is *not* a rogue state, clearly labels you as
an average U.S. citizen.
It's all right, I'm not blaming you for your ignorance, you can hardly
help it with your media and commentators being so highly disciplined
in feeding you the government's spin on everything.
Most of the world outside your seaboard, quite rightly, considers the
U.S. a rogue state.
That means most of the world's population.
The U.S. is at the top of the list of Rogue States.
By a long way, now that the USSR is gone.
Lets see if I can bring you up to speed, and try and counter the tripe
that Fox news is responsible for:
"Rogue State"-
"States that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms"
I'd say that about sums up the current administrations attitude.
It most certainly shows in their actions.
"Though international norms are not rigidly determined, there is a
measure of agreement on general guidelines.
In the post WW2 period, these norms are partially codified in the UN
charter, International Court of Justice decisions, and various
conventions and treaties.
The US regards itself as exempt from these conditions, increasingly so
since the cold war ended, leaving US dominance so overwhelming that
pretence could be dropped."
The US support for brutal and inhumane assaults on Cuba, Nicaragua,
Panama, East Timor etc, has been condemned by the Un, The European
Union, the Organization of American States and its Judicial body, the
Inter-American Commission Judicial Committee, which ruled unanimously
that they violate international law, as did the Inter-American
Commission on Human rights.
Washington has made it clear that it will disregard any WTO ruling,
keeping to the rogue state principle…
There are enough examples and enough evidence to fill several volumes.
But this is not the place for it.
I've held your hand for now, but its up to you to do some reading, and
educate yourself.
If you want, I can suggest some references to get you started.
The U.S. is a rogue state by every definition.
Q.E.D.
A "rouge state"?
To support the irresponsible representation characteristic of the UN
today, would be to do nothing to stop the attrocities in the Sudan. To
do nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. To do nothing as we
all watched the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Then there are the stark
accomplishments.... Fidel Castro serving on the UN Human Rights Council,
Mugabe being awarded and celebrated as a model leader, Khadafi being
elevated, and to yield more understanding of the Taliban.
No. The fact that Europe and most other nations have lost their way,
purpose, and resolve in no way suggests that the U.S. should also. But
never despair.... at least the U.S. will remain strong, and will always
be there to protect the rest of you, if at least from yourselves.
I guess in the end we might be a rouge nation.... we remain true to the
value of liberty, justice, fairness, and freedom for all who cherish
Democracy. Like Zell Miller implied.... in the history of the world,
there has been no nation that gave so much for so many others. Were we
not a "rouge state", some 50 million Arabs would still be living under
the threat of torture, be-heading, mass graves, etc., etc., etc. ....
you know, much like the history of most of Africa, Europe, etc. in the
last century.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
