Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Still disregarding the "78% believe that the US forces are provoking more conflict than it is preventing." I see..

..yes, in the poll of only 1,150, with an admitted oversupply of the one ethnic group which supported Saddam Hussein :rolleyes:

dlofnep wrote: »

Let's be frank, you're absolutely clueless about the general opinion of Iraqis, and either purposely ignorant or extremely naive in coming to grips with the reality that Iraqis consider the US forces as an occupying force.

I have a French relation who doesn't drink, doesn't smoke and is lactose intolerant so he can't eat cheese. Is that a general opinion of french people?

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Figures from your given link show that 70% of Iraqis feel that the US forces have done a bad job, with 61% stating that they find US forces counter-productive to their security. The majority also feel that the security in Iraq would be better if US forces left. All from a more recent poll in 2008. (http://usiraq.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=673#II.A.)

Poll Jan 2009

83% express optimism for the future of the country.

82% believed the security situation was suitable for elections.

68% feel very safe about their district.

If hostilities break out between the USA and Iran what do Iraqis think Iraq should do..

72% remain neutral
15% help the USA

hardly indicative of a population feeling itself under a military occupation against their will.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Poll Jan 2009

83% express optimism for the future of the country.

82% believed the security situation was suitable for elections.

68% feel very safe about their district.

If hostilities break out between the USA and Iran what do Iraqis think Iraq should do..

72% remain neutral
15% help the USA

hardly indicative of a population feeling itself under a military occupation against their will.

Utter nonsense. Not one thing there states anything about being content with US occupation.

The exact same year as your second poll in 2008, 70% of them felt US troops were doing a bad job and 61% felt US troops made the security of the country worse.

These are the real issues, not would they support Iran in a war. I think they might be pretty much tired of war, don't you? Not to mention - Iran and Iraq haven't seen eye to eye in the past, so there is no onus on the Iraqi people, a worn-torn people to enter another war to defend Iran. Your pick and choosery on moot topics doesn't help your case one bit.

You still haven't answer my question - Have you personally spoke to the Iraqi people and asked them what their opinion is? I have, can you say the same?

jank

prinz wrote: »

Would you care to add up the numbers of civilians killed by Imperial Japanese forces across south east Asia during it's period of expansion. Take Nanking for example, one Chinese city, which suffered a death toll higher than both atomic bombs combined. The Japanese Army even had a beheading championships, did you know that? It became a sport.

Well if the US were so concerned about the welfare of China why did it wait until tail end of 1941 to start a war with them after Pearl Harbour? After all Japan was kicking Chinas Ass all around asia since 1933, 8 years prior to their own war.

See the thing is nobody and I mean nobody is here defending Japanese actions during WW2, they did some brutal $hit to people, so brutal even the Nazi's were shocked. But equally dropping atom bombs on cities to demonstrate their new super weapon to the Russians and basicly scare the $hit out of Stalin (never mind saving american lives if they had to invade the mainland) should also fall into the category of a war crime. Only some people are very quick to jump on their high horse and point out the bad stuff Japan did. Didnt your mother tell you 2 wrongs dont make a right.

You cant have it both ways.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

The American military has been invited to stay.

By a Government it backs and that is dependent on it...I seem to remember a different concept of the effect that kind of thing had when Syria was in Lebanon....

Colpriz

peasant wrote: »

It might be worthy of note at this point that IRAN, yes, that "rogue state" that Bush wanted to nuke next has indeed signed the non-proliferation treaty.

How about a little embargo for Isreal?
The "rogue state" label then?
Mandatory UN inspections?

No?

Whyever not?

I agree..bet if you use a little nail polish remover on the Isreali flags painted on their nukes you'll find a little stars & stripes flag underneath..double standards I say

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Not one thing there states anything about being content with US occupation.

For a people suffering under an unwanted military occupation they certainly seem not too bothered by it all so.

dlofnep wrote: »

You still haven't answer my question - Have you personally spoke to the Iraqi people and asked them what their opinion is? I have, can you say the same?

I have already responded to that.

jank wrote: »

Well if the US were so concerned about the welfare of China why did it wait until tail end of 1941 to start a war with them after Pearl Harbour? After all Japan was kicking Chinas Ass all around asia since 1933, 8 years prior to their own war.

See the thing is nobody and I mean nobody is here defending Japanese actions during WW2, they did some brutal $hit to people, so brutal even the Nazi's were shocked. But equally dropping atom bombs on cities to demonstrate their new super weapon to the Russians and basicly scare the $hit out of Stalin (never mind saving american lives if they had to invade the mainland) should also fall into the category of a war crime. Only some people are very quick to jump on their high horse and point out the bad stuff Japan did. Didnt your mother tell you 2 wrongs dont make a right.

You cant have it both ways.

(a) off-topic and irrelevant, you could equally be said to be jumping on a high horse to point out "the bad ****" America did, which was the origin of this little side track

and

(b) I didn't defend, excuse, or belittle the atomic bombs dropped. How am I on a "high horse"? I was pointing out the useless throwing out of numbers about Pearl Harbour and Nagasaki/Hiroshima, with regard to the current profileration of nuclear weapons. I have already repeatedly stated that I am against all nuclear weapons, regardless of who has them. However being realistic some countries have them. I don't agree with that, however the situation is not going to be improved by giving nuclear arms to more people.

I never wanted to have anything "both ways". It is the people who want to count numbers of dead, who in turn seem shocked when that is taken to it's logical conclusion, who seem to want things 'both ways'.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

For a people suffering under an unwanted military occupation they certainly seem not too bothered by it all so.

All evidence states that they ARE bothered by it. Discontent with the US forces acts, consider them to be a source of instability rather than a source of security.

You still haven't answered my question. Have you spoken to an Iraqi about this like I have, or are you going to set the basis of your argument on the avoidance of key poll information which categorically demonstrates discontent with American forces, and has shown that Iraqis are in the majority in favour of resisting against American occupation rather than assisting with it.

You have no basis for your argument. None whatsoever. If you believe that the Iraqis are happy with the US forces, then PROVE it.

I have already responded to that.

Where did you respond to it?

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

By a Government it backs and that is dependent on it...I seem to remember a different concept of the effect that kind of thing had when Syria was in Lebanon....

The Lebanese government didn't want a Syrian presence. It refused to apply for an Arab League mandate for Syria to continue it's presence in the 1980's. In 1986 Lebanon specifically request Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. Therefore Syrian presence after that date has no legal authority whatsoever, i.e. it was an occupying force. After the civil war had been won, the victors agreed a pact with Syria and Syrian forces were accepted. Of course times changed again and Lebanon wanted them out see the Cedar Revolution.

So what exactly is your point?

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

You have no basis for your argument. None whatsoever. If you believe that the Iraqis are happy with the US forces, then PROVE it.

For a people more happy with security, safety and optimistic about the future I don't see any major problems with sources of instability. Additionally we have once again veered off on a tangent, it's not up to me to "prove" Iraqis are more than happy with US forces. You claimed it was a military occupation... show me anywhere where Iraqis have asked the Americans to leave? Has the Iraqi government? No. Are the people happy with the government? Seems so according to those polls. What's the problem.

Again if you're going to go back to your first poll, I repeat, that it was taken in 2006... we're now in 2009, it had a subject group of only 1,150, and Sunnis were over-represented. Hmmm. Fair picture? I doubt it. It would be like polling 900 loyalists, 250 nationalists and then claiming 78% of northerners were happy to remain in the Union ( using examples you could appreciate for illustrative purposes ).

dlofnep wrote: »

Where did you respond to it?

When I stated that talking to a couple of people no more presents a national general opinion, than talking to Ian Paisley and claiming it represents a general opinion in NI. Iraq is fiercely divided. Ask a Sunni and ask a Kurd, you'll get very, very, very different opinions.

jank

prinz wrote: »

(a) off-topic and irrelevant, you could equally be said to be jumping on a high horse to point out "the bad ****" America did, which was the origin of this little side track

.

Hey, you brought up Nanking, Pot, kettle and all that....
Off topic yes but irrelevant no, We are talking about atomic/nuclear weapons. Surely raising the matter of the only country in history to use such weapons is subject to discussion. Same country making moves against Iran. But it doesn't suit your argument so I understand why you dont want it brought up.

prinz wrote: »

(b) I didn't defend, excuse, or belittle the atomic bombs dropped. How am I on a "high horse"? I was pointing out the useless throwing out of numbers about Pearl Harbour and Nagasaki/Hiroshima, with regard to the current profileration of nuclear weapons. I have already repeatedly stated that I am against all nuclear weapons, regardless of who has them. However being realistic some countries have them. I don't agree with that, however the situation is not going to be improved by giving nuclear arms to more people.
.

You didnt defend or excuse you but you ignored the point completely and went on a rant about Japan v China in WWII. Not really a balanced post now was it.

prinz wrote: »

I never wanted to have anything "both ways". It is the people who want to count numbers of dead, who in turn seem shocked when that is taken to it's logical conclusion, who seem to want things 'both ways'.

But you only see things "one way" and "one way only".:D

prinz

jank wrote: »

Hey, you brought up Nanking, Pot, kettle and all that....

Perhaps you should scroll back and see who brought up Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ....:rolleyes:.. hint it wasn't me. Now you can't have that cake and eat it. We were having a decent discussion about the here and now, about Iran's nuclear ambitions.. but meh that went down the tubes in a hurry.

jank wrote: »

You didnt defend or excuse you but you ignored the point completely and went on a rant about Japan v China in WWII. Not really a balanced post now was it.

I am well aware who has used nuclear weapons. I am also well aware that I am against nuclear weapons held by anyone. What I am not going to ignore is one sided irrelevant nonsense whatabouttery however.

jank wrote: »

But you only see things "one way" and "one way only".:D

Not really. Some people are saying something along the lines of 'Iran should have a nuke, because sure Israel has them...'. I am saying no one should have the bloody things, but some do already and any that do should disarm and destroy them. Which IMO is a better course of action than everyone getting one. Now how is that "one way"? Basically if you want Iran to get one, it will kick off a new arms race and we all know how they end.

I'm not sure I made it clear earlier but I couldn't care less if sanctions were brought against Israel over it's nuclear weaponry.

jank

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you should scroll back and see who brought up Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ....:rolleyes:.. hint it wasn't me. Now you can't have that cake and eat it. We were having a decent discussion about the here and now, about Iran's nuclear ambitions.. but meh that went down the tubes in a hurry..

I never said you started this but I did say when the point was raised you went off on a tangent about Nanking.

prinz wrote: »

I am well aware who has used nuclear weapons. I am also well aware that I am against nuclear weapons held by anyone. What I am not going to ignore is one sided irrelevant nonsense whatabouttery however..

Examples?

prinz wrote: »

Not really. Some people are saying something along the lines of 'Iran should have a nuke, because sure Israel has them...'. I am saying no one should have the bloody things, but some do already and any that do should disarm and destroy them. Which IMO is a better course of action than everyone getting one. Now how is that "one way"? Basically if you want Iran to get one, it will kick off a new arms race and we all know how they end.

I'm not sure I made it clear earlier but I couldn't care less if sanctions were brought against Israel over it's nuclear weaponry.

But unfortunately we live in the real world. Israel is never ever going to give up its nukes. Thus Iran to seek parity is going to for the foreseeable future going to seek those weapons. Lets at least deal with this issue rather than some idealistic nonesene.

Some people are arguing that if they want weapons like that they should be allowed to have them, no worries, others are saying no they should not have them becuase they will be a threat to the world and as soon as they do, BAMM there goes Israel!. The truth is in there somewhere.

Let us not forget the world will not end if Iran gets the bomb, Pakistan has it already and there is barely a mention of it in the press even though the country is rulled by different elites and tribes.

prinz

jank wrote: »

I never said you started this but I did say when the point was raised you went off on a tangent about Nanking. Examples?

Death tolls from Pearl Harbour v atomic bombs, atomic bombs in the first place, i.e. Iran shouldn't get a nuclear weapon, cue what about the US attack on Japan... the atomic bombs were terrible, but worse things have happened, and none of it is relevant to Iran, in today's world.

jank wrote: »

But unfortunately we live in the real world. Israel is never ever going to give up its nukes. Thus Iran to seek parity is going to for the foreseeable future going to seek those weapons. Lets at least deal with this issue rather than some idealistic nonesene.

Er, yes. That's why I said no more proliferation. It kicks off an arms race. If Iran gets one, then Iraq should get one, it being between the two etc. As for idealism... funny you of all people should mention idealistic nonsense that given that you seem incapable if facing the reality of the Israel/Palestine situation but nevermind.

jank wrote: »

Some people are arguing that if they want weapons like that they should be allowed to have them, no worries, others are saying no they should not have them becuase they will be a threat to the world and as soon as they do, BAMM there goes Israel!. The truth is in there somewhere.

Yes it is. If Iran wants, as it claims, a civilian nuclear energy system then fire ahead. Unfortunately weapons will ultimately be made, as was the case with India. Iran having a nuclear weapon is not only a threat to Israel but to the entire region. Iran has few friends, even in the Arab world.

jank wrote: »

Let us not forget the world will not end if Iran gets the bomb, Pakistan has it already and there is barely a mention of it in the press even though the country is rulled by different elites and tribes.

Perhaps the world won't end, but where do you stop. Why not give one to every country. It's that sort of 'if they have one I should get one' that results in an arms race. Even China recognises that a nuclear arms race is in no one's best interests (supposedly).

jank

prinz wrote: »

Death tolls from Pearl Harbour v atomic bombs, atomic bombs in the first place, i.e. Iran shouldn't get a nuclear weapon, cue what about the US attack on Japan... the atomic bombs were terrible, but worse things have happened, and none of it is relevant to Iran, in today's world.

I wouldn't call the instant death of over 100,000 people a foot note of history now. It is one if not THE most important event of the last 100 years.

prinz wrote: »

Er, yes. That's why I said no more proliferation. It kicks off an arms race. If Iran gets one, then Iraq should get one, it being between the two etc.

In an ideal world yes but proliferation or at least attempts of this will continue.

prinz wrote: »

As for idealism... funny you of all people should mention idealistic nonsense that given that you seem incapable if facing the reality of the Israel/Palestine situation but nevermind.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

prinz wrote: »

Yes it is. If Iran wants, as it claims, a civilian nuclear energy system then fire ahead. Unfortunately weapons will ultimately be made, as was the case with India. Iran having a nuclear weapon is not only a threat to Israel but to the entire region. Iran has few friends, even in the Arab world.

Thats because Iranian's are Persians not Arabs

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps the world won't end, but where do you stop. Why not give one to every country. It's that sort of 'if they have one I should get one' that results in an arms race. Even China recognises that a nuclear arms race is in no one's best interests (supposedly).

Well thats the can of worms that was opened by the manhattan project. Oh for the days of the cold war eh?

prinz

jank wrote: »

I wouldn't call the instant death of over 100,000 people a foot note of history now. It is one if not THE most important event of the last 100 years.

And I wouldn't call the massacre of hundreds of thousands one either
But like I said, none of it has any real relevance to today's world and the Iran issue.

jank wrote: »

Thats because Iranian's are Persians not Arabs

....er yes. Why do you keep pointing out things like this as if no one else knows them? The point was it's not only Israel who fears it. The entire region fears it.

jank wrote: »

Well thats the can of worms that was opened by the manhattan project. Oh for the days of the cold war eh?

So you think because some have them, everyone should have them and that would make the world a safer place?

As for the other, were you not recently on another thread opining on what Israel should and shouldn't do re the Palestinians. In an ideal world you may be right but this is the real world

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Interesting way to refer to the murder of 1000s of civilians. What the US did was a war crime plain and simple. If the Japanese had used nuclear weapons to end the war quicker, no one would dispute it as a war crime.

It is worth noting that aerial bombing of civilian cities was not considered a war crime at the time, either legally, or in practical terms: For example, at Nurermberg, which was agruably a case of 'victor's justice' not a single person was charged for such a crime. The A-Bombs just made bombings a lot more efficient. Instead of the thousand-bomber-raids of the early 1940s, just one was needed.

Also, the the conflict between the US and Japan, began before Pearl Harbor. The US was trying to bankrupt Japan before the attack on Pearl Harbor, due to Japans actions in Asia. The US version of events once again leaves out essential facts.

I don't think you can ignore Japans actions in Asia and say that the US started it with its sanctions. If Japan weren't being a little expansive to begin the sanctions probably wouldn't have been put into place.

Well if the US were so concerned about the welfare of China why did it wait until tail end of 1941 to start a war with them after Pearl Harbour?

At the time the US was undertaking quite an isolationist policy. Plus the country didn't have any proper military to speak of anyway, except for the Navy. It just wasn't commonly seen as in the US interest to put US blood and treasure at risk at that time.

71% wanted the Americans to leave within a year, a further 20% within 2 years, and only 9% supported them staying until security improves.

For the record, I have no objection to the initial period being considered as an occupation, as there is no doubt that's what it was. If you invade some place and control the streets, what else are you going to call it? However, as it currently stands, US forces are confined to bases and only go out on patrol when the Iraqi authorities ask them to, the occupation period is certainly over. I also believe that attributing the 'million Iraqi deaths' to the occupation is a little distorting. The Iraqis managed to kill themselves, for the most part.

As far as the figures go, the one number you don't quote is that only a third seemed to object to the US presence sufficiently to want them out within a half-year. If they objected that much, why not go with the 'instantaneous' option, instead of giving a little more time? Perhaps it was a reflection of the overall reality that, unpleasant though the US presence may have been, it was better than the alternative in the sort term.

Same survey also shows a majority saying that the ousting of Saddam was worth the hardships which have resulted.

At least the survey was nice enough to state openly that it was flawed. (Oversample of Sunnis)

Have you personally spoke to the Iraqi people and asked them what their opinion is? I have, can you say the same?

I can. Interestingly, most of the people I spoke to couldn't give a damn who was running the government as long as they got a good price for their vegetables down the local market.

NTM

jank

prinz wrote: »

And I wouldn't call the massacre of hundreds of thousands one either
But like I said, none of it has any real relevance to today's world and the Iran issue.;)

Well this issue was brought up by posters calling on the USA hypocrisy of Israel and its Nuclear weapons. Israel has not signed the NPT nor has it even admitted they have these weapons. When was the last time there was an UN inspection at one of their plants?

I never saw 3 members of the UN security council come out with a joint statement against Israel. Add to the fact the Israel is very much in the centre of todays world regarding the conflict of the middle east adds alot to this argument.

prinz wrote: »

....er yes. Why do you keep pointing out things like this as if no one else knows them? The point was it's not only Israel who fears it. The entire region fears it..

I think the entire region given the choice would side with Iran over Israel any day of the week. Especially when most of these "Arab" countries don't even recognize Israel.

I pointed it out because as you say most people know there is no reason why Iran and other countries should be buddy buddy just because they share the same religion. There is no blood like bond between Arabs and Persians like your post suggested and no suggestion that this "bond" would have been broken due to Iran testing out a nuke. Every country has their own self interest at heart at the end of the day.

prinz wrote: »

So you think because some have them, everyone should have them and that would make the world a safer place?

Jesus Fcuking Christ, where in gods name do you think I said that or even mean it. Seriously you need to stop putting words into peoples mouths.

Anyway...

During the cold war everything was much "simpler", it was the West vs the Commies, now every tom dick and harry wants a nuke to be in the club of "dont **** with us or else"! Such is the way when imperialism and empires crumble and every sovereign nation can pursue their own self interests . Unfortunately that freedom means that other countries can **** with you and you are free to **** with them. I am not saying this is good but its the way of the world.

Who am I to tell Israel not to have nukes, who are you to say Iran not to have nukes. Their government should decide that. Japan doesn't have nukes. Brazil the same yet both countries if they wanted to have the technology to build them in months.

prinz wrote: »

As for the other, were you not recently on another thread opining on what Israel should and shouldn't do re the Palestinians. In an ideal world you may be right but this is the real world

Care to quote what I actually said rather than making up stuff about me?
In an "idealistic" world we can hope for good manners.

prinz

jank wrote: »

Well this issue was brought up by posters calling on the USA hypocrisy of Israel and its Nuclear weapons. Israel has not signed the NPT nor has it even admitted they have these weapons. When was the last time there was an UN inspection at one of their plants? I never saw 3 members of the UN security council come out with a joint statement against Israel. Add to the fact the Israel is very much in the centre of todays world regarding the conflict of the middle east adds alot to this argument.

Er no it adds nothing to the argument because nobody was actually defending Israel's policy

jank wrote: »

I think the entire region given the choice would side with Iran over Israel any day of the week. Especially when most of these "Arab" countries don't even recognize Israel.

Then you haven't been paying attention, because Saudi Arabia and Israel have already come to an arrangement re airspace should it attack Iran. I have no reason to believe many other countries in the region wouldn't do the same

jank wrote: »

I pointed it out because as you say most people know there is no reason why Iran and other countries should be buddy buddy just because they share the same religion. There is no blood like bond between Arabs and Persians like your post suggested and no suggestion that this "bond" would have been broken due to Iran testing out a nuke. Every country has their own self interest at heart at the end of the day.

I never suggested any such bond :rolleyes:. My point being Israel aren't the only ones who don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Something many people conveniently forget. Most countries in the region IMO would be against it.

jank wrote: »

Anyway...
During the cold war everything was much "simpler", it was the West vs the Commies, now every tom dick and harry wants a nuke to be in the club of "dont **** with us or else"! Such is the way when imperialism and empires crumble and every sovereign nation can pursue their own self interests . Unfortunately that freedom means that other countries can **** with you and you are free to **** with them. I am not saying this is good but its the way of the world. Who am I to tell Israel not to have nukes, who are you to say Iran not to have nukes. Their government should decide that. Japan doesn't have nukes. Brazil the same yet both countries if they wanted to have the technology to build them in months.

So no one has the right to tell anyone else they can't have a nuclear weapon.. therefore everyone has the right to have one no questions asked? Funny how people whine about Israel and the NPT yet at the same time believe in unrestricted proliferation in the same post.

jank wrote: »

Care to quote what I actually said rather than making up stuff about me?
In an "idealistic" world we can hope for good manners.

Well this is the real world isn't it..

jank

prinz wrote: »

Er no it adds nothing to the argument because nobody was actually defending Israel's policy

Nor were you attacking it, but lets just drop this point.

prinz wrote: »

Then you haven't been paying attention, because Saudi Arabia and Israel have already come to an arrangement re airspace should it attack Iran. I have no reason to believe many other countries in the region wouldn't do the same

Saudi Arabia's rulers are only looking after itself and preserve their position of being in power. Not that Saudi's are interested in democracy or human rights. Ask the average Saudi Arabian and you might find he holds a different view.

Then again one has to take whatever Mossad says with a pinch of salt.

prinz wrote: »

I never suggested any such bond :rolleyes:. My point being Israel aren't the only ones who don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Something many people conveniently forget. Most countries in the region IMO would be against it.

Yea they would be against it because they don't have any nukes but my question was if they had a choice of Israel or Iran having nukes then Iran would win hands down. Remember the first country in the region to get nukes were the Israelis so you could say the middle east arms race started with them.

prinz wrote: »

So no one has the right to tell anyone else they can't have a nuclear weapon.. therefore everyone has the right to have one no questions asked?

First of all what do you think? I know you want a world without nuclear weapons but answer your own question.

prinz wrote: »

Funny how people whine about Israel and the NPT yet at the same time believe in unrestricted proliferation in the same post.

I don't believe in unrestricted proliferation, far from it. But we have to deal with the facts.

Nobody wants to see another country in the world with nukes, least of all in the middle east but lets cut to the chase here. This is about leveling the playing field in the middle east which is dominated at present by Israel. Israel have never given up an inch in any foreign policy issue or demand and very very little in the Palestinian issue. If Israel practiced a bit more soft power, be more active in stopping settlements, solve the whole mess, implement a 2 state solution, build hospitals rather then destroy them then they would have much more respect and leverage in the wider middle east where a lot more pressure could be exerted onto Iran. If Israel signed up to the NPT, let the UN inspect their nuclear plants and so on it might also help.

Israel plays the role of the enemy too well sometimes.

Then again all this may not do anything except waste time and Israel knows this too so they practice realpolitik as do Iran.

prinz wrote: »

Well this is the real world isn't it..

Obviously you have never been taught manners so, you are free to either edit your post and delete what said about me or back it up, I am sure there is a rule in the charter about this carry on.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is worth noting that aerial bombing of civilian cities was not considered a war crime at the time, either legally, or in practical terms: For example, at Nurermberg, which was agruably a case of 'victor's justice' not a single person was charged for such a crime. The A-Bombs just made bombings a lot more efficient. Instead of the thousand-bomber-raids of the early 1940s, just one was needed.

The perpetrators of crimes declaring themselves innocent is nothing new in this world. I personally could care less if some criminals declare themselves innocent, as far as I am concerned what they did was simply criminal.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think you can ignore Japans actions in Asia and say that the US started it with its sanctions. If Japan weren't being a little expansive to begin the sanctions probably wouldn't have been put into place.

I mentioned Japans actions in Asia, I didn't ignore them, my whole point, was that the conflict did not start with pearl harbor and the whole who started arguement isn't quite as cut and dry and people think. The Japanese didn't suddenly decide to attack the US for no reason, which is basically the official narrative often peddled. Things are for more complex than that.

Nodin

Colpriz wrote: »

I agree..bet if you use a little nail polish remover on the Isreali flags painted on their nukes you'll find a little stars & stripes flag underneath..double standards I say

No, they developed the program before the current relationship with the States. The Americans never wanted them to have them.

Prinz wrote:

So what exactly is your point?

That a government dependent on the occupying force can hardly be called entirely independent, that 'free and fair' elections in a country where one side is backed by the occupying force are unlikely, and that was much of the criticism aimed at Syrias occupation of Lebanon.

Prinz wrote:

the atomic bombs were terrible, but worse things have happened

Like the firebombing of Tokyo...?

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

The perpetrators of crimes declaring themselves innocent is nothing new in this world. I personally could care less if some criminals declare themselves innocent, as far as I am concerned what they did was simply criminal.

OK, here's a challenge for you. Find me some international treaty or legislation which was in effect in 1945 which would declare the dropping of the A-Bomb on Hiroshima to be a criminal act.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

OK, here's a challenge for you. Find me some international treaty or legislation which was in effect in 1945 which would declare the dropping of the A-Bomb on Hiroshima to be a criminal act.

NTM

So killing civilians was perfectly legal during war time during World War 2 then? So Nazi bombing of British cities was legal as well then?

Ok, I am unaware of any law that says dropping atomic weapons on people was illegal (probably due to them just being invented) back then, but I guess that makes murdering civilians alright then.

However, weren't the Germans and Japanese tried for killing civilians? Are you saying they were never charged for such crimes?!?

I was very much under the impression that targetting and killing civilians was illegal even back then, but maybe I am wrong in that regard, or maybe its legal when the US kills civilians.

prinz

jank wrote: »

Obviously you have never been taught manners so, you are free to either edit your post and delete what said about me or back it up, I am sure there is a rule in the charter about this carry on.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61989529&postcount=45

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61962857&postcount=20

Nodin wrote: »

No, they developed the program before the current relationship with the States. The Americans never wanted them to have them.

True.

Nodin wrote: »

That a government dependent on the occupying force can hardly be called entirely independent, that 'free and fair' elections in a country where one side is backed by the occupying force are unlikely, and that was much of the criticism aimed at Syrias occupation of Lebanon.

That coud be argued. However I haven't seen any sort of concerted Iraqi opposition to the government.

Nodin wrote: »

Like the firebombing of Tokyo...?

Are you wearing an eye patch? :pac: You seem to have a very restricted view of things.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

So killing civilians was perfectly legal during war time during World War 2 then?

Not in most circumstances

So Nazi bombing of British cities was legal as well then?

In many circumstances, yes. I am reluctant to say 'in all circumstances' because I am not au fait with all the relevant fine details.

Ok, I am unaware of any law that says dropping atomic weapons on people was illegal (probably due to them just being invented) back then, but I guess that makes murdering civilians alright then.

The actual legislation in question references 'bombardment of cities.' It is non-specific as to with what.

However, weren't the Germans and Japanese tried for killing civilians?

I believe so, yes.

Are you saying they were never charged for such crimes?!?

I am not.

I was very much under the impression that targetting and killing civilians was illegal even back then

Depended on the situation.

The laws in force at the time were the Hague Conventions of 1907.

NTM

dxbydt

what was that a week or so ago about Iran not having long range missiles? Seems that they launched a long range missile just last night, I highly doubt that they somehow finished it just in the last two weeks...

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not in most circumstances



In many circumstances, yes. I am reluctant to say 'in all circumstances' because I am not au fait with all the relevant fine details.



The actual legislation in question references 'bombardment of cities.' It is non-specific as to with what.

Well, wouldn't a nuclear weapon be covered under this? Maybe, they could get away with it on a technicality.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I believe so, yes.

I am not.

Depended on the situation.

The laws in force at the time were the Hague Conventions of 1907.

NTM

So would the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not be covered by the existing laws of the time?

dxbydt

How can anyone possibly question the "legality" of dropping the bombs on Japan when it undoubtedly put an end to a war that would have continued at the costs of millions more lives? The whole point of the bomb was to hit "the enemy" harder than the could possibly strike back. When your enemy has the ability to hit you just as hard as you can hit them then nobody wants to be the first to strike, you're both better off doing nothing at all. But when you have a case like Iran where the leader is obviously crazy it's not a large stretch of the imagination to think that he believes the US is too much of a pansy to use it's own weapons. He probably thinks that if he could get a hold of some nukes that he could use them or even simply threaten to use them without any fear of significant reprocussions.

If Iran somehow managed to nuke the US do you really think the US would nuke Iran back? Of course not, the UN would step in and countries would go to war, eventually Iran would be brought under control but not after having taken significant losses. So in the long run Iran loses and the world can go back to it's "peaceful" state of existence, but at what cost? A nuke landing on DC or New York?

The only thing the US can use their nukes for is MAD (mutually assured destruction). But obviously MAD requires a sane opposing national leader to work. If Iran isn't worried about what others might do to them (or worse, don't think you'll actually do anything at all) then you have a serious problem on your hands. THIS is why the world is so worried about Iran right now. After last night the world KNOWS that Iran has medium and long range missiles and they obviously have or are working on obtaining the ability to make nuclear weapons. The only real solution is to either stop Iran now or somehow come up with a way to "hit them harder than they can hit us". But I can't say that I have confidence there is the existence of a more devastating weapon than a nuke, if there is then God help us all.

All in all my point is that if you wait too long until after the fighting has already begun then innocent people ARE going to die in order to prevent even more casualties. This was demonstrated in Japan during WWII. If you want to minimize the loss of life then the ONLY logical answer is to stop the crazy man before the fighting starts. People love to spew out comments about how great diplomacy is but they forget all too often that diplomacy doesn't work with crazy people...

-Dxbydt

Buffy the bitch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Would you mind awfully quoting a source for that last bit? Given the current capabilities of US anti-air systems and particularly US doctrine which has de-emphasised operational-level anti-aircraft missile systems, I would find a need to purchase any except for evaluation and training purposes to be a bit pointless.

I remember seen it somewhere can't remember where.

Manic Moran wrote: »

As of earlier this month, the missiles hadn't been delivered to Iran yet anyway, and it does take a bit of time to make such a thing operational. At this time the Iranian equipment is about a generation (technologically) old.

I thought the deal was signed two years ago, if they haven't got them yet why haven't they bought them off China. Didn't Russia sell India/China a factory to make them? Can't see why they don't just buy their own to be honest.

Manic Moran wrote: »

He means there is a slight geographical problem. In order to have a good, old-fashioned war with someone, you have to be able to get there, and Iran has little power projection capability and I doubt the lads between Iran and Israel are going to just let the Iranian army drive across.

That's your opinion. My opinion is I doubt Turkey/Syria would have a problem allowing Iran use their country and then maybe into Lebanon. They could have a good old fashioned war from there couldn't they? I know Iran hasn't got things like aircraft carriers but I really doubt they don't have the capability to launch an attack from Iran.

dxbydt wrote: »

what was that a week or so ago about Iran not having long range missiles? Seems that they launched a long range missile just last night, I highly doubt that they somehow finished it just in the last two weeks...

What the hell are you on about? Iran has this missile ages even tested it last year and have more long range missiles

dxbydt wrote: »

How can anyone possibly question the "legality" of dropping the bombs on Japan when it undoubtedly put an end to a war that would have continued at the costs of millions more lives?

So let's say Saddam had nukes, and the war was gonna start he would've been right to use them against America?