*You can Bomb the World to Pieces, But you can't Bomb into Peace*...Michael Franti
Why is it that it's ok for Israel to have nuclear weapons and NOT Iran. I'd rather see Iran with nuclear weapons than Israel. There is NO circumstance for military action against Iran at this time.
Peace
Israel already has nukes but only in a gravely fucked up world the solution would be thinking : "well since Israel has nukes, it's okay for Iran to have some too". The UN should bully Israel into giving up it's nuclear program (I know, this isn't close to happening), but the UN should also not allow another country in the region to acquire nukes.
Unfortunately the UN has no power, and everyone is mixing up everything without thinking clearly as too why in such a small and explosive region having 4 countries with nuclear power and overly powerful religious parties is stupid.
How about US warships off the coast off....all over the place.
Here is an example of how to mix up stuff. To the answer "and Iranian warship in californian waters would be justification enough for me for military action against Iran", you start ranting about the US warships around the world. What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that since the US is putting ships everywhere the white house should give the permission to all countries to put ships around the US coasts? Arguably the answer and the question don't mean much, but this type of thought "well since the US and Israel suck, it's justified other countries start doing shitty stuff as well" doesn't help at all.
Another slimy item: When Bush1 launched Desert Storm there were all these reports of the Iraqi soldiers going into Kuwaiti hospitals and throwing babies out of incubators and onto the cold floor. Then this young Kuwaiti girl said she was there, in the hospital. and saw the whole thing.
It was later discovered that she was the daughter of the Kuwait Ambassador to US. It had been arranged by Rep.Tom Lantos (D) CA and a PR firm in DC. Now although Lantos was the Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee and many other powerful commitees, he was first and foremost a Jewish concentration camp survivor and therfore untouchable!! Not only that he was treated as the last word on all foreign relations because he was a kid in a German concentration camp!!
You just can't believe anything from these people. He was huge supporter of Iraq war against Iran and thought Saddam should be given all support needed so that thru the war it would contain the fast growing population of Iran!!
What a peach. He gave up his seat when he died a few years ago.
yeah, I read that in 'Weapons of Mass DEception'
some ppl still swear it's true even though there's no record of it other than that girl's statement
'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
some ppl still swear it's true even though there's no record of it other than that girl's statement
but why would she lie? why would she say she saw something she didnt see? cause as you know children NEVER EVER lie. theyre too innocent to be deceptive :rolleyes:
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
How about US warships off the coast off....all over the place.
Here is an example of how to mix up stuff. To the answer "and Iranian warship in californian waters would be justification enough for me for military action against Iran", you start ranting about the US warships around the world. What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that since the US is putting ships everywhere the white house should give the permission to all countries to put ships around the US coasts? Arguably the answer and the question don't mean much, but this type of thought "well since the US and Israel suck, it's justified other countries start doing shitty stuff as well" doesn't help at all.
I said this?
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Israel already has nukes but only in a gravely fucked up world the solution would be thinking : "well since Israel has nukes, it's okay for Iran to have some too". The UN should bully Israel into giving up it's nuclear program (I know, this isn't close to happening), but the UN should also not allow another country in the region to acquire nukes.
Unfortunately the UN has no power, and everyone is mixing up everything without thinking clearly as too why in such a small and explosive region having 4 countries with nuclear power and overly powerful religious parties is stupid.
Here is an example of how to mix up stuff. To the answer "and Iranian warship in californian waters would be justification enough for me for military action against Iran", you start ranting about the US warships around the world. What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that since the US is putting ships everywhere the white house should give the permission to all countries to put ships around the US coasts? Arguably the answer and the question don't mean much, but this type of thought "well since the US and Israel suck, it's justified other countries start doing shitty stuff as well" doesn't help at all.
I bdidn't take the op of that quote as saying it would justify another country doing it.
I saw it more as him saying 'if an Iranian warship off our coast is enough for war why do we have warships off lots of other people's coasts?' or something like that
that's how I took it, anyway
'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
I'm waiting for people to learn that military action results in more violence, not less.
We could use Iraq as an example, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, or the bombing of Yugoslavia, or any number of acts around the world.
It just seems to me that a terrorist attack against the US serves US purposes so perfectly that terrorists wouldn't be involved on their own. Sure they could be responsible directly for an attack, but it does nothing for their cause, whatever it might be. and a person is smart, they have to realize that provoking a military response from the most powerful military in the world is probably the last thing on their agenda.
which leads me to believe their is no such thing as al-qaeda, no such thing as in an international group of terrorists controlling terror cells around the world. Its ridiculous. Sometimes a specific direct act of violence is needed to solve a particular problem, but indiscriminate violence like we've seen in India this past week doesn't seem to fit that.
these terrorist acts seem to only encourage more violence, something these terrorists must understand. Sure In some cases there may seem to be no alternative, but if there is a MAJOR terrorist attack against any western country I will be very suspicious as to who is behind it. I am suspicious of the attacks in India as it is...a major attack on US soil>? would make me wonder who is really pulling the strings.
No you didn't, sorry, I forgot to add the name of the poster I quoted. Your post is only the first part of the post. (in case you didn't remember what you posted? )
I bdidn't take the op of that quote as saying it would justify another country doing it.
I saw it more as him saying 'if an Iranian warship off our coast is enough for war why do we have warships off lots of other people's coasts?' or something like that
that's how I took it, anyway
Then I guess I don't really understand that post. I don't think anyone meant that having US warships everywhere is good, and I don't think having Iranian warships next to california is good. It's like with the nukes, I doubt proliferation is the way to go.
edit : maybe I'm not clear, but what I really mean is I'm pissed of at Iran, Israel, the US for escalading violence like they don't really care that the rest of the world lies between them.
I'm waiting for people to learn that military action results in more violence, not less.
We could use Iraq as an example, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, or the bombing of Yugoslavia, or any number of acts around the world.
It just seems to me that a terrorist attack against the US serves US purposes so perfectly that terrorists wouldn't be involved on their own. Sure they could be responsible directly for an attack, but it does nothing for their cause, whatever it might be. and a person is smart, they have to realize that provoking a military response from the most powerful military in the world is probably the last thing on their agenda.
which leads me to believe their is no such thing as al-qaeda, no such thing as in an international group of terrorists controlling terror cells around the world. Its ridiculous. Sometimes a specific direct act of violence is needed to solve a particular problem, but indiscriminate violence like we've seen in India this past week doesn't seem to fit that.
these terrorist acts seem to only encourage more violence, something these terrorists must understand. Sure In some cases there may seem to be no alternative, but if there is a MAJOR terrorist attack against any western country I will be very suspicious as to who is behind it. I am suspicious of the attacks in India as it is...a major attack on US soil>? would make me wonder who is really pulling the strings.
Since the US seem to care about terrorists only since 9/11, what do you make of other terrorist attacks in other countries before 9/11 - keeping in mind the attacks I'm talking about did not create any war or military response (only judicial ones)?
Since the US seem to care about terrorists only since 9/11, what do you make of other terrorist attacks in other countries before 9/11 - keeping in mind the attacks I'm talking about did not create any war or military response (only judicial ones)?
I'm not sure if that's true. Look at terrorist attacks pre 9/11 and see who is responsible. In the case of the Sandanistas/Contras, the US congress passed bills directly funding one of the most brutal terrorist organization in history, the Contras. When word got out about them hitting soft targets (schools, churches, hospitals) Congress cut funding, only to see black ops funding continue through arms sales to Iran. They were one of the first truly guerilla operations to have literally 0 support from the indigineous population. And the death toll was in the tens of thousands, only to be later blamed on the Sandanistas. That's one case of terrorism pre 9/11.
Or you can look at the terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, again directly funded by the US. The goal was to get Russia involved in its own Vietnam, when they invaded Afghanistan. They set up a network where foreign radical fundamentalists were imported into the country to fight the Russians, also distributed tens of thousands of textbooks teaching school children the more radical side of Islam. It worked politically, but the human cost was immeasurable, still being felt today. Afghanistan has been in a constant state of war for over 30 years as a result of these policies.
Or you can look at homegrown terrorism, as in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing. Timothy McVeigh and the US government were both responsible for terrorism in this case, as both took human life to send a message.
Terrorism pre 9/11 was very active, around the world and at home, and in many cases the roots of the terrorist acts can be traced back to either direct funding on the part of the US government, or to direct action on their part. To say the US didn't care about terrorism pre 9/11 is a mistake. On the contrary, they were actively participating in it.
I bdidn't take the op of that quote as saying it would justify another country doing it.
I saw it more as him saying 'if an Iranian warship off our coast is enough for war why do we have warships off lots of other people's coasts?' or something like that
that's how I took it, anyway
its a hypocritical stance. those who say an iranian ship off the US coast is enough ignore the fact that the presence of US warships off the coast of so called hostile nations is tantamount to the same thing. yet somehow the US is spreading freedom and keeping the peace.
i would think the ring of security would be more efficient closer to my borders. that way there is theoretically less room for hostiles to slip under the radar so to speak. trying to secure your nation from thousands of miles away is like trying to burglar proof your home by ringing the city or town you live in with a fence or strategically placed cops. there is always a way. and the scope for such breaches is greater the larger the secrity cordon. imo.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
Unfortunately the UN has no power, and everyone is mixing up everything without thinking clearly as too why in such a small and explosive region having 4 countries with nuclear power and overly powerful religious parties is stupid.
Here is an example of how to mix up stuff. To the answer "and Iranian warship in californian waters would be justification enough for me for military action against Iran", you start ranting about the US warships around the world. What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that since the US is putting ships everywhere the white house should give the permission to all countries to put ships around the US coasts? Arguably the answer and the question don't mean much, but this type of thought "well since the US and Israel suck, it's justified other countries start doing shitty stuff as well" doesn't help at all.
yeah, I read that in 'Weapons of Mass DEception'
some ppl still swear it's true even though there's no record of it other than that girl's statement
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
Don't forget Colin Powell's first lie about the buildup of Iraqi troops at the border of Kuwait, proven false.
grr.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
but why would she lie? why would she say she saw something she didnt see? cause as you know children NEVER EVER lie. theyre too innocent to be deceptive :rolleyes:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I said this?
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I bdidn't take the op of that quote as saying it would justify another country doing it.
I saw it more as him saying 'if an Iranian warship off our coast is enough for war why do we have warships off lots of other people's coasts?' or something like that
that's how I took it, anyway
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
We could use Iraq as an example, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, or the bombing of Yugoslavia, or any number of acts around the world.
It just seems to me that a terrorist attack against the US serves US purposes so perfectly that terrorists wouldn't be involved on their own. Sure they could be responsible directly for an attack, but it does nothing for their cause, whatever it might be. and a person is smart, they have to realize that provoking a military response from the most powerful military in the world is probably the last thing on their agenda.
which leads me to believe their is no such thing as al-qaeda, no such thing as in an international group of terrorists controlling terror cells around the world. Its ridiculous. Sometimes a specific direct act of violence is needed to solve a particular problem, but indiscriminate violence like we've seen in India this past week doesn't seem to fit that.
these terrorist acts seem to only encourage more violence, something these terrorists must understand. Sure In some cases there may seem to be no alternative, but if there is a MAJOR terrorist attack against any western country I will be very suspicious as to who is behind it. I am suspicious of the attacks in India as it is...a major attack on US soil>? would make me wonder who is really pulling the strings.
Then I guess I don't really understand that post. I don't think anyone meant that having US warships everywhere is good, and I don't think having Iranian warships next to california is good. It's like with the nukes, I doubt proliferation is the way to go.
edit : maybe I'm not clear, but what I really mean is I'm pissed of at Iran, Israel, the US for escalading violence like they don't really care that the rest of the world lies between them.
Since the US seem to care about terrorists only since 9/11, what do you make of other terrorist attacks in other countries before 9/11 - keeping in mind the attacks I'm talking about did not create any war or military response (only judicial ones)?
Or you can look at the terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, again directly funded by the US. The goal was to get Russia involved in its own Vietnam, when they invaded Afghanistan. They set up a network where foreign radical fundamentalists were imported into the country to fight the Russians, also distributed tens of thousands of textbooks teaching school children the more radical side of Islam. It worked politically, but the human cost was immeasurable, still being felt today. Afghanistan has been in a constant state of war for over 30 years as a result of these policies.
Or you can look at homegrown terrorism, as in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing. Timothy McVeigh and the US government were both responsible for terrorism in this case, as both took human life to send a message.
Terrorism pre 9/11 was very active, around the world and at home, and in many cases the roots of the terrorist acts can be traced back to either direct funding on the part of the US government, or to direct action on their part. To say the US didn't care about terrorism pre 9/11 is a mistake. On the contrary, they were actively participating in it.
its a hypocritical stance. those who say an iranian ship off the US coast is enough ignore the fact that the presence of US warships off the coast of so called hostile nations is tantamount to the same thing. yet somehow the US is spreading freedom and keeping the peace.
i would think the ring of security would be more efficient closer to my borders. that way there is theoretically less room for hostiles to slip under the radar so to speak. trying to secure your nation from thousands of miles away is like trying to burglar proof your home by ringing the city or town you live in with a fence or strategically placed cops. there is always a way. and the scope for such breaches is greater the larger the secrity cordon. imo.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say