http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...i120203D17.DTL Not the brightest thing to come out with when the politicians of the west are looking for the next scapegoat to attack,to distract "joe public" from their shortcomings.
Printable View
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...i120203D17.DTL Not the brightest thing to come out with when the politicians of the west are looking for the next scapegoat to attack,to distract "joe public" from their shortcomings.
Well what better arguemnet could there be for bombing them back to the iron age than 'that comment'
The actual comment seemed to imply that it would be the Palestinians that would do the wiping. I do not think anyone is holding their breath.
Nevertheless, a stupid comment said at a radical student rally. The guy still thinks it is 1979.
That said, Iran has been a bit gallous of late ... leading one to suspect that they are about to unveil that they are further ahead with the bomb thing than people thought and consequently can peer over it to hurl insults as they see fit.
As long as that is all they do :dry:
I don't think one of the western powers would hesitate to make a pre-emptive strike if Iran tried pulling that one,nuclear blackmail won't cut it,not with today's tactical nuclear weapons.
just blow all of the middle east countrys up and be done with it all and we shall all have peace and happiness
No I don't think that's the way to go,but it dosn't surprise me that the suggestion's been made.
Some people think genocide is the way to go,lets hope we never get led down that path again.
Well, then.
All this makes me wonder why no one here (or anywhere else, for that matter) attempts a parsing/criticism of this type of commentary; are such comments properly excused or ignored because they come from a country so culturally dense as to defy our understanding?
Honestly, why is the Israeli claim to Jerusalem and the Holy Land rejected out of hand, while we all stand by, hat-in-hand, attempting to "understand" the motivation to erase another culture?
Current/eternal strife aside, that this "message" has not been eradicated, that it is not a major focus of, say, the United Nations, is a surpassing enigma.
First off read the comment under my sig.
Done?
Ok, I condemn those remarks made by the Iranian president completely, I too would like to see a Palestinan state created not through violence but negotiation and diplomacy, but we all know that's never going to happen, at least a state where both sides can freely live in (long shot, but it might work out). But wiping out Israel? 1) Impossible 2) Just plain stupid.
As for oxygenuk, you say we should bomb the M.E. altogether? Well what good are you compared to the Iranian president? If anything you're opinions portray you as Hitler or Stalin when compared to the comments of the Iranian president.
The enigma to me is that after you constantly repudiate the UN as having any relevancy you might suggest it focuses on anything :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Of course it is not good for Irans leader to make such statements.
See N Korea :dry: I believe they have set the bench mark on this one. Nuclear blackmail does not have to be "do as I say or I will bomb" it is much more likely to be "leave me alone - invade and we all go up".Quote:
Originally Posted by They're
There are those in the ME that never accepted the creation of Israel in 1948. Initially this was all of the ME and it was handled very badly by everybody concerned and poor Palestinian farmers became pawns in a bigger political game. To be fair, this view has diminished as time has passed and now only certain hardliners such as the new Iranian President take this view. The majority of the Arab countries want a negotiated settlement. I personally am not sure there is enough there for two states and that a single secular state comprising of nearly 50% Jews 50% Arabs might be a more practical solution - unfortunately the last 60 years of hatred are unlikely to make that a viable going concern.
One must also question the motivation of many western countries. Anti-semitism was rife pre WW2 (and not just in Germany) and the Arabs simply saw us moving "a problem" elsewhere. Indeed, historically the Arabs were far nicer to the Jews than the Christians were. The "Holy Land" argument is a relatively modern right wing Christian phenomenon. The traditional Christian view was that the Jews blew it and that is why they lost their land - a view held for nearly 2000 years. The Crusades were about getting Jerusalem back for Christians - not Jews. Indeed, didn't that loveable rascal Pat Robertson say "with all due respect to that dear people, God does not listen to their prayers".
The UN has been focused on the problems in the region for a long time but unfortunately views have been so entrenched and Vetos so exercised that little has been achieved.
Despite all the above I suspect the new Iranian President is a bit of an arse and if he doesn't take a run at the learning curve of international politics he will further isolate what should be a prosperous and dynamic country.
'Twould be a wonder if, instead of serving as a ready forum for the full menu of anti-Semitic rhetoric, the U.N. jumped in immediately with both feet to condemn such commentary, and go on record as not supporting such pish.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
To build credibility and gain relevance, you see.
Or perhaps the UN saw it for what it was, an exercise in internal politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
And presumably these newly re-spined delegates will march right back up to the podium and decry Bush's insistence on supporting legislation that would exempt the CIA from the Geneva Conventions and allow torture of prisoners interrogated in other countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Then you could go back to questioning the U.N.'s moral qualifications to judge us.
Biggles...
Your last post was beautifully written.
You should pursue a literary career.
Starving to death in a Parisian garrett is tremendously romantic.
It is precisely because the detainees in question are without a country that they are subject to whatever you choose to term "Gitmo" treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Why should we allow their preferred status as an "at large" terrorist entity work in their favor?
Let a country claim them, and let's go from there.
The U.N.'s only method of sanction is their blessed resolution; how does one fashion a resolution aimed at, oh.....Al Qaeda, for instance?
So you could infer, I suppose, that we twist the "arm" that is offered for twisting.
That no country claims them is not our problem, it is theirs, and that is as it should be.