Reply With Quote
Why?
If you can use them as leverage. China has in the past with N. Korea although that relationship has soured lately.
So you are not concerned about many members?
Same reason they want to keep any non nuclear country from getting nukes. It's an exclusive club. The less members the better
Why?
If you can use them as leverage. China has in the past with N. Korea although that relationship has soured lately.
So you are not concerned about many members?
http://www.cfr.org/iran/irans-revolu...-guards/p14324
This write up has points that makes one think the Revolutionary guard has a stake in stability, and some that indicate not so much. A major point of course is how they are dealt with. One can talk to the political arm of say, Sinn Fein,while the military arm keeps blowing things up. That's a problem, even negotiating...
I'm pretty sure today the entire world including china would be opposed to N Korea getting nukes. Same with Pakistan.
Different times. Height of the cold war back then
So I didn't see any examples of the RG's going off the reservation independent of the religious leaders.
A "world without Zionism" is a noble goal. That's like a "world without Apartheid" or a "world without Jim Crow laws". Zionism = Racism and it needs to be eliminated. Many many people across the Western world agree that a "world without Zionism" would be a much safer and just place.
Single state solution.
Allow the Pals that were driven from their homes to return.
Hold open elections in the land between the Jordan and the sea, one person one vote. Everyone gets to stay regardless of religion or ethnicity, nobody is forced out, they live in a representative democracy.
Follow the model of South Africa or the US South. It isn't perfect, but it is 10x better than the status quo where for 50 years millions of people have been subject to violent occupation, daily humiliation, and the murder and kidnapping of 1000s of their citizens by the worlds 4th most powerful military.
#BDS
#ICC4Israel
#WorldStopIsrael
The war criminal Bibi is blaming the Pals, not Hitler, for the Holocaust. How is that not as bad or worse than Holocaust denial?
http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaC...ess201015.aspx
Talk about "incitement".
And this attack and other attacks on the Jewish community in 1920, 1921, 1929, were instigated by a call of the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was later sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials because he had a central role in fomenting the final solution. He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, "If you expel them, they'll all come here." "So what should I do with them?" he asked. He said, "Burn them." And he was sought in, during the Nuremberg trials for prosecution. He escaped it and later died of cancer, after the war, died of cancer in Cairo. But this is what Haj Amin al-Husseini said. He said, ":The Jews seek to destroy the Temple Mount." My grandfather in 1920 seeks to destroy…? Sorry, the al-Aqsa Mosque.
So this lie is about a hundred years old. It fomented many, many attacks. The Temple Mount stands. The al-Aqsa Mosque stands. But the lie stands too, persists.
Israel's Netanyahu Makes One of the Most Absurd Claims About the Holocaust Imaginable
http://www.alternet.org/world/israels-netanyahu-claims-it-was-palestinians-who-convinced-hitler-exterminate-jews
"apparently", after the Fall of France, the Nazis original idea was to deport the Jews to French island of Madagascar, but decided it was too small. Then they lost the Battle of Britain and decided to incinerate the Jews.
Lol phenomamul probably claim Bibby was mistranslated
Ok.
There is nothing in that article about the makeup of Iran's power structure that should be of concern given nukes?
And from the article you assume the religious leaders are a cohesive unit so the Republican guard is also? From that article it was clear to you the Republican guard also follows lockstep with the religious leaders?
In other words, no concern with Iran having a nuke?
I read that and a bunch of other stuff, and I don't want Iran to have a nuke. The only thing in that article that points to some stability is the fact that the Republican guard has become a successful money making en y themselves so why rock the boat..
I see this as a highly factionalized semiautocratic country. And that's scary.
Last edited by pgardn; 10-21-2015 at 08:02 AM.
I am really more concerned about Pakistan's having a bomb. That has historically proved to be the situation you've described and they would be much more likely to use nukes in a conflict with its real adversary in the region. Of course we'll never do anything about that, so why treat Iran so differently?
I'm fine with the current path we're on, but I'm not in favor of another war that will only prove to Iran why it needs nuclear weapons.
Another red-herring.Lol phenomamul probably claim Bibby was mistranslated
You really don't understand the meaning of civil discourse.
And some par-for-the-course lying on your part... It was YOU that got all huffy and puffy about mistranslation, to the point where you quoted and linked all sorts of irrelevant quotes that had nothing to do with the wording of the quote that I posted.
Here is your strawman tactic in a nuts :
Make up a ridiculous argument
Attribute it to someone else (or another poster - in this case me)
Mock and destroy the premise of that argument
Somehow claim that your position is correct based on the ridiculousness of the argument that you alone fabricated and dispelled.
So what's your take on Bibby absolving Hitler and pinning the Final Solution on a Palestine?
The path we are on is dealing with them, I believe, because of what I have outlined above. I believe Israel has reason to be more concerned than we are due mainly to proximity and obvious horrible relations with Iran and their terror funding. Pakistan is more of a concern as they just need a more solid delivery system, they have the weapons. And, they don't get along with India. But I don't believe this makes Iran a problem we don't address.
My general feeling, once I posted some questions, was Iran was much to do about nothing to some on this board. I don't see it this way.
I could actually make an extreme Republican argument that would fit more closely with what I read from some on this board who are clearly not Republicans. It would involve calling their bluff: "This is easy, let them make whatever, they can't deliver here. Meanwhile, we blow the out of them" In fact, dare them to make a weapon...
Last edited by pgardn; 10-21-2015 at 09:41 AM.
holy did he really say this??????
"Hitler did not really want to exterminate the Jews, just expell them..."
In my view BiBi is in power because the majority of Israelis are within rocket range now and he supplies the aggressive stance of protection through offensive action in this phase of relations. He got the votes. Mission accomplished, the majority of Israelis are now scared.
There are so many players that benefit from this conflict it's not going away. The Palestinians will die in the meantime... Like the majority of the Arab world leaders actually give a . Mark Iran in the could not give a category as well.
bull . Bibi is a moderate Israeli politician.
he's not even close to being an Israeli extremist!
Go back before Gaza was used as a missile base and tell me his stance has not CHANGED. Sure he is not an real extremist NOW, he got voted in, that's my point.
Get it?
Did I post he was an extremist in comparison to other Israeli groups?
Where is the word extremist?
What???? YOU balked at that the notion that somehow the regime's anti-Semitism, and talk of "religious-duty" to depose "Zionists" from Israel were even related. That it wasn't a factor in either the risk or the possibility that Iran would consider deploying a nuclear weapon for religious purposes.
The Shi'ite brand of Islam has by far created the most radical muslims - for you to deny this observational fact or redirect with other tedious quips would be a sign that you truly don't understand that brand of Islam. Hence, if Iran's current president is part of the clerical structure of the nation, AND he is a Shi'ite adherent THEN neither of those truths bodes well for reducing the risk that is associated with allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons.
The whole point of the thread was to point out that ANY facilitation of Iran's nuclear capabilities is extremely fool-hardy. The rampant partisanship on this board makes it so that you all are wholly incapable of seeing what is plainly obvious to most. You don't hand a pyromaniac a lighter. You don't hand weapons to lunatics. And you certainly don't facilitate the proliferation of nuclear-capable nations that are run, or even influenced by extremist ideologies. It's plain and clear.
That it's toxically irresponsible. It's a lie on their part to embolden their justification for further conflict.
That said, it's still no match, no match whatsoever to the lunacy involved in claiming the genocide itself is a complete "western fabrication". 6 million people died - that FACT can't be wiped out from history simply because it suits the flow of your argument against the existence of the Israeli State (in the case of Iran's argument).
As far as I'm concerned Israel defended their right to exist when it defeat ALL of their enemies in the 6-day war. Heck, they even "returned"/gave away some of the land that they had won as a result of that conflict.
Of course, folks in that region simply want them "wiped from the pages of time".
already concluded Iran was talking about regime change. nothing wrong with hoping regime change of an opponent nation. US does it all the time.
I actually think Bibby's comments are way worse. Disrespecting the millions that died out there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
