1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by tomcrown1, Apr 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Sorry HDMe. That's simply not true and you know it.
    Iran threatening to destroy Israel is one example of many why a nuclear armed Iran is dangerous to the world. Which is what the EU and the UN have been saying for years.
    How many times do I have to remind you that this isn't new and this has been going on for a long time before the US got into it?

    As for Tomcrown1's question.
    It's quite simple. You have Bogy who states that the creation of Israel was a terrorist act- or due to terrorism, take your pick. Apparently the world was helpless against Zionist terrorism back then.
    He also quotes web sites which promote the destruction of all Jews- simply because they give the information he was looking for. What do you expect?
    You get Jon saying that all Israel has to do is "trot someone with a tattoo on his arm" to justify any action Isarel might take. It doesn't take much thought to wonder why these guys constantly bring Israel up when discussing the middle east.

    I could be the most Arab hating person in the world. But that doesn't change the fact that these two guys constantly elevate Israel to a level of power and control which it simply doesn't have.

    Hell, if there were no suicide bombers and the leaders of other Arab countries funding these actions, you probably wouldn't hear a peep out of me; in spite of all the oppression which goes on in those countries.
     
  2. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    So is your point then that Israel has no right to exist, and the arab nations like Iran are justified in annihilating the jewish people? As mentioned already, a nuke would make that easier. :nono2: :mad:

    Native american tribe? - Don't you mean tribes? But as to your comment otherwise, you're theology is so suspect its not worth going into the differences. :D

    And the palestinians? They aren't wanted by the arabs either. They could integrate into the nations other than that sliver of real estate that is Israel. Shoot, they probably could integrate into Israel if they just would abide by law and stop trying to kill all the jews.
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    You forget the Jewish laws of return and confiscation of property. The Jews did not round them up and herd them out of the country in the middle of the night because they were trying to kill anyone. They were ethnically cleansed because the Jews wanted the land and buildings.
     
  4. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    My answer depends on the question. The people (Jewish) have a right to exist... and they have a right to be somewhere... but that which is now Israel was in part created by outside interests (Britain for one) after WWII.

    What would YOU do if suddenly another country came into your back yard and said you had to give half of your yard to another family who swears they were originally from there many generations ago and that God had promised it to them?

    This is what happened to a lot of the displaced Palestinians. Contrary to popular belief there were Jewish and Muslim people coexisting until third parties came in and demanded more room for the Jewish.

    I am not anti-Jewish or anti-Arab. Given the history of those peoples, they share some common ancestry and are equally wrong about a great many things. Personally I think it is none of our (the USA) business and we should stay out of things instead of taking a side based purely on our own interests and not what is best for the people in that region.

    It might be one tribe or it might be several. The point was, what if someone came to your door and said their ancestors used to live there hundreds of years ago and they want their land back now. I'm betting you'd get the police to escort them off your doorstep.

    So why are some folks in Israel considered differently because "God said so"?

    Hey, so when those folks come knocking on your door and demand your house... you should just go move in with your relatives or something. Because you can do that, right? I mean, it's ok to push people out of their homes if God says you should do it.

    I love how we accuse Islamic folks of having a "crazy" religion that makes them do things... but the Christian God (or the Jewish God) is apparently ok under similar circumstances.
     
  5. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    No, the point is Israel has no inherent "right to exist" based on some "promise" made by their God in some ancient text 3-4000 old even if everyone believed in that "God" or ancient text, which they certianly don't.

    If that WAS the case, I'm pretty sure some "Great Spirit" or various "Spirits" at some point "promised" at least parts of what we now know as the USA to the Cherokee, Arapahoe, Apache, Mohawks etc. Should we therefore supply rockets, jets, helicopter gunships as well as economic and diplomatic aid to these "Tribes of America" to insure they may retake these lands and hold them against the resistance of the most current residents?

    Promoting the existence of Israel is all well and good. I see no reason why they shouldn't exist. It may very well be that Israel existing where it is today might be the best situation for the region. But you start to lose some of us when you claim Israel deserves to exist solely because you believe this is "God's plan".

    If that's the best excuse you can come up with, then it's not good enough, at least not by itself. I believe Israel has a right to exist simply because they DO exist. Others unfortunately do not feel this way. But finding an equitable solution to the problems of the Palestinians would go a long way in convincing them to at least tolerate Israel's existence.
     
  6. fredinva

    fredinva Legend

    118
    0
    May 10, 2006
    Such BS on a DBS forum!!
    Take it to Yahoo!!!!!!!!!!

    fred
     
  7. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    And that which preceded that (removing the jews) was created by outside interests, namely Rome.
     
  8. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    That was almost 2000 years ago. Prior, the Jews removed the Canaanites if I remember correctly.

    So, if some Canaanites should show up, should they be allowed a part of their old stomping grounds?:shrug:
     
  9. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Don't forget that a country was also created for the Arabs by those same outside interests.
    It was just rejected and subsequently invaded, taken over and annexed by Jodan, Egypt and Syria.
     
  10. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I would at least hope that most of us would agree that there are messed up people and histories about people on both sides in that region. Sure, we can debate who is doing the most evil terrorism right now... but shouldn't ignore those that came before.

    It's a big mess there, and largely sparked by religious differences... and as we see repeatedly in history, religion has caused some major nastiness be it Christian, Islamic, or whatever.
     
  11. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    I won't disagree with that. But there is, in reality, only one side which is using it's religious beliefs to kill the other. If that weren't the case, we would not continually hear about Allah and all other religious talk.
    We hear a lot of excuses about past injustices, but as I mentioned to Bogy, it boils down to a pissing match. He can come up with pretty much just as many examples as I regarding what each side did to the other 80 years ago. Which is why I haven't gone that direction.

    You never hear "Moses is great!" whenever there is an Israeli attack against a terrorist.
     
  12. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Come now. There's a strain of religious extremism driving both sides. The Jews can afford to appear less radical because they currently hold the temporal power. But who killed Yitzhak Rabin, and why? And it's not that difficult to find a wild-eyed "settler" with curly-cue sideburns, camouflage yarmulke and strap-on Uzi claiming to be fulfilling prophecy by taking back the entire land of Israel God promised. It's the whole point of Zionism and why any Jewish state is located where it is today.

    If the old canard "there's no atheists in foxholes" ever applied, it's in the occupied territories. The West Bank and Gaza are essentially two big foxholes, lands under strict military occupation where many are "surviving" on less then $2/day. Of course they're more prone to publicly appeal to their God, Allah, and to invoke His name to justify unjustifiable acts.

    But that is why it is all the more important to take into consideration how Jews acting under the dogma of Zionism behaved prior to partition.
     
  13. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Jon. The difference is you can only point to individual Jewish extremists. On the other side, you're pointing to pretty much a society. Or at least a society which allows atrocities to happen on their watch.

    But, as usual, you try to pull in those who aren't guilty of the same actions. Jews aren't acting in the name of Moses- overtly or subtly. They are acting based on nationalism; to protect their country.
    Big difference.

    The protection of their country doesn't include the eradication of all Palestinians. Many Palestinians believe, as do their leaders, that the eradication of Jews and Israel is necessary for them to reach their goals.
     
  14. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    And if those goals were reached, how would you and I be affected (i.e., why should we give a crap)?
     
  15. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Ugh. This argument again.

    And is it really so far out if I compare this to Hitler reaching his goals?
    If Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor and the US stayed totally independent, would it have mattered?
    Hell, if all of Europe was Germany there would definitely be much better built stuff than we get now, right?

    And if slavery were still legal, the cost of goods would be less. Again, how does it affect the US to keep slaves other than the positive economic benefits.
    Or if that's morally bad, at least buying from slave labor.

    If you personally don't care about the eradicatin of a race/ religion, that's your issue.
    But you'll also have to be willing to accept that a Germany controlled Europe would be okay as long as we kept our way of life.
    That the eradication of Native Americans wasn't a problem and no one in any other country should have really taken notice.

    Or that the US shouldn't expend any money or soldiers to help the people of Sudan.

    Don't you think that's somewhat selfish?
     
  16. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    This will probably bother him no end but I find myself agreeing with Halfsek a lot today.

    I suppose that this is a values issue but I don't really see how you can say "so what" to the eradication oft he people of an entire nation.
     
  17. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Nah, Geronimo. I don't mind when people disagree; just as long as it's done with some sort of fact and serious argument.
    AllieVi is stating a personal view and as long as he's not cherry picking (which I don't remember him doing) no problem.
    I don't agree with it. I feel that that sort of view will eventually just turn around and bit you in the butt.

    If you allow someone to kill everyone they don't like simply because it won't affect the United States, whose to say that those same people suddenly won't turn around and decide that Americans need killing?
     
  18. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I was joking Halfsek. I said I thought you would mind me AGREEING with you.

    Allie does havea right to his opinion. I just differ with it but like you I have no problem with people stating what they think.
     
  19. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    I got it. I figured it was because you normally disagree with me... or something. ;)
     
  20. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I thought we had dropped all this... but if we haven't...

    I'm not redefining a word. I'm pointing out misconceptions that have been perpetuated about its original meaning.

    The word originally meant what it originally meant... but some people used it incorrectly and others assumed that was what it meant... and the incorrect meaning was perpetuated even though scholars of the time clearly knew what the word meant as constructed.

    Again, I thought we had dropped this topic... but if we haven't... I can't defend folks who want to continue using a word incorrectly even when they are shown what the true meaning is.

    You can make up your own slang and use words however you want... but if you use them incorrectly, who knows what kind of meaning you are showing the rest of us when you speak.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page