I would be building a bomb in my basement as well. Not that Iran is, they comply with inspections

If that was US, they would attack the very 1st one. Remember Cuba?

Iran allow inspectors? Sure 

"We have always been open with regards to our nuclear issues and the IAEA team coming to Iran can make the necessary inspections," Ali-Akbar Velayati, advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told the ISNA news agency.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/un-nuclear-inspectors-arrive-in-iran-for-talks-report-says-1.409784

Israel allow inspectors? Fuck that

"Israel will not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region," chief Israeli delegate David Danieli told the chamber.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/18/us-nuclear-iaea-sb-idUSTRE58H3QW20090918

Edit. 
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/iran-and-the-iaea.html 

All this talk about America.......let's make sure we're making sense.

We've got to give away all our rights, freedoms and liberty immediately so this threat can be stopped!

Quick everyone hurry!  Give up the rights now cause if we wait too long we may not be able to give them up later!  Help, we're not giving 'em up fast enough! How are we supposed to stop the bad guys with all these pesky things called rights standing in the way?

Oh what a world what a world what a world what a world.

 

 

 

The rush for Iran is because it's estimated future oil scarcity will rise due to China's great industrial growth so Israel is scared the US will stab them in the back to get Iranian fuel.  That is unless Iran gets invaded early by someone but nuclear capabilities will take that option off the table.  I read it in a (public) think tank report during all my bottomless boredom time glory days while in the military.  If only active service could be more like Modern Warfare.

So there you go people.  There is all the hoopla the media doesn't want you to worry your pretty little heads off.

Again myfist0, the rest of the quote states the reason Israel refused it:

"(Reuters) - Arab states in the U.N. nuclear assembly on Friday won narrow approval of a resolution urging Israel to put all its atomic sites under U.N. inspection and join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Jewish state deplored the measure for singling it out while many of its Islamic neighbors remained hostile to its existence, and said it would not cooperate with it."

and buried in it:

"U.N. Security Council members Russia and China backed the Israel resolution, passed by a 49-45 margin by the IAEA's annual member states gathering. The vote split along Western and developing nation lines. There were 16 abstentions."

Those "developing countries" are overwhelmingly Moslem. The 16 abstentions? The morally bankrupt. 

In light of what they did to the UN resolution regarding Syria, their "interest" in the region is very transparent and has to do with their support for totalitarian regimes rather than any interest in peace.

Also, there may be a double standard here, but here's Israel's justification for it: It's a concentrated list by year of Ahmadinahad's hate and threats: http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm

As for the rest of the Arab world, simple review of the imbalance of the massed might and intent to destroy Israel (for the past 60+ years) as well as their hatred of Jews more than justifies Israel's need for an ultimate deterrant.

Now for the simplest truth of all: Were the Arabs and Iranians to lay down their arms and promise recognition and peace, there would be peace. Were Israel to lay down its arms? There would be no Israel.

I trust that will end this absurd argument.

 

It's not absurd at all...

No-one should be exempt from having thier nuclear capabilities 'policed'.

No-one.

It doesn't matter what the motivation/retalliation/bullshit reason.... when some dickhead from ANY country goes ballistic [literally] the WHOLE WORLD is fucked by it.

I don't care whether it's the US...China...India...Russia...Afghanistan...Israel....

All it takes is ONE FUCKWIT with a finger.....

I Kinda lost 'faith' in Israel's motives and ethical standards when they used REAL Australians' identities [passports] to engage in subversive action.... not even fake identities...REAL PEOPLE.

That's identity theft on about as significant a scale as it gets.

Living, innocent  Individuals from half a world away had their identity stolen by the Israeli 'govt' to hide what they were doing.

What'd Australians ever do to them?

That's about as pathetic as the French secret service BOMBING the Rainbow Warrior in another country's port [NZ].  THAT was an 'act of war'...and THEY got 2 years holiday for Christ's sake for their 'crime' of International terrorism and murder.

Spy agencies do what they do... And Mossad happened to have asked permission from those people who lent the Mossad those passports.

As for inspection? As long as it's unilateral? Forget it. The U.S. and Soviets only agreed when it was mutual. Forget Israel giving away critical nuclear (or any) security/military info just because you might think it should. Forget 'should' when it comes to survival.

Why is it Israel is always demanded to obey the double standard, I wonder: One standard for Israel, and a totally different one for everyone else?

No. Ill continue to write words how I wish. Thanks for the understanding.



How do you think the world would be if Iran just... got its way, or the Soviet Union got its way in the Cold War? No, dont answer that question, its meant to be rhetorical.

Please, elaborate.

Where did you get this idea?

What puppet governments? Youve been playing too many games (or watching too many movies) methinks. Anyways, If there are puppet governments that we've set up, that is a separate issue from whether we should be policing the world or not. Last time I checked kids were just starting to go to school for the first time in... forever over there.

We've freed them from tyranny, given them democracy (a means for them to make decisions for their country collectively rather than them following some dictator), and continue to occupy their land to defend it from Iran and the surrounding terrorist network of alquida (how the hell do you spell that anyways?). Why then, other than the terrorists, would the people have cause to be unhappy?

When you invade another country in defense of you or your allies... thats.... defense.

We'd take the diplomatic approach, because we're nice, but if the matter was pressing enough (like as in, the possibility of WW3) we'd eventually take the position by force if no other options were available. The ends do justify the means.

If you actually go back and read through history, our dealings with other countries have always been more or less mutual.

If you hate America, you are either brainwashed by your country into thinking as much, smoke too much pot, or you actually have a legitimate reason for thinking as much because youve been exploited by its corporations. If you have been a legitimate victim of America's corporations, its because you live in a non-democratic country in the first place though. Anyways, corporations are always going to fuck people over and they continue to fuck us americans over here as well. That doesnt mean you go throwing the baby out with the bathwater.





What have you heard or experienced to the contrary, or what is your reasoning?





If the many do not try to correct the few, that doesnt always mean that they dont want to. Such is prevalent throughout history. Actually, if what your implying is that the Iraqi's and others hate us, and the evidence is that "they dont try to stop the bombings and dont try to stop the terrorists themselves" well then think about that logic for a minute. In terms of politics and such, there is always a silent majority. Right now the terrorists are the roaring minority.

And neither is it on ours. Most often than not, we like to use the term "liberating", because thats pretty much always what it is.

JCD-Bionicman, That's not my quote. It's the_Monk's.

I do however try to keep my homonyms, homographs and homophones straight.

Thats weird how that happened... yeah I know thats not your quote. Im editing it.

Thanks.

NO...at 'best' it's pre-emptive strike.

And just to get you to sit in a corner and THINK.... Pearl Harbour was a 'pre-emptive strike'.

It's all very noble and patriotic to have BLIND FAITH in your country and its motives/foreign policy but it is also incredibly naive.

Oh, how 'american' of you!        Guess my attempt at 'liberating' your grammar got denied..........apparantly I don't have the US muscle backing me up....hehe

 

No different than in the times the US "gets its way".  The world does have some other (non-american) intelligent people you know.  Why do you presume to believe that everyone must love things your way or the world would be shit?  Is the 'american dream' and what you call 'freedom' really nothing more than license to exploit?  That is how it comes across if you reread some of your own statements below on how your corporations are exploiting even your people.  Hmmmm....double-standard maybe?

 

That statement needs elaboration?      Remember to keep that statement in the context of the original post of mine to which you were responding.

 

 

The same place where it's obvious if the bully on the block engages in conflict for the purposes of gain; who in their right mind would (or even be able to) oppose them?  Hence no 'regulation' will ever prevent same.  'Policing' oneself is certainly not the strong suit of the US.  In the american mind everyone else is always to blame/wrong.

 

Since there is overwhelming evidence (in many forms of respected media) with regard to the US, their 'puppet governments' and the success/failure rate of same I'll let you educate yourself on that subject.

 

Once again, please refer to my previous posts if you need clarification.  Some countries do not have the societal structure in place (and may never) to be able to function as you see fit.  Travel is a great educator in that regard.  Hopefully you can travel to some of these places (not as a tourist to the hotels etc.) but take in the 'local' atmosphere.  As a canadian, help must first be asked for, then offered and the helping party must try to remain impartial in order to really help.  That is not always an easy task but one our Canadian government (and that of many other nations) embodies.  Dealing with foreign powers from a 'peacekeeping' frame of mind should always be the preferred approach over the 'policing' frame of mind your government seems to embrace.

Unless your country is already being attacked, that would as Jafo posted, be a 'pre emptive' strike which is offensive by nature.  Statements such as "the best defense is a good offense" (I know you didn't say that I'm just using it as an example to make the point) do not make actions taken under it defensive by nature.

 

The ends (more often than not) do not justify the means.  At least not if we are to remain 'human' in our interactions with each other.  Thank god more people around the world don't hold your viewpoint or this world really would be in terrible shape.

 

That statement is so false I don't even know where to begin.  Do you really believe the reputation the US has garnered around the world as a 'bully' (at best) is undeserved?

 

 

How telling.  I did not in any of my postings use the term 'hate'.  Leave it to an american to use it. hehe

 

I stated and I quote:  "Really no wonder the rest of the world feels the way it does with regard to the US with that kind of viewpoint."  

Which was in DIRECT response to your statement: "America always seeks a bigger stick, so as to be better equipped to negotiate and demand of other countries. By always being more powerful, we dont have to worry about defending ourselves because nations are too scared to defy us in the first place."

When someone chooses to invent statistics in order to support a viewpoint it is not up to the responding party to prove them wrong.

 

  ..........Seriously?!?  Assigning some benign sounding term to an action changes the action now? 

 

 

 

Anyway, I do believe (whether intentionally or not) you and I seem to just be going around in circles at this point.  Everything I meant in response to your post on page 2 I said in my initial reply.  I chose to elaborate on a few points in subsequent posts in the hopes my position would become more clear.  It appears to not have worked so at this point I'm willing to say.  I'll agree to disagree and let this thread go back to the topic it was meant to discuss.

 

For my part in dragging this topic off-topic I apologise.

 

the Monk

And I say the same to you.

Yes, but it was still defensive. Not necessarily justified, but defensive nonetheless. America was supplying Japan's enemies with materials, and so by definition America was then Japan's enemy. Right now you must be thinking "well according to that mentality, EVERYTHING is in defense... what then is offense?". Well offense to me is simply attacking with little or no provocation.

Anyways, Im sure your going to be looking into the exact definition's of defense and offense in order to bring evidence against me. The issue however isnt that, but rather if the US being in the Middle East is justified.

First of all, youve called me blind and naive. Remember the warning you gave me earlier for calling someone ignorant? Think about that for a minute.

Second of all, Im not some fucking moron. Our government is far from perfect, and we have both freakishly fascist leaders and corrupt business-puppet leaders at work as we speak. However, that is NOT the issue.

Furthermore, explain exactly how I am naive and blind?

 

Monk, its not even worth replying to your post. Its like you said, its a vicious cycle. Personally I think your unwillingness to hear anything ive said has done more to cause the cycle than me.

As I said to Jafo, our country is not perfect, and not everything it does is justified. The issue is however, is if the US being in the Middle East in defense of Israel and in stamping out terrorists is justified (even IF they are somewhat-ulterior motives). To my knowledge, we have done much to stabilize the region, and the only people in the middle east that hate us are the crazies, the terrorists that are also crazy, and people who have simply been brainwashed to hate america, and the people who simply dont think to realize they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Government leaders are always more or less evil, so I wont argue that, but what keeps them from abusing their power is the act of twisting their arms behind them called Democracy.

Not recently... Libya, Egypt and uprisings all around (Syria, etc.) isn't 'stabilizing' by any definition.

I won't discuss whether 'merited' or not. Personally, I feel they go from one evil to another but that will become the problem of everyone in the region and by extension (because of our oil addiction) ours.

Well... I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully that doesnt happen.

 

 

 

 

 ...sometimes meditcations can help when one suffers from delusions.

All sovereign Nations resent outside 'intrusion'.  It's nothing specific to 'crazies'...it is THEIR RIGHT.

Pure atruism would see 'wealthy' countries assisting the poor, not just those whose 'stability' [or lack of] affescts their bottom-line.

 

Jafo, I think you're wasting your time.  Someone who makes claims which he couldn't substantiate and when called on them simply bows out by saying "not worth the effort" is being intentionally obtuse to say the least.

 

Back to your point, aren't you aussies rich?  I mean I haven't had a holiday in a while.......want to sponsor me?  You know being 'altruistic' and all.......hehe 

No...not 'rich', however our economy is in slightly better shap than the US....our dollar is now around 1.08 USD ....when I can remember it being around 0.54.

If you head 'down-under' you can always look me up.  I'm in Melbourne, Oz ....about 3km from the centre of the city. [just near where the 'Melbourne Cup' is run...;)

I know it's a 'waste of time'....but I'm monitoring the more 'energetic' threads so....while I'm here....;)

 

When debating on 'the net' it's often mostly 'pointless' where one doesn't HAVE TO study 'modern history' because one has LIVED through it.

I remember the cold war....quite well.  When your 'old man' is taking fall-out readings for the Govt.... [near our house] during surface tests at Maralinga in the 50's .... you're sort of 'aware' of reality.

I lived through the 60's [so naturally I don't remember them].....

....some say I remember the Ice Age too....but they're just bastards....;)

So, a government (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) has the right to abuse it's people, and we're wrong for having taken over a country, and basically handing it right back over to it's own people?

You just said that America shouldnt police the world, yet your complaining that it should police everybody then because that's only fair, yet the very reason we dont invade other countries just for the sake of helping is because America would be accused of Imperialism by the likes of people like you. Also, our country is only so powerful, so we obviously cant invade the whole world.

First of all, the very reason I "bowed out" the first time was because your opinion of America is EXTREMELY biased. But since you wanted a "proper" reply so badly, here it is. Enjoy.

No; actually it's people such as yourself, who claim America is evil and imperialist, dont support it's efforts. A war that doesnt have the support of the people and/or the said country's allies behind it is doomed to fail.

Please. Do explain how Soviet Russia getting its way is the same thing as America getting it's way.

Wait, what? People dont like democracy?

What double standard? Where did I even IMPLY corporations should be allowed to exploit people?



You said that America was running people's lives using subversive methods, I told you to explain why you thought so. What's the problem here?

I fail to see the logic here. I assume it's more bias.

In terms of politics, those are going downhill quite fast (as in the fascist left versus the fascist "right" who "claim" to be conservative) while the trade deficit, excessive government welfare spending, the huge debt incurred from the failed "bailout" and numerous other problems continue to drag it down. In terms of crime and stability, it's quite well actually.

Here we have a stereotype of the "American people". Im beginning to think less and less of you with every comment I respond to. Furthermore, what do you even mean?

 

Let me educate myself? If there is such "overwhelming" and overflowingly huge evidence of it then it should be trivial in finding and quoting such an article dont you think?

Not necessarily false but not necesarily true. By introducing democracy and public schools and such, we are helping recreate and evolve said social structure.

 See my reply to Jafo.

Sometimes they dont, sometimes they do. A few thousand casualties is better than a few hundred thousand casualties. Anyways, I don't think we would invade your country.

And I have the same outlook on your opinion.

Please, enlighten me. Which country did we invade that ended up in worse condition then it was before as a result?

Iraq.

I often regret there is no Prime Directive on this planet.

"Better" implies a standard and a bias as well as a 'right', 'obligation' or 'privilege' for one party to change what it deems 'not as good as' that 'standard'.

 

I disagree.