Putin attacks 'dangerous' U.S

Last Exodus · February 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

sources?

this information can also be found in....books

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/Nuclear/index.html

Last Exodus · February 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

you don't know who it is? look up, he's the one you quoted in that reply.

if the original post is what you meant to reply to then replace pearl jam and toast's name w/ byrnzie...how did anything he said even remotely refelct he thought of putin as his 'fearless leader'??? this is impossible as his original post was nothing more than an article...where does this 'fearless leader' fantasy come into play?

the implication of the post was that Putin was a credible and honest check on American power. what else could he have been implying?

Last Exodus · February 2007

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/04/4a183e57-5ac6-4e4b-ab6e-f9ce326e0a90.html

El_Kabong · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

this information can also be found in....books

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/Nuclear/index.html

hmmm interesting, thanks.

but it also says:
but U.S. policies determined the way in which Israel acquired the bomb. Israel developed the bomb opaquely, in a manner that avoided defying U.S. nonproliferation policies. A policy of ambiguity was born.

linked to the first sale of Phantom aircraft to Israel—Israel told the United States that, given its unique security needs, it could not sign the NPT at the present time. President Johnson ultimately approved the Phantom deal without linking it to Israeli concession on the NPT issue.

Less than one year later, in September 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir reached a secret agreement with President Richard Nixon on the Israeli nuclear issue. Meir explained to Nixon why Israel had been compelled to develop a nuclear capability, why it could not sign the NPT, but also stated that Israel would not become a declared nuclear power. That meant, operationally, that Israel would not test nuclear devices, would not declare itself a NWS, and would not use its nuclear status capability for diplomatic gains—but keeps its bomb "in the basement." While Israel would not join the NPT, it would not defy it either.

not only that but it starts off by saying:
'Consequently, only fragmentary bits and pieces of information on the topic have ever been published, and most commonly only in the form of unconfirmed press reports by the non-Israeli press. Thus, the historical narrative offered here is sketchy and incomplete. Its main source for the period up to 1970 is Avner Cohen's book Israel and the Bomb, while for the more recent period, it is based on various non-Israeli reports and publications (all unconfirmed)'

the french may not be the biggest, but they do sell an awful lot of weapons around the world...

Last Exodus wrote:

the implication of the post was that Putin was a credible and honest check on American power. what else could he have been implying?

lots of things come to mind, none of them would be that he's his 'fearless leader'...of course it's the pot calling the kettle black, does is make it any less true? if there is something of substance you dispute then out w/ it. is he any less honest and credible than the majority of major politicians?

El_Kabong · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/04/4a183e57-5ac6-4e4b-ab6e-f9ce326e0a90.html

isn't ironic that you are using the fact that they are a big arms dealer to discredit something about the world's BIGGEST arms dealer

RolandTD20Kdrummer · February 2007

weapons, weapons and more weapons....

Since unleashing the nuke, it's seems like it's all about being able to make the best and most advanced weapons and anti weapons imaginable each and every day.

I wonder how much more is spent on military rather than trying to find a cure for cancer for example...

Pearl Jam and toast · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

See through it. Russia's primary export is war. They love the shit. Where do you think all these little terrorist regimes get their AK's from? Sure some of them are cheap knock offs made in China, but the AK is Russian. The Katyusha...Russian. Migs....Russian. Iranian Nuclear Plant....Russian. Before they struck oil the ONLY commodity Russia had to export was weapons. So war is good for the Russian economy. And what better to make the terrorist regimes buy more Russian weapons than some good old Cold War rhetoric. Ain't buyin it. It's just business. Putin could care less what George W does. He only helps him sell more weapons and nuclearize more unstable countries...So Putin is your fearless leader now...Cmon. Look I dont have a problem with communists, but those on the board who lean that way and post this crap, just come out of your commie closet..We'll still love ya.

El kabong said it better than I could so I'll just point to his responses to answer this.

angelica · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

the implication of the post was that Putin was a credible and honest check on American power. what else could he have been implying?

It sounds like you are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Someone can be awful, have an agenda, hidden or otherwise, or even be clinically insane. And yet what they say can still be truthful, partially or otherwise, despite all of the above. This is where the discernment of information is necessary. Do you think there is any degree of truth to what Putin has said, despite the agendaed nature underlying what was said?

miller8966 · February 2007

angelica wrote:

It sounds like you are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Someone can be awful, have an agenda, hidden or otherwise, or even be clinically insane. And yet what they say can still be truthful, partially or otherwise, despite all of the above. This is where the discernment of information is necessary. Do you think there is any degree of truth to what Putin has said, despite the agendaed nature underlying what was said?

Sure there is a degree of truth.

But Mr.Putin how is Chechnya doing?

angelica · February 2007

miller8966 wrote:

Sure there is a degree of truth.

But Mr.Putin how is Chechnya doing?

Is this your way of glossing over the accountability your country has for its own actions?

Last Exodus · February 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

hmmm interesting, thanks.

but it also says:
but U.S. policies determined the way in which Israel acquired the bomb. Israel developed the bomb opaquely, in a manner that avoided defying U.S. nonproliferation policies. A policy of ambiguity was born.

linked to the first sale of Phantom aircraft to Israel—Israel told the United States that, given its unique security needs, it could not sign the NPT at the present time. President Johnson ultimately approved the Phantom deal without linking it to Israeli concession on the NPT issue.

Less than one year later, in September 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir reached a secret agreement with President Richard Nixon on the Israeli nuclear issue. Meir explained to Nixon why Israel had been compelled to develop a nuclear capability, why it could not sign the NPT, but also stated that Israel would not become a declared nuclear power. That meant, operationally, that Israel would not test nuclear devices, would not declare itself a NWS, and would not use its nuclear status capability for diplomatic gains—but keeps its bomb "in the basement." While Israel would not join the NPT, it would not defy it either.

not only that but it starts off by saying:
'Consequently, only fragmentary bits and pieces of information on the topic have ever been published, and most commonly only in the form of unconfirmed press reports by the non-Israeli press. Thus, the historical narrative offered here is sketchy and incomplete. Its main source for the period up to 1970 is Avner Cohen's book Israel and the Bomb, while for the more recent period, it is based on various non-Israeli reports and publications (all unconfirmed)'

the french may not be the biggest, but they do sell an awful lot of weapons around the world...

lots of things come to mind, none of them would be that he's his 'fearless leader'...of course it's the pot calling the kettle black, does is make it any less true? if there is something of substance you dispute then out w/ it. is he any less honest and credible than the majority of major politicians?

i read the articles. i posted it for your education because you were clueless about the french connection to nuclear proliferation....along wih your friends the russians.....personally i dont worry about a nuclear israel anymore than i worry about a nuclear france or a nuclear britain.

Last Exodus · February 2007

angelica wrote:

Is this your way of glossing over the accountability your country has for its own actions?

were just calling a spade a spade. criticism of our countries situation coming from the likes of putin is a bit of a joke...

angelica · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

were just calling a spade a spade. criticism of our countries situation coming from the likes of putin is a bit of a joke...

I understand what you're saying. Being realistic, though, there is also the element of your own country's actions that stand on their own, and that your country will be held to account for.

Last Exodus · February 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

isn't ironic that you are using the fact that they are a big arms dealer to discredit something about the world's BIGGEST arms dealer

never said we weren't. simply aritculating what Putins motives may be in stirring the pot. He wants to be the BIGGEST arms dealer..Do you think your bold letters make your points anymore credible?

Last Exodus · February 2007

angelica wrote:

I understand what you're saying. Being realistic, though, there is also the element of your own country's actions that stand on their own, and that your country will be held to account for.

you guys never miss a chance to take a swipe at my country....lovely bunch of "allies" we have

trappedinmyradio · February 2007

angelica wrote:

Being realistic, though, there is also the element of your own country's actions that stand on their own, and that your country will be held to account for.

Realistic? Again, your choice of words...

You know that the U.S. will NOT be held accountable for actions post-9/11.

angelica · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

you guys never miss a chance to take a swipe at my country....lovely bunch of "allies" we have

Maybe you could explain to me how talking about your country's actions standing on their own is "taking a swipe at your country".

El_Kabong · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

i read the articles. i posted it for your education because you were clueless about the french connection to nuclear proliferation....along wih your friends the russians.....personally i dont worry about a nuclear israel anymore than i worry about a nuclear france or a nuclear britain.

wow, you sure do have a hard time staying focused, eh? my friends the russians? how does the french helping israel get nukes and our record of, what did your article call it? a 'policy of ambiguity'? have to do w/ the point? how is it an education when it says it is entirely based on a single book filled w/ unconfirmed information? you are so quick to say a source is not good enough or credible enough...and here you are using one that is admittingly based on unconfirmed sources....whatever

you are trying to avoid the topic, you do it all the time when you get in over your head. how does the french helping israel get nukes discount what he said? it doesn't, it's not even related.

who's the worlds biggest arms dealer? the us, that is a fact

Last Exodus · February 2007

angelica wrote:

Maybe you could explain to me how talking about your country's actions standing on their own is "taking a swipe at your country".

i didnt vote for fucking Bush so dont ask me. my country has over 250 million people. i dont appreciate generalizations. clearly, if your going to make general comments like my country this and my country that, you just dont understand us. now i dont think all canadians are kind of dopey molson guzzling hockey junkies just because some of them are...so why lump us all into one "us" category?

angelica · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

i didnt vote for fucking Bush so dont ask me. my country has over 250 million people. i dont appreciate generalizations. clearly, if your going to make general comments like my country this and my country that, you just dont understand us. now i dont think all canadians are kind of dopey molson guzzling hockey junkies just because some of them are...so why lump us all into one "us" category?

We are talking simple logic here. I refer to a very basic principle: either your country's actions stand as they are, including the accountability for them, or not. You seem to so desperately want to duck and weave that it looks like you're either consciously trying to use a smokescreen, or you are just unable to face some basics.

Putin attacks 'dangerous' U.S

Comments

Categories