Pop Quiz on the Middle East

[TashaN]

Uh...Truth...you should know that Lyndon LaRouch is well-known in the US as a crackpot, by people of all political and cultural stripes.

He's not exactly a reliable source.

Really?

Have no idea, i just googled it.

 

[Booko]

As Iran did so.

You keep sidestepping the statement that Iran *claims* they are only interest in civilian uses, but generally the world does not believe them.

And the fact that they have not cooperated with the IAEA does not say much in their favor that they should be believed. This is another subject you've sidestepped.

Frankly, I share the world's skepticism on this one.

But lest you think I would be interested in saying "bombs away" to my gov't, please keep in mind that the origin of my religion is Iran and that we are the largest religious minority in that country still, despite the gov'ts abuse and oppression.

Do you suppose I would be very fond of the idea of blowing up my own coreligionists?

I'm really at a loss to understand why you would imagine my thoughts and U.S. policy would necessarily be the same on this (or any) subject, but it kinda seems like you think it might be.

What about Wiki telling that India and Pakistan didn't sign it in the first place.

That would be my mistake then. I was probably under the impression the stink was about them being signatories and developing nukes anyway, but I was not paying so much attention at the time all that was happening and have never done any reading up on the subject. My bad.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Who is america to give orders to who can use nuclear power?

The nation with the most nuclear weapons capable of backing up that order.

 

[Booko]

Really?

Have no idea, i just googled it.

I figured so.

I didn't realize LaRouche was back in circulation. The last time I heard about him, he was in Turkey where they honoured him, thinking he was a serious person here.

He really really is a nutcase. I used to read his newsletters back in the 80s when he was more in the news, and the stuff makes conspiracy theories look sensible.

He's run for office as a member of the Democratic Party, but don't believe that gives him any imprimatur or respectability. Democratic Party rules don't really give them the ability to boot people out of the party, so they were kinda stuck with him.

 

[Booko]

The nation with the most nuclear weapons capable of backing up that order.

Maybe, but like I mentioned in an earlier post, we're probably the *last* nation on earth that would be really free to actually use nukes.

otoh, maybe if we did it really would lead to world peace.

The rest of the Earth would wake up to the nonsense we call warfare and insist on finding a way of ensuring real and lasting peace.

It would certainly be a novel way to unify the world, eh?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

It would certainly be a novel way to unify the world, eh?

Or end it. It could go either way.

 

[Booko]

Or end it. It could go either way.

True, though for religious reasons, I'd be betting on it not ending the world.

 

[TashaN]

I'm really at a loss to understand why you would imagine my thoughts and U.S. policy would necessarily be the same on this (or any) subject, but it kinda seems like you think it might be.

Not at all.

It's not about your thoughts dear Booko but i'm talking about Bush's thoughts in here and the other countries which you clearly pointed out their skepticism.

Me too, i won't tolerate Iran having these weapons but i was wondering why Iran can't have them while others do so. That's all.

That would be my mistake then. I was probably under the impression the stink was about them being signatories and developing nukes anyway, but I was not paying so much attention at the time all that was happening and have never done any reading up on the subject. My bad.

It's ok, it happen alot. Didn't mean to offend but just to remind you about it.

 

[TashaN]

The nation with the most nuclear weapons capable of backing up that order.

Others can do so as well and God knows if we ever would be able to live on this earth when this thing happen.

 

[TashaN]

I figured so.

I didn't realize LaRouche was back in circulation. The last time I heard about him, he was in Turkey where they honoured him, thinking he was a serious person here.

He really really is a nutcase. I used to read his newsletters back in the 80s when he was more in the news, and the stuff makes conspiracy theories look sensible.

He's run for office as a member of the Democratic Party, but don't believe that gives him any imprimatur or respectability. Democratic Party rules don't really give them the ability to boot people out of the party, so they were kinda stuck with him.

Thanks for the information dear Booko ...

 

[Booko]

Not at all.

It's not about your thoughts dear Booko but i'm talking about Bush's thoughts in here and the other countries which you clearly pointed out their skepticism.

Whew...ok. I was a bit worried there this morning.

Me too, i won't tolerate Iran having these weapons but i was wondering why Iran can't have them while others do so. That's all.

Only that the current Iranian gov't is not exactly what you'd call even keeled? And natch, there is a lot at stake strategically (read: OIL) so for other nations it's a matter of their national interest I suppose.

It's ok, it happen alot. Didn't mean to offend but just to remind you about it.

Not to worry -- I was never offended.

Besides, I have frequently wondered how absurd it must look to nations w/o nukes, as they are basically told "We have them...but you can't or you're evil!"

I suppose that's why part of the non-proliferation treaty contains provisions for *disarmament* for those who do, though I can't say there seems to be much movement in that direction these days.

 

[Booko]

Thanks for the information dear Booko ...

You wouldn't have any reason to suspect LaRouche from the name alone. He's managed to sound somewhat sane in the past as well, and then ... zoing! he says something truly bizarre.

I wonder if many of our American RF users would even recognize it. Unless you were around in the 80s and paying some attention to politics, you might not know. It just happens that I was here, and was paying attention at that moment.

Now I'll have to bookmark the site and check back occasionally. In the past his stuff could get quite comedic sometimes. Goodness knows right now I could use a good laugh.

 

[Ody]

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~nahm0002/child_abuse.html

I have no respect for the palestinian terrorists when they indoctrinate ******** like this into children

 

[Fluffy]

Not like Wiki is a necessarily credible source, but it is a starting point:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...Defense_Forces"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...Defense_Forces[/URL]

That is a good page. And it certainly seems to provide the necessary evidence. I was not aware that the Sinai Peninsula was a demilitarised zone but that makes that particular war much clearer.

Israel did so because it didn't exist before and until now it has no specific borders in the map as you know.

That is not the only time that Israel has seized territory. There are simply more guilty offenders amongst the Middle Eastern countries.

No way, we said Israel do so routinly until now because i fear that iraq is no more capable to do such a thing anymore and it did it few times but not daily as Israel.

Where does Israel routinely violate the borders of another state?

Iran and Syria are allies to America? :sarcastic

The question was about an ally of america but you answered a totally different question.

If you artificially narrow a question for no good reason then you load it. I answered the question unloaded.

What does it matter whether it is an American ally or not?

Why do you think so? i'm not trying to proselytise and i told no lie in my original post and whether you agree with it or not, it's a matter of opnion and i respect it whatever it is.

Simply because you 1) only answered those questions with "Israel" whereas, as I demonstrated, there were a host of other answers and 2) you loaded some of the questions so as to justify answering them only with "Israel"

Arabs were fighting Israel because it was like a cancer trying to spread in that area without any valid right except some verses in their scriptures and the dreams of their politican citizins and we can't forget that europe wanted to get rid of "most of them".

Self determination. Just because Britain screwed the Palestinians out of it does not give just cause to ignore it now.

Um, not so, Fluffy...

If you already have technology, the treaty states you can't spread the technology or knowledge to non-nuclear states (whether those states have signed the treaty or not.

If you don't have nukes, then being a signatory to the treaty means you promise not to pursue nukes except for peaceful purposes.

There was a big stink about India and Pakistan becoming nuclear powers, given they were both signatories to the non-proliferation treaty. Clearly they both broke the treaty by developing nukes.

Oops you are right indeed.

You keep sidestepping the statement that Iran *claims* they are only interest in civilian uses, but generally the world does not believe them.

Surely, therefore, the NPT is pretty useless? Especially since Bush wants to trade nuclear technology and equipment with India (who have not signed).

 

[TashaN]

Where does Israel routinely violate the borders of another state?

What does it matter whether it is an American ally or not?

Because Israel keep doing their crimes against humanity without saying a thing about it by the US government, not only that but also supporting them and encouarging them as well while condemning other nations with no basic proofs.

Simply because you 1) only answered those questions with "Israel" whereas, as I demonstrated, there were a host of other answers and 2) you loaded some of the questions so as to justify answering them only with "Israel"

I didn't do anything because you can find all these information avilable in the internet, just google it and BINGO !

I might comment on them but it wasn't my own work in the first place.

Self determination. Just because Britain screwed the Palestinians out of it does not give just cause to ignore it now.

It does for Palstinians, are you saying they have no right to take back their stolen lands?

Surely, therefore, the NPT is pretty useless? Especially since Bush wants to trade nuclear technology and equipment with India (who have not signed).

No clue

 

[TashaN]

Besides, I have frequently wondered how absurd it must look to nations w/o nukes, as they are basically told "We have them...but you can't or you're evil!"

Indeed

 

[Booko]

It does for Palstinians, are you saying they have no right to take back their stolen lands?

Hm.

Do I have a right to take back part of Ontario?

No, I'm not being flip. At what point does a people lose the right to take back their land?

And wasn't it the Brits or the UN who screwed them out of it anyway? They did some very interesting numbers drawing borders of nations to make sure peoples stayed divided, eh?

Is it so cut and dried a history that it's only the Jews who are to blame?

 

[kai]

Indeed

Isnt it just a matter of common sense that no new development should take place and that a climate of nuclear dissarmement should be built upon,getting rid of what we have, should be the priority not more countries obtaining, if the UN wasnt such a joke we might have a chance of nuclear dissarmement

 

[Booko]

Isnt it just a matter of common sense that no new development should take place and that a climate of nuclear dissarmement should be built upon,getting rid of what we have, should be the priority not more countries obtaining, if the UN wasnt such a joke we might have a chance of nuclear dissarmement

Yes, I think so.

The problem is, the treaty also has provisions regarding nuclear disarmament, but I don't see *any* of the nuclear nations moving in this direction.

It's a bit tough to insist on one part of the treaty being followed, while the other is just ignored.

 

[Fluffy]

Because Israel keep doing their crimes against humanity without saying a thing about it by the US government, not only that but also supporting them and encouarging them as well while condemning other nations with no basic proofs.

So what? A crime against humanity is still a crime against humanity regardless of who your friends are. You can't just ignore the massive amount of crimes by other Middle Eastern countries simply because they aren't Israel.

I didn't do anything because you can find all these information avilable in the internet, just google it and BINGO !

I might comment on them but it wasn't my own work in the first place.

Are you saying that your first post was copy and pasted from elsewhere?

It does for Palstinians, are you saying they have no right to take back their stolen lands?

In a peaceful, diplomatic manner.