Um - both "armed deterrent" and "peaceful defence" sound like defense, not offense, one being more aggressive of a defense (is that an oxymoron?) than the other. Anti-missile and anti-aircraft sounds like they want to thwart attacks, not start an offensive.
There was a comment about this not sounding like a country that wants peace, but it could just as easily be a country that is preparing for an attack that has been clearly threatened in plain language.
How is that different from what the west is doing, even if they were being preemptive? The west too says they are in these various countries to bring peace to the world by waging war against them. So are they anymore peacelovers than Iran?
okay..... but if Iran is hiding all this, how would you be able to determine where it came from? Wouldn't you already have to have info on that? Have you ever heard the term "false flag"?
You are telling me Iran's technology is more advanced than everybody else? 1. Iran hasn't attacked another country or started a war for more than several centuries. 2. Iran has stated it doesn't need or want to use nuclear weapons in the middle east as the fallout would be suicidal. 3. Iran has boasted that what it has right now is more than enough to do the job of defending itself. 4. Iran has never hinted at being preemptive, only in decimating anyone who dares attack it. It has minced no words in this regard. 5. Language experts say Iran using the words "off the map" is impossible since there is no idiom like that in their language. It, however, has made it clear that the Zionist regime (political movement) has to go and needs to pass,in their opinion. Even scholars in the US confirmed this translation. A even said, how can you wipe a country off the earth? He didn't understand that phrase. (Isn't this like the THIRD time I have stated all this????) Hard to believe you are just ignoring these points.
Patient - They are there, I know they are! They have tons of them! Doctor - How do you know this? Have you seen them? Patient - No, never, but I know they are there! Doctor - Well, if you have never seen them, how do you know they are there? Patient - Because they are HIDING them! I asked to see them, but they told me they don't have any! But I KNOW they are! You have to get these people before they hurt me with them!!!! I told them I'm gonna beat the crap out of them so they won't hurt me! Doctor - Okay, calm down....Did they say they were going to hurt you? Patient - They said I better not hurt them, or they would lay a pounding on me! See???? They want to hurt me, I TOLD you!!!! We have to do something!
Yes, and that is very fortunate. However, there has been a sharp upswing in cancers and deformities in Iraq. It should not be used. Plus the soldiers are being exposed to it.
SB....the first Isreali nuc that lifted off...is going to have so many radars on it....from military ships in the med...that no matter where it is targetted for....the repreisal of NATO, Russia or the US would be overwhelming on that small country.
So?
Well, now that is a very sound argument! Why can't you use the same one with Iran?????
This is the text of the most recent CADU leaflet, all details are correct as of November 2008. You can download a pdf of the leaflet in high resolution (1.6MB), and low resolution (658KB). You are very welcome to distribute this material, so long as it is not for financial gain, but please attibute it to CADU & do not make any alterations without prior persmission.
What is DU?
Depleted Uranium is a waste product of the nuclear enrichment process. After natural uranium has been ‘enriched’ to concentrate the isotope U235 for use in nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons, what remains is DU. The process produces about 7 times more DU than enriched uranium. Despite claims that DU is much less radioactive than natural uranium, it actually emits about 75% as much radioactivity.1 It is very dense and when it strikes armour it burns (it is ‘pyrophoric’).2 As a waste product, it is stockpiled by nuclear states, which then have an interest in finding uses for it.
DU is used as the ‘penetrator’ – a long dart at the core of the weapon – in armour piercing tank rounds and bullets. It is usually alloyed with another metal. When DU munitions strike a hard target the penetrator sheds around 20% of its mass, creating a fine dust of DU, burning at extremely high temperatures.3
This dust can spread 400 metres from the site immediately after an impact.4 It can be resuspended by human activity, or by the wind, and has been reported to have travelled twenty-five miles on air currents.5 The heat of the DU impact and secondary fires means that much of the dust produced is ceramic, and can remain in the lungs for years if inhaled.6
Who uses it? At least 18 countries are known to have DU in their arsenals:
UK US France Russia China Greece Turkey Thailand Taiwan Israel Bahrain Egypt Kuwait Saudi Arabia India Belarus Pakistan Oman
Most of these countries were sold DU by the US, although the UK, France and Pakistan developed it independently.
Only the US and the UK are known to have fired it in warfare. It was used in the 1991 Gulf War, in the 2003 Iraq War, and also in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s and during the NATO war with Serbia in 1999. While its use has been claimed in a number of other conflicts, this has not been confirmed.7
I am American, but it is completely understandable that some of you thought I was posting a fake profile or was not qualified to speak as I did, since apparently I am the only American ever to live in another country, and must not be able to read, though I can certainly write! - imagine that.
Well, if we want to talk weapons of mass destruction, then our country should be called up or attacked for dropping depleted uranium on everyone we have bombed. Oh, and Israel, too.
Hope you're stocked up on supplies, Conrad. Here's to being dirt-poor and naked, but SECURE!!!!! (You don't think the salary will continue once there is no more need for your services, do you?) Sure, they probably hated us before, but they haven't blitzed our entire countries with bombs, either, like we have to theirs.
It doesnt matter what "neutral, unbiased, objective" people say, my goal is to present much discussion to possibly make people question the spoon-fed material on MSM. I present what I feel is evidence I found, or even just material that a person capable of critical-thinking can consider when making a decision. the more people freak and become irrational, the more I know I am doing my job well.
I wasn't talking about the Un in my last comment- I was responding to your remark that the constitution has provisions for declaring war - both the President and Congress must authorize it. I was saying the resolution itself, in order to be passed had provisions that had to be met. Submitting to UN resolutions by member states is not a violation of sovereignty - all the states drafted these!!!! They are rules they all agreed to, thus forming international law. The US, in her sovereignty, entered into this agreement. Collin Powell, I believe it was, presented the case for war to the UN to get its approval - he clearly felt it was needed. But then they did what they wanted to anyway....
You can't have it both ways - if they draft these laws, as a member of the organization, they can't just do whatever, what's the point then???
But all my comments on this thread so far are to say my deep belief that we should not enter into war so lightly. We should only engage in war in self-defense. The US defense and warning system is extremely sophisticated. War causes increased feelings of hostility. Sensing a threat, or just feeling "we can't trust what that guy says" don't even remotely warrant an attack. What's more, these wars have driven our nation to a point economically that I really don't think we will recover from, apart from crashing and resetting. I hope you all pull your savings, 401's etc before the government seizes them under the emergency act (Hey, it's legal, doesn't matter if its right or wrong to seize private assets to service a government debt, it was passed by Congress and the Senate, so cough it up - it's for your country!) Good thing for the investors in the war machine companies they have invested elsewhere - I really don't think they'll pitch in a bit of their profit to help out.... There is talk of implementing this emergency Act already by the Feds. Of course, they will just MANAGE it until we get back on our feet as a country! But I guess sitting under a bridge is better than POSSIBLY being nuked, eh? But you might want to stash some grub beforehand. The Fed is gonna open the spigot and print a whole boatload of money here shortly, that should finish our dollar off nicely. A person could make a fortune investing in other currencies... or precious metals....just a thought. Even cigarettes might come in handy to get some food. Most importantly, all sarcasm aside, war will never bring us the secure world we need. It just keeps escalating, and we in the West are doing most of the attacking, I don't care what you say about threats from the other side. Now they REALLY hate us.
This resolution required the President to provide proof, otherwise it was invalid. It's right in the resolution! Section 3, paragraph B. I am not disputing the powers of Congress and the President to declare war.
Iran isn't involved, though its leader stated his opinion of the regime. By the way, he also said that if the Palestinians wanted to leave Zionism in, that was their choice. I wonder how they decide, when they can't participate in the Israeli elections?
MY unbiased approach. I am going by the ruling made by the powers that be. A said Zionism needs to pass, he did not say he was going to destroy the nation of Israel. But I thought we were talking about the legal status of the war on Iraq? Look around. WE, the west and Israel are attacking various countries, because we feel threatened. Who is the danger here?
Even under US law, they failed to prove all those things you are saying were there - THAT is what made it illegal! And you can't say so what to international law - the US chose to join and enjoy the benefits of the UN, they either abide by it, or leave.
That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.
It was even illegal in the US, never mind the UN, though willing participants in the UN agree to submit to international law, so I don't agree with you on that point.
I think the close relation between US and Israel has prevented this - a nuclear attack would do great harm to the whole region.
I think we should be prepared - you are absolutely right there. My belief is to spend lots of money on defense systems over our soil, around our borders, in the sky and nix the warmaking. It increases tension and the desire for revenge - it never causes a softening, even if the other side had it coming. The inadvertent loss of civilian lives we cause fosters strong anti-American sentiment, there is no way to win!
Nope, he said "the REGIME must vanish from the page of time" Big difference. And if that is what he said, he is no different than the West taking out various regimes, including democratic ones, that they think are wrong.
From Wikipedia, with references: The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad). According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."
For the record, Israel has the absolute right to exist. The indigenous peoples living there have a right to continue to do so as well. No regime or government or political movement has the right to violate basic human rights of citizens anywhere or in occupied regions. (By the way, the Geneva convention supports this). Israel is violating this, and Iran is correct in its criticism of this. There have been numerous resolutions by the UN against Israel's BEHAVIOUR, with the US vetoing them time and time again. So many people feel this way about Israel's BEHAVIOUR. They, just like everybody else, deserve to be respected and cherished for their ethnic uniqueness - they are part of the human family. However, corrupt governments of such people must be held accountable if and when they violate basic human dignity, EVEN in cases of war and attack, EVEN THEN!!!!! It is never justified, period.
murny Forum Posts (159)
RE: who was it first who said Christ was God...?
Jesus said "I and the Father are one. Whoever has seen me, has seen the Father"So my answer would be "none of the above"