NationStates Jolt Archive

Iran supposedly has stated a desire to do violence against the continued state of Israel.
Yet, Israeli gov't officials have stated otherwise.


In a sound-bite society, reality no longer matters

Last month, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told assembled world leaders at the United Nations that the time had come to take action against Iran. "None disagrees," she said, "that Iran denies the Holocaust and speaks openly of its desire to wipe a member state - mine - off the map. And none disagrees that, in violation of Security Council resolutions, it is actively pursuing the means to achieve this end. Too many see the danger but walk idly by - hoping that someone else will take care of it. ... It is time for the United Nations, and the states of the world, to live up to their promise of never again. To say enough is enough, to act now and to defend their basic values."[1]

Yet, later the same month, we are informed by Haaretz, (frequently described as "the New York Times of Israel"),.......

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer51.htm

Empty text and poor use of the "cut and paste" function.

You've also omitted the part about US inclusion in this. There is not a lot about Iran here. There is also a much longer part about the Cuba embargo...

So, what exactly is your point?

So, what exactly is your point?See my 1337 copy&paste skillz? :confused: :p

point is.

drip militarists are always looking for an enemy.

yesterday they said Iran was trushworthy for negotiating.

today the same people are saying the opposite.



YOU must really hate Jewish people.
Why else would you be pro-war on Iran?

I only care enough to post in this thread about how much I don't care.

I only care enough to post in this thread about how much I don't care.

Now see.
You other people could learn a lesson from Bann-ed



yeah.
most everyone knows enough not trust a syllable out of the Bush/Cheney regime's mouth,
which is why we've pretty much become numb to just about anything they say.

but they will probably continue on using the US military unconstutionally as their predecessors have done before them, without the required declaration of war.
"white male property owners" having 'set precedent' is all the proof they need for themselves.

point is.

drip militarists are always looking for an enemy.

yesterday they said Iran was trushworthy for negotiating.

today the same people are saying the opposite.



YOU must really hate Jewish people.
Why else would you be pro-war on Iran?

... :confused: Wuh? The US always appeared to be unwilling to negotiate with Iran from the outset, how is this a flip flop? It was nations of Western Europe that wanted to try diplomacy first.

And the two last statements... exactly what are you trying to say?

Read this or George W. Bush will be president the rest of your life

It wasn't even worth reading beyond this to know that hyperbole is the order of the day at this site.

but they will probably continue on using the US military unconstutionally as their predecessors have done before them, without the required declaration of war.
"white male property owners" having 'set precedent' is all the proof they need for themselves.

First off, you're lack of expertise is showing.

There is no Constitutional test that a declaration of war is required for military action to occur. Congress is delegated the power to declare war, yes, and the states are restricted from acting independently of Congress in the international arena, but there is no restriction on the authorization of the use of military force outside of a declaration of war. While I would prefer that the Congress actually go all the way and declare war when we do participate in military actions that are not related to treaty obligations 1*, there's not much legally wrong with doing so.

And...in a common law system, precedent and tradition are both very important, and given that the US operates under common law...well...I don't see how precedent is inadmissible as evidence.

1* Constitutionally, treaties are to be regarded as the Supreme Law of the Land, equal to the Constitution, thus any Constitutional test for foreign military action abroad is unnecessary.

Now see.
You other people could learn a lesson from Bann-ed



yeah.
most everyone knows enough not trust a syllable out of the Bush/Cheney regime's mouth,
which is why we've pretty much become numb to just about anything they say.

but they will probably continue on using the US military unconstutionally as their predecessors have done before them, without the required declaration of war.
"white male property owners" having 'set precedent' is all the proof they need for themselves.When was the last time the US actually declared war on anyone?

The cut'n'paste spam and subsequent blog did lead me to the following Newsweek opinion piece by the always eloquent Fareed Zakaria, and that makes this thread... not worthless :)


The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality.
(http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346)
Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)

In a speech last week, Rudy Giuliani said that while the Soviet Union and China could be deterred during the cold war, Iran can't be. The Soviet and Chinese regimes had a "residual rationality," he explained. Hmm. Stalin and Mao—who casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, fomented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them—were rational folk. But not Ahmadinejad, who has done what that compares? One of the bizarre twists of the current Iran hysteria is that conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.

When was the last time the US actually declared war on anyone?

1941, we declared war for World War II.

1941, we declared war for World War II.I thought as much...

I thought as much...

Now you see that this stuff is not just WBush change in policy.

The executive branch has been allowed to be imperialist and we let it be that way.
But it's not by an constitutional righteousness that lets it be that way,
that is for sure.


Add in international law and
all post WW2 us presidents would be war criminals,
according to Noam Chomsky (who is pretty much accurate on just
about everything with regards to us foreign policy)

The real Noam Chomsky (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf).

The real Noam Chomsky (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf).

got anything not in a pdf file?

got anything not in a pdf file?

So far, it's just quotes from other people, in a negative fashion.

So far, it's just quotes from other people, in a negative fashion.

So? He backs up everything he says, with hundreds of footnotes.

So? He backs up everything he says, with hundreds of footnotes.

He, Chomsky? Or the other guys in the beginning?
Arthur Schlesinger
Sidney Hook
Leopold Labedz
Walter Laquer ....
If you mean the "compiler", note that i said "so far" in my post :p

He, Chomsky? Or the other guys in the beginning?

The author.

If you mean the "compiler", note that i said "so far" in my post :p

Oh, lol. :p

Oh, lol. :p
Yup, i'm a lot further into it now than i was.
I had a friend in some kind of sociology class that says she learned one thing ... a little ditty with the punchline "Chomsky was a quack" :p

InGen Bioengineering, if you only thing you can do is copypasta far-right fringe pdf files, then you should leave the forum soon...

InGen Bioengineering, if you only thing you can do is copypasta far-right fringe pdf files, then you should leave the forum soon...

If all you can do is troll, ignore anything that doesn't conform to your warped Stalinist views, refuse to even look at peoples' sources, and fail to debate properly, maybe you should leave.

So? He backs up everything he says, with hundreds of footnotes.

As does Chomsky.

Over the years I've started to read footnotes in my fun time reading.
There is often interesting things there.

Well, firstly, Stalinism is non-existent, Stalin was just carrying on Marxism-Leninism, as was Hoxha and Mao, so I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist.

Either way, you're a totalitarian, and rightly shunned by other NSG communists for it.

Secondly, the difference is that I make my own points, I write them, while you just post someone else's opinion to replace your own.

I think I know a lot more about my opinions than you do, my dear troll. Now, kindly go crawl back under your bridge.

If all you can do is troll, ignore anything that doesn't conform to your warped Stalinist views, refuse to even look at peoples' sources, and fail to debate properly, maybe you should leave.

Well, firstly, Stalinism is non-existent, Stalin was just carrying on Marxism-Leninism, as was Hoxha and Mao, so I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist.

Secondly, the difference is that I make my own points, I write them, while you just post someone else's opinion to replace your own.

As does Chomsky.

He often uses extremely obscure, fraudulent, or unreliable sources.

Over the years I've started to read footnotes in my fun time reading.
There is often interesting things there.

I agree.

And none disagrees that, in violation of Security Council resolutions, it is actively pursuing the means to achieve this end."[1]

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer51.htm

uh hypocritical much

He often uses extremely obscure, fraudulent, or unreliable sources.
I agree.

if you mean quoting us gov't officials from both the public sources and declassified (as all that stuff should be in a democratic & self-ruling society should be) info.