Imposition - A discussion on International Politics

[DeletedUser16008]

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

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

OT rambling. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

You brought it up and speculated but failed to explore or cite any scenario or history that may have been different as a result... Saddam is gone and your comments just as factless and off topic , at least i tried to put it in perspective rather than just make a silly quip.

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

No not really its an argument of nations to stop backing less than savory groups in the first place and then like having a dog whining that it bites back when you kick it. Pathetic

Sooner or later this idea of deciding how another nation progresses its technology has to stop. Its been nearly seventy years since the atomic bomb was first tested, to continue to use it as the ultimate threat only works for so long. Do i care how many nations have capability ? no i don't, the place is already so messed up, the risks so great, we must learn to live under the possibility and all understand that its a dead end, literally and do something positive or as we stand we won't last until the end of this century. Sorry but its all linked in, fixing one little concern like Iran does nothing to affect the whole and its impending problems.

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

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.

Oh come on, Israel has it and has done so for a long time. Its not made any official declaration but has never denied it either... in fact a few have stated its estimated arsenal to be around 150 warheads. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7420573.stm

Im really not even arguing just saying im tired of this boogy man excuse and Imposition - A discussion on International Politics are influenced by the nation that does and those that do not have capability ...let alone the threat that a free nation cannot have what many others already do, what could be more imposing than that ?

I don't have a western superiority complex or paranoia so no it dosnt bother me, mostly I think this is all it really is or has been. Can't keep going around creating and encouraging monsters then crying when they get loose. Or acting like a schoolyard bully and demanding others do what they tell them to.

Any politics are the same basics... you do you best to get what you want and ensure your opponent dosnt if possible. The ends always justify the means as far as politics go in their mind. Frankly its all just one big game of chess and the aim is to stop as many nations as possible from becoming either a threat or as prosperous... anything goes, so whats new ? nothing really, it just makes me sick to see people carried along on the BS propaganda, and that goes for all sides.

 

[DeletedUser]

This dialogue captures some of the absurdities of trying to argue with most people in these forums. They do not read what you write and they forget their own postings, so half your time is spent just clarifying and correcting what they have said in order to pose a coherent response.

Just 2 examples from this thread (redacted):
1.
Vic: I'd like Israel's enemies to have the bomb.
Eli: Well, Saddam got close, and he was just the type of guy who might use it..
Vic: You're accusing me of wanting a nuclear war now.
2.
Vic:Israel has used the bomb to threaten others.
Eli: Israel has never even admitted having the bomb.
Vic: Of course Israel has the bomb.

I don't know if the non-sequiturs are as painfully obvious to everyone else as they are to me, but it makes debate impossible, because although there's a logical link between what Vic says and my response, his counter-response bears no logical connection to the conversation so far. This isn't just Vic, it's endemic. HS is the only regular poster who tries to marshal arguments on the basis of what the other person has said.

Anf then there's this:

No not really its an argument of nations to stop backing less than savory groups in the first place and then like having a dog whining that it bites back when you kick it.

I think I know what he's trying to say, but this isn't it. I could have read the whole post in the time I scratched my head trying to parse this sentence; it's missing a least two commas but it still doesn't hang together even then; the object of "kicking" seems to be analogised with that of "backing", which are opposing verbs. I'm not a grammar-Nazi, but in any argument I think it's important to be clear in what you are saying.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Eli I have been keeping it on topic, unlike yours now which is just offtopic and for the sake of it. If your going to accuse me of something you had better make sure your innocent and perfect buster. Apologies on the commas my fault but It would also be better to be clear and complete in what you mean in the first place if you wish no confusion. Rather than make up a to and fro dialog just quote as it actually was rather than try to paint things as you wish however incomplete. You have in fact been contradicting yourself most amusingly.

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

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 ?

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

Thats funny but i could have sworn you said I wished for it according to your post. Maybe you should have been clearer originally or just read what you wrote before answering ?

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.

So here you state Israel do have capability okay fine, but wait

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

Here you contradict yourself in the very next one, so whos not reading their previous writings ? Make up your mind.

Oh come on, Israel has it and has done so for a long time. Its not made any official declaration but has never denied it either... in fact a few have stated its estimated arsenal to be around 150 warheads. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7420573.stm

I provided the answer for you with a link, when you flip flop about in your posts contradicting yourself don't be surprised when someone has to painfully go over it to be sure what your position is. I agree its hard to debate when someone has no idea where you stand. It was not a yes they do no they dont Monty Python sketch dialog because it was you that said they do then decided they dont, meaning I had to confirm something you had previously said yourself, ergo your error seeing as you got all confused on what you stated from one post to another.

You could have chosen to answer and keep it on topic rather than accuse people of something you in fact instigated by being unclear and self contradicting. I see no problem with people counter-responding to quips or confused and contradicting posts, after all they are bound to be a little confused when they have to deal with an inconsistent poster. As long as they end up bringing it back and keeping to the topic, which I believe you will find I have.

Tell you what Eli, ill include a few more commas if you'll stop contradicting yourself and be clearer in your posts without being pointlessly flippant as you so often are.

Imposition - A discussion on International Politics is the topic, politics run on many levels, especially international ones. If you cant deal with the many facets of it then maybe its best you stick to discussing simpler ones where you dont get confused on your opinion. Now shall we continue with the topic at hand ?

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh, Victor, Victor....

Point 1: Your wish was for ownership of the bomb, not for usage of it. Nothing I posted imputed the latter to you.

Point 2. Ofc Israel has nukes, but they have not admitted it. Ergo they cannot have threatened to use them.

Those were my points and you missed them all over again. Groundhog day in the forum and as good a time as any to retire from the fray. Best wishes to all, and apologies for following the lead OT.