killbot1000 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 I agree with Kiko and Alessandro, Israel is out of place in its current location, all those people...dont get along. I am not anti-semetic in the slightest, but I think putting Israel on a pedestal like we do is really ridiculous, considering all the nasty stuff that goes on over there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeDroidGenesis7007 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 I wonder how much you all actually know about Israel.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 I wonder how much you all actually know about Israel.... How about this for knowledge: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Pa...d/Story417.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxfan66 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 not unless absolutely necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxfan66 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Congratulations for your courage in dealing with such a strong taboo. But what you say is what many of us feel deeply inside.However I wouldn't destroy them, I would send them to some desert island. And I'd do the same with the Pope and all of his bishops and cardinals. Then the world would be a *much better* place. don't be racist. It is inappropriate and against the rules of Insanelymac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 don't be racist. It is inappropriate and against the rules of Insanelymac. I am not racist in the least. I am not anti-semitic, I am against all the atrocities committed by the State of Israel: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Pa...d/Story417.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxfan66 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 I am not racist in the least. I am not anti-semitic, I am against all the atrocities committed by the State of Israel: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Pa...d/Story417.html Read the Bible(Joshua, Judges, and 1 samuel) and you would think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Read the Bible(Joshua, Judges, and 1 samuel) and you would think otherwise. The Bible cannot approve of modern atrocities like ethnic cleansing, else there is something (very) wrong with the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 and those are the old books, which were written by a bunch of looney's on crack who wanted to justify what they did, so they wrote it in the bible (god told them of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 and those are the old books, which were written by a bunch of looney's on crack who wanted to justify what they did, so they wrote it in the bible (god told them of course) Exactly. They said that the Bible was inspired by God. A funny god, one which incites to hatred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 I wonder how much you all actually know about Israel.... More than you might think...although I am not going to lie...I don't know as much as I should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 I wonder how much anyone knows, really. Politics and media twists things. Sorry I'm being a cynic, but there's just no knowing nowadays. On the orginal question... If there is a good reason to (and it better be a good one) then yes. But as a I see it, they aren't a threat to the entire world, so no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat69410 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 I wonder how much anyone knows, really.Politics and media twists things. Sorry I'm being a cynic, but there's just no knowing nowadays. On the orginal question... If there is a good reason to (and it better be a good one) then yes. But as a I see it, they aren't a threat to the entire world, so no. So then, just to clarify, a nation or a cause has to be an eminent danger to the entire world before it could justify military action to prevent it? The world's tried that tactic before, during the appeasement of the 30's. Look where that got us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Absolutely right. It's exactly the same thing with Criminals. Obviously someone who has the potential to perform a criminal act is perforce a criminal and should be locked-up/executed. It is rank appeasement to allow the potentially guilty to walk free! +Goes to watch Minority Report+ No one with two wits to rub together thinks that Hungary had no right to use military force to defend itself from Germany. Just as no one with two wits to rub together thinks that being a potential problem-causer gives adequate justification for war. It never has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWN_Hellzone Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Well It would be kind of stupid for are american prez to get out of his chair and say... GOOD BYE YOU ASAIN {censored}S !!.... Are allies would think we have became neutural or something and then every one would be gone in a matter of mins regardless of missile defense systems. "Cuban missile crisis ring a bell ?" I think that Israel should put up signs saying... are woman are infected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Obviously someone who has the potential to perform a criminal act is perforce a criminal and should be locked-up/executed. This statement is alarming at best. I guess we should just lock up all black people, men, and young people because they have the most "potential" to be criminals, I guess they should be locked up and executed (sarcasm). Seriously GW, what you say scares me sometimes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 It was sarcasm RE: wildcat's comment. I thought that was obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat69410 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Absolutely right. It's exactly the same thing with Criminals. Obviously someone who has the potential to perform a criminal act is perforce a criminal and should be locked-up/executed. It is rank appeasement to allow the potentially guilty to walk free! +Goes to watch Minority Report+ No one with two wits to rub together thinks that Hungary had no right to use military force to defend itself from Germany. Just as no one with two wits to rub together thinks that being a potential problem-causer gives adequate justification for war. It never has. 100% different cases here. My only point was that waiting for North Korea to gain the appropriate weapons and military personnel to become a world threat was fairly ludicrous. My allusion to Germany wasn't focused upon their annexation of Hungary, but instead upon their continued violations of the Treaty of Versailles. Just as Germany slowly broke individual regulations of the treaty over time (rebuilding their military, moving military personnel into the rhineland, etc), North Korea is continually breaking both UN Regulations and regulations with the United States. At what point do we seriously do something about it. I'm not trying to justify all out war, but I am trying to justify limited military enforcement. Waiting until a missile is launched, or troops movements is too late. Being reactionary, while politically safe, isn't always the best thing to do. North Korea, in my humble opinion, is a situation where decisive action could prevent a serious conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 As far as I know, the DPRK and the United States have no treaties... not even peace treaties... and if the DPRK is violating UN resolutions, let the UN do something. There is an armistice, but again, as far as I know, it does not preclude the development of nuclear weapons, only aggression towards south korea, japan and the US. Maybe you argue that something should be done... that's debatable. But the United States has no legal authority to invade or attack the DPRK because they have nuclear weapons. Idealy, a peace-loving nation goes to war when cause has been established. Cause being either a declaration of war against the aforementioned peace-loving country or it's allies. In the absense of a declaration of war, an act of aggression would give just cause. The DPRK hasn't made aggressive nuclear moves against any nation. I reiterate again, no one would be allowed to launch nuclear weapons against a nuclear power. Anyone who does so would be obliterated. The DPRK want trade sanctions limited and access to resources. Launching nuclear weapons or selling them to a terrorist is a sure path to a destroyed nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest's_Cavalry_Corps Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 So then, just to clarify, a nation or a cause has to be an eminent danger to the entire world before it could justify military action to prevent it? The world's tried that tactic before, during the appeasement of the 30's. Look where that got us... "All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." ~ President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953, upon being presented with plans to wage preventive war to disarm Stalin's Soviet Union Ever heard of the just war theory. Study up on it before you start going around trying to whip up support for endless wars for endless peace. Here's a link to an excellent article on it http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard20.html "Essential principles" of our nation: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..." ~ Thomas Jefferson "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible..." ~ George Washington "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence,... the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But the jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided ...Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side... Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes ursurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." ~ George Washington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Absolutely agreed. It is very easy to justify aggression to "disarm" potential threats. This is exactly what Hitler did. The United States should have a powerful military... to protect us. Our nation should never engage in "preventative" wars of aggression. Ever. The error in our foreign policy is exactly what the founders warned against. Propping up dictators, occupying foreign nations, raping countries for their resources. Trade, not domination. Instead of flippantly saying "they hate us for our freedom", we should say "they hate us because we constantly interfere in their way of life". It is rank imperialism. And it has to end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtflick Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 we should bomb canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 So then, just to clarify, a nation or a cause has to be an eminent danger to the entire world before it could justify military action to prevent it? The world's tried that tactic before, during the appeasement of the 30's. Look where that got us... What I mean is that we shouldn't go to war without justification - just look where iRaq got us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 "they hate us because we constantly interfere in their way of life". It is rank imperialism. And it has to end. Alas it is true. They have been doing it with Italy since World War Two. In case anybody is interested in who runs Italy: 1)Mafia 2)The Vatican 3)The CIA In no particular order. A government which tries to stand up against one of the above has no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 we should bomb canada. Why? What have they ever done to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts