Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'

DenMan

There is no secret about that. Israel has been stock piling nuclear arms on a really fast basis especially since the fall of communism in Russia and also when the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came to power in Iran. Then of course there is Palestine, and that is a very hotly debated and sensitive issue. The boys in North Korea have to be taken seriously alright.

wes

humberklog wrote: »

1. !st mention of palestinians was on post No.8. Your post. I still can't see connection to OP.
.

I was replying to another poster and not the op with that post as well. I mentioned them in that instance to contrast rhethoric between Israel and Iran. I even quoted the poster I was replying too.

humberklog wrote: »

2. Why do you make that statement when quoting my post?

You were saying Israel share similarities with Western democracies, I disagree, as an apartheid state can't be all that similar to Western democracies.

humberklog wrote: »

3. Why?

Its pretty obvious that Israel is a state for the Jewish people as opposed to everyone who lives there regardless of race.

A modern nation state is a state for all citizens and not for a single ethnic group.

humberklog wrote: »

4. It is, you are wrong.

Not really. I am quite right. Take a look at Israel laws and the examples I mentioned. Israel is nothing like a modern Western nation. Another example is that Israel is actively engaging in colonialism, Western nations gave that up a long time ago.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it's not that long ago that britain was in iraq and india doing far worse than what israel's doing now, and america was also segregated racially up until very recently.. so they are quite like other western democracies, they've (the western democracies) just been around long enough to get their killing done before the advent of 24 hour tv.

wes

Sand wrote: »

Eh Wes, the reason why its concerning to have nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and less so to have them in the hands of Israel [ Or China, or whatever other less than anarcho-socialist utopia holds nukes] is because the Iranians are a ruled by a theocracy. Not in a "Oh a republic, where the President is a Christian believer", but an honest to god-full-blown theocracy.

There is no evidence that Iran has nuclear weapon or is even planning to build them. Also, I never said we shouldn't be concerned with them having them, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy when it comes to Israel.

Sand wrote: »

Theocrats believe in magical sky gods and have designed whole crazy reams of fan-fiction and rules and punishments around this crazy belief. They believe in crazy, irrational things. And their system of government is based entirely on this - everything else is secondary.

Well seeing as Israel was promised to the Jewish people by God. Perhaps, we should be concerned about them as well.

Of course the crazies of Iran, have engaged in no wars of aggression and the sane countries you mention have.

Sand wrote: »

Now If China has nukes, Im okay with that since they know that other powers have nukes too - and for all their other crimes they are aetheists and rational. MAD works here. Israel also is basically rational and defensive, they arent going to nuke anyone as their arsenal is there to secure their borders not for some religious duty to destory Mecca.

Israel, rational? I suppose so, if you consider apartheid rational.

Is it rational to think God promised land forever to a certain group of people?

Its very simple, while Israel may not be as religious as Iran, the basis of the state is religious as well.

Sand wrote: »

Now on the other hand, the Iranian leadership are clerics and basically, if they think their magical sky god is telling them to nuke Israel and clock out in a blaze of glory....well, I start to get worried.

Any evidence that the Iranians are even building nuclear weapons? Oh, wait there is none.

Sand wrote: »

Just because the police have guns, and are an imperfect human organisation that **** up and shoot the wrong people does not mean its perfectly all right to arm coke snorting, violent gangs of Chavs with the latest military hardware.

The US are hardly the police and are more akin to thieves, who were out to nick other people natural resources.

Sand wrote: »

I love my quote from Orwell. "Just the same as ", "Just as bad as"....the naive style of argument he despised from lefties back in his day is still as popular as ever. Let me demonstrate....NGOs and aid organisations like to pretend they are holier than thou, out saving the world, the sick and starving. Only it turns out they are actually sexually abusing vulnerable kids who they should be saving. Id guess, to keep to your principles of "Not Perfect = Total Evil!!!" youd argue that NGOs and aid organisations are just as vile and sick as the SS?

Right?

Wow, one hell of a straw man there. I never compared the US to the SS or anything like it. Didn't take you long to trot out the Nazi's at all now did it. However, this is a typical argument, the other guys are so much worse, so that makes if ok for the US to engage in wars of aggression. Seeing as you brought up the Nazi's, the Soviets fought them too and they were pretty horrible in there own right (the US btw are not like the Soviets just using them as an example).

Seriously, did you even read what I posted? I made claims of hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy (supporting (solely) Israel, while claiming to be a honest broker in the conflict for example) and you trot this Nazi nonsense and your Orwell quote. Perhaps you should move off your Orwell quote as it won't magically apply to everyone posts that you disagree with.

The US are not Iran, North Korea etc. However, they aren't the good guys either. Why should I support one shower of idiots, just because there not as bad as the other. I don't like any of them at all.

While, what I said was somewhat unclear, I did not say the US was as bad as other regimes in the world. My point is that they are bad enough in there own right.

My point is simple, the US are not the good guys (there are none). They care about themselves (like everyone else) and I personally feel the need to call the US on its crap about peace, justice, democracy etc, when there actions have shown they don't care for these things. For example the US has gotten rid of democracies, if and when those democracies did things that were inconvenient to the US. The US record speaks far louder than the values they claim to care about.

Looks its very simple, the NGO's purpose wasn't to set out and abuse children.

The US's purpose is pure self interest and they talk about justice etc, but it pretty clear there in it for themselves and hence there hypocrites. It isn't hard to see that US policy in the ME is to keep the oil flowing at a cheap price.

wes

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

it's not that long ago that britain was in iraq and india doing far worse than what israel's doing now, and america was also segregated racially up until very recently.. so they are quite like other western democracies, they've (the western democracies) just been around long enough to get their killing done before the advent of 24 hour tv.

Well, Western nations have long since gave up such practices.

Israel claims to be like modern Western nations, which mean there comparing them to the Western states as they are now and not 50 or more years ago.

humberklog

wes wrote: »

1. I was replying to another poster and not the op with that post as well. I mentioned them in that instance to contrast rhethoric between Israel and Iran. I even quoted the poster I was replying too.



2.(a)You were saying Israel share similarities with Western democracies, (b)I disagree, as an apartheid state can't be all that similar to Western democracies.



3. Its pretty obvious that Israel is a state for the Jewish people as opposed to everyone who lives there regardless of race.

A modern nation state is a state for all citizens and not for a single ethnic group.



4. Not really. I am quite right. Take a look at Israel laws and the examples I mentioned. Israel is nothing like a modern Western nation.

1. Looks here as though once again you turned the discussion towards the palestinian situation for your own arguementitive reasons therefore putting a different spin on the thread.
2.(a) I didn't just say they had similarities but also gave 3 examples. It was put as a suggestion of reason to a question you posed. Was your question rhetorical? Have you had any breakthrough in thought as to why western democracies don't appear to engage in the same diplomatic engagings as they do with Israel? (b)Disagree all you want, you are wrong.
3. Jews (from Slavs to Etheopians), christians and Muslims all get to vote in Israel.
4. You are completely wrong. It is. Very much so.

wes

humberklog wrote: »

1. Looks here as though once again you turned the discussion towards the palestinian situation for your own arguementitive reasons therefore putting a different spin on the thread.

Israel treatment of Palestinian, which is motivated by racism in part, shows that they are not quite as sane as some people make out. Personally, I think racism is crazy, hence why think it valid to bring up the Palestinians.

humberklog wrote: »

2.(a) I didn't just say they had similarities but also gave 3 examples. It was put as a suggestion of reason to a question you posed. Was your question rhetorical? Have you had any breakthrough in thought as to why western democracies don't appear to engage in the same diplomatic engagings as they do with Israel? (b)Disagree all you want, you are wrong.

(a) Your example don't change the other stuff I mentioned at all.
(b) No, I am quite right. Israel has racist marriages laws, Palestinians (with Israeli citizenship) can't buy a huge amount of land in Israel. These things (and a load more), make me right. Sure they can talk to Western states, but so what? There actions are hardly the type of things most people in the West should support.

humberklog wrote: »

3. Jews (from Slavs to Etheopians), christians and Muslims all get to vote in Israel.

Palestinians in the West Bank can't, they vote for a Bantustan government. Jews in the West Bank, get to vote for the actual government. So what you call democracy, is only a democracy for one group.

humberklog wrote: »

4. You are completely wrong. It is. Very much so.

Do Western states build apartheid walls?
Do Western states build roads for the exclusive use of one ethnic group?
Do Western states build colonies any more?
Do Western states have racist marriage laws?
Do Western states have racist land purchasing laws?

I could go on and on, but Western states on the whole don't do any of those things. Then there is the little matter that Israel is not a state of all its citizens like a modern Western state and the leaders of Israel make this clear all the time.

Simply stating I am wrong, won't make it so. The things I have mentioned show how different from a modern Western state Israel is. The only way for that to change is to stop doing the thing I have mentioned.

humberklog

wes wrote: »

1. Personally, I think racism is crazy, hence why think it valid to bring up the Palestinians.



2. (a) Your example don't change the other stuff I mentioned at all.
(b) No, I am quite right. Israel has racist marriages laws, Palestinians (with Israeli citizenship) can't buy a huge amount of land in Israel. These things (and a load more), make me right. Sure they can talk to Western states, but so what? There actions are hardly the type of things most people in the West should support.

My point now is that you've spun this thread into a direction that you continously do...palestinians. When this happens (always)the thread becomes pridictable and boring. Whereas if this thread remanied somewhat on topic it bwould make for a more interesting debate. The same debate every single time??? Good grief.



3. Palestinians in the West Bank can't, they vote for a Bantustan government. Jews in the West Bank, get to vote for the actual government.

4.The only way for that to change is to stop doing the thing I have mentioned.

1. It is pushing the peramiters of the OPs statement. You pushed them out in order to wedge in your usual arguement therefore pulling the thread into a predictable avenue for your own aguementitive reasons.
2. (a) My examples weren't said to change 'the other stuff' you mentioned. As my examples were said without a precedent from a previous post and before your responses so how could they be? You (once again) need to re-read my post and compare it to its previous posts on this thread. You've jumped context.
(b) Take what you want from constitutions, bills, blah, blah. I'm refering purely in context of everyday life amongst people who live in Israel. "These things (and loads more)" make you wrong and me right. And until you can give account of your experience 1st hand it stays that way. Once again you are describing the taste of an orange without having tried one.
3. I don't consider the west bank (nor any other occupied territories) to be Israel. I'm surprised you do. However...when I say Israel I am not including said areas in post.
4. nah...your wrong. Words describing an orange will never replace eating one. Very hollow understanding.

My point to you now is that every time a thread starts regarding Israel you take it down the exact same predictable road. Palestinians. Every single time the same debate? Good grief.
That's enough said between me and you on this thread.

wes

humberklog wrote: »

1. It is pushing the peramiters of the OPs statement. You pushed them out in order to wedge in your usual arguement therefore pulling the thread into a predictable avenue for your own aguementitive reasons.

I kept the discussion within the parameters of the conversation, and I mentioned the treatment of the Palestinian as it shows the character of the Israel and hence why I find them having WMD's worrisome. Also, one of the main reason Israel probably has WMD's is due to the Israel and Palestine conflict and hence making it a perfectly valid point of discussion.

Also, read the post that I was replying to, I was not directly replying to the OP, when I brought up the Palestinians, but rather another poster and was comparing Iran's Presidents and Israel's deputy defense minister rhetoric, and then to further to say that I find apartheid states dangerous things and probably shouldn't have any WMD's.

My first reply in the thread, directly address the OP:

wes wrote: »

I think its well known at this point that Israel has nuclear weapons. Its the worlds worst kept secret.

Of course poor Jimmy Carter, is going to catch hell for saying this. The guy talks a lot of sense and seems to want peace for everyone in the region. The criticism he gets tends to be, because he isn't 150% pro-Israel, but rather pro-peace and justice for everyone in the region.

While, I can understand why Israel wants nuclear weapons. Still having them gives every single one of there neighbors a good reason to build there own and quite frankly no one in the ME should have nuclear weapons. Too many crazy people running nations.

Basically this could be creating an arms race, that would make the one between India and Pakistan look like 2 pals having a friendly game of Cricket.

As you can see, I didn't mention the Palestinians, until I taught it was valid to do so, which it became so later in the thread.

Post 8 was not a reply to the OP, but to another posters. I think the fact, I quoted the poster in question makes that very clear. I directly addressed the point brought up by that poster, with my own counter points, which are plenty valid. Why you seem to think it invalid, is puzzling and seems to be an attempt to side step anything I have mentioned.

humberklog wrote: »

2. (a) My examples weren't said to change 'the other stuff' you mentioned. As my examples were said without a precedent from a previous post and before your responses so how could they be? You (once again) need to re-read my post and compare it to its previous posts on this thread. You've jumped context.

Apologies then.

humberklog wrote: »

(b) Take what you want from constitutions, bills, blah, blah. I'm refering purely in context of everyday life amongst people who live in Israel. "These things (and loads more)" make you wrong and me right. And until you can give account of your experience 1st hand it stays that way. Once again you are describing the taste of an orange without having tried one.

Nonsense of the highest order. Have you lived in Gaza (not as a occupying soldier)? In all likelihood you haven't. So does that make you opinion invalid? Of course not.

However, you seem to want to ignore the crimes and inherent racism of Israel and the nations laws and rather than confront them, you say my opinion and the facts I present are invalid as I have not been to the country. Which is of course nonsense. The sources I use plenty good enough to prove, what I am saying is true.

As for the day to live of Israeli's, I am sure there lovely, but the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza aren't. You can't ignore the Palestinians, there treatment shows exactly what Israel is, an apartheid state.

humberklog wrote: »

3. I don't consider the west bank (nor any other occupied territories) to be Israel. I'm surprised you do. However...when I say Israel I am not including said areas in post.

The state of Israel seems to think so, hence all the illegal colonies. Israel acts as if the West Bank is a part of Israel, I certainly don't think it is part of Israel, but the state of Israel as per the colonies seem to think otherwise.

humberklog wrote: »

4. nah...your wrong. Words describing an orange will never replace eating one. Very hollow understanding.

I addressed this above, but have you lived in the West Bank or Gaza (not as an occupying soldier) as a Palestinian? Of course that is impossible as you are not a Palestinian, so to use your logic, your opinion is automatically to be discounted then? I certainly don't think so, but per your logic we should just ignore what your saying as invalid.

humberklog wrote: »

My point to you now is that every time a thread starts regarding Israel you take it down the exact same predictable road. Palestinians. Every single time the same debate? Good grief.
That's enough said between me and you on this thread.

Every topic about the wider Arab/Israel conflict is about the Palestinians. Israel having WMD's is due to this conflict. This is why the Palestinians are perfectly valid point of discussion. How, you think the reason for Israel needing WMD's, in a thread about aforementioned WMD's, are not valid is certainly beyond me.

I notice rather than address any of the points, I brought up about how Israel cannot be considered a Western style democracy, you throw out a ridiculous arguments that side steps them completely.

See another argument brought up by others in this thread is that Israel is trust worthy as it is a democracy (post 10, for the first claim of this), also a general argument offered by apologists for Israel, so therefore another reason to mention Israels apartheid and the Palestinians.

Also, the post I replied to (number 4), was making out Israel to be rational and I personally find apartheid irrational and hence perfectly reasonable counter point.

Again, perhaps you should try and address the points I have raised rather than the transparent side stepping.

Sand

There is no evidence that Iran has nuclear weapon or is even planning to build them.

Theres no hard evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons or is even planning to build them. Oh wait, different standard of proof is required for Israel, silly me.

There is plenty of smoke - the IAEA in its most recent report cites Irans refusal to co-operate with its investigation, its refusal to stop enriching uranium, the involvement of the military in Irans "civillian" programme and its possession of documents relating to the construction of nuclear weapons.

Wow, one hell of a straw man there. I never compared the US to the SS or anything like it.

The US are hardly the police and are more akin to thieves, who were out to nick other people natural resources.

I never said you did, but in your one man fight against hypocrisy you happily equate them with whatever negative effigy you can think of. See above.

I made claims of hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy (supporting (solely) Israel, while claiming to be a honest broker in the conflict for example) and you trot this Nazi nonsense and your Orwell quote. Perhaps you should move off your Orwell quote as it won't magically apply to everyone posts that you disagree with.

Then stop using such terrible arguments. Orwell dismissed the "Oh the UK and the US are just as imperialistic and evil as Germany, theyre such hypocrites" popular with the left wing brigade in his day as being completely wrong in his day. The same attitudes [ see your fight against hypocrisy...] persist today, so Orwells view is just as relevant.

Looks its very simple, the NGO's purpose wasn't to set out and abuse children.

You talk a good game about being appalled and angered by hypocrisy but when I call the NGOs and aid organisations on their Dudley Do-Right claims [ they were fairly good at denouncing hypocrisy too werent they? ] as opposed to the reality of their abuse and predation on children in the developing world you come out with excuses - OH MY, THE HYPOCRISY!!!!One1!!!!

I wonder though, if I was to have used the Catholic Church as an example - its claim to be moral beacons, whilst abusing kids, covering up for offenders etc etc....would you have explained that the Catholic Church wasnt to set out and abuse children? Would you have defended them as being basically good sorts? I guess we will never know now.

Also, one of the main reason Israel probably has WMD's is due to the Israel and Palestine conflict and hence making it a perfectly valid point of discussion.

Israel has nukes to discourage the mass pile ons by its far more numberous neighbours - and indeed the entire Arab region - that it had to fight off several times during the 50 and 60s.

Nukes and the Palestinian conflict [ former Jordanian territory that attacked Israel] are a consequence of those wars - as someone has already noted, Israel nuking Palestine would be rather self-defeating.

The Palestinian conflict has only passing relevance at best.

wes

Sand wrote: »

Theres no hard evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons or is even planning to build them. Oh wait, different standard of proof is required for Israel, silly me.

From BBC.co.uk

However, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert included Israel among a list of nuclear states in comments in December 2006, a week after US Defence Secretary Robert Gates used a similar form of words during a Senate hearing.

From the article at the start of the thread no less.

Israels Prime Minister basically said they had them. Seems like plenty of evidence to me. We know full well the Israel's have weapons, so lets not pretend they don't.

Sand wrote: »

There is plenty of smoke - the IAEA in its most recent report cites Irans refusal to co-operate with its investigation, its refusal to stop enriching uranium, the involvement of the military in Irans "civillian" programme and its possession of documents relating to the construction of nuclear weapons.

Yet, no proof there actually building any Nuclear weapons. There being a$$holes about the whole thing and are rightly suffering under sanctions for not cooperating. So as I said before, there is no proof there trying to build weapons, there are certainly questions they need to answer, but still a long way from them building WMD's.

Sand wrote: »

I never said you did, but in your one man fight against hypocrisy you happily equate them with whatever negative effigy you can think of. See above.

They are thieves, what else would you call what there doing in Iraq? The joke of brining democracy?

Here is a recent article from the independent that shows that doesn't seem to be the case:

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

Seems like a major violation of sovereignty there. Care to explain how the US is providing freedom to Iraq?

They are there to control the oil for there own benefit and are therefore thieves.

Also, explains how toppling democracies is a thing the police would do? Sounds like something a criminal would do to me. You seem happy to make out the US to be police men, despite there actions showing they will ignore the laws when its suits.

What would you call all the profits Bush buddies like Haliburton are making in Iraq? War Profiteering and stealing money from the US people.

So once again, instead of addressing why I said those things of the US, you ignore it and try to side step it all together.

Oh and you did say I compared them to the SS:

Sand wrote: »

I love my quote from Orwell. "Just the same as ", "Just as bad as"....the naive style of argument he despised from lefties back in his day is still as popular as ever. Let me demonstrate....NGOs and aid organisations like to pretend they are holier than thou, out saving the world, the sick and starving. Only it turns out they are actually sexually abusing vulnerable kids who they should be saving. Id guess, to keep to your principles of "Not Perfect = Total Evil!!!" youd argue that NGOs and aid organisations are just as vile and sick as the SS?

Right?

See the bit in bold there, what your insinuating is that I think the US are like the SS. By saying that I would compare NGOs to the SS to keep my principles. Of course I compared no one to the SS at all, so the bit in bold is utter nonsense. As I said typical straw man, also where did I call anyone total evil? Oh wait I didn't. Lovely straw man, but its nonsense.

Honestly Nazi's references are just lazy and I personally avoid them.

Sand wrote: »

Then stop using such terrible arguments. Orwell dismissed the "Oh the UK and the US are just as imperialistic and evil as Germany, theyre such hypocrites" popular with the left wing brigade in his day as being completely wrong in his day. The same attitudes [ see your fight against hypocrisy...] persist today, so Orwells view is just as relevant.

My arguments are terrible? At least I didn't bring up WW2 and the bloody SS. This is a crutch I see apologist for the idiocy of the neo-cons use quite a bit.

Nope its not relevant. What the US is doing is wrong pure and simple based on it own merits as I have stated several times, I did not compare them to other nations at all.

Also, you provide not a single argument to show why the US are not hypocrites? That right there is telling.

So again your quote doesn't apply and your doing your best to make it fit. I never compared the US to any other nation and condemned them due to there own actions. Repeating your quote won't make it work all of a sudden you see.

You see you argument is nonsensical. I am not saying the US is as bad as anyone else. I am saying there action are bad in there own right.

You see supporting apartheid, while banging on about freedom is hypocritical. Claiming to be a honest broker, while blatantly backing one side is another.

You see what I did there? I criticized the US based on there actions and did not compare them to the Nazi Germany as you are trying to insinuate (again). Honestly, your trying really hard to make your quote fit, but it isn't going to.

I notice instead of addressing anything I said, you resorted to your quote as a catch all to deflect criticism of the US.

Sand wrote: »

You talk a good game about being appalled and angered by hypocrisy but when I call the NGOs and aid organisations on their Dudley Do-Right claims [ they were fairly good at denouncing hypocrisy too werent they? ] as opposed to the reality of their abuse and predation on children in the developing world you come out with excuses - OH MY, THE HYPOCRISY!!!!One1!!!!

What are you even on about? I pointed out the difference between the 2. The NGO's did not set out to abuse children. You have any evidence that they did? Of course what was done was wrong, by the individuals involved and they are most certainly hypocrites.

The US on the other hand, altruism has been shown to be about self interest. The US lied about the Iraq war, I am unaware of NGO's trying to hide abuses. If they have done so then are hypocrites also.

Also, there are many NGO's and blanket condemning them would make me a hypocrite, hence why I did not do so as many actually do good work.

Again, I am not convinced of the US actually trying to do good for everyone. NGO's on the other hand, seem to be trying to do genuine good. You see what I did there? I showed why I consider the 2 to be different.

You see I never excused the actions of the NGO's who abused children at all, but rather showed why I think the 2 situations are different. Also, not all NGO's are involved in the abuses. The US as a single entity can be condemned easier, but to do so with NGO's is kinda hard without specifics.

Btw, by your standards the fact you haven't condemned the US, also applies to you. Why haven't you denounced there hypocrisy then?

Sand wrote: »

I wonder though, if I was to have used the Catholic Church as an example - its claim to be moral beacons, whilst abusing kids, covering up for offenders etc etc....would you have explained that the Catholic Church wasnt to set out and abuse children? Would you have defended them as being basically good sorts? I guess we will never know now.

The Catholic church tried to hide the abuses, so they are hypocrites.

I still notice you have not once condemned the US for its hypocrisy, but are happy to do so with other organizations.

Sand wrote: »

Israel has nukes to discourage the mass pile ons by its far more numberous neighbours - and indeed the entire Arab region - that it had to fight off several times during the 50 and 60s.

What exactly did they expect after ethnically cleansing the Palestinians? Also, Israel has engaged in aggression against its neighbors to steal land (Suez and the aforementioned ethnic cleansing come to mind), so there hardly innocent.

Sand wrote: »

Nukes and the Palestinian conflict [ former Jordanian territory that attacked Israel] are a consequence of those wars - as someone has already noted, Israel nuking Palestine would be rather self-defeating.

The Palestinians attacked Israel? I think you will find the Zionist were invaders from Europe, who wanted to set up a state in the ME, where people were already living. To somehow say that the Palestinians attacked Israel is laughable.

Now nuking Israel would also kill the Palestinians, making it self defeating for Iran and other in the region, to kill there own cause.

Also, they (Israel) could nuke others in the region without fear of retaliation.

Sand wrote: »

The Palestinian conflict has only passing relevance at best.

No it doesn't seeing, as they reason they are being attacked and hated in the region is what they did to the Palestinians.

Also, Israel apartheid shows they are not exactly the nice people some like to claims. You btw taught Iran Islamic regime made them untrustworthy to have nukes, so why is Israel apartheid not relevant then? If Iran's regime character is relevant, then so is Israel's.

So care to explain how the US are not hypocrites as described? Instead of trying to side step by bringing in the NGO's or Catholic church, how abouts address the points raised?

Also, to address your quote directly:

"And from that they will proceed to argue that, after all, democracy is 'just the same as' or 'just as bad as' totalitarianism. There is not much freedom of speech in England; therefore there is no more than exists in Germany. To be on the dole is a horrible experience; therefore it is no worse to be in the torture chambers of the Gestapo. In general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread.
George Orwell; The Lion and the Unicorn.

Where did I say the US were like totalitarians?
Where did I say there had no freedom of speech?
Where did I compare them to the Gestapo?

Did I compare them to any one? Did I ever say they were like anyone else?

Orwells condemnation is very much based on people saying the UK is as bad as the Nazi's. I never said the US were Nazi's or total evil or anything of the sort. Again, you trying to twist his argument so that, it defends the US as long as there is someone worse out there, which is rubbish. The point he is trying to make is that people are using the UK's actions to defend Hitler, I have not defended the Iranians (or North Korea) at all, they are a despicable regime, but there is no evidence they have Nuclear weapons or building them.

No to all those. I never said no such things or anything close to it. I said the based my criticism of the US based on there actions. The current actions are worthy of condemnation and the old excuse of saying someone else is worse, isn't going to work, or trying to say someone else is doing something bad as well, is no defense. Never has been and never will be.

Its sad that you are trying to twist Orwell's words to try and deflect criticism from the US. Of course if we are to take you attitude the US has free reign to do what they want as you have deemed them the police. Well, lets say they are the police, when an officer breaks the law repeatedly, we call them a crooked cop and that still makes them a criminal.

Sand

Israels Prime Minister basically said they had them. Seems like plenty of evidence to me.

So youll accept the Israelis prime ministers word on who might or might not have nukes? I take you accept his assessment Irans going for nukes then. Theres plenty of evidence for it if all it takes for a conviction is the Israeli prime minister to say so.

Yet, no proof there actually building any Nuclear weapons.

And no proof, bar hearsay, that Israel has any either. Theres certainly questions they need to answer though...

Also, explains how toppling democracies is a thing the police would do?

Saddam was a democracy now? Okay. Plenty of less than wholesome states were democratic though. Id really wouldnt want to risk your wrath by citing the obvious example of the US deposing a democratically elected European leader back in the 40s.

I believe they also rudely ignored Frances sovereignty [ and countless other countries] by sending their airforce all over French skies, bombing targets all over France....bastards.

See the bit in bold there, what your insinuating is that I think the US are like the SS.

Yeah, I read it and I dont see the part where I said you compared the US and the SS. Methinks you doth protest too much though.

where did I call anyone total evil? Oh wait I didn't

You equate less than perfect liberal democracies with theocratic dictatorships. Liberal democracies have nothing to say about justice remember? Which is laughable - imperfect as justice in the US or UK may be, underage rape victims are not being hung from construction cranes in either place. They are being executed in Iran. I think Iran could learn a hell of a lot from the US and UK on justice.

If youre just throwing around hyperbole to establish your on the edge arts department anti-establishment credentials, great - carryon.

But tell me, given the US and UK cant talk about justice, why are NGO and aid organisations different? How come they can sexually abuse kids AND lecture others about justice?

Also, you provide not a single argument to show why the US are not hypocrites? That right there is telling.

Of course theyre hypocrites. Youre a hypocrite. Im a hypocrite. Every nation on earth, every organisation and every person likes to think theyre better than they really are. Few people tend to go round claiming to be miserly, lying, manipulative bastards do they? That no-one actually quite measures up to their own view of themselves doesnt mean that everyone can be dismissed as basically no better than each other though.

Its not a bad thing either to believe you are better than you are either - sometimes you try to reach those higher standards so you dont have to face the depressing reality. Does the US irritate you because it views itself as the last great hope for freedom and liberty, whereas its actually a superpower that gets masters realpolitick? Probably - but the US can be motivated to do the right thing the odd time through appealing to its citizens and their view of themselves, whereas the Chinese harbour no such delusions about saving the world and thus have little need to even pretend to do so. Abu Gharib shocked and appalled the US public, in China, they dont even hear or care about what happens to the dissapeared [ organ harvesting appears to be the best bet..].

Also, there are many NGO's and blanket condemning them would make me a hypocrite, hence why I did not do so as many actually do good work.

No, it would be consistent. Failing to issue a blanket condemnation of them all being hypocrites actually reinforces the hypocrisy...

The Catholic church tried to hide the abuses, so they are hypocrites.

Hypocrisy is not covering up a crime. The Catholic Church lectured on morality whilst its priests raped and sexually abused kids for decades, if not longer. That is hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy for you is that you claim to be appalled and disgusted by hypocrisy. That it invalidates any claim by a hypocritical party to be moral, or acting with good intentions. But only in selected instances. For select groups. I mean, NGOs are fairly small compared to the vast government-military complexes that run most superpowers. And yet you dont seem to hold the NGOs to the same accountability in terms of oversight and controls - any action carried out by a government agent MUST be a wide, well known, massively supported policy that came right from the very top! But NGO workers raping kids for years whilst working with aid organisation? Mavericks working on their own!

One might say its not hypocrisy that bothers you, rather the groups themselves. Hypocrisy is just a excuse for why. I mean, isnt it hypocritical to be condemning others for hypocrisy whilst you are guilty of the same? And yes, I am a hypocrite. But you probably believe youre better than you are.

Did I compare them to any one? Did I ever say they were like anyone else?

Really? Can you explain your line of thought in this?

Wes:

(A) If we are to judge Iran in such a fashion based on rhetoric, then why not Israel? (B) Whom actually have WMD's, whereas the Iranian WMD's are in the same place as Iraqs WMD's, in the minds of mad men who run the US and the UK.

Humberklog:

(B) As opposed to the minds of the mentally healthy men running (insert choice of country).

Wes:

The US/UK make claims to be about justice etc. A lot of those other countries have no issues saying what they are.

The US/UK claim to be acting on the betterment of everyone, perhaps they should take a walk through a city in Iraq and see how thats going.

wes

Sand wrote: »

So youll accept the Israelis prime ministers word on who might or might not have nukes? I take you accept his assessment Irans going for nukes then. Theres plenty of evidence for it if all it takes for a conviction is the Israeli prime minister to say so.

I think the Prime Minister of Israel would know if his country has nuclear weapons. Its information that he would clearly have access to, what with him being the Prime Minister of Israel and all.

Are you saying that the Prime Minister of Israel wouldn't not know if his country had nuclear weapons or not? You seem to be making that ridiculous assessment.

Also, to some how suggest that I should automatically accept his claims about Iran is ridiculous. That is information, that he doesn't necessarily have access to. Really, to even suggest that I have to automatically accept his word on Iran having WMD's is nonsense.

Sand wrote: »

And no proof, bar hearsay, that Israel has any either. Theres certainly questions they need to answer though...

The Prime Minister of a country saying they have nuclear weapons, is pretty clear proof. You really are trying very hard to make it look like the 2 situations are the same.

Now if the Supreme Leader of Iran said they had nuclear weapons, I would accept that. However, he hasn't said anything of the sort just yet.

You see 2 are very different situations. One situation, Israels PM says they have nuclear weapons. The other situation, Iran haven't disclosed all the information asked of them. Hardly the same.

Sand wrote: »

Saddam was a democracy now? Okay. Plenty of less than wholesome states were democratic though. Id really wouldnt want to risk your wrath by citing the obvious example of the US deposing a democratically elected European leader back in the 40s.

Wow, you really are reaching and you once again invoke the Nazi's, whom I never mentioned either.

Did I say Saddam was a democratically elected leader? Nope, I didn't.

Yawn, another straw man ladies and gents.

Sand wrote: »

I believe they also rudely ignored Frances sovereignty [ and countless other countries] by sending their airforce all over French skies, bombing targets all over France....bastards.

What does WW2 have to do with anything? Oh wait nothing, nor did I ever bring up WW2 or criticized allied actions during it.

The nonsensical straw man continues unabated.

Also, may as well give an example of the kind of democracies I am talking about, stuff like Iran before the US/UK put in the Shah.

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, I read it and I dont see the part where I said you compared the US and the SS. Methinks you doth protest too much though.

Me thinks, you use the straw man fallacies a bit too much. Perhaps you should actually try and argue against what I have said.

Sand wrote: »

You equate less than perfect liberal democracies with theocratic dictatorships. Liberal democracies have nothing to say about justice remember? Which is laughable - imperfect as justice in the US or UK may be, underage rape victims are not being hung from construction cranes in either place. They are being executed in Iran. I think Iran could learn a hell of a lot from the US and UK on justice.

Wow, never once said the US couldn't criticise Iran. Did you even read my posts at all?

Also, I stated quite clearly several times, that the US actions are worth condemnation on there own merit.

Also, I said the US were hypocrites, and gave examples. Of course no where did I suggest we should not take them seriously when the condemn the likes of Iran, due to there hypocrisy. That is a straw man, concocted by yourself once again.

Sand wrote: »

If youre just throwing around hyperbole to establish your on the edge arts department anti-establishment credentials, great - carryon.

Complete rubbish. Perhaps you should stop the wild accusations and nonsense and argue against stuff I actually say.

Sand wrote: »

But tell me, given the US and UK cant talk about justice, why are NGO and aid organisations different? How come they can sexually abuse kids AND lecture others about justice?

I never made the point your suggesting. So I see no need to address you question, since its nonsense.

Sand wrote: »

Of course theyre hypocrites. Youre a hypocrite. Im a hypocrite. Every nation on earth, every organisation and every person likes to think theyre better than they really are. Few people tend to go round claiming to be miserly, lying, manipulative bastards do they? That no-one actually quite measures up to their own view of themselves doesnt mean that everyone can be dismissed as basically no better than each other though.

I never said they were "no better than each other", I made my point clear that there actions were condemnable on there own merit.

So once again, you are putting words in my mouth.

Sand wrote: »

Its not a bad thing either to believe you are better than you are either - sometimes you try to reach those higher standards so you dont have to face the depressing reality. Does the US irritate you because it views itself as the last great hope for freedom and liberty, whereas its actually a superpower that gets masters realpolitick? Probably - but the US can be motivated to do the right thing the odd time through appealing to its citizens and their view of themselves, whereas the Chinese harbour no such delusions about saving the world and thus have little need to even pretend to do so. Abu Gharib shocked and appalled the US public, in China, they dont even hear or care about what happens to the dissapeared [ organ harvesting appears to be the best bet..].

The US actions themselves as I stated before a worth of condemnation. I already stated this. Why do you continue to ignore this and why are you trying to read my mind and make wild assumptions is beyond me.

Sand wrote: »

No, it would be consistent. Failing to issue a blanket condemnation of them all being hypocrites actually reinforces the hypocrisy...

Nonsense, I would need to know that every single NGO was engaged in such activities. I don't know this and so a blanket condemnation, would be firstly wrong and quite frankly stupid.

Sand wrote: »

Hypocrisy is not covering up a crime. The Catholic Church lectured on morality whilst its priests raped and sexually abused kids for decades, if not longer. That is hypocrisy.

The individual priest were hypocrites in that case.

The Catholic church are hypocrites for protecting them while they did the crimes, while lecturing about morality.

Sand wrote: »

The hypocrisy for you is that you claim to be appalled and disgusted by hypocrisy. That it invalidates any claim by a hypocritical party to be moral, or acting with good intentions. But only in selected instances. For select groups. I mean, NGOs are fairly small compared to the vast government-military complexes that run most superpowers. And yet you dont seem to hold the NGOs to the same accountability in terms of oversight and controls - any action carried out by a government agent MUST be a wide, well known, massively supported policy that came right from the very top! But NGO workers raping kids for years whilst working with aid organisation? Mavericks working on their own!

Stuff like the Iraq invasion did come from the top and was initially widely supported.

You have yet to make any such case for the NGO's. You mentioned them in passing and gave no specifics at all. Hence, I made a judgment based on what I knew about the NGO's cases, which as far as I know suggests that it is not widespread. I may be wrong, but being wrong isn't hypocrisy, its just make me wrong.

Still, even If I was a hypocrite, that is no defense for the US at all.

Sand wrote: »

One might say its not hypocrisy that bothers you, rather the groups themselves. Hypocrisy is just a excuse for why. I mean, isnt it hypocritical to be condemning others for hypocrisy whilst you are guilty of the same? And yes, I am a hypocrite. But you probably believe youre better than you are.

Even if I am a hypocrite, I have every right to call the US hypocrites, if I so choose and me being a hypocrite doesn't make them innocent all of a sudden.

See instead of trying to argue against what I have said, you invent something else to argue against. Really poor way to debate imho. Perhaps, instead of claiming that because, I called the US hypocrites that we should ignore there condemnations of Iran or anything of that sort, when I never said any such thing. Perhaps arguing against what I say, rather than what you wished I did would make more sense.

Most of your arguments are nonsensical straw men, that have no basis in anything I have said, and are rather attempts to read my mind, despite me clearly stating why certain things the US etc do bother me, which is the actions themselves.

Sand wrote: »

Really? Can you explain your line of thought in this?

Wes:
(A) If we are to judge Iran in such a fashion based on rhetoric, then why not Israel? (B) Whom actually have WMD's, whereas the Iranian WMD's are in the same place as Iraqs WMD's, in the minds of mad men who run the US and the UK.

Humberklog:
(B) As opposed to the minds of the mentally healthy men running (insert choice of country).

Wes:
The US/UK make claims to be about justice etc. A lot of those other countries have no issues saying what they are.

The US/UK claim to be acting on the betterment of everyone, perhaps they should take a walk through a city in Iraq and see how thats going.

My bad on that one, I clearly got confused with my earlier post.

I was comparing them to other nations, but I never said they are as bad as or like any one else, which is what you claimed I was saying earlier. You clearly now accept I was comparing the difference between them now.

My own fault for using the word compare instead of something else.

GuanYin

Lets keep the personal remarks out of the debate (thats a mod comment).

Sand

Nonsense, I would need to know that every single NGO was engaged in such activities.

Different standards of proof again...I doubt youd refuse to issue a blanket condemnation of the IDF on the basis that maybe an Israeli soldier had at all times operated within the Geneva Conventions, had always done everything to minimise Palestinian casualities etc etc.

But either way the report on the NGOs sexual abuse of kids accept such abuse by NGOs is widespread in conflict zones. Theyre not alone either, UN peackeepers are similarly involved in sexual abuse of civillians and other crimes in zones theyre supposed to be protecting.

nor did I ever bring up WW2 or criticized allied actions during it.

Funny that, because you cited the US military deployment [bases] and use of airspace in Iraq as negative, apparently an assault on the Iraqi governments sovereignty. Surely the US invasion of France, the unilateral siezing of French airspace and the bombing of French targets was a similar assault on French sovereignty? Worthy of criticism based on the very same merits or lack thereof?

Or again, was the claims of "thievery" and "a major violation of sovereignty" based on the above claims just hyperbole and you accept that France, despite having the US violate its sovereignty, bomb its territory and invade its country wasnt actually stolen? De Gaulles London "government" wasnt elected by anyone - he was just a puppet at that point. Iraqs government is elected, with a mandate. But yet it cant reach agreements with the US or any other coalition power?

Perhaps you should actually try and argue against what I have said.

Well apart from denouncing hypocrisy, and throwing hyperbole around like "apartheid state", "thieves" that you back away from as soon as your called on it what else have you said?

I was comparing them to other nations,

Okay, seeing as you repeatedly deny the above through the rest of your posts - just to clear it up....you were comparing them positively with other countries?

Your accusations of hypocrisy on the behalf of the US and the UK actually have no value because you still accept, that the US and UK are perfectly justified in considering themselves morally sound enough to criticise Irans quest to achieve nuclear weapons, its repressive society and its support of terrorist organisations?

You accept for example, that for all his other sins President Bush is a far more responsible and trustworthy leader to hold nuclear weapons than the Iranian clergy as Bush is the head of a republic, whereas the clergy are answerable only to their imaginary god?

I just want to be clear on this because you say you were comparing them with other countries, but you werent comparing them negatively or equating them with those countries, so by default you were in fact praising them for their hypocrisy?

wes

Sand wrote: »

Different standards of proof again...I doubt youd refuse to issue a blanket condemnation of the IDF on the basis that maybe an Israeli soldier had at all times operated within the Geneva Conventions, had always done everything to minimise Palestinian casualities etc etc.

Wow, the nonsense continues. I would need to know if every single NGO (whom are all not a single entity), were involved to condemn them all. I simply don't know this. So there are no different standards.

Also, the IDF are a single entity, and can be condemned as a single entity. They are are not the same as many different NGO's whom are all different entities. Also, you are making assumptions about what I would think. This is utter nonsense, as you can't possibly read my mind and is quite frankly another straw man. Also, the situation you present is done so in such a way to make me seem unreasonable, not based on anything I have said but rather on something you wish I had said or assume I would say, based on your opinion of the IDF, as opposed to mine which I have not brought up in this thread. I have not presented any argument against the IDF, so can hardly defend an opinion I did not express, but rather one you wish or think I have.

Anyway, even if everything you said was true it doesn't address, the specific examples I gave on the US hypocrisy or provide any defense for them. Its doesn't matter that other groups are hypocritical or bad in there own right, it doesn't change a thing about what I said about the US.

Basically, your argument is that I said something nasty about the US and therefore have to say something nasty about other groups, based on your opinion of those groups. Of course the fact I may have a different opinion doesn't come into it, as that would be inconvenient for your nonsense. As I said before, I may be wrong about the NGO's, but I based what I said about them on what I know about them. Even if I am wrong, you have not presented any argument to defend the US from my charges of hypocrisy in any way shape or form and even if we are to agree with your argument, it still isn't a defense for the US, but rather show a failing on my part on a different topic.

Sand wrote: »

But either way the report on the NGOs sexual abuse of kids accept such abuse by NGOs is widespread in conflict zones. Theyre not alone either, UN peackeepers are similarly involved in sexual abuse of civillians and other crimes in zones theyre supposed to be protecting.

A link to the report (i must have missed it)? I haven't read any such report, so couldn't possibly know that information, beyond the claims you have made. As I stated, I don't have the information to make such a judgment and my opinion on Iraq are based on more information that I have presented here. Just as I am sure you have far more information about NGOs, than you are presenting here. So I am not looking for different standards at all, rather I am admitting that I don't have enough information on the NGOs. Simply, I do not get all my information from message baords posters, that the only way that I could be looking for different standards of evidence.

Sand wrote: »

Funny that, because you cited the US military deployment [bases] and use of airspace in Iraq as negative, apparently an assault on the Iraqi governments sovereignty. Surely the US invasion of France, the unilateral siezing of French airspace and the bombing of French targets was a similar assault on French sovereignty? Worthy of criticism based on the very same merits or lack thereof?

Nope, the 2 situations could not be more different. Again, you compare WW2 to the Iraq conflict. Which quite frankly is ridiculous and something GWB loves to do all the time. Its make no sense at all, seeing as that conflict is a very different one.

The French were occupied by a foreign power, a foreign power that the US were at war with, the foreign power in Iraq is the US. To some how suggest the 2 situations are the same is ridiculous. The US is not at war with the current government of Iraq, the current government and the previous regime are native to Iraq and not foreign occupiers that the US are fighting. The US went to war with Saddam Iraq and not someone else occupying Iraq.

So to suggest there the same is nonsense. Also, the US entered WW2, because the Japanese (whom were allied with Nazi Germany) attacked them. Iraq did not attack the US and didn't even have the ability to do so. I could keep on going and showing how different the 2 wars are, but I think what i have said is more than enough.

Sand wrote: »

Or again, was the claims of "thievery" and "a major violation of sovereignty" based on the above claims just hyperbole and you accept that France, despite having the US violate its sovereignty, bomb its territory and invade its country wasnt actually stolen? De Gaulles London "government" wasnt elected by anyone - he was just a puppet at that point. Iraqs government is elected, with a mandate. But yet it cant reach agreements with the US or any other coalition power?

The US were fighting a occupying power in France that they were at war with. Hence, the situation is different and your claims are a nonsense. The 2 situations are clearly different. Its bizare that you keep going back to WW2 as being same as the Iraq conflict, despite the many differences.

That was not hyperbole, but rather my opinion on the situation.

What the US is proposing is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, the government currently there are a puppet government. When they wanted to toss out Blackwater, the US government prevented it, showing how little actual power the Iraqi government have.

Also, again the current Iraq conflict is not WW2. Its 2008 not 1939, there are many clear differences between the 2 situations.

Sand wrote: »

Well apart from denouncing hypocrisy, and throwing hyperbole around like "apartheid state", "thieves" that you back away from as soon as your called on it what else have you said?

Hardly hyperbole, but at least you arguing against stuff I have said, rather than stuff you imagined I said. Which is what you arguments up to know have been.

Again my claims are based on the following, the US being thieves, there invasion of Iraq being a pretty obvious example and then handing over billions to PMC's, who just so happen to have connections of the current US admin.

Israel, is an apartheid state, how else do you explain away Jewish only roads and the various racist law that I have already pointed out?

You may think what I said is hyperbole, well I disagree.

I have never back down on what I said, I have admitted where I was wrong once so far.

Otherwise, you have been arguing largely with what you wish have said, rather than what I did say. You can claim otherwise all you like, but doesn't change the basic fact, that half the stuff you claim I said, I never did say.

Sand wrote: »

Okay, seeing as you repeatedly deny the above through the rest of your posts - just to clear it up....you were comparing them positively with other countries?

No, I wasn't comparing them positively, but I never said they were the same as you claimed earlier or that they were as bad as. I was talking about on a couple of points and not making a blanket comparison.

Sand wrote: »

Your accusations of hypocrisy on the behalf of the US and the UK actually have no value because you still accept, that the US and UK are perfectly justified in considering themselves morally sound enough to criticise Irans quest to achieve nuclear weapons, its repressive society and its support of terrorist organisations?

My accusation has plenty of value. I was pointing out hypocrisy in specific instances btw and the US have every right to bring up issues that concern them. Again, you don't counter the examples I gave of hypocrisy of the US in one situation, but rather present an argument where I can't trust anything the US says, because I think there hypocritical in other area's. Just, because the US are hypocrites, doesn't mean that Iran may not be trying to make nuclear weapons, the US of course has to make a case and provide proof for this and if the proof is there, it doesn't matter if the US are hypocrites in other areas, but what matters is the proof they provide.

Sand wrote: »

You accept for example, that for all his other sins President Bush is a far more responsible and trustworthy leader to hold nuclear weapons than the Iranian clergy as Bush is the head of a republic, whereas the clergy are answerable only to their imaginary god?

Are we really back to this again? I made an argument earlier that no one should have them. Honestly, read what I have said.

Sand wrote: »

I just want to be clear on this because you say you were comparing them with other countries, but you werent comparing them negatively or equating them with those countries, so by default you were in fact praising them for their hypocrisy?

I never praised them, and the example I gave were to support my accusation of hypocrisy. I was making a point about a couple of instances, which is very clear from what i typed and was not comparing everything about the US to other nations, but rather a single point.

I never made any of the claims you are trying to insinuate and I have been very clear already. Perhaps, you should read what I say rather than what you have imagined I have said.

See I never said they were the same as anyone else or as bad as any one else. I was commenting on a couple of aspects of US policy.

humberklog

This Godmin's Law guff. I wonder could the same law be used with a change two of the names. Usenet (Israel),(any topic) Palestinians. Lotta black kettles being thrown around.

wes

humberklog wrote: »

This Godmin's Law guff. I wonder could the same law be used with a change two of the names. Usenet (Israel),(any topic) Palestinians. Lotta black kettles being thrown around.

Gonna have to disagree with you. Seeing as that several posters have talked about the character of the regimes of Iran and North Korea as reason for not having WMDs.

Why should bringing up the character of Israel not be valid? Also, in discussing that inevitably the Palestinians will be brought up. Its a valid counter point, especially when people claim Israel is a democracy, to counter that point, the treatment of the Palestinians will also have to be brought up.

humberklog

Sand wrote: »

1.Theres no hard evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons or is even planning to build them.

2. Israel has nukes to discourage the mass pile ons by its far more numberous neighbours - and indeed the entire Arab region - that it had to fight off several times during the 50 and 60s.

3. The Palestinian conflict has only passing relevance at best.

1. Doesn't need to be. But there is a lot of consensus that they have! Even by the leaders of the state and military.

2. Fully agree here. Especially in with the word 'discourage'.

3. If even. Would have been a far more informative and interesting thread without. Because bringing them in(My previous posts example of a 'variable' Godwin's Guff?) then leads to the natural progression of bringing in the Nazis (Godwin's Guff (proper) apparently!?) and their attempt at anhiliation of jews in europe(leading to jewish enforcing a homeland and the displacement of palistinians (and around we go)).
The OP was a good enough stand alone discussion.
I liked your earlier Orwell quote.

wes

humberklog wrote: »

3. If even. Would have been a far more informative and interesting thread without. Because bringing them (My previous posts example of a 'variable' Godwin's Guff)in then leads to the natural progression of bringing in the Nazis (Godwin's Guff apparently) and their attempt at anhiliation of jews in europe(leading to jewish enforcing a homeland and the displacement of palistinians (and around we go)).
The OP was a good enough stand alone discussion.
I liked your earlier Orwell quote.

The Nazi's weren't brought up in that context in this thread btw. So the natural progression you brought up never occurred. The Nazi's were mentioned in the context of the Iraq war.

Secondly the Zionist movement existed before the Holocaust.

Again, I asked this question the stuff Iran and North Korea pull is fair game, then why not Israel?

humberklog

Sand wrote: »

I believe they also rudely ignored Frances sovereignty [ and countless other countries] by sending their airforce all over French skies, bombing targets all over France....bastards.

Good point in its context.

marcsignal

humberklog wrote: »

1.(a) Sorry if that read as a snooty statement marcsignal. It wasn't intended. I was genuinely surprised that the core of this news item would appear surprising though.
1.(b) No.
2. Never heard of it and probably wouldn't go outta my way to look it up as there's more reading material bandied about here than at a Scientologist convention. But am curious to the jist if you could be of any help. I'll have to refer you to part 1.B of your post.

No harm done humberklog, I took your post up the wrong way totally.

Apologies for starting this thread and suddenly vanishing Gentlemen/Ladies.
It wasn't my intention to open a can of worms and then bugger off, but I've spent the last 10 days or so back in Ireland watching a former girlfriend dying of cancer, and tbh I'm just not up to contributing any further at this point.

wes

marcsignal wrote: »

No harm done humberklog, I took your post up the wrong way totally.

Apologies for starting this thread and suddenly vanishing Gentlemen/Ladies.
It wasn't my intention to open a can of worms and then bugger off, but I've spent the last 10 days or so back in Ireland watching a former girlfriend dying of cancer, and tbh I'm just not up to contributing any further at this point.

Sorry to hear that man. That really sucks.

Sand

No, I wasn't comparing them positively, but I never said they were the same as you claimed earlier or that they were as bad as.

So to be clear. You were comparing them. You werent comparing them postively, nor negatively, nor equating them. Right?

You want to run that past me one more time? Because when youre comparing things theres 3 basic results...better than, the same as, worse than and while you were comparing them youve denied every single possible result.

And you seemingly blame me for not understanding your postion, and attempt to misdirect any effort to clarify what your position is. Weird tbh.

My accusation has plenty of value.

Not really as you havent reached any conclusion, positive or negative or even neutral. Right?

Just, because the US are hypocrites, doesn't mean that Iran may not be trying to make nuclear weapons, the US of course has to make a case and provide proof for this and if the proof is there, it doesn't matter if the US are hypocrites in other areas, but what matters is the proof they provide.

Not what I asked you.

I made an argument earlier that no one should have them.

Not what I asked you.

your argument is that I said something nasty about the US and therefore have to say something nasty about other groups, based on your opinion of those groups

Nope, my argument is that you apply a blanket condemnation on the basis of hypocrisy, but not only for select groups. It makes me wonder if hypocrisy is actually what you have a problem with as your reaction to it varies. Its only something you can answer at the end of the day and I dont expect you to be honest about it in the context of this thread.

Nope, the 2 situations could not be more different.

Yes, the Iraqi government has a democratic mandate whereas the Free French did not.

the government currently there are a puppet government.

With a democratic mandate and UN recognition. Things the Free French did not have. This is another example of exaggeration on your part. In fact the Iraqi government has more of a mandate than many of the democratic governments the US overthrew back in the Cold War. And yet whilst you critcise the US/CIA supporting domestic opponents of hostile democratic governments during the Cold War, you encourage the dismissal of the Iraqi government as "puppets"?

Sand

1. Doesn't need to be. But there is a lot of consensus that they have! Even by the leaders of the state and military.

Oh yeah - the probability of Israel having nukes is up there with the probability Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. There is not hard, verified objective evidence [ The sort Wes might seek for an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, or was sought for Saddams WMD] that guarantees 100% they have them though.

Im not denying they have nukes, Im making the point for all the "Prove the Iranians have nukes, prove it!!!!" posters that they cant even prove Israel has nukes and we know they do. I do admit my liking of taking an opposing view point, switching names, places and having the fanatical supporters of that view point denounce it because it doesnt have their special interest group involved anymore can sometimes backfire as the fanatical supporters usually miss the point.

Interestingly though, according to Richard Whelans article today, the Arab states apparently issued a warning back in March 2008 that if Israel was proven to have nukes that they would withdrawn from the NPT. They havent, but another point to ponder for those advocating Irans right to nukes is that apparently in an 11 month period between 2006 and 2007 at least 13 Arab states announced nuclear programmes in reaction to Irans efforts. A tinderbox area laden down with nukes? Appealing prospect. But hey, they have the right, right? Who are the nuclear power hypocrites to object?

aidan24326

Sand wrote: »

Interestingly though, according to Richard Whelans article today, the Arab states apparently issued a warning back in March 2008that if Israel was proven to have nukes that they would withdrawn from the NPT. They havent, but another point to ponder for those advocating Irans right to nukes is that apparently in an 11 month period between 2006 and 2007 at least 13 Arab states announced nuclear programmes in reaction to Irans efforts. A tinderbox area laden down with nukes? Appealing prospect. But hey, they have the right, right? Who are the nuclear power hypocrites to object?

Well that's the problem, it is hypocrisy. Israel banging on about the 'threat' of Iranian nukes when the world and his brother knows they have a stockpile of nuclear weapons themselves.

marcsignal wrote: »

According to "Jimmy Carter" (The Big Anti-Semite) Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7420573.stm

So why is everyone so worried about Iran and North Korea ??

Thing is 'everyone' isn't worried at all, it's primarily the Israeils who are worried about it and we know they have a significant influence in Washington. Why would the US need to be worried about Iran having nuclear weapons? For a start, even if Iran did have nukes they'd need intercontinental missiles to deliver them at US target, something only the US and Russia are believed to have.

More to the point, no Iranian leader however crazy would want to see his own country turned into a mushroom cloud, which is exactly what would happen if Iran ever nuked the US (or Israel for that matter)

The point of having nukes isn't to use them, it's to wave them around and say look what we've got, mess with us and you know we could nuke you. That's why Iran (or any other middle eastern country) would want to have nuclear weapons. The fact Israel has them is what has created the problem in the first place.

wes

Sand wrote: »

So to be clear. You were comparing them. You werent comparing them postively, nor negatively, nor equating them. Right?

Yes, I wasn't equating them. As I said before I used the wrong word.

Sand wrote: »

You want to run that past me one more time? Because when youre comparing things theres 3 basic results...better than, the same as, worse than and while you were comparing them youve denied every single possible result.

I was talking about a particular instance or aspect and not overall. I said they were hypocrites and gave examples.

Sand wrote: »

And you seemingly blame me for not understanding your postion, and attempt to misdirect any effort to clarify what your position is. Weird tbh.

You jumped to conclusions, with the WW2 references. You never asked for clarification until much later.

Sand wrote: »

Not really as you havent reached any conclusion, positive or negative or even neutral. Right?

I was talking about a particular aspect, rather than calling the US evil or Nazi's or anything like that, which is what were trying to insinuate I was saying and what I was defending against.

Sand wrote: »

Not what I asked you.

Seemed that way to me.

Sand wrote: »

Not what I asked you.

Erm, I said earlier no one should have nuclear weapons, that answer your question just fine. No one being trust worthy is perfectly valid answer.

Sand wrote: »

Nope, my argument is that you apply a blanket condemnation on the basis of hypocrisy, but not only for select groups. It makes me wonder if hypocrisy is actually what you have a problem with as your reaction to it varies. Its only something you can answer at the end of the day and I dont expect you to be honest about it in the context of this thread.

I can have a different opinion on other things from you and hence not see something as hypocrisy. What you think of the NGO's situation and what I think can differ.

Of course the US is a single entity and NGO's are not. Thats a pretty big difference imho and hence the different answer. I have already pointed out the difference, as the example you gave offered no particulars and could apply to several different organizations and hence the difference. You offered a vague statement that interpreted different from you and you are using this try and insinuate something you won't say for whatever reason.

If you want to accuse me of something, perhaps you should just do so.

Sand wrote: »

Yes, the Iraqi government has a democratic mandate whereas the Free French did not.

Also, as I pointed out the US was at war with Germany, who were occupying the France, hence why they invaded France.

You seemed to be trying to insinuate I would have opposed allied actions during WW2, but you seem to have dropped this now. You only now offer this new democratic mandate argument, which you never mentioned before.

So I take it you admit the Iraq war and WW2 are very different situations then?

Sand wrote: »

With a democratic mandate and UN recognition. Things the Free French did not have. This is another example of exaggeration on your part. In fact the Iraqi government has more of a mandate than many of the democratic governments the US overthrew back in the Cold War. And yet whilst you critcise the US/CIA supporting domestic opponents of hostile democratic governments during the Cold War, you encourage the dismissal of the Iraqi government as "puppets"?

So are you saying the US should not have sided with the Free French? Were the government in France that sided with the Nazi's more valid than the Free French? Or the fact that the US was at war with Germany, who were the people actually running France, not a huge difference? In fact at the time there was no proper democratic French government at all at the time. So how are the 2 situations anything a like is beyond me.

Nice of you to change you argument mid stream and talk about democratic mandates of the free French, but the Nazi's were actually controlling France at the time and the US was at war with them and hence why they invaded. So once again 2 very different situations.

They are puppets as the US won't actually let them run there country, as I pointed out with the black water example. So the US is doing its best to get its way despite what the democratically elected government of Iraq want and the US is again trying to bully them to accept a treaty that will effectively reduce how much the run there country again. Having a democratic mandate means nothing if the government doesn't act in the interests of its people and the Iraqi government is either ignored or bullied by the US to acquiesce to there wishes.

The US also had no UN mandate, when they invaded and Iraq didn't attack them. There reasons were WMD's and there were none and not to free Iraq.

Sand

Thing is 'everyone' isn't worried at all,

Their Arab neighbours seem to be if Richard Whelans points on a dozen or more of them launching nuclear programmes inside a year is accurate.


WES....

Yes, I wasn't equating them.

One more time - you were comparing them, but you werent comparing them positively, negatively or equating them. So how were you comparing them? I am struggling to understand your paradoxical self conflicting view point here. Throw me a fricking bone...

Given the above I can only return to the conclusion that your claims of hypocrisy are actually meaningless and of no value as even you cant provide a conclusion or point from them and furiously deny any point I try to divine from them. But youve also denied your claims of hypocrisy are pointless or without value too. In fact, youve denied pretty much everything except that you were making a comparison. You know, if youd been consistent and denied that too Id not be as confused.

Seemed that way to me.

Erm, I said earlier no one should have nuclear weapons, that answer your question just fine. No one being trust worthy is perfectly valid answer.

Its a perfectly valid answer to a different question. I didnt ask you if you thought anyone should have nuclear weapons. And I didnt ask you if the US should provide proof for the claims against Iran. I asked you two questions to actually confirm your position given your denials over the implication I drew from your posts. Youve shied away both times, as expected. Denying is easy, but the proof comes when you stand over the other option.

If you want to accuse me of something, perhaps you should just do so.

I have, havent I?

You seemed to be trying to insinuate I would have opposed allied actions during WW2

No I am insinuating you would have denounced the US for violating Frances sovereignty during WW2 given that any co-operation between the US and an allied government is a violation of that allies sovereignty.

I can see now though you would have been satisfied that a cabal of unelected, unrepresentitive French ex-pats and regime dissidents in London would be able to approve US attacks on French targets on behalf of the French people.

Equally you must have been totally satisfied that a cabal of unelected, unrepresentitive Iraqi ex-pats and regime dissidents in London and New York would be able to approve US attacks on Iraqi targets on behalf of the Iraqi people. The US invasion in 2003 wasnt illegal, right? The Iraqi dissidents gave it the thumbs up!

On the other hand the elected Iraqi government, with a democratic mandate from the Iraqi people fighting multiple insurgency conflicts against threats to that mandate cannot reach aggreement with the US on bases in Iraq or US rights to operate in Iraqi airspace without being puppets.

On a similar vein any country which has reached agreements with the US on military bases etc, etc are puppets. Like Germany. Japan. South Korea.

Of course, feel free to deny this and go into a torturous long winded obfuscation of what you actually said or meant whilst refusing to clarify your position whatsoever.

Im extremely clear on what you are against but extremely vague on what you are actually for.

So I take it you admit the Iraq war and WW2 are very different situations then?

Nope - theyre very similar by your own standards. US enemies in Iraq and France afterall. US is fighting them. Free hand by your views. Oh wait, youll deny that too.

wes

Sand wrote: »

One more time - you were comparing them, but you werent comparing them positively, negatively or equating them. So how were you comparing them? I am struggling to understand your paradoxical self conflicting view point here. Throw me a fricking bone...

Well, I never called anyone Nazi's or anything of that sort either way.

You seem to throw our nonsensical assumptions of of my opinions based on my opinions of different situations. Situations that are completely different and you get confusing answer. Well what did you expect with the nonsense you have come up with? A straight answer?

Well quite frankly most of what you said had made no sense at all, and I have done my best to answer based on such confusing examples and weird assumptions of what I think of other conflicts, with opinions you have made up for me.

Sand wrote: »

Given the above I can only return to the conclusion that your claims of hypocrisy are actually meaningless and of no value as even you cant provide a conclusion or point from them and furiously deny any point I try to divine from them. But youve also denied your claims of hypocrisy are pointless or without value too. In fact, youve denied pretty much everything except that you were making a comparison. You know, if youd been consistent and denied that too Id not be as confused.

Well, you seem to jump to all kinds of conclusions based on what you wish was being said and well you are getting confused answer, as your wild assumptions are confusing and more and more bizarre and WW2 is suddenly the same as the Iraq war.

Sand wrote: »

Its a perfectly valid answer to a different question. I didnt ask you if you thought anyone should have nuclear weapons. And I didnt ask you if the US should provide proof for the claims against Iran. I asked you two questions to actually confirm your position given your denials over the implication I drew from your posts. Youve shied away both times, as expected. Denying is easy, but the proof comes when you stand over the other option.

It was a valid answer to your question. You may not like it, but it still answer it. I don't particularly care if one person is apparently more sane than another, when it comes to nuclear weapons, I think no one should have them, there just too dangerous.

Sand wrote: »

I have, havent I?

You are insinuated a ulterior motive and didn't express it clearly at that point. So if you have something to say then say it. Of course you can try and say something about WW2 and how WW2 applies to everything about Iraq and what I am saying and that if I have an opinion on one situation, then I must have the same opinion on another different situation as decided by you.

Sand wrote: »

No I am insinuating you would have denounced the US for violating Frances sovereignty during WW2 given that any co-operation between the US and an allied government is a violation of that allies sovereignty.

I pointed out the difference between the 2 conflicts and you decided to put words in my mouth and have repeated this.

I never mentioned WW2, so this something of your own invention entirely.

See this kind of nonsense confused things, as you seem to think opinions on Iraq can some how be applied to WW2, a very different conflict. Now, I don't see everything in the context of WW2 and find this confusing and nonsensical as its 2008 and WW2 has nothing to do with the Iraq war.

Sand wrote: »

I can see now though you would have been satisfied that a cabal of unelected, unrepresentitive French ex-pats and regime dissidents in London would be able to approve US attacks on French targets on behalf of the French people.

Thats what your saying not me.

I have clearly stated that the US was at war with Germany, whom were occupying France and were basically running the country. So attacking there enemy who were in control of France, was perfectly legitimate. The reason you have come up with and are saying is my position is yours invention, like most of your posts and is quite frankly nonsensical and making things confusing for both of us.

You claims everything I say isn't clear. Well when I give you a clear answer on Iraq. You say its WW2 and there the same and things get confused. I am pretty sure its 2008, but after reading your posts you would think its 1939.

Sand wrote: »

Equally you must have been totally satisfied that a cabal of unelected, unrepresentitive Iraqi ex-pats and regime dissidents in London and New York would be able to approve US attacks on Iraqi targets on behalf of the Iraqi people. The US invasion in 2003 wasnt illegal, right? The Iraqi dissidents gave it the thumbs up!

This is what your saying and not me. Again, you clearly aren't reading my posts and seem to thing that opinion on a different conflict, WW2 can apply to another different conflict in Iraq.

You taking my opinion on a different situation and trying to shoe horn it into a different situation.

So basically nonsense that is confusing things for all involved.

Sand wrote: »

On the other hand the elected Iraqi government, with a democratic mandate from the Iraqi people fighting multiple insurgency conflicts against threats to that mandate cannot reach aggreement with the US on bases in Iraq or US rights to operate in Iraqi airspace without being puppets.

So its in the interest of Iraq to hand over sovereignty to other nations? Do the Iraqi government have have a mandate to hand over sovereignty? If they hand over there so willingly then they are puppets.

Sand wrote: »

On a similar vein any country which has reached agreements with the US on military bases etc, etc are puppets. Like Germany. Japan. South Korea.

Does the US control there air space and make the kind of demands they are on the Iraqi government? Also, are these situations exactly the same?

Sand wrote: »

Of course, feel free to deny this and go into a torturous long winded obfuscation of what you actually said or meant whilst refusing to clarify your position whatsoever.

Well, my post are so long winded due to the nonsense of you are saying about how something I said about the Iraq conflict can automatically be applied to WW2, a completely different conflict. Well, things are bound to be long and confusing, as its hard to under stand such bizarre nonsense, where everything can be compared to WW2 apparently.

You can insist I said something I have never said all you want, won't make it true.

Also, you are avoiding a lot of questions I ask you. At least I have answered yours, you may thing my answer are rubbish, but at least they are there.

Sand wrote: »

Im extremely clear on what you are against but extremely vague on what you are actually for.

So? I don't have to say what I am for.

Sand wrote: »

Nope - theyre very similar by your own standards. US enemies in Iraq and France afterall. US is fighting them. Free hand by your views. Oh wait, youll deny that too.

There similar by my standards? I think you will find that they are similar by your standards and not mine. I am a different person who will think different than you or how you wish I would think.

Same old here. I never said half the stuff you are claiming. You seem to be having a conversation with another person or something and its 1939 and not 2008 as well. You make a lot of assumptions and then say its my position. You have once again done this. Perhaps you should actually form an argument on something I have said and stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Your entire posts are nonsense, about applying what I said to different situations. You ignore these difference and try and shoe horn my opinion into them. You constantly do your best to misrepresent me, by making assumptions on things I have never commented on and jumping to conclusions based on your assumptions of me.

You seem to have difficulty understanding that I will have different opinions on different situations and that WW2 and the Iraq war are 2 different situations.

Of course you will say I am trying confuse things and what not, but with the amount of nonsense you claims, thats bound to happen. Half of your claims confuse me and hence what I say confuses you.

Of course you will claim some ulterior motive behind what I am saying, as I don't agree with you and won't back down.

So you can make all the claims based you like about my opinions on WW2 based on my opinion of Iraq, which complicates and confuses things. Of course you can blame this on me all you want, but you seem to think these 2 conflicts are the same and that confuses the hell out of me. So if you are confused with my replies, well its due to the fact that I see the 2 conflicts as being very different and clearly aren't saying what you are saying or trying to shoe horn into another situation.

Also, you never answered my question about the rationality of Israel and there racist laws, apartheid (you addressed this one later as "hyperhole", to be fair) and country founded on a promise from god. You seem to talk about those irrational Iranians, but ignore all irrational stuff Israel does as well and I could just insist your wrong repeatedly of course. I could also, say your opinion on of Israel, means you would have supported british colonization of India, despite the huge difference between the 2, but that wouldn't make any sense, as there 2 different situations and in all likelihood, you would have a different opinion on it.

I could infer some ulterior reason for this, but I can't possible know that and hence wont do so. In all likely its probably something as simple as difference of opinion, but again I can't know that as I can't read you mind and you never answered the question. You may not like my answers, but at least I have made an attempt to answer your queries and not ignored them for whatever reason you have ignored my questions.

wes

Sand wrote: »

Oh yeah - the probability of Israel having nukes is up there with the probability Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. There is not hard, verified objective evidence [ The sort Wes might seek for an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, or was sought for Saddams WMD] that guarantees 100% they have them though.

The Prime Minister of Israel saying they have them isn't proof? That is more proof than anyone has about Iran program. So we should disregard, what the Prime Minister of Israel says about his own country then. I already said if the the Supreme Leader of Iran, said something similar, I would accept Iran has nuclear weapons. You conveniently ignore this, to try and make out that I am looking for special treatment for Iran, of course that situation exists no where in reality, but once again an attempt by you try to confuse things.

In fact didn't US intelligence say recently Iran, stopped its nuclear weapon program? Aren't the US the experts at finding WMDs? Is there a similar report about Israel? Last I check there isn't. There seems to be proof Iran has long stopped there nuclear weapons program. I see no such evidence for Israel.

Sand wrote: »

Im not denying they have nukes, Im making the point for all the "Prove the Iranians have nukes, prove it!!!!" posters that they cant even prove Israel has nukes and we know they do. I do admit my liking of taking an opposing view point, switching names, places and having the fanatical supporters of that view point denounce it because it doesnt have their special interest group involved anymore can sometimes backfire as the fanatical supporters usually miss the point.

I provided the words of Israels Prime Minister, someone who would know his nation has Nuclear weapons. You have never explained why what the Prime Minister of Israel has said isn't good enough proof. I also said I would accept the same of Iran, if it existed.

You have chosen to ignore this as its inconvenient and so you can paint other posters as fanatics. Btw, who are these fanatics you speak of?

Btw, the same you are accusing others here, could be easily be aimed at you. You ignore the irrationality of other nations, as it doesn't suit you to address it and instead seem to think its WW2, despite it being 2008. You want special rules for your favored group and make all the excuses possible for them. Your point is simple, one set of rules for you favored groups and another for the ones you dislike.

Sand wrote: »

Interestingly though, according to Richard Whelans article today, the Arab states apparently issued a warning back in March 2008 that if Israel was proven to have nukes that they would withdrawn from the NPT. They havent, but another point to ponder for those advocating Irans right to nukes is that apparently in an 11 month period between 2006 and 2007 at least 13 Arab states announced nuclear programmes in reaction to Irans efforts. A tinderbox area laden down with nukes? Appealing prospect. But hey, they have the right, right? Who are the nuclear power hypocrites to object?

If the place is a tinderbox, why not mention Israel nuclear weapons, if the place is such a tinder box, should this not be brought up?

Also, how do we know the Arab state are reacting to Iran, it could just as easily be Israels arsenal and what Iran is doing, after all there Prime Minister, basically said they had them very recently. They could be reacting to that. Of course I can only speculate the reasons they have started there nuclear power ambitions.

There is a world of difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, however. They could just as easily have copped on to the fact the oil will eventually run out.

Of course anyone in the ME, should make sure that there program is open and if they don't, should suffer under sanctions. There are rules to govern nuclear power and as long as there followed they should be allowed to have it, if they violate it then the should be sanctioned.

Why do you think these nations should be denied nuclear power, if there following the rules? As long as there following the rules as per the NPT, I don't see why there should be a problem.

Of course no one should have nuclear weapons at all btw.

Oh and concerning your Orwell quote, the right were big time supporters of Nazi appeasement. The only paper at the time to advocate appeasement was the Right wing Daily Mail. In fact apparently they openly admired them even. You can read more by clicking here.