PDA

View Full Version : Syria's WMD's could someday be used here on us.



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Drummond
08-01-2012, 12:31 PM
I may have made a huge error in assuming something here.

Quite. It's my observation that you make huge errors in your assumptions generally.


I thought you might wanna hit the place that had the most bad guys first.
Sorry--doing something incompletely as possible does not compute. Can't help ya there.

You're agreeing with me, then, that the maximum effort against terrorism is correct ? That it needs to be as effective, and as wide ranging as possible ?

Dilloduck, can I take it that you're making progress in understanding the total need for the War on Terror, and the necessity for zero tolerance towards terrorists and their enablers ??

Very well done ! We'll make a Conservative of you yet !

However .. it doesn't NECESSARILY follow that to 'hit the place that had the most bad guys first' is the correct thing to do.

What if a location really does have the 'most bad guys' in it, BUT, their ability to kill and devastate is less than another group, with far less bad guys to be found, but who nevertheless have access to WMD's, making their capacity to destroy a far greater one ?

Effectiveness against terrorism can mean more than you've assumed, the result being one of those 'huge errors' you're prone to. What if an all-out effort is made against lots of bad guys in one location, leaving the other group free to deploy a couple of WMD's ?

I take it that you see my point (?). And Tyr has the right approach .. you go for the maximum possible effort, for maximum effectiveness.

revelarts
08-01-2012, 12:33 PM
History commons might help look into this if you interested

Ali Mohamed
http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=ali+mohamed&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Bojinka plot
http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=bojinka+plot&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Sibel Edmonds
http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=sibel+edmonds&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go


Able Danger
http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=%22able+danger%22&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 12:37 PM
Quite. It's my observation that you make huge errors in your assumptions generally.



You're agreeing with me, then, that the maximum effort against terrorism is correct ? That it needs to be as effective, and as wide ranging as possible ?

Dilloduck, can I take it that you're making progress in understanding the total need for the War on Terror, and the necessity for zero tolerance towards terrorists and their enablers ??

Very well done ! We'll make a Conservative of you yet !

However .. it doesn't NECESSARILY follow that to 'hit the place that had the most bad guys first' is the correct thing to do.

What if a location really does have the 'most bad guys' in it, BUT, their ability to kill and devastate is less than another group, with far less bad guys to be found, but who nevertheless have access to WMD's, making their capacity to destroy a far greater one ?

Effectiveness against terrorism can mean more than you've assumed, the result being one of those 'huge errors' you're prone to. What if an all-out effort is made against lots of bad guys in one location, leaving the other group free to deploy a couple of WMD's ?

I take it that you see my point (?). And Tyr has the right approach .. you go for the maximum possible effort, for maximum effectiveness.

Try translating some of this vague bullshit into real and actionable suggestions. Everyone hates terrorism--the problem is finding a way to fight it without causing collateral damage. You can't just attack an entire religion.

revelarts
08-01-2012, 12:43 PM
C'mon, Rev, I'll admit that a LOT of mistakes were made. I'll even say that perhaps a few underhanded things were done. But to make it so simple and say the US could have stopped this, as if they purposely allowed it to happen, is ridiculous. And you'll need a LOT more proof than a thousand blogs, youtube videos and book sellers. You want to place perhaps the worst crime in the history of the universe in the laps of some from 1993-2001, you better have more proof than the crap you've posted over the years. You HAVE posted a lot to give one pause, a reason to look into things, but NO WAY EVEN NEAR a full blown conspiracy and proof that the US was complicit in the crime. YOU may be convinced, but in a court of law for example, it wouldn't even reach trial, a judge would toss it aside after opening statements claiming not enough evidence to move forward. I've got no beef if you want to believe certain people while others don't. I've got no beef when people like myself believe official reports and tons of others, and you don't believe them. That's what debating is all about. But I get a little edgy when someone accuses "the higher ups" of the most treasonous crimes in the world, based on words from people who want to sell books, and no hard evidence.

"But to make it so simple and say the US could have stopped this, as if they purposely allowed it to happen, is ridiculous."

I think this is where you have the most problem, it's your INCREDULITY that people, any "higher ups" , in the US gov't could play CYA with so many lives at stake or that maybe even that a few might be downright bad guys. You seem to think the higher ups in the US gov't would never commit treason and if they did they'd get caught and exposed OF COURSE.
Your faith in the people of US gov't is IMO far to high.
Maybe If i said the Democrats did it all i might get a more sympathetic ear, but maybe not.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 12:48 PM
Able Danger
http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=%22able+danger%22&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

This able danger crap was debunked a LONG time ago. Only the truthers hang onto it. The main player involved has even went on to change his story. This was looked into and scrutinized, and nothing came of it. But I know the "theorists" and truthers still believe.

revelarts
08-01-2012, 12:50 PM
...But I get a little edgy when someone accuses "the higher ups" of the most treasonous crimes in the world, based on words from people who want to sell books, and no hard evidence.

Have your read the book?
No

Do you know if the book is based on hard evidence or not?
no you don't.

Do you know if anything i mentioned above is NOT in a book but is found in congressional testimony under oath?
I wrote that it was but you ignored it or skipped it.
so NO.

Do you know that much of it is found in freedom of information docs obtained from FBI and other agencies?
Do you care?
no
it's too ridiculous to consider.

am i going to try to convince you otherwise any more
No.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 12:51 PM
"But to make it so simple and say the US could have stopped this, as if they purposely allowed it to happen, is ridiculous."

I think this is where you have the most problem, it's your INCREDULITY that people, any "higher ups" , in the US gov't could play CYA with so many lives at stake or that maybe even that a few might be downright bad guys. You seem to think the higher ups in the US gov't would never commit treason and if they did they'd get caught and exposed OF COURSE.
Your faith in the people of US gov't is IMO far to high.
Maybe If i said the Democrats did it all i might get a more sympathetic ear, but maybe not.

No, the ONLY problem here is PROOF, none of which you have, only hearsay and booksellers. I'll say it for the millionth time - we have a government that LOVES to screw one another, and if there was ANY proof of wrongdoing on EITHER side, it would be proven down to the last detail and charges brought forth. But even take the government not doing anything out of the equation, there's still no proof, at least not for those who would look at it from a "court of law" POV. If that were the case, all you would have would be some horrible circumstantial evidence, coming from people looking to make money from their testimony.

I don't "seem to think" anything, Rev. That's YOUR problem, you THINK these things and run around as if they were fact, when they're simply not.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 12:51 PM
Have your read the book?
No

Do you know if the book is based on hard evidence or not?
no you don't.

Do you know if anything i mentioned above is NOT in a book but is found in congressional testimony under oath?
I wrote that it was but you ignored it or skipped it.
so NO.

Do you know that much of it is found in freedom of information docs obtained from FBI and other agencies?
Do you care?
no
it's too ridiculous to consider.

am i going to try to convince you otherwise any more
No.

I don't base my facts and findings off of a book on the shelf at a supermarket, sorry.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 12:55 PM
Here's a good reading on "Able Danger" if anyone is interested. One's got to ask themselves how and why a congressman would make statements and then change them!

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Able_Danger

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 12:56 PM
A quick summary of the Department of Defense's findings:

The Department of Defense investigation concluded:



The anti-terrorist program, Able Danger, did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 terrorists before the 9/11 attack.
Able Danger members were not prohibited from sharing intelligence information with law enforcement authorities or other agencies that could have acted on that information. In fact, Able Danger produced no actionable intelligence information.
The destruction of Able Danger documentation at LIWA and Garland was appropriate and complied with applicable DoD regulations.
The Able Danger program was not terminated prematurely. It concluded after it had achieved its objective and its work products were used in follow-on intelligence gathering efforts at USSOCOM

revelarts
08-01-2012, 01:11 PM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6E6PO3ac6aA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 01:23 PM
And yet others within Able Danger tell other stories, and I suppose they aren't to be believed, and his buddy Weldon has changed stories. There were investigations from multiple places, the DOD and congress for starters, and they found zilch. But the meat of it was solely about agencies sharing information. NOTHING shows government involvement in 9/11 and NOTHING would have prevented 9/11 from any of this. I suppose all these agencies and congressional hearings and such are coverups.

Whatever wiggles your worm for you, Rev.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 01:26 PM
Not that it matters and I'm saying it does, but what a funny coincidence to find out that Shaffer has tried to hawk his memoirs. These memoirs were held back by the DOD for security reasons, and he then released a 2nd censored version. I wouldn't suppose he has a gripe, or money to be made.

Again, suppose it doesn't matter, but am I the only one who finds it so odd that like the majority of those wanting to say these things about 9/11, end up selling books? :laugh2:

Drummond
08-01-2012, 02:19 PM
Try translating some of this vague bullshit into real and actionable suggestions. Everyone hates terrorism--the problem is finding a way to fight it without causing collateral damage. You can't just attack an entire religion.

Do you mean this post as a joke ?? [... and you were doing so well ...]

Final point first - to suppose that fighting terrorism can be such a 'clean' process that you'll manage it without a high likelihood of 'collateral damage', is completely unrealistic. OK, maybe, just maybe, you might strike lucky and manage it on rare occasions. But what on earth makes you believe that there is some sort of 'method' that can be contrived which will eradicate that likelihood ??

Dilloduck, there are even terrorists who MAKE SURE that they can't be attacked without a 'collateral damage' cost being inevitable. Think Hamas in Gaza, for example, making sure they fire their rockets at Israel, from heavily populated areas !

So, if you and cloud-cuckooland Lefties in authority are going to insist that terrorists aren't fought if it means collateral damage, you might as well surrender to them right now (.. the terrorists, I mean, not the Lefties !).

As for your request for a 'real and actionable suggestion', I'd have thought there was a very obvious one, staring you in the face ! SYRIA AND HER WMD'S !!

'Subtle hint' time, Dilloduck. What is the title of this thread ????

Syria'a stock of WMD's could easily fall into the wrong hands. Before it becomes impossible to effectively do, and presumably at the point where Assad's downfall is shown to be highly probable .. THEN, a military force would have to go in and capture them.

It's that simple.

Can I guarantee to you that such an operation wouldn't be messy ? Of course not. Can I say it'd be free of collateral damage ? I can't see how !

But, if it isn't done, then your only alternative would be to do the 'ostrich' thing much beloved by Lefties, and just PRETEND that terrorists won't get their hands on them.

Can you maintain the ostrich pose once an American city falls victim to a Syrian WMD ? I've no idea. Perhaps the Leftie capacity for self-delusion is even greater than I imagine ??

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 02:35 PM
If it's that simple I would think Russia or Israel could handle it easily. It's starting to look like overthrowing Assad is a bit tougher than everyone thought. Don't worry though. There are enough WMDs everywhere for you to rattle your saber forever. Eager to start another war huh?

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 02:41 PM
If it's that simple I would think Russia or Israel could handle it easily. It's starting to look like overthrowing Assad is a bit tougher than everyone thought. Don't worry though. There are enough WMDs everywhere for you to rattle your saber forever. Eager to start another war huh?

With your 2's argument aside and focusing on Assad...

It would be easy for anyone else to overthrow Assad, it's just that the citizenry is having trouble over there while he uses the military to hold them back.

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 02:46 PM
You really don't believe that it's only Syrian citizens that are opposing him do you ?

Drummond
08-01-2012, 02:49 PM
With your 2's argument aside and focusing on Assad...

It would be easy for anyone else to overthrow Assad, it's just that the citizenry is having trouble over there while he uses the military to hold them back.

Undeniably true, of course. Though that truth doesn't negate the issue I've been arguing, namely, who'll get their hands on the stockpile of Syrian WMD's we now know exists ?

I think the timing for a recovery operation would have to be a fairly finely-balanced one, and besides, who's to say that either Russia or China, maybe both, haven't formulated their own plans for such an operation ?

But I'd guess that America has more to risk by their not being confiscated by American forces, than otherwise.

It can be done. Or, America can live with the threat that inaction may pose.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 02:50 PM
You really don't believe that it's only Syrian citizens that are opposing him do you ?

Nope, without detailed facts, I've got little doubt that other militants and terror groups are helping. But the truth of the matter is, NATO would have the government out within a week and the US would do so by lunch hour. It's hard for these smaller groups to fight back against a formidable military. They have about 300,000 in their military and perhaps another equal to that in reserves. I don't know who's willing to fight for Assad against their own citizens, but it's clear that they are MUCH more superior in numbers and MUCH more superior in their weaponry.

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 02:53 PM
http://situationsasia.com/story/who-who-syrian-opposition
SYRIAN OPPOSITION
Political parties playing or aiming to play a significant role in Syrian political life can be separated into two as those in the Baath Party and parties not tied to the Baath. Generally those parties not tied to the Baath Party have had to continue their activities outside the country.
COMMUNIST PARTY

Founded in 1924, the Communist Party became prominent with its serious activities in the country and its attitude of opposition. In particular, most of the officers and members of the Communist Party which opposed the union of Egypt and Syria in 1958 were arrested after the union of the two countries.

Experiencing serious internal strife during the years 1969-1972, the party was divided. The current leader of the Communist Party is Lawyer Riyad al Turk. He is known as one of the most important figures who are calling for democracy in the country. He is also called Syria's Mandela. He was among those arrested in September, 2001. He was freed in November, 2002.

In the 1982 Hama event Turk was blamed by his own partisans and members for not criticizing the Muslim Brothers. Turk held the Hafez Assad administration responsible for the Hama massacre and called Assad a dictator.

MUSLEM BROTHERHOOD

It was founded in 1942 by Dr. Mustafa Saibai. Its current leader is Riyadh al Shafka. The roots of the brotherhood lie in the Muslim Brotherhood founded in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al Banna.

Until 1962 the brotherhood entered the parliament in the country and was in coalition with governments. After the events of February, 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood was completely excluded from Syrian political life.

With legal article 49 which was effective in 1980, the Hafez Assad administration declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be an illegal organization in the country. Under the same law, those who showed inclination towards the Muslim Brotherhood were punished by death.
Joining the National Salvation Front formed by Abdulhalim Haddam, former assistant to Bashar Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood announced that they had separated from the front after Israel's attack on Gaza in 2009 and they suspended opposition to Assad.

After the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood threatened to call for civil disobedience and take to the streets if the tactics used by the Syrian administration against the people were not halted.
The officials of the Muslim Brotherhood have been living in exile since 1982.

NATIONAL SALVATION FRONT

It was established with the initiative of Abdulhalim Haddam, former assistant to Bashar Assad who left the regime, among nationalist and liberal opposition groups along side the Muslim Brotherhood in the Belgian capital of Brussels. The front's aim is to change the Assad regime by peaceful means.

The Muslim Brotherhood separated from the National Salvation Front in April, 2009, for various reasons.
MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT IN SYRIA
It was formed by opposition groups that signed the "Damascus Declaration" in London in 2006. Its purpose is to garner acceptance by the Syrian people.
The movement aims to establish freedoms and to change the administration by peaceful means. In addition, it aims for the state of emergency to be lifted, for political parties to be formed in the country, for those in exile to return to the country and for political prisoners to be released.

REFORM PARTY

It was founded in the USA by Ferid al Gadiri, an American of Syrian descent, after the September 11th attacks.
Gadiri presents his party as an alternative to the Baath Party and the Muslim Brotherhood. He aims to overthrow the Assad administration with the help of the USA and then establish good relations with Israel.
Syrians did not show much interest in Gadiri's party because it is cooperating with America.

NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC FRONT

It is comprised of five leftist parties. They are: the Democratic Arab Socialist Union, the Communist Party, the Arab Socialist Democratic Baath Party, the Arab Revolutionary Workers Party and the Arab Socialist Party.

ARAB SOCIALIST MOVEMENT

This movement split in two internally. One group joined the Baath party. The other group took their place in the opposition. The movement's leadership is headed by Abdulgani Ayyas.

The star of this movement shone during the 1950s in the time of Ekrem Havrani, the fiery politician who participated in all the revolutions in Syria. The movement's splitting and Havrani's open opposition to Egypt's leader Gamal Abdel Nassir caused the movement to weaken in Syria.

ARAB SOCIALISTS UNION

It was established in 1964. Aiming for Arab nationalism known as Nasiri, it brought together the Arab Nationalism Movement, the Socialist Union Movement, the Arab Union Front and the Syrian Socialist Union.
REVOLUTIONARY WORKERS PARTY
It was formed under the leadership of Tariq Abu al Hassan. It is a Marxist party.

COMMUNIST WORKERS PARTY

It was founded in the mid-seventies. It continued its activities secretly during the eighties. Hafez Assad applied heavy pressure on this party.

PARTIES FORMED BY SYRIAN KURDS:
PARTY FOR MODERNITY AND DEMOCRACY

It is a secular and liberal Kurdish party. It is not recognized by the Syrian administration. In the program of the party which was founded in 1996, the goals are resisting oppression, touching cultural roots and democratizing political life in Syria.

UNITED KURDISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF SYRIA

It was established in Syria in 1970. It is not recognized by the Syrian administration. It is considered to be an extension of the Kurdish Democratic Party. It aims for state oppression towards Kurds in Syria to be eliminated and for the regions where Kurds live to be ruled with national unity.

It also aims for respect for human rights and a Syria that is democratic and populist and where sovereignty of the law reigns. In addition, it wants permission for the media to make broadcasting in Kurdish.

Drummond
08-01-2012, 02:54 PM
You really don't believe that it's only Syrian citizens that are opposing him do you ?

Oh, you mean, there may be TERRORIST GROUPS involved, as well ??!?

Dilloduck, if you REALLY understand that ... then any argument you so much as hint at to deny that those WMD's don't need to be forcibly recovered, is one where you ACCEPT seeing terrorists acquire them !!!

How can you possibly justify that ??

[.. and, 'Well, I'm a Leftie, so my brainwashing assures me it's all OK, really' just WILL NOT DO !]

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 03:00 PM
Undeniably true, of course. Though that truth doesn't negate the issue I've been arguing, namely, who'll get their hands on the stockpile of Syrian WMD's we now know exists ?

I think the timing for a recovery operation would have to be a fairly finely-balanced one, and besides, who's to say that either Russia or China, maybe both, haven't formulated their own plans for such an operation ?

But I'd guess that America has more to risk by their not being confiscated by American forces, than otherwise.

It can be done. Or, America can live with the threat that inaction may pose.

You don't get it----America has and will live with threats for the rest of time. Threats to our way of life are everywhere. Resources have to be prioritized and paid for. Your oversimplification of what America faces exposes how naive you are .
America along with it's allies have already deployed resources to deal with this problem and thousands more that you aren't even aware of.

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 03:01 PM
Oh, you mean, there may be TERRORIST GROUPS involved, as well ??!?

Dilloduck, if you REALLY understand that ... then any argument you so much as hint at to deny that those WMD's don't need to be forcibly recovered, is one where you ACCEPT seeing terrorists acquire them !!!

How can you possibly justify that ??

[.. and, 'Well, I'm a Leftie, so my brainwashing assures me it's all OK, really' just WILL NOT DO !]

Holy smokes--call the Pentagon, Batman. We need to attack. Send in the Marines

Drummond
08-01-2012, 03:02 PM
http://situationsasia.com/story/who-who-syrian-opposition
SYRIAN OPPOSITION
Political parties playing or aiming to play a significant role in Syrian political life can be separated into two as those in the Baath Party and parties not tied to the Baath. Generally those parties not tied to the Baath Party have had to continue their activities outside the country.
COMMUNIST PARTY

Founded in 1924, the Communist Party became prominent with its serious activities in the country and its attitude of opposition. In particular, most of the officers and members of the Communist Party which opposed the union of Egypt and Syria in 1958 were arrested after the union of the two countries.

Experiencing serious internal strife during the years 1969-1972, the party was divided. The current leader of the Communist Party is Lawyer Riyad al Turk. He is known as one of the most important figures who are calling for democracy in the country. He is also called Syria's Mandela. He was among those arrested in September, 2001. He was freed in November, 2002.

In the 1982 Hama event Turk was blamed by his own partisans and members for not criticizing the Muslim Brothers. Turk held the Hafez Assad administration responsible for the Hama massacre and called Assad a dictator.

MUSLEM BROTHERHOOD

It was founded in 1942 by Dr. Mustafa Saibai. Its current leader is Riyadh al Shafka. The roots of the brotherhood lie in the Muslim Brotherhood founded in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al Banna.

Until 1962 the brotherhood entered the parliament in the country and was in coalition with governments. After the events of February, 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood was completely excluded from Syrian political life.

With legal article 49 which was effective in 1980, the Hafez Assad administration declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be an illegal organization in the country. Under the same law, those who showed inclination towards the Muslim Brotherhood were punished by death.
Joining the National Salvation Front formed by Abdulhalim Haddam, former assistant to Bashar Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood announced that they had separated from the front after Israel's attack on Gaza in 2009 and they suspended opposition to Assad.

After the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood threatened to call for civil disobedience and take to the streets if the tactics used by the Syrian administration against the people were not halted.
The officials of the Muslim Brotherhood have been living in exile since 1982.

NATIONAL SALVATION FRONT

It was established with the initiative of Abdulhalim Haddam, former assistant to Bashar Assad who left the regime, among nationalist and liberal opposition groups along side the Muslim Brotherhood in the Belgian capital of Brussels. The front's aim is to change the Assad regime by peaceful means.

The Muslim Brotherhood separated from the National Salvation Front in April, 2009, for various reasons.
MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT IN SYRIA
It was formed by opposition groups that signed the "Damascus Declaration" in London in 2006. Its purpose is to garner acceptance by the Syrian people.
The movement aims to establish freedoms and to change the administration by peaceful means. In addition, it aims for the state of emergency to be lifted, for political parties to be formed in the country, for those in exile to return to the country and for political prisoners to be released.

REFORM PARTY

It was founded in the USA by Ferid al Gadiri, an American of Syrian descent, after the September 11th attacks.
Gadiri presents his party as an alternative to the Baath Party and the Muslim Brotherhood. He aims to overthrow the Assad administration with the help of the USA and then establish good relations with Israel.
Syrians did not show much interest in Gadiri's party because it is cooperating with America.

NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC FRONT

It is comprised of five leftist parties. They are: the Democratic Arab Socialist Union, the Communist Party, the Arab Socialist Democratic Baath Party, the Arab Revolutionary Workers Party and the Arab Socialist Party.

ARAB SOCIALIST MOVEMENT

This movement split in two internally. One group joined the Baath party. The other group took their place in the opposition. The movement's leadership is headed by Abdulgani Ayyas.

The star of this movement shone during the 1950s in the time of Ekrem Havrani, the fiery politician who participated in all the revolutions in Syria. The movement's splitting and Havrani's open opposition to Egypt's leader Gamal Abdel Nassir caused the movement to weaken in Syria.

ARAB SOCIALISTS UNION

It was established in 1964. Aiming for Arab nationalism known as Nasiri, it brought together the Arab Nationalism Movement, the Socialist Union Movement, the Arab Union Front and the Syrian Socialist Union.
REVOLUTIONARY WORKERS PARTY
It was formed under the leadership of Tariq Abu al Hassan. It is a Marxist party.

COMMUNIST WORKERS PARTY

It was founded in the mid-seventies. It continued its activities secretly during the eighties. Hafez Assad applied heavy pressure on this party.

PARTIES FORMED BY SYRIAN KURDS:
PARTY FOR MODERNITY AND DEMOCRACY

It is a secular and liberal Kurdish party. It is not recognized by the Syrian administration. In the program of the party which was founded in 1996, the goals are resisting oppression, touching cultural roots and democratizing political life in Syria.

UNITED KURDISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF SYRIA

It was established in Syria in 1970. It is not recognized by the Syrian administration. It is considered to be an extension of the Kurdish Democratic Party. It aims for state oppression towards Kurds in Syria to be eliminated and for the regions where Kurds live to be ruled with national unity.

It also aims for respect for human rights and a Syria that is democratic and populist and where sovereignty of the law reigns. In addition, it wants permission for the media to make broadcasting in Kurdish.

Just out of curiosity, Dilloduck, are there any particular candidates from the above that you'd LIKE to see grab the WMD's ?

How about the Muslim Brotherhood ?

The Arab Socialists Union ?

The Communists ?

Since you don't like the realities involved when it comes to remedial salvation ... please, name your preferred candidate(s) for acquiring them. Not to forget, of course, that the likes of Al Qaeda could be, probably ARE, on the scene somewhere ...

Come on, Dilloduck, give us some names !

.. Reality coming back to bite you ?

Of course, you could concede that Tyr and I have been right all along. H'mm ?

Drummond
08-01-2012, 03:09 PM
You don't get it----America has and will live with threats for the rest of time. Threats to our way of life are everywhere. Resources have to be prioritized and paid for. Your oversimplification of what America faces exposes how naive you are .
America along with it's allies have already deployed resources to deal with this problem and thousands more that you aren't even aware of.

And there it is. When it really comes down to it, what you want is for American citizens to live with threats such as this.

I REST MY CASE ... LEFTIE !!

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 03:13 PM
Stop running around like a chicken with it's fucking head cut off. You're sounding hysterical. Go hide in the closet and let the men take care of this.

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 03:15 PM
And there it is. When it really comes down to it, what you want is for American citizens to live with threats such as this.

I REST MY CASE ... LEFTIE !!

It's the price we pay for being a great country. Why don't you just worry about your own, coward.

Drummond
08-01-2012, 03:41 PM
It's the price we pay for being a great country. Why don't you just worry about your own, coward.

YOU are the one resisting the suggestion that the proper military interventionist action be taken to recover the WMD'S !!!!!!!!!

The so-called 'price' you require America to pay is one which, with the right action, could be avoided !!

OK, final question for you.

What would you consider to be a death toll in American lives too great for your PREFERRED INACTION to justify ?

... or, is there NO upper limit ?

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 03:56 PM
It's the price we pay for being a great country. Why don't you just worry about your own, coward.

Quoting Dillo, but a question for Drummond.

Drummond, I know you're advocating action to put a halt to terrorism and possible nuclear weapons being built up or handed off to the bad guys. And I know you're talking a lot about the US and intervention and other such things. I know what I "believe" or "think" about your stance, but let me ask to put this to rest. Should any action be taken, are you also speaking of the UK and other countries being involved, or are you stating that this should be solely an American gig? Because unless I'm reading this wrong, it sounds like Dillo is referring to you as a coward for wanting the US to do the dirty work.

gabosaurus
08-01-2012, 05:52 PM
Because unless I'm reading this wrong, it sounds like Dillo is referring to you as a coward for wanting the US to do the dirty work.

When it comes to armed conflicts, the U.S. has always done the dirty work for the Brits and French. You see, the Brits learned their lesson a long time about. If you can't defeat the Americans, allow them to do most of the fighting.

Second reminder to self: Invite dmp and Dillo to next meeting of liberal posters. :cool:

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 06:19 PM
When it comes to armed conflicts, the U.S. has always done the dirty work for the Brits and French. You see, the Brits learned their lesson a long time about. If you can't defeat the Americans, allow them to do most of the fighting.

Second reminder to self: Invite dmp and Dillo to next meeting of liberal posters. :cool:

please do Gabby--you know what a raving LEFTIE I am. :laugh2::laugh2:

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 06:28 PM
YOU are the one resisting the suggestion that the proper military interventionist action be taken to recover the WMD'S !!!!!!!!!

The so-called 'price' you require America to pay is one which, with the right action, could be avoided !!

OK, final question for you.

What would you consider to be a death toll in American lives too great for your PREFERRED INACTION to justify ?

... or, is there NO upper limit ?



You can't even start a rational discussion regarding "proper military intervention". You just want someone else to grab a club and start swinging it. Your attitude probably would cause the the Welsh Army to deny you entry.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 06:29 PM
When it comes to armed conflicts, the U.S. has always done the dirty work for the Brits and French. You see, the Brits learned their lesson a long time about. If you can't defeat the Americans, allow them to do most of the fighting.

And I could be wrong, but I don't see Drummond as saying that we should go alone, but rather speaking to a board full of Americans. Based on posts and his attitude in other threads, and his speaking of the history of the UK, I am of the OPINION thus far, that he thinks his country should be up to the same task.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 06:33 PM
You can't even start a rational discussion regarding "proper military intervention". You just want someone else to grab a club and start swinging it. Your attitude probably would cause the the Welsh Army to deny you entry.

You say that now, out of how many posts? I've seen him write out extremely lengthy and long thought out responses in this thread. The majority of replies and post back at him have been of the 1-2 sentence variety, chopping off and ignoring the majority of what he writes. Maybe not every last sentence, but he's written a small novel in this thread and I think he's been quite rational, even if some disagree. And even I disagree with some of what he has written. I don't know about you, but I don't converse with people for as long as this thread has been going on if they are being irrational.

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 06:50 PM
You say that now, out of how many posts? I've seen him write out extremely lengthy and long thought out responses in this thread. The majority of replies and post back at him have been of the 1-2 sentence variety, chopping off and ignoring the majority of what he writes. Maybe not every last sentence, but he's written a small novel in this thread and I think he's been quite rational, even if some disagree. And even I disagree with some of what he has written. I don't know about you, but I don't converse with people for as long as this thread has been going on if they are being irrational.

Surely you jest. The guy refuses to answer specific questions that I have repeatedly asked early on in the thread. Best he can do is accuse me of being an ostrich, a lefty and a terrorist sympathizer. I don't give a shit if he wants to waste his time with big fonts and fancy formats and I'm not in charge of sending in the troops. ( I'm absolutely sure that our intelligence and our military is fully aware of the situation and doesn't need hysterical wackos yelling from the peanut gallery).

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 06:54 PM
Surely you jest. The guy refuses to answer specific questions that I have repeatedly asked early on in the thread. Best he can do is accuse me of being an ostrich, a lefty and a terrorist sympathizer. I don't give a shit if he wants to waste his time with big fonts and fancy formats and I'm not in charge of sending in the troops. ( I'm absolutely sure that our intelligence and our military is fully aware of the situation and doesn't need hysterical wackos yelling from the peanut gallery).

It would have been wise of you to stop making your one liner posts a long way back then if you thought the person you were posting with was irrational. To each their own I suppose.

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 07:02 PM
It would have been wise ? Why is that? Is there now something wrong with my style ? Are there a certain number of sentences that a post must contain ? Is quantity more important than quality ? What's the deal here Jim. You and I played with Windy like this for days and everything was hunky dory.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 07:08 PM
It would have been wise ? Why is that? Is there now something wrong with my style ? Are there a certain number of sentences that a post must contain ? Is quantity more important than quality ? What's the deal here Jim. You and I played with Windy like this for days and everything was hunky dory.

It's similar to someone who will listen to Howard Stern for awhile and then call the station to complain. Maybe complain about the meat of Drummond's posts, but to dismiss them as irrational simply makes me wonder why you continued on.

As for WS, she was a troll, and the playing with her was for as much. I don't see Drummond as a troll or certifiable as she was!

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 07:10 PM
Btw, Dillo, I'll still give you a big hug!! :wraparms:

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 07:12 PM
Btw, Dillo, I'll still give you a big hug!! :wraparms:

Waste of time dude--I don't have boobies. :poke:

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 07:14 PM
It's similar to someone who will listen to Howard Stern for awhile and then call the station to complain. Maybe complain about the meat of Drummond's posts, but to dismiss them as irrational simply makes me wonder why you continued on.

As for WS, she was a troll, and the playing with her was for as much. I don't see Drummond as a troll or certifiable as she was!

Jim--I've never complained to you or ANY mod about a single post the entire time I've been here.

Kathianne
08-01-2012, 07:15 PM
Just out of curiosity, Dilloduck, are there any particular candidates from the above that you'd LIKE to see grab the WMD's ?

How about the Muslim Brotherhood ?

The Arab Socialists Union ?

The Communists ?

Since you don't like the realities involved when it comes to remedial salvation ... please, name your preferred candidate(s) for acquiring them. Not to forget, of course, that the likes of Al Qaeda could be, probably ARE, on the scene somewhere ...

Come on, Dilloduck, give us some names !

.. Reality coming back to bite you ?

Of course, you could concede that Tyr and I have been right all along. H'mm ?

While I've not seen extreme hyperbole on your posts, can't say the same for all. It makes it much easier to say, 'Sorry, you're nutters.'

IMO Iran is a threat, don't think Syria has plans for US. I think Assad's ideas are more complex. Funny thing, he'll be gone and we'll still be dealing with Iran. Unless of course, Israel preempts.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 07:17 PM
Jim--I've never complained to you or ANY mod about a single post the entire time I've been here.

Never said you did if I you read what I wrote.

Kathianne
08-01-2012, 07:17 PM
Jim--I've never complained to you or ANY mod about a single post the entire time I've been here.

I never saw him claiming such.

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 07:23 PM
I never saw him claiming such.

You too. :lol: Omg. Ok folks---wtf is going on ? I mean seriously. Was I hurting the poor guys feelings or what. The discussion I was having with him PALES in comparision to other shit I have seen dealt out here.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 07:31 PM
You too. :lol: Omg. Ok folks---wtf is going on ? I mean seriously. Was I hurting the poor guys feelings or what. The discussion I was having with him PALES in comparision to other shit I have seen dealt out here.

Dude, I simply asked why you would continue the posting if that's what you thought of his style. I'm not condemning you for Christ's sake, nor calling your posting shit. I was involved in a fair amount of this as things went along, and just found it odd that you thought he was being irrational after all of these pages. And now you act like you're being ganged up on. And in case you noticed, as to other threads, people get called out elsewhere for their comments too. Yep, truth man, cross my heart. I've seen it with my own eyes, someone says something odd, and another person has the audacity to question them about the comment. Fucked up world, aint it?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-01-2012, 07:37 PM
It would have been wise ? Why is that? Is there now something wrong with my style ? Are there a certain number of sentences that a post must contain ? Is quantity more important than quality ? What's the deal here Jim. You and I played with Windy like this for days and everything was hunky dory.

Let me say this first, my friend Drummond is not this Windy. He is a very intelligent poster that cites facts to back up his opinions. Jim is right he has almost written a small novel in this thread and I will add that it's been enlightening and entertaining too!
Of course I readily admit that Im biased as he and I agree so much on how this War on Terror should be waged!
You yourself made a rather long post that clearly revealed how many "bad guys" are vying for power in Syria when Assad is defeated. With that known and WMDS KNOWN TO EXIST THERE ITS ONLY REASONABLE TO SUGGEST AMERICA HAVE A PLAN TO SEE THAT THOSE WMDS DO NOT FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS.
Even if it means that America has to go in to take those WMDS to prevent that from happening.
Myself, I do not understand your great resistance to that ideal if it becomes a MUST-DO matter!
Unless you think we should just take no risk and trust to luck or the gentle nature of those that will assume power there after Assad is defeated? Surely you do not think that's a good plan for it ignores reality and puts faith in people that are known to be "bad guys" for a reason!
As to your calling my friend Drummond a "coward", surely you have let your imagination run wild and the heat of debate addle your senses too much! I truly expected better from you.. I've known brave men and I've known a few cowards in my time as I 've dealt with both and I assure you that Big D is no coward. For truly,a coward can never be as honorable a man as he is! Not in a million years ! He reminds me so much of my older brother and my older brother is ever bit as brave as any man that I've ever met or read about!
Syria poses a great problem for our nation and my guess is that the boywonder in charge hasnt a clue how to handle it correctly. One can not blindly trust that our military has a plan and will implement that plan because it can only do so (if one exist at all) when given that authorization by its CIC=obama. Obama that clearly wants this new alignment that is occuring now with this socalled Arab Spring movement! Obama that clearly likes and supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. All this has the potential to cause extreme and great harm to USA. We can not ignore it and hope for the best! For given the nature of the players over there the best is what they will make of it and that's clearly not in our best interests and possibly could mean a devastating attack on one of our large cities using those "ignored " WMDS.
Such VERY POSSIBLE GREAT CALAMITY can not be left to luck of the draw IMHO.-Tyr

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 07:51 PM
Dude, I simply asked why you would continue the posting if that's what you thought of his style. I'm not condemning you for Christ's sake, nor calling your posting shit. I was involved in a fair amount of this as things went along, and just found it odd that you thought he was being irrational after all of these pages. And now you act like you're being ganged up on. And in case you noticed, as to other threads, people get called out elsewhere for their comments too. Yep, truth man, cross my heart. I've seen it with my own eyes, someone says something odd, and another person has the audacity to question them about the comment. Fucked up world, aint it?

Ya--the world's pretty fucked up some time. I was a bit surprised that you decided to comment on my 'odd' posting style in the middle of the thread and even you have to admit your comments about me making short posts to his novels were a bit critical but that's neither here nor there. I appreciate your caring and curiosity. It just so happens that I have the time to have weeks of interchanges with some people that aren't all that rational. It's sort of a challenge. Thanks for the opportunity to participate here and PM any time you have further questions about my posting style.

Kathianne
08-01-2012, 07:52 PM
Let me say this first, my friend Drummond is not this Windy. He is a very intelligent poster that cites facts to back up his opinions. Jim is right he has almost written a small novel in this thread and I will add that it's been enlightening and entertaining too!

Of course I readily admit that Im biased as he and I agree so much on how this War on Terror should be waged!
You yourself made a rather long post that clearly revealed how many "bad guys" are vying for power in Syria when Assad is defeated. With that known and WMDS KNOWN TO EXIST THERE ITS ONLY REASONABLE TO SUGGEST AMERICA HAVE A PLAN TO SEE THAT THOSE WMDS DO NOT FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS.

Even if it means that America has to go in to take those WMDS to prevent that from happening.

Myself, I do not understand your great resistance to that ideal if it becomes a MUST-DO matter!

Unless you think we should just take no risk and trust to luck or the gentle nature of those that will assume power there after Assad is defeated? Surely you do not think that's a good plan for it ignores reality and puts faith in people that are known to be "bad guys" for a reason!

As to your calling my friend Drummond a "coward", surely you have let your imagination run wild and the heat of debate addle your senses too much! I truly expected better from you.. I've known brave men and I've known a few cowards in my time as I 've dealt with both and I assure you that Big D is no coward. For truly,a coward can never be as honorable a man as he is! Not in a million years ! He reminds me so much of my older brother and my older brother is ever bit as brave as any man that I've ever met or read about!

Syria poses a great problem for our nation and my guess is that the boywonder in charge hasnt a clue how to handle it correctly. One can not blindly trust that our military has a plan and will implement that plan because it can only do so (if one exist at all) when given that authorization by its CIC=obama. Obama that clearly wants this new alignment that is occuring now with this socalled Arab Spring movement! Obama that clearly likes and supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. All this has the potential to cause extreme and great harm to USA.

We can not ignore it and hope for the best! For given the nature of the players over there the best is what they will make of it and that's clearly not in our best interests and possibly could mean a devastating attack on one of our large cities using those "ignored " WMDS.

Such VERY POSSIBLE GREAT CALAMITY can not be left to luck of the draw IMHO.-Tyr

I bolded what I give props to. Dillo is reactionary to the losses suffered. I understand that. He's more than a jerk for many reasons, but not on this.

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 07:58 PM
Ya--the world's pretty fucked up some time. I was a bit surprised that you decided to comment on my 'odd' posting style in the middle of the thread and even you have to admit your comments about me making short posts to his novels were a bit critical but that's neither here nor there. I appreciate your caring and curiosity. It just so happens that I have the time to have weeks of interchanges with some people that aren't all that rational. It's sort of a challenge. Thanks for the opportunity to participate here and PM any time you have further questions about my posting style.

You're welcome on the opportunity. And I'm glad you like challenges! I hope you have better luck in your next challenge and actually come out in front perhaps! :poke: :coffee:

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 08:00 PM
With all due respect to all who are participating---the issue of Syrian WMD's is NOT being ignored. I'd love to hear specifics on what more you would like the US to do, where we should do it and who should do it. Please include possible negative consequences of our actions. ty

jimnyc
08-01-2012, 08:28 PM
With all due respect to all who are participating---the issue of Syrian WMD's is NOT being ignored. I'd love to hear specifics on what more you would like the US to do, where we should do it and who should do it. Please include possible negative consequences of our actions. ty

I'd like for more advanced involvement from the US intelligence as well as international agencies. That, and a sit down and discussion with the Syrians about these supposed weapons and an accounting from them.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-01-2012, 08:29 PM
I bolded what I give props to. Dillo is reactionary to the losses suffered. I understand that. He's more than a jerk for many reasons, but not on this.

No, on this he is simply wrong IMHO. We all , I hope, are reactionary to American losses suffered in the War on Terror and even to the civilian losses suffered in the civil war in Syria as well! Yet losses are a part of war as you know. We didnt ask for Islamist extremists to start warring on us but we do have to react by fighting back. That could very well include going into Syria to make sure those WMDS do not end up in terrorist groups hands. For that gives them another edge and another great devastating weapon to use . One which they will not fear to use! For they are in it for the long haul and with the ideal that Allah will see them to victory! We saw that type of insanity in WW2 when the kamakize pilots died for their Emporer God! It took A-bombs and the obliteration of two cities to stop that but these people wouldnt let that stop them IMHO. For death to them is a ticket to paradise. That insanity puts them in a whole new category . It also means they are the very last people that we should allow to get those WMDS. Talking or ignoring does not work except to give greater advantage to them! Its a damn tough place to be but there we are and we must adapt ! That means suffering losses and fighting ALL OUT!
Being tired of war is not an option because they arent tired of war . In fact , should we allow being war weary to dictate our policies they will likely one day win IMHO. Same as it would have allowed our enemies in WW2 to triumph had we yielded to that war weary spirit.-Tyr

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 08:42 PM
[/B]

No, on this he is simply wrong IMHO. We all , I hope, are reactionary to American losses suffered in the War on Terror and even to the civilian losses suffered in the civil war in Syria as well! Yet losses are a part of war as you know. We didnt ask for Islamist extremists to start warring on us but we do have to react by fighting back. That could very well include going into Syria to make sure those WMDS do not end up in terrorist groups hands. For that gives them another edge and another great devastating weapon to use . One which they will not fear to use! For they are in it for the long haul and with the ideal that Allah will see them to victory! We saw that type of insanity in WW2 when the kamakize pilots died for their Emporer God! It took A-bombs and the obliteration of two cities to stop that but these people wouldnt let that stop them IMHO. For death to them is a ticket to paradise. That insanity puts them in a whole new category . It also means they are the very last people that we should allow to get those WMDS. Talking or ignoring does not work except to give greater advantage to them! Its a damn tough place to be but there we are and we must adapt ! That means suffering losses and fighting ALL OUT!
Being tired of war is not an option because they arent tired of war . In fact , should we allow being war weary to dictate our policies they will likely one day win IMHO. Same as it would have allowed our enemies in WW2 to triumph had we yielded to that war weary spirit.-Tyr

Everyone's opinion could be wrong--- I thought that was a given and could only be decided in hindsight. Either way I'll bet you a nickle that there are high level multinational talks occuring as we speak where they are examining ALL the options. We talked and talked and planned and sent in a whole fucking army and we STILL didn't get all of Saddams WMDs.

revelarts
08-01-2012, 09:00 PM
Dilo has asked some pointed questions along the way while, Drummond ask the same question and make the same assumption. without making any real substantive points.


"How many are you willing to let DIE?"
When we have NO way of knowing that ANY will die.

here's a question for you.
HOW Many Syrians/Iranians/etc are you willing to KILL on the thread bare assumptions that something MIGHT happen one day?

Drummond assumes there's is the ONLY way to respond to ANY potential threat. I've pointed out there are more.
He ignores it.

I've pointed out that it's Illegal,
Drummond ignores Law and Treaty and past presidents positions on the subject. Seeing only "the left" in that response.

His assumptions are vague except for one point. those that may take over Syria. We all agree that there are no good options as far as replacing Assad. Which is why I asked why are backing the Rebels and pointed out that Putin has asked the US the same question.
If i remember correctly Drummond said getting rid of Assad is not a perfect solution.
That's true and Honest.

We've dug ourselves in a deeper hole on this Syria thing the best of bad options would have been to peacefully defuse Assad's attacks on his people and bring the parties together to talk. Rather than back the rebels diplomatically and militarilly. It's out of the frying pan and into the fire with any new regime.

As I mentioned, So far Drummond has denied or avoids the question of war crimes altogether.
But lets assume that's NOT an issue. That attacking other countries because we are -piss in our pants- afraid of 3rd world countries is deemed OK in the eyes of the law/treaty/world, even though we spend more money on the military than nearly the entire world combined.

Throwing troops in now to get the WMDs sounds easy enough sitting behind a computer, but the whole project assumes the worse of every layer of assumption. And the Best possible outcome.
BUT, as Dilo points out, Drummond does NOT seem to consider that there are any negative consequences of US military action. He assumes that there no such thing as Blowback. Or chance of failure, Or chance of another quagmire, our that or robbed and bankrupt economy can hold out, that our overburdened pst ridden suicidal troops can endure more unknown years of strain to unknown goals and never concluded outcomes. Or the small but real possibility of a new world war if Russia or China decide they've seen enough.

In My View it's knee jerk BS to JUMP like lil girl crying for daddy to 'shoot it' because of the shadows of assumptions and fears over possibly BUT NOT IN ANY WAY ASSURED outcomes.

Drummond
08-01-2012, 10:05 PM
Quoting Dillo, but a question for Drummond.

Drummond, I know you're advocating action to put a halt to terrorism and possible nuclear weapons being built up or handed off to the bad guys. And I know you're talking a lot about the US and intervention and other such things. I know what I "believe" or "think" about your stance, but let me ask to put this to rest. Should any action be taken, are you also speaking of the UK and other countries being involved, or are you stating that this should be solely an American gig? Because unless I'm reading this wrong, it sounds like Dillo is referring to you as a coward for wanting the US to do the dirty work.

Just caught up with this comment.

First point .. I'm more than sick of Dilloduck's cop-out stances on this overall issue, and I'm thoroughly tired of debating with him. My patience with him is exhausted. Ditto revelarts, for that matter.

I think, as to who should be involved in intervention to make sure Syrian WMD's are confiscated to stop them falling into the wrong hands, that the same applies to this operation as normally applies. Namely - that it's the US that principally has the firepower, resources, manpower, to pull this off. This has been seen to be true throughout every operation in the War on Terror, and is purely and simply a fact of life. Nonetheless, and as a question I've often pondered .. could the UK have done more to assist, committed more when it mattered ? My belief is that YES, we certainly could have. And SHOULD have.

We have a political difficulty in doing that, though. The Left, over here in the UK, is, if anything, even WORSE when it comes to cop-out stances than 'friends' revelarts and Dilloduck have shown themselves to be. Though Blair was squarely behind Bush in his own anti-terror stances, he took enormous heat over it. Even two of his own Cabinet colleagues resigned over Blair's so-called 'warmongering' stances. More recently, Gordon Brown commissioned the Chilcot Inquiry, which turned out to be an institutionalised mudslinging exercise designed to make people who'd be inclined to follow Blair's thinking seen to be culpable for a form of so-called wrongheadedness.

So for Dilloduck to find excuses to argue against intervention in Syria, whilst jibing the label 'coward' at me, is especially rich !! The climate over here is firmly skewed, THANKS TO ENGINEERING FROM THE LEFT, to make future possible interventions in the furtherance of the War on Terror particularly unpopular, therefore, politically suicidal for our Ministers to commit to.

That's what the Left does, you see. Because they themselves find something such as the War on Terror lacking in political aesthetics - REGARDLESS OF THE PRACTICAL NEEDS INVOLVED IN ITS PROSECUTION AND SUCCESS - they will stoop to any level to force their thinking on others. My being labelled a 'coward' is surely one such tactic. It is offensive on a number of levels, and was intended to be such.

To summarise my position, therefore ... ideally, Syrian intervention would be a combined, 'Coalition'-type affair, with the US taking the military lead, but being strongly assisted by UK troops amongst others. This is very much what I'd like to see. HOWEVER ... the reality is that the Left has so poisoned the political climate here that any Government committing itself to that course of action might be forcing itself out of Office courtesy of the public backlash to be expected.

None of these machinations alter the reality, though, that Syrian WMD's could fall into terrorist hands, nor the fact that, if they did, America would be terrorists' number one target of preference for their deployment. So to ask Dilloduck to estimate what he thought was an acceptable death toll to be incurred from the consequences of a 'do nothing' approach is eminently fair, and VERY much to the point.

In fact, he should be at pains to offer his statistics as I've requested them, and I still want his clear answer on that. If he's so committed to military NONintervention, he should be candid about what he expects his fellow citizens to tolerate out of it. He wants harm ? Fine, he should stipulate how MUCH harm he's prepared to see meted out to his fellow citizens !

Lefties just don't seem to get that nonintervention in situations like this would be so criminally irresponsible, its possible consequences so dire, that an argument could be made to ask whether the intention was to see to it that great harm would befall America and its citizens.

I trust this all properly answers you, Jim. And as for further arguments against Dilloduck and revelarts ... I just don't have either the inclination or the patience to bother. They are wedded to their 'cop-out' stances, they will - and just like the Left over here does - do all possible to argue that military commitments and effectiveness are reduced to near-impotence ... and at the same time claim a 'moral high ground' for an approach that, in its execution, will in the long term do considerable, AND NEEDLESS, harm to America and her interests !!

And all the while, it'll be our terrorist enemies who laugh at us for our stupidity and, in their eyes, WEAKNESS.

.. But, that's the Left for you ...

Dilloduck
08-01-2012, 10:20 PM
Please quote my committment to non military intervention. Don't bother--you can't. All I have done is try to inform you that there ARE things already being done as verified by Jim's link. Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Turkey are ALL there. It's their part of the world. They are Arabs. Turkey's military in particlarly strong and they are next door. They are providing weapons and communications. There are no ostrich heads in the sand Mr. Drum. Unless you are willing to hike over there and take matters into your own hands, you will have to watch the scenario play out with the rest of us.

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 07:38 AM
After all of these pages, I have to say, at this very moment I'm not as worried about WMD from Syria as I am worried about more and more of their own citizens dying at the hands of their army. If a terrorist member goes up against the army, so be it, but there ARE many women, children and innocent men dying as a result of the uprising.

It's not that I'm not worried about WMD, but it's hard to get involved with the appropriate authorities and do things in a diplomatic fashion, when there is war breaking out around the country. It's simply not safe for anyone to be there right now.

I think someone needs to help the people, whether diplomatically or with force. It doesn't appear up till this point that Assad is willing to back down at all. And I really don't care his reasoning, or the reasoning from those wanting him out, terrorists or not - citizens are still dying.

Many will say "is it our place to get involved?" - and my response will be "at what point DO we get involved?" If it's 20,000 dead, and we don't know who is who, and things are chaotic, it's hard to tell. But what if 1 year from now this is still going on, Assad still in power and in control of the military - and now there are approximately 200,000 dead. Do we still sit back since it's not our war? What if it reaches a million dead by the hands of the Syrian military? At what cost of life do we get involved? At what body count? Or according to some, it's a war crime if we get involved. So if Assad kills let's say 5 million of his own people - we simply cannot set boots on the ground to help, as it's a war crime. We need to sit back idly while a man commits genocide against his own people?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-02-2012, 07:54 AM
After all of these pages, I have to say, at this very moment I'm not as worried about WMD from Syria as I am worried about more and more of their own citizens dying at the hands of their army. If a terrorist member goes up against the army, so be it, but there ARE many women, children and innocent men dying as a result of the uprising.

It's not that I'm not worried about WMD, but it's hard to get involved with the appropriate authorities and do things in a diplomatic fashion, when there is war breaking out around the country. It's simply not safe for anyone to be there right now.

I think someone needs to help the people, whether diplomatically or with force. It doesn't appear up till this point that Assad is willing to back down at all. And I really don't care his reasoning, or the reasoning from those wanting him out, terrorists or not - citizens are still dying.

Many will say "is it our place to get involved?" - and my response will be "at what point DO we get involved?" If it's 20,000 dead, and we don't know who is who, and things are chaotic, it's hard to tell. But what if 1 year from now this is still going on, Assad still in power and in control of the military - and now there are approximately 200,000 dead. Do we still sit back since it's not our war? What if it reaches a million dead by the hands of the Syrian military? At what cost of life do we get involved? At what body count? Or according to some, it's a war crime if we get involved. So if Assad kills let's say 5 million of his own people - we simply cannot set boots on the ground to help, as it's a war crime. We need to sit back idly while a man commits genocide against his own people?

Jim, all wars are bad but civil war is the worst. Assad is not committing genocide unless he is willy nilly murdering innocent civilians that are not fighting him. Otherwise its bloody yes but not genocide IMHO. Assad is bad but my guess is that after he is defeated you will find his replcement even worse, in fact far worse. For this Arab Spring is bein playedas democracy on the move which is ffing bullshat my friend. It is a muslim movement to advance Islam and create a Caliphate ! America has been sold a damn lie about the democracy crap.. Just look at Egypt for a good example. Muslim Brotherhood and democracy go together like oil and water. If we get involved there it should be to secure the WMDS, keeping them out of terrorists hands. That would be a goal that would serve everybody otherwise we are ousting Assad for something thats very much worse IMHO!
However never fear , I suspect that obama will do WHATEVER it takes to see that Islam wins and Assad doesnt.
Myself, I wish that more Americans would take more interest in getting rid of our biggest problem = Obama rather than worrying about the success of muslim terrorists groups in ousting dictators.-Tyr

revelarts
08-02-2012, 10:04 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Bn1o2p9VBiw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

tell em Ron, YEAH!

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 10:58 AM
Rev, just the title of your video, "against sanctions" in Iran? Holy crap, at least that's one thing that the entire world agrees upon, well, 'cept the Chinese and Russians. So you think we should just ignore them, no military options ever on the table, and no sanctions to help push things along without military intervention?

And LAUGHABLE, sanctions are an act of war? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLL Might as well close the UN right now then.

Listening to him rant cracks me up. This old man is clueless. A heart of gold it seems, and he probably believes he has good intentions, but he's out of his mind.

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 12:18 PM
Closing the UN---great idea. The sanctions they used against Iraq were a joke. Illegal dealings in oil made our supposed allies rich.

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 12:22 PM
Closing the UN---great idea. The sanctions they used against Iraq were a joke. Illegal dealings in oil made our supposed allies rich.

I think the UN sucks in how they operate. The way they enforce the agreed upon sanctions needs to be more forceful. But sanctions given by the rest of the world is still a fantastic option instead of war, it's just that everyone must remain committed. The alternatives are to perhaps let them do whatever they please, regardless of whether or not it may be dangerous for the rest of the world, or handle the matter with military forces. I think sanctions are easily the best approach.

aboutime
08-02-2012, 12:58 PM
I think the UN sucks in how they operate. The way they enforce the agreed upon sanctions needs to be more forceful. But sanctions given by the rest of the world is still a fantastic option instead of war, it's just that everyone must remain committed. The alternatives are to perhaps let them do whatever they please, regardless of whether or not it may be dangerous for the rest of the world, or handle the matter with military forces. I think sanctions are easily the best approach.


Since many, if not all of the members here think I am too old to offer my opinions...probably due to their belief that I am suffering from some debilitating old-age disease.
I must now remind many of you who believe my age is relevant, and therefore...my opinions, or presented facts must not, and should not be paid attention to here.
Does anyone remember when the U.N. just prior to both Gulf War's had been discovered as joint benefactors in the Iraqi Oil for Profit scams?
In fact Koffi Annan (spelling?) was found to be, and even admitted to taking part in such shady dealings...while, at the very same time. Here in America. Members of the Democrat Congress intentionally accused the Republican Presidents of starting the war's for OIL.

Does anyone care to discuss such things now?
I bring this up as a means of doing, nearly exactly the same things, by the same people in their Denial of WMD's possibly being used, or eventually directed at US here in the U.S.A.
Of course. The same argument again arises from the same people...again. Claiming there is NO THREAT from WMD's...because they Insist...the WMD's do not exist.

Let's all see how happy those kinds of thinkers are when Assad releases some of those Chemical weapons on his own people, or they just happen to slip into the hands of American enemies.
It happened in Tokyo, and London, Madrid, and countless other major cities before, and after our 911.
So. To those who are convinced WMD's are just a Hoax, or a Cry-wolf kind of threat.
Just ask our member 'JAFAR' how happy he would be to see such an attack on a U.S. City.

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 01:02 PM
Since many, if not all of the members here think I am too old to offer my opinions...probably due to their belief that I am suffering from some debilitating old-age disease.
I must now remind many of you who believe my age is relevant, and therefore...my opinions, or presented facts must not, and should not be paid attention to here.

Not to rant off topic here, but can you point me to where this emanated from? Or PM me the info? Nobody should have their opinion scoffed at due to age, nor laughed at or ridiculed. Of course if someone was posting here at 8yrs old, that might be a little different! I'm just clueless as to where this came from.

aboutime
08-02-2012, 01:13 PM
Not to rant off topic here, but can you point me to where this emanated from? Or PM me the info? Nobody should have their opinion scoffed at due to age, nor laughed at or ridiculed. Of course if someone was posting here at 8yrs old, that might be a little different! I'm just clueless as to where this came from.


My apologies jimnyc. It was a rant, and based on my past experiences. Didn't intend on bringing your forum down in any way. Perhaps my choice of words, based on the past was inappropriate. So. Let's just use what I said as somewhat of a pre-warning in many ways.
Of course. That would NEVER occur here.

Drummond
08-02-2012, 01:14 PM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Bn1o2p9VBiw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

tell em Ron, YEAH!

Listening to this individual definitely does NOT crack me up. Listening to this individual leaves me disgusted.

So, hands off Iran. No sanctions. No intervention of any kind. Just let them do as they please, whenever or for as long as they please, only, make sure that we make life EASIER for a regime working flat out to acquire a nuclear capability it DOES NOT and CANNOT ACTUALLY NEED.

Revelarts, so we're clear .. in your view, are any of the major military actions taken in the pursuance of the War on Terror - according to you - anything other than 'war crimes' ? ANY at ALL ?

And would moving in to grab WMD's in Syria away from the reach of terrorists again be a 'war crime' in your book (silly question) ?

You're evidently in favour of measures which involve minimal force against terrorists. When it comes to MAJOR measures that would really count for something, though .. you get cold feet.

Any major military campaigns. And now, even just the imposition of sanctions. To be rejected out of hand.

How about a war fought with feather dusters, in the hope of tickling your enemy into submission (and we'll ignore any bombs and bullets that terrorists enemies might unsportingly use, since we'd prefer to forget the reality of them) ? Would you prefer that ?

Drummond
08-02-2012, 01:27 PM
I'd like for more advanced involvement from the US intelligence as well as international agencies. That, and a sit down and discussion with the Syrians about these supposed weapons and an accounting from them.

Fair enough as far as it goes, but I see two difficulties.

One .. you can't pluck intelligence material magically out of thin air .. it has to have a source, it has to be intelligible, and preferably, it needs to be verifiable. By my reckoning, that at minimum means special forces located where it would do enough good, along with the time and opportunity to gather all they need.

Two .. sitting down with the Syrians presupposes that they're willing to cooperate in discussions. They might not be. Or, if they were, they might spin discussions out just to make sure any likelihood of military action was delayed as long as possible.

So, would what you'd propose really work, as you'd want it to ?

If NOT - what would the alternative be ? To be so very afraid of being accused of 'war crimes' by any passing Leftie with a wagging finger primed for the purpose that the US would feel it had to scuttle back home and just hope against hope that terrorists will learn some compassion ?

aboutime
08-02-2012, 01:34 PM
Listening to this individual definitely does NOT crack me up. Listening to this individual leaves me disgusted.

So, hands off Iran. No sanctions. No intervention of any kind. Just let them do as they please, whenever or for as long as they please, only, make sure that we make life EASIER for a regime working flat out to acquire a nuclear capability it DOES NOT and CANNOT ACTUALLY NEED.

Revelarts, so we're clear .. in your view, are any of the major military actions taken in the pursuance of the War on Terror - according to you - anything other than 'war crimes' ? ANY at ALL ?

And would moving in to grab WMD's in Syria away from the reach of terrorists again be a 'war crime' in your book (silly question) ?

You're evidently in favour of measures which involve minimal force against terrorists. When it comes to MAJOR measures that would really count for something, though .. you get cold feet.

Any major military campaigns. And now, even just the imposition of sanctions. To be rejected out of hand.

How about a war fought with feather dusters, in the hope of tickling your enemy into submission (and we'll ignore any bombs and bullets that terrorists enemies might unsportingly use, since we'd prefer to forget the reality of them) ? Would you prefer that ?

Drummond. This is just so typical, and the expected kinds of reactions we have been trying to warn THINKING people about for years.
Sadly. As I said above. It falls on Deaf ears, because far too many Americans do not want, nor do they care to hear reason, or logic when this topic is being discussed.

Best to just let them flounder in their own misery, than to join them just to appease their needs to always be right, while everyone else...in their opinion...is always wrong.

Drummond
08-02-2012, 01:35 PM
[/B]

No, on this he is simply wrong IMHO. We all , I hope, are reactionary to American losses suffered in the War on Terror and even to the civilian losses suffered in the civil war in Syria as well! Yet losses are a part of war as you know. We didnt ask for Islamist extremists to start warring on us but we do have to react by fighting back. That could very well include going into Syria to make sure those WMDS do not end up in terrorist groups hands. For that gives them another edge and another great devastating weapon to use . One which they will not fear to use! For they are in it for the long haul and with the ideal that Allah will see them to victory! We saw that type of insanity in WW2 when the kamakize pilots died for their Emporer God! It took A-bombs and the obliteration of two cities to stop that but these people wouldnt let that stop them IMHO. For death to them is a ticket to paradise. That insanity puts them in a whole new category . It also means they are the very last people that we should allow to get those WMDS. Talking or ignoring does not work except to give greater advantage to them! Its a damn tough place to be but there we are and we must adapt ! That means suffering losses and fighting ALL OUT!
Being tired of war is not an option because they arent tired of war . In fact , should we allow being war weary to dictate our policies they will likely one day win IMHO. Same as it would have allowed our enemies in WW2 to triumph had we yielded to that war weary spirit.-Tyr

Yes, Tyr, I think this is well said. With this approach .. no messing about, you just get the job done, as it needs to be done.

And we should never forget the great determination the enemy has to win through. They will respect comparable determination from our side, illustrated by what we do and are prepared to do. Less than that - seeming half-hearted measures, restrained measures, and a damaging product of this is that the enemy's morale is needlessly boosted.

Terrorists would just LOVE to see America collapse in a fit of self doubt, brought about by Lefties chanting 'war crime' if they see a single soldier on foreign territory brandishing anything more deadly than the feather duster I mentioned earlier.

Drummond
08-02-2012, 01:40 PM
Drummond. This is just so typical, and the expected kinds of reactions we have been trying to warn THINKING people about for years.
Sadly. As I said above. It falls on Deaf ears, because far too many Americans do not want, nor do they care to hear reason, or logic when this topic is being discussed.

Best to just let them flounder in their own misery, than to join them just to appease their needs to always be right, while everyone else...in their opinion...is always wrong.

Well said.

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 04:01 PM
If anyone REALLY wants to decrease the odds of a terrorist attack on Americans, he/she she be calling for America to become a more neutral participant in the mid-east. Our staunch support for Israel uber alles attracts the hatred of Islamic militants. In the mean time I think we already have lost plenty of lives and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. America doesn't have to police the world. There are other countries who are capable of handling the job. Why American lives and American money?

Gaffer
08-02-2012, 04:51 PM
If anyone REALLY wants to decrease the odds of a terrorist attack on Americans, he/she she be calling for America to become a more neutral participant in the mid-east. Our staunch support for Israel uber alles attracts the hatred of Islamic militants. In the mean time I think we already have lost plenty of lives and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. America doesn't have to police the world. There are other countries who are capable of handling the job. Why American lives and American money?

Your anti Israel sentiment is showing. I was wondering when it would surface. ever notice that there are attacks in all sorts of western countries by islamists where those countries have little to no ties with Israel. Israel for them is just an excuse. Attacks on the west will continue with or without Israel.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-02-2012, 06:02 PM
Your anti Israel sentiment is showing. I was wondering when it would surface. ever notice that there are attacks in all sorts of western countries by islamists where those countries have little to no ties with Israel. Israel for them is just an excuse. Attacks on the west will continue with or without Israel.

Exactly RIGHT, with little Satan dispatched they would concentrate on big Satan. Dillo fails to realise that we are their enemies even if we hated Israel and did not support Israel in any way. We represnt freedom and one of those freedoms is religious freedom. Religious freedom they hate because they are taught that only Islam is correct and only Islam should be followed and allowed. The entire world must submitt or else! No appeasing or talking will prevail against their zeal to destroy all that is not of islam!-Tyr

aboutime
08-02-2012, 06:10 PM
If anyone REALLY wants to decrease the odds of a terrorist attack on Americans, he/she she be calling for America to become a more neutral participant in the mid-east. Our staunch support for Israel uber alles attracts the hatred of Islamic militants. In the mean time I think we already have lost plenty of lives and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. America doesn't have to police the world. There are other countries who are capable of handling the job. Why American lives and American money?


Dilloduck. There's a word for what you said above. And someone named Chamberlain once told the British people the very same kinds of things. Telling them to become more appeasing.
Guess you've never heard of Nevil.

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 07:43 PM
Your anti Israel sentiment is showing. I was wondering when it would surface. ever notice that there are attacks in all sorts of western countries by islamists where those countries have little to no ties with Israel. Israel for them is just an excuse. Attacks on the west will continue with or without Israel.

It's also known as the truth. How many terror attacks did we deal with before Israel declared it's independence. Try all you want to twist it into anti-semitism but if you have ever read bin laden's declaration of war on America he very plainly states why America and other Israeli allies are targeted. Do you really think I will cringe if I'm called an anti-semite ? :laugh:

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 07:45 PM
Dilloduck. There's a word for what you said above. And someone named Chamberlain once told the British people the very same kinds of things. Telling them to become more appeasing.
Guess you've never heard of Nevil.

You guessed wrong and what I suggest has nothing to do with appeasment

revelarts
08-02-2012, 07:59 PM
Uh folks... I'm still waiting for some evidence that Iran is a threat.

At least Bush and Crew made up some stuff about Iraq acutually have something and they did have something a Loooong time ago.
But in Iran EVERYONE KNOWS from the Intel that they do NOT have WMDs.
all the joint U.S. intel assessments and the the UN reports. Even GW Bush admits it in his Book . He COULD not order an attack based on the intel and nothing has changed. What the heck are you guys on about?
What are we suppose to "take care of"?
There nothing to do if we did Attack. Whats the beef.
We don't like the way they TALK ?!!

That's "justice" and "logic"?

Justice for what? logic about what?

I expect no facts or details to refute my statements here.
Just more HUFFY and PUFFY assertions of the horrible potential phantom dangers and another round robin of assuring each other your right based on nothing.

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 08:02 PM
Uh folks... I'm still waiting for some evidence that Iran is a threat.

At least Bush and Crew made up some stuff about Iraq acutually have something and they did have something a Loooong time ago.
But in Iran EVERYONE KNOWS from the Intel that they do NOT have WMDs.
all the joint U.S. intel assessments and the the UN reports. Even GW Bush admits it in his Book . He COULD not order an attack based on the intel and nothing has changed. What the heck are you guys on about?
What are we suppose to "take care of"?
There nothing to do if we did Attack. Whats the beef.
We don't like the way they TALK ?!!

That's "justice" and "logic"?

Justice for what? logic about what?

I expect no facts or details to refute my statements here.
Just more HUFFY and PUFFY assertions of the horrible potential phantom dangers and another round robin of assuring each other your right based on nothing.

Pssssssst---they are threatening Israel and everyone knows that we have to stick up for Israel.

revelarts
08-02-2012, 08:06 PM
Pssssssst---they are threatening Israel and everyone knows that we have to stick up for Israel.

Talk you say?
Got any troop movement to go with that?
But Wait it's the US that have moved troops/ships all around their country. But they should not feel threatened we're the good guys.

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 08:10 PM
Talk you say?
Got any troop movement to go with that?
But Wait it's the US that have moved troops/ships all around their country. But they should not feel threatened we're the good guys.

We are protecting the world's oil supply in addition to standing up for our Israeli buddies. We do everything.

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 08:10 PM
Uh folks... I'm still waiting for some evidence that Iran is a threat.

Detonators and other plans & multiple threats outright from their leader. That alone is more than enough to justify concern AND monitoring of the build-up of their nuclear capability. If they fully cooperate with investigators, stop with threats, then no one will have a reason for suspicion.

Research their testing of detonators, and then their refusal to allow investigators in Parchin. There's circumstantial already. Enough evidence to push matters.

Why would any reasonable nation, or leader, allow their nation to come close to hostilities as opposed to just clearing matters up?

YOU may discredit this stuff and scoff at it, but much of the world is taking it very seriously. Many want appropriate sit-downs, appropriate and full inspections and assurances that their nuclear work is not going towards weapons. They don't want to cooperate, as they're too busy doing God knows what in Parchin and other places, while threatening to eliminate an entire country.

If they were smart, they just hide whatever is up their sleeve until the day they use it. Then it's too late. That's why inspections are so important, so that we don't get to a "too late".

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 08:12 PM
Make fun of our military intelligence and maneuvers while supporting enemies as poor misguided innocents. :lol:

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 08:13 PM
Detonators and other plans & multiple threats outright from their leader. That alone is more than enough to justify concern AND monitoring of the build-up of their nuclear capability. If they fully cooperate with investigators, stop with threats, then no one will have a reason for suspicion.

Research their testing of detonators, and then their refusal to allow investigators in Parchin. There's circumstantial already. Enough evidence to push matters.

Why would any reasonable nation, or leader, allow their nation to come close to hostilities as opposed to just clearing matters up?

YOU may discredit this stuff and scoff at it, but much of the world is taking it very seriously. Many want appropriate sit-downs, appropriate and full inspections and assurances that their nuclear work is not going towards weapons. They don't want to cooperate, as they're too busy doing God knows what in Parchin and other places, while threatening to eliminate an entire country.

If they were smart, they just hide whatever is up their sleeve until the day they use it. Then it's too late. That's why inspections are so important, so that we don't get to a "too late".

Israel refuses to cooperate on the nuke issue also.

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 08:19 PM
Israel refuses to cooperate on the nuke issue also.

Ok, I'm willing to read more into current news. Since the Iranians major move into the Nuclear department - when has Israel refused access to international inspections to verify what they have? I'm willing to read more on these current refusals to the IAEA like Iran is doing.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-02-2012, 08:19 PM
Uh folks... I'm still waiting for some evidence that Iran is a threat.

At least Bush and Crew made up some stuff about Iraq acutually have something and they did have something a Loooong time ago.
But in Iran EVERYONE KNOWS from the Intel that they do NOT have WMDs.
all the joint U.S. intel assessments and the the UN reports. Even GW Bush admits it in his Book . He COULD not order an attack based on the intel and nothing has changed. What the heck are you guys on about?
What are we suppose to "take care of"?
There nothing to do if we did Attack. Whats the beef.
We don't like the way they TALK ?!!

That's "justice" and "logic"?

Justice for what? logic about what?

I expect no facts or details to refute my statements here.
Just more HUFFY and PUFFY assertions of the horrible potential phantom dangers and another round robin of assuring each other your right based on nothing.

Rev, some people never believe until after something happens.
Do you know how the Russian undercover spy was rewarded after he revealed Germany's top secret plan to surprise attack Russia during WW2? Stalin had him executed!!! He was right , within a few weeks Germany launched a surprise attack on Russia and ate up Russian territory the size of USA rather quickly. Such is the power of refusal to believe a thing could happen. Stalin had murdered a Soviet patriot and hero! Do you think it ever bothered Stalin? NO, he later in his reign of terror had many millions more citizens murdered.
Sorry but Drummond cited many facts but yes he could not cite facts on something that hasnt happened yet! Those kind of facts are only available after the incident has happened. Your dismissal of preventative measures is a weakness my friend.
Havent you ever heard an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure!???-- ;)---Tyr

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 08:24 PM
Ok, I'm willing to read more into current news. Since the Iranians major move into the Nuclear department - when has Israel refused access to international inspections to verify what they have? I'm willing to read more on these current refusals to the IAEA like Iran is doing.


Israel (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Israel) is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Nuclear_weapons)[6] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-5)[7] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-6) and to be the sixth country (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons) in the world to develop them.[8] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-7) It is one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_states) by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty) (NPT), the others being India (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/India), Pakistan (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Pakistan) and North Korea (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/North_Korea).[9] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-8) Israel maintains a policy known as "nuclear ambiguity (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity)" (also known as "nuclear opacity").[10] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-9)[11] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-10) Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that it would not be the first country to "introduce" nuclear weapons to the Middle East (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Middle_East), leaving ambiguity as to whether it means it will not create, will not disclose, will not make first use of the weapons or possibly some other interpretation of the phrase.[12] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-11) The "not be the first" formulation goes back to before March 11, 1965, when a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Washington noted "The Government of Israel has reaffirmed that Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Arab-Israel area."[13] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-12) Israel has refused to sign the NPT despite international pressure to do so, and has stated that signing the NPT would be contrary to its national security interests.[14] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-13)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 08:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

And? what is that about? No one ever said they didn't have nuclear weapons, or certainly suspect it. But I just don't see the demand of inspectors to get into Israel and them scoffing at the entire international community, and refusing this. Hell, we have them too, but we're not the same as Iran. Thumbing your nose to inspections and cooperation and threatening annihilation at the same time...

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 08:36 PM
Rev, some people never believe until after something happens.
Do you know how the Russian undercover spy was rewarded after he revealed Germany's top secret plan to surprise attack Russia during WW2? Stalin had him executed!!! He was right , within a few weeks Germany launched a surprise attack on Russia and ate up Russian territory the size of USA rather quickly. Such is the power of refusal to believe a thing could happen. Stalin had murdered a Soviet patriot and hero! Do you think it ever bothered Stalin? NO, he later in his reign of terror had many millions more citizens murdered.
Sorry but Drummond cited many facts but yes he could not cite facts on something that hasnt happened yet! Those kind of facts are only available after the incident has happened. Your dismissal of preventative measures is a weakness my friend.
Havent you ever heard an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure!???-- ;)---Tyr

Oh if we could only be like Stalin. Are you seriously looking at what you type ? Stalin killed everything that scared him and the families of everything that scared him. Do you seriously want America to act like paranoid sociopaths ?

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 08:38 PM
And? what is that about? No one ever said they didn't have nuclear weapons, or certainly suspect it. But I just don't see the demand of inspectors to get into Israel and them scoffing at the entire international community, and refusing this. Hell, we have them too, but we're not the same as Iran. Thumbing your nose to inspections and cooperation and threatening annihilation at the same time...

Israel has flatly refused any inspections by the very same people that want to inspect Iran. How fair is that?

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 08:41 PM
Israel has flatly refused any inspections by the very same people that want to inspect Iran. How fair is that?

Sorry, not true. Israel hasn't had a resolution against them by the General Assembly since 1991. The UN security council comes a little later, 2001,2002,2004,2006 & 2009 - and not a single one of them about weapons or inspections. The only thing even remotely close was a non-binding resolution from, of all places, a majority of the Arab states.

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 08:42 PM
Dillo - why not just post specifics from the IAEA about Israel's recent non-cooperation?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-02-2012, 08:51 PM
Oh if we could only be like Stalin. Are you seriously looking at what you type ? Stalin killed everything that scared him and the families of everything that scared him. Do you seriously want America to act like paranoid sociopaths ?

Man, did you ever miss the point. I wasnt praising Stalin or suggesting his way should be followed,, I ffing hate that murdering SOB. I WAS POINTING OUT HIS REFUSAL TO BELIEVE THAT A THING CAN HAPPEN AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH REFUSAL. Stalin's flat out refusal to believe that Hitler would betray him cost very likely at least a couple million lives of his fellow citizens! That was the point! -Tyr

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 09:31 PM
Dillo - why not just post specifics from the IAEA about Israel's recent non-cooperation?

There is nothing recent because Israel has flat out rejected all attempts to the point were the UN has given up. Do you doubt this fact ?


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/02/president-obama-has-reaffirmed-a-4-decade-old-secr/?page=all

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 09:37 PM
Man, did you ever miss the point. I wasnt praising Stalin or suggesting his way should be followed,, I ffing hate that murdering SOB. I WAS POINTING OUT HIS REFUSAL TO BELIEVE THAT A THING CAN HAPPEN AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH REFUSAL. Stalin's flat out refusal to believe that Hitler would betray him cost very likely at least a couple million lives of his fellow citizens! That was the point! -Tyr

Oh I got you point. Did you get mine ? Killing everything that we are afraid of? Really ??

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 09:49 PM
There is nothing recent because Israel has flat out rejected all attempts to the point were the UN has given up. Do you doubt this fact ?


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/02/president-obama-has-reaffirmed-a-4-decade-old-secr/?page=all

I just don't see them being uncooperative at the current time with international inspectors, which is what I said Iran was doing, and you followed stating Iran was doing the same. I'm clearly speaking of the international community, the UN resolutions and the official IAEA inspections. What you wrote simply doesn't hold any truth. You may spin it, as their arsenal might be a bit of a mystery, but Israel isn't threatening to annihilate nations, isn't having resolutions demanding sanctions and inspections and then ignoring both.

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 09:53 PM
I just don't see them being uncooperative at the current time with international inspectors, which is what I said Iran was doing, and you followed stating Iran was doing the same. I'm clearly speaking of the international community, the UN resolutions and the official IAEA inspections. What you wrote simply doesn't hold any truth. You may spin it, as their arsenal might be a bit of a mystery, but Israel isn't threatening to annihilate nations, isn't having resolutions demanding sanctions and inspections and then ignoring both.

If the IAEA asked Israel TODAY to do the same thing that they are asking of Iran, Israel would flat out refuse just as it has many times in the past---That Jim, is not only the truth. It is thier policy.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/category/topic/israel/palestine

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 09:56 PM
If the IAEA asked Israel TODAY to do the same thing that they are asking of Iran, Israel would flat out refuse just as it has many times in the past---That Jim, is not only the truth. It is thier policy.

Today? Oh, never mind, I see you wrote "if". Well, this isn't and ifs game. So your comment is wrong as it stands. They are NOT doing the same as Iran right now, on a couple of levels. I think we should stick with the current facts and issues on the table, not what if scenarios and kinda making things up.

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 10:09 PM
Today? Oh, never mind, I see you wrote "if". Well, this isn't and ifs game. So your comment is wrong as it stands. They are NOT doing the same as Iran right now, on a couple of levels. I think we should stick with the current facts and issues on the table, not what if scenarios and kinda making things up.

Oh horseshit with the head games, Jim. You know full well and my links will verify the fact that Israel refuses to play by the same rules as Iran. No fucking wonder they laugh in our face.


However there is one country in the Middle East that does have nuclear weapons and this same country has been occupying parts of Palestine in breach of UN resolutions for half a century. In fact Israel has broken more UN resolutions that any other in UN history. This country also has the benefit that their biggest ally, the USA, will veto any serious resolution against them preventing any action from being carried out.
Does this seem right or fair? Was the UN designed only to be a tool to be used by the powerful to legitamise it’s actions. A talking shop to be ignored at will no matter how deserving a resolution may seem purely because powerful lobby groups such as AIPAC have control over most of the US congress?

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/un-resolutions-against-israel/

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 10:21 PM
Oh horseshit with the head games, Jim. You know full well and my links will verify the fact that Israel refuses to play by the same rules as Iran. No fucking wonder they laugh in our face.

Head games nothing. You tried another one of your one liners and it didn't work. Israel is NOT currently dodging inspectors, period. If you think pointing out facts is a head game, that's an issue for you and your doctor. You might want to expand on your thoughts next time instead of a tiny sentence which was factually incorrect. The IAEA has a job to do, and the only one in the discussion that I am aware of that is dodging them, is Iran. It's Iran that 95% of the international community is afraid of and what they may do, and that same community wants Iran to cooperate with inspectors for all facilities. You can try and deflects things away from that reality and push things onto Israel, but the facts stay the same. Whether you like it or not, almost everyone is on board with sanctions for Israel and further pressure above that in order to get full cooperation from them. Until such time, they will be considered a thread.

jimnyc
08-02-2012, 10:23 PM
As for your list of the UN resolutions, the majority of them are all about land from around 1948 issues. But please, so that everyone reading is on the same page, can you post all of the resolutions in regards to their nuclear program, the IAEA and any inspections. Thanks.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-02-2012, 10:25 PM
Oh I got you point. Did you get mine ? Killing everything that we are afraid of? Really ??

I got your point and its not killing everything we are afraid of! Its specificly killing those that are waging a religious war against us and it is also doing our best to keep such people from getting Weapons of Mass Destruction. Both are logical and common sense actions that are preventative measures to insure our very survival. If the scum scatters are we supposed to let 'em regroup and organise over and over again? Makes no sense. What makes sense is to hurry up and fight all out to win. Can not do that by retreating or appeasing or hiding on home soil.
A very unconventional war that must be fought with care , consistency and dogged determination! -Tyr

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 10:30 PM
Head games nothing. You tried another one of your one liners and it didn't work. Israel is NOT currently dodging inspectors, period. If you think pointing out facts is a head game, that's an issue for you and your doctor. You might want to expand on your thoughts next time instead of a tiny sentence which was factually incorrect. The IAEA has a job to do, and the only one in the discussion that I am aware of that is dodging them, is Iran. It's Iran that 95% of the international community is afraid of and what they may do, and that same community wants Iran to cooperate with inspectors for all facilities. You can try and deflects things away from that reality and push things onto Israel, but the facts stay the same. Whether you like it or not, almost everyone is on board with sanctions for Israel and further pressure above that in order to get full cooperation from them. Until such time, they will be considered a thread.

Say it as often as you like, Jim. Israel will not do what the UN is asking Iran to do. That little fact that you would like to ignore has caused the US trouble for decades. AIPAC will be thrilled at the success of their lobbying efforts and the US taxpayer will continue to pay for it in lives and in dollars.

Dilloduck
08-02-2012, 10:31 PM
A very unconventional war that must be fought with care , consistency and dogged determination! -Tyr

Agreed

Drummond
08-02-2012, 11:31 PM
If anyone REALLY wants to decrease the odds of a terrorist attack on Americans, he/she she be calling for America to become a more neutral participant in the mid-east. Our staunch support for Israel uber alles attracts the hatred of Islamic militants. In the mean time I think we already have lost plenty of lives and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. America doesn't have to police the world. There are other countries who are capable of handling the job. Why American lives and American money?

This is downright disgusting. Your post is blatantly anti-Israel. It is also a bog-standard Left-wing argument, one I've heard offered again and again from the more extreme Left-wingers on my side of the Pond. With this comment expressed, Dilloduck, you cannot hope to claim that you're not Left-wing and be seen to be credible.

Other comments that I could make about your post have already been made by others.

Stating the obvious .. Israel has been threatened, repeatedly, with genocide, this from a regime now working flat-out to perfect the technological capability which is suited to make good on that threat. NOTHING the US has done in terms of its participation in Middle Eastern affairs has the slightest bearing on these facts.

Has it occurred to you how your sort of argument would've translated to world events circa 1940 ? Would you, then, have been arguing for zero military participation in Europe, which in turn would have aided Hitler with his Holocaust against the Jews ?? Had such an argument stuck, how many more MILLIONS of lives would it have cost the Jewish race ??

You should think long and hard about that, Dilloduck.

Getting back to the present, Dilloduck, consider this. Should the day dawn (and at this rate, I've no doubt it will) when Iran nukes Israeli cities, and America had been seen to pull back from aiding Israel when she needed help from you the most to fend off Iran's acts of genocide ... let me assure you that the world will see you as the most unreliable ally in human history, that your country would stand back from aiding an ally under the most extreme of situations imaginable. I doubt that you'd ever be trusted again. Some would probably classify you as a pariah State.

Oh, but there would be one bit of good news to come out of it.

Your standing in other parts of the Middle East would doubtless improve considerably. Indeed, many terrorists might get to like you !!

... So that's all right, then ... yes ?

Drummond
08-02-2012, 11:50 PM
Dilloduck, here's a suggestion for you.

Can there be any further doubt ? You're obviously strongly anti-Israel, and being driven by such sentiment.

So I suggest that you post something - maybe for this thread, though possibly better suited to another thread ? - which comprehensively lists, once and for all, all the gripes you have to offer against the State of Israel, and if applicable, against Jews generally.

Get it all off your chest, once and for all. You may find doing so to be therapeutic.

And let's see what we all make of the comments you'll have to offer.

Give it some thought.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 12:04 AM
You're so blinded by propaganda that you can't even rationally understand what I have said and instead went on a long rant about my so-called antisemitism. I'm sorry but I'm not going to go into great length defending myself against such unsubstantiated nonsense.

Check out this article about Churchill. You may be able to understand him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/world/europe/11iht-winston.4873300.html

Drummond
08-03-2012, 12:34 AM
You're so blinded by propaganda that you can't even rationally understand what I have said and instead went on a long rant about my so-called antisemitism. I'm sorry but I'm not going to go into great length defending myself against such unsubstantiated nonsense.

Check out this article about Churchill. You may be able to understand him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/world/europe/11iht-winston.4873300.html

Interesting. You hint that you're 'not' anti-Semitic, then you dredge up a piece from the Leftie-friendly NY Times to try and portray Winston Churchill as himself anti-Semitic ??

Well, here's a quote from the link you've offered ...


Some experts on the history of British Jews dismissed the article, saying its existence has been well-known and it had never been published because Churchill rejected the views of the ghost-writer who composed it.

Perhaps you'd hoped I would miss that paragraph.

As to you, you've posted pieces again and again on this thread which argue that Israel should be seen in the worst light possible. You want Middle Eastern US participation cut right back just when Israel is increasingly needing your help from an especially belligerent Nation State in the region. You even offer an argument for a reduction in America's role as 'global policeman', an argument that every rabid Leftie-type I've ever known would cheer on for all they're worth ... this would of course have the effect of isolating Israel and emboldening all Arab belligerents in the region (and also probably increase terrorist activity tenfold !).

I see one of two possibilities. Either you're one of the most extreme Left-wingers I've ever come across (which by default will make you anti-Israeli), or, you're chiefly anti-Semitic which gives you common cause with Lefties and the Arab world (and, of course, Iran).

Either way, you have issues you need to work through.

My suggestion stands. Why not list all the anti-Israeli gripes you have, and let them be judged ? After all .. why not ? You do believe you can justify yourself ... don't you ?

.. no ?

Drummond
08-03-2012, 12:45 AM
Another quote from your NY Times link, Dilloduck ...


But it also urged support for Jews "suffering from persecutions as cruel, as relentless and as vindictive as any in their long history."

I bet you're kicking yourself right now, eh ? I bet you really wish you hadn't posted that link !! :laugh::laugh::lol:

jafar00
08-03-2012, 04:34 AM
This is downright disgusting. Your post is blatantly anti-Israel.

You make it sound like it's a crime to criticise Israel.

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 05:55 AM
Say it as often as you like, Jim. Israel will not do what the UN is asking Iran to do. That little fact that you would like to ignore has caused the US trouble for decades. AIPAC will be thrilled at the success of their lobbying efforts and the US taxpayer will continue to pay for it in lives and in dollars.

You can be a fortune teller if you like, and MAY be correct even - but stating that they ARE currently doing the same is simply incorrect. And that's a biggie, because it speaks volumes that the IAEA and the UN want into Iran, and are worried about their actions right now, but not with Israel. And what you're saying is also simply not a fact, but an opinion, as we can't know for sure what would happen if the IAEA with full support of the UN tried to go into Israel at this time.

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 05:58 AM
You make it sound like it's a crime to criticise Israel.

What happens in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or other hardline countries if you insult the country, the leadership, the clerics, or worst of all, Muhammed?

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:43 AM
So Israel should do the same ? Sounds perfectly logical to me.

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 09:51 AM
So Israel should do the same ? Sounds perfectly logical to me.

No idea who you're responding to, but I'll assume it's me and respond. As for logical? I dunno, speak to the international community. I suppose there is a reason that they want to keep such a keen eye on Iran and their ability to develop nuclear weapons, but aren't knocking on Israel's door.

We have them too. And if inspectors want to check in on Iraq like they did in the past, Iran, Syria or even NK - does that mean we should be suspect and have all of our installations monitored and inspected as well?

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 10:04 AM
No idea who you're responding to, but I'll assume it's me and respond. As for logical? I dunno, speak to the international community. I suppose there is a reason that they want to keep such a keen eye on Iran and their ability to develop nuclear weapons, but aren't knocking on Israel's door.

We have them too. And if inspectors want to check in on Iraq like they did in the past, Iran, Syria or even NK - does that mean we should be suspect and have all of our installations monitored and inspected as well?

No--it means we shouldn't expect others to play by different rules. We sure as hell wouldn't.

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 10:17 AM
No--it means we shouldn't expect others to play by different rules. We sure as hell wouldn't.

Regardless, back to the original comments. Iran is in the midst of not cooperating with the UN and IAEA inspectors. We are not currently having these issues with Israel, unless we want to play make believe for the time being.

gabosaurus
08-03-2012, 11:37 AM
I don't care what Iran and Israel do. As long as we are NOT a part of it.
We have ZERO obligation to help Israel. Especially if they pull the trigger first. If a couple of terrorist states want to wage war with each other, let them go at it.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 01:16 PM
Regardless, back to the original comments. Iran is in the midst of not cooperating with the UN and IAEA inspectors. We are not currently having these issues with Israel, unless we want to play make believe for the time being.

But it not just "regardless". If it were only that simple. If the IAEA were demanding to inspect the US nuke plants but ignoring China you would be royally pissed and telling the UN to go fuck themselves. This is exactly how our gross favoritism for Israel draws us into conflicts. WTF is so special about Israel that they don't have to play by the same rules everyone else does ? Would it kill them to let the UN inspect their nukes ? This is what countries ask---what is your answer?

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 01:28 PM
But it not just "regardless". If it were only that simple. If the IAEA were demanding to inspect the US nuke plants but ignoring China you would be royally pissed and telling the UN to go fuck themselves. This is exactly how our gross favoritism for Israel draws us into conflicts. WTF is so special about Israel that they don't have to play by the same rules everyone else does ? Would it kill them to let the UN inspect their nukes ? This is what countries ask---what is your answer?

So since it's pretty much the entire international community wanting inspections, I guess each and every one of them that has nukes should ALL be monitored and inspected then. Can't do one without all of them!

And the UN and IAEA have been monitoring and doing inspections for years and years. I don't think once have I ever expected them to go elsewhere, simply because they are doing it in another place. So no, if they had a valid reason for inspecting the US sites, it would be silly of me to expect them to do the same to China.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 01:35 PM
So since it's pretty much the entire international community wanting inspections, I guess each and every one of them that has nukes should ALL be monitored and inspected then. Can't do one without all of them!

And the UN and IAEA have been monitoring and doing inspections for years and years. I don't think once have I ever expected them to go elsewhere, simply because they are doing it in another place. So no, if they had a valid reason for inspecting the US sites, it would be silly of me to expect them to do the same to China.

The UN has provided them with a valid mission. It's their job. Like the UN or not we are members and the member states have tasked the IAEA with this this mission. They don't have to wait for any kind of threat to exist.
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/

Drummond
08-03-2012, 01:41 PM
I don't care what Iran and Israel do. As long as we are NOT a part of it.
We have ZERO obligation to help Israel. Especially if they pull the trigger first. If a couple of terrorist states want to wage war with each other, let them go at it.

You're claiming that America and Israel aren't allies ? Or that, if they are, America has any justification in proving itself as an untrustworthy ally of Israel's ?

As for your reference to 'a couple of terrorist states want to wage war with each other', which terrorist states are these ?

A Leftie might claim that for Israel .. and Muslims looking for an opportunity to further attack Israel, undoubtedly would. However .. as for the TRUTH, here's a taste of it ...

http://hivets.com/category/israel-americas-only-middle-east-ally/


The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don’t hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.

The Jews don’t traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world’s Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Muslims must ask ‘what can they do for humankind’ before they demand that humankind respects them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel ‘s part, the following two sentences really say it all:

‘If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel ..” Benjamin Netanyahu

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 01:42 PM
The UN has provided them with a valid mission. It's their job. Like the UN or not we are members and the member states have tasked the IAEA with this this mission. They don't have to wait for any kind of threat to exist.
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/

But they also need a reason, and just as important, they need to at least request it. In the cases you provide as examples, this simply hasn't happened. The IAEA doesn't have endless funds to run around to countries all over the world continually monitoring things. Before there's something to complain about, I think you would at least need a request from them to a participating country and have that country deny access. I'm still only seeing that from Iran. You can't just pick any country out there and claim they are doing the same thing. It's a process between the UN and the IAEA and the participating countries.

The only valid mission tasked to the IAEA as of right now is Iran.

Drummond
08-03-2012, 02:13 PM
You make it sound like it's a crime to criticise Israel.

Since you mention it, I do happen to think that the amount of criticism Israel receives is nothing less than criminal ... yes ...

No country is immune to criticism, Jafar. But, I think you're playing games with context.

The context is that Israel wants to exist, and her Arab neighbours (not forgetting Iran, either) would much rather she didn't. Hamas, terrorist ruler of Gaza, for example, retains, as a core principle describing its reason for existence, a commitment to Israel's destruction.

Reposting the link I posted just minutes ago .. check it out ...

http://hivets.com/category/israel-americas-only-middle-east-ally/

... you'll see it includes an inventive method of firing rockets at Israel, courtesy of terrorists from Gaza. Now, that's a terrorist who takes pride in his savagery ..

Of course, Israel suffers from far more than aggressively designed garbage trucks. See ...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=217_1342960050


August 28, 2011 -- Eight people were wounded when a Palestinian man from Nablus attacked a Tel Aviv nightclub. The terrorist hijacked a taxi in Jaffa and rammed into an Israel Border Police checkpoint that had been set up to protect the event of over 2,000 people. He then jumped out of the taxi, shouted “Allahu Akhbar” and began stabbing bystanders and police.

[/*]August 18, 2011 -- A series of attacks targeted civilians in soldiers in southern Israel, killing eight people and wounding at least 31. Terrorists from Gaza infiltrated Israel via the border with Egypt, and fired on a civilian busses and vehicles, detonated explosives when IDF soldiers arrived on the scene of the attack, and then launched mortar shells at soldiers along the Israeli-Egyptian border.

[/*]April 7, 2011 – An anti-tank missile fired from Gaza at a clearly-marked yellow Israeli school bus driving near the Sha’ar Hanegev Regional Council wounded an Israeli teenager and the bus driver. The boy, 16-year-old Daniel Viflic, later died from his wounds in the hospital.


[/*]March 11, 2011 – Five Israelis, all members of the same family, were stabbed to death in their beds by two men, both believed to be Palestinian. The victims included father and mother Ehud and Ruth Fogel, and three of their six children, Yoav, 11, Elad, 4, and three-month-old Hadas. The brutal murders, which occurred in Itamar, drew international condemnation from governments, the United Nations and the Middle East Quartet of nations.[/*]

September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.[/*]

August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Washington, D.C.[/*]

July 22, 2008: Sixteen people were wounded when a man drove a bulldozer into a bus and four other vehicles in central Jerusalem. The attack was an attempted copycat of an earlier attack on Jerusalem’s Jaffa Road on July 2, 2008. The terrorist was shot dead by police.

[/*]July 2, 2008: An Arab resident of Jerusalem deliberately drove a bulldozer into pedestrians and vehicles in central Jerusalem, overturning and flattening a number of buses and cars. Three people were killed and 66 injured in the attack.

[/*]April 9, 2008: Two Israeli civilians were killed and two wounded when Palestinian terrorists attacked an Israeli-controlled border crossing where fuel is piped into Gaza. The attack at the Nahal Oz depot was carried out by members of various terrorist movements, including the Popular Resistance Committees.

[/*]March 6, 2008: Eight men, seven of them teenagers, were killed when a Palestinian gunman entered the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva in Jerusalem and opened fire. The terrorist also wounded nine in the attack before he was killed at the scene.

[/*]February 4, 2008: A 73-year-old woman was killed and 40 people were wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a shopping center in the southern city of Dimona. A second bomber was shot by a police officer who noticed him reaching for his explosive belt. Both Hamas’ armed wing, Izaddin Kassam, and Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack.

[/*]January 24, 2008: Two terrorists entered the Mekor Hayim High School Yeshiva in Kfar Etzion, south of Jerusalem, and stabbed two students. The terrorists were killed by two of the counselors in the room. The Izaddin al-Kassam's Martyrs Brigades, the Hamas military wing, claimed responsibility for the attack.

[/*]January 24, 2008: Rami Zoari, 20, from Beersheba, a border police officer, was killed and another female officer was seriously wounded after terrorists approached the entrance to Shuafat refugee camp in northern Jerusalem and opened fire on a group of Israelis. The Battalions of Struggle and Return, a previously anonymous offshoot of Fatah's Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack.

[/*]December 28, 2007: Two Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists while hiking outside of Hebron. A third hiker managed to escape.

[/*]January 29, 2007: Three people were killed in a suicide bombing in a bakery in Eilat, the first suicide bombing in the city. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

[/*]June 25, 2006: Eliahu Asheri, 18, of Itamar, was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists from the Popular Resistance Committees while hitchhiking from Betar Illit, southwest of Bethlehem, to Neveh Tzuf, where he was studying. His body was found on June 29 in Ramallah. Israeli Authorities believe Asheri was murdered by his captors shortly after his kidnapping.

[/*]April 17, 2006: Nine people were killed and at least 40 wounded in a suicide bombing near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv. The blast ripped through Falafel Rosh Ha'ir, the same restaurant that was hit by an attack on January 19. The Islamic Jihad and Fatah’s Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades both claimed responsibility for the attack. The Hamas led PA government defended the suicide bombing, calling it an act of "self-defense." Hamas official spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called the attack "a natural result of the continued Israeli crimes against our people".

[/*]March 30, 2006: Four people were killed in a suicide bombing outside Kedumim in the northern West Bank. The Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades took responsibility for the attack.

Utterly DISGUSTING, isn't it, Jafar ?

ISN'T IT, JAFAR ?

This, Jafar, is just a SAMPLE of what Israel suffers ! Look at the link ... you'll see that I've only included the most recent examples of such attacks. There are MANY more listed than in the above quote.

And you, Jafar, think it pertinent to wish to CRITICISE ISRAEL ?? For what .. DARING TO EXIST ? FOR GIVING TERRORISTS TRASH SOME TARGETS TO SLAUGHTER ??

Jafar, I would rather heap praise on Israel. As armed to the teeth as they are .. as capable of deploying nukes, as it's generally accepted that they COULD ... still, despite all of these provocations, they don't unleash the military capability that they have .. to anything like the extent that such persistent, gratuitously savage and murderous attacks would readily JUSTIFY.

I marvel at their restraint, Jafar. I absolutely do. There can be few peoples on this planet who are more restrained than the Israelis. I would go so far as to say that, living within its borders, must be some of the finest examples of human beings this planet has ever produced.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 02:32 PM
But they also need a reason, and just as important, they need to at least request it. In the cases you provide as examples, this simply hasn't happened. The IAEA doesn't have endless funds to run around to countries all over the world continually monitoring things. Before there's something to complain about, I think you would at least need a request from them to a participating country and have that country deny access. I'm still only seeing that from Iran. You can't just pick any country out there and claim they are doing the same thing. It's a process between the UN and the IAEA and the participating countries.

The only valid mission tasked to the IAEA as of right now is Iran.

Really ? Do you have a copy of their agenda or a link to that ? Cuz I bet they got a hell of a lot of tasks.
Your going to intentional miss the point anyway. You've been had by the propaganda so badly you won't even look at the facts.

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 02:48 PM
Really ? Do you have a copy of their agenda or a link to that ? Cuz I bet they got a hell of a lot of tasks.
Your going to intentional miss the point anyway. You've been had by the propaganda so badly you won't even look at the facts.

And I'm betting that NONE of those tasks is monitoring or inspecting Israel. That's the point, because you outright stated that Israel was not cooperating just like Iran. You're running on fumes known as semantics, and still can't post anything at all that backs up your contention that they are not cooperating regarding the same within Iran. So rather than admit that's true, you play the what if game until you convince yourself it is reality!

Israel not currently being investigated is hardly propaganda. Believe what you will though, I've said my piece and backed it up with data, resolutions and reality. I've yet to see a single piece of factual information to dispute any of it, or to backup your claims that they are treating the IAEA the same as Iran.

Enjoy making things up. Maybe someday you'll be lucky and I'll create a "fantasy land" forum when you can make up whatever you please, and dance around in circles with purple unicorns over your perceived world! :coffee:

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 05:36 PM
And I'm betting that NONE of those tasks is monitoring or inspecting Israel. That's the point, because you outright stated that Israel was not cooperating just like Iran. You're running on fumes known as semantics, and still can't post anything at all that backs up your contention that they are not cooperating regarding the same within Iran. So rather than admit that's true, you play the what if game until you convince yourself it is reality!

Israel not currently being investigated is hardly propaganda. Believe what you will though, I've said my piece and backed it up with data, resolutions and reality. I've yet to see a single piece of factual information to dispute any of it, or to backup your claims that they are treating the IAEA the same as Iran.

Enjoy making things up. Maybe someday you'll be lucky and I'll create a "fantasy land" forum when you can make up whatever you please, and dance around in circles with purple unicorns over your perceived world! :coffee:

It's not like you to resort to mocking people and insinuating they live in la la land. You must be desperate. Again I ask--Why is Israel so special that they can defy the UN and no one cares ? It's an absolute fallacy that Israel's refusal to sign the NPT has nothing to do with the situation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/29/us-israel-nuclear-treaty-idUSTRE64S1ZN20100529

Drummond
08-03-2012, 05:42 PM
It's not like you to resort to mocking people and insinuating they live in la la land. You must be desperate. Again I ask--Why is Israel so special that they can defy the UN and no one cares ? It's an absolute fallacy that Israel's refusal to sign the NPT has nothing to do with the situation.

I'm staying - relatively speaking - out of the detail of this current debate of yours, Dilloduck. Though ... I do find myself wondering if this Israel-bashing of yours is EVER going to stop, and what exactly it is that's driving you on.

Am I right ? Are you following a Leftie agenda ? Or is there more at work making you pursue this direction of yours so single-mindedly ?

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 05:51 PM
I'm staying - relatively speaking - out of the detail of this current debate of yours, Dilloduck. Though ... I do find myself wondering if this Israel-bashing of yours is EVER going to stop, and what exactly it is that's driving you on.

Am I right ? Are you following a Leftie agenda ? Or is there more at work making you pursue this direction of yours so single-mindedly ?

I follow no agenda but my own. Israelis criticize their own government and leadership all the time. Hopefully you are not foolish enough to call them anti-semitic too.

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 06:11 PM
I'm staying - relatively speaking - out of the detail of this current debate of yours, Dilloduck. Though ... I do find myself wondering if this Israel-bashing of yours is EVER going to stop, and what exactly it is that's driving you on.

Am I right ? Are you following a Leftie agenda ? Or is there more at work making you pursue this direction of yours so single-mindedly ?

I wish you were here awhile back. We had a member who was actually cool as hell, and would have made a great debate partner for you. He was VERY intelligent but had a one track mind, and then worse when it came to "the jews" aka Zionist pigs aka Israel. He came unhinged somewhere along the line. It started with Anti-Israel crap, then into the Zionist conspiracy stuff, and the shit that was so far out there that I just started ignoring him. He showed his true colors. But I think you would have had fun debating him as he was quite a writer and was intelligent.

Drummond
08-03-2012, 06:52 PM
I wish you were here awhile back. We had a member who was actually cool as hell, and would have made a great debate partner for you. He was VERY intelligent but had a one track mind, and then worse when it came to "the jews" aka Zionist pigs aka Israel. He came unhinged somewhere along the line. It started with Anti-Israel crap, then into the Zionist conspiracy stuff, and the shit that was so far out there that I just started ignoring him. He showed his true colors. But I think you would have had fun debating him as he was quite a writer and was intelligent.

Sounds like quite a piece of work, to be honest. Still, maybe you're right. He could have been interesting.

Intolerable, but interesting .. :bang3:

Probably would've developed into a Steel Cage shootout, or something ...

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 07:00 PM
Intolerable--something like the 1939 White Paper?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp

Drummond
08-03-2012, 07:03 PM
I follow no agenda but my own. Israelis criticize their own government and leadership all the time. Hopefully you are not foolish enough to call them anti-semitic too.

Yes, but do Israelis criticise their own leadership to the extent that they'd deny their own country its own security, and even sympathise with viewpoints that are designed to attack Israel's very right to exist ?

For your part, you seem to want Israel isolated, friendless, at quite possibly the time of her greatest need, with her most powerful ally sidelined. I'm still unclear as to what, PRECISELY, is driving you.

Drummond
08-03-2012, 07:19 PM
Intolerable--something like the 1939 White Paper?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp

I don't know. Quite possibly, yes. Would the person Jim and I were discussing have 'conveniently' overlooked whatever issues he'd have found inconvenient to consider ? Such as ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine


Part I of the Plan contained provisions dealing with the Termination of the Mandate, Partition and Independence. The Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw from Palestine no later than the previously announced date of 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism (Zionism). Part II of the Plan included a detailed description of the proposed boundaries for each state. The Plan also called for Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

The Plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency. The Plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the Civil War broke out. The partition plan was not implemented

Typical, eh ? Constructiveness from the Jewish side. War from their opposition ....

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 07:27 PM
Yes, but do Israelis criticise their own leadership to the extent that they'd deny their own country its own security, and even sympathise with viewpoints that are designed to attack Israel's very right to exist ?

For your part, you seem to want Israel isolated, friendless, at quite possibly the time of her greatest need, with her most powerful ally sidelined. I'm still unclear as to what, PRECISELY, is driving you.

Check into some of the Israeli groups for peace with the Arabs. They think it's possible that it can happen and they don't believe they will be wiped off the earth. They see that talk as hysterical rhetoric coming from the far right wing groups.
Every country has a right to exist but what exactly does that mean? They get to blow up anyone that has the ability to scare them or theatened them? Do you realize how many times America has been threatened and hated by communism for example? Do we have the right to nuke Russia or China or N Korea?
What's driving me is the truth, common sense and a desire for America to recover. I'd also like to live in a country that cherishes it's sovereignty and doesn't succumb to threats and bribes of nations that don't have our best interests in mind.

Drummond
08-03-2012, 07:54 PM
Check into some of the Israeli groups for peace with the Arabs. They think it's possible that it can happen and they don't believe they will be wiped off the earth. They see that talk as hysterical rhetoric coming from the far right wing groups.
Every country has a right to exist but what exactly does that mean? They get to blow up anyone that has the ability to scare them or theatened them? Do you realize how many times America has been threatened and hated by communism for example? Do we have the right to nuke Russia or China or N Korea?
What's driving me is the truth, common sense and a desire for America to recover. I'd also like to live in a country that cherishes it's sovereignty and doesn't succumb to threats and bribes of nations that don't have our best interests in mind.

You pose an interesting question, but you're claiming a parallel that doesn't exist.

Israel has been threatened, repeatedly, with genocide .. that threat emanating from a prominent figure in Iran, evidently representing the regime running things in Iran (and, far more recently, affirmed by one of that country's generals). You comment on what you say is a number of times America has been threatened 'by communism'. OK .. name for me, and cite the instance(s), the communist regime which has repeatedly threatened, outright and as a specific threat, the people living in the US with GENOCIDE.

Arms races may have been embarked upon, but the USSR was expansionist, wanting Communism to dominate the world. That arms race was a nuclear standoff, not an example of the USSR investing in a technology with the specific intention of launching weapons to achieve a genocidal ambition.

So there is a difference, and a major one. Iran doesn't want a nuclear arms race (besides, it's effectively lost one already). No, it 'just' wants to sneak a nuke or few past Israeli defences, to 'wipe them off the map'.

You say 'every country has a right to exist' .. yet, you choose NOT to back that up AT ALL, by wanting to help defend a country whose existence has been repeatedly threatened. So you'll forgive me, Dilloduck, if I find your claim less than convincing.

Unless, of course .. you mean every country BUT Israel. Tell me - is that fair comment ?

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 08:04 PM
You pose an interesting question, but you're claiming a parallel that doesn't exist.

Israel has been threatened, repeatedly, with genocide .. that threat emanating from a prominent figure in Iran, evidently representing the regime running things in Iran (and, far more recently, affirmed by one of that country's generals). You comment on what you say is a number of times America has been threatened 'by communism'. OK .. name for me, and cite the instance(s), the communist regime which has repeatedly threatened, outright and as a specific threat, the people living in the US with GENOCIDE.

Arms races may have been embarked upon, but the USSR was expansionist, wanting Communism to dominate the world. That arms race was a nuclear standoff, not an example of the USSR investing in a technology with the specific intention of launching weapons to achieve a genocidal ambition.

So there is a difference, and a major one. Iran doesn't want a nuclear arms race (besides, it's effectively lost one already). No, it 'just' wants to sneak a nuke or few past Israeli defences, to 'wipe them off the map'.

You say 'every country has a right to exist' .. yet, you choose NOT to back that up AT ALL, by wanting to help defend a country whose existence has been repeatedly threatened. So you'll forgive me, Dilloduck, if I find your claim less than convincing.

Unless, of course .. you mean every country BUT Israel. Tell me - is that fair comment ?

LOL not even close. If your intention is to paint me as an anti-semite you go right ahead. Members here have been trying it for years. I certainly can't change your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJHg9UBNPE

sure the Communist goal was to expand. We tried to stop them. They killed Americans everytime we tried to stop them.
Don't try to tell me that America was not targeted for destruction. Hell it still has nukes aimed at it. If you don't think that would cause genocide you are incredibly naive.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 08:15 PM
I don't know. Quite possibly, yes. Would the person Jim and I were discussing have 'conveniently' overlooked whatever issues he'd have found inconvenient to consider ? Such as ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine


Typical, eh ? Constructiveness from the Jewish side. War from their opposition ....


OMG---posting from another link and accusing me of "overlooking it". :laugh:

Drummond
08-03-2012, 08:18 PM
LOL not even close. If your intention is to paint me as an anti-semite you go right ahead. Members here have been trying it for years. I certainly can't change your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJHg9UBNPE

sure the Communist goal was to expand. We tried to stop them. They killed Americans everytime we tried to stop them.
Don't try to tell me that America was not targeted for destruction. Hell it still has nukes aimed at it. If you don't think that would cause genocide you are incredibly naive.

Thank you for conceding the Communist intention, verified, of course, by your total lack of example (as requested of you) of any instance of an outright threat of genocide. Iran has threatened genocide. The USSR never issued any such threat.

Yes, nukes have been aimed at American cities, just as America will have targeted Moscow and all Russia's major cities. But that was a part of the standoff, and not part of any formulated plan to commit genocide.

Iran's plans are very different.

I would rather not consider you anti-semitic, Dilloduck, and you have an easy way of proving that I'd be right not to. Here it is ... extend your principle of conceding that Israel has every bit as much right to exist as any other country, free from the tyranny of a threat of genocide levelled at her. And prove the principle, and your belief in it as it pertains to Israel, by conceding that the power threatening genocide should be stopped .. by any and all means that can be mustered.

Such as, for example, the availability of unstinting help from a major ally.

.. Agreed ?

Drummond
08-03-2012, 08:21 PM
OMG---posting from another link and accusing me of "overlooking it". :laugh:

????????????????????????????????

... YOU are the one Jim was discussing earlier ?

I'm not following you at all. Sorry.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 08:22 PM
Thank you for conceding the Communist intention, verified, of course, by your total lack of example (as requested of you) of any instance of an outright threat of genocide. Iran has threatened genocide. The USSR never issued any such threat.

Yes, nukes have been aimed at American cities, just as America will have targeted Moscow and all Russia's major cities. But that was a part of the standoff, and not part of any formulated plan to commit genocide.

Iran's plans are very different.

I would rather not consider you anti-semitic, Dilloduck, and you have an easy way of proving that I'd be right not to. Here it is ... extend your principle of conceding that Israel has every bit as much right to exist as any other country, free from the tyranny of a threat of genocide levelled at her. And prove the principle, and your belief in it as it pertains to Israel, by conceding that the power threatening genocide should be stopped .. by any and all means that can be mustered.

Such as, for example, the availability of unstinting help from a major ally.

.. Agreed ?

I don't have to prove shit to you you silly ass. Exactly who do you think you are ?:laugh2:

Drummond
08-03-2012, 08:32 PM
I don't have to prove shit to you you silly ass. Exactly who do you think you are ?:laugh2:

Someone in a position to prove a point ... UNLESS ... you can show me I'm wrong.

I am still inviting you to do so. Whether or not you take up the challenge is your decision ... to be viewed as is appropriate.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 08:42 PM
Someone in a position to prove a point ... UNLESS ... you can show me I'm wrong.

I am still inviting you to do so. Whether or not you take up the challenge is your decision ... to be viewed as is appropriate.

:laugh2: You are now going to decide if I'm appropriate ? I've proved my point over and over dude. You got nothin'

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-03-2012, 08:48 PM
Since you mention it, I do happen to think that the amount of criticism Israel receives is nothing less than criminal ... yes ...

No country is immune to criticism, Jafar. But, I think you're playing games with context.

The context is that Israel wants to exist, and her Arab neighbours (not forgetting Iran, either) would much rather she didn't. Hamas, terrorist ruler of Gaza, for example, retains, as a core principle describing its reason for existence, a commitment to Israel's destruction.

Reposting the link I posted just minutes ago .. check it out ...

http://hivets.com/category/israel-americas-only-middle-east-ally/

... you'll see it includes an inventive method of firing rockets at Israel, courtesy of terrorists from Gaza. Now, that's a terrorist who takes pride in his savagery ..

Of course, Israel suffers from far more than aggressively designed garbage trucks. See ...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=217_1342960050



Utterly DISGUSTING, isn't it, Jafar ?

ISN'T IT, JAFAR ?

This, Jafar, is just a SAMPLE of what Israel suffers ! Look at the link ... you'll see that I've only included the most recent examples of such attacks. There are MANY more listed than in the above quote.

And you, Jafar, think it pertinent to wish to CRITICISE ISRAEL ?? For what .. DARING TO EXIST ? FOR GIVING TERRORISTS TRASH SOME TARGETS TO SLAUGHTER ??

Jafar, I would rather heap praise on Israel. As armed to the teeth as they are .. as capable of deploying nukes, as it's generally accepted that they COULD ... still, despite all of these provocations, they don't unleash the military capability that they have .. to anything like the extent that such persistent, gratuitously savage and murderous attacks would readily JUSTIFY.

I marvel at their restraint, Jafar. I absolutely do. There can be few peoples on this planet who are more restrained than the Israelis. I would go so far as to say that, living within its borders, must be some of the finest examples of human beings this planet has ever produced.

The Israelis have been too restrained in my opinion. They never should have given back even an inch of territory that they won when defending themselves! Imagine the type of kindness it takes to give back to peole that cleary wants ones utter destruction! I couldnt do it my friend. My first instinct would be to do unto them before they did unto me! Israel has been a model to study the bravery of a people, a nation that has lived in danger of its destruction since the first day its birth! What Jafar and other muslims can not stand is that no matter how outnumbered the Israelis still kicked ass everytime!--:beer:-Tyr

Drummond
08-03-2012, 08:53 PM
:laugh2: You are now going to decide if I'm appropriate ? I've proved my point over and over dude. You got nothin'

Well, since you're unwilling to extend your own claimed-for position of believing that all countries have a right to exist, to the point where you agree that a country threatened with genocide deserves support from a power easily in a position to provide that support ... it's in the eye of the beholder as to why you are perpetuating this obvious inconsistency.

A succinct way of putting this would be to ask why you don't want to 'put your money where your mouth is'.

Let the reader decide for himself (or herself ..).

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:06 PM
Well, since you're unwilling to extend your own claimed-for position of believing that all countries have a right to exist, to the point where you agree that a country threatened with genocide deserves support from a power easily in a position to provide that support ... it's in the eye of the beholder as to why you are perpetuating this obvious inconsistency.

A succinct way of putting this would be to ask why you don't want to 'put your money where your mouth is'.

Let the reader decide for himself (or herself ..).

OMG cut the fancy chatter. There is no inconsistency in my position. The United States has given TRILLIONS to Israel. The American taxpayer has put his money where his mouth is over and over and over to the tune of trillions.

Ask yourself this---why didn't the rest of the world accept Jewish immigrants when it was obvious they were going to be slaughtered ?

Drummond
08-03-2012, 09:09 PM
The Israelis have been too restrained in my opinion. They never should have given back even an inch of territory that they won when defending themselves! Imagine the type of kindness it takes to give back to peole that cleary wants ones utter destruction! I couldnt do it my friend. My first instinct would be to do unto them before they did unto me! Israel has been a model to study the bravery of a people, a nation that has lived in danger of its destruction since the first day its birth! What Jafar and other muslims can not stand is that no matter how outnumbered the Israelis still kicked ass everytime!--:beer:-Tyr

Exactly, Tyr. The extent of Israeli restraint is simply astonishing. And to think that those on the receiving-end of that consideration can't find it within themselves to acknowledge it for what it is .. preferring instead to be driven on to hate, and attack, some more.

We should all be so lucky that we can ever match Israeli decency ! But, as you say, their restraint has been taken to inappropriate levels. They need to be firmer.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:12 PM
No shit----why don't they go kick Assad's ass like I've been saying all along.

Drummond
08-03-2012, 09:20 PM
No shit----why don't they go kick Assad's ass like I've been saying all along.

You want Israel to intervene in such a way that other Arab nations will be spurred on to unite against Israel ?

This is one reason why it would be better for the US to intervene instead .. after all, as has already been argued, it's directly in America's interests that Syrian WMD's don't find their way into terrorist hands.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:22 PM
You want Israel to intervene in such a way that other Arab nations will be spurred on to unite against Israel ?

This is one reason why it would be better for the US to intervene instead .. after all, as has already been argued, it's directly in America's interests that Syrian WMD's don't find their way into terrorist hands.

:laugh2: you crack me up----do you want bad ass Israel to be firm or not ?



and BTW----it's in the WHOLE WORLDS interest. Don't single out Americans to shed blood everytime someone's ass needs saving.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-03-2012, 09:22 PM
Exactly, Tyr. The extent of Israeli restraint is simply astonishing. And to think that those on the receiving-end of that consideration can't find it within themselves to acknowledge it for what it is .. preferring instead to be driven on to hate, and attack, some more.

We should all be so lucky that we can ever match Israeli decency ! But, as you say, their restraint has been taken to inappropriate levels. They need to be firmer.

Agreed, the time to step up again has come for Israel. They have no great need to attack Assad/Syria now. They do have great need , urgency and justification to hit Iran and its nuke facilities. With or without our support. Obama will not give that support because he sides with our enemies and Israel's enemies! Obama has repeatedly shown his hatred for Israel. Still it is in our best interests to aid Israel's attempt to stop Iran getting nuked up! If we do not we are asking to be attacked ourselves when Iran gets around to facing the big Satan! They could do that by using proxy agents (terorists) using Syrian WMDS.--Tyr

Drummond
08-03-2012, 09:27 PM
OMG cut the fancy chatter. There is no inconsistency in my position. The United States has given TRILLIONS to Israel. The American taxpayer has put his money where his mouth is over and over and over to the tune of trillions.

Ask yourself this---why didn't the rest of the world accept Jewish immigrants when it was obvious they were going to be slaughtered ?

So tell me, how much is the survival of a Nation State actually worth ?

Not that this is anything like the whole point. The US has its very considerable advantage of superior military might. This could be brought to bear against any nation seeing fit to work towards genocide.

... but don't tell me ... you want to extend the inconsistency of your position to this, as well ?

Come on. PROVE ME WRONG. Prove that you know Israel deserves to be defended against a genocide-threatening aggressor -

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:27 PM
Agreed, the time to step up again has come for Israel. They have no great need to attack Assad/Syria now. They do have great need , urgency and justification to hit Iran and its nuke facilities. With or without our support. Obama will not give that support because he sides with our enemies and Israel's enemies! Obama has repeatedly shown his hatred for Israel....-Tyr

They're obeying Obama ? :laugh2:

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:29 PM
So tell me, how much is the survival of a Nation State actually worth ?

Not that this is anything like the whole point. The US has its very considerable advantage of superior military might. This could be brought to bear against any nation seeing fit to work towards genocide.

... but don't tell me ... you want to extend the inconsistency of your position to this, as well ?

Come on. PROVE ME WRONG. Prove that you know Israel deserves to be defended against a genocide-threatening aggressor -

I've proved you wrong a hundred times already. If a nation won't stand up for itself first, it ain't worth shit.

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 09:34 PM
As for Iran, Israel should just send a shitload of fighter jets over there and pinpoint the destruction of their facilities. Their concern and their problem and they should fight their own battles, many would say. So that would my my advice to them. They have very little to lose, as we've been told that no way no how does Iran have any nuclear weapons. I don't think Iran would be physically capable of doing much about it in return. Now Israel will feel better about the threats and Iran will be set back for a long, long time.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:36 PM
As for Iran, Israel should just send a shitload of fighter jets over there and pinpoint the destruction of their facilities. Their concern and their problem and they should fight their own battles, many would say. So that would my my advice to them. They have very little to lose, as we've been told that no way no how does Iran have any nuclear weapons. I don't think Iran would be physically capable of doing much about it in return. Now Israel will feel better about the threats and Iran will be set back for a long, long time.

That's what they already did to Iraq and Syria. let em rip and best of luck to em.

Drummond
08-03-2012, 09:38 PM
:laugh2: you crack me up----do you want bad ass Israel to be firm or not ?



and BTW----it's in the WHOLE WORLDS interest. Don't single out Americans to shed blood everytime someone's ass needs saving.

I'm saddened by this. You keep your inconsistency in place, though you could easily resolve it if you wanted.

Where, Dilloduck, is your outrage that Iran threatens Israel with genocide ? You say that every country has a right to exist. So does Israel. Iran has NO right to say anything else, or to work to arrange the demise of any country.

So why isn't that outrage spurring you on to want to see to it that no such atrocity ever happens ?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-03-2012, 09:40 PM
As for Iran, Israel should just send a shitload of fighter jets over there and pinpoint the destruction of their facilities. Their concern and their problem and they should fight their own battles, many would say. So that would my my advice to them. They have very little to lose, as we've been told that no way no how does Iran have any nuclear weapons. I don't think Iran would be physically capable of doing much about it in return. Now Israel will feel better about the threats and Iran will be set back for a long, long time.

Problem with that is that Iran has hardened the sites where they are nuking up. And its almost impossible for Israel to do an adequate job alone, without repeatedly having to fly in to hit targets multiple times! Of course with obama as CIC Israel may have to act without our aid and remember Obama has sent implied threats against Israel attacking Iran! Obama protects his friends(fellow muslims). -TYR

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:41 PM
I'm saddened by this. You keep your inconsistency in place, though you could easily resolve it if you wanted.

Where, Dilloduck, is your outrage that Iran threatens Israel with genocide ? You say that every country has a right to exist. So does Israel. Iran has NO right to say anything else, or to work to arrange the demise of any country.

So why isn't that outrage spurring you on to want to see to it that no such atrocity ever happens ?

Listen Mr Drum. I don't give a shit if Iran threatens to blow up the damn moon. If you do why don't YOU send YOUR own troops over there and let them fight for what YOU think is right. You do have troops I assume? Ours have been killed a lot recently. I think they deserve a break.

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 09:42 PM
You say that every country has a right to exist. So does Israel.

Good luck with this. I went over this with him, but a different phrase "Does a country reserve the right to defend itself from an enemy". Even though I said use any country speaking of any country, the question was never directly answered. Odd too, because even 3rd world shitholes would say the same as everyone else, that of course any nation in the world has the right to defend themselves.

Drummond
08-03-2012, 09:45 PM
I've proved you wrong a hundred times already. If a nation won't stand up for itself first, it ain't worth shit.

Ah, so now, you're REVERSING your previous stance ?

Well, now. That didn't last long, did it ?

There is one consistency that is worth pointing out. When it comes to Israel, your willingness to help her fend off a genocidal belligerent is, and remains, completely nonexistent.

In my humble opinion, Hitler would've approved, I think.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:48 PM
Good luck with this. I went over this with him, but a different phrase "Does a country reserve the right to defend itself from an enemy". Even though I said use any country speaking of any country, the question was never directly answered. Odd too, because even 3rd world shitholes would say the same as everyone else, that of course any nation in the world has the right to defend themselves.


Holy shit, boys. I've said it a million times. OF COURSE every country has a right to exist. But that's not the question here. The question here is "Does Israel have the right to blow the shit out of Iran because Iran threatens them" ?
If I were an Israeli I wouldn't have to think twice but apparently they have to do what Obama tells em.
Then a country that has blown the shit out of their enemy has to face the consequences of their actions.

Drummond
08-03-2012, 09:48 PM
Thanks, Dilloduck. I'll now depart for the night.

Such a pity that you couldn't be persuaded to take a more reputable stance than you in fact have. I did offer you every chance to reconsider, to prove me wrong.

Sad.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-03-2012, 09:49 PM
Good luck with this. I went over this with him, but a different phrase "Does a country reserve the right to defend itself from an enemy". Even though I said use any country speaking of any country, the question was never directly answered. Odd too, because even 3rd world shitholes would say the same as everyone else, that of course any nation in the world has the right to defend themselves.

Just as any man has the right to defend himself! I've had judges ask me why I didnt just run away when being attacked by a guy or group of guys. My answer was always the same, "because a man has the right to self-defense. Judges fined me anyways because it was all about getting the money! That applies to nations as well , they clearly have the right to self-defense! -Tyr

jimnyc
08-03-2012, 09:51 PM
Holy shit, boys. I've said it a million times. OF COURSE every country has a right to exist. But that's not the question here. The question here is "Does Israel have the right to blow the shit out of Iran because Iran threatens them" ?
If I were an Israeli I wouldn't have to think twice but apparently they have to do what Obama tells em.
Then a country that has blown the shit out of their enemy has to face the consequences of their actions.

Fair enough, even though the question was "defend", and I'm cool now that you have answered in the affirmative, but you didn't earlier.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:53 PM
Ah, so now, you're REVERSING your previous stance ?

Well, now. That didn't last long, did it ?

There is one consistency that is worth pointing out. When it comes to Israel, your willingness to help her fend off a genocidal belligerent is, and remains, completely nonexistent.

In my humble opinion, Hitler would've approved, I think.

no same stance I've always had--pay attention.
Did you ever figure out why the rest of the world refused to accept Jewish Immigrants when they knew Hitler the Nazi's would kill them ? Even the Nazis themselves help some get out

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 09:56 PM
Fair enough, even though the question was "defend", and I'm cool now that you have answered in the affirmative, but you didn't earlier.

Defend is the key word here----it's definition is vital. We're back to the Bush doctrine and pre emptive strikes. What's more important--staying alive or following the letter of the law ?

Drummond
08-03-2012, 10:01 PM
Listen Mr Drum. I don't give a shit if Iran threatens to blow up the damn moon.

It just gets worse.

So much, then, for ANY so-called 'principle' you say you believe in, regarding the right of a country to exist. When it comes down to it, you DON'T CARE if genocidal threats are made.

Why not just say that you don't care and be done with it ?

And isn't it a particular pity, Dilloduck, that a race - the Jews - have already suffered so very much in history already, yet STILL, there are those who cannot find it in themselves to believe that THEY deserve a break from belligerent trash that threatens them with extermination ???

I've had enough of this.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 10:04 PM
It just gets worse.

So much, then, for ANY so-called 'principle' you say you believe in, regarding the right of a country to exist. When it comes down to it, you DON'T CARE if genocidal threats are made.

Why not just say that you don't care and be done with it ?

And isn't it a particular pity, Dilloduck, that a race - the Jews - have already suffered so very much in history already, yet STILL, there are those who cannot find it in themselves to believe that THEY deserve a break from belligerent trash that threatens them with extermination ???

I've had enough of this.

Good--time to admit your defeat and go to bed----you didn't answer my questions BTW

Drummond
08-03-2012, 10:04 PM
no same stance I've always had--pay attention.
Did you ever figure out why the rest of the world refused to accept Jewish Immigrants when they knew Hitler the Nazi's would kill them ? Even the Nazis themselves help some get out

What, exactly, are you implying ?

Explain.

Dilloduck
08-03-2012, 10:08 PM
What, exactly, are you implying ?

Explain.

It's NOT an implication--it's a fact. Don't know your history do you ? No surprise--A lot of it gets swept under the rug.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-04-2012, 02:57 AM
[QUOTE Jafar take notice... Islam's true destiny....
Islam shall meet its match. Nothing in the universe can stand against Jehovah. They that murder innocence to instill fear into the god fearing shall inherit that which they sow.

Murder and death they deliver with such glee,seeking terror to make others flee
Spirits exist that justice serves to see, denies the wicked mercy to thier futile plea
Leaves them only their eyes to weep with, their tongues to beg with while they cry
Their blackened hearts to feel with, their wicked souls to perish with while they die
For no false claims justify such murderous deeds and false praise
False gods and false glories that they blindly serve only to raise
Forever chained away imprisoned in the blackness of endless time
Writhing in a pit of biting serpents covered in dark and burning slime.-Tyr

Drummond
08-04-2012, 06:43 AM
It's NOT an implication--it's a fact. Don't know your history do you ? No surprise--A lot of it gets swept under the rug.

Very well. Since you won't spell it out (unsurprisingly), I'll do so myself.

So, let's review:-

You say that every country has a right to exist. OK .. sounds good .. all fair, laudible, praiseworthy ..

Then, where Israel's concerned, you won't accept that - when faced with a threat to its future existence, from Iran - Israel has any right to expect help against that threat from her most powerful ally, an ally capable of turning the tide in Israel's favour IF the will existed to do so.

So, an inconsistency is revealed, since the 'right' to exist doesn't include the means to help assure that existence ... not for Israel, anyway, and not in terms of aid from a country that could really make a difference.

And it's worse than that, isn't it. What we're talking about is the ABANDONMENT of Israel, during a time of particular need.

Worse still, you qualified that position further by showing that you didn't care about Iran's threats at all (and you expressed THAT qualification rather strongly).

Not content EVEN with this, you then turn to history to illustrate a past failing of other countries (yes, including my own, if my history is correct) to help Jews out when they were suffering under Hitler, and were seeking to escape his anti-Semitic edicts.

So, from starting out from a praiseworthy position, you depart from it by (a) arguing a case for Israel, in terms of aid that could be available, NOT having a chance to benefit from it; (b) you profess not to care when a Nation State threatens genocide against another one (Israel again), and (c) you dredge up an apparent precedent of others not helping a race ultimately threatened with genocide (involving Jews) from another, past, regime.

In other words .. you've worked hard to argue that Israel and its people can and should be distanced from any optimum chance of fending off the prospect of genocide when it faces that prospect.

That's quite an inconsistency, Dilloduck, from your original to your qualified position, and one you've worked hard to consolidate. It proves that you're driven to see Israel disadvantaged, and you want history to back you.

.. But I've a funny feeling you won't want to explain that ..

Dilloduck
08-04-2012, 09:21 AM
Very well. Since you won't spell it out (unsurprisingly), I'll do so myself.

So, let's review:-

You say that every country has a right to exist. OK .. sounds good .. all fair, laudible, praiseworthy ..

Then, where Israel's concerned, you won't accept that - when faced with a threat to its future existence, from Iran - Israel has any right to expect help against that threat from her most powerful ally, an ally capable of turning the tide in Israel's favour IF the will existed to do so.

So, an inconsistency is revealed, since the 'right' to exist doesn't include the means to help assure that existence ... not for Israel, anyway, and not in terms of aid from a country that could really make a difference.

And it's worse than that, isn't it. What we're talking about is the ABANDONMENT of Israel, during a time of particular need.

Worse still, you qualified that position further by showing that you didn't care about Iran's threats at all (and you expressed THAT qualification rather strongly).

Not content EVEN with this, you then turn to history to illustrate a past failing of other countries (yes, including my own, if my history is correct) to help Jews out when they were suffering under Hitler, and were seeking to escape his anti-Semitic edicts.

So, from starting out from a praiseworthy position, you depart from it by (a) arguing a case for Israel, in terms of aid that could be available, NOT having a chance to benefit from it; (b) you profess not to care when a Nation State threatens genocide against another one (Israel again), and (c) you dredge up an apparent precedent of others not helping a race ultimately threatened with genocide (involving Jews) from another, past, regime.

In other words .. you've worked hard to argue that Israel and its people can and should be distanced from any optimum chance of fending off the prospect of genocide when it faces that prospect.

That's quite an inconsistency, Dilloduck, from your original to your qualified position, and one you've worked hard to consolidate. It proves that you're driven to see Israel disadvantaged, and you want history to back you.

.. But I've a funny feeling you won't want to explain that ..

You obviously need spelling out lessons because you have totally and intentionally mis-characterized me :
1. I have repeatedly agreed with Israels right to exist and defend themselves
2. It can expect support from America if it follows whatever arragement or protocols have been established
3. History shows us time and time again where the rest of the world has abandoned the Jews and that since WWII the
the US has done more than any country to protect it.
4. You haven't cited a single example of where I would like to put Israel at a "disadvantage". They have the exact
same rights as any other country in the world.

Now go peddle your bullshit elsewhere. You haven't proved a thing other than your desire to misinterpret me.

jimnyc
08-04-2012, 09:45 AM
Then, where Israel's concerned, you won't accept that - when faced with a threat to its future existence, from Iran - Israel has any right to expect help against that threat from her most powerful ally, an ally capable of turning the tide in Israel's favour IF the will existed to do so.

FAR from disagreeing with you, Drum, but wanted to point out a few things. I honestly don't think it needs to be solely or specifically the US that supports Israel on any type of action they may take. I think the US should obviously stand behind them diplomatically, and support whatever decision they make. I'm not sold that they would even need us to win any type of battle versus Iran. Also, I think even the UK would be MORE than enough to support Israel against the foes in the area. The only way Israel would fall would be if one of 2 things happen:

1) Iran does have a nuclear weapon, and they use one against Israel
2) A strike against Iran's nuclear facilities has many countries, supporting Iran, attacking Israel

While I still think Israel can handle Iran themselves, the above options would leave them with a problem. But if a nuke is used, you're going to see much more than the US involved anyway. I'm afraid that may lead to WW3. I don't think Iran is dumb enough to use a nuke if they have one. I think Ahmedinejad would like to do so, but the "annihilation" of Iran in return would prevent them from making such a dumb move. But while I don't think they would make such a brave and announced move with the entire world watching - my concern outside of this back and forth is Iran potentially handing off something like a suitcase nuke to perhaps Hezbollah or other terror groups.

As to number two, if multiple countries in the Middle East were all to gang up and attack Israel, I don't think they would be alone. I suppose it all depends on the circumstances of how it starts, but I can't see a few other countries coming in to support Israel, which could again be WW3! But countries I think won't leave Israel hanging: The USA, UK, perhaps Australia and Spain... I just don't think everyone would sit by idly and watch Israel be destroyed. Especially if they solely take out nuclear facilities.

Drummond
08-04-2012, 10:24 AM
You obviously need spelling out lessons because you have totally and intentionally mis-characterized me :
1. I have repeatedly agreed with Israels right to exist and defend themselves
2. It can expect support from America if it follows whatever arragement or protocols have been established
3. History shows us time and time again where the rest of the world has abandoned the Jews and that since WWII the
the US has done more than any country to protect it.
4. You haven't cited a single example of where I would like to put Israel at a "disadvantage". They have the exact
same rights as any other country in the world.

Now go peddle your bullshit elsewhere. You haven't proved a thing other than your desire to misinterpret me.

I have posted an accurate summary of how you've been developing your argument.

Consider post #322 .. there, you posted ..


If anyone REALLY wants to decrease the odds of a terrorist attack on Americans, he/she she be calling for America to become a more neutral participant in the mid-east. Our staunch support for Israel uber alles attracts the hatred of Islamic militants.

Two positions are being taken here. One, a distancing of support for Israel at a time when a nearby regime has threatened genocide against her. And two .. a suggestion of appeasement. That America panders to the 'Islamic militants' (your very phrase) of the region ... 'militants' who've been showing you for the past several years what enemies they are of you, and all you stand for.

The posts immediately following post #322 called you out on this - and not, at that time, by me.

I don't think I need requote what anyone here can easily research for themselves. You've not been misinterpreted, Dilloduck. Rather, the nature of your posting has been recognised.

You want Israel isolated from the very help that would do them the most good. And all the while, Iran's threat stands, and they STILL work to perfect the technology which can make good on it !

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-04-2012, 11:06 AM
I have posted an accurate summary of how you've been developing your argument.

Consider post #322 .. there, you posted ..



Two positions are being taken here. One, a distancing of support for Israel at a time when a nearby regime has threatened genocide against her. And two .. a suggestion of appeasement. That America panders to the 'Islamic militants' (your very phrase) of the region ... 'militants' who've been showing you for the past several years what enemies they are of you, and all you stand for.

The posts immediately following post #322 called you out on this - and not, at that time, by me.

I don't think I need requote what anyone here can easily research for themselves. You've not been misinterpreted, Dilloduck. Rather, the nature of your posting has been recognised.

My friend, also consider if Syria falls to this Islamic takeover perhaps then the WMDS may disappear from world view and later when one or several are used it will be claimed that Assad sent them elsewhere therby giving the culprits an out on just retribution! Consider how hard it would be to retrace any WMDS that were smuggled into a country then used there! My guess is it would be next to impossible to prove. Thats a very valid and scary thought too.
Fear is not always bad for it gives advanced notice of danger and allows for preparation to prevent or overcome such. This often declared accusation of "fear mongering" falls and fails when one realises why people do not willy nilly just step into a tigers cage! Fear, led to the wisdom, which gave thought to future consequences of such a foolish action! Fear is a necessary part of survival. Fear acted upon in a well thought out manner often saves countless lives! Some would do well to recognise that important fact rather than bally-who it as mad rantings, cowardice and/or "fear mongering" IMHO. Fear of the WMDS falling into the wrong hands falls squarely into that Justified and Survival importance category! As does Iran's current quest for nukes!!!-Tyr

Dilloduck
08-04-2012, 01:22 PM
I'll see if I can find a soft blanket or a cuddly stuffed animal that y'all can comfort yourselves with while adults handle the situation.

jimnyc
08-04-2012, 01:28 PM
I'll see if I can find a soft blanket or a cuddly stuffed animal that y'all can comfort yourselves with while adults handle the situation.

Huh? Who are you talking to?

Dilloduck
08-04-2012, 01:30 PM
Huh? Who are you talking to?

The two posters who have posted immediately before my post. Sorry--I'll quote them next time.

jimnyc
08-04-2012, 01:36 PM
The two posters who have posted immediately before my post. Sorry--I'll quote them next time.

Okie doke, just wanted to make sure you were aware my last post was to Drummond, but wasn't negative towards anyone anyway. I thought your comment included me and I was confused.

Dilloduck
08-04-2012, 01:42 PM
Okie doke, just wanted to make sure you were aware my last post was to Drummond, but wasn't negative towards anyone anyway. I thought your comment included me and I was confused.

Sorry to confuse---as far as I know only Drum and Tyr are so petrified of Islam that they think immediate action needs to be taken by the US. It's looking more and more to me that Russia will succeed in it's attempts to put down the revolt in Syria to secure those WMDs.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-04-2012, 01:56 PM
I'll see if I can find a soft blanket or a cuddly stuffed animal that y'all can comfort yourselves with while adults handle the situation.

We are not the ones talking about soft or cuddly actions my friend. We are talking about military actions being engaged in a timely and correct way! Far from soft or cuddly! In fact, very serious and life threatening actions to be carried out and dont give me that you were talking about why don't Drummond or I go fight them(if that's the case). Hell, I would if they'd let me. I am just that serious about defeating them.. We have military that signed up to do thier duty and I expect special teams that would be glad to blast a few enemy too...-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-04-2012, 02:03 PM
Sorry to confuse---as far as I know only Drum and Tyr are so petrified of Islam that they think immediate action needs to be taken by the US. It's looking more and more to me that Russia will succeed in it's attempts to put down the revolt in Syria to secure those WMDs.

Who the hell is petrified? Pointing out true danger is not being petrified in fear! Suggesting preventative actions is not being fearful, rather it is instead being diligent in defense of ones nation. I'm always prepared to fight should I ever have to . That is a fact, been that way most of my life ...I may be older now but my powder is always prime and dry...
---------- :flyflag:-- -Tyr

Dilloduck
08-04-2012, 02:04 PM
We are not the ones talking about soft or cuddly actions my friend. We are talking about military actions being engaged in a timely and correct way! Far from soft or cuddly! In fact, very serious and life threatening actions to be carried out and dont give me that you were talking about why don't Drummond or I go fight them(if that's the case). Hell, I would if they'd let me. I am just that serious about defeating them.. We have military that signed up to do thier duty and I expect special teams that would be glad to blast a few enemy too...-Tyr
You defend calling for direct military engagement because you fear what may happen. If Kennedy had followed that advice in Cuba we would all be dead.Direct military intervention in Iraq did nothing to reduce the danger of these WMDs. How can we be assured that direct military intervention would be any different this time ?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-04-2012, 02:18 PM
You defend calling for direct military engagement because you fear what may happen. If Kennedy had followed that advice in Cuba we would all be dead.Direct military intervention in Iraq did nothing to reduce the danger of these WMDs. How can we be assured that direct military intervention would be any different this time ?

Only thing sure in life is death and taxes.-;)
I do not agree about the "we all be dead" statement either but thats not directly comparable to the subject at hand IMHO. Syria presents a very different problem. However Kennedy did blockade Cuba and the Soviets did back down! Should we interfere only by securing those WMDS I doubt that Russia and China would attack us.
RUSSIA AND CHINA BOTH HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH MUSLIM TERRORISTS AND KNOW THE THREAT THOSE WEAPONS PRESENT WHEN IN SUCH PEOPLE'S HANDS!
BESIDES, WHO IS TO SAY THAT FOLLOWING YOUR SUGGESTED PATH WOULD FAIR ANY BETTER?
And the risk to us could be far greater by not acting! That goes for the Syria problem or the Iran nuking up problem ..-Tyr

Dilloduck
08-04-2012, 02:31 PM
Only thing sure in life is death and taxes.-;)
I do not agree about the "we all be dead" statement either but thats not directly comparable to the subject at hand IMHO. Syria presents a very different problem. However Kennedy did blockade Cuba and the Soviets did back down! Should we interfere only by securing those WMDS I doubt that Russia and China would attack us.
RUSSIA AND CHINA BOTH HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH MUSLIM TERRORISTS AND KNOW THE THREAT THOSE WEAPONS PRESENT WHEN IN SUCH PEOPLE'S HANDS!
BESIDES, WHO IS TO SAY THAT FOLLOWING YOUR SUGGESTED PATH WOULD FAIR ANY BETTER?
And the risk to us could be far greater by not acting! That goes for the Syria problem or the Iran nuking up problem ..-Tyr

The Soviets backed down only after US appeasement. Our intelligence was incredibly poor and our invasion force would have been decimated by nukes. Those losses don't even include the launching of the missles already in Cuba and ready to hit any US city within 2,000 miles.

You doubt Russia would attack us? If we attacked their ally? God I hope our military is using some other basis for decisions than your doubts and fears.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-04-2012, 04:08 PM
The Soviets backed down only after US appeasement. Our intelligence was incredibly poor and our invasion force would have been decimated by nukes. Those losses don't even include the launching of the missles already in Cuba and ready to hit any US city within 2,000 miles.

You doubt Russia would attack us? If we attacked their ally? God I hope our military is using some other basis for decisions than your doubts and fears.


What appeasement? Looks like they blinked first to me! History says they did as well.-Tyr

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/28/newsid_2621000/2621915.stm

1962: World relief as Cuban missile crisis ends
The world has breathed a collective sigh of relief after the superpowers reached an agreement ending the immediate threat of nuclear war.
Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev has agreed to dismantle all Russian missiles based in Cuba and ship them back to the Soviet Union.

The announcement was made in a public message to President John F Kennedy broadcast on Moscow Radio.

In response, President Kennedy said the decision to remove the Cuban missiles was an "important contribution to peace".

He has also promised the US will not invade Cuba and will eventually lift the US naval blockade imposed on the island.

The blockade will continue until effective UN inspection ensures that the missiles in Cuba have been dismantled.

Spy plane uncovers missiles

The crisis began on 14 October after a U-2 reconnaissance plane revealed the existence of several nuclear missiles based in on the Caribbean island capable of reaching the US.

Then, a week ago, President Kennedy made a TV address to the nation denouncing the Soviets' actions. He declared a naval blockade on Cuba and threatened the USSR itself with attack if any Cuban missile were launched against the USA.

Since then the world has been on tenterhooks wondering which superpower would back down first, desperately hoping this was not the beginning of a nuclear World War III.

Four days ago, faced with a huge US fleet including eight aircraft carriers that had formed an arc 500 miles (800km) from the eastern tip of Cuba, Soviet vessels approaching the island turned back.

Dilloduck
08-04-2012, 04:56 PM
What appeasement? Looks like they blinked first to me! History says they did as well.-Tyr

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/28/newsid_2621000/2621915.stm

1962: World relief as Cuban missile crisis ends
The world has breathed a collective sigh of relief after the superpowers reached an agreement ending the immediate threat of nuclear war.
Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev has agreed to dismantle all Russian missiles based in Cuba and ship them back to the Soviet Union.

The announcement was made in a public message to President John F Kennedy broadcast on Moscow Radio.

In response, President Kennedy said the decision to remove the Cuban missiles was an "important contribution to peace".

He has also promised the US will not invade Cuba and will eventually lift the US naval blockade imposed on the island.

The blockade will continue until effective UN inspection ensures that the missiles in Cuba have been dismantled.

Spy plane uncovers missiles

The crisis began on 14 October after a U-2 reconnaissance plane revealed the existence of several nuclear missiles based in on the Caribbean island capable of reaching the US.

Then, a week ago, President Kennedy made a TV address to the nation denouncing the Soviets' actions. He declared a naval blockade on Cuba and threatened the USSR itself with attack if any Cuban missile were launched against the USA.

Since then the world has been on tenterhooks wondering which superpower would back down first, desperately hoping this was not the beginning of a nuclear World War III.

Four days ago, faced with a huge US fleet including eight aircraft carriers that had formed an arc 500 miles (800km) from the eastern tip of Cuba, Soviet vessels approaching the island turned back.

It's right in you post


He has also promised the US will not invade Cuba and will eventually lift the US naval blockade imposed on the island.

He ADDITIONALLY promised to remove US missles from Turkey.

Drummond
08-05-2012, 11:28 AM
FAR from disagreeing with you, Drum, but wanted to point out a few things. I honestly don't think it needs to be solely or specifically the US that supports Israel on any type of action they may take. I think the US should obviously stand behind them diplomatically, and support whatever decision they make. I'm not sold that they would even need us to win any type of battle versus Iran. Also, I think even the UK would be MORE than enough to support Israel against the foes in the area. The only way Israel would fall would be if one of 2 things happen:

1) Iran does have a nuclear weapon, and they use one against Israel
2) A strike against Iran's nuclear facilities has many countries, supporting Iran, attacking Israel

While I still think Israel can handle Iran themselves, the above options would leave them with a problem. But if a nuke is used, you're going to see much more than the US involved anyway. I'm afraid that may lead to WW3. I don't think Iran is dumb enough to use a nuke if they have one. I think Ahmedinejad would like to do so, but the "annihilation" of Iran in return would prevent them from making such a dumb move. But while I don't think they would make such a brave and announced move with the entire world watching - my concern outside of this back and forth is Iran potentially handing off something like a suitcase nuke to perhaps Hezbollah or other terror groups.

As to number two, if multiple countries in the Middle East were all to gang up and attack Israel, I don't think they would be alone. I suppose it all depends on the circumstances of how it starts, but I can't see a few other countries coming in to support Israel, which could again be WW3! But countries I think won't leave Israel hanging: The USA, UK, perhaps Australia and Spain... I just don't think everyone would sit by idly and watch Israel be destroyed. Especially if they solely take out nuclear facilities.

Sorry about the delay in replying, Jim. Anyway, my response ...

In one sense .. I don't care whether it's the US or other powers that stand ready to assist Israel should she ever need it, What does matter is that such assistance exists, can be relied upon to be available, that it is worthwhile help, AND, that Iran is well aware it's there.

But I do say that's my position IN ONE SENSE. Question ... how realistic is that scenario ?

I say it's only realistic to a limited degree. The fact of the matter is that the US has more firepower, can more decisively assist Israel, than all of Israel's other friends put together, and assuming Iran could be deterred from acting against Israel, it would only be America that held that capacity to deter.

I think that if America sat on its hands and proved to be the unreliable ally that Dilloduck has argued for her to be, the replacement 'Coalition of the willing' would not only be weaker, but probably a lot more prone to internal dissention .. which Iran would prey upon to the hilt.

So it's altogether better that America be the ally that Israel deserves her to be.

You mention the UK. I'm not sure we have the power, on our own, to sufficiently aid Israel. But let's say we have .. still, there would be a problem, and I've referred to it before, namely, the Left's vandalistic effect on public opinion. They've worked hard to demonise the War on Terror, and to create a climate where no British politician wouldn't willingly argue, freely, in favour of warfare. They've labelled Tony Blair a 'war criminal' for supporting Bush, particularly in the matter of the Iraq War, calling him 'Bush's poodle'.

Cameron did get away with his great push to have the Libyan rebels militarily assisted, though that was because no troops were committed to the effort, and besides, the BBC painted a very rebel-friendly picture of events in Libya .. to them it was a matter of freedom fighters overthrowing a merciless despot. But with Israel, no such black and white picture could be painted, as the Left just loves to take a pro-Palestinian line, too readily ignoring the terrorism that Israel continues to face. Iran is seen as a threat, but here, too, there are those unwilling to acknowledge the severity or even the seriousness of the threat in real terms. So, gathering enough political will - with the Left arguing against it - for military support for Israel would be an uphill task.

And, here's the thing. I believe that many of those who argue for Israel to fight her own battles, do so knowing that if she did, Israel would have something of a firestorm of other powers then taking up arms against her .. indeed, Saddam tactically hoped for that unified opposition when, during Gulf War #1, he fired Scuds at Tel Aviv .. he believed he could trigger such a thing from as little cause as he was able to arrange. Imagine the far greater likelihood of that occurring, were Israel to launch an effective attack against Iran. Those saying that Israel should definitely be left alone to fight her own battles, alone .. many of them, anyway .. would secretly welcome the 'firestorm' backlash, I think ...

No doubt those of revelart's thinking would accuse Israel of a 'war crime' if they ever tried it, though. 'Better', as Lefties would argue it, for Iran to attack Israel with nukes first, because then, and only then, would Israel be entitled to lift a finger in her defence. According to Lefties, that is.

... Better that what would remain of Israel counts its millions AVOIDABLY killed than commit a 'war crime' amounting to a neutralisation of genocide !

I hope there is sufficient international will to see to it that Israel was protected from harm, Jim. But I think you seriously underestimate the efforts of the Left to compromise it .. I think you are for the UK, and you may be as well for other countries. No, the US is Israel's chief and most powerful ally. She should not be seen to renege on that responsibility .. and Iran can't hope to fracture her will to act, as it could with a 'coalition of the willing'

Drummond
08-05-2012, 11:43 AM
Sorry to confuse---as far as I know only Drum and Tyr are so petrified of Islam that they think immediate action needs to be taken by the US. It's looking more and more to me that Russia will succeed in it's attempts to put down the revolt in Syria to secure those WMDs.

???????????????????????????????????

Perhaps your media is producing different reports to those I've seen and heard ? Apart from dissention from Russia and China when it comes to condemning the Assad regime, I've seen nothing at all suggesting Russia is, or will, 'put down the revolt in Syria', or, that they have their own forces present 'to secure those WMD's'.

No, what I've seen is that the battles continue, largely involving Aleppo these days.

Here's the latest from the BBC. What mention does Russia get ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19137637

As for THIS ...


Meanwhile, Iran is seeking the release of 48 Iranians kidnapped on Saturday.

Iranian diplomats and Syrian state television blamed the abduction, which took place near the shrine of Sayyida Zainab in a suburb of Damascus, on "armed groups".

Iran has now asked Turkey and Qatar, both of whom have good relations with the Syrian opposition, to help win the release of the Iranians who it says are pilgrims.

Rebels claimed on Sunday that some of those taken were members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, according to al-Arabiya television.

Now, what would THEY be doing there ??

Drummond
08-05-2012, 11:49 AM
You defend calling for direct military engagement because you fear what may happen. If Kennedy had followed that advice in Cuba we would all be dead.Direct military intervention in Iraq did nothing to reduce the danger of these WMDs. How can we be assured that direct military intervention would be any different this time ?

How can you be assured that you or your loved ones won't one day be on the business-end of a deployed ex-Syrian WMD, unless steps are taken to stop them falling into terrorist hands ?

... oh, I forgot. The 'ostrich posture' will save you .... !!! ....

Drummond
08-05-2012, 11:54 AM
The Soviets backed down only after US appeasement. Our intelligence was incredibly poor and our invasion force would have been decimated by nukes. Those losses don't even include the launching of the missles already in Cuba and ready to hit any US city within 2,000 miles.

You doubt Russia would attack us? If we attacked their ally? God I hope our military is using some other basis for decisions than your doubts and fears.

So there it is. At heart, you're an appeaser. Or at any rate, an advocate for same.

Where does appeasement end, did you ask yourself that ? Convince your enemies that appeasement is likely from you, and they'll only push the harder to force you to appease. Appeasement is WEAKNESS, eminently exploitable.

Drummond
08-05-2012, 12:12 PM
He ADDITIONALLY promised to remove US missles from Turkey.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/kennedy_cuban_missile_01.shtml


In the end, Kennedy found a way to finesse the situation. He sent Robert Kennedy to see the Soviet ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin, to tell him that the missiles in Turkey were obsolete, and that the US planned to pull them out within about six months. All this was true. He said further, however, that, if the Soviet Union used this knowledge to claim that the US had struck the deal proposed in Khrushchev's radio message, Kennedy would deny the claim and would not remove the missiles from Turkey. What Kennedy wanted was to mollify Khrushchev without seeming to make a concession, and above all to avoid any prolonged negotiations. He had to insist that Soviet missiles come out of Cuba unconditionally, or he would compromise the display of firmness that he judged necessary to protect against a Berlin crisis.

Point made ?

Dilloduck
08-05-2012, 12:17 PM
So there it is. At heart, you're an appeaser. Or at any rate, an advocate for same.

Where does appeasement end, did you ask yourself that ? Convince your enemies that appeasement is likely from you, and they'll only push the harder to force you to appease. Appeasement is WEAKNESS, eminently exploitable.

These little "gotcha" moments of yours are getting more far fetched by the minute. I didn't say anything about agreeing with Kennedy's actions regarding Cuba. I just stated the truth. Did I piss you off in a former life or something ?

Dilloduck
08-05-2012, 12:23 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/kennedy_cuban_missile_01.shtml



Point made ?

and promising never to invade Cuba ? What kind of sophistry are you going to use to pretend that wasn't appeasement?

Kathianne
08-05-2012, 12:32 PM
and promising never to invade Cuba ? What kind of sophistry are you going to use to pretend that wasn't appeasement?

You mean in response to the incident that was the justification for the Russian missiles? Kennedy knew by this time that he had caused the whole brouhaha with Bay of Pigs. He was right to step back in a big way for that.

Bay of Pigs was aggression without thought, it caused the missile crisis. That he was able to later finesse the missile crisis to a successful outcome, spoke that he may well have become what so many now think of him. Because of his death, we'll never know which way a second term would have gone.

Dilloduck
08-05-2012, 12:49 PM
You mean in response to the incident that was the justification for the Russian missiles? Kennedy knew by this time that he had caused the whole brouhaha with Bay of Pigs. He was right to step back in a big way for that.

Bay of Pigs was aggression without thought, it caused the missile crisis. That he was able to later finesse the missile crisis to a successful outcome, spoke that he may well have become what so many now think of him. Because of his death, we'll never know which way a second term would have gone.

Kennedy was lucky the attempt at imposing our might on Cuba didn't lead to nuclear war. Whatever Kruschev's motivations were for placing offensive nukes missles and SAM sites were the results were that Kennedy promised the communists that we would never mess with Cuba again and we withdrew missles from Turkey and Italy. Kennedy knew full well it would be seen as a cave in and swore Kruschev to secrecy. Turkey was quite pissed about being sacrificed for Cuba.
Appeasement? --You bet. If he could have gotten the missles out of Cuba unconditionally it might have been impressive. American propaganda is a powerful thing. People bought it hook line and sinker but I think mostly everyone was glad that the confrontation was over and nuclear war was averted for the time being.

Drummond
08-05-2012, 12:53 PM
and promising never to invade Cuba ? What kind of sophistry are you going to use to pretend that wasn't appeasement?

It's a simple matter of context. Kennedy would have no need to invade Cuba, if Russia moved her missiles out. If they had been moved back in, what possible reason would Kennedy have to keep his side of the bargain ?

As it was, Russia had threatened America with nuclear missiles on America's doorstep. REAL appeasement would've been to live with that situation without doing anything about it.

Drummond
08-05-2012, 12:56 PM
These little "gotcha" moments of yours are getting more far fetched by the minute. I didn't say anything about agreeing with Kennedy's actions regarding Cuba. I just stated the truth. Did I piss you off in a former life or something ?

I get the definite impression that I'm worrying you.

Oh dear ..:boohoo:

Dilloduck
08-05-2012, 12:59 PM
I get the definite impression that I'm worrying you.

Oh dear ..:boohoo:


no---you're not

Dilloduck
08-05-2012, 01:03 PM
It's a simple matter of context. Kennedy would have no need to invade Cuba, if Russia moved her missiles out. If they had been moved back in, what possible reason would Kennedy have to keep his side of the bargain ?

As it was, Russia had threatened America with nuclear missiles on America's doorstep. REAL appeasement would've been to live with that situation without doing anything about it.

C'mon fool--use your brain. Kennedy tried to invade Cuba BEFORE THE RUSSIANS HAD ANY MISSLES THERE !
He had plenty of motivation to oust Castro with or without Russian presence.

Drummond
08-05-2012, 01:06 PM
... but anyway, Dilloduck, the fact remains that you'd rather the US did not jump to aid Israel. You'd also like to see America more distanced from involvement in the Middle East.

Seeing America follow such policy decisions would convince your terrorist enemies that they had you on the run. They would see it as weakness .. with the flavour of appeasement running through it. They would exploit it for all they were worth.

Dilloduck
08-05-2012, 01:10 PM
... but anyway, Dilloduck, the fact remains that you'd rather the US did not jump to aid Israel. You'd also like to see America more distanced from involvement in the Middle East.

Seeing America follow such policy decisions would convince your terrorist enemies that they had you on the run. They would see it as weakness .. with the flavour of appeasement running through it. They would exploit it for all they were worth.

You don't know that--hell you don't even know appeasement when you see it-----run along. Come back if you an catch me being really a bad American OK ?

Drummond
08-05-2012, 01:15 PM
C'mon fool--use your brain. Kennedy tried to invade Cuba BEFORE THE RUSSIANS HAD ANY MISSLES THERE !
He had plenty of motivation to oust Castro with or without Russian presence.

When you throw gratuitous disparagements my way, I know that my arguments are striking home.

But you're missing this simple point. With Kennedy able to pressure Russia into getting its missiles removed from Cuba, the obvious lesson for Castro to learn was that even his Russian ally was susceptible to American influence, and could be pressured into caving in to it.

Which would in turn mean that Castro, as well as having suffered a personal humiliation, could not hope to be any form of future threat to the US. Kennedy would know this.

Dilloduck
08-05-2012, 01:19 PM
When you throw gratuitous disparagements my way, I know that my arguments are striking home.

But you're missing this simple point. With Kennedy able to pressure Russia into getting its missiles removed from Cuba, the obvious lesson for Castro to learn was that even his Russian ally was susceptible to American influence, and could be pressured into caving in to it.

Which would in turn mean that Castro, as well as having suffered a personal humiliation, could not hope to be any form of future threat to the US. Kennedy would know this.

When you make wild speculations like this I know that you've totally ran all of all rational ammo and are desperately trying to get in the last word.---Go ahead. You've displayed your foolishness to all. Have a last shot at it.

Drummond
08-05-2012, 01:22 PM
You don't know that--hell you don't even know appeasement when you see it-----run along. Come back if you an catch me being really a bad American OK ?

I'm not even sure I can properly decipher that last sentence. But, never mind.

You want America to distance itself from a region of the world that has plenty of your enemies within it .. what's more, the very region most likely to recruit more of such enemies against you. You have ONE worthwhile ally in that region, one which resembles you, believes in many of the values that your own country holds.

Your approach to that ally, when it's threatened with genocide, is to want to renege on your duties AS an ally !

So, you tell me. If appeasement isn't what's driving you, what IS ?

Drummond
08-05-2012, 01:25 PM
When you make wild speculations like this I know that you've totally ran all of all rational ammo and are desperately trying to get in the last word.---Go ahead. You've displayed your foolishness to all. Have a last shot at it.

:laugh::lol::lol::lol::laugh::laugh2::fart:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-05-2012, 01:38 PM
How can you be assured that you or your loved ones won't one day be on the business-end of a deployed ex-Syrian WMD, unless steps are taken to stop them falling into terrorist hands ?

... oh, I forgot. The 'ostrich posture' will save you .... !!! ....

haha, the ostrich can not even save itself...Tyr



http://www.debatepolicy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=570600


Sorry to confuse---as far as I know only Drum and Tyr are so petrified of Islam that they think immediate action needs to be taken by the US. It's looking more and more to me that Russia will succeed in it's attempts to put down the revolt in Syria to secure those WMDs.
^^^^^^^Big D, I am very honored to be placed in with such good company! :beer:
Even with it being a false claim made by the accuser, I still feel honored indeed... :salute:-Tyr

Kathianne
08-05-2012, 01:48 PM
Kennedy was lucky the attempt at imposing our might on Cuba didn't lead to nuclear war. Whatever Kruschev's motivations were for placing offensive nukes missles and SAM sites were the results were that Kennedy promised the communists that we would never mess with Cuba again and we withdrew missles from Turkey and Italy. Kennedy knew full well it would be seen as a cave in and swore Kruschev to secrecy. Turkey was quite pissed about being sacrificed for Cuba.
Appeasement? --You bet. If he could have gotten the missles out of Cuba unconditionally it might have been impressive. American propaganda is a powerful thing. People bought it hook line and sinker but I think mostly everyone was glad that the confrontation was over and nuclear war was averted for the time being.

Good job of reiterating what I'd already posted. Appeasement? Hardly. The missiles were removed from Cuba and we removed outdated missiles from Turkey. They were replaced with updated, as I'm certain you know.

Was this incident caused by a young, incompetent president? Yes. However, the reactions to the crisis demonstrated he'd learned, something I wish I could see in the current administration.

Mr. P
08-05-2012, 01:56 PM
I think we should all stand clear and allow the Middle East participants to settle their own difficulties.
Various countries in the Middle East have been threatening to annihilate Israel for more than 60 years. The one time they tried, Israel was able to fend for themselves.
The U.S. needs to stop throwing billions of dollars per year down the Middle East rat hole. I am surprised that you fiscal conservatives feel the need to continue this.
No more financial or military aid of any kind should be sent to ANY Middle East nation.

I don't.

Now, if we can just get the Liberal TREE HUGGING IDIOTS outta the way we can drill our own OIL in our OWN Country. What a concept, huh.

Kathianne
08-05-2012, 01:59 PM
I don't.

Now, if we can just get the Liberal TREE HUGGING IDIOTS outta the way we can drill our own OIL in our OWN Country. What a concept, huh.

Even without Keystone, it's obvious that the US is poised to return to a major oil producer. With it and building more refineries, better times may well loom. Look at North Dakota:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/08/north-dakota-americas-economic-miracle.html


Saturday, August 04, 2012 <!-- Begin .post --> North Dakota: America's "Economic Miracle State"

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A0ectaPC0xQ/UB2ABFC261I/AAAAAAAAT_0/JJbf_Vooupg/s400/ndusa.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A0ectaPC0xQ/UB2ABFC261I/AAAAAAAAT_0/JJbf_Vooupg/s1600/ndusa.jpg)
The Philadelphia Federal Reserve recently released June Coincident Economic Activity Indexes (http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/indexes/coincident/) for all 50 states, along with a national coincident economic activity index. These indexes are based on four economic indicators: a) nonfarm payroll employment, b) the unemployment rate, c) average hours worked in manufacturing, and d) wages and salaries.

The chart above displays the indexes for North Dakota and the United States over the last ten years, showing that the economic activity in North Dakota is completely "off the charts," along with the state's oil production and oil jobs, which are also showing explosive growth and driving economic growth in the "miracle state." Even the "worst recession since the Great Depression" barely affected the shale oil-based economic activity in the Peace Garden State, and the June coincident index is 25% above the pre-recession level and almost 11% above a year ago. Meanwhile the coincident economic activity index for the overall U.S. economy fell about 10.5% during the Great Recession and is now still less than 1% above the previous peak in early 2008.

The Philadelphia Fed also recently released its "State Leading Indexes (http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/indexes/leading/)" for the month of June, which "predict the six-month growth rate of the state’s coincident index. In addition to the coincident index, the models include other variables that lead the economy: state-level housing permits (1 to 4 units), state initial unemployment insurance claims, delivery times from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing survey, and the interest rate spread between the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month Treasury bill." North Dakota's leading index for June predicts a 3.8% growth rate for the state's economy over the next six months, by far the highest expected growth rate among the 50 states (only No. 2 Ohio comes even close at 2.6%), and a rate of growth almost four times higher than the expected 1% at the national level.


MP: The June coincident and leading indexes for the 50 states and the national economy provide additional support that North Dakota is the most economically successful state in the country thanks to its booming energy sector and pro-energy and pro-business policies - the "Dakota Model." On every relevant measure of economic performance by state: job creation, unemployment rate, income growth, output growth, growth in oil production, tax revenue collected, construction activity, home foreclosure rates, housing prices, coincident and leading indexes, etc., the Peace Garden State leads the country and deserves the title of America's "miracle state."

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-05-2012, 02:27 PM
Even without Keystone, it's obvious that the US is poised to return to a major oil producer. With it and building more refineries, better times may well loom. Look at North Dakota:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/08/north-dakota-americas-economic-miracle.html

Their plan is to never allow us to use our on oil to heal our economic woes which they have had a huge part in engineering for political reasons and greedy corruption too. At least not until after they've destroyed our Constitution and reformed the government into a dictatorial socialist all ruling body. Sounds brutal right? Well its truly is but they know that to make an apple pie the apples have to be sliced and cooked. Whats the harm as long as the end result is attained? This is the type of murdering thinking that communists have used when murdering tens of millions in thier countries so it's not unheard of nor is it any silly conspiracy talk. We are facing people organised worldwide using trillions of dollars and bought out politicians to implement thier agenda! Just as dangerous to our future safety as are WMDS , Islamists terorists or invading armies. Actually more dangerous in my opinion because they are being so manipulative, sneaky and clever about it all IMHO!-:salute:-Tyr

Kathianne
08-05-2012, 02:40 PM
Their plan is to never allow us to use our on oil to heal our economic woes which they have had a huge part in engineering for political reasons and greedy corruption too. At least not until after they've destroyed our Constitution and reformed the government into a dictatorial socialist all ruling body. Sounds brutal right? Well its truly is but they know that to make an apple pie the apples have to be sliced and cooked. Whats the harm as long as the end result is attained? This is the type of murdering thinking that communists have used when murdering tens of millions in thier countries so it's not unheard of nor is it any silly conspiracy talk. We are facing people organised worldwide using trillions of dollars and bought out politicians to implement thier agenda! Just as dangerous to our future safety as are WMDS , Islamists terorists or invading armies. Actually more dangerous in my opinion because they are being so manipulative, sneaky and clever about it all IMHO!-:salute:-Tyr

I agree that may well be the intention of the current administration, but they are failing on numerous fronts, including in North Dakota, as my post demonstrates.

Dilloduck
08-05-2012, 05:40 PM
Good job of reiterating what I'd already posted. Appeasement? Hardly. The missiles were removed from Cuba and we removed outdated missiles from Turkey. They were replaced with updated, as I'm certain you know.

Was this incident caused by a young, incompetent president? Yes. However, the reactions to the crisis demonstrated he'd learned, something I wish I could see in the current administration.

OK Ok we can just define what Kennedy as caving in. Russia used their WMDs and Kennedy succumbed to their wishes and threw in a few missles as a bonus.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-05-2012, 06:51 PM
OK Ok we can just define what Kennedy as caving in. Russia used their WMDs and Kennedy succumbed to their wishes and threw in a few missles as a bonus.


Back on topic-Syria's WMDS, which inculde various nerve gas weapons....-Tyrhttp://www.victoryinstitute.net/blogs/utb/2007/08/operation-sarindar/

UNTO THE BREACH Operation Sarindar
The Soviet Plan to Hide Iraq’s WMD
The world was well aware of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. Politicians from both parties admitted that Saddam would not disarm voluntarily, and that military force was the only solution. Intelligence sources estimate that Iraq had 100 million tons of munitions, which is an astonishing 60 percent of our own arsenal. According to the House Armed Service Committee, Saddam himself admitted to possessing thousands of tons of WMD. Since we have not found the “smoking gun” proof of a WMD arsenal, they must have gone somewhere else.

Prior to our liberation of Iraq, it was clear we would not receive any support from Russia. In February of 2003, Russian President Vladmir Putin traveled to Germany and France to align the nations against U.S. military aggression, calling instead for further inspections – the same inspections process that yielded nothing in twelve years. WMD was in the hands of a regime that has already used them in war and even against their own country. What would keep Saddam from selling these weapons to terrorist organizations, putting millions of people worldwide at risk? That should have been enough to put Russia, Germany, and France on our side, but something was apparently going on under the radar. Putin called the attack “unwarranted” and “unjustifiable.” Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov proclaimed that the United States would fabricate findings of WMD stockpiles.

The truth is the Soviet Union supplied Iraq with WMD, in addition to many other countries that were not quite on friendly terms with the West. Since the Soviets supplied these countries with their WMD, they had plans to cover up their tracks if something went wrong. It would not bode well for the USSR if the world knew what it was doing behind the scenes. To combat this, the Soviets would orchestrate an effective Information Operations (IO) campaign. They would deny the West the propaganda victory of finding any weapons stockpiles. Chemical weapons production facilities are disguised as civilian manufacturing plants, making detection difficult. The Soviets even use Western left-wing organizations, such as the World Peace Council, to spread their anti-Western propaganda. The distraction these groups create during an anti-Western protest would draw the world’s attention away from Soviet-sponsored foul play.

Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to defect to the West. He served as chief of the Romanian foreign intelligence agency. He says Romania had a plan to sanitize its Soviet WMD called Operation Sarindar, or Emergency Exit. Pacepa actually carried out this plan for Muammar Qaddhafi in Libya. The only evidence left behind of the Soviet involvement was technical documents stored on microfiche and buried. Once recovered, these documents would show how to quickly rebuild the weapons arsenal.

Pacepa states that Iraq had its own version of Sarindar. In the late 1970′s, General Yevgeny Primakov ran Saddam’s weapons programs. Primakov was friends with Saddam, and made frequent trips to Iraq following 1991. According to Pacepa, Primakov hates Israel and has always championed Arab radicalism. In fact, Primakov (promoted to Prime Minister in 1998) was in Baghdad in December of 2002 until a couple of days before the invasion. Accompanying him were two retired Russian generals: Vladislav Achalov, a former deputy defense minister, and Igor Maltsev, a former air defense chief of staff. Iraq’s remaining military arsenal was no match for the American firepower. Therefore, they would not have been in Iraq as military advisors. Instead, they were implementing Iraq’s version of “Sarindar.”

Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw was responsible for tracking Saddam’s stockpiles both before and after the liberation of Iraq. Shaw received intelligence from British sources on the Iraqi/Syrian border of truck convoys driving into Syria and returning empty in February and March of 2003. American Shaw also learned that steel drums with painted warnings were being transferred to a basement of a Beirut hospital. Shaw believes that WMD that had been stored in flooded bunkers was put on ships at the port of Umm Qasr set sail where the cargo was sunk in the Indian Ocean.

Russian GRU, military, and civilian personnel carried out the mission under the command of the two retired generals Achalov and Maltsev. Over the past five or six years, the generals visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times. The generals were even photographed in Baghdad receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed. Shaw revealed that U.S. intelligence sources knew “the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq’s WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad.” The Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu held a conference in Baku where he detailed the plans for the operation. After his speech, Shoigu headed for Baghdad to help lead the clean up.

Demetrius Perricos is the acting chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). He announced that his team has tracked shipments of WMD materials worldwide. UNMOVIC estimated in 2004 that Iraqis were exporting 1,000 tons of scrap metal daily. Inspectors have found dozens of the banned al-Samoud (SA-2) missile engines in Jordan, Turkey, and the Netherlands, all shipped out as scrap metal.

Inspectors have also located “dual use” technology such as fermenters, freeze-driers, missile parts, distillation columns, and a reactor vessel. For example, a fermenter can be used to manufacture many kinds of medicine, but it can also breed anthrax. There are innocent uses to dual use technology, but inspectors noted that many of the dual use sites they visited previously have been taken apart. If Saddam’s claims of the technology being used for innocent purposes were true, the equipment would most likely still be in operation.

In Rotterdam, a Dutch scrap company discovered five pounds of yellowcake uranium ore from Jordan. Jordanian officials stated the substance originated in Iraq. I wonder what Ambassador Joe Wilson thinks about that!

Jordan, a U.S. ally, seized 20 tons of chemical weapons in a foiled al-Qaeda attack meant to kill 80,000 Jordanians. Seventy different chemicals, including Sarin and VX gas, were confiscated. Jordan claims these weapons came from Syria, who only has a limited capability to manufacture WMD on their own, certainly not the 20 tons that al-Qaeda possessed. Since they couldn’t make it themselves, it had to come from somewhere else. In 2004, American troops were actually attacked by insurgents using Sarin and mustard gas chemical weapons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Iraq had them and Syria got some of them. Now the Russians side with THEIR ALLY Assad because they know he has acccess to those WMDS.-Tyr

gabosaurus
08-05-2012, 06:56 PM
It doesn't matter what kind of weapons that Syria has. Israel undoubtedly has the same weapons. Most likely in larger quantities.
If the U.S. says it will back Israel no matter what, it tells the Israelis that they are free to take any action that they feel is necessary. Whereas if we leave Israel on it own, they will be forced to take a more caution approach.

This is not a struggle that we should intervene in. The U.S. should feel zero obligations to Israel. Particularly with our economic problems. We don't need another rat hole to throw money down.

Dilloduck
08-05-2012, 07:05 PM
Maybe Assad would be willing to part with his WMD's to save his own skin.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-05-2012, 07:09 PM
It doesn't matter what kind of weapons that Syria has.

Really!!!??? Defend that quote without invoking Israel's name! Go ahead and try !
I isolated that little gem of a quote to pinpoint just how damn stupid it is!
So it doesnt matter than various WMDS could fall into the wrong hands incuding some very deadly nerve gases.
That could be used here on American cities with devastating results and tens of thousands deaths!
Go ahead, give it your best shot for those are your words to eat not mine..-Tyr
Why didnt you quote my previous reply about those WMDS and the link I included?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


UNTO THE BREACH Operation Sarindar
The Soviet Plan to Hide Iraq’s WMD
The world was well aware of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. Politicians from both parties admitted that Saddam would not disarm voluntarily, and that military force was the only solution. Intelligence sources estimate that Iraq had 100 million tons of munitions, which is an astonishing 60 percent of our own arsenal. According to the House Armed Service Committee, Saddam himself admitted to possessing thousands of tons of WMD. Since we have not found the “smoking gun” proof of a WMD arsenal, they must have gone somewhere else.

Prior to our liberation of Iraq, it was clear we would not receive any support from Russia. In February of 2003, Russian President Vladmir Putin traveled to Germany and France to align the nations against U.S. military aggression, calling instead for further inspections – the same inspections process that yielded nothing in twelve years. WMD was in the hands of a regime that has already used them in war and even against their own country. What would keep Saddam from selling these weapons to terrorist organizations, putting millions of people worldwide at risk? That should have been enough to put Russia, Germany, and France on our side, but something was apparently going on under the radar. Putin called the attack “unwarranted” and “unjustifiable.” Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov proclaimed that the United States would fabricate findings of WMD stockpiles.

The truth is the Soviet Union supplied Iraq with WMD, in addition to many other countries that were not quite on friendly terms with the West. Since the Soviets supplied these countries with their WMD, they had plans to cover up their tracks if something went wrong. It would not bode well for the USSR if the world knew what it was doing behind the scenes. To combat this, the Soviets would orchestrate an effective Information Operations (IO) campaign. They would deny the West the propaganda victory of finding any weapons stockpiles. Chemical weapons production facilities are disguised as civilian manufacturing plants, making detection difficult. The Soviets even use Western left-wing organizations, such as the World Peace Council, to spread their anti-Western propaganda. The distraction these groups create during an anti-Western protest would draw the world’s attention away from Soviet-sponsored foul play.

Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to defect to the West. He served as chief of the Romanian foreign intelligence agency. He says Romania had a plan to sanitize its Soviet WMD called Operation Sarindar, or Emergency Exit. Pacepa actually carried out this plan for Muammar Qaddhafi in Libya. The only evidence left behind of the Soviet involvement was technical documents stored on microfiche and buried. Once recovered, these documents would show how to quickly rebuild the weapons arsenal.

Pacepa states that Iraq had its own version of Sarindar. In the late 1970′s, General Yevgeny Primakov ran Saddam’s weapons programs. Primakov was friends with Saddam, and made frequent trips to Iraq following 1991. According to Pacepa, Primakov hates Israel and has always championed Arab radicalism. In fact, Primakov (promoted to Prime Minister in 1998) was in Baghdad in December of 2002 until a couple of days before the invasion. Accompanying him were two retired Russian generals: Vladislav Achalov, a former deputy defense minister, and Igor Maltsev, a former air defense chief of staff. Iraq’s remaining military arsenal was no match for the American firepower. Therefore, they would not have been in Iraq as military advisors. Instead, they were implementing Iraq’s version of “Sarindar.”

Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw was responsible for tracking Saddam’s stockpiles both before and after the liberation of Iraq. Shaw received intelligence from British sources on the Iraqi/Syrian border of truck convoys driving into Syria and returning empty in February and March of 2003. American Shaw also learned that steel drums with painted warnings were being transferred to a basement of a Beirut hospital. Shaw believes that WMD that had been stored in flooded bunkers was put on ships at the port of Umm Qasr set sail where the cargo was sunk in the Indian Ocean.

Russian GRU, military, and civilian personnel carried out the mission under the command of the two retired generals Achalov and Maltsev. Over the past five or six years, the generals visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times. The generals were even photographed in Baghdad receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed. Shaw revealed that U.S. intelligence sources knew “the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq’s WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad.” The Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu held a conference in Baku where he detailed the plans for the operation. After his speech, Shoigu headed for Baghdad to help lead the clean up.

Demetrius Perricos is the acting chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). He announced that his team has tracked shipments of WMD materials worldwide. UNMOVIC estimated in 2004 that Iraqis were exporting 1,000 tons of scrap metal daily. Inspectors have found dozens of the banned al-Samoud (SA-2) missile engines in Jordan, Turkey, and the Netherlands, all shipped out as scrap metal.

Inspectors have also located “dual use” technology such as fermenters, freeze-driers, missile parts, distillation columns, and a reactor vessel. For example, a fermenter can be used to manufacture many kinds of medicine, but it can also breed anthrax. There are innocent uses to dual use technology, but inspectors noted that many of the dual use sites they visited previously have been taken apart. If Saddam’s claims of the technology being used for innocent purposes were true, the equipment would most likely still be in operation.

In Rotterdam, a Dutch scrap company discovered five pounds of yellowcake uranium ore from Jordan. Jordanian officials stated the substance originated in Iraq. I wonder what Ambassador Joe Wilson thinks about that!

Jordan, a U.S. ally, seized 20 tons of chemical weapons in a foiled al-Qaeda attack meant to kill 80,000 Jordanians. Seventy different chemicals, including Sarin and VX gas, were confiscated. Jordan claims these weapons came from Syria, who only has a limited capability to manufacture WMD on their own, certainly not the 20 tons that al-Qaeda possessed. Since they couldn’t make it themselves, it had to come from somewhere else. In 2004, American troops were actually attacked by insurgents using Sarin and mustard gas chemical weapons.

jafar00
08-05-2012, 07:36 PM
So it doesnt matter than various WMDS could fall into the wrong hands incuding some very deadly nerve gases.
That could be used here on American cities with devastating results and tens of thousands deaths!


I think you are being a tad paranoid there. The Syrians are too busy fighting for their own lives to be planning to attack you. Not to mention it would take years for them to plan something anyway.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-05-2012, 07:54 PM
I think you are being a tad paranoid there. The Syrians are too busy fighting for their own lives to be planning to attack you. Not to mention it would take years for them to plan something anyway.

Dude , the future is always there and the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorists groups are too.
I'd like for my kids and grandkids to survive and prosper!
To late to cry and moan after the fact.. Preventation is far more important than retaliation after the fact. Risking such serious consequences by hoping for the best is very foolhardy indeed. I say we take the bull by the damn horns to try to insure they do not get the chance to use or even threaten to use such weapons--call that by any name that you like. Doesn't change the fact that it's not only commonsense but also the required path for our National Security.Will obama do it? Does he even care? My best guess is yes he cares! Cares about the muslims winning! --Tyr

Gaffer
08-05-2012, 08:10 PM
Back on topic-Syria's WMDS, which inculde various nerve gas weapons....-Tyrhttp://www.victoryinstitute.net/blogs/utb/2007/08/operation-sarindar/

UNTO THE BREACH Operation Sarindar
The Soviet Plan to Hide Iraq’s WMD
The world was well aware of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. Politicians from both parties admitted that Saddam would not disarm voluntarily, and that military force was the only solution. Intelligence sources estimate that Iraq had 100 million tons of munitions, which is an astonishing 60 percent of our own arsenal. According to the House Armed Service Committee, Saddam himself admitted to possessing thousands of tons of WMD. Since we have not found the “smoking gun” proof of a WMD arsenal, they must have gone somewhere else.

Prior to our liberation of Iraq, it was clear we would not receive any support from Russia. In February of 2003, Russian President Vladmir Putin traveled to Germany and France to align the nations against U.S. military aggression, calling instead for further inspections – the same inspections process that yielded nothing in twelve years. WMD was in the hands of a regime that has already used them in war and even against their own country. What would keep Saddam from selling these weapons to terrorist organizations, putting millions of people worldwide at risk? That should have been enough to put Russia, Germany, and France on our side, but something was apparently going on under the radar. Putin called the attack “unwarranted” and “unjustifiable.” Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov proclaimed that the United States would fabricate findings of WMD stockpiles.

The truth is the Soviet Union supplied Iraq with WMD, in addition to many other countries that were not quite on friendly terms with the West. Since the Soviets supplied these countries with their WMD, they had plans to cover up their tracks if something went wrong. It would not bode well for the USSR if the world knew what it was doing behind the scenes. To combat this, the Soviets would orchestrate an effective Information Operations (IO) campaign. They would deny the West the propaganda victory of finding any weapons stockpiles. Chemical weapons production facilities are disguised as civilian manufacturing plants, making detection difficult. The Soviets even use Western left-wing organizations, such as the World Peace Council, to spread their anti-Western propaganda. The distraction these groups create during an anti-Western protest would draw the world’s attention away from Soviet-sponsored foul play.

Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to defect to the West. He served as chief of the Romanian foreign intelligence agency. He says Romania had a plan to sanitize its Soviet WMD called Operation Sarindar, or Emergency Exit. Pacepa actually carried out this plan for Muammar Qaddhafi in Libya. The only evidence left behind of the Soviet involvement was technical documents stored on microfiche and buried. Once recovered, these documents would show how to quickly rebuild the weapons arsenal.

Pacepa states that Iraq had its own version of Sarindar. In the late 1970′s, General Yevgeny Primakov ran Saddam’s weapons programs. Primakov was friends with Saddam, and made frequent trips to Iraq following 1991. According to Pacepa, Primakov hates Israel and has always championed Arab radicalism. In fact, Primakov (promoted to Prime Minister in 1998) was in Baghdad in December of 2002 until a couple of days before the invasion. Accompanying him were two retired Russian generals: Vladislav Achalov, a former deputy defense minister, and Igor Maltsev, a former air defense chief of staff. Iraq’s remaining military arsenal was no match for the American firepower. Therefore, they would not have been in Iraq as military advisors. Instead, they were implementing Iraq’s version of “Sarindar.”

Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw was responsible for tracking Saddam’s stockpiles both before and after the liberation of Iraq. Shaw received intelligence from British sources on the Iraqi/Syrian border of truck convoys driving into Syria and returning empty in February and March of 2003. American Shaw also learned that steel drums with painted warnings were being transferred to a basement of a Beirut hospital. Shaw believes that WMD that had been stored in flooded bunkers was put on ships at the port of Umm Qasr set sail where the cargo was sunk in the Indian Ocean.

Russian GRU, military, and civilian personnel carried out the mission under the command of the two retired generals Achalov and Maltsev. Over the past five or six years, the generals visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times. The generals were even photographed in Baghdad receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed. Shaw revealed that U.S. intelligence sources knew “the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq’s WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad.” The Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu held a conference in Baku where he detailed the plans for the operation. After his speech, Shoigu headed for Baghdad to help lead the clean up.

Demetrius Perricos is the acting chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). He announced that his team has tracked shipments of WMD materials worldwide. UNMOVIC estimated in 2004 that Iraqis were exporting 1,000 tons of scrap metal daily. Inspectors have found dozens of the banned al-Samoud (SA-2) missile engines in Jordan, Turkey, and the Netherlands, all shipped out as scrap metal.

Inspectors have also located “dual use” technology such as fermenters, freeze-driers, missile parts, distillation columns, and a reactor vessel. For example, a fermenter can be used to manufacture many kinds of medicine, but it can also breed anthrax. There are innocent uses to dual use technology, but inspectors noted that many of the dual use sites they visited previously have been taken apart. If Saddam’s claims of the technology being used for innocent purposes were true, the equipment would most likely still be in operation.

In Rotterdam, a Dutch scrap company discovered five pounds of yellowcake uranium ore from Jordan. Jordanian officials stated the substance originated in Iraq. I wonder what Ambassador Joe Wilson thinks about that!

Jordan, a U.S. ally, seized 20 tons of chemical weapons in a foiled al-Qaeda attack meant to kill 80,000 Jordanians. Seventy different chemicals, including Sarin and VX gas, were confiscated. Jordan claims these weapons came from Syria, who only has a limited capability to manufacture WMD on their own, certainly not the 20 tons that al-Qaeda possessed. Since they couldn’t make it themselves, it had to come from somewhere else. In 2004, American troops were actually attacked by insurgents using Sarin and mustard gas chemical weapons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Iraq had them and Syria got some of them. Now the Russians side with THEIR ALLY Assad because they know he has acccess to those WMDS.-Tyr

This is what I have said for years. Convoy's hauled the stuff into syria where it was sent off to russia or where ever. The russians were behind it, either for political points or to hide their involvement. They supplied saddam with almost all of his military equipment. They are doing the same with iran now.

jafar00
08-06-2012, 06:31 AM
Dude , the future is always there and the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorists groups are too.
I'd like for my kids and grandkids to survive and prosper!
To late to cry and moan after the fact.. Preventation is far more important than retaliation after the fact. Risking such serious consequences by hoping for the best is very foolhardy indeed. I say we take the bull by the damn horns to try to insure they do not get the chance to use or even threaten to use such weapons--call that by any name that you like. Doesn't change the fact that it's not only commonsense but also the required path for our National Security.Will obama do it? Does he even care? My best guess is yes he cares! Cares about the muslims winning! --Tyr

Would you also like every first born male to be sacrificed in your name just in case they grow up to be a terrorist?

revelarts
08-06-2012, 01:54 PM
As I mentioned before we knew all of the players invlved in 9-11 and we knew of the plot it could have been stopped. NONE of the New Tatics of War or airport Security have made us any better off than then. the real need is quality intel and honest politicians that don't use a real problem to promote empire and pump up votes on the fears the people.

Moron alert.

You need to quit reading your kook lefty sites and start thinking for yourself friend.
Its your assertion, prove it.

Don't quote me Wesley Clarke or any other leftwing talking head either.

Be thorough Rev, I'll look forward to it.

I am not defending any administration, I'm just calling you out on your silly assertion.


The White House again Friday denied it had advance knowledge that a Sept. 11-style attack was coming, though it acknowledged it knew Usama bin Laden was bent on attacking the United States.

"The president was aware that bin Laden, of course, as previous administrations have well known, that bin Laden was determined to strike the United States. In fact, the label on the president's (presidential daily briefing) was 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States,'" White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Friday.
Indeed, Fox News has reported many examples of "missed leads" that the Bush administration was given prior to Sept. 11.
Among those examples:

• The Italian government shared "general" information of possible attacks in March 2001 based on bugs in apartments in Milan.

•An Iranian in custody in New York City told local police last May of a plot to attack the World Trade Center.

• German intelligence alerted the Central Intelligence Agency, Britain's MI-6 intelligence service, Israel's Mossad in June 2001 that Middle Eastern terrorists were training for hijackings and targeting American and Israeli interests.

• Pakistanis were taken into custody June 4 in the Cayman Islands after they were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City; they were questioned and released, and the information was forwarded to U.S. intelligence.

• Indian intelligence shared "general" information in July 2001.

• In July and August, British intelligence shared "general" information that it had learned through surveillance of Khalid al-Fawwaz, a Saudi Arabian dissident who has publicly acknowledged being a bin Laden operative. Fawwaz, suspected of participating in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya, was arrested after Sept. 11.

• Based on its own intelligence, the Israeli government provided "general" information to the United States in the second week of August that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent.

• French intelligence echoed the "general" information in the final week of August.

• Russian President Vladimir Putin has said publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the United States last summer that suicide pilots were training for attacks on U.S. targets.

• Millennium bomber Ahmad Ressam testified in closed and open court trials relating to his Dec. 1999 arrest for trying to bring bomb-making materials across the Canadian border that attack plans, including hijackings and attacks on New York City targets, were ongoing.

• An Islamic terrorist conspiracy was uncovered in 1996 in the Philippines to hijack a dozen airplanes and fly them into CIA headquarters and other buildings. Among the discoveries was a plot for a "bojinka" – a big bang. The information was discovered on a computer and noted in the 1997 trial of Ramzi Yousef, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.

• U.S. investigators confirmed in October that a 29-year-old Iranian in custody in Germany's Langenhagen prison last year made phone calls to U.S. police from his deportation cell that an attack on the World Trade Center was imminent in "the days before the attack." The warning was considered the threat of a madman.

• In October, U.S. government officials confirmed that India's intelligence agency had information before the attacks that two Islamist radicals with ties to Usama bin Laden were discussing an attack on the White House. India's information was not provided to U.S. intelligence until Sept. 13.

• In February and April of 2001, the world's most extreme Islamic terror groups held meetings in Beirut and Tehran, respectively, to set aside their differences and unite for jihad (holy war) against Israel and the United States. The two unprecedented meetings had over 400 militants in attendance. They called it "the Jerusalem Conference," aimed at uniting behind the Palestinians and winning total Arab control over Jerusalem. Sources say the group agreed on a document and the creation of an actual organization now known as "the Jerusalem Project." The document included the statement: "The only decisive option to achieve this strategy is the option of jihad in all its forms and resistance … America today is a second Israel."

The participants included leaders of Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror group, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Qatar, Yemen, the Sudan and Algeria. Sources say at least one participant went to the conference from the United States and returned to the country afterward. U.S. intelligence sources have identified two leaders of the Beirut-based Jerusalem Project.
Sources have also told Fox News that the memo from the FBI Phoenix office about Arabs training in U.S. flight schools never reached headquarters because FBI counterterrorism officials were overwhelmed by the bombing of the USS Cole. The memo ended up "sitting on a shelf," according to sources.
The sources also said officials were too overwhelmed with intelligence information to tap Zaccarias Moussaoui, who was taken into custody in August, after a Minnesota flight school reported that the alleged 20th hijacker of Sept.11 was interested in learning how to fly, but not take-off and land.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, experts have predicted that the next worldwide scourge would be terrorism. There are literally dozens of reports, studies and court cases in which hijackings, including those that would end up with crashes into buildings were discussed.....



Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html#ixzz22nBooI46




And if you look up the details of many of those bulleted Items you'll find that they are not so "general" and the Indian warning date is in dispute.

But Add to the Above to the Able danger info and the CIA's own Bin Laden Unit constant monitering and other info not shown here. Including warnings by the state dept days before 9/11 that Binladen was targeting the US..

The U.S. gov't did have enough info to stop the attacks WITHOUT invading countries or checking Granmas underpants.

revelarts
08-06-2012, 02:15 PM
a bit of detail (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence) to go along with the above
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-06-2012, 07:17 PM
Would you also like every first born male to be sacrificed in your name just in case they grow up to be a terrorist?

Only the ones that would grow up to be stupidcide bombers that would just love to murder innocent women and children!
Why, have you found a way to identify such future murdering scum before the deeds?-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-06-2012, 07:21 PM
This is what I have said for years. Convoy's hauled the stuff into syria where it was sent off to russia or where ever. The russians were behind it, either for political points or to hide their involvement. They supplied saddam with almost all of his military equipment. They are doing the same with iran now.

And we were called idiots because we knew more about the subject than our ever so supposedly enlightened critics.
As I've so often said , "Time will tell about the circus and the wishing well." We were right but even now the propagandists still present the damn lies about it all. "ffkk 'em feed 'em fishheads." -Tyr

Drummond
08-07-2012, 08:02 AM
This is what I have said for years. Convoy's hauled the stuff into syria where it was sent off to russia or where ever. The russians were behind it, either for political points or to hide their involvement. They supplied saddam with almost all of his military equipment. They are doing the same with iran now.

This may be of interest ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19160410


Syrian TV has broadcast footage apparently showing President Bashar al-Assad meeting Iran's security chief, the first time he has been seen on state television for several weeks.

His appearance came a day after Prime Minister Riad Hijab defected to the opposition.

Arriving in Damascus, Iran's security chief Saeed Jalili said only a "Syrian solution" would end the crisis.

Iran is President Assad's staunchest regional ally.

Tehran says it is planning an international meeting on Syria on Thursday.

Mr Jalili, who heads Iran's supreme national security council and is considered a senior aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had travelled to Damascus from Lebanon.

He told reporters that "kidnapping innocent people is not acceptable anywhere", Iran's official news agency Irna reported.

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian has said it holds the US responsible for the hostages' safety.

He said the US was supporting "terrorist groups" and despatching weapons to Syria, and was therefore responsible for the lives of those abducted.

It seems to me that the US is going to be accused of interference in the region, whether or not it's actually happening. So .. you might as well have your forces active in the area anyway.

But note the fact of Assad being so friendly with the Iranians. Those who aren't concerned enough about what will happen to Syria's stock of WMD's have NO cause for complacency AT ALL ..

.. particularly considering Iran's role in global terrorism ...

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1217040/1/.html


WASHINGTON: Al-Qaeda affiliates pose a rising threat exploiting poverty and upheavals in the world's most vulnerable regions even as the core network is on the decline, the US State Department warned on Tuesday.

In its Country Reports on Terrorism 2011, the department also branded Iran "the world's leading sponsor of terrorist activity" providing funds and support "for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East."

Both Iran and Al-Qaeda are helping to foment unrest by spreading "violent extremist ideology and rhetoric" in some of the world's most restive regions, the report to Congress maintained.

Drummond
08-07-2012, 08:06 AM
Maybe Assad would be willing to part with his WMD's to save his own skin.

And give them to .. who ?

Still feel like copping out ?

Drummond
08-07-2012, 09:30 AM
I think you are being a tad paranoid there. The Syrians are too busy fighting for their own lives to be planning to attack you. Not to mention it would take years for them to plan something anyway.

They're too busy fighting for their own lives, you say ... yet, as my previous post shows, they're not too busy to take visits from senior Iranian politicians ?

Talking of 'years' ... how many DAYS did it take to set that up ?

Dilloduck
08-07-2012, 09:31 AM
And give them to .. who ?

Still feel like copping out ?

Anyone that you're not afraid of. In fact why don't y'all take em.

jimnyc
08-07-2012, 09:41 AM
Not that anyone will care anymore, at least until we see a mushroom cloud forming, but intel from Israel, the US, Britain, France & Germany state that Iran is further along than thought in making a nuclear weapon. I'm sure this will be discarded as lies and propaganda.


New intelligence information obtained by Israel and four Western countries indicates that Iran has made greater progress on developing components for its nuclear weapons program than the West had previously realized, according to Western diplomats and Israeli officials who are closely involved in efforts to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

A Western diplomat who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to discuss intelligence information said the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Israel agree on that assessment.

According to the source, this assessment began to take shape in February, when Iran refused to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the base at Parchin, where it is believed Iran is carrying out part of the research and development of its military nuclear program. Visits of IAEA inspectors in Iran, and especially revelations of information the Iranians had been trying to hide, intensified suspicions that Tehran was developing nuclear weapons at a faster pace than it had previously seemed.

Last month Britain's Daily Telegraph reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards has established a new team of 60 nuclear scientists to develop Iran's military nuclear program at the Lavizan base near Tehran. In 2006, IAEA inspectors visited that base, which belongs to the Guards' missile development agency.

The Daily Telegraph based its report on information from the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen al-Khalq. Members of the group told the paper that the work of the Iranian scientists in the "weapons group" is at an advanced facility involved warheads and detonators.

An American think tank called the Institute for Science and International Security released a satellite photo of the Parchin base showing, according to Western intelligence, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons there. Taken on July 25 and released on August 1, the picture shows that the Iranians have completed what the American think tank called "cleanup" of the site where the base was.

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/new-intelligence-reveals-iranian-military-nuclear-program-advancing-faster-than-previously-thought.premium-1.456426?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.217%2C

Dilloduck
08-07-2012, 09:49 AM
If Israel really needs US permission to defend themselves against their fears, I say give it too them.

jimnyc
08-07-2012, 09:54 AM
If Israel really needs US permission to defend themselves against their fears, I say give it too them.

I think they would like it, but I don't think they necessarily need it. The US has been trying to hold them off, as Israel has been talking about preventing Iran from doing anything for quite some time now. "IF" they are going to do anything, I think they'll end up doing so with or without the US publicly backing them.

Gaffer
08-07-2012, 10:03 AM
When things first got started in syria iran sent help to assad in the form of hexbo riot control forces. The same ones used to put down the riots in iran. That's why so many went over to the rebel cause,including many of the military.

Syria has been a puppet of iran for at least 10 years and iran doesn't want to lose control. The only way to defeat assad and iran is an outside force.

Iran doesn't invade other countries, they usurp power from within. Much like the old soviet strategies.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-07-2012, 10:05 AM
If Israel really needs US permission to defend themselves against their fears, I say give it too them.

Actually Israel needs obama to stop threatening them about thier taking any actions against Iran.
Of course boy wonder , magnificent dictator will not do that. He will continue to shaft our allies and reward our enemies as he has been doing all along. Israel if it can wait until afterthe coming election should do that IMHO.
For obama is just as likely to attack them as is thier enemies ! We have an egotistical madman as our president.-Tyr

Dilloduck
08-07-2012, 10:15 AM
The uglin
ess of the messenger should not detract from the truth of the message. And what Russia is saying about Syria may be self-serving and amoral, but fundamentally true: that Syria was no more oppressive than Bahrain, Jordan or Saudi Arabia; that the increased instability and sectarian violence unleashed by removing Assad would outweigh any potential gains from overthrowing a dictator; that the incoherent, volatile ranks of the rebels teem with al-Qaeda militants who will not easily put down their arms; and most importantly, that hawks in the United States and Israel consider regime change in Damascus to be a mere prelude to the real showdown -- with Iran.
more--
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=53759

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-08-2012, 07:13 PM
This is what I have said for years. Convoy's hauled the stuff into syria where it was sent off to russia or where ever. The russians were behind it, either for political points or to hide their involvement. They supplied saddam with almost all of his military equipment. They are doing the same with iran now.


When we went into Iraq - it was because the entire world knew (not just guessed) that Hussein had WMD - programs for developing them and stockpiles. Show me one piece of intelligence before the war that hinted that there was any doubt whatsover.

When we went into Middle east the first time - to liberate Kuwait, Hussein had WMD - some hidden, but not completely with the detail the Sarindar protocol engendered. We didn't go all the way to oust Saddam that time, and The UN took over vetting Iraq and its WMD. Their reports said that he still had them and must destroy them. After a decade, the UN said Iraq had not done so. Before 911, the UN had said he was a major provider of war materiel to terrorists. After 911 we were talked into 9 months of diplomacy before going in. During that time we were hit by an anthrax attack over the mail - and the UN had records that Hussein was the likely culprit. After the sanctions failed because Germany, Russia, and France (who were providers of the WMD programs to Iraq) took payoffs in the food for oil scam and blocked serious action, the Allied world banded together to go in.

It was long after the Congress and Senate gave near-unanimous authority to attack, that the British, Israelis, and fifteen other Intel services verified all the facts. Hussein had WMD and would use them on any Allied forces if they attacked him. The Democrats made a big deal about tens of thousands of body bags needed before the invasion started. There was no Bush-led conspiracy.

During those nine months, those same intel agencies noted the Russian Generals were involved with major movement all over Iraq and Syria. Our own satellite cameras documented Russian and Iraqi security forces escorting truck caravans into Syria. Just before the invasion, these Generals were honored by the Iraqis and given medals. Pacepa just explained what was the standard operating procedures.

Remember that part of Sarindar was the ability to reconstruct the WMS program after the stockpiles had been hidden or deep-sixed. Not only did we find stockpiles of WMD that were not yet removed, we uncovered the programs, themselves, that had been hidden away. The media covered some of the discoveries of stockpiles - but minimized them as not the entire stockpile.

After we had removed Saddam and secured Iraq - we went around blowing up stockpiles of weaponry, chemicals, and explosives.

... Yes, there was an attempt to assassinate Bush 41 that was thwarted. However; that was never tied to the government - although it were the prime suspect. Going into Iraq was not caused by the assassination attempt, but it surely fired up some people.

These things were not guesstimates or conspiracy theory - it was the history of the times.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-19-2012, 06:08 PM
The left and naysayers declared after the 2003's invasion that US forces found only fertilizer as the only "WMD" they could find. When the truth is :

The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions in 2004. They found chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles, successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors. True some of the missiles were old, but they had not been destroyed as ordered, and their destruction had not been documented per the cease-fire agreements. Remember, Saddam sued for peace and signed concessions he was then sworn to follow for the war not to ramp up again. He didn't follow his pledged word and flaunted it.

Does anybody here remember the villagers who became ill with radiation sickness from using old barrels from a "cleansed" site? The barrels were just barrels to hold rainwater - but they killed the people contaminated. No paperwork showed what was stored there and it was never documented to the UN weapons inspectors.

Douglas Hanson was a U.S. Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and a veteran of Gulf War I. He was an atomic demolitions munitions security officer and a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer. As a civilian analyst in Iraq ..., he worked for an operations intelligence unit of the CPA in Iraq, and later, with the newly formed Ministry of Science and Technology, which was responsible for finding new, nonlethal employment for Iraqi WMD scientists.

The materials that constitute Saddam's chemical-weapons "stockpiles" look an awful lot like pesticides, which they indeed resemble.
"Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena," Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of modern-day nerve agents."

The United Nations was fully aware that Saddam had established his chemical-weapons plants under the guise of a permitted civilian chemical-industry infrastructure. Plants inspected in the early 1990s as CW production facilities had been set up to appear as if they were producing pesticides, or in the case of a giant plant near Fallujah, chlorine, which is used to produce mustard gas.

When coalition forces entered Iraq, "huge warehouses and caches of 'commercial and agricultural' chemicals were seized and painstakingly tested by Army and Marine chemical specialists," Hanson writes. "What was surprising was how quickly the ISG refuted the findings of our ground forces and how silent they have been on the significance of these caches."

Caches of "commercial and agricultural" chemicals don't match the expectation of "stockpiles" of chemical weapons. But, in fact, that is precisely what they are. "At a very minimum," Hanson said, "they were storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare program very quickly."

Kay and Duelfer came to a similar conclusion, telling Congress under oath that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment's notice. At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large "agricultural supply" area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex" that was shown to reporters -- with unpleasant results.

"More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent," Hanson says. "But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into nonexistence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural-commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers 6 feet underground. The 'agricultural site' was also colocated with a military ammunition dump -- evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG."

That wasn't the only significant find by coalition troops of probable CW stockpiles, Hanson believes. Near the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin -- a nerve agent.

Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site.

"Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.'"
Bally-ho and toss another steak on the grill. Any excuse/lie is a good one if it serves the purpose of giving aid to support a very useful and far greater lie! One that also serves to cover up the transfer of WMD's to other location, namely Syria! -Tyr

Dilloduck
08-19-2012, 06:36 PM
hey---we coud pretend that if we blew Syria all to hell that no one would care.

jimnyc
08-19-2012, 06:46 PM
The left and naysayers declared after the 2003's invasion that US forces found only fertilizer as the only "WMD" they could find. When the truth is :

The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions in 2004. They found chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles, successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors. True some of the missiles were old, but they had not been destroyed as ordered, and their destruction had not been documented per the cease-fire agreements. Remember, Saddam sued for peace and signed concessions he was then sworn to follow for the war not to ramp up again. He didn't follow his pledged word and flaunted it.

Does anybody here remember the villagers who became ill with radiation sickness from using old barrels from a "cleansed" site? The barrels were just barrels to hold rainwater - but they killed the people contaminated. No paperwork showed what was stored there and it was never documented to the UN weapons inspectors.

Douglas Hanson was a U.S. Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and a veteran of Gulf War I. He was an atomic demolitions munitions security officer and a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer. As a civilian analyst in Iraq ..., he worked for an operations intelligence unit of the CPA in Iraq, and later, with the newly formed Ministry of Science and Technology, which was responsible for finding new, nonlethal employment for Iraqi WMD scientists.

The materials that constitute Saddam's chemical-weapons "stockpiles" look an awful lot like pesticides, which they indeed resemble.
"Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena," Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of modern-day nerve agents."

Did you write this, Tyr? And if not, can you provide a link? And if not, please remember in the future to reduce the amount you publish on our side, maybe a handful of paragraphs, or even scattered paragraphs to get the gist across, but this much cut from elsewhere, if it is, puts the site at copyright violation risks. Not being a dick, just being cautious! :beer:

jimnyc
08-19-2012, 06:47 PM
hey---we coud pretend that if we blew Syria all to hell that no one would care.

They're doing it to themselves right now and no one seems to care.

Dilloduck
08-19-2012, 06:50 PM
I don't think anyone else wants to waste the money or the manpower.

jimnyc
08-19-2012, 06:55 PM
I don't think anyone else wants to waste the money or the manpower.

I just think someone, and not even saying the US, should send in some sort of special forces and just take out Assad. I think if he was gone that those underneath him would make different choices. This is what happens when you let a dictator accumulate $122 billion dollars of wealth! I won't lose any sleep when he meets his end like Gaddafi, or Saddam. They should tell any special op group that takes him out gets half of his wealth. At least I know Assad will be out of the picture by the end of the week.

Dilloduck
08-19-2012, 07:00 PM
I just think someone, and not even saying the US, should send in some sort of special forces and just take out Assad. I think if he was gone that those underneath him would make different choices. This is what happens when you let a dictator accumulate $122 billion dollars of wealth! I won't lose any sleep when he meets his end like Gaddafi, or Saddam. They should tell any special op group that takes him out gets half of his wealth. At least I know Assad will be out of the picture by the end of the week.

If his death would solve anything I'd be all for it but I fear the next regime won't be much better. It's the mideast---nothing ever gets better over there.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-20-2012, 10:17 AM
I just think someone, and not even saying the US, should send in some sort of special forces and just take out Assad. I think if he was gone that those underneath him would make different choices. This is what happens when you let a dictator accumulate $122 billion dollars of wealth! I won't lose any sleep when he meets his end like Gaddafi, or Saddam. They should tell any special op group that takes him out gets half of his wealth. At least I know Assad will be out of the picture by the end of the week.

"get half his wealth", that SOB would be dead in less than 24 hours! Hell, you'd be lucky if a few dozen nations didnt send whole divisions over there for that bounty! For 61 billon , I'd hire a private plane, go there with a crew to hunt tha bustard myself!-;)-Tyr

Gadget (fmr Marine)
08-29-2012, 05:27 PM
So, there is now word that Syria had WMDs from Iraq...and this is news?

Seems I mentioned something like this a long time ago....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?13007-Cheney-does-it-again&p=220473#post220473

How about from 2004? http://www.usmessageboard.com/142095-post5.html

Maybe the shelf life for all the idiots proclaiming our then POTUS a warmonger has past....and that there will be no apologies for all the bashing....its OK, the truth speaks for itself......

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-29-2012, 08:28 PM
So, there is now word that Syria had WMDs from Iraq...and this is news?

Seems I mentioned something like this a long time ago....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?13007-Cheney-does-it-again&p=220473#post220473

How about from 2004? http://www.usmessageboard.com/142095-post5.html

Maybe the shelf life for all the idiots proclaiming our then POTUS a warmonger has past....and that there will be no apologies for all the bashing....its OK, the truth speaks for itself......

It is news still because the deniers still deny it. They also cry war for oil! To which I say, where is the damn oil!??We sure didnt get it! And we are the ones that paid the costs but Iraq made oil deals with others. Liberals are lying jackasses that never admit their ignorance..-Tyr

jafar00
08-30-2012, 06:41 AM
If his death would solve anything I'd be all for it but I fear the next regime won't be much better. It's the mideast---nothing ever gets better over there.

I half agree. I saw Egypt get worse before it got better, and after spending 3 weeks there I saw some things improving and a lot of people with hope for a better future which they didn't have before. Being poor but free to be able to elect your President is far better than being poor and living under the iron fist of a tyrant.


It is news still because the deniers still deny it. They also cry war for oil! To which I say, where is the damn oil!??We sure didnt get it! And we are the ones that paid the costs but Iraq made oil deals with others. Liberals are lying jackasses that never admit their ignorance..-Tyr

You still got the oil. Saddam nationalised it which didn't go down too well. Now it's in the hands of foreign petrochemical companies.

jimnyc
08-30-2012, 07:07 AM
You still got the oil. Saddam nationalised it which didn't go down too well. Now it's in the hands of foreign petrochemical companies.

In another thread you hinted at the fact that we got involved in Libya because of oil, and then mentioned Syria. I asked you to make these connections, with some proof/evidence, and I never got a response from you. Many people over the years have stated this crap about wars for oil, and yet we continue to have issue in the US because of oil prices and stockpiles. I don't see the connection, so I'll ask again. Can you provide more than rhetoric to show that the US is receiving oil, stealing oil or anything like that? I believe the US has an interest in protecting places that have oil stockpiles, but that's about it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-30-2012, 08:42 AM
I half agree. I saw Egypt get worse before it got better, and after spending 3 weeks there I saw some things improving and a lot of people with hope for a better future which they didn't have before. Being poor but free to be able to elect your President is far better than being poor and living under the iron fist of a tyrant.




You still got the oil. Saddam nationalised it which didn't go down too well. Now it's in the hands of foreign petrochemical companies.

Somebody bought it yes. But we didnt get it as "spoils of war" . That was the claim made by "idiots" here and encouraged by our muslim enemies everywhere. I pay a bit over $4.00 a gallon here now, before the Iraq war I paid less than $1.55= we didnt get any "spoils"!! We paid a damn high price in American lives lost, destroyed(injured military men and women) and billions spent but no material rewards. You can shove that shat where the Sun dont shine pedro..-Tyr