Iran calls to destroy Israel, solves the "who's gonna hit Iran's nukes" question.

They don't have to now. A compromise deal has been reached. I think the idea that the red cross should move away from religous symbols as it's basis is a good one, given the history of religions warring with each other.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/6G8HPR

At present, all the Shinto, Buddhist, Hindu, etc, countries, have the same issue as Israel.
 
a_unique_person said:
They don't have to now. A compromise deal has been reached. I think the idea that the red cross should move away from religous symbols as it's basis is a good one, given the history of religions warring with each other.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/6G8HPR

At present, all the Shinto, Buddhist, Hindu, etc, countries, have the same issue as Israel.
Click to expand...
I do not want to derail this thread but this is exactly why the deligitimization of Israel has to be confronted head on. Magen David Adom is not Israel. Magen David Adom is not jews. Magen David Adom is a national organization created in the 1930s by civilians to provide civilian emergency, medical, and first-aid services, temporary shelters in emergency situations and blood services. It has been EXCLUDED from the world's largest humanitarian network for the single reason that back in the 1930s Magen David Adom chose the "star of David" as it's symbol. And it is this symbol, a jewish symbol, that the world's largest humanitarian network has objected to for the past 50 years.

That is hypocrisy of the highest order.
 
a_unique_person said:
So why don't we see an elephant with 10 arms from the Indian section?
Click to expand...

THE SWISS FLAG - http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/geninf/flag.html

Among the flags of contemporary European countries, that of Switzerland is one of the most ancient and one of the most modern. It has a white cross in a red field; the cross is the same length on all sides and each arm is one-sixth longer than its width. The flag looks back upon 700 years of history. To trace the origin, one must go back to beginning of the Confederation. By the early Middle Ages the cross was commonly used on coins and seals and, as a symbol of the Christian faith, it was carried into battle on the banners of the various warring parties.

Documents and records show that the white cross, which appeared on the banner of Schwyz (one of the first Cantons which gave its name to Switzerland) in the year 1240, had been bestowed upon the Canton by the Emperor Frederick II as a token of its freedom.

The use of the red cross on a white background, which is actually the Swiss flag reversed, was granted to the International Red Cross to commemorate the organization founded by Henri Dunant, citizen of Geneva.
Click to expand...
So as you can see a_u_p the Red Cross is a Christian symbol.

At this point I feel I have derailed the thread enough as well as making my point.

Back to the topic:

Effigies of Bush and Sharon set ablaze - Tehran, Oct 28, IRNA

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0510282070163544.htm

The World Quds Day demonstrators on Friday set on fire the effigies of the US President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as well as the US and Israeli flags.

The demonstrators, from various walks of life, set ablaze more than 30 effigies of Bush and Sharon as symbols of arrogant powers, chanting such slogans as `death to America' and `death to Israel' to express their support for the Palestinian Intifada.

Children form the capital city of Tehran kicked the US flags and issued a statement to the United Nations calling for liberalization of Quds.

Thousands have reportedly taken part in the rallies on the World Quds Day which marks the last Friday of the holy fasting month of Ramadhan, initiated by Founder of Iran's Islamic Republic the late Imam Khomeini.
Click to expand...

453518-15-53.GIF

(image courtesy of the Islamic Republic News Agency)
"Young men, clad in Palestinian fatigue and scarf, take part in the World Quds Day rallies on October 28, 2005. The World Quds Day marks the last Friday of the holy fasting month of Ramadhan to support Palestine's Intifada.".......Yes...you see correctly, they are wearing suicide vests....to celebrate the last Friday of Ramadhan.
 
Last edited:
zenith-nadir said:
THE SWISS FLAG - http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/geninf/flag.html

So as you can see a_u_p the Red Cross is a Christian symbol.

At this point I feel I have derailed the thread enough as well as making my point.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't. The symbol wasn't chosen because they wanted to use a Xian symbol, (which I had assumed), but because it was a reference to the founders home country. That country did choose it because they wanted to identify themselves as Xian. See the difference?
 
a_unique_person said:
I didn't say it wasn't. The symbol wasn't chosen because they wanted to use a Xian symbol, (which I had assumed), but because it was a reference to the founders home country.
Click to expand...
And the symbol for Magen David Adom was chosen because it was a reference to the founders home country. That country - Israel - did choose it because they wanted to identify themselves as jewish. See a difference?

533215-17-19.GIF

Women, in traditional black chador, are seen under a tract reading out , "down with Israel", October 28, 2005, on the World Quds Day. World Quds Day marks the last Friday of the holy fasting month of Ramadhan to support Palestine's Intifada. Photo by IRNA Photographer: Mohammad-Reza Alimadadi
 
Last edited:
hey, hoser

"Put yourself in the shoes of, I dunno, a Canadian..."

The Canadians don't have nuclear weapons anymore in their arsenal? When did this happen?
 
merphie said:
That's not even a close to meaningful statement. The Japanese were a different story in where I believe that the use of Nuclear weapons was completely necessary given the circumstances at the time in which they were used.

Are you going to tell me that nuclear weapons should have never been used in WWII? I guess the only reason they were used was to scare the Russians?
Click to expand...

That statement was made as an answer to something Freakshow said. It is only meaningful in its context.
 
Iran softens anti-Israel comments

Iran has backed away from remarks by its president that Israel should be "wiped off the map," following sharp criticism from the United Nations Security Council.

A statement released on Saturday by Iran's foreign ministry said the country stands by its United Nations commitments and would not use violence against another country.
Click to expand...
 
As I have already said before, I don't think my country needs your country's protection. And my country certainly doesn't need to be protected from Iran.[/QUOTE]


Do you really think that the Soviet Union in say the mid 70's would have ignored Canada had the US been militarily weak?

We're the US to scrap it's nukes, it's airforce, and it's navy how do you suppose China would react to that?

Or a nuclear armed Iran?

Like Freakshow said---it's not a nice world.

We need cops and to think otherwise is the height of naivete.
 
Ralph said:
Do you really think that the Soviet Union in say the mid 70's would have ignored Canada had the US been militarily weak?

We're the US to scrap it's nukes, it's airforce, and it's navy how do you suppose China would react to that?

Or a nuclear armed Iran?

Like Freakshow said---it's not a nice world.

We need cops and to think otherwise is the height of naivete.
Click to expand...

Hey, have you noticed? The Soviet Union is dead. It died 15 years ago. I know, old habits die hard...

We might need "cops", but we sure don't need "vigilantes". The US does not have the legitimacy to go around playing lone avenger unilaterally.

China has something like 400 nukes compared to the US's 10 500, and historically China has only shown interest about what's going on in its former territories and its immediate vicinity. They seem a lot more interested in solving their internal problems than in playing imperial power.

As for an Iran with nukes, I don't think they would be any more dangerous than a Pakistan with nukes is.
 
Last edited:
Orwell said:
Hey, have you noticed? The Soviet Union is dead. It died 15 years ago. I know, old habits die hard...

We might need "cops", but we sure don't need "vigilantes". The US does not have the legitimacy to go around playing lone avenger unilaterally.

China has something like 400 nukes compared to the US's 10 500, and historically China has only shown interest about what's going on in its former territories and its immediate vicinity. They seem a lot more interested in solving their internal problems than in playing imperial power.

As for an Iran with nukes, I don't think they would be any more dangerous than a Pakistan with nukes is.
Click to expand...


Yes I noticed the Soviet Union is no more.....which is why I mentioned the 70's.

I believe the Soviet Union was in existence back then.

You didn't answer my question though. Do you think a regime such the Soviet Union IN 1975 would have ignored Canada..or Western Europe..if the US had the military might of Lichtenstein?

Canada's had the luxury of not having to spend much on defense. Is that because everybody thinks Canadians are swell people (as compared to imperialist war-mongering Americans) or is it because they simply realize the US would step in with it's big stick if they were threatened?
 
Ralph said:
Yes I noticed the Soviet Union is no more.....which is why I mentioned the 70's.

I believe the Soviet Union was in existence back then.

You didn't answer my question though. Do you think a regime such the Soviet Union IN 1975 would have ignored Canada..or Western Europe..if the US had the military might of Lichtenstein?
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm going to use simple words, since you seem to be a bit slow: that was then, this is now. What the US did back then does not justify what the US does now. Also, nobody is arguing for disarming the US down to Liechtenstein levels, in case you haven't noticed. But I do believe that a less armed US of A would be a good thing. In case you don't know, the US spends nearly as much in "defence" as the rest of the world combined. Also, it would, for instance, discourage the US from playing vigilante. It would also give US demands for nuclear disarmament and nuke control a lot more legitimacy.

Ralph said:
Canada's had the luxury of not having to spend much on defense. Is that because everybody thinks Canadians are swell people (as compared to imperialist war-mongering Americans) or is it because they simply realize the US would step in with it's big stick if they were threatened?
Click to expand...

Canadian defence spending is comparable to the defence spending of other NATO countries. It's the US that spends too much on "defence". Canada shares a border with only one country, the US, its major business partner. Presently, there are no major powers capable of seriously menacing Canada, militarily speaking. China is not an immediate danger. If China is so menacing, why is it then that China is the US's second greatest commercial partner, right after Canada? Present day security problems come from terrorism, and large conventional armies are pretty much useless against terrorism. Nukes are even more useless.

I believe that Canada does not need US "protection". But since old habits die hard, the US will keep giving it anyway, even if most Canadians don't care.
 
Last edited:
Orwell said:
Ok, I'm going to use simple words, since you seem to be a bit slow: that was then, this is now. What the US did back then does not justify what the US does now. Also, nobody is arguing for disarming the US down to Liechtenstein levels, in case you haven't noticed. But I do believe that a less armed US of A would be a good thing. In case you don't know, the US spends nearly as much in "defence" as the rest of the world combined. Also, it would, for instance, discourage the US from playing vigilante. It would also give US demands for nuclear disarmament and nuke control a lot more legitimacy.



Canadian defence spending is comparable to the defence spending of other NATO countries. It's the US that spends too much on "defence". Canada shares a border with only one country, the US, its major business partner. Presently, there are no major powers capable of seriously menacing Canada, militarily speaking. China is not an immediate danger. If China is so menacing, why is it then that China is the US's second greatest commercial partner, right after Canada? Present day security problems come from terrorism, and large conventional armies are pretty much useless against terrorism. Nukes are even more useless.

I believe that Canada does not need US "protection". But since old habits die hard, the US will keep giving it anyway, even if most Canadians don't care.
Click to expand...


I'm going to keep this simple since some of your ideas seem to be consistent with a typical college student rather than those of a mature adult.

I used an example from the past because the cold war SU was a good example of a nation bent on empire building. The only thing that stopped this was US military power.

Had this not existed--you'd be speaking Russian now.

Yes--that was then--this is now. So has human nature changed any since then. Have we become kinder & gentler over the last 30 years?

You seem to feel in the interest of "fairness" we should just allow any country that wants them to have them. After all--it's only fair.

You argue that if we behave in a fair & logical manner---everybody else will to.


OK--lets say your little fantasy world comes true......worldwide nuclear disarmament.

We still have things like stealth bombers and a large fleet of nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

It's only fair that if we have stealth bombers--everybody else should to...and on & on & on.......

I'm a lot more worried about the potential 6,7, or even 8 figure death count that'll be the ultimate result if we stop saying "no" to countries like Iran that seek WMDs.
 
Ralph said:
I'm going to keep this simple since some of your ideas seem to be consistent with a typical college student rather than those of a mature adult.

I used an example from the past because the cold war SU was a good example of a nation bent on empire building. The only thing that stopped this was US military power.

Had this not existed--you'd be speaking Russian now.
Click to expand...
Rhetorical, hypothetical and irrelevant. You don't know that, I'm not talking about the old deceased Soviet Union and, as I said before, that was then, I'm talking about now, so mentioning the old USSR is pretty pointless. And it makes you sound like some old "better dead then red" relic who misses the cold war.

Ralph said:
Yes--that was then--this is now. So has human nature changed any since then. Have we become kinder & gentler over the last 30 years?

You seem to feel in the interest of "fairness" we should just allow any country that wants them to have them. After all--it's only fair.

You argue that if we behave in a fair & logical manner---everybody else will to.
Click to expand...
The global political situation has enormously changed. But you (and your government) seem to be having trouble adjusting.

Ralph said:
OK--lets say your little fantasy world comes true......worldwide nuclear disarmament.

We still have things like stealth bombers and a large fleet of nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

It's only fair that if we have stealth bombers--everybody else should to...and on & on & on.......
Click to expand...
That kind of technology is, actually, a lot harder and more expensive to develop than most WMDs. Very few countries can afford stealth bombers and aircraft carriers, and those that can afford them probably won't ask for US permission to build them, if they ever desire to do so.

Ralph said:
I'm a lot more worried about the potential 6,7, or even 8 figure death count that'll be the ultimate result if we stop saying "no" to countries like Iran that seek WMDs.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for immediate world wide nuclear disarmament. I'm talking about a severe decrease in the number of nukes. 300 nukes offer as much protection as 10 000. I would like it if there were no more nukes, yes. Who, in his right mind, would be against that? But I also know that realistically, that's not possible right now.

I'm simply pointing out that the US, who has over 10 000 nukes, has been abandoning its non-proliferation treaty obligations, and spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, has no moral legitimacy to go around ordering countries to not get WMDs.
 
Last edited:
Orwell said:
I'm simply pointing out that the US, who has over 10 000 nukes, has been abandoning its non-proliferation treaty obligations, and spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, has no moral legitimacy to go around ordering countries to not get WMDs.
Click to expand...
Having nukes has nothing to do with moral legitimacy of telling other people they can't have them. It is actions, not possession of physical objects, that dictate moral legitimacy. Now, if you want to debate THAT, that's fine. But having or not having nukes has nothing to do with it.
 
Freakshow said:
Having nukes has nothing to do with moral legitimacy of telling other people they can't have them. It is actions, not possession of physical objects, that dictate moral legitimacy. Now, if you want to debate THAT, that's fine. But having or not having nukes has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Having a very large number of nukes is an action, just like rescinding agreements on nuclear armaments is an action.
 
zenith-nadir said:
And the symbol for Magen David Adom was chosen because it was a reference to the founders home country. That country - Israel - did choose it because they wanted to identify themselves as jewish. See a difference?

533215-17-19.GIF

Women, in traditional black chador, are seen under a tract reading out , "down with Israel", October 28, 2005, on the World Quds Day. World Quds Day marks the last Friday of the holy fasting month of Ramadhan to support Palestine's Intifada. Photo by IRNA Photographer: Mohammad-Reza Alimadadi
Click to expand...

Israel didn't found the red cross, did it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom