There's nothing "genius" about any of it, it's 16-year-old clever. It's good for a chuckle and a few minutes' thought and that's about it.
The US is in the driver's seat on this and it's more a War on Terror than a War on WMD because honestly I don't think we care all that much about WMD in nations that don't sponsor terrorism (or are friends to us).
Syria can easily make this deal because they don't need them (I don't think *ANYONE* needs chemical/biological weapons), they've got legions of suicide bombers to fight with.
But while they're being clever they might find themselves in the very uncomfortable position of having their bluff called, with inspectors in their country and international pressure (especially from a big-bad US fresh off the heels of a quick Ba'athist ass-whipping) to cease their support of terrorism.
Brutal military dictators don't like having international bureaucrats snooping around asking questions; be careful what you ask for, bright boy.
Answer my question and I'll respond to your (unrelated) question.
Why are Israel's WMD OK when Syria's aren't?
May be you will and maybe you won't.
(And maybe this will answer your question and maybe it won't)
Israel's WMD haven't posed a problem to their neighbors for the 30+ years they have had them. In all actuality, I doubt they would still be in existence except for the "Samson" doctrine.
That said, if you take into context the export of terrorism from Syria to Israel, Syria isn't quite ready for the responsibility of WMD, let alone being a responsible member of the U.N.
Responding to this newest proposal is a bit like trying to argue with a drunk.
(And maybe this will answer your question and maybe it won't)
Israel's WMD haven't posed a problem to their neighbors for the 30+ years they have had them. In all actuality, I doubt they would still be in existence except for the "Samson" doctrine.
.
This doesn't answer his question at all. Syria's 'weapons of mass destruction' haven't troubled anyone at all, ever.
The first time I even heard that they 'had them' was in a press conference with Donald Rusmfeld LAST WEEK, so it doesn't seem that they've been any kind of threat EVER. If they have them. Which, unlike Israel, we don't know.
So: why is it OK for Israel to have nukes but not OK for Syria to have some unspecified WOMD?
Israel doesn't need nukes or chem/bio. They have the biggest baddest weapon in the world; the seemingly unshakeable support of the United States.
I don't blame them for wanting a nuke or two, the region isn't exactly friendly to them. I'm more comfortable with one in their hands as oppossed to one in the hands of Hizbollah's masters. Call me crazy.
I'm all for inspections in Arab nations and international chem/bio/nuke monitoring as well as Israel. I think we can keep them from launching secretly developed chem/bio/nuke weapons using a variant of MAD I like to call USAYD (United States Assures Your Destruction).
At least that's what I think right now. We'll see if I get more hawkish as time goes on.
To me there's no moral equivalency between Syria and Israel and Syria's support for international terrorism is a problem.
To me there's no moral equivalency between Syria and Israel and Syria's support for international terrorism is a problem.
I think that this is curious. Israel brutally supresses an occupied populace, and drops one tonne bombs on apartment blocks to kill terrorist leaders regardless of civilian deaths, and Syria provides support to terrorists to fight against Israel's brutal supression of an occupied populace, etc.
Nah, they're as bad as each-other. It's just Syria's bad luck that it's not Israel.
I think that this is curious. Israel brutally supresses an occupied populace, and drops one tonne bombs on apartment blocks to kill terrorist leaders regardless of civilian deaths, and Syria provides support to terrorists to fight against Israel's brutal supression of an occupied populace, etc.
Nah, they're as bad as each-other. It's just Syria's bad luck that it's not Israel.
It has been argued that because Syria is using conventional bombs strapped onto people as terror weapons they should not be allowed to have WoMD
Since Israel is using conventional weapons strapped onto F-16s (releaseable so the pilot doesn´t suffer the same destiny as the people in the Syrain example) as terror weapons why should theybe allowed.
It has been argued that because Syria is using conventional bombs strapped onto people as terror weapons they should not be allowed to have WoMD
Since Israel is using conventional weapons strapped onto F-16s (releaseable so the pilot doesn´t suffer the same destiny as the people in the Syrain example) as terror weapons why should theybe allowed.
Oh, no, that's right, it's not. It's the Syrians and other Arab states that have agreed to officially sponsor, outfit, supply and give haven to groups who's stated goal is the liquidation of the Jewish presense in the middle east.
I think that this is curious. Israel brutally supresses an occupied populace, and drops one tonne bombs on apartment blocks to kill terrorist leaders regardless of civilian deaths, and Syria provides support to terrorists to fight against Israel's brutal supression of an occupied populace, etc.
Nah, they're as bad as each-other. It's just Syria's bad luck that it's not Israel.
Except that, right or wrong, Israel's actions are rooted in an attempt to defend and provide security.
Syria's actions are not "support to terrorists to fight against Israel's brutal supression of an occupied populace, etc.". They are however support for terrorists to fight for the complete and total erradication of the Jews in Israel.
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
Neither country has been asked to disarm by the UN. The Syrian resolution calls for both countries to disarm their undeclared WMD.
Why are Israel's WMD OK?
i think it goes like this
Crazy Dictator = disarm
Ruthless Dictator = disarm
Unstable = disarm
Stable = if you played nice u keep them
Crazy Dictator who already has them = you keep them but get political pressure from the US (North Korea)
You Support things that directly or indirectly effects US saftey or allie saftey = you are invaded
There's nothing "genius" about any of it, it's 16-year-old clever. It's good for a chuckle and a few minutes' thought and that's about it.
The US is in the driver's seat on this and it's more a War on Terror than a War on WMD because honestly I don't think we care all that much about WMD in nations that don't sponsor terrorism (or are friends to us).
Syria can easily make this deal because they don't need them (I don't think *ANYONE* needs chemical/biological weapons), they've got legions of suicide bombers to fight with.
But while they're being clever they might find themselves in the very uncomfortable position of having their bluff called, with inspectors in their country and international pressure (especially from a big-bad US fresh off the heels of a quick Ba'athist ass-whipping) to cease their support of terrorism.
Brutal military dictators don't like having international bureaucrats snooping around asking questions; be careful what you ask for, bright boy.
Originally posted by Harald
Answer my question and I'll respond to your (unrelated) question.
Why are Israel's WMD OK when Syria's aren't?
May be you will and maybe you won't.
(And maybe this will answer your question and maybe it won't)
Israel's WMD haven't posed a problem to their neighbors for the 30+ years they have had them. In all actuality, I doubt they would still be in existence except for the "Samson" doctrine.
That said, if you take into context the export of terrorism from Syria to Israel, Syria isn't quite ready for the responsibility of WMD, let alone being a responsible member of the U.N.
Responding to this newest proposal is a bit like trying to argue with a drunk.
Originally posted by ena
May be you will and maybe you won't.
(And maybe this will answer your question and maybe it won't)
Israel's WMD haven't posed a problem to their neighbors for the 30+ years they have had them. In all actuality, I doubt they would still be in existence except for the "Samson" doctrine.
.
This doesn't answer his question at all. Syria's 'weapons of mass destruction' haven't troubled anyone at all, ever.
The first time I even heard that they 'had them' was in a press conference with Donald Rusmfeld LAST WEEK, so it doesn't seem that they've been any kind of threat EVER. If they have them. Which, unlike Israel, we don't know.
So: why is it OK for Israel to have nukes but not OK for Syria to have some unspecified WOMD?
I don't blame them for wanting a nuke or two, the region isn't exactly friendly to them. I'm more comfortable with one in their hands as oppossed to one in the hands of Hizbollah's masters. Call me crazy.
I'm all for inspections in Arab nations and international chem/bio/nuke monitoring as well as Israel. I think we can keep them from launching secretly developed chem/bio/nuke weapons using a variant of MAD I like to call USAYD (United States Assures Your Destruction).
At least that's what I think right now. We'll see if I get more hawkish as time goes on.
To me there's no moral equivalency between Syria and Israel and Syria's support for international terrorism is a problem.
Originally posted by ena
Israel's WMD haven't posed a problem to their neighbors for the 30+ years they have had them.
That's not true. Not only do they cause a problem, they give a motive for neighboring countries to develop and distribute them: for their own safety.
Originally posted by groverat
They have the biggest baddest weapon in the world; the seemingly unshakeable support of the United States.
There are some around here that would gladly argue that they can't rely on the support of the US, or any other nation.
Originally posted by groverat
To me there's no moral equivalency between Syria and Israel and Syria's support for international terrorism is a problem.
I think that this is curious. Israel brutally supresses an occupied populace, and drops one tonne bombs on apartment blocks to kill terrorist leaders regardless of civilian deaths, and Syria provides support to terrorists to fight against Israel's brutal supression of an occupied populace, etc.
Nah, they're as bad as each-other. It's just Syria's bad luck that it's not Israel.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I think that this is curious. Israel brutally supresses an occupied populace, and drops one tonne bombs on apartment blocks to kill terrorist leaders regardless of civilian deaths, and Syria provides support to terrorists to fight against Israel's brutal supression of an occupied populace, etc.
Nah, they're as bad as each-other. It's just Syria's bad luck that it's not Israel.
Maybe if Syria wasn't in Lebanon... maybe.
At least Israel has a democracy.
Nine kids they killed. Dropped a 1 ton bomb on an apartment block. Moral equivalence is us.
Emotional grenade?
Originally posted by groverat
I don't know what the purpose of posting that is.
Emotional grenade?
Nah. Just trying to prove that Israel and Syria are both pretty bad.
It has been argued that because Syria is using conventional bombs strapped onto people as terror weapons they should not be allowed to have WoMD
Since Israel is using conventional weapons strapped onto F-16s (releaseable so the pilot doesn´t suffer the same destiny as the people in the Syrain example) as terror weapons why should theybe allowed.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This doesn't answer his question at all. Syria's 'weapons of mass destruction' haven't troubled anyone at all, ever.
Yes, they've done quite enough with simple high explosives let alone with a little cholera or plague.
--of course it answers his question.
It has been argued ..
By who? ena?
Are you expecting a rational response?
kidding kidding. heh
simple story makes everyone's day a little happier
Originally posted by Anders the White
I think the point was this:
It has been argued that because Syria is using conventional bombs strapped onto people as terror weapons they should not be allowed to have WoMD
Since Israel is using conventional weapons strapped onto F-16s (releaseable so the pilot doesn´t suffer the same destiny as the people in the Syrain example) as terror weapons why should theybe allowed.
oh honestly.....
who has sworn the annihilation of whom?
*leaves thread in exasperation*
Originally posted by ena
oh honestly.....
who has sworn the annihilation of whom?
*leaves thread in exasperation*
Oh Oh, I know, I know! It's the Jews!
Oh, no, that's right, it's not. It's the Syrians and other Arab states that have agreed to officially sponsor, outfit, supply and give haven to groups who's stated goal is the liquidation of the Jewish presense in the middle east.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I think that this is curious. Israel brutally supresses an occupied populace, and drops one tonne bombs on apartment blocks to kill terrorist leaders regardless of civilian deaths, and Syria provides support to terrorists to fight against Israel's brutal supression of an occupied populace, etc.
Nah, they're as bad as each-other. It's just Syria's bad luck that it's not Israel.
Except that, right or wrong, Israel's actions are rooted in an attempt to defend and provide security.
Syria's actions are not "support to terrorists to fight against Israel's brutal supression of an occupied populace, etc.". They are however support for terrorists to fight for the complete and total erradication of the Jews in Israel.
You're right, they are the same thing.