Imposition - A discussion on International Politics

[DeletedUser]

Typo, sorry, will edit posts

 

[DeletedUser]

US is powerful nation with huge influence on many nations, going against US will means you will be faced with sanctions from 90% of Europe.

The sanctions Jakkals is referring to (of oil purchasing), is only being imposed by U.S. at present. The U.S. is requesting others to participate, but they have not yet obligated themselves to do such. In any event, your argument is that the U.S. has a lot of influence, so when they say, "if you buy from them, you can't do business with us," that's arm twisting? Well, it is intended to be a difficult "choice," but once again you are equating it to the commission of physical harm, which is an inappropriate, and opportunistic, comparison.

As it was known that Iraq was making WMD?

There are a few points here.

1. The issue with WMD and Iraq was not believed by the rest of the world, only something that was being argued by the "Republican" Bush administration and their main argument for re-entering Iraq. In contrast, the issues of Iran's hiding nuclear source facilities, of enriching of uranium, and of weapons testing, it is well-documented and recognized by almost every nation, and firmly argued by the "International" Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an agency comprised of 2300+ professionals from over 100 countries.
2. As I already indicated, the true validation on re-entering Iraq was their violating the ceasefire that was instituted in 93'. The other excuses posed were propaganda posed by the Bush administration in an effort to get Congress onboard with re-attacking Iraq.
3. Bush and his partners lied. I knew it then and wrote an article on it. Many others knew it as well, particularly most everyone in the U.N., but unfortunately Bush was exploiting the anger of Americans from the incidents of 9/11, and deceived the American people, and Congress, into thinking Iraq had something to do with 9/11. THAT was the reason it happened. The Neocons wanted to attack Iraq before 9/11, but saw an opportunity in the events of 9/11 and exploited it for an unconscionable act.
4. Comparing Bush's claim of WMD to re-enter a war to that of the evidence and of Obama's, IAEA's, and the greater majority of the U.N.'s assertions of nuclear weapon development to impose sanctions is a very big difference. Very big. Not merely on the merits, but on the actions.
5. Bush's war in Iraq is an invalid comparison to Obama's sanctions on Iran. One is a violent and deadly means to force change, while the other is non-violent, political and economic means to influence change.

Higher moral ground in context of this discussion could be simplified to next sentence: Someone who invaded and destroyed several countries for no reason other than profit (IMO) should not have the right to impose moral argument to anyone. Satisfied?

No, of course not. First you're making an invalid premise. The U.S. did not invade and destroy several countries. Then you follow up with an invalid and unrelated assertion. This isn't about "morality," it's about security.

Iran's leaders have repeatedly provided support to terrorist organizations, have repeatedly threatened to "wipe Israel and the U.S. off the face of the Earth," are indeed developing enriched uranium and are indeed performing weapons testing consistent with nuclear weapon development.

Not at all Hell, refusing to do what US asks from you if you don't have the backing from other superpower is equal to suicide for a little country.

There you go again with your fabricated claims of life/death.

I think my problem with your arguments here, anarchy, is that you haven't provided anything in support of your arguments, just a lot of logical fallacies and hollow assertions. It would be nice if you actually brought something to the table than empty claims. All you're trying to do here is appeal to people's emotions and attack their loyalties. In every respect, you're posing propaganda, not facts nor evidence.

 

[DeletedUser]

The sanctions Jakkals is referring to (of oil purchasing), is only being imposed by U.S. at present. The U.S. is requesting others to participate, but they have not yet obligated themselves to do such. In any event, your argument is that the U.S. has a lot of influence, so when they say, "if you buy from them, you can't do business with us," that's arm twisting? Well, it is intended to be a difficult "choice," but once again you are equating it to the commission of physical harm, which is an inappropriate, and opportunistic, comparison.

Ever lived under sanctions Hell? No wonder you make no sense on the topic. If US wants other to participate, they will + demands can be as high as US wants it to be and threat of destroying country economics leaving its population in poverty IS arm twisting.

There are a few points here.

1. The issue with WMD and Iraq was not believed by the rest of the world, only something that was being argued by the "Republican" Bush administration and their main argument for re-entering Iraq. In contrast, the issues of Iran's hiding nuclear source facilities, of enriching of uranium, and of weapons testing, it is well-documented and recognized by almost every nation, and firmly argued by the "International" Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an agency comprised of 2300+ professionals from over 100 countries.
2. As I already indicated, the true validation on re-entering Iraq was their violating the ceasefire that was instituted in 93'. The other excuses posed were propaganda posed by the Bush administration in an effort to get Congress onboard with re-attacking Iraq.
3. Bush and his partners lied. I knew it then and wrote an article on it. Many others knew it as well, particularly most everyone in the U.N., but unfortunately Bush was exploiting the anger of Americans from the incidents of 9/11, and deceived the American people, and Congress, into thinking Iraq had something to do with 9/11. THAT was the reason it happened. The Neocons wanted to attack Iraq before 9/11, but saw an opportunity in the events of 9/11 and exploited it for an unconscionable act.
4. Comparing Bush's claim of WMD to re-enter a war to that of the evidence and of Obama's, IAEA's, and the greater majority of the U.N.'s assertions of nuclear weapon development to impose sanctions is a very big difference. Very big. Not merely on the merits, but on the actions.
5. Bush's war in Iraq is an invalid comparison to Obama's sanctions on Iran. One is a violent and deadly means to force change, while the other is non-violent, political and economic means to influence change.

1. Link you posted gives no information you're talking about, check it please.

2-3 I know the obvious thing but when you draw the line if we are so caught up in justification and right to intervene i'd like to notice that US invaded country on a premise they knew it was false and no one is to blame, nor there is anyone to be responsible for what happened, sounds like US way...

4. You will forgive me for not having trust in any institutions, especially the ones that have any relation to US or UN. Most of those institutions proved themselves to be "provide-a-reason" or "give-our-bombs-liberty-face" services for US foreign politics.
In fact premise of independence of any institution thats being heavily funded by anyone but itself is utter nonsense.

No, of course not. First you're making an invalid premise. The U.S. did not invade and destroy several countries. Then you follow up with an invalid and unrelated assertion. This isn't about "morality," it's about security.

Probably Lybia is better off now than it was before? Iraq? Serbia? Don't get caught up in the word "invaded", use "bombed" or "destroyed" if it makes things clearer.

Iran's leaders have repeatedly provided support to terrorist organizations, have repeatedly threatened to "wipe Israel and the U.S. off the face of the Earth," are indeed developing enriched uranium and are indeed performing weapons testing consistent with nuclear weapon development.

And Israel repeatedly killed Palestinian civilians with no apparent reason, in manner of the true terrorists, and treated Palestinians and whole of the arab world as cattle yet you have no problem with that. In fact US is helping that Israeli politics with a hefty sum.
But on the other hand you are justifying military intervention on country that did not attacked or killed anyone on Israel or US territory because they have contacts with imaginary terrorists and someone there threatened to destroy USA and Israel.

There you go again with your fabricated claims of life/death.

I think my problem with your arguments here, anarchy, is that you haven't provided anything in support of your arguments, just a lot of logical fallacies and hollow assertions. It would be nice if you actually brought something to the table than empty claims. All you're trying to do here is appeal to people's emotions and attack their loyalties. In every respect, you're posing propaganda, not facts nor evidence.

I'll ask you again. Have you ever lived under sanctions? Do you know how does life in country with no economy looks like? Hell yes its question of life and death.

Speaking of hollow claims and falsified proofs, you're my champion Hell. I don't see that your posts are backed by any proof, if anything they are backed by false premises which are presented as credible sources in your posts, I on the other hand speak partly from personal experience and partly using healthy logic and obvious observations.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'll pick up on a couple of points:

Ever lived under sanctions Hell? No wonder you make no sense on the topic.

It's not necessary to experience something to have an opinion on it. You don't need to have lived under fascism or communism for example to have valid and coherent views about those systems. A woman does not need to be raped to understand that rape is wrong.

And Israel repeatedly killed Palestinian civilians with no apparent reason, in manner of the true terrorists, and treated Palestinians and whole of the arab world as cattle yet you have no problem with that. In fact US is helping that Israeli politics with a hefty sum.

There's no requirement on any state to be totally even-handed. If my worst enemy and my best friend each acquire a gun I may report my enemy to the police. I'm not also obliged to report my friend for the sake of consistency.
I see this argument all the time in debates. People say things like "why invade Iraq when Zimbabwe is just as bad?", but no nation is obliged to address every injustice because it chooses to address one. One picks one's fights. It's called realpolitik.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'll pick up on a couple of points:

It's not necessary to experience something to have an opinion on it. You don't need to have lived under fascism or communism for example to have valid and coherent views about those systems. A woman does not need to be raped to understand that rape is wrong.

Everyone can have an opinion Eli, thats not the issue here. I was just stating that Hell underestimates seriousnes of sanctions, and i based that answer on my own personal experience.

There's no requirement on any state to be totally even-handed. If my worst enemy and my best friend each acquire a gun I may report my enemy to the police. I'm not also obliged to report my friend for the sake of consistency.
I see this argument all the time in debates. People say things like "why invade Iraq when Zimbabwe is just as bad?", but no nation is obliged to address every injustice because it chooses to address one. One picks one's fights. It's called realpolitik.

Why do we talk about terrorists and crap than? What gives you do right to put that etiquette on anyone if you are directly financing terrorist acts such as ones you're condemning.

Alternatively you could simply say: "We consider killing Palestinian people interesting pastime and we will continue to finance Israel in doing so, also we will invade or bomb any country we want using any bogus excuse we can find and we will not be responsible for anything we do there"
If anything that would at least be more realistic.

btw if you see your best friend or your worst enemy killing someone you're legally obliged to report them.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I see this argument all the time in debates. People say things like "why invade Iraq when Zimbabwe is just as bad?", but no nation is obliged to address every injustice because it chooses to address one. One picks one's fights. It's called realpolitik.

Or if you prefer, selective morality for that is what it is. That fact that it exists does not make it right.

I have no problem understanding the hostility shown or wished upon such hypocritical nations. I don't share those views but neither do I pretend there is a moral high ground or that having an interest in somewhere such as Iraq over Zimbabwe would be anything other than one has something of worth far greater than the other and therefore is coveted.

This is the reality and yes the fights are picked most carefully and that there is no such thing as equality, never was, never will be.... I do not however have to like or be quiet about it, this is the what the common person feels and voices without the need for proof or legislative BS or excuses.

I find getting into this kind of debate to be both depressing and pointless, if only through having to read the lengths and BS on white paper people go to in order to justify what is so obviously and fundamentally wrong in the world today.

People are only that and largely innocent but the ones profiting and manipulating ? A pox on all their houses and also the idiots that let them get away with it.

Pass the marshmallows and throw another prawn on the barbi while its still hot

 

[DeletedUser]

Ever lived under sanctions Hell?

In addition to living in the U.S., I lived in Argentina (at the time of the financial collapse) and Mexico (it's always in collapse). Grow up and stop asking personal questions to try and discredit me. Respect that I have had a full life, hardships inclusive. Stick to debating the topic and not attacking the poster.

If US wants other to participate, they will + demands can be as high as US wants it to be and threat of destroying country economics leaving its population in poverty IS arm twisting.

Do you realize the intent of the U.S., of posing sanctions on Iran, is to force them back to cooperating with the various agencies and to abide by the agreements the Iran government signed? Hello? You think sanctions that don't impose any hardship will have any effect? Of course not, wake up.

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They are in violation of the NNPT and the IAEA has directed them to cease their present violations, to resubmit to the required IAEA inspections. Iran has failed to do so. The sanctions are a means to have them abide by their previous agreements.

Sanctions are being imposed on Iran because they violated treaties and agreements, and because of U.N. resolutions, and because the U.S. recognizes that even with all of the present sanctions, Iran is still gameplaying, delaying so as to complete their research and thus obtain nuclear weaponry. It is of great concern to many nations in this world for an unstable and theocratic nation to obtain end-of-days weaponry, particularly one that has advocated such actions through support of terrorism and repeatedly indicated their intent to cause such.

1. Link you posted gives no information you're talking about, check it please.

The link I provided in that post was to IAEA, so you could review the member nations and member authorities. I provided links in a different post <click here> to address all the other claims I made. In fact, the post with the informative links is one of the posts you responded to, so not sure why you're saying I never provided supporting evidence. It is you that have failed to provide any supporting evidence, instead resorting to conspiracy theories.

4. You will forgive me for not having trust in any institutions, especially the ones that have any relation to US or UN. Most of those institutions proved themselves to be "provide-a-reason" or "give-our-bombs-liberty-face" services for US foreign politics.

Iran is a "member nation" of IAEA, so you can not trust any institution all you want, but you're now sounding like a conspiracy theorist, not a rational person.

Probably Lybia is better off now than it was before? Iraq? Serbia? Don't get caught up in the word "invaded", use "bombed" or "destroyed" if it makes things clearer.

And now you lost all credibility.

Serbia - NATO participated in Serbia to seek an end to the genocide, which they succeeded in doing. NATO actions were trooped by Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States.

Lybia - Gaddafi threatened to kill the innocent by bombing residential districts as a means to coerce revolutionaries to surrender. As a result, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone and the use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya. Shortly thereafter, the International Criminal Court filed an arrest warrant for Gaddafi, for implementing "a policy of widespread and systematic attacks against civilians and demonstrators and dissidents." French, U.S., and the U.K. posed air strikes in Lybia after Muammar Gaddafi threatened, as a means to coerce Lybian revolution leaders to surrender, to bomb non-violent, non-participatory civilians. There's far more to this, but as to whether Lybia benefited, I would say yes. The war was not initiated by outside forces, it was initiated by Lybians seeking independence from a military dictatorship and foreign participation served to reduce civilian casualties.

Anarchy, it's pretty obvious to me you really haven't researched any of this and are arguing from a podium of ignorance. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you need to research all the information, not merely believe propaganda.

I am not 100% behind all U.S. actions, nor in agreement with many actions committed by various nations, but I am in agreement to intruding upon any actions of genocide or threats to innocent civilians. Involvement in Serbia and Lybia were actions that fell within that definition. Iraq is a different matter, which I addressed earlier and which I will reiterate as something I was 100% against from the onset. It was, however, an act committed by a Republican President of questionable intelligence and surrounded by peers of unquestionable malice.

And, once again, we are discussing sanctions (international politics), not military actions. You keep changing the topic. So, returning to the original post --- which is that of sanctions on Iran and how those sanctions impact South Africa ---how about staying on that instead of raging on anything else just to avoid talking about that, because quite frankly I don't think you can argue that particular point very effectively, which is why you keep changing the focus of this discussion.

 

[DeletedUser]

In addition to living in the U.S., I lived in Argentina (at the time of the financial collapse) and Mexico (it's always in collapse). Grow up and stop asking personal questions to try and discredit me. Respect that I have had a full life, hardships inclusive. Stick to debating the topic and not attacking the poster.

So the answer is no. You never even seen fragile economy under sanctions. It takes special kind of person to consider sanction mild and humane measure...

Do you realize the intent of the U.S., of posing sanctions on Iran, is to force them back to cooperating with the various agencies and to abide by the agreements the Iran government signed? Hello? You think sanctions that don't impose any hardship will have any effect? Of course not, wake up.

Come on Hell i have no illusions about righteousness of Iraq or US but claiming that US motive is to make Iraq abide few agreements is just plain stupid. Countries know only interest, US probably more than any other.
Sure you can also make whole population starve to death, that would also do the trick, why limit yourself to just sanctions?

Sanctions are being imposed on Iran because they violated treaties and agreements, and because of U.N. resolutions, and because the U.S. recognizes that even with all of the present sanctions, Iran is still gameplaying, delaying so as to complete their research and thus obtain nuclear weaponry. It is of great concern to many nations in this world for an unstable and theocratic nation to obtain end-of-days weaponry, particularly one that has advocated such actions through support of terrorism and repeatedly indicated their intent to cause such.

And i am Jack The Talking Cheese!!!
So i guess oil had no influence on those US decisions, and i guess that country under sanctions can easily finance nuclear program?

And now you lost all credibility.

Serbia - NATO participated in Serbia to seek an end to the genocide, which they succeeded in doing. NATO actions were trooped by Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States.

Ohhhh this is good, i lost all credibility? What damn genocide? Kosovo? That same piece of land where at this very moment there is investigation about human organs trade organized by Kosovo officials? Same Kosovo where Serbian churches were burned the moment Nato took control? same Kosovo in which Serbian civilians are killed daily today?

Do not teach me about my country Hell, you have no knowledge nor insight to comprehend one of the most complex conflicts in Europe. And this you're shoveling is if not offensive than just plain stupid.

YOu need info on other warzones in Yugoslavia? Was present in some of them please do ask.

Lybia - Gaddafi threatened to kill the innocent by bombing residential districts as a means to coerce revolutionaries to surrender. As a result, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone and the use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya. Shortly thereafter, the International Criminal Court filed an arrest warrant for Gaddafi, for implementing "a policy of widespread and systematic attacks against civilians and demonstrators and dissidents." French, U.S., and the U.K. posed air strikes in Lybia after Muammar Gaddafi threatened, as a means to coerce Lybian revolution leaders to surrender, to bomb non-violent, non-participatory civilians. There's far more to this, but as to whether Lybia benefited, I would say yes. The war was not initiated by outside forces, it was initiated by Lybians seeking independence from a military dictatorship and foreign participation served to reduce civilian casualties.

You are destined for great thing at fox news... Either that or you're amazingly thickheaded, either way you're good for fox...
Let me correct you on few things, "revolutionaries" as you call them were army funded by NATO, basically terrorists on Lybian soil, with strong ties to AL Qaeda, to help you with analogy, that would be like Russia would finance military group in Texas with sole purpose of overthrowing US president.
Lybia had every right to intervene and protect its own territory from renegade group funded by outside forces.
UN resolution just goes to show what i said before, there is no an ounce of independence in that organisation, and every resolution can be voted on or ignored. We're having opposite example with resolution 1244.


Is it coincidence that after "saving civilians" first thing "coalition" did was to divide oil contracts among themselves and get lost leaving otherwise perfectly stable country in shambles?
Everyone that felt benefiting factor of your interventions is right now living in or near poverty, while before that he was leaving decent life.

Anarchy, it's pretty obvious to me you really haven't researched any of this and are arguing from a podium of ignorance. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you need to research all the information, not merely believe propaganda.

As i see it you have that problem, all i heard from you is propaganda stories and official white house reasons. Sorry hell but for a reasonable person thats just not good enough.

I am not 100% behind all U.S. actions, nor in agreement with many actions committed by various nations, but I am in agreement to intruding upon any actions of genocide or threats to innocent civilians. Involvement in Serbia and Lybia were actions that fell within that definition. Iraq is a different matter, which I addressed earlier and which I will reiterate as something I was 100% against from the onset. It was, however, an act committed by a Republican President of questionable intelligence and surrounded by peers of unquestionable malice.

You must be extremely naive to believe that US would go to war just to protect someone from genocide, damn it, thats the country that made few genocides itself.
Everything US does is motivated by interest, as any other country for that matter. Genocide is,if needed invented to justify action and keep american public opinion supporting the war.

Nor Serbia nor Lybia were not in "that" definition, just shallow research on the matter would show you that. I can go on and on about Serbian conflicts but than again not even the names of killed people wouldn't convince you that you are wrong.

And, once again, we are discussing sanctions (international politics), not military actions. You keep changing the topic. So, returning to the original post --- which is that of sanctions on Iran and how those sanctions impact South Africa ---how about staying on that instead of raging on anything else just to avoid talking about that, because quite frankly I don't think you can argue that particular point very effectively, which is why you keep changing the focus of this discussion.

I am merely reacting on points you serve up to me. What do you expect me to do, let you say something completely wrong and agree with that? About Sanctions i was arguing two points, that they are inhumane and that for fragile economy sanctions are equivalent of gun to the head. You claimed exactly opposite neither of us provided proofs for our claim.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not going to respond to your insults. AS to the sanctions imposed on Serbia, you're taking it out of the timeline. They were imposed due to the genocidal actions, as a means to starve the military and discourage the leaders from continuing with their genocidal actions. The involvement of military in those instances did end the genocide occurring at that time. Also, that economy was fragile precisely because of the conflicts and the genocidal acts. Sanctions didn't cause the fragility, it merely exacerbated it, which is exactly what it is intended to, as a humane means to an end.

Here's the problem with your economy argument. It is the leadership of a sanctioned country that causes sanctions to be a problem. When they decided to be bullheaded, staying the path despite international outrage (in every instance you presented, it was international, not merely the U.S.), they hurt their nation's economy. Sanctions are a non-violent means of nations to impose political influence on another country. If the leaders are dogheaded, that country can suffer an economic impact, particularly if the dogheaded leaders insist on utilizing their nation's treasury to support military action instead of providing for their populace.

That's the problem with many of these instances. Countries that end up receiving sanctions from the U.N. are countries led by unscrupulous dictators, whose primary actions are to self-serve at the cost of the citizenry. It is through revolt and/or the actions of "other" nations that these unscrupulous dictators are dethroned or reined in. And you seem to have a problem with that.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

May I just point out that ALL and I mean ALL powerful nations operate only on a Quid Pro Quo basis... nothing comes without strings or self interest. To try and argue otherwise is futile but that is the job of politicians, to pretend in the righteousness of an act yet omit the full details leading up to or the real and full objective.

Please watch how you respond to each other and expect the insulted to retort, what is not an issue or insult to one is indeed to another when close to the heart, please remember your cultures, backgrounds and experiences are different. Please also remember respect once earned is not a right to beat down on others, if you know better please act accordingly.

So forgets a nation once climbed from nothing to lofty heights, however what goes up eventually comes down usually with a crash, just ask Icarus. A lesson never learnt throughout history or likely to be in the foreseeable future.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not going to respond to your insults. AS to the sanctions imposed on Serbia, you're taking it out of the timeline. They were imposed due to the genocidal actions, as a means to starve the military and discourage the leaders from continuing with their genocidal actions. The involvement of military in those instances did end the genocide occurring at that time. Also, that economy was fragile precisely because of the conflicts and the genocidal acts. Sanctions didn't cause the fragility, it merely exacerbated it, which is exactly what it is intended to, as a humane means to an end.

You didn't have the problem on ridiculing my English or proclaiming my nation genocidal one so I responded to your insults accordingly. You used that to avoid answering to all the nasty questions. Classic Hell...

Ok this is important, what genocidal actions??! What genocidal acts?
Please back up your claims, and how come country that did genocide have half a million of refugees? If you are calling my nation genocidal one (which coming from American is a joke) you could at least provide some proofs.


How come that all of those peaceful neighbors managed to make few mass graves of Serbian civilians?
How come that Serbian intervention on its own soil against group of terrorist is genocide and American mincing of countries is freedom fighting?

About sanctions providing that you are right(which you are not), army would starve last, population would starve first.
And all of the economies in eastern Europe are fragile at this very moment, without war or sanctions so your theory is wrong there as well.

Here's the problem with your economy argument. It is the leadership of a sanctioned country that causes sanctions to be a problem. When they decided to be bullheaded, staying the path despite international outrage (in every instance you presented, it was international, not merely the U.S.), they hurt their nation's economy. Sanctions are a non-violent means of nations to impose political influence on another country. If the leaders are dogheaded, that country can suffer an economic impact, particularly if the dogheaded leaders insist on utilizing their nation's treasury to support military action instead of providing for their populace.

False argument, you lean your entire theory on one point which is wrong, in your eyes world is beautiful place in which justice is everywhere, world leaders are there to protect smaller nations, nothing is done out of pure interest, no one lies, and no one's support can be bought. Well sorry to burst your bubble but world is exact opposite of that and one receiving sanctions is not necessarily to blame, they might just be obstacle for someones interests or has less powerful allies.

That's the problem with many of these instances. Countries that end up receiving sanctions from the U.N. are countries led by unscrupulous dictators, whose primary actions are to self-serve at the cost of the citizenry. It is through revolt and/or the actions of "other" nations that these unscrupulous dictators are dethroned or reined in. And you seem to have a problem with that.

I disagree strongly, as i said countries that receive those sanctions are in a way of someone's interests if that wasn't the case Saudi Arabia or Bahrein would be under sanctions and bombed daily. Just on the examples of those two countries against Lybia we can see that one civilized country is destroyed and its leader killed on some bogus excuse while countries that nurture "democratic" tradition of public executions are proclaimed democratic and freedom fighting nation.

Thats the problem i have Hell, hypocrisy you're defending is my problem, your god given right to kill and burn without consequences is my problem. Allowing yourself to support killings and occupations without even knowing first thing about conflict your country is involved in is my problem.

 

[DeletedUser]

What gives you do right to put that etiquette on anyone if you are directly financing terrorist acts such as ones you're condemning.

Please do tell me what terrorist acts I am financing.

anarchy, I consider your understanding of the Libyan situation way off. You seem to think the insurgents there were both Al Qaeda AND US sponsored. Debate interests me, online education doesn't, so if you really think Ghaddafi was doing a bang-up job of running Libya then I'll leave you to your beliefs. (Incidentally, if you want your opinions on Libya to carry any weight it would at least help if you learnt the correct spelling of that country's name.)

The job of the US government, like any other, is to protect and serve the interests of its citizens. It is not to act as an international police force, aid agency or moral role-model. The only valid criticism of its policies is if they fail in that purpose. That may sound harsh, but it is only the brute truth, and talk of hypocrisy or immorality is to me just airy-fairy finger-wagging.

With any obnoxious regime the US has the following options:

1. Oppose them with military force - the bashers will accuse them of war-mongering, genocide etc. etc.
2. Oppose them with economic force - the bashers will take the line of this thread, accuse them of bullying, double standards etc. etc.
3. Do neither and have business as usual - the bashers will cite the immorality of capitalism, hypocrisy, economic imperialism etc. etc.

Those critics very rarely propose any solutions of their own, as it is much easier to knock the efforts of others than to do anything constructive themselves.

So let me ask - what positives would come out of Iran having nuclear warheads on its already existing delivery systems? I would like to hear from the US-bashers on that.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

So let me ask - what positives would come out of Iran having nuclear warheads on its already existing delivery systems? I would like to hear from the US-bashers on that.

mmm lets see now.

For Iran quite a lot, for Israel probably a cold sweat leading possibly to a real Palestine, which is long overdue. Force a heck of a lot more negotiation and a lot less bullying. Possibly stabilize the region rather than not. Its not like its been exactly a success in Iraq or a number of other Arab spring countries.

I don't happen to share the mass hysteria of the fear of Islam nor Iran in having capability. Pakistan has it and its hardly free of terrorist suspects. Russia hasn't let one go on sale yet everyone panicked when the USSR collapsed.

Oh and before you say Israel would get one between the eyes remember its holy ground for Islam too and highly unlikely whatever the sabre rattling says.

Imminent total eradication if getting out of line is a sobering concept that Iran would have to face if she acquired it, also of course the possible destruction of all that lovely black resource... probably make everyone sit down and start talking, seriously and on a level rather than one on high.

If you buy all this about Iran being evil, up to you, me ? I just see the usual BS propaganda on the next target with something coveted by others, as usual.

 

[DeletedUser]

mmm lets see now.

For Iran quite a lot, for Israel probably a cold sweat leading possibly to a real Palestine, which is long overdue. Force a heck of a lot more negotiation and a lot less bullying. Possibly stabilize the region rather than not. Its not like its been exactly a success in Iraq or a number of other Arab spring countries.

If you go down the line that nuclear-arming of states makes the world safer by preventing bullying and making it not worthwhile to fall out with your neighbours then ofc the rational path is to give nuclear weapons away to anyone who wants them in the name of world peace. Similar in a way to the arguments in the US against gun control.
But what is this argument based on? Feelings, or data?

 

[DeletedUser]

Please do tell me what terrorist acts I am financing.

You are funding Israeli murders of Palestinian civilians for one. Murder of civilians around the world is also one of many forms of terrorist acts. For example you might remember US plane bombing refugee convoy in Kosovo, or destroying national television building in Serbia (killing staff that was there in the process) but those are just two examples.

anarchy, I consider your understanding of the Libyan situation way off. You seem to think the insurgents there were both Al Qaeda AND US sponsored. Debate interests me, online education doesn't, so if you really think Ghaddafi was doing a bang-up job of running Libya then I'll leave you to your beliefs. (Incidentally, if you want your opinions on Libya to carry any weight it would at least help if you learnt the correct spelling of that country's name.)

How you see my views of Libyan situation is your problem, any way you put it i have much more info from different sources while all you have is summary of CNN news.

I noticed that you have a habit of pulling things out of context, you did not disappointed this time either. I said that they have certain connections with Al Qaeda such as members of Al Qaeda fighting on terrorists side, and that they are sponsored by you.
Oh i think Ghaddafi was independent leader, who provided decent living to his country and i am right without a shadow of a doubt. Current situation there and division of oil contracts confirms everything i said.

That spelling argument really proofs nothing expect that you lack basic manners. I could ask you how many languages can you speak as well as i can speak English. What answer would i get? Probably that it doesn't matter for some reason...

The job of the US government, like any other, is to protect and serve the interests of its citizens. It is not to act as an international police force, aid agency or moral role-model. The only valid criticism of its policies is if they fail in that purpose. That may sound harsh, but it is only the brute truth, and talk of hypocrisy or immorality is to me just airy-fairy finger-wagging.

Really?! Can we look nazi Germany in that way too? Since holocaust didn't directly affected well being of Germans at the time i guess that by your logic holocaust is ok than?
Yup that sounds American.
I find your logic and lack of morality terribly disturbing.

With any obnoxious regime the US has the following options:

1. Oppose them with military force - the bashers will accuse them of war-mongering, genocide etc. etc.
2. Oppose them with economic force - the bashers will take the line of this thread, accuse them of bullying, double standards etc. etc.
3. Do neither and have business as usual - the bashers will cite the immorality of capitalism, hypocrisy, economic imperialism etc. etc.

Those critics very rarely propose any solutions of their own, as it is much easier to knock the efforts of others than to do anything constructive themselves.

So you honestly believe that people will criticize you for not destroying independent countries? And i wouldn't call bombing constructive. Have you ever tried not to intervene anywhere? It would be a blow for oil and arms industry

No offense Eli but everything you say has purpose of justifying murders and invasions while putting smiley liberty face on each bomb you drop on residential neighborhoods. You're also trying to impose doctrine of "bombing you for your own good after which you're better off" (of course you provide no proof for that claim), and that is absolute nonsense for everyone expect you.


In this whole thread you and Hell continued to ignore each and every nasty question or constatation i brought up and kept repeating (with slight variations) mantra of right of US to intervene, bomb or kill whoever it wants and claimed that all is done out of purely moral reasons.

All that comes from your inability to accept few basic facts.

1. Your country is run by large businesses, not much difference in who takes the presidential spot.
2. Reason you go to war is to make profit for those large businesses nothing else.
3. You do kill civilians, execute them at the mosques, piss on dead bodies etc. whether you like to admit it or not. There are video materials of that for gods sake.

I am growing tired of this, its very tiresome to give example after example, and to keep showing holes in your theories only to be ridiculed because of spelling mistake, or to have my arguments rejected on basis of "you're wrong".

 

[DeletedUser]

You are funding Israeli murders of Palestinian civilians for one. Murder of civilians around the world is also one of many forms of terrorist acts. For example you might remember US plane bombing refugee convoy in Kosovo, or destroying national television building in Serbia (killing staff that was there in the process) but those are just two examples.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am an American. Half your punches are thus swinging at empty air. As always, a little basic fact-finding saves subsequent embarrassment.

How you see my views of Libyan situation is your problem, any way you put it i have much more info from different sources while all you have is summary of CNN news.

Ditto. Never, ever watched CNN.

I noticed that you have a habit of pulling things out of context, you did not disappointed this time either. I said that they have certain connections with Al Qaeda such as members of Al Qaeda fighting on terrorists side, and that they are sponsored by you.

Got any evidence btw?

Oh i think Ghaddafi was independent leader, who provided decent living to his country and i am right without a shadow of a doubt.

Nice that you support dictators and that you agree with yourself.

That spelling argument really proofs nothing expect that you lack basic manners. I could ask you how many languages can you speak as well as i can speak English. What answer would i get? Probably that it doesn't matter for some reason...

That you of all people should complain about manners.
You're right on one thing though - my proficiency in other languages is not relevant to the debate. Since you ask, I also speak reasonable French.

Can we look nazi Germany in that way too? Since holocaust didn't directly affected well being of Germans at the time i guess that by your logic holocaust is ok than?
Yup that sounds American.
I find your logic and lack of morality terribly disturbing.

By my logic the holocaust would only be justifiable if it furthered the best interests of the German people. Since many of them were killed by it, and criminal acts rarely advance the cause of any people I would say that it failed that test. Of course, those who condone it argue that it was prosecuted in the interests of the German, or Aryan, people, which underlines my point.

So you honestly believe that people will criticize you for not destroying independent countries? And i wouldn't call bombing constructive. Have you ever tried not to intervene anywhere? It would be a blow for oil and arms industry

Please stop addressing me as the USA.

No offense Eli but everything you say has purpose of justifying murders and invasions....

.
Oh, no offence taken, old boy.

In this whole thread you ...... kept repeating (with slight variations) mantra of right of US to intervene, bomb or kill whoever it wants and claimed that all is done out of purely moral reasons.

I actually said the opposite, but don't let that put you off your stride.

You do kill civilians, execute them at the mosques, piss on dead bodies etc. whether you like to admit it or not. There are video materials of that for gods sake.

Oh, you've read my blog then?

 

[DeletedUser16008]

If you go down the line that nuclear-arming of states makes the world safer by preventing bullying and making it not worthwhile to fall out with your neighbours then ofc the rational path is to give nuclear weapons away to anyone who wants them in the name of world peace. Similar in a way to the arguments in the US against gun control.
But what is this argument based on? Feelings, or data?

Well seeing as there is no data to go on or track record of Atomic use other than what the US has used Id have to say feeling.

I do know this though, not one of the nations that have Nuclear capability have used it either offensive or defensively apart from the US.

If its a theoretical basis or by current example then ill cite the USSR and the US stand-off as an example and also India and Pakistan as a current and very live one.

North and South Korea another live stand off not even declared the war to be ended just stalled, mostly through neither side having any ultimate advantage

Personally I would love to see one of Israel's enemy's get it to sober them up too.... sorry to drag off topic. Then again this helps define a nations political punching weight, not so off topic really.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well seeing as there is no data to go on or track record of Atomic use other than what the US has used Id have to say feeling.

I do know this though, not one of the nations that have Nuclear capability have used it either offensive or defensively apart from the US.

If its a theoretical basis or by current example then ill cite the USSR and the US stand-off as an example and also India and Pakistan as a current and very live one.

North and South Korea another live stand off not even declared the war to be ended just stalled, mostly through neither side having any ultimate advantage

Personally I would love to see one of Israel's enemy's get it to sober them up too.... sorry to drag off topic. Then again this helps define a nations political punching weight, not so off topic really.

Well, you nearly got your wish with Saddam Hussein.
Since he used chemical weapons against his own people and fired Scuds at random into Israel it doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to envisage what he might have done with nuclear weapons to hand.
Since Israel has had nuclear capability for nearly 50 years without using it, I'm not sure that suddenly changing the equation by introducing an "Arab bomb" wouldn't be catastrophically destabilising. Atm Israel has no excuse or need to nuke any of its numerous enemies. If those enemies themselves had nuclear weapons then the excuse is created.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Well, you nearly got your wish with Saddam Hussein.
Since he used chemical weapons against his own people and fired Scuds at random into Israel it doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to envisage what he might have done with nuclear weapons to hand.
Since Israel has had nuclear capability for nearly 50 years without using it, I'm not sure that suddenly changing the equation by introducing an "Arab bomb" wouldn't be catastrophically destabilising. Atm Israel has no excuse or need to nuke any of its numerous enemies. If those enemies themselves had nuclear weapons then the excuse is created.

A bit unfair to say I wish for nuclear exchange even from you, so your saying saddam would have used atomic if he had it ? lol im saying had he things would have been very different from the very beginning... think about what your saying and how it got to that point and If there was atomic use from Saddam hed have used it in the Iraq, Iran war more likely, do you really think Iraq would have been simply invaded by the allies with such capability ? I seriously doubt it.

Saddam and Iraq is a complicated story where it weaves in and out of all manner of relations both as friend and enemy over many years. As for chemical weapons theres nothing new in using them against your own citizens. The US has done it along with many other nations. I'm not saying the guy was a saint or even ok just pointing out .. when hes a friend no one gives a stuff ... when however hes suddenly an enemy hes a crackpot villain no 1 ... selective BS

Same can be said in Afghanistan, who helped them fight the USSR by providing weaponry ? the US and allies, and who did they supply ? yea thats right the Taliban

One second your a sound friend the next a worldwide threat.

Did Israel develop their own or have it given to them ? was the technology given or stolen ? Israel have consistently stated they would not hesitate to use it if attacked many times since acquiring it, hence the scud fiasco and the allies constantly paying off and mothering things during the conflict. How sane, humane and fair is the treatment of Palestinians ? Israel are a bunch of hypocritical, manipulating thieves with a terrorist history and a bullying present. Id trust an Arab no more or less with the same technology as that lot.

Thus is international politics influenced, used and conveniently manipulated depending on your standing. All very well as long as your in and know your right place at the table...

 

[DeletedUser]

A bit unfair to say I wish for nuclear exchange even from you,

Not that I said any such thing, but carry on regardless.

so your saying saddam would have used atomic if he had it ?

No. I never draw myself into specifics over counter-factuals. But he may have.

lol

Overused internet cliche.

im saying had he things would have been very different from the very beginning... think about what your saying and how it got to that point and If there was atomic use from Saddam hed have used it in the Iraq, Iran war more likely, do you really think Iraq would have been simply invaded by the allies with such capability ? I seriously doubt it.

Saddam and Iraq is a complicated story where it weaves in and out of all manner of relations both as friend and enemy over many years. As for chemical weapons theres nothing new in using them against your own citizens. The US has done it along with many other nations. I'm not saying the guy was a saint or even ok just pointing out .. when hes a friend no one gives a stuff ... when however hes suddenly an enemy hes a crackpot villain no 1 ...

OT rambling. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

One second your a sound friend the next a worldwide threat.

Oh, I juist woke up. Isn't that an argument against letting the nuclear club have yet more members?

Did Israel develop their own or have it given to them ? was the technology given or stolen ? Israel have consistently stated they would not hesitate to use it if attacked many times since acquiring it

Really? I thought they had never officially acknowledged that they even possessed nuclear weaponry.

Israel are a bunch of hypocritical, manipulating thieves with a terrorist history and a bullying present. Id trust an Arab no more or less with the same technology as that lot.

So... the Israelis are thieves and you do not trust the Arabs to be any better, and yet you'd be happy for any of Israel's enemies to develop a nuclear bomb?
I shall stop trying to discredit your arguments, you are so much better at it than me.