Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Interesting Headline : Hagel stresses Israel's right to strike Iran

  1. #1 Interesting Headline : Hagel stresses Israel's right to strike Iran 
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Hagel stresses Israel's right to strike Iran ...........I wonder who gave Hagel the right to stress Israel's right. .....more :
    U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel held out hope Sunday for a nonmilitary way to ending the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, but he also emphasized Washington's willingness to let Israel decide whether and when it might strike Tehran in self-defense.
    Interesting.... "Washington's willingness to let Israel" ..that is awful kind of Washington.
    when it might strike Tehran in self-defense
    if they strike it is not self defense. I know it's a Theocracy and dangerous, but...... some thought is needed here. Israel already has Nuclear Weapons, the US has over 2,000 armed and pointed to every corner of the globe. Iran has not attacked anyone and has no military bases outside his own country. Who or what has given the US Imperialists world authority over other countries? Looking at the numbers and the recent history, it is the US that is dangerous and capable. Course Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucivich could have solved this problem, .....but the people voted, and the Military Industrial Complex marches on.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The greatest success of Israel has been its ability to use philosophy to argue its way into committing atrocities that no other state on Earth would ever have been able to get away with. My hat goes off to them for that. They're very good at what they do.

    However.... the Holocaust is receding further and further back into history. After a while it's just going to be too ancient for them to keep invoking it. They'll need to get inventive.


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The greatest success of Israel has been its ability to use philosophy to argue its way into committing atrocities that no other state on Earth would ever have been able to get away with. My hat goes off to them for that. They're very good at what they do.

    However.... the Holocaust is receding further and further back into history. After a while it's just going to be too ancient for them to keep invoking it. They'll need to get inventive.
    Atrocities? mmm, ....what atrocities?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Honestly? You need to ask that?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Honestly? You need to ask that?
    I'd like to hear the answer as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Oh, I am aware of the claims of atrocities. There are claims on both sides you know. Has been that way for over 10,000 years. Isn't this similar to the war crimes claims of the Bush BDS political group, while ignoring the pre-meditated murder of escalated Obama drones? The cries of the torture of waterboarding, combined with the justification of those murders of Pakistani children and their mothers as collateral damage. Atrocity in war is just a word to describe your enemies actions, sorta like treason was used against the rebels of our country back in 1776. I thought you had some case against the Israelis that had been tried in a court of international law, not just some Palestinian war cry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Oh, I am aware of the claims of atrocities.
    Are you ?
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    There are claims on both sides you know.
    Ho no, you are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Has been that way for over 10,000 years.
    Factually impossible, everybody knows the world was created around -7000 before revisionist.

    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Isn't this similar to the war crimes ....
    I have never read a so disgusting justification for mass murdering. Kudo's if you are not yet banned.
    Now that you have find excuses for the Shoa, and play the alpha dog with USA military credit card and technology...
    What is exactly the next holocaust that the state of Israel, a rogue state many time over condemned by the United Nation, is entitle to do ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Oh, I am aware of the claims of atrocities.
    Are you ?
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    There are claims on both sides you know.
    Ho no, you are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Has been that way for over 10,000 years.
    Factually impossible, everybody knows the world was created around -7000 before revisionist.

    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Isn't this similar to the war crimes ....
    I have never read a so disgusting justification for mass murdering. Kudo's if you are not yet banned.
    Now that you have find excuses for the Shoa, and play the alpha dog with USA military credit card and technology...
    What is exactly the next holocaust that the state of Israel, a rogue state many time over condemned by the United Nation, is entitle to do ?
    Bouncing against the walls.....hmmm.. I believe it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Isn't this similar to the war crimes claims of the Bush BDS political group
    Those are legitimate claims. The USA is committing a war crime by torturing people. Calling the prisoners by a special name that makes them neither "civilians" nor "enemy soldiers" is a very transparent ruse.


    , while ignoring the pre-meditated murder of escalated Obama drones?
    Not really clear what you're getting at on this one. The drones are just like any other kind of artillery. From the moment they're deployed one can expect there will be civilian casualties. However, the alternative is to allow the enemy to make themselves immune to retaliation simply by hiding under their womens' skirts.

    When people argue that the USA is at fault for those deaths, they are essentially trying to put the responsibility for protecting Afghanistan/Pakistan's women and children on the USA...... instead of placing that responsibility on the Afghan/Pakistani militia, where it belongs.

    The militia are the ones native to the region. The ones those women and children ought to be able to look to for protection. If the people of your own nation won't look out for your safety, is it reasonable to expect that a foreign power is going to do it? Americans are supposed to care more about Afghan women/children than Afghans do?


    The cries of the torture of waterboarding, combined with the justification of those murders of Pakistani children and their mothers as collateral damage.
    How this differs from Palestine is where Israel does things to simply deprive them of property and status. Building walls across farms, so the poor Pali farmer can't get access to his/her own land. Putting up blockades to prevent the Palis from being able to trade with the outside world. Setting up settlements in Gaza and West Bank (though more recently Israel has greatly redeemed itself in this area, unilaterally ordering its own citizens to undo those settlements - my hat is off to them for that. )

    Really they should be granting citizenship to them, rather than be racist. (Especially a group of people who has been the victim of racism them self should understand how wrong that is.)

    History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    The first Israeli Nationality Law was passed on the 14 July 1952. From the time that Israel was created to July 1952, Palestinians were "stateless." Israeli courts rendered the former Palestinian citizenship, given by the British administration to Jews, Arabs and other inhabitants of the region, "devoid of substance," "not satisfactory and is inappropriate to the situation following the establishment of Israel".[6] The Israeli Nationality Law effectively denationalized Palestinians. It granted every "Jew" who immigrated to Israel, or, following the 1971 amendment, even expressed the desire to immigrate to Israel, "immediate" Israeli citizenship without taking any formal steps. It retroactively altered the Palestinian Citizenship Orders, stating that they had to be "repealed with effect from the day of the establishment of the State".[7]
    In order to obtain Israeli citizenship, Palestinians had to prove that they had a) been registered in the Inhabitants Registration in 1949; had been an inhabitant of Israel on 14 July 1952; had been in Israel or in an area that later came into Israel between the establishment of Israel and July 14, 1952; or had entered legally during that period. These proved difficult for many Palestinians to fulfil because many at the time had no proof of Palestinian citizenship, and those who had identity cards were forced to surrender them to the Israeli army during or soon after the war.[8] Attaining status as a Registered Inhabitant was also difficult because there was a "deliberate attempt [by Israeli Forces] to not register many [Palestinian] villages [9] Those who failed to attain legal status remained in Israel as stateless persons.
    Atrocity in war is just a word to describe your enemies actions, sorta like treason was used against the rebels of our country back in 1776. I thought you had some case against the Israelis that had been tried in a court of international law, not just some Palestinian war cry.
    What war?

    Most of the evil acts committed by Israel were done outside the context of any kind of armed conflict. The terrorism part came later.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Kojax, your politics and biases have confused the issue. If you would like to re read my OP and comment, then go ahead, but I will not bog myself down in a "what's moral and right in a 10,000 yr war". Start a thread and you will get plenty of willing participants.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    You're the one who pressed the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The greatest success of Israel has been its ability to use philosophy to argue its way into committing atrocities that no other state on Earth would ever have been able to get away with. My hat goes off to them for that. They're very good at what they do.

    However.... the Holocaust is receding further and further back into history. After a while it's just going to be too ancient for them to keep invoking it. They'll need to get inventive.
    Atrocities? mmm, ....what atrocities?

    Getting back on topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Hagel stresses Israel's right to strike Iran ...........I wonder who gave Hagel the right to stress Israel's right. .....more :
    U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel held out hope Sunday for a nonmilitary way to ending the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, but he also emphasized Washington's willingness to let Israel decide whether and when it might strike Tehran in self-defense.
    Interesting.... "Washington's willingness to let Israel" ..that is awful kind of Washington
    You honestly take issue with the USA debating whether to let Israel attack someone? I think what Washington is debating is whether it will side with Israel in the event of such an attack, or side with Iran. Of course siding with Iran is the equivalent of ensuring utter defeat for Israel, which in turn would make it unwise for Israel to continue with the attack.


    Also, what do you mean by 10,000 year war? For any war to last 10,000 years, what we are talking about here must be the worst failure of diplomacy in all of world history.

    Is Israel really so vindictive that it holds onto grudges for that long a time? Is that attitude supposed to inspire respect?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    I pointed out in the OP the errors of the media reflecting the thinking of an Imperistic Military Machine that only has a forward gear. That's all. I did have a thread about the need for Richard Nixon, so I will pull it up again as an example. We need to climb out of this war war war box, so we can think. We need peace makers, not war weapons. We can't afford another war, we can't even afford the last two. Wake TFU.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Re-reading your OP, I might not have correctly understood your point. You're not mad the USA is presuming to have the right to stop an attack. You're upset that they would consider allowing it.

    I for one am not really ready to make war on Iran. If for no other reason than because I see the country as having respect for education. Respect for education seems to be the big dividing line between countries that just make problems for everybody and countries that have at least the potential to contribute positively to world events.

    Japan has more of my respect than any other country because they are the non-european power that most displayed the ability to adapt to modern technology and join the modern world the fastest. China is trying, but its successes seem to be merely superficial. In Iran, I see the potential for an Islamic state to do what Japan has done, and integrate itself into the world economy.

    We pretty much don't make war on countries once they've integrated themselves into our economies. If all they have to offer is a natural resource, we might try to kill them and take it, but if their education and skills have become important to us then we can't benefit by doing that sort of thing.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Re-reading your OP, I might not have correctly understood your point. You're not mad the USA is presuming to have the right to stop an attack. You're upset that they would consider allowing it.

    I for one am not really ready to make war on Iran. If for no other reason than because I see the country as having respect for education. Respect for education seems to be the big dividing line between countries that just make problems for everybody and countries that have at least the potential to contribute positively to world events.

    Japan has more of my respect than any other country because they are the non-european power that most displayed the ability to adapt to modern technology and join the modern world the fastest. China is trying, but its successes seem to be merely superficial. In Iran, I see the potential for an Islamic state to do what Japan has done, and integrate itself into the world economy.

    We pretty much don't make war on countries once they've integrated themselves into our economies. If all they have to offer is a natural resource, we might try to kill them and take it, but if their education and skills have become important to us then we can't benefit by doing that sort of thing.
    You got it. The key to peace is trade, free trade if possible. This is what Nixon saw with China when everyone else wanted to war. Free trade leads to competition, to education, to basic individual "inalienable" freedoms like the very first amendment. To war with your best trade partner is to cut your own throat. The Unitied Nations could make itself useful and very strong, if they involved themselves in promoting trade. In Iran, the peoples would throw off the religious blanket for a higher standard of living based on world trade. However......no one in the Imperialistic Military economy of the US and Allies is persueing a peacful solution. I see more effort towards a PS from Russia and China, because they have trade.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    One problem with Nixon's solution with China is we're bankrupting ourselves by continually trying to offer them better than fair trade in order to keep them friendly. China has yet to genuinely develop its population into a valuable economic asset. They're just a source of cheap unskilled labor right now. (Which makes them only as valuable to us as the next 20 or 30 underdeveloped countries on the list.)

    Iran fortunately values education more, so its people might begin to contribute in a more fundamental way to the world economy. However it will always be hard to get around the fact they have oil. Trading for a natural resource doesn't promote peace. You only get peace when humanity or labor is the asset getting traded.

    Japan has few if any natural resources to trade, but the population is highly educated and we value their labor and skills, so we're never going to invade them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    One problem with Nixon's solution with China is we're bankrupting ourselves by continually trying to offer them better than fair trade in order to keep them friendly. China has yet to genuinely develop its population into a valuable economic asset. They're just a source of cheap unskilled labor right now. (Which makes them only as valuable to us as the next 20 or 30 underdeveloped countries on the list.)

    Iran fortunately values education more, so its people might begin to contribute in a more fundamental way to the world economy. However it will always be hard to get around the fact they have oil. Trading for a natural resource doesn't promote peace. You only get peace when humanity or labor is the asset getting traded.

    Japan has few if any natural resources to trade, but the population is highly educated and we value their labor and skills, so we're never going to invade them.
    hmmm... I don't think the US is buying China's friendship. Any trade is better than no trade or no relations at all. Japan IS occupied ... and has been since their surrender in WWII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Japan has few if any natural resources to trade, but the population is highly educated and we value their labor and skills, so we're never going to invade them.
    We don't need to invade. We're already there.

    From wiki:

    As of December 2009, there are 35,688 U.S. military personnel stationed in Japan and another 5,500 American civilians employed there by the United States Department of Defense. The United States Seventh Fleet is based in Yokosuka. The 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF) is based in Okinawa. 130 USAF fighters are stationed in the Misawa Air Base and Kadena Air Base.[2]

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    They're occupied because they surrendered. The USA has bases there, but US forces never invaded the mainland of Japan. They got as far as Okinawa, but lost 65,000 soldiers in that battle alone, which made it apparent there was no practical way we could ever invade the mainland.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

    The Japanese literally fought to the last man, adopting a strategy of attrition when they couldn't defend the Island. They lost 100,000 soldiers killing 65,000 of ours, but it was clear they'd be willing to do it again and again over every inch of terrain if we actually tried to set foot on the mainland.

    Fortunately we didn't end up having to test that. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki motivated an unconditional surrender by the Emperor himself. Then the USA set foot on the main land with permission.

    So I guess it depends on how you count it. There are three RAF bases in the UK that are staffed more by American personnel than by British Personnel. Has the USA "occupied" England too?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Alconbury
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    They're occupied because they surrendered. The USA has bases there, but US forces never invaded the mainland of Japan. They got as far as Okinawa, but lost 65,000 soldiers in that battle alone, which made it apparent there was no practical way we could ever invade the mainland.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

    The Japanese literally fought to the last man, adopting a strategy of attrition when they couldn't defend the Island. They lost 100,000 soldiers killing 65,000 of ours, but it was clear they'd be willing to do it again and again over every inch of terrain if we actually tried to set foot on the mainland.

    Fortunately we didn't end up having to test that. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki motivated an unconditional surrender by the Emperor himself. Then the USA set foot on the main land with permission.

    So I guess it depends on how you count it. There are three RAF bases in the UK that are staffed more by American personnel than by British Personnel. Has the USA "occupied" England too?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Alconbury
    I play tennis two or three times a week with a good friend of mine. He is 85 yrs. old, still runs. He was drafted at 18, sent to Okinawa to train for the invasion. Of course the bombs saved him and a million others that expected to die. He has told me many times how the bombs saved him and his fellow soldiers. They had been told to expect very heavy casualties. I thanked him for his service, and he thanked me for mine, then we play, knowing we are the lucky ones. The US has over 900 foreign bases , yet to my knowledge no foreign power has a base in the US. Would we consider that we were occupied if the Japanese and the UK had a military force in the US?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Would we consider that we were occupied if the Japanese and the UK had a military force in the US?
    Yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    what i don't understand is, why iran, in this time, is starting to waste money/ressources for nuclear power plants? their geographical aspect, combined with the possibilities of financing it through their oil capacity, gives them a chance to advanced technology. why start to invest in a commonly known outdated power supply?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    I hope we stay the hell out of Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Jesus, can't this country go for a few years without being embroiled in stupid, almost meaningless wars?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Syria is a problem and the liberals can't even keep their noses out. You now have Jon Stewart a liberal deity, and Bush critic now calling Obama spineless with the Syria delimma. Meanwhile the MIC is seeing profit dollars slip by in their sleep, and they don't care about the young soldiers that will die, or the situation being a no win for Obama and the US, all they care about is the profit they are missing out on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    what i don't understand is, why iran, in this time, is starting to waste money/ressources for nuclear power plants? their geographical aspect, combined with the possibilities of financing it through their oil capacity, gives them a chance to advanced technology. why start to invest in a commonly known outdated power supply?
    What would you suggest they use? Solar? Wind? Every barrel of crude they burn in their own power plants is a lost pile of money they could have gotten by selling it. If they have natural gas they'd do better to sell it to nearby former Soviet countries, which depend heavily upon it for Winter heating . I know at least Ukraine has their infrastructure set up that way from the time of the USSR. And Russia loves to gauge the prices on it.

    In economics I think the concept is referred to as "opportunity cost". People in that area of the world tend to think in longer time frames than we do in the West. They know they won't have oil forever. Why waste it?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. New danger from Iran!
    By Dywyddyr in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: March 28th, 2013, 01:01 AM
  2. Will Iran strike first?
    By westwind in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 7th, 2012, 12:44 AM
  3. Iran
    By B1AZE in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 7th, 2009, 01:32 AM
  4. “Strike at the Root”
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 15th, 2008, 07:20 AM
  5. Iran’s right for N-technology.
    By sak in forum Politics
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: August 28th, 2008, 06:17 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •