Time to kick Iran

[MaGZ]

As far as I'm aware this is incorrect, the nuclear facility at Dimona was built with the help of the French, and the Norwegians who supplied 20 tonnes of heavy water needed for the reactor. Once adequate supplies of fissile material had been produced by the reactor Israel completed the weapons development on their own, although it's possible there was some sort of research exchange with the South Africans in the 70s.

In fact when the US found out about the real purpose of the facility at Dimona in the early 60s they demanded that Israel agree to international inspections, just as they are doing with Iran and North Korea. Doesn't this point to the fact that the US are against nuclear proliferation whoever it may be?

If you have any sources available that show the US supplied Israel with nuclear weapons technology I'd sure like to see it. If not I'm intrigued why you would come out with such a statement, doesn't it go some way to prove you are a rabid anti-American, who likes to blame them for everything, which maybe clouding your judgment.

The US allowed "supercomputers" to be shipped to Israel were they could test their nuclear weapon designs without actually detonating a nuclear device.

 

[Travis]

Hi there Oliver. I'm curious. I supported the invasion of Iraq and would also like to see the government of Iran annihilated. Perhaps not right now, but sometime soon.

Do you think I'm evil? Ignorant? You seem to make out support for such things as being synonymous with being one or the other. So do you really believe people that support such things are evil and/or ignorant or are you just spewing rhetoric?

 

[jsiv]

I'm not sure that he actually meant "Israel being wiped off the earth"

A "World without Zionism" means a World in which the Zionists Movement died because Israel is finally accepted globally, including the acceptance from their Neighbors.

Sweet!

Could I please ask for your interpretation of the phrase "Death to Israel?"

Perhaps it's another "mistranslation?"



Oliver, you live in bizarro world.

In the muslim language (which conspiracy speak is also derived from) Zionist means a jew that is not willing to submit to muslim leadership. In other words, an independent and free jew. These constitute a "threat." Muslims generally have no problems with jews as long as they get to rule over them. This kind of society with jews as second class citizens is part of their holy scripture. That is what extremists believe.

History and Israeli policies are of course also part of the equation today, but it's more complicated than just that.

Also, you keep saying that only Bush is a "war president," and while that may be true in the strictest sense of the word, Ahmadinejad is most definitely waging a war against Israel (and others.) Both through retoric and manipulation of opinion, and through the funding and arming of terrorist groups.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Hi there Oliver. I'm curious. I supported the invasion of Iraq and would also like to see the government of Iran annihilated. Perhaps not right now, but sometime soon.

Do you think I'm evil? Ignorant? You seem to make out support for such things as being synonymous with being one or the other. So do you really believe people that support such things are evil and/or ignorant or are you just spewing rhetoric?

No, you are not a monster, but you are an idiot for not noticing there are a million and twelve posts already in effect for Iraq-Oliver related chat.

But then again, they are in the very horrific "What's this war about" thread.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Hi there Oliver. I'm curious. I supported the invasion of Iraq and would also like to see the government of Iran annihilated. Perhaps not right now, but sometime soon.

The question was not directed at me but, yes, I think that a person ( you ) who would like to see the ( more or less, democratically ) elected government of another nation " annihilated ", when this other nation poses no direct threat to his, yes, I would consider this guy a terrorist and I would consider him not so much differently from the guys of Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and so on..

 

[Matteo Martini]

A "World without Zionism" means a World in which the Zionists Movement died because Israel is finally accepted globally, including the acceptance from their Neighbors.

And what does "Strategy for Victory" means to you, DR?

What I do not understand, is why, if Bush is a criminal ( which, I assume, we both agree ), Ahmadinejad should be a Saint.
They are both ass-**les.

 

[Oliver]

Hi there Oliver. I'm curious. I supported the invasion of Iraq and would also like to see the government of Iran annihilated. Perhaps not right now, but sometime soon.

Do you think I'm evil? Ignorant? You seem to make out support for such things as being synonymous with being one or the other. So do you really believe people that support such things are evil and/or ignorant or are you just spewing rhetoric?

Nope, I think you're just biased which is the Main Problem across the World, especially in the Middle-East since decades.

Literally it all started with a military "Piss off" operation against the Palestinians. That was the first failure in a long row of ignorant actions on both sides, including the international Support for such a behavior.

My point is that if you chose to invade your Neighbors House and banish it's residents into the cellar - just because your Grandma lived there and was banished from this house a loooong time ago, you also should handle the consequences of your actions.

This means that I think that "a Police Unit" supporting this type of aggression is highly immoral.

Now especially the United States and Britain have a long imperialistic History in the Middle East, including a long list of bloody interventions in foreign countries and my point simply is:

I don't like that someone oppresses or decides about other countries fate. It's their decision because this is what our western systems is about: "as long someone doesn't hurt his fellow citizens, he should be allowed to be free to build his own future".

Now if the United States as the Worlds Superpower has to play the World-Police, then they should be fair&balanced towards all "world-citizens", not supporting the ones they like and kicking the ones they don't like at the same time.

This actually happens right now, again, and since decades (your Media doesn't make a big deal out of that) - and it isn't a fair solution because this kind of unjustness leads to new aggression from opposed parties. (Al Qaida is such a form of resistance) - real "cultural clash", as being portrayed by Undesired Walrus, for example, could be a real threat in the future.

So let me ask: You love your personal freedom of free decisions for your own, and you also like that you live in a Western County in which Blacks, Muslims, Natives, Gay, Old, Young etc. have the same rights than you - how can you support oppression of people outside your country?

It isn't because the "Because they are evil Jews, Gays, Blacks, Natives, Communists ... etc."-kind of thinking, is it?

 

[jsiv]

Sometimes I get the impression that you arrived on planet earth yesterday.

 

[Travis]

Nope, I think you're just biased which is the Main Problem across the World, especially in the Middle-East since decades.

Well, at least you're honest.

Literally it all started with a military "Piss off" operation against the Palestinians. That was the first failure in a long row of ignorant actions on both sides, including the international Support for such a behavior.

Which US military "piss off" operation against the Palestinians are we referring to?

My point is that if you chose to invade your Neighbors House and banish it's residents into the cellar - just because your Grandma lived there and was banished from this house a loooong time ago, you also should handle the consequences of your actions.

1) Who are you accusing of doing this? The United States? Israel?
2) What if the neighbors were the ones that actually banished the Grandma for an unjust reason? Wouldn't that be just retribution?

This means that I think that "a Police Unit" supporting this type of aggression is highly immoral.

Well, as I stated it isn't as simple as you make it out to be. More importantly, what does this have to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran? Are you accusing the US of banishing people for past grievances?

Now especially the United States and Britain have a long imperialistic History in the Middle East, including a long list of bloody interventions in foreign countries and my point simply is:

No, Britain and France have a long history of imperialism in the Middle East. I am not aware of any US colonies in the Middle East. Check out this map for an example of this. Specifically Britain got Iraq and Palestine/Jordan, France got Syria and Ibn Saud got most of the Arabian Peninsula.

I don't like that someone oppresses or decides about other countries fate. It's their decision because this is what our western systems is about: "as long someone doesn't hurt his fellow citizens, he should be allowed to be free to build his own future".

Which country did the United States oppress? I do hope you realize that in order for the US to be characterized as being oppressive you would have to demonstrate that the US took away civil liberties from the places it invaded that existed in those places prior to the invasions.

As for being free, I agree. All people should be free and self determination is a part of that.

Now if the United States as the Worlds Superpower has to play the World-Police, then they should be fair&balanced towards all "world-citizens", not supporting the ones they like and kicking the ones they don't like at the same time.

I agree. I have a long list of countries whose governments I feel are oppressive and wish the United States, or anyone, would do away with.

This actually happens right now, again, and since decades (your Media doesn't make a big deal out of that) ...

The media does make a big deal out of such things. That was about an ABC (hint it's part of the media) report on the matter.

...and it isn't a fair solution because this kind of unjustness leads to new aggression from opposed parties. (Al Qaida is such a form of resistance) - real "cultural clash", as being portrayed by Undesired Walrus, for example, could be a real threat in the future.

If in fact unjust aggression happens, then I don't support it. I would never support the deliberate killing of civilians, nor did I support what happened in Abu Gharib. Characterizing Al Qaeda as a resistance movement is grossly wrong. Al Qaeda is on a mission of religious terror. The only thing it resists is the attempts of reasonable people to exterminate it and let people live in peace.

So let me ask: You love your personal freedom of free decisions for your own, and you also like that you live in a Western County in which Blacks, Muslims, Natives, Gay, Old, Young etc. have the same rights than you - how can you support oppression of people outside your country?

I don't support the oppression of anyone. I want everyone on Earth to enjoy the freedoms I have. That was the reason I supported the war. The WMD's were never a part of my equation. In fact I thought it was rather shameful the the US was only going to go free people when it was itself threatened by a perceived threat. I'd hate to disillusion you but my opinion on Iraq and Afghanistan was not the result of the media. I first wanted an invasion of Iraq back in 1997 after I had read human rights reports by the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch about the Al-Anfal Campaign. Reports like this one.

At least 180,000 civilians were massacred by Iraqi troops in that campaign. Know how many Kurds and Shiite's were killed in the 1991 insurrection? 120,000 - 330,000. Then there are the 500,000-2,000,000 that Saddam let starve while he used relief money to build palace after palace?

This is a government that directly killed 300,000-510,000 of its own citizens while willfully letting another 500,000-2,000,000 starve to death. These aren't just numbers, these were real people that suffered and died.

It isn't because the "Because they are evil Jews, Gays, Blacks, Natives, Communists ... etc."-kind of thinking, is it?

Since I'm not calling for the oppression of anyone this question is irrelevant.

 

[Oliver]

Well, at least you're honest.

Since I'm not calling for the oppression of anyone this question is irrelevant.

I have to reply to your whole post later when I filled up my Refrigerator and Stomach... However: If you were for the Iraq War and not opposed to give your vote to an Iran War, either, it is exactly for this reason:

We are the good and better ones than ""evil Jews, Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Natives, Women, Communists, etc ... take your pick". Oh, it seems you did already.

 

[jsiv]

I have to reply to your whole post later when I filled up my Refrigerator and Stomach... However: If you were for the Iraq War and not opposed to give your vote to an Iran War, either, it is exactly for this reason:

We are the good and better ones than ""evil Jews, Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Natives, Women, Communists, etc ... take your pick". Oh, it seems you did already.

Will you be finding time to answer mine as well?

 

[Gurdur]

...No, Britain and France have a long history of imperialism in the Middle East. I am not aware of any US colonies in the Middle East. Check out this map for an example of this. Specifically Britain got Iraq and Palestine/Jordan, France got Syria and Ibn Saud got most of the Arabian Peninsula. .... Which country did the United States oppress?

*cough*
While I don't want to get involved in this fight, a couple of corrections:
The USA helped Britain a great deal to overthrow Mossadegh, and of course is famous for backing the Shah. That makes life more complex than you describe here.

I do hope you realize that in order for the US to be characterized as being oppressive you would have to demonstrate that the US took away civil liberties from the places it invaded that existed in those places prior to the invasions.

Uh, no. Nope.
Strangely enough, people detest a foreigh oppressor even more than a native oppressor even if the foreign oppressor was only as oppressive or even a mite less oppressive than the native oppressor.

Which is why the rajahs and nabobs were asked to join in the Indian Mutiny against the British.

As for being free, I agree. All people should be free and self determination is a part of that........Since I'm not calling for the oppression of anyone this question is irrelevant.

Fair enough, good on you.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Whenever I think of Saddam Hussein I am always remembered of his voice in South Park. Him having a dominating homosexual relationship with an effeminate Satan is what I think is one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen.

Damn you Travis, you pro-Iraq War lot took down Saddam in the wrong way! If only you had given more funding to Matt Stone and Trey Parker...

 

[Ion]

Ahmadinejad isn't a war-president yet, Pardalis.
And therefore: he also didn't saw God guiding him into War.

Good point.

Bush is guilty on both accounts.

 

[Oliver]

Good point.

Bush is guilty on both accounts.

Not in Pardalis World - in which he somehow manages to see the facts contrarily.

 

[Ion]

This also:

Would you give a chimpanzee your presidency?

is a good point.

I remember reading in The San Diego Union Tribune that IAEA was exposing Bush recently as fabricating threats from Iran the way Bush fabricated threats from Iraq.

Bush wants U.S. hegemony in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran) due to the oil.

Bush and U.S. Capitalism they don't play by the rules of free market and freedom, but they sure do hijack the terms and impersonate them.

 

[jsiv]

Claiming that religious beliefs don't guide Ahmadinejad's policies (both domestic and foreign) is pretty hilarious.

A few people here seem to think that Bush should have been dealt with preemptively, but that nutjobs like Ahmadinejad should be ignored until they actually start dropping bombs (which he already has, indirectly.) Funny.

 

[jsiv]

Bush wants U.S. hegemony in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran) due to the oil.

Bush and U.S. Capitalism they don't play by the rules of free market and freedom, but they sure do hijack the terms and impersonate them.

Every oil nation in the western world is trying to reap the benefits of U.S intervention in the Middle East, without having to get their hands dirty. Several european nations that strongly oppose the war are already in Iraq trying to take advantage of the situation and "steal" their oil.

Disgusting morals, and by no means something that is unique to the United States. Few countries "play by the rules."

 

[Policenaut]

Claiming that religious beliefs don't guide Ahmadinejad's policies (both domestic and foreign) is pretty hilarious.

A few people here seem to think that Bush should have been dealt with preemptively, but that nutjobs like Ahmadinejad should be ignored until they actually start dropping bombs (which he already has, indirectly.) Funny.

Islam is not just a religion. It is a way of life that encompasses everything a follwer does. This includes politics.

 

[Oliver]

Will you be finding time to answer mine as well?

I will. Which one did you mean beside the "came to this world yesterday"-Remark?

Quite frankly, to me the "pointing finger"-Fallacy is the worst thing in Human History. It is antiquated and never was or will be a solution.

Well, at least you're honest.

Even if some People hate it - your assumption true.

Which US military "piss off" operation against the Palestinians are we referring to?

The first war that was a result of- and ended in the State of Israel.

1) Who are you accusing of doing this? The United States? Israel?
2) What if the neighbors were the ones that actually banished the Grandma for an unjust reason? Wouldn't that be just retribution?

I'm accusing aggressive politics in the Region down there. You may take your pick who started it: Britain, US, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq...

If the "Neighbors" took the house some thousand years ago, I would say: In Heavens sake, get over it. But unfortunately, this is too late. The House is taken already.

Well, as I stated it isn't as simple as you make it out to be. More importantly, what does this have to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran? Are you accusing the US of banishing people for past grievances?

No, I'm accusing the US of playing "Good Cop - Bad Cop". You know: old LAPD-Style, "protecting the rich and kicking the blacks".

No, Britain and France have a long history of imperialism in the Middle East. I am not aware of any US colonies in the Middle East. Check out this map for an example of this. Specifically Britain got Iraq and Palestine/Jordan, France got Syria and Ibn Saud got most of the Arabian Peninsula.

I know. But imperialism isn't a territorial issue. Imperialism can also be archived by political, military, economical influence. And this is exactly what America is doing since decades. (By the way: Without archiving any positive Image about their policies for any kind of reconciliation from non US/Israel Point of View.)

Which country did the United States oppress? I do hope you realize that in order for the US to be characterized as being oppressive you would have to demonstrate that the US took away civil liberties from the places it invaded that existed in those places prior to the invasions.

Basically you're right. Oppression is about Freedoms. This, of course, includes a countries Freedom to find their own way into their own future. Iraq was a good example of that. I wonder what would have happened if there where no sanctions against them, which, by the way, was responsible for millions of deaths in Iraq, and there would have been friendly and exemplary Diplomatics instead. You know: the kind of "We accept your believes and wishes for your own future instead this.

As for being free, I agree. All people should be free and self determination is a part of that.

And it includes accepting that countries have to reform themselves to get to this point, doesn't it?

I agree. I have a long list of countries whose governments I feel are oppressive and wish the United States, or anyone, would do away with.

Well, I agree - but until the US Government manages to clean up their own backyard, I guess they don't qualify for this Job. Recent events show what I mean by that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_foreign_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-americanism

(Please Note that I don't agree with all points of the posted links above. However: A critical mind should be aware of these points.)

The media does make a big deal out of such things. That was about an ABC (hint it's part of the media) report on the matter.

You're kidding here. What's the bigger scandal in the US - Paris Hilton, Gonzales, Libby -or- deadly Foreign Politics affecting World-Peace? See what I mean?

If in fact unjust aggression happens, then I don't support it. I would never support the deliberate killing of civilians, nor did I support what happened in Abu Gharib. Characterizing Al Qaeda as a resistance movement is grossly wrong. Al Qaeda is on a mission of religious terror. The only thing it resists is the attempts of reasonable people to exterminate it and let people live in peace.

I'm sorry but Al Qaida is indeed a "resistance organization" and it was build/gains sympathy just because of that. Or to explain it in another way: Without interference in the Middle East from US-Side, Al Qaida couldn't survive or exist. (You should watch the documentary in the OP)

I don't support the oppression of anyone. I want everyone on Earth to enjoy the freedoms I have. That was the reason I supported the war. The WMD's were never a part of my equation. In fact I thought it was rather shameful the the US was only going to go free people when it was itself threatened by a perceived threat. I'd hate to disillusion you but my opinion on Iraq and Afghanistan was not the result of the media. I first wanted an invasion of Iraq back in 1997 after I had read human rights reports by the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch about the Al-Anfal Campaign. Reports like this one.

There is no reason to complain about helping others to gain freedom. The Problem I have is that places like Iraq isn't about Freedoms. And I think the modern, free, western world should be an Ideal for other countries. But unfortunately the Western World isn't perfect, either. So who is able to determinate who's right and who's not?

At least 180,000 civilians were massacred by Iraqi troops in that campaign. Know how many Kurds and Shiite's were killed in the 1991 insurrection? 120,000 - 330,000. Then there are the 500,000-2,000,000 that Saddam let starve while he used relief money to build palace after palace?

Yes, and there where 400.000 to 1,000,000 Plus children killed as a result of sanctions against Iraq. Seriously, Embargo's, violence and military interventions doesn't look like the solution for these problems. A fair diplomatics does.

This is a government that directly killed 300,000-510,000 of its own citizens while willfully letting another 500,000-2,000,000 starve to death. These aren't just numbers, these were real people that suffered and died.

Millions died because the Government wasn't able to find the solution for these Problems as a result of interventions. Iraq is a rich country - but only if they are able to keep their Export intact. To cut them off their imports and exports automatically leads to starvation, do you know what I mean?

Since I'm not calling for the oppression of anyone this question is irrelevant.

For me it is. Because you didn't mention the countries that pose a humanitarian threat like the Genocides in Africa, for example. Guess what? This isn't big "Freedom-News" in the US but instead we still hear that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - who cares about Genocides while facing such a (propagated) threat?

Do you see the double moral standards?