Resistance against US War on Iraqi is on the rise

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] Originally posted by Lincoln
Israel's defense is not our responsibility. Furthermore, Israel is exceedingly capable of defending itself, with over two hundred nuclear weapons. Iraq would be committing suicide by attacking Israel with WoMD, and Hussein maybe be stupid, but he isn't suicidal.

I thought were against Israel from defending itself.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Why don't you let Boris answer for himself?

This is a forum, where everyone talks with everyone, and I don't see why I shouldn't answer your silly post. And I don't think it was Boris you were meaning to talk to anyway.

I did not say the the US was respnsible.

I know. You just basicially said, if we don't who will? Hence my demand that you put up or shut up.

If you read the previous page you will see my position (which apparently does not suit you).

Your position doesn't make any sense. Your position contradicts itself, frequenty. You refuse to clarify your postion because I think you have realized by now that you cannot do so without contradicting something you have said, and admit defeat you cannot.

And your heartless answer concerning the theoretical destruction of Israel says quite a bit about where you stand.

Damn. I was trying to hide my heartlessness.

EDIT: And anyway, as Che pointed out, your question was a hypothetical situation that is unlikely to occur.

[Lincoln]

Yea, I know you are not Boris but I was addressing his post. And if you will read this thread Che you will see that I am not suggesting that we attack anyone. And it is intersting that you apparently do not see any threat to the world if there is a WOMD launched against Israel. Do we just "visualize world peace"?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sprayber
I thought were against Israel from defending itself.

That depends on your defination of defending itself. If you define defending yourself as invading and occupying foreign countries, then yes, we are opposed to Israel defnding itself. However, if you don't define defense that way, then we have no problem with Israel defnding itself.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That depends on your defination of defending itself. If you define defending yourself as invading and occupying foreign countries, then yes, we are opposed to Israel defnding itself. However, if you don't define defense that way, then we have no problem with Israel defnding itself.

Ok so Israel should only defend itself from foreign attacks?

[Lincoln]

"Hence my demand that you put up or shut up."

Sorry, I am not going to heed your demands. You can read. You don't like what I said so you want to create a strawman that you can argue with. Create him without me.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Che you will see that I am not suggesting that we attack anyone.

Then why are you defending this adminstration's drive to war?

And it is intersting that you apparently do not see any threat to the world if there is a WOMD launched against Israel.

No, I don't see a threat to the world if Israel is attacked. I see a threat to Israel. Israel has the most modern, most highly trained military in the region. With the possible exceptions of the Turks and the Egyptians, the Israel's could defeat any "threat" within days. That's merely with conventional weapons. If Israel were about to be defeated, I'm sure there would be some glass craters where major cities and Arab armies once stood.

Do we just "visualize world peace"?

I see the US as the biggest threat to world peace, so visualizing world peace is a start to making it happen.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Ok so Israel should only defend itself from foreign attacks?

Correct, just like every other country in the world. Every signatory to the UN agrees to only use force in international relations to stop foreign aggression. Israel's terrorism problem results from its refusing to deal fairly with the native inhabitants of its land.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"Hence my demand that you put up or shut up."

Sorry, I am not going to heed your demands. You can read. You don't like what I said so you want to create a strawman that you can argue with. Create him without me.

OK, if you don't want to stand up and take a position, then you can't argue for one. What's your opinion straw man?

[Lincoln]

I am not defending the administrations "drive to war". I am defending the administrations drive to call the bluff of the UN. And that is what Bush has done. If Saddam yeilds like he said he would then there will be no war.

[chequita guevara]

The Administration has made noises about attacking Iraq inspite of that, even if Iraq fully complies.

Anyway, Bush isn't calling the UN's bluff. He's calling Hussein's.

[Giancarlo]

Saddam is a two faced liar... so I don't think he will ever yield...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Every signatory to the UN agrees to only use force in international relations to stop foreign aggression.

I think that history has already given you several examples where it is hard to define aggression.

[Lincoln]

"What's your opinion straw man?"

You created him. Argue with him yourself.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think that history has already given you several examples where it is hard to define aggression.

Ah, the only iffy one was the attack on Afganistan, as by the time we attacked, there was no current agression from theat country. Oh well, too bad for them.