Quote :

"Let me ask you this, why should we not take them seriously?"

Because they know Israel has nukes and starting serious shit would just own both sides.

2/22/2007 12:52:59 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, but a country with 200 nuclear warheads and just laughing at the whole world because they can't enforce 25+ years of binding resolutions, is no threat, right? So, basically, according to you: A bully with a bat is no threat. But a bully trying to acquire a bat is a threat. STFU."

No, sport, thats not it at all. Its clear that you have a minor knowledge of the history of the region but let me further enlighten you. I'm assuming by can't enforce 25+ years of resolutions you're refering to un resolution 242 or 338 to retreat from the occupied territories, that is to be completed once peace is established between both parties, and the palestenian government refuses to act accordingly to its side to the bargin. Actually read the resolutions, and then get back to me. Don't just repeat what you read on some website or saw in a youtube video. Knowledge gained from that stuff doesn't make you informed in the slightest, and when you repeat it then you just look stupid.

There are about 63 or so other UN resolutions towards israel, all of which are strongly condeming things that took place or urging that something not take place. Many governments, especially in volitaile regions have such sanctions on them as well.

As for the nuclear war heads, yes, we have them. I don't see why that is even a point to be brought up. We developed nuclear weapons in a time where there was an arms race and we were underdeveloped and needed a strong sense of protection. Also we act as the arm of the US in the middle east. Those weapons in israel are more or less US reserves. Its fine for us to have weapons because we're a peaceful nation and trying to stablize and build our nation. Iran, on the other hand is not even mentally stable and can't be trusted with the use of their weapons. Sure, most likley they will not use them because it would cause them to be destroyed. but that doesn't mean that they would not be able to join forces with another power to act increase their strength and likelyhood of survival.

In short Iran- crazed serial killing lunatic with a gun is a lot worse than israel- a trained national guardsmen.

2/22/2007 1:59:50 PM

Obviously you're biased towards Israel if you're saying 'we.' The point is, both countries are batshit nuts and shouldn't even be given sticks for weapons.

2/22/2007 2:04:34 PM

That would be like saying all americans are biased if they use we to describe americans. I doubt all americans are pro american policies. it more so seems to me that a lot of you are focused on being against israel no matter what.

2/22/2007 2:10:46 PM

^^^

I LIVE in the region; have lived for 30 years, so don't try to "enlighten" me.

[Edited on February 22, 2007 at 2:18 PM. Reason : haha, my knowledge is from youtube... i only discovered youtube a week ago!]

2/22/2007 2:18:07 PM

Then, one could easily suggest that youre perhaps slightly biases. Are you a a descendant of ishmael

2/22/2007 2:20:21 PM

Why does a lot of pro-Israeli rhetoric sound exactly like the christians that complain that they are discriminated against in america (despite being the clear majority)?

If a country claims to abide by international law and they violate it time after time they should be punished, America included.

Now despite this fact America has stood with Israel despite countless violations of international law.

I'm not advocating nuclear arms development in Iran but I do think they have the right to a peaceful nuclear program without fear from Israel blowing it up on a whim.

2/22/2007 2:21:04 PM

Quote :

"Why does a lot of pro-Israeli rhetoric sound exactly like the christians that complain that they are discriminated against in america (despite being the clear majority)? "

elaborate

2/22/2007 2:31:08 PM

Quote :

"In short Iran- crazed serial killing lunatic with a gun is a lot worse than israel- a trained national guardsmen."

You clearly understand the nuances of the situation.

2/22/2007 4:42:50 PM

^ He also thinks he is UNBIASED... check this out:

HIM (addressed to me, after I say that I live in the region; and that's all I said):

Quote :

"Then, one could easily suggest that youre perhaps slightly biases. Are you a a descendant of ishmael"

ALSO HIM:

Quote :

"As for the nuclear war heads, yes, we have them. I don't see why that is even a point to be brought up. . . Its fine for us to have weapons because we're a peaceful nation and trying to stablize and build our nation. Iran, on the other hand is not even mentally stable and can't be trusted with the use of their weapons. . . In short Iran- crazed serial killing lunatic with a gun is a lot worse than israel- a trained national guardsmen."

yup, very UNbiased!!!

2/22/2007 5:26:37 PM

I say we take the dog off the leash and let Israel have at them.

2/22/2007 5:59:01 PM

0EPI1, you are clearly the most biased person on TWW when it comes to Isreal.

This is not a question. You blurt out quotes like this every time a thread on Israel comes up:

Quote :

"Fucking Zionists can go to hell, fucking controlling motherfcukers. And then people look at you funny if you say that this world is run by fucking Zionist Jews."

Maybe you should stop accusing others of bias and look at yourself.

[Edited on February 22, 2007 at 6:16 PM. Reason : 2]

2/22/2007 6:15:37 PM

^ if you can read, he accused me of bias, not the other way around.

furthermore, everybody defending israel or calling for the annihilation of iran, including you, has ignored this post of mine, which was the first relevant response in this thread (and you quoted part of it, just not the important one):

Quote :

"And that is 100% correct. I don't see how that statement is "anti-Israel" or the stupid "anti-Semitic". He DID NOT say that Israel is a threat to world peace, as some world figures have, what he said is a fact, that a strong polarizing country attacking another strong polarizing country would be a threat to world peace."

So, thanks for indirectly agreeing with Edwards and me.

2/22/2007 6:28:17 PM

Edwards' fundamental error is that he assumes the world is at peace right now. It is not. Radical Islam is at war with the world.

The world is a jungle. Only the strong survive. And the thugs that run Iran only understand death and force. That has been that region's stock and trade for many generations.

I'm just relieved that we have some carrier groups down there right now.

2/22/2007 11:17:50 PM

Quote :

"Edwards' fundamental error is that he assumes the world is at peace right now. It is not. Radical Islam is at war with the world. The world is a jungle. Only the strong survive. And the thugs that run Iran only understand death and force. That has been that region's stock and trade for many generations. I'm just relieved that we have some carrier groups down there right now."

Wrong about Edwards
Only right about Islam because you put Radical in front
Wrong about Social Darwinism
Wrong to think that a carrier group exerts any influence over Iran

2/22/2007 11:41:23 PM

^
"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."


" No it isn't."

2/23/2007 1:37:50 AM

Quote :

"It is not. Radical Islam is at war with the world."

At war with the world? What does that even mean?

Quote :

"That has been that region's stock and trade for many generations."

It's good the West has been there to help overthrow their more democratic governments.

Quote :

"I'm just relieved that we have some carrier groups down there right now."

Pro-military libertarians make my head spin.

2/23/2007 2:21:26 PM

Quote :

"Pro-military libertarians make my head spin. "

2/23/2007 4:01:10 PM

I'm sorry . . . are people still taking Edwards seriously as a candidate? I thought that smart people started not taking him seriously about 2 years into his Senate term.

2/23/2007 4:28:01 PM