Originally posted by no1marauderI agree marauder, but you should not use it in an attempt to avoid answering questions about the issues allready raised.
The presence of a US invasion force occupying Iran's neighbor (in fact, 2 of their neighbors) cannot be ignored in a discussion of the positions of the Iranian leader. To do so, requires naivete of the highest degree.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you quote the whole post (it's very short), fine. It's consistent with what I've always said about the leadership of other countries regarding their internal affairs.
marauder: "I agree, but I don't care."
I hope you will not accuse me of being a liar or being disingenuous if I will present this stance of yours in future debates.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat issue that has been raised are you unclear about my stance on? I've written some extensive posts in response. If I haven't dealt with an issue, specifically state it and I'll respond now.
I agree marauder, but you should not use it in an attempt to avoid answering questions about the issues allready raised.
Please adress my answers substantially, not by spouting new accusations or presenting new issues.
marauder: "You applied conditions to the Nuclear Free zone i.e. that certain organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad support an all-embracing peace treaty that you well know would make it impossible to acheive."
Now your "analyses" is becoming absolutely and utterly ridiculous. How do you think the situation will look like if an all embracing "peace" treaty will be signed which does NOT adress the groups supported and financed by regional countries, participants in this peace treaty, which would entail this "Nuclear Free Zone". You think this will mean peace, if these terrorists groups will be allowed to continue their suicide actions and other attacks on Israel ? Are you for real ? This is unacceptable. We are now in the middle of the utterly ridiculous part of your "analyses". How can there be peace in the Middle East without disarming and disbanding the terrorists groups, marauder ?
marauder: "This is a typical trick of yours, Ivanhoe"
Now things are becoming annoying again.
marauder: "to say you support something in principle (like "peace" while attaching unreasonable conditions that make it unobtainable."
... "unreasonable conditions" ...... get off ...... in fact you are claiming Israel should accept a "peace" treaty and get rid of their nuclear arms and at the same time the other side is allowed to continue the war ....
You want Israel to give up its nuclear arms. In exchange for what ? It seems to me you do not offer anything in return. No recognition of the Jewish State of Israel. No secure borders, no dismantling of the terrorist groups. Not even a true peace treaty, nothing. You simply want Israel to give up his nuclear arms and to enable the Arab states and the terrorist groups they arm and support ideologically and financially to continue their war against Israel. How stupid do you think the Israelis are ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeSince the Palestinians aren't insisting that the Israeli Defense Force be "disarmed and disbanded" why should their Palestinian opponents be "disarmed and disbanded"? Please directly answer THAT question, Ivanhoe. Your position is that the Palestinians who are fighting must be disarmed but that the Israelis who are fighting not be. This is a perfect example of the one-sidedness of your approach. You are being utterly ridiculous to insist that the Palestinians destroy political groups within Palestine as a precondition to a peace agreement; surprisingly enough the Palestinians are not willing to fight a full scale civil war for Israel's amusment.
Please adress my answers substantially, not by spouting new accusations or presenting new issues.
marauder: "You applied conditions to the Nuclear Free zone i.e. that certain organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad support an all-embracing peace treaty that you well know would make it impossible to acheive."
Now your "analyses" is becoming abso ...[text shortened]... and financially to continue their war against Israel. How stupid do you think the Israelis are ?
You're a simple liar to say that I suggested that the Palestinians could continue the war after a peace treaty; I said the Palestinian government would be held to the same standard as any other government in preventing belligerent acts against other countries. That is all international law requires them to do; why should they be held to something no other country has to do? It is typical that you insist that Muslims have to do things that no other independent country is required to do.
Your last paragraph is hysterical claptrap of the kind you always spout. Please knock it off. I propose a true peace peace treaty between the government of Palestine and the government of Israel with exact borders to be set by negotiations but certainly encompassing virtually all of the West Bank. All countries in the region would forsake nuclear weapons as envisioned by the NPT (which you support, for everybody BUT Israel). The Palestine government and other states would have the responsibility not to allow their states to be used as bases for attacks on any country as required by IL.
How stupid do I think the Israelis are? Their current government is too stupid to see that the peace outlined above would be in the best interests of Israel in the long-run. So the Israeli government is just as stupid as you.
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder, you are an expert in confusing the issue. In the context of creating a "Nuclear free Zone" we were talking about an "all embracing peace treaty" in the Middle East. This includes Iran, Syria and all the other regional countries. The Islamic Jihad and Hamas are factions supported by Iran and Syria. In an "all embracing peace treaty" these terrorists should be disbanded and disarmed. How in the world can you expect from Israel to sign a peace treaty in return for nothing ? What would Israel gain from this "peace treaty" if the terrorists groups, the front troops in the war against Israel, supported by Iran, Syria and other regional powers, can simply carry on with their war ? Please answer this direct question.
Since the Palestinians aren't insisting that the Israeli Defense Force be "disarmed and disbanded" why should their Palestinian opponents be "disarmed and disbanded"? Please directly answer THAT question, Ivanhoe. Your position is that the Palestinians who are fighting must be disarmed but that the Israelis who are fighting not be. This is a perfect ...[text shortened]... he best interests of Israel in the long-run. So the Israeli government is just as stupid as you.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHow many times do I have to answer it, Ivanhoe?? Please READ my posts. NO country would be allowed to have their territory used as a base to attack ANY OTHER country. That is what is required under international law. What part don't you understand???????????????
marauder, you are an expert in confusing the issue. In the context of creating a "Nuclear free Zone" we were talking about an "all embracing peace treaty" in the Middle East. This includes Iran, Syria and all the other regional countries. The Islamic Jihad and Hamas are factions supported by Iran and Syria. In an "all embracing peace treaty" these ter ...[text shortened]... other regional powers, can simply carry on with their war ? Please answer this direct question.
Originally posted by no1marauderIn an all embracing peace treaty, remember entailing this "Nuclear Free Zone", these factions could use other territories than the Palestinian one to attack Israel. They could even use the Mediterranean sea in order to enter Israel and carry out their attacks.
How many times do I have to answer it, Ivanhoe?? Please READ my posts. NO country would be allowed to have their territory used as a base to attack ANY OTHER country. That is what is required under international law. What part don't you understand???????????????
What part is it YOU don't understand, marauder ?
You forgot to answer the following:
You want Israel to give up its nuclear arms. In exchange for what ? It seems to me you do not offer anything in return. No recognition of the Jewish State of Israel. No secure borders, no dismantling of the terrorist groups. Not even a true peace treaty, nothing. You simply want Israel to give up his nuclear arms and to enable the Arab states and the terrorist groups they arm and support ideologically and financially to continue their war against Israel.
What do the Israeli's get in return for giving up their nuclear arms and thus, in their eyes, substantially weakening their defense system ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI answered that two pages ago:
You forgot to answer the following:
You want Israel to give up its nuclear arms. In exchange for what ? It seems to me you do not offer anything in return. No recognition of the Jewish State of Israel. No secure borders, no dismantling of the terrorist groups. Not even a true peace treaty, nothing. You simply want Israel to give up his nuclear arms and ...[text shortened]... ng up their nuclear arms and thus, in their eyes, substantially weakening their defense system ?
What does Israel get in return? Peace and security; which all the nuclear weapons the've built, all the successful sneak attacks they've accomplished, all the oppression of Palestinian, all the ignoring of international law and everything else they've done in the last 57 years has failed to gain them.
Originally posted by ivanhoe(Shrug) Other countries would be included in the peace treaty. The Mediterranean Sea is Israel's problem. As I said, I would expect the allure of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to fade once there was a Palestinian state. No country is ever 100% protected against terrorist attacks; it is impossible to insure such a thing. Your pretend insistence that Israel be protected thus is a smokescreen.
In an all embracing peace treaty, remember entailing this "Nuclear Free Zone", these factions could use other territories than the Palestinian one to attack Israel. They could even use the Mediterranean sea in order to enter Israel and carry out their attacks.
What part is it YOU don't understand, marauder ?
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "What does Israel get in return? Peace and security; ... "
I answered that two pages ago:
What does Israel get in return? Peace and security; which all the nuclear weapons the've built, all the successful sneak attacks they've accomplished, all the oppression of Palestinian, all the ignoring of international law and everything else they've done in the last 57 years has failed to gain them.
Are you from Mars ?
Originally posted by no1marauder.... definitely, you are from Mars.
(Shrug) Other countries would be included in the peace treaty. The Mediterranean Sea is Israel's problem. As I said, I would expect the allure of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to fade once there was a Palestinian state. No country is ever 100% protected against terrorist attacks; it is impossible to insure such a thing. Your pretend insistence that Israel be protected thus is a smokescreen.
Good night, marauder 😴
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe bottom line is that you oppose any treaty that can possibly be negotiated. You want unilateral concessions and a Palestinian civil war before Israel is required to do anything. Sorry, that's not in the cards. If Israel wants peace and security than they're going to have to give up on their insistence on dictating the type of government the Palestinians can have and what political groups can exist in an independent Palestine.
marauder: "What does Israel get in return? Peace and security; ... "
Are you from Mars ?