| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dome Vans: this news-article cites and paraphrases its informants' views. Sorry you disapprove. But that is the story.
I know, I know. Like Michael Moore, you would only accept news-information that screamed "Liar!" at every single American and/or allied government official. But some of us want to hear people's views.
I understand you may strongly dislike FoxNews. I, too, avoid this source. But this story and its wording do not evince the kinds of problems you seem to allege here.
Grow up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Location: Daegu
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Doesn't israel have nuclear weapons? I'm trying to figure out what gives them the right to have these weapons but other countries can't. Nor can I see what gives them the right to attack another country.
The reaction here should be to condemn Israel's attack on another country's soil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Doesn't Israel have nuclear weapons? I'm trying to figure out... |
Give up now. As I have already explained to you -- and it is strange that someone would lack so much self-consciousness to know himself -- you are an internet purist. You will never understand why everything is not always consistently and absolutey the same across the board on whatever issue.
You will always see stories like this and come away confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Location: Daegu
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Doesn't Israel have nuclear weapons? I'm trying to figure out... |
Give up now. As I have already explained to you -- and it is strange that someone would lack so much self-consciousness to know himself -- you are an internet purist. You will never understand why everything is not always consistently and absolutey the same across the board on whatever issue.
You will always see stories like this and come away confused. |
I understand this. It is wrong to attack another country. That is what Israel did. If another country with no ties to the US did the same to them you would have a very different reaction. You fail to see the hyprocrisy in this or how this can backfire on the US or israel.
I guess I understand that actions have consequences..apparently some do not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Location: The deep south...
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I personally think that Northern Ireland should have been allowed to have all of the weapons and explosives they needed back in the 1970's-1980's to fight off all of the British oppression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Location: Daegu
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| I personally think that Northern Ireland should have been allowed to have all of the weapons and explosives they needed back in the 1970's-1980's to fight off all of the British oppression. |
That would have needed quite a few pass arounds of the hat in Boston and New york to afford all that though:) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are five nation included in the nuclear "Non Proliferation Treaty".
The United States of America, Russia, The United Kingdom, France and China.
There are three other nation possessing Nuclear weapons, having denonated and tested such weapons, Pakistan, India and North Korea.
It is believed that Isreal also has nuclear weapons.
There were rumors of a South Africa and Isreali test in the Indian Ocean in 1979, the event could have just as easily been a meteorite. If Isreal has no nuclear weapons they have used this rumor to grat advantage.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 states party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China.
Only four nations are not signatories: India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea ratified the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.
This stuff I found in the wiki, just search on the key words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
JMO pondered:
| Quote: |
| Doesn't israel have nuclear weapons? I'm trying to figure out what gives them the right to have these weapons but other countries can't. Nor can I see what gives them the right to attack another country. |
I think cbclark4 has summed up the diplomatic situation nicely.
If Israel went around touting its nuclear capabilities, it would only serve as a convenient pretext for the anti-Semites to cry foul. Only the Muslims are allowed to threaten their use.
And if you can't understand why the Israelis would feel the need to protect themselves with tactical nuclear weapons, then you really need to go spend some time in the MidEast among Mohammed's lovely flock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Location: Daegu
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
JMO pondered:
| Quote: |
| Doesn't israel have nuclear weapons? I'm trying to figure out what gives them the right to have these weapons but other countries can't. Nor can I see what gives them the right to attack another country. |
I think cbclark4 has summed up the diplomatic situation nicely.
If Israel went around touting its nuclear capabilities, it would only serve as a convenient pretext for the anti-Semites to cry foul. Only the Muslims are allowed to threaten their use.
And if you can't understand why the Israelis would feel the need to protect themselves with tactical nuclear weapons, then you really need to go spend some time in the MidEast among Mohammed's lovely flock. |
That makes no sense. Its anti semitic to say its wrong for israel to attack another country whilst holding the same weapons?
Israel seems perfectly capable of defending itself with conventional weapons. There is no reason they should have these weapons and others should not. At the very least do not attack other countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Location: The deep south...
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
| I personally think that Northern Ireland should have been allowed to have all of the weapons and explosives they needed back in the 1970's-1980's to fight off all of the British oppression. |
That would have needed quite a few pass arounds of the hat in Boston and New york to afford all that though:) |
What?!?! There are Irish in Boston?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| That makes no sense...There is no reason they should have these weapons and others should not. |
McGarrett and CBClark: you are wasting energy attempting to reason with this purist. I say this to orient him and not cast aspersions. He is speaking honestly and not combatively when he protests "That makes no sense."
He will never, ever, not for the rest of his life, come to terms with humanity, its daily contradictions, and such phenomena as Realism.
Did you know, JMO, that Paris deploys nuclear weapons and also opposes Tehran's nuclear-weapons program at the same time?
| Walt Whitman wrote: |
| Do I contradict myself? Very well. Then I contradict myself. I am vast. I contain multitudes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spliff

Joined: 19 Jan 2004 Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Israel seems perfectly capable of defending itself with conventional weapons. There is no reason they should have these weapons and others should not. At the very least do not attack other countries. |
It's called preemption....Jooooos - 1 Ragheads - 0 Off to the locker room until the next match...
I don't think you understand conservative thinking but, if it were your job to protect your nation, you'd come around on tack pretty fast is my thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Location: The deep south...
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah...
But, Gopher, the French oppose the Americans. They're excused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Location: The deep south...
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spliff wrote: |
| I don't think you understand conservative thinking but, if it were your job to protect your nation, you'd come around on tack pretty fast is my thinking. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Location: The deep south...
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Real? Here's real.
Who am I more tempted to think will use nukes?
a) A religious country with a long history of conflict. This country possesses conventional weaponry that could decimate all opposition, and periodically they launch pre-emptive strikes or offensive campaigns into foreign countries. This country is rumored to have nukes, but has never confirmed it and has never used them.
b) A country that has a long history of neutrality. This country never enters battle, and never has taken part in any war in recent history.
c) A religious country that has a long history of conflict. This country has been actively seeking nuclear weapons to make up for it's lack of conventional weapons. Also, the country has a debated but questionable reputation for zealotry and government-funded though unofficial incursions into foreign countries.
My answer is of course C. That's real.
Edit: This was for Big_Bird, who apparently deleted her post about appreciating realism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|