Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections

Options
1234579

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    dxbydt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭dxbydt


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

    The OP said several weeks ago that there was no proof that Iran had long range missiles, I was simply stating that they obviously do have them now.
    So let's say Saddam had nukes, and the war was gonna start he would've been right to use them against America?

    I'm not sure I follow your logic, Saddam using nukes would not have stopped the war nor would it have saved lives in the long run. The reason we dropped a bomb on Japan in WWII was to demonstrate that we could hit them harder than they could ever hit us, they were forced to give up. If Saddam has nukes and we have nukes, what is one going to gain by blowing the other up? It's just going to result in retaliation and all out war, a very destructive war at that. And again, I think the US is too chick to use any of our nukes anyways, it'd take a true crazy national leader to nuke anybody, even if they are "the enemy". So no, Saddam wouldn't have been "right" to use them against the America.

    The only "good" reason to use a weapon of mass destruction is if you can end a war to stop further deaths. If it's a small war and only a few hundred people are going to die then nuking a city of millions won't really seem right will it...But if it's a world war and thousands or millions are dying, then killing a fraction of that to save countless more doesn't seem so bad.


  • Options
    #183
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    wes wrote: »
    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.

    Hate to break this to you but.......
    In 1932, in a series of Guernica-like atrocities, the British used poison gas in Waziristan. The disarmament convention of the same year sought a ban against the aerial bombardment of civilians, but Lloyd George, who had been British prime minister during World War I, gloated: "We insisted on reserving the right to bomb ****" (Fitzgerald and Gould, pg 65). His view prevailed.
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KH04Ak01.html


  • Options
    #184
    Buffy the bitch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Buffy the bitch


    dxbydt wrote: »
    The OP said several weeks ago that there was no proof that Iran had long range missiles, I was simply stating that they obviously do have them now.

    Can you give me a link? dlofnep is a smart lad I doubt he said that, he is up to date on topics such as this, unlike some.
    dxbydt wrote: »
    I'm not sure I follow your logic, Saddam using nukes would not have stopped the war nor would it have saved lives in the long run. The reason we dropped a bomb on Japan in WWII was to demonstrate that we could hit them harder than they could ever hit us, they were forced to give up. If Saddam has nukes and we have nukes, what is one going to gain by blowing the other up? It's just going to result in retaliation and all out war, a very destructive war at that. And again, I think the US is too chick to use any of our nukes anyways, it'd take a true crazy national leader to nuke anybody, even if they are "the enemy". So no, Saddam wouldn't have been "right" to use them against the America.

    The only "good" reason to use a weapon of mass destruction is if you can end a war to stop further deaths. If it's a small war and only a few hundred people are going to die then nuking a city of millions won't really seem right will it...But if it's a world war and thousands or millions are dying, then killing a fraction of that to save countless more doesn't seem so bad.

    But you just said yourself that nukes stop wars! So my point is let's say Saddam had nukes that could reach America and he had enough to blow America off the map and he just fired one as a warning and told America he would fire the rest if attacked wouldn't that stop the war? Therefore stopping the deaths of millions of innocent people, so therefore by your claim he would be right to do it?


  • Options
    #185
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    I remember seen it somewhere can't remember where.

    Can't say I'm suprised by that answer....
    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    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.

    ....and this proves you have no idea about the region's geopolitical situation. :pac:. Turkey is as close to an Israeli ally as you can find in the Middle East, and has been for a long, long time.

    Israel supplies Turkey with billions of dollars worth of weaponry and know-how.

    Israel and Turkey have a free trade agreement worth further billions.

    Turkey is also the base for nuclear weapons provided by the US.

    Israeli and Turkish intelligence agencies cooperate and pool resources.

    Oh and not to mention Turkey has already declared neutrality in any matters between Iran and Israel.....hmm.


    Try again chief :pac: Unless the Iranians plan on tunnelling their way to Syria there isn't a hope!


  • Options
    #186
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    I remember seen it somewhere can't remember where.

    Interestingly, as I hunt around, Wiki says that the US has purchased one S-300V system for evaluation purposes. Given that other versions of S-300 are in service in some NATO countries, I guess it was un-necessary for the US to buy any of those to figure out what made them tick.
    I thought the deal was signed two years ago, if they haven't got them yet why haven't they bought them off China.

    It was. The Israelis objected to the delivery. Russia is buying Israeli UAVs (First deal signed earlier this year), and is collaborating with Israel on the production of hardware to sell to India, which is doing a fair bit of shopping recently.(For example, India is currently taking delivery of a $1bn order of Russian IL-76 AWACS birds equipped with Israeli Phalcon systems). My guess is that the combined value of those sales is higher than that of the sale to Iran, right now. Israel also ceased support of Georgia during the Russian spat at Moscow's request, so there may be a bit of tit-for-tat going on.
    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.

    China, yes. There was a report a couple of years ago that Iran was going to buy S-300s off China, but that seems to have fallen through as well. Wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese also like their Israeli equipment, they really do build good stuff. There is no guarantee that buying the license to the missile would be any faster than buying the missile itself.
    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.

    Did I mention the couple of billions of dollars that Turkey is giving to Israel to upgrade its military hardware? I'm sure they'd like it to continue to work, after that investment. I'm also not sure they'd want to jeopardize the free-trade-agreement they have with Israel. Syria doesn't border Iran.
    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.

    They could certainly try air attacks, but that would be more a series of strikes than a proper war.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Tis true. Ben Gurion used use the way the Turks expelled the Greeks from Turkey (Anatolian peninsula region, I think) as an example of what could be done down his way....


  • Options
    #188
    Buffy the bitch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Buffy the bitch


    prinz wrote: »
    ....and this proves you have no idea about the region's geopolitical situation. :pac:. Turkey is as close to an Israeli ally as you can find in the Middle East, and has been for a long, long time.

    Israel supplies Turkey with billions of dollars worth of weaponry and know-how.

    Israel and Turkey have a free trade agreement worth further billions.

    Turkey is also the base for nuclear weapons provided by the US.

    Israeli and Turkish intelligence agencies cooperate and pool resources.

    Oh and not to mention Turkey has already declared neutrality in any matters between Iran and Israel.....hmm.


    Try again chief :pac: Unless the Iranians plan on tunnelling their way to Syria there isn't a hope!


    So Tayyip Erdogan didn't walk out of talks last year over the Gaza war? The same PM hasn't said the UN should review the Goldstone report (which America are trying to bury) into war crimes commited in Gaza, and has called for harsh santions against Israel.

    Yeah that's a real pal they got right there.


  • Options
    #189
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Tis true. Ben Gurion used use the way the Turks expelled the Greeks from Turkey (Anatolian peninsula region, I think) as an example of what could be done down his way....

    There's also an argument that Turkey needs to tread carefully when attempting to hold a moral high ground over Israel: They also have control of some ground which is viewed as unlawful by the international community, and have been there since 1974.
    So Tayyip Erdogan didn't walk out of talks last year over the Gaza war?

    He did, indeed. But he also hasn't cancelled any deals, broken relations, or done anything else of any significance whatsoever. Even friends can have spats.

    NTM


  • Options
    #190
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    So Tayyip Erdogan didn't walk out of talks last year over the Gaza war? The same PM hasn't said the UN should review the Goldstone report (which America are trying to bury) into war crimes commited in Gaza, and has called for harsh santions against Israel.

    Yeah that's a real pal they got right there.


    You're familiar with the concept of the two faced politician?


  • Options
    #191
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    There's also an argument that Turkey needs to tread carefully when attempting to hold a moral high ground over Israel: They also have control of some ground which is viewed as unlawful by the international community, and have been there since 1974.

    NTM


    Not to mention the way they 'cuddle' the Kurds so close to their hearts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    So Tayyip Erdogan didn't walk out of talks last year over the Gaza war? The same PM hasn't said the UN should review the Goldstone report (which America are trying to bury) into war crimes commited in Gaza, and has called for harsh santions against Israel.

    Yeah that's a real pal they got right there.

    It's called putting on a good show :D What happens behind the closed doors is what really matters, and er that's where Turkey and Israel get down to business. Money is money after all.


  • Options
    #193
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    Not to mention the way they 'cuddle' the Kurds so close to their hearts.

    Indeed, not to mention that Mossad were suspected of being behind the capture of then PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan 10 years ago, and serving him up on a plate to their Turkish partners.. a gesture of goodwill between old friends


  • Options
    #194
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Nodin wrote: »
    Hate to break this to you but.......


    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KH04Ak01.html

    So things haven't change all that much really.


  • Options
    #195
    dxbydt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭dxbydt


    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    Can you give me a link? dlofnep is a smart lad I doubt he said that, he is up to date on topics such as this, unlike some.

    I guess I misread what he wrote, he was saying Iran has no nuclear weapons, not that they don't have long range missiles. Never mind what I said then.
    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    But you just said yourself that nukes stop wars! So my point is let's say Saddam had nukes that could reach America and he had enough to blow America off the map and he just fired one as a warning and told America he would fire the rest if attacked wouldn't that stop the war? Therefore stopping the deaths of millions of innocent people, so therefore by your claim he would be right to do it?

    No you're not understanding what I'm saying. In the case of WWII bombing Japan stopped THAT war. A nuke has the potential to stop a war given the right circumstance. The only reason we dropped the bomb was to prove that we could. Japan didn't know what an atom bomb was and they probably wouldn't have believed us if we told them what it was. So we dropped a bomb on them and said "Surrender?" They said no so we dropped another and finally they gave up. They just couldn't handle it. Now the justification in us doing so was that even though many innocent people died, even more lives were saved.

    Now in the case of Saddam, killing 200-300 MILLION people doesn't justify the saving of however many Iraqi lives he would be "saving". And you can't say that Saddam would just launch one and say "You gonna leave us alone?", after the first missile launched he'd get blown off the map. He would have had to launch them all in order to assure his (temporary) existence. So you're asking if destroying the inhabitants of the US would be right if it was to save the inhabitants of Iraq? I don't think so.

    The whole point of having nukes in modern times is so you can say, "If you nuke me then I'll nuke you". Nobody wants to get nuked so nobody uses them. This is called MAD and it works. The whole reason the world doesn't want Iran to get nukes isn't because they don't want Iran involved in world policy, it's because they think Iran is crazy enough to actually USE their nukes. If Iran's leader believes that the rest of the world is too chicken to try and stop him, then what is going to prevent them from attacking first? Once Iran gets that power they can easily say, "stay out of our business or else...". Then what? Who's going to poke them first? If the US does it then you're going to have a country of Americans saying, "Why did we have to do it??? Why not let some other country take the hit". Similarly, every other country will feel the same way. Nobody wants to deal with it once it gets that far and so it's a MUCH better solution to stop them before it starts. Is it really "fair" to Iran, probably not, but life isn't fair and Iran's leader is also crazy...

    As for, why does Israel get to have nuclear weapons and not Iran? Because I think the world trusts them a lot more than they do Iran. They play nice and just look out for themselves and everyone gets along. Amazing how that works. They didn't sign the treaty because they knew good and well what they were doing wouldn't be allowed. Should they have been stopped? Maybe, but it's too late for that now. It goes the same for Pakistan and India. The best anybody can do now is try to limit additional countries from gaining nuclear weapons, ESPECIALLY countries that have proven to be radical.


  • Options
    #196
    Buffy the bitch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Buffy the bitch


    dxbydt wrote: »
    I guess I misread what he wrote, he was saying Iran has no nuclear weapons, not that they don't have long range missiles. Never mind what I said then.



    No you're not understanding what I'm saying. In the case of WWII bombing Japan stopped THAT war. A nuke has the potential to stop a war given the right circumstance. The only reason we dropped the bomb was to prove that we could. Japan didn't know what an atom bomb was and they probably wouldn't have believed us if we told them what it was. So we dropped a bomb on them and said "Surrender?" They said no so we dropped another and finally they gave up. They just couldn't handle it. Now the justification in us doing so was that even though many innocent people died, even more lives were saved.

    Now in the case of Saddam, killing 200-300 MILLION people doesn't justify the saving of however many Iraqi lives he would be "saving". And you can't say that Saddam would just launch one and say "You gonna leave us alone?", after the first missile launched he'd get blown off the map. He would have had to launch them all in order to assure his (temporary) existence. So you're asking if destroying the inhabitants of the US would be right if it was to save the inhabitants of Iraq? I don't think so.

    The whole point of having nukes in modern times is so you can say, "If you nuke me then I'll nuke you". Nobody wants to get nuked so nobody uses them. This is called MAD and it works. The whole reason the world doesn't want Iran to get nukes isn't because they don't want Iran involved in world policy, it's because they think Iran is crazy enough to actually USE their nukes. If Iran's leader believes that the rest of the world is too chicken to try and stop him, then what is going to prevent them from attacking first? Once Iran gets that power they can easily say, "stay out of our business or else...". Then what? Who's going to poke them first? If the US does it then you're going to have a country of Americans saying, "Why did we have to do it??? Why not let some other country take the hit". Similarly, every other country will feel the same way. Nobody wants to deal with it once it gets that far and so it's a MUCH better solution to stop them before it starts. Is it really "fair" to Iran, probably not, but life isn't fair and Iran's leader is also crazy...

    As for, why does Israel get to have nuclear weapons and not Iran? Because I think the world trusts them a lot more than they do Iran. They play nice and just look out for themselves and everyone gets along. Amazing how that works. They didn't sign the treaty because they knew good and well what they were doing wouldn't be allowed. Should they have been stopped? Maybe, but it's too late for that now. It goes the same for Pakistan and India. The best anybody can do now is try to limit additional countries from gaining nuclear weapons, ESPECIALLY countries that have proven to be radical.


    No you see your problem is you think everyting that America does is right and anythnig that is done to them is wrong.

    To be honest I'd gladly see a nukes gonig off in America if it stopped the imperialists from waging wars. You see I don't value American lives anymore than the likes of the Iraqis that might be hard for someone like you to understand.

    By the way you say if Iraq fired a nuke it would be wiped off the map? But yet you said a while ago that if Iran fired a nuke America wouldn't fire back with a nuke? Your catching yourself out, you really son't know what you're saying.

    Of course let's have no problem with Israel having nukes sure jesus let's have no problem with a mad country like Pakistan having them. North Korea has them and has tested them jesus but you don't seem to hear about them in the news anymore I wonder why that is? No more talk of invading them becasue if you did you know what would happen.

    Iran's leader was no more crazy than Bush was.
    "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." George Bush -Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

    :pac:


  • Options
    #197
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


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

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


    In these posts I have not called for Israel to do anything so I dont know what you are on about apart from arguing for argument sake! So again you are lying.


  • Options
    #198
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    What happens behind the closed doors is what really matters,

    Of course you know all this because you are a fly on the wall at these "closed" door meetings? :rolleyes:;)

    Some of the crap thats spouted here is unbelievable.


  • Options
    #199
    dxbydt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭dxbydt


    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    No you see your problem is you think everyting that America does is right and anythnig that is done to them is wrong.

    To be honest I'd gladly see a nukes gonig off in America if it stopped the imperialists from waging wars. You see I don't value American lives anymore than the likes of the Iraqis that might be hard for someone like you to understand.

    By the way you say if Iraq fired a nuke it would be wiped off the map? But yet you said a while ago that if Iran fired a nuke America wouldn't fire back with a nuke? Your catching yourself out, you really son't know what you're saying.

    Of course let's have no problem with Israel having nukes sure jesus let's have no problem with a mad country like Pakistan having them. North Korea has them and has tested them jesus but you don't seem to hear about them in the news anymore I wonder why that is? No more talk of invading them becasue if you did you know what would happen.

    Iran's leader was no more crazy than Bush was.

    :pac:

    I'm not saying American lives are more valuable than others. Let me go back a bit, you do understand that the atom bomb was used to stop the war and how that worked, correct? With that understanding, what how would Iraq bombing the US stop any subsequent war? It wouldn't, it would just make America mad and cause more war. Putting numbers aside, who could do more damage, one or more nuclear strikes wouldn't stop the war. The ONLY way a WOMD (such as a nuclear weapon) will ever STOP war is one of the following two cases:

    1) Both parties involved are sane enough to not use their weapons and prevent casualties on either side, ie: The Cold War.

    2) One party has the bigger weapon and the other party doesn't. Party A essentially bullies Party B into complying with their demands. ie: WWII

    I don't understand what is so hard to see with what I'm saying. In the case of Iran they don't meet either criteria. Their leader is not sane and if they have nuclear weapons then they are on equal playing ground with America. America (or any other world power for that matter) can't bully them into obeying if they're at risk of being attacked with weapons of equal strength. Try and get past the idea "Launching nukes stops war", it's not that simple.


  • Options
    #200
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    Thought some of ye might appreciate Ron Paul's opinion:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YGiuF97fRE


  • Options
    #201
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    jank wrote: »
    Of course you know all this because you are a fly on the wall at these "closed" door meetings? :rolleyes:;)
    Some of the crap thats spouted here is unbelievable.


    Are you denying Israel and Turkey are strategic, economic, military and intelligence allies are you? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Goudance
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭Goudance


    1945: Japan kills 68 US service men in Pearl Harbour.
    Reaction: US drop Atomic bomb killing 250,000 innocent people.

    1967, Israel kill 38 US service men onboard the USS Liberty.
    Reaction: Cover up by Israel and US, and it goes away.

    Now, going by that, should the US not have retaliated by bombing
    Israel?


  • Options
    #203
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    prinz wrote:
    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.

    So, your answer is "No dlofnep, I have not ever spoken to 1 single Iraqi about their country, but yet I continue to pretend that I am a subject matter expert."

    FTR: MY cousin's husband is Kurdish.

    Back on topic, I find it curious to how the media is reacting to Iran's missile tests.

    Iran Test-Fires Missiles That Put Israel in Range

    And on previous Israeli missile tests

    Israel missile test 'successful'

    It's quite clear that the former is intended to spook the international community, especially at a time when Iran is subject to complete imbalance from Western Media. With Israel consistently threatening to attack Iran, and the US threatening it also - Why shouldn't Iran test it's missiles to defend itself? Why is there not the same hooplah when Israel tests it's missiles?

    Once again hypocrisy runs wild. Israel refuses to allow inspectors, Iran allows inspectors - but still, Iran is in the wrong.

    The mind truly boggles.


  • Options
    #204
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Goudance wrote: »
    1945: Japan kills 68 US service men in Pearl Harbour.

    Immediate post fail. Almost 1,200 on the USS Arizona alone....

    Not to mention the year :D


  • Options
    #205
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dlofnep wrote: »
    So, your answer is "No dlofnep, I have not ever spoken to 1 single Iraqi about their country, but yet I continue to pretend that I am a subject matter expert."

    FTR: MY cousin's husband is Kurdish.

    The mind truly boggles.

    When you find a poll with an oversample of Kurds backing you up, maybe I'll listen.


  • Options
    #206
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Once again hypocrisy runs wild. Israel refuses to allow inspectors, Iran allows inspectors - but still, Iran is in the wrong.

    The mind truly boggles.

    You're conveniently omitting the fact that I said I don't care if sanctions were imposed on Israel, or if inspectors were sent in regardless to catalogue/disarm/destroy/remove the Israeli arsenal. What I am against is further proliferation be it Iran or anybody else. How is that hypocritical :confused:


  • Options
    #207
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    Goudance wrote: »
    1945: Japan kills 68 US service men in Pearl Harbour.
    Reaction: US drop Atomic bomb killing 250,000 innocent people.

    1967, Israel kill 38 US service men onboard the USS Liberty.
    Reaction: Cover up by Israel and US, and it goes away.

    Now, going by that, should the US not have retaliated by bombing
    Israel?
    No because they are two entirely different schemes of incident.

    Unless Pearl Harbour was just a case of mistaken identity and poor comms as the Liberty downing was?


  • Options
    #208
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Justind wrote: »
    No because they are two entirely different schemes of incident.

    Unless Pearl Harbour was just a case of mistaken identity and poor comms as the Liberty downing was?

    I don't think you'll find very many people who really believe that the Israelis didn't know what they were attacking in that case. Even I don't, and I generally will give Israel the benefit of the doubt if I can see a reasonable explanation in their favour.

    NTM


  • Options
    #209
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I don't think you'll find very many people who really believe that the Israelis didn't know what they were attacking in that case. Even I don't, and I generally will give Israel the benefit of the doubt if I can see a reasonable explanation in their favour
    I honestly don't care.
    My point is that people will choose to spot as cast-iron dead certainty on one matter but refuse to apply same on another similar issue that is blatantly obvious with some of the tiresome old bilge in this thread.


  • Options
    #210
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    prinz wrote: »
    When you find a poll with an oversample of Kurds backing you up, maybe I'll listen.

    No you won't. You believe only what you want to believe. I don't think you understand the meaning of majority. The polling was fine, considering Kurds make up only 15% of the Iraqi population. Why should their be an oversampling of Kurdish? Afterall, we're trying to see what the majority want - are we not? And the MAJORITY think that the US is causing more harm than good - What exactly is difficult to grasp about this? You're just unwilling to accept the reality of the matter. That's fine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    prinz wrote: »
    You're conveniently omitting the fact that I said I don't care if sanctions were imposed on Israel, or if inspectors were sent in regardless to catalogue/disarm/destroy/remove the Israeli arsenal. What I am against is further proliferation be it Iran or anybody else. How is that hypocritical :confused:

    I wasn't talking to you. I was referring to the US's calls for sanctions.


Advertisement