Fayd
Diamond Member
Fayd
Diamond Member
except it isn't. muslims and israelis agree, iran is the biggest threat to middle east stability. (this backed by those leaked communiques)
ultimately, all the posturing and peace deals between Israel and Palestinian peoples is a local concern. all the states around the area have written off the land they owned prior to the 6 day war. they claim the land as a symbolic gesture, but they don't have any plans to get it back.
as such, israel isnt really a great threat to middle east peace, unless you're saying that by existing in proximity to agressive nations like iran that want to outright destroy israel at their earliest convenience "causes" instability. if that's the case, i think you should reevaluate where you assign blame.
Everyone is entitled (if not even obliged) to look after their own interests. But a bank robber's interest also conflicts with that of the bank. That's why there are laws and its not very hard to agree who is violating what law. Until we stop condoning and even actively supporting the breaking of those laws, there wont be a solution.
Right. We should take the word of a Sunni puppet oil dictator when he says he would rather see the US cripple a rival Shia state and send oil prices through the roof. What a surprise.
Lets just do whats in his and Israel's interest, and ignore the US national intelligence estimate where 16 intelligence agencies unanimously declare and with 'high confidence" there is no weaponization program in Iran. Abdullah's oil revenue and influence in Iraq is more important, how else is he going to pay for the next $60B arms deal?
Hate to break it to you, but its been like that for 40 years, and if anything changed, then its that Israel has gained substantial military dominance and much more slavish US backing. The collapse of the USSR ensures there is no contra weight either, unless China would step in, which doesnt seem likely.
The US alone could implement sanctions that achieve the same result. Just threatening should be enough to inspire Israel to look up the geneva conventions they signed. The rest of the world ought be united against USrael to hope to achieve anything similar, and that just wont happen as the US would retaliate or compensate.
I fear the only hope for Palestenians to get a just peace, is a total collapse of the US economy over the next decades, or a radical shift in US politics towards isolationist libertarians (assuming AIPAC cant get a handle on them, which is also dubious judging by the "leg spread" (dont know english word) Rand Paul is already making on the issue).
Last edited:
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
bahaha that is sig worthy
Iran is by far the instability in the region.
defiant nuclear program.
funding hamas and hezbollah
funding iraqi insurgents
dictatorship
Iran is also in an alliance with NK, which last time I checked, the world powers dont like either.
if Iran has a revolution, ME peace is way more likely than if Israel did
Legal nuclear program. Sold to them by the US I might add.
Funding Lebanons only real defense against Israeli aggression (dixit your hero, Hariri), funding most important Palestinian elected political movement, charity and resistance movement against illegal occupation and criminal repression.
You have no clue do you? Iran is Iraqs government's closest ally in the region. The insurgents are aligned with Saudi Arabia. Shia/Sunni you may have heard of it.
Compared to most regional US allies, its actually almost a model democracy. The real dictator was called the Shah, and he was the US installed puppet. For God sake do some reading.
Fayd
Diamond Member
Of what? That its legal? Just ask US intelligence agencies and read the NPT. Iran has every legal right to a civilian nuclear program, including uranium enrichment.
IF you meant proof it was sold to Iran by the US. You should have googled and avoid losing face like that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
You may recognise some names in there, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom flew to Teheran to ink the deal and once upon a time were feverish supporters of Iran having a full nuclear cycle.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
Why do you answer questions with links that do not answer the question?
The question is simple and to the point!
Yet you add your own stoopid,idiotic interpretation which has nothing to do with fayd`s question.....just answer the question...sheese.....or go ask your Jr High School History teacher to help you...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Its time once again to note what JediYoda wrote, namely "For there to be third party binding arbitration, all sides must agree.....
Israel will never agree and there is nation on the planet that will mstep up and force that to happen.", is based on a totally false assumtion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it takes a economic embargo or whatever to get binding third party arbitratiuon, Israeli agreement or non agreement is irrelevant. Just a quick look at Israeli history proves the JediY point is false. Because we can note the 1948 creation of the State of Israel by the UN was a form of binding third party arbitration. If the surrounding Arab States had any veto, Israel would not exist today. Nor did apply to S. Africa as an economic embargo forced the South African government to grant the vote to its large non-white majority, as Nelson Mandella went from a South African prison to the Presidency of South Africa in a single step.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the UN may do another 1948 and just proclaim a Palestinian State. The USA promises to veto that in the security council if Israel
gets back to the negotiating table with a three month extension of the settlement freeze. With that Israeli move still blowing in the wind and still unimplimented, what was not said is that US may not veto a UN resolution to declare a Palestinian State if Israel says nyet to going back to the table.
Israel will never agree and there is nation on the planet that will mstep up and force that to happen.", is based on a totally false assumtion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it takes a economic embargo or whatever to get binding third party arbitratiuon, Israeli agreement or non agreement is irrelevant. Just a quick look at Israeli history proves the JediY point is false. Because we can note the 1948 creation of the State of Israel by the UN was a form of binding third party arbitration. If the surrounding Arab States had any veto, Israel would not exist today. Nor did apply to S. Africa as an economic embargo forced the South African government to grant the vote to its large non-white majority, as Nelson Mandella went from a South African prison to the Presidency of South Africa in a single step.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the UN may do another 1948 and just proclaim a Palestinian State. The USA promises to veto that in the security council if Israel
gets back to the negotiating table with a three month extension of the settlement freeze. With that Israeli move still blowing in the wind and still unimplimented, what was not said is that US may not veto a UN resolution to declare a Palestinian State if Israel says nyet to going back to the table.
Where you born in 2008 perhaps? Or just under a rock?
Here is some context with it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120300846.html
Or go read Bush's memoirs. "After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?"
Mind you, not that it stopped him from attacking another country over WMDs that his intelligence services knew it didnt have.
Fayd
Diamond Member
back when iran was under the shah, and our ally.
all recent deals made with the clerical government of iran have been through countries like russia, pakistan, and north korea.
No kidding. How does the fact they are no longer your ally change the need for Iran to have a full nuclear cycle or the legitimacy of its program? If anything, they now have a far larger need to be independent for their nuclear fuel cycle as the US have proven not to honor their part of the NPT which gives signatories some very specific rights and obligations, regardless if you like the regime or not.
Yeah, and China. And they are buying their airplanes there too, since the US wont even supply them with spare parts for their US planes some reason. Your point?
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
Look mate, Ive lived in Iran (although long ago as a kid when my father worked there). I have friends there, I dont have to rely on media alone to form my opinion.
I didnt say it was a model democracy, I said it was almost a model democracy compared to most US allies in the region, when you singled out Iran as being a problem for being a 'dictatorship'.
Talking about the elections in that context is ridiculous. How did the last elections in Saudi Arabia go? Or those in Kuwait? UAE? Bahrein? Quatar? How about women rights? Freedom of press? Feedom of speech? Freedom of religion?
No, Iran is not a western democracy, its not free of corruption either, it doesnt exactly have a perfect human rights record, but its, if anything, the closest thing to it in the whole damn region.
I didnt say it was a model democracy, I said it was almost a model democracy compared to most US allies in the region, when you singled out Iran as being a problem for being a 'dictatorship'.
Talking about the elections in that context is ridiculous. How did the last elections in Saudi Arabia go? Or those in Kuwait? UAE? Bahrein? Quatar? How about women rights? Freedom of press? Feedom of speech? Freedom of religion?
No, Iran is not a western democracy, its not free of corruption either, it doesnt exactly have a perfect human rights record, but its, if anything, the closest thing to it in the whole damn region.
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
Lol I know exactly about SA, UAE, etc
they are all bad as well.
any country that uses sharia law as its framework is considered bad in my book.
but it find it funny that you think Iran is a better democracy than Israel.
lol but it doesnt surprise me coming from you.
real elections, real courts, real government that even included some seats for the arab population.
A government that has NEVER put a person on death row, citing the one example, a Adolf Eichmann.
compared to a country that kills its population for having a relationship.
really Iran is a much better democracy.
AH now I see where your hatred of israel comes from, you are Iranian, or at least you are muslim. You've been brainwashed since birth to hate israel.
I do not form my opinion on media alone fyi.
I have been to israel, and unfortunately i've had a family friend die from a suicide attack in tel aviv.
This is something which I feel is most important in the relevance of the israeli debate on this forum.
Others on here (like yourself) cling to what is said on the internet or media.
Last edited:
Ive already said Im not Muslim, nor am I Iranian. I said Ive lived there as a kid, like Ive lived in 6 other countries. Your inability to believe a non muslim would defend muslim POVs when and where law and logic is on their side, speaks volumes about you.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
What P4man points out also smoothly blends into the mirror mirror on the wall. who is the greatest mid-east destabilization country of all.
To some extent we can make a point that its Israel, the USA, the EU, and then Iran in perhaps that order. But because beauty and ugly is in the mind of the beholder, maybe we need some external standard to better measure in what amounts to a era in which European colonialism is on its death bed as a spent world force.
So if we look at the number of wars of aggression Iran has started in say the last 60 years, Iran has started exactly zero. While the USA and the Brits conspired on a 1953 coup that allowed the Shah to overthrow the democratic Iranian government. When 25 years later, the Iranian people gave the Shah the old heave ho, Iran once again regained control of its own destiny, angering the USA and the EU who still want to bring back their sweetheart deals that will never happen again. Then the USA conspired to make Saddam Huessein our man in the mid-east, and soon Iraq attacked Iran for no real reason. At the cost of two generations of its population, Iran just barely beat off the attack, and learned they better arm themselves because no one else would. As for Saddam Huessan, he bore the brunt of US anger, and like Noreiga, learned there is no greater sin than being a tin pot dictator that won't stay bought.
Meanwhile Israel has WMD and used it against its neighbors countless times. Starting wars of aggression against all its neigthbors. Lets see, bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, attacking Egypy, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and seizing territory it can't retain. And in the past decade Israel has gone on orgies of disproportionate rapes of Lebanon and Gaza, sneak attacked bombed Syria, and now embargoes Gaza and basically the West Bank.
Yep, by that criteria, Israel has to be the most destabilizing country in the mid-east.
Second place has to go to the USA, who started military occupations on the cheap and incompetent in Afghanistan and Iraq that likely will not end well for the USA or for mid-east stability. We can also note another thing, Iran and Saudi Arabia have lived at basic peace with each other for 1200 years even if Iran was always Shia dominated and Saudi Arabia was always majority Sunni. But it wasn't until the USA occupied Sunni politically dominated Iraq that the Iran Saudi tensions began. Because then, as soon as GWB mentioned Democracy, it became a huge Saudi problem because Iraq, in the last 60 years became majority Shia populated. Which then meant, Shia dominated Iraq plus Iran now severed all Saudi land links to the larger Sunni majority Muslim world.
As for the EU, they are now wishing they could go back to a world where the Arab world sold them oil dirt cheap, and thus many of them joined in the US occupation of Iraq. But either way, the EU past colonial sins make them somewhat persona non grata in the mid-east.
As for Iran, they studiously avoid wars of aggression, while firmly saying no to being again dominated by foreign powers. They work with the IAEA in a legal program to develop their own nuclear program to generate electricity.
While Israel and the USA revert to the same little boy who cried wolf tactics used in Iraq. And to some extent P4man may prove correct, Iran is simply waiting for the USA to decline as a world power while the USA does everything to decline through no fault of Iran.
To some extent we can make a point that its Israel, the USA, the EU, and then Iran in perhaps that order. But because beauty and ugly is in the mind of the beholder, maybe we need some external standard to better measure in what amounts to a era in which European colonialism is on its death bed as a spent world force.
So if we look at the number of wars of aggression Iran has started in say the last 60 years, Iran has started exactly zero. While the USA and the Brits conspired on a 1953 coup that allowed the Shah to overthrow the democratic Iranian government. When 25 years later, the Iranian people gave the Shah the old heave ho, Iran once again regained control of its own destiny, angering the USA and the EU who still want to bring back their sweetheart deals that will never happen again. Then the USA conspired to make Saddam Huessein our man in the mid-east, and soon Iraq attacked Iran for no real reason. At the cost of two generations of its population, Iran just barely beat off the attack, and learned they better arm themselves because no one else would. As for Saddam Huessan, he bore the brunt of US anger, and like Noreiga, learned there is no greater sin than being a tin pot dictator that won't stay bought.
Meanwhile Israel has WMD and used it against its neighbors countless times. Starting wars of aggression against all its neigthbors. Lets see, bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, attacking Egypy, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and seizing territory it can't retain. And in the past decade Israel has gone on orgies of disproportionate rapes of Lebanon and Gaza, sneak attacked bombed Syria, and now embargoes Gaza and basically the West Bank.
Yep, by that criteria, Israel has to be the most destabilizing country in the mid-east.
Second place has to go to the USA, who started military occupations on the cheap and incompetent in Afghanistan and Iraq that likely will not end well for the USA or for mid-east stability. We can also note another thing, Iran and Saudi Arabia have lived at basic peace with each other for 1200 years even if Iran was always Shia dominated and Saudi Arabia was always majority Sunni. But it wasn't until the USA occupied Sunni politically dominated Iraq that the Iran Saudi tensions began. Because then, as soon as GWB mentioned Democracy, it became a huge Saudi problem because Iraq, in the last 60 years became majority Shia populated. Which then meant, Shia dominated Iraq plus Iran now severed all Saudi land links to the larger Sunni majority Muslim world.
As for the EU, they are now wishing they could go back to a world where the Arab world sold them oil dirt cheap, and thus many of them joined in the US occupation of Iraq. But either way, the EU past colonial sins make them somewhat persona non grata in the mid-east.
As for Iran, they studiously avoid wars of aggression, while firmly saying no to being again dominated by foreign powers. They work with the IAEA in a legal program to develop their own nuclear program to generate electricity.
While Israel and the USA revert to the same little boy who cried wolf tactics used in Iraq. And to some extent P4man may prove correct, Iran is simply waiting for the USA to decline as a world power while the USA does everything to decline through no fault of Iran.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Don't be an idiots FGD, by stating, "Did you forget who is the main suspect in his killing? Hezbollah."
Well golly gee whiz, before the main Suspect in the assassination of Harri was Syria, a notion everyone assumed was correct on no evidence. Now some point the Finger at Hezzbollah with little evidence as Hezbollah points the finger at Israel with some evidence. Will we ever know for sure who assassinated Harri?
By your definition we can say the USA is responsible for 911 because we sheltered the 911 suicide hijackers and taught them to fly airplanes into buildings.
Well golly gee whiz, before the main Suspect in the assassination of Harri was Syria, a notion everyone assumed was correct on no evidence. Now some point the Finger at Hezzbollah with little evidence as Hezbollah points the finger at Israel with some evidence. Will we ever know for sure who assassinated Harri?
By your definition we can say the USA is responsible for 911 because we sheltered the 911 suicide hijackers and taught them to fly airplanes into buildings.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
That's a fair assumption. We weren't taking terrorism seriously. If we had only had the Patriot Act a few years earlier, it could have been avoided.
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
I never said a non-muslim wouldnt defend islam.
just as there are plenty to defend israel that arent jewish.
There are no laws and logic that support terrorist groups such as hezbollah and hamas. There are that are against it.
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
1948. arab nations attacked
1967 arab nations were prepared to attack
1973 arab nations surprise attacked.
Israel was never the aggressor, with 1967 being arguable.
I am not going to repeat what I have said earlier in the thread about 1967.
at this point LL, we are going in circles. You just repeat yourself and I keep answering you, then you divert off topic or ask questions instead of directly answering me.
the arab nations are the problem in the middle east, not israel.
israel since day one wanted peace, it is stated in their charter.
hamas and hezbollah are groups DIRECTLY created for the purpose of destroying israel.
tell that to 100 people in a room who have no knowledge of the middle east at all. 100/100 will agree groups like hamas are the problem, not israel.
when you have countries convicting people to death over a relationship, you have to start questioning their logic in anything they do.
If you start talking about 1967, what about 1948-1966? was there no history then? were the arabs all innocent the whole time?
If anything answer this:
If the arab nations never attacked in 1948, hands down, there would be peace today. agree or no? and if not, why?
Here are my reasons why i'd agree to that statement.
no battles in 1948 = no displacement of palestinian population = no palestinian resentment, no hamas or hezbollah as these groups were created out of hatred towards israel because of the palestinians
no battles in 1967, 1973, or even today.
there would be 2 states living peacefully without fighting, because israel would not have a problem with a peaceful neighbor.
any hatred of the local populace that may have existed in 1948 would have died off with the generation.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 392
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter