Originally posted by no1marauderOh no .... now I suddenly want a Palestinian civil war .....
The 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.
Why didn't you say so before ?
Why do I want a Palestinian civil war, marauder ?
2 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672Speaking of irrational a**holes, Charles Krauthammer is one of the biggest supporters of wars to overthrow governments in the Middle East and replace them with Western-friendly, Israel-friendly "democracies" (although the wishes of their people won't be consulted). The article you cut and pasted is a war mongering peace of trash just like the crap he wrote before the invasion of Iraq (which he supported wholeheartedly). The fact that there's no physical evidence at all that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, doesn't stop CK from declaring they're on "the verge" of having them; why be bothered with facts when there's a war to drum up? And, of course, the government of Iran must be demonized as Saddam's was; a militarily weak, relatively economically backward and peaceful country (how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 100 years?) has somehow become the greatest threat to world peace.
Here's Charles Krauthammer's take.
In Iran, Arming for Armageddon
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, December 16, 2005; A35
Lest you get carried away with today's good news from Iraq, consider what's happening next door in Iran. The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever s ...[text shortened]... 't hand nuclear weapons to irrational assholes like Iran's current president. It ain't okay.
You should stop simply regurgitating ideas from radical neo-cons and think for yourself. Iran is no threat at all to the US and little threat to Israel and has been run by Islamic Fundamentalists for 26 years. Why all of a sudden are the neo-cons so hopped up for war against this country? Figure that one out and you might be closer to the truth. No matter how reprehensible I feel the Iranian President's views are, his country is too weak to be a serious threat too the US or Israel. If you want to be sucked into another Middle eastern war, keep listening to fanatical neo-cons like Krauthammer; he knows how to push the buttons of fear and hysteria with his anti-Muslim rhetoric in the post 9/11 era.
2 edits
Read this article entitled "Charles Krauthammer: A Pen for Zion" for some more of CK's balanced views:
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/june02/defense.html
He calls the Oslo Peace Agreements a "catastrophe". This is someone with a totally one-sided support for anything that he feels aids Israel and someone who couldn't care less about the oppression or killing of Muslims. Not exactly a reliable source for non-biased commentary on Iran.
Originally posted by sasquatch672The Iranian president is a politician dealing with his internal political situation. I know you think he's a Fundamentalist nut, but try to put yourself in his shoes. He's got a country (Israel) who's leader has been calling for war against his country, he's got US troops occupying countries on both sides of him and he's got the US clamoring for sanctions against his country if they don't stop their nuclear program which they claim is for peaceful purposes and no one has shown any physical evidence otherwise. What do you expect him to do; blow kisses? Has I said before, when a country feels threatened they invariably turn to "tough talkers" and he's playing his role to the people who voted him in. I'd be more concerned with what any leader does rather than what he says to his people; politicians have been known to lie, exaggerate or be bellicose from positions of weakness. Wouldn't you agree?
Hey, partner, don't get me wrong. I said yesterday that we don't need to be going to war with Iran. And yes, Krauthammer is one of the founding neocons. I don't think the country will let us spin up for yet another war in the Middle East - in fact, I'd put a mortgage payment on it. I just think that this guy is dangerous - although not yet as da ...[text shortened]... s angry - that's George. This guy is certainly rattling the sabers, though - don't you agree?
Originally posted by ivanhoeLMFAO! Stop pretending there is a difference to try to escape the fact you lied about my position. Answer the question; how is the Palestinian Authority going to "disarm and disband" Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest without a Palestinian civil war?
In the context of the virtual "All Embracing Peace Treaty" or in the context of a "Israel-Palestine Peace Agreement" ?
Originally posted by sasquatch672(Shrug) Iran, as I stated, hasn't attacked any other country in their modern existence as far as I know; that's far more "peaceful" than most countries. The degree of "dangerousness" that any leader presents is based on more than the content of what's between their ears; it is also a function of their country's capability and willingness to do "dangerous" things. I rate both Iran's capability to and the willingness of their population to have a war with the US and/or Israel as infinitesimally low, so I'm not very worried about it. I also think that Krauthammer is vastly and deliberately overstating the willingness of this guy to take his country to ultimate destruction.
Ok well how about we just take this guy and Bush and tie their ankles together and let them work it out.
I think you exaggerate Iran's "peaceful" stance to make a point about the US. And it's a point well made. My opinion is that Bush is dangerous and this guy is dangerous too.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "Stop pretending there is a difference ... "
LMFAO! Stop pretending there is a difference to try to escape the fact you lied about my position. Answer the question; how is the Palestinian Authority going to "disarm and disband" Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest without a Palestinian civil war?
If you cannot see the difference, among others the implementation of, in case of the All Embracing Peace Treaty, a Nuclear Free Zone, which was after all your contribution to the debate, and therefore the necessary participation of all the reginal powers, in contrast to a bi-lateral agreement between Israel and Palestine, than you are indeed mixing things up, making a mess of things and obfuscating the situation, thus confusing the issues we are discussing.
If you are not able or not willing to see the differences between the two developments then of course you will not be able to grasp the gigantic consequenses of these different approaches.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAre you going to answer the question or not, Ivanhoe? I presume that in either case you would insist that the Palestinian Authority "disarm and disband" Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of the "terrorist" groups, so they're wouldn't be any difference in that regard. Stop dodging.
marauder: "Stop pretending there is a difference ... "
If you cannot see the difference, among others the implementation of, in case of the All Embracing Peace Treaty, a Nuclear Free Zone, which was after all your contribution to the debate, and therefore the necessary participation of all the reginal powers, in contrast to a bi-lateral agreement bet ...[text shortened]... of course you will not be able to grasp the gigantic consequenses of these different approaches.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou keep mixing up things.
Are you going to answer the question or not, Ivanhoe? I presume that in either case you would insist that the Palestinian Authority "disarm and disband" Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of the "terrorist" groups, so they're wouldn't be any difference in that regard. Stop dodging.
In the context of the "All Embracing Peace Treaty" (AEPT)I did not claim Palestine is responsible or should be made responsible for dismantling and disarming foreign lead terrorists groups as such. The, in the case of the AEPT, participating countries are responsible for that. Iran, Syria and Saudi-Arabia are responsible for disbanding the groups they support. In fact these terrorist groups are their armies, their front soldiers, (mis)using among others the Palestine territory to attack Israel. It is just reasonable these military forces on foreign territory will be dismantled, or retreated if you want, in case of the AEPT.
Why would I be responsible for inciting a civil war in Palestine if I would like to include the war waging Palestinian and foreign military factions, the terrorist groups, in case of the AEPT ?
In case of the bilateral Israel-Palestine Peace Agreement (IPPA) Palestine would be responsible for disarming and dismantling the terrorist military forces on their own territory. Otherwise a peace agreement would become mute, a piece of paper. If they are not able to control their own or foreign terrorist groups in their own territory and as a result of that a "civil" (this remains a disputable term looking at the foreign military presence in Palestinian territory) war will occur, and in the meantime the attacks on Israel continue, then why should Israel sign a "peace" treaty with Palestinians who claim they are in charge, if in fact they are not ?
If you want to blame me for causing civil war in Palestine because they are so divided as to who's in charge in Palestine, one of the Palestinian factions or one of the foreign lead forces inside Palestine supported by yet other Palestinian factions, you are indicating, that Israel does not have a clear partner for lasting peace on the Israeli-Palestinian borders in case of a bilateral IPPA.
Why would I be responsible for inciting a civil war in Palestine if I would like to include the war waging Palestinian and foreign military factions, the terrorist groups, inside Palestine, in case of the IPPA ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWould Israel have to "disarm and disband" the "war waging" Israeli Defense Force?
You keep mixing up things.
In the context of the "All Embracing Peace Treaty" (AEPT)I did not claim Palestine is responsible or should be made responsible for dismantling and disarming foreign lead terrorists groups as such. The, in the case of the AEPT participating countries are responsible for that. Iran, Syria and Saudi-Arabia are responsible for d ...[text shortened]... ian and foreign military factions, the terrorist groups, inside Palestine, in case of the IPPA ?