DAMN he's good ...

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 56
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    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
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 56
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    God how easy it is to pander to some of you...



    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 56
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 56
    Quote:

    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?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 56
    Pakistan?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 56
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 56
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 56
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 56
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 56
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 56
    Here's Israeli 'terrorism' for ya. I wanted an unbiased news source (could have chosen any) so I chose... Fox News.



    Nine kids they killed. Dropped a 1 ton bomb on an apartment block. Moral equivalence is us.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 56
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I don't know what the purpose of posting that is.



    Emotional grenade?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 56
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 56
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 56
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 56
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    It has been argued ..



    By who? ena?

    Are you expecting a rational response?



    kidding kidding. heh
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 56
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    gov, if u are gonna say things like that u need pictures or a storyline to tell



    a person



    grenade is thrown and seen!



    explosion



    person now







    simple story makes everyone's day a little happier
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 56
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    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*
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 56
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 56
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.