EU undercuts US sanctions with Syrian tradedeal.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Are you expecting a 6 year global conventional war with tens of millions of casualties to take place again?? If not the above is irrelevant.

You ignore the more relevant part-at no point in the pacific campaing did the US use chemical weapons vs the Japanese-we very well might-we had the knowledge to use them. Why didn't we? If the war was so god awful (it was), why did we not go all the way with these, even when were were willing to firebomb whole cities?

So it only gets to the weighing the risks involved in Iranian nukes, vs the costs of elminating them. Im not convinced that the diplomatic costs to the US would exceed those to Israel after Osirak.

Of course they would- 1. Israel had a low standing to begin with, and Israel knew its friends and backers would not take action against it. The US has much bigger interests, interests which are global, not simply regional, so we stand a much bigger threat to our prestige than Israel. PLUS the iranian program is much greater-Israel hit one site with a few aircraft-Iran has multiple reserach facilities, and would be hit the giant civilian reactors being built with Russian help?

Where do you think the operational HQ for AQ is now, directing the attacks in KSA and Turkey, the flow money and jihadis into Iraq? I think its Iran, but I know you wont accept that.

NO, I don;t accept it becuase there is no evidence.

And what was the source of the chemicals for the bomb in Jordan? was it Syria? Pretty good job of keeping it anonymous, since even now people are denying Syria would do any such thing.

You know, very little info has come out of that "chemical bomb"-more importantly, chemical bombs as opposed to Chemical weapons- so what does "chemical bomb" mean? Perhaps you take a bunch of chemicals and put them together? Yopu know, like you can pout a bunch of fertelizer and gasoline and a few other common materials to make a huge bomb? Did Iran give Nichols his fertilizer! Before pushing around claims, do you have any info about said "chemical bomb" youself?

The same people who are NOW denying that a nuke can be delivered anonymously will be denying that country X had anything to do with it, the morning after a US city is nuked. Of course I may be hoping theyre listened too, since their may be people pushing for us to nuke back - which could be disastrous.

What is it with you know and this "the people" crap?

And second-nuclear weapons aren't small, simple things. They costs BILLION to make. Why on earth would the Iranians do what you think they might? Any rational explination whatsoever besides prejudice and blind fear?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
you think that EQUATING terrorists who deliberately murder women and children, with Israelis whose political views differ from yours is taking a NEGATIVE view of terrorists?

Of course, since we hate Israeli hawks with a passion.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Of course they would- 1. Israel had a low standing to begin with, and Israel knew its friends and backers would not take action against it.

Once again, its not just their friends and backers. In the years after the Osirak bombing China recognized Israel, India did, most non-Muslim African countries did, Israel made peace with Jordan, etc. IE the general diplomatic position of Israel was determined largely by the Palestinian situation, and when that improved (during Oslo) everyone chose to wink at the Osirak bombing.




Where do you think the operational HQ for AQ is now, directing the attacks in KSA and Turkey, the flow money and jihadis into Iraq? I think its Iran, but I know you wont accept that. [/q]

NO, I don;t accept it becuase there is no evidence.

L- Precisely. When a nuke is planted, there wont be evidence either. So where do YOU think the AQ HQ is?

And what was the source of the chemicals for the bomb in Jordan? was it Syria? Pretty good job of keeping it anonymous, since even now people are denying Syria would do any such thing.

You know, very little info has come out of that "chemical bomb"-more importantly, chemical bombs as opposed to Chemical weapons- so what does "chemical bomb" mean? Perhaps you take a bunch of chemicals and put them together? Yopu know, like you can pout a bunch of fertelizer and gasoline and a few other common materials to make a huge bomb?

L- Reports from Jordan indicated there was nerve gas component.


And second-nuclear weapons aren't small, simple things. They costs BILLION to make. Why on earth would the Iranians do what you think they might? Any rational explination whatsoever besides prejudice and blind fear?

Not blind fear, calculated fear. They might not do it. But then they might. I wouldnt have believed 9/11 would happen till it did. I do read what Iran says about America, about Jews, etc, and Im not convinced that its safe for them to have the bomb. Was it safe for the USSR to have it - no, it wasnt, we lucked out in the cold war. But the cost to disarm the USSR at any point, would have dwarfed what it would take to do the same to Iran.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Of course, since we hate Israeli hawks with a passion.

Theres lots of folks i hate with a passion. I dont equate them with folks who deliberately murder women and children.

Oh but i forget myself, there are folks in your sophisticated continent who routinely equate Israeli hawks with Nazis. I guess compared to that comparing someone who questions the Oslo process with someone who straps a bomb to his body, filled with nails and shrapnel to maximize civilian casualties, and who then walks into cafe to blow it up, IS moderate.

Feh.


Spiff, the more you go on, the more you incline me to vote for Dubya, and to turn away from Kerry, who actually wants us to take France seriously.

[GePap]

Once again, its not just their friends and backers. In the years after the Osirak bombing China recognized Israel, India did, most non-Muslim African countries did, Israel made peace with Jordan, etc. IE the general diplomatic position of Israel was determined largely by the Palestinian situation, and when that improved (during Oslo) everyone chose to wink at the Osirak bombing.

AGAIN: (for the third time)
1. Israel had little reputation to defend. People expect that sort of behavior from Israel.
2. Iran has more friends now than Iraq had in 1981.
3. The Iraqi program was very small compared to this-one single research reactor. Iran has mutiple research facilties, and of course a giant civilian reactor the Russians are helping to build.

L- Precisely. When a nuke is planted, there wont be evidence either. So where do YOU think the AQ HQ is?

I don;t think there is one anymore. I think they are acting much more a independent cells without much centralized control.

Not blind fear, calculated fear. They might not do it. But then they might. I wouldnt have believed 9/11 would happen till it did. I do read what Iran says about America, about Jews, etc, and Im not convinced that its safe for them to have the bomb. Was it safe for the USSR to have it - no, it wasnt, we lucked out in the cold war. But the cost to disarm the USSR at any point, would have dwarfed what it would take to do the same to Iran.

honestly,

9/11 had NOTHING to do with one regime hitting another-it was a bunch of independent contractors driven by their own agenda using an audacious plan to strike the US. NO regime leadership had a hand in planning, or gave resources to help carry this out. Becuase regimes cn be traced back. Terrorist cells can as well, but they are free of the worries of people with return addresses. And you still have failed utterly to give a reaosn why Iran would do it. AQ has a reason-why would Iran? can you give a reason for the Iranian regime to do such a thing?

And NO ONE can be trusted with nukes, not one singled damned state. Sadly that is no longer the case.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Theres lots of folks i hate with a passion. I dont equate them with folks who deliberately murder women and children.

Oh but i forget myself, there are folks in your sophisticated continent who routinely equate Israeli hawks with Nazis.

I have never encountered one personally. In the peace marches I went to, I could see some fliers to that effect, coming from Arab groups. I belong to one of the most pro-Palestinian non-Arabic groups of Europe (French and communists, can you imagine), yet I have never seen a comparison with the nazis, who remain taboo.
I have seen comparisons with acts of WW2 (including in that Le Monde cartoon you like so much), and I have seen occurences of Israel being called a "fascist" State, but even then not that too often.
What I see on a systematic basis, however, is the belief that Israel makes no effort to further peace since the beginning of the new intifada, and that it only reinforces hatred and violence with its destructive policies. That Israel kills hundreds of civilians. And that Israel could have ways to do things differently, simply because it is a very well organized structure: unlike the Palestinians, it's not like Israeli violence is performed by rogue groups.

I guess compared to that comparing someone who questions the Oslo process with someone who straps a bomb to his body, filled with nails and shrapnel to maximize civilian casualties, and who then walks into cafe to blow it up, IS moderate.

Misunderstanding again, I see. So you call a non-Oslo guy a "Hawk"? I don't. I used the word "Hawk" as in people who want Israel to use whatever military might to shut the Palestinians. Who don't necessarily want peace, but want an Israeli victory.
And yes, that includes the death of innocents, many of them. Oh sure, the Israelis don't kill innocents just for kicks. But the Hawks willingly create the conditions that lead to those "colateral damage", which we don't forgive.

Spiff, the more you go on, the more you incline me to vote for Dubya, and to turn away from Kerry, who actually wants us to take France seriously.

Kerry doesn't want you to listen to the French street. He couldn't care less. Kerry wants you to use soft power, and let the other countries do part of the dirty job, by not alienating them, in order for the US to have a smaller bodycount, to attract less hatred on itself, and to keep its international power with more subtlety.

I would actually support you voting for Bush, because Bush is very efficient at sabotaging the hyperpower legacy left by the fall of the USSR . Unfortunately, Bush policies have killed thousands of people, including Americans, and will continue to do so So in my right mind, I can only hope for the less warlike Kerry to win.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
NO. We could , but we don;t have the right.

They have sovereignty but we don't?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
2. There is NO grand scheme of things

Just like there is no forest, just a bunch of trees.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
They have sovereignty but we don't?

I'm sure you'd love it, the day the Iranians bomb a reactor nearest to you.
"We have the right to bomb this reactor. We are a sovereign nation!"

[Kuciwalker]

Doesn't mean we can't retaliate.

[Spiffor]

This is precisely to avoid this kind of circle (attack + retaliation) that an international law has been established. And it is illegal to make an unprovoked attack on another sovereign country, unless backed by the UN itself.

[Kuciwalker]

Since international law has no force, it can't be considered law in any tradition sense of the word. Thus, no state has any more "rights" than an individual has in an anarchy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich


They have sovereignty but we don't?

Soverignty has limits-for example, since Iran signed the NPT, they don't currently have the right to make nukes, which is why we complain. If Iran left the NPT, then lest say, Russia, would, as a member of the NOT not have the soverign right anymore to give Iran more nuclear equipment. But iran would have the right o seek nukes without the US having the right to attack, since the US can;t show an imminent threat of any kind.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Just like there is no forest, just a bunch of trees.

Poor analogy, when dealing with human creations like states.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Since international law has no force, it can't be considered law in any tradition sense of the word. Thus, no state has any more "rights" than an individual has in an anarchy.

Actually, the UNSC was the first step against pure anarchy. Plus, of course, the fear of anarchy all states have does limit their behavior. If everyone begun to break the law inside any state, the state would collapse.

2 things keep people in line-the threat of force and their own inhibitions, with the second one actually being more important-otherwise more states would seek nukes, and chemical weapons and such, since they really could, if you examine reality.