Sharon Says US should Disarm Iran Syria and Libya

FD Khan, you are the one who has been caught passing on lies directly from the terrorist group Hamas.

When you address your mistake, I will be happy to continue this discussion with you.

 

1)What the hell difference does it make how long ago it was? I was responding to Mr. C's point that 'democracies don't murder their own people." Wrong...or does it not count because it's X number of years ago. The point was,as you'd know if you'd read this with more than one eye open, that Mr. C' was stating that dmocracies have a higher moral standard than other nations by virtue of things that deomcracies inherently don't do...and he was wrong, period. I won't resort to his use of a line like " I'm sorry I stretched your brain by using histtory' or whatever, but will merely poinit out that 100 years ago or not, it was still a democracy, and therefore invalidates his position.


2) No, the use of NUCLEAR ARMS wasn't in self-defense, as being the only nation to possess them, it would stand to reason that we didn't use them in fear of another nation using them...Once again, read the post I was responding to, wherein it says that the US only ever has nuclear arms for self defense, whereas other nations ( like the Soviet Union) want them for offensive purposes....kind of a hard point to support when you consider that A) The US used them against a nation which didn't possess them, when engaged in a conventional war...and if you think there is no distinction between conventional warfare and nuclear warfare, what is all the fuss about in Iraq? and B) The Soviet Union, unlike the US, never used them. Talk about revisionist history.

3) So let me understand this...when is a nation held responsible for it's past? In this case you are assuming that Hussein would use nuclear arms because of what you feel are past atrocities...but you give the US carte blanche because of the fact that many of it's own atrocities happened a while back. So, then, did we deserve invasion by an outraged world say...15 years after we stopped wiping out the Natives? Or, say, 10 years after the Civil War? WHat about the things we did in VietNam? Has the statute of moral limitations run out on those? ANd, yeah, apparently Iraq tried to asssassinate Bush...the US tried to assassinate Castro several times..and, golly, gee Beave!...within our parent's lifetime! Or does that conveniently fall just outside of this statue limitation you draw? And the fact that Hussein HAD WMD during the Gulf War, but DIDN'T USE THEM apparently has less relevence on whether or not he will use WMD than the fact that they were ingaged in an attempted conventional warfare with a neighbouring nation..for what they deemed to be sufficient cause. Not saying it was, but aren't we contemplating invading another nation right now for reasons that have failed to impress the world at large? I know, I know...we're different. We're...er...us.

4) The United States has never had a land grab policy!?!??!?!!? Are you remotely serious? How then do you suppose we obtained the vast stretches of land that now comprise most of central and western America despite the fact that said land was the previous propoerty of Spain, Mexico, and countless native populations? Were we left it in a will? And how, pray, do we currently hold sway over such strategic points as the Panama Canal? Think our military actions there might have had something to do with it? Did Hawaii come to us willingly? I seriously am amazed at the ability of some Americans to buy into our own rhetoric to such a point that they can tun a blind eye to much of our history while simultaneously trumpeting about our moral integrity in the face of other nations failings...

 

1) You can't be serious. So if Hussein pointed out that, I don't know, the Kurds were not considered Iraqi, and therefore stated that killing them was ok, we'd say ' The man has a point.' ? The US was a Demoracy for the hundred odd years that we did practice the afore-mentioned human rights atrocites...How long do we give Saddam to right his own ship? ANd, as previously stated, you are shifting the argument. You said that deomcracies were incapable of such actions...wrong. Yes the world was different back then...the world is always changing...why do we consistenyl use that as an excuse to defend our past trangressions, but somehow feel that same does not apply to others we are in conflict with? If we're going on a time heals all wounds thing, what has Saddam done in the last, say, 5 years to warrant invading his nation and killing his people? Oh...right....it's NOT in the past. Figure out what time period is most convenient for the US, then let me know...not that I'm accusing you of being selective in your moral indignation or anything.

2) WWII was a CONVENTIONAL WAR...If there is no distinction between conventional warfare and WMD, why are we all aflutter about Hussein? Or are we going in because he owns some tanks and rifles? No...we make that distinction, as does history. We used WMD, largley on a civilian population. to serve our own needs. If Pakistan is at war..conventional war..with,say, India..and launches nuclear bombs, we'll say.." Oh, well, it's ok then'...right? Of course not...there is a clear line...and we are the only onse in history to cross it. As you say...HELLO!?!?

I didn't bring up the USSR...it was said that the US has nuclear arms for self-defense whereas Iraq and the Soviet Union use want(ed-sic) them for offensive pusposes...It wasmerely one of the slightly non-factual positions i was refuting...note the heavy sarcasm brought on by having to argue completely obvious points.
I won't even comment on your incredibly sophmoric depiction of the Cold War...

 

Oh, and giddy...I agree...in that it wasn't a nation. The nation which practiced slavery well beyond the point when other industrialized nations had outlawed it, and even beyond when nations like the British patrolled the Atlantic seeking to intercept slavers on their way here, was the United States of America. The fact that, MUCH LATER, there was an internal disagreement within said nation about the issue in no way changes historical fact...


But I do understand your first point...I also dont' get why some people don't see that the only mistakes which have any bearing on the present are those of our enemies, or at the most those who disagree with us. I mean, it's not like right-wing people ever bring up, say, WWII when discussing why we should ignore Germany or France.....right?

 

....but Iraq 1991 falls conveniently within your area of focus, right?

 

I think that was a HUGE blunder by Sharon. I have never been the biggest Sharon fan, but I certainly understand his hawkishness. If my people were the constant target of suicide bombings and the like, I'd probably have an unhealthy bloodlust myself.

Here's the bottom line. There needs to be an independent Palestine. HOWEVER...if the bombings continue after the establishment of an independent Palestine, Israel should declare war on Palestine and proceed to full scale military invasion.

 

1) Regarding America's history with Native Americans- I am NOT defending what happened one bit. No one is. Secondly, you are right, I had to shift my argument because democracies have committed human rights violations. I was wrong in my original statement.

HOWEVER, it is clear that democracies have much higher accomplishments in the area of human rights. Democracies ARE inherently morally superior to autocracies and dictatorships whether you like it or not. It is a fact. Why do you dislike this idea so much? It doesn't mean the US sould automatically invade Iraq. It doesn't mean democracies never do anything wrong.

2) Interesting point, and I think you may be right about crossing the line. BUT, the WMD were still used in self- defense. Saddam and these dictators would use them to invade other countries and brutalize their own people. Did the US make Japan into a colony? No, we wanted Japan to succeed, and it did, to the point of almost overtaking our economy.

 

You are making a huge error in comparing the US to the Soviet Union. Don't shift the argument by saying the US used the WMD for "offensive" purposes. Yes, the US used them, but in self defense and had NO intention of taking over Japan. There was a military occupation and the Americans left.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, wanted to take over other countries and STAY there. They were bent on world domination, not on rebuildilng other countries!

 

Originally posted by Refman
I think that was a HUGE blunder by Sharon. I have never been the biggest Sharon fan, but I certainly understand his hawkishness. If my people were the constant target of suicide bombings and the like, I'd probably have an unhealthy bloodlust myself.

Problem is, Sharon has NO solution to offer. His ilk are shortsighted, self-centered and thus part of the problem, not the solution. To keep him in power is essentially selling the future for the present. Agreed though, under certain extreme circumstances that is what a people may be forced to do. The Palestinians probably feel the same.

Here's the bottom line. There needs to be an independent Palestine. HOWEVER...if the bombings continue after the establishment of an independent Palestine, Israel should declare war on Palestine and proceed to full scale military invasion.

Only if the Palestinian government was not working with Israel to curb such violence.

Also, the settlements MUST GO.

 

Here you go Glynch.

http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/alert/geyer.html

FD Khan passed along disinformation straight from Hamas, and he won't acknowledge his error. I think that makes his credibility suspect in regards to the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

Of course, you knew the quote was false as well, but you have your little games to play, I guess.

 

That is blatently not true. There were numerous people (I believe yourself included although I am not sure) in this thread that argued those actions were too far in the past to be relevant. While not excusing those actions it has the same effect of dismissing them. In this case MacBeth's question still holds: How long ago is relevant?

 

That's interesting. This was posted on this BBS previously, but I could only find the quote on Islamic and one Aryan web sites.

FD,

Were did you get it from?

 

She's not too middle of the road on Israel. She did not fully verify such an inflammatory issue. http://www.chireader.com/hottype/2002/020628_1.html She also has supposedly reported that Sharon has a secret plan to move all Palestinians to Jordan.


An interestting couple of reads. I don't know who this guy is, but he mentions many issues worthy of research.

This articles addresses what we so often are presented with regarding the claims of a "Jewish controlled media". I imagine the quotes can be verified: http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/020417_BackersOfZion.htm

He also takes a few shots at some liberals: http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/020407_FinalSolution.htm

 

but isnt it true that jewish does control america and at least have the biggest influnece over any other race and groupsin america?

 

Fatfatcow, you should go have a beer with Glynch- you guys have alot in common.

By the way Glynch, a google search will give you more than 5 credible sources to tell you that the Hamas lie that FD Khan won't repudiate is incorrect.

 

No, WASPs have the most influence of any group in America.

 

HA!!!! Oh...that's funny. Thanks for the laugh.

glynch...calling other people's sources "suspect." Ahhhh....