|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 6, 2013 14:54:30 GMT
Well, the good news, at least, is that your virulent anti-Americanism has now become obvious. In any case, America has certainly never turned South Korea into a colony of the US; nor did it attempt to do so with North Korea, prior to the latter's (fairly recent) acquisition of nukes...
It is really not my responsibility to take into consideration the views of "the world community" (which, in any case, is a polite fiction perpetrated by the left; there are actually hundreds of sovereign nations that form alliances that they consider to be in their best interests--nothing more). And I remain convinced that the term, "virulent anti-Americanism," is an appropriate descruption of that poster's (rather transparent) leanings... |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 6, 2013 16:15:06 GMT
Well, the good news, at least, is that your virulent anti-Americanism has now become obvious. In any case, America has certainly never turned South Korea into a colony of the US; nor did it attempt to do so with North Korea, prior to the latter's (fairly recent) acquisition of nukes...
I too. Americans come in two sorts - the decent ordinary vast majority and the fanatical strutting rightists whose masters tell them they are a majority. The latter are not so much nasty (thought they are that) as barking mad. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 6, 2013 21:33:56 GMT
Have you ever considered that what you are pleased to term Iolo's 'virulent anti-Americanism' is in fact a reflection of how most of the developed world views your society? I happen to like most of the Americans I have met (both in RL and on these pages) so I consider more than somewhat unfair to ordinary Americans - who are generally pleasant, welcoming and generous. But I strongly suspect that, other than Israel, the USA is the most disliked and distrusted political entity on earth. Sorry, but there it is.
I too. Americans come in two sorts - the decent ordinary vast majority and the fanatical strutting rightists whose masters tell them they are a majority. The latter are not so much nasty (thought they are that) as barking mad. And with this, we have your latest pontification: Why, all right-of-center Americans are "fanatical" and "mad"; and, not only that, but we are incapable of thinking for ourselves--we must be informed by our "masters" what we should think. 'Nuff said... |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 7, 2013 0:10:17 GMT
America supplied Iran with its first nuclear technology but most don't like that mentioned.
Iran has never attacked another country but most don't like that mentioned.
Iran has not got the technology to create a nuclear weapon but most don't like that mentioned.
Iran has no technology to create a missile that would be able to fly to America with a nuclear warhead .... but most don't like that mentioned.
America was fighting for Israel, not for America.
Do you really want your troops in there, getting killed in a war that has nothing to do with America.
Obama, regardless of what you think of him, has saved a lot of American families from organising funerals.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 7, 2013 13:11:19 GMT
I too. Americans come in two sorts - the decent ordinary vast majority and the fanatical strutting rightists whose masters tell them they are a majority. The latter are not so much nasty (thought they are that) as barking mad. And with this, we have your latest pontification: Why, all right-of-center Americans are "fanatical" and "mad"; and, not only that, but we are incapable of thinking for ourselves--we must be informed by our "masters" what we should think. 'Nuff said... 'Thinking for yourselves' my American elbow! Yours must be the only completely brainwashed cranial vacancies left on the planet. Parrots do not think for themselves - ask your masters. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 9, 2013 12:09:50 GMT
It is really not my responsibility to take into consideration the views of "the world community" (which, in any case, is a polite fiction perpetrated by the left; there are actually hundreds of sovereign nations that form alliances that they consider to be in their best interests--nothing more). And I remain convinced that the term, "virulent anti-Americanism," is an appropriate descruption of that poster's (rather transparent) leanings...
Yes, nations from alliances for political purposes but that does not supersede the necessity to also consider the opinions of the world community. World opinion is very important and always has been. Any nation that ignores world opinion does so at it's own peril.
As of lately the world opinion of the United States hasn't been good and it's been getting worse.
usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/backgroundhistory/a/worldop2007.htm
One positive point of the interim agreement with Iran is that the US didn't act unilaterally. It is only a beginning but it is a very good beginning but the US needs to do more. The US needs to be uniform in it's addressing the problem of nuclear proliferation and not continue it's politics of hypocrisy IMHO. A country "with nuclear weapons" is far more of a concern than a country that "might someday have nuclear weapons" as the first is an existing threat while the other is just a potential threat.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 9, 2013 17:49:36 GMT
It is really not my responsibility to take into consideration the views of "the world community" (which, in any case, is a polite fiction perpetrated by the left; there are actually hundreds of sovereign nations that form alliances that they consider to be in their best interests--nothing more). And I remain convinced that the term, "virulent anti-Americanism," is an appropriate descruption of that poster's (rather transparent) leanings...
Yes, nations from alliances for political purposes but that does not supersede the necessity to also consider the opinions of the world community. World opinion is very important and always has been. Any nation that ignores world opinion does so at it's own peril.
As of lately the world opinion of the United States hasn't been good and it's been getting worse.
usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/backgroundhistory/a/worldop2007.htm
One positive point of the interim agreement with Iran is that the US didn't act unilaterally. It is only a beginning but it is a very good beginning but the US needs to do more. The US needs to be uniform in it's addressing the problem of nuclear proliferation and not continue it's politics of hypocrisy IMHO. A country "with nuclear weapons" is far more of a concern than a country that "might someday have nuclear weapons" as the first is an existing threat while the other is just a potential threat.
A country's merely having nuclear weapons does not amount to a threat. Not inherently so, anyway. Rather, an aggressor state's possessing nuclear weapons represents a threat. And post-Khomeinist Revolution Iran, certainly, is an aggressor state. Israel and the US are not. To reiterate: I deny the theory of the very existence of a "world community"; so I have no desire for the US to attach itself to this (entirely fictitious) entity. One could more easily find genuine evidence of sasquatch than of some "world community"... |
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Dec 13, 2013 3:13:09 GMT
A country's merely having nuclear weapons does not amount to a threat. Not inherently so, anyway. Rather, an aggressor state's possessing nuclear weapons represents a threat. And post-Khomeinist Revolution Iran, certainly, is an aggressor state. Israel and the US are not. To reiterate: I deny the theory of the very existence of a "world community"; so I have no desire for the US to attach itself to this (entirely fictitious) entity. One could more easily find genuine evidence of sasquatch than of some "world community"...
By way of contrast, how much territory has Israel acquired due to war?
As for your comments in respect of the 'fictitious' world community - that is tantamount to claiming no other human beings exist.
A community is defined as a group of people living in a place (the world in this instance) or having characteristics in common (humanity).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 13, 2013 6:46:39 GMT
A country's merely having nuclear weapons does not amount to a threat. Not inherently so, anyway. Rather, an aggressor state's possessing nuclear weapons represents a threat. And post-Khomeinist Revolution Iran, certainly, is an aggressor state. Israel and the US are not. To reiterate: I deny the theory of the very existence of a "world community"; so I have no desire for the US to attach itself to this (entirely fictitious) entity. One could more easily find genuine evidence of sasquatch than of some "world community"...
By way of contrast, how much territory has Israel acquired due to war?
As for your comments in respect of the 'fictitious' world community - that is tantamount to claiming no other human beings exist.
A community is defined as a group of people living in a place (the world in this instance) or having characteristics in common (humanity).
(1) What happened in the eighteenth century, as regarding Iran--or even in the 1980s--is hardly the point here. Rather, Iran's continually stated desire to destroy Israel (as well as its finger-in-the-eye actions toward the US--never mind its incendiary rhetoric) define this country, in its present incarnation, as an aggressor state. (2) To define a community as any group of people having "humanity" in common--which strikes me as enormously tautological--is to characterize it in a way so broad as to make everyone a part of the same "community." |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 13, 2013 17:16:25 GMT
(1) What happened in the eighteenth century, as regarding Iran--or even in the 1980s--is hardly the point here. Rather, Iran's continually stated desire to destroy Israel (as well as its finger-in-the-eye actions toward the US--never mind its incendiary rhetoric) define this country, in its present incarnation, as an aggressor state. (2) To define a community as any group of people having "humanity" in common--which strikes me as enormously tautological--is to characterize it in a way so broad as to make everyone a part of the same "community."
Iran has actually called for a referendum of ALL of those living in "Palestine" which would include Israel to establish a one-state solution based upon the "Will of the People" to which "Palestine" is their homeland.
Iran has actually promoted "democracy" as a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran has never expressed any desire to initiate a war by attacking Israel while Israel has repeatedly threatened a unilateral attack against Iran.
I would actually recommend studing the issue of Zionism and it's involvement in the creation of Israel based upon acts of aggression by European Jews. The continued violence of Zionism continues under the Israeli government today.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 13, 2013 17:19:13 GMT
(1) What happened in the eighteenth century, as regarding Iran--or even in the 1980s--is hardly the point here. Rather, Iran's continually stated desire to destroy Israel (as well as its finger-in-the-eye actions toward the US--never mind its incendiary rhetoric) define this country, in its present incarnation, as an aggressor state. (2) To define a community as any group of people having "humanity" in common--which strikes me as enormously tautological--is to characterize it in a way so broad as to make everyone a part of the same "community."
Iran has actually called for a referendum of ALL of those living in "Palestine" which would include Israel to establish a one-state solution based upon the "Will of the People" to which "Palestine" is their homeland.
Iran has actually promoted "democracy" as a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran has never expressed any desire to initiate a war by attacking Israel while Israel has repeatedly threatened a unilateral attack against Iran.
And how many of the brainwashed capitalist hordes have ever been allowed to hear these facts? They don't need headscarves - they have earplugs and blinkers. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 14, 2013 3:12:45 GMT
(1) What happened in the eighteenth century, as regarding Iran--or even in the 1980s--is hardly the point here. Rather, Iran's continually stated desire to destroy Israel (as well as its finger-in-the-eye actions toward the US--never mind its incendiary rhetoric) define this country, in its present incarnation, as an aggressor state. (2) To define a community as any group of people having "humanity" in common--which strikes me as enormously tautological--is to characterize it in a way so broad as to make everyone a part of the same "community."
Iran has actually called for a referendum of ALL of those living in "Palestine" which would include Israel to establish a one-state solution based upon the "Will of the People" to which "Palestine" is their homeland.
Iran has actually promoted "democracy" as a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran has never expressed any desire to initiate a war by attacking Israel while Israel has repeatedly threatened a unilateral attack against Iran.
I would actually recommend studing the issue of Zionism and it's involvement in the creation of Israel based upon acts of aggression by European Jews. The continued violence of Zionism continues under the Israeli government today.
To assert that Iran has "never advocated" the destruction of Israel, but merely the destruction of "the 'Zionist State,'" seems disingenuous in the extreme. According to your own words, too many Palestinians (at least, those in a position of power) have no real interest in a two-state solution; instead, they would prefer a "one-state solution" in which the Jews would be subsumed, thereby (effectively) destroying the Jewish state... |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 14, 2013 17:18:35 GMT
Iran has never advocated the "destruction of Israel" but instead has advocated the destruction of the "Zionist State of Israel" as "Zionism" is a political ideology based upon the invidious criteria of religion/race/ethnic heritage that violates the Rights of the Person that is non-Jewish. Zionism is a violent political ideology and the very foundation of Israel was based upon an act of aggression by Zionist European Jews that "invaded" Palestine during the first half of the 20th Century with the express purpose of taking away "Palestine" from the Palestinian People that lived there.
Iran has actually called for a referendum of ALL of those living in "Palestine" which would include Israel to establish a one-state solution based upon the "Will of the People" to which "Palestine" is their homeland.
Iran has actually promoted "democracy" as a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran has never expressed any desire to initiate a war by attacking Israel while Israel has repeatedly threatened a unilateral attack against Iran.
I would actually recommend studing the issue of Zionism and it's involvement in the creation of Israel based upon acts of aggression by European Jews. The continued violence of Zionism continues under the Israeli government today.
To assert that Iran has "never advocated" the destruction of Israel, but merely the destruction of "the 'Zionist State,'" seems disingenuous in the extreme. According to your own words, too many Palestinians (at least, those in a position of power) have no real interest in a two-state solution; instead, they would prefer a "one-state solution" in which the Jews would be subsumed, thereby (effectively) destroying the Jewish state... It is exactly the same as saying that destruction of the Third Reich and the Nazis was not the same as the destruction of German people. Murderous colonialist racist must be stopped, as everyone but themselves knows. How many Jews were in favour of living forever in the Warsaw Ghetto under German supervision and guns |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 15, 2013 14:55:09 GMT
To assert that Iran has "never advocated" the destruction of Israel, but merely the destruction of "the 'Zionist State,'" seems disingenuous in the extreme. According to your own words, too many Palestinians (at least, those in a position of power) have no real interest in a two-state solution; instead, they would prefer a "one-state solution" in which the Jews would be subsumed, thereby (effectively) destroying the Jewish state... It is exactly the same as saying that destruction of the Third Reich and the Nazis was not the same as the destruction of German people. Murderous colonialist racist must be stopped, as everyone but themselves knows. How many Jews were in favour of living forever in the Warsaw Ghetto under German supervision and guns Your clear implication that the descendants of those Jews who sought a homeland, immediately following Hitler's attempt at their extermination, are "[m]urderous colonialist racist ," and therefore equivalent to the "Nazis," says just about all we need to know about your views toward the Jewish people...
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 16, 2013 14:15:21 GMT
To assert that Iran has "never advocated" the destruction of Israel, but merely the destruction of "the 'Zionist State,'" seems disingenuous in the extreme. According to your own words, too many Palestinians (at least, those in a position of power) have no real interest in a two-state solution; instead, they would prefer a "one-state solution" in which the Jews would be subsumed, thereby (effectively) destroying the Jewish state...
In fact the statement that it was "Zionism" as opposed to "Israel" that was being addressed is based upon what former Iranian President Ahmadinejad stated repeatedly but was changed to "Israel" by the "intepretors" for the Western press sources. We can also note that he stated that all of those living in "Palestine" which include Israel, the occupied territories, and Gaza be allowed to vote on a one-state or two state solution. This was never done in 1948 and the "Palestinian People" (Arabs, Jews and Christians) were denied the Right of Self-Determination by the unilateral creation of Israel by Zionist Jews.
As for the eventual end of the Jewish State of Israel that is already a foregone conclusion based upon the demographic projections for Israel. By 2048 the majority of Israeli citizens will be Arabs, not Jews, and based upon the power of the vote the Jewish State of Israel is going to be abolished. The Zionists of Israel can only prevent this by an ethnic purge and possible holocaust similar to Nazi Germany before they lose control based upon democracy as they will eventually lose at the polls otherwise. The writing is already on the wall and the Zionists in Israel are well aware of it.
The question is what, if anything, are they going to do about it. I don't think the world will stand for another ethnic purge and holocaust similar to the Nazis purge in Germany.
|
|
