Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

shield772 · Oct 29, 2005, 11:28 pm

Quote:

Quote by: RickSp

I see you are not letting history get in the way of your ideology.

Ahain what? Isreal has always been a nation. They were run out and lost their nation but it was still a nation in name if not in land.

Scribbler1 · Oct 29, 2005, 11:30 pm

Quote:

Quote by: shield772

When Iran took our embassy in the late 1970's, International Law recognizes embassies as foreign soil.

As a technicality you are right about that, but only as a technicality. Although an embassy may be legally considered home soil it is not the sort of thing we go to war over.

shield772 · Oct 29, 2005, 11:37 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

As a technicality you are right about that, but only as a technicality. Although an embassy may be legally considered home soil it is not the sort of thing we go to war over.

We could legally. And should have done more back then. But this is a shining example of what these people are willing to do. I can assure of this, if Isreal feals threatened by Iran and the UN or the US don't do something to relive the threat Isreal will take action, they have done it many times, they will protect themselves and we KNOW they have a nuclear capability. We gave it to them.

rmnunez · Oct 30, 2005, 01:27 am

The Iranian violation of the US Embassy in Teheran coupled with their seizure and imprisonment of functionaries and diplomats there, was a war-justifying act. In my opinion the failure to act decisively in that instance was the clearest sign to Islamic fundamentalists they could walk all over US interests in the region. They tested their hypothesis in numerous incidents after that, until Bush II resolved to seize the initiative.

Scribbler1 · Oct 30, 2005, 02:06 am

Quote:

Quote by: shield772

We could legally. And should have done more back then. But this is a shining example of what these people are willing to do. I can assure of this, if Isreal feals threatened by Iran and the UN or the US don't do something to relive the threat Isreal will take action, they have done it many times, they will protect themselves and we KNOW they have a nuclear capability. We gave it to them.

Unless you are part of the Israeli government, you can't really "assure" anyone of what they will do.

Israel will do what is good for Israel. If we are not careful we could be sucked into another world war. Iran is no threat to US, and that is the main concern. Preemptive attacks on another country is bad enough when we are saying they are a threat to our country but if we start attacking our allies enemies preemptively we are going down a hole I don't want to see. I'm a big supporter of OUR national defense. I'm not a fan of warmongering and I don't like to see my country labeled that way.

Scribbler1 · Oct 30, 2005, 02:08 am

Quote:

Quote by: CheckMate

The man in question loud mouth that small thing with big mouth , must have something by being that brave with his words. If not very stupid

I am very sorry, CheckMate, but I still can't understand a thing you are saying. Perhaps we should drop this dialogue as it is getting us nowhere.

shield772 · Oct 30, 2005, 04:16 am

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

Unless you are part of the Israeli government, you can't really "assure" anyone of what they will do.

Israel will do what is good for Israel. If we are not careful we could be sucked into another world war. Iran is no threat to US, and that is the main concern. Preemptive attacks on another country is bad enough when we are saying they are a threat to our country but if we start attacking our allies enemies preemptively we are going down a hole I don't want to see. I'm a big supporter of OUR national defense. I'm not a fan of warmongering and I don't like to see my country labeled that way.

That is what I was making reference to, the fact that things could very quickly spiral into WW3

Scribbler1 · Oct 30, 2005, 11:16 am

Quote:

Quote by: shield772

That is what I was making reference to, the fact that things could very quickly spiral into WW3

I think we're on the edge of this already. The difference for us may be that WE will be the attacked country and we may find our allies aren't ready to join in WW3 to help us. And we are not prepared to fight a war like that.

RickSp · Oct 30, 2005, 11:19 am

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

I think we're on the edge of this already. The difference for us may be that WE will be the attacked country and we may find our allies aren't ready to join in WW3 to help us. And we are not prepared to fight a war like that.

What is frightening is that Bush is backed by zealots who actively seek Armageddon. I could imagine that General Boykin might welcome the war of all against all, if only to demonstrate that his God was tougher than everyone else's, as he has claimed so often.

shield772 · Oct 30, 2005, 03:29 pm

Now they are saying on the news that Iran will be offering bounties on terror attacks against Isreal.

Nono · Oct 30, 2005, 04:33 pm

Quote:

Quote by: shield

When Iran took our embassy in the late 1970's, International Law recognizes embassies as foreign soil.

Such abysmal ignorance, shield. The Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Kindly brush up on your ethnology before making such absurdly distant stretches with the verb "invade".

(Six years ago, the US sent a missile blasting into the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. So you accept the statement the "the US has militarily attacked China", correct?)

shield772 · Oct 30, 2005, 04:38 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nono

Such abysmal ignorance, shield. The Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Kindly brush up on your ethnology before making such absurdly distant stretches with the verb "invade".

(Six years ago, the US sent a missile blasting into the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. So you accept the statement the "the US has militarily attacked China", correct?)

Ok I never called them Arabs, someone else did, I accepted the fact that they were talking about Iran because I was, and that was an accident, was the Invasion of our embasy a mistake, whoops we were trying to rob that convenience store and we seized you embassy by mistake?

Nono · Oct 30, 2005, 04:44 pm

No, but you're trying to get mileage out of a minor legal technicality. Shame on you.
You'd be better off with the Battle of Poitiers.

shield772 · Oct 30, 2005, 04:46 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nono

No, but you're trying to get mileage out of a minor legal technicality. Shame on you.
You'd be better off with the Battle of Poitiers.

I don't think or feel it's minor, nor IMO would anyone who lived through that time would either. And International Law considers it an Act Of War.

Nono · Oct 30, 2005, 04:55 pm

(laughs) *I* lived through that time, shield.

And at about that time, I started observing a long series of Republican administrations shitting on the whole concept of international law. At present we have one that poopoos the whole idea of international cooperation -- that is with the exception of 911, when the message changed abruptly to "Hey, y'all gotta help us here!"

Now they're trying to dismantle the UN.
And you're harping on international law? Wow.

shield772 · Oct 30, 2005, 05:14 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nono

(laughs) *I* lived through that time, shield.

And at about that time, I started observing a long series of Republican administrations shitting on the whole concept of international law. At present we have one that poopoos the whole idea of international cooperation -- that is with the exception of 911, when the message changed abruptly to "Hey, y'all gotta help us here!"

Now they're trying to dismantle the UN.
And you're harping on international law? Wow.

Again this is an issue where I strongly disagree with this administration and the party.

Nono · Oct 30, 2005, 05:24 pm

Fair enough.
I'm relieved to see that McCain seems to have recovered his balls. Let's see if other, non-neocon Republicans start emerging from the woodwork.

shield772 · Oct 30, 2005, 05:26 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nono

Fair enough.
I'm relieved to see that McCain seems to have recovered his balls. Let's see if other, non-neocon Republicans start emerging from the woodwork.

Ok I am going to show my ignorance on this one, what's a NEOCON

Nono · Oct 30, 2005, 06:05 pm

To understand what a neocon is, you first have to grasp what a conservative is (i.e. someone who wishes to conserve what has already been achieved). See Jeffords.

As I see it, the neocons are a movement in right-wing US circles that has been slowly slithering into government circles since the Ford administration and has come into its own with Boy George's accession to power.

1) They believe in US global supremacy à la post-WWII and are prepared to warp any principle to make things that way.

2) They believe in the global imposition of unfettered capitalism (what I would actually more acurrately refer to as "neo-liberalism") manifested as deregulation, as privatization of resources and services, as drastically reduced social services, and as dismissal of the value of community, civil society, and the public -- public as in public land or public goods.
They are personified by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Co.

You can see why they are antithetical to traditional conservatives, who sadly have been totally buffaloed in US politics these past four years. Shame!

Boetie · Oct 30, 2005, 06:12 pm

While Bush Jr was on vacation just before 911 the Middle East wanted to discuss the issue of Zionism. Bush Jr gave the middle east the finger. Bush Jr by giving the middle east the finger signaled that he is all for the racial policy of Zionism to eradicate the Arabians via the same method Hitler used to eradicate the Jews.

Some have even said Bush Jr is Sharon's poodle. There may be some truth to that.

Oct 30, 2005, 01:27 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	The Iranian violation of the US Embassy in Teheran coupled with their seizure and imprisonment of functionaries and diplomats there, was a war-justifying act. In my opinion the failure to act decisively in that instance was the clearest sign to Islamic fundamentalists they could walk all over US interests in the region. They tested their hypothesis in numerous incidents after that, until Bush II resolved to seize the initiative. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Oct 30, 2005, 03:29 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
shield772 110 Dead LEO's in 08 Location: Washington, WV Posts: 1,757	Now they are saying on the news that Iran will be offering bounties on terror attacks against Isreal. Republican Liberty Caucus Moderate Republican Officer Down Memorial Page

Oct 30, 2005, 04:44 pm	#53 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,320	No, but you're trying to get mileage out of a minor legal technicality. Shame on you. You'd be better off with the Battle of Poitiers. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Oct 30, 2005, 04:55 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,320	(laughs) I lived through that time, shield. And at about that time, I started observing a long series of Republican administrations shitting on the whole concept of international law. At present we have one that poopoos the whole idea of international cooperation -- that is with the exception of 911, when the message changed abruptly to "Hey, y'all gotta help us here!" Now they're trying to dismantle the UN. And you're harping on international law? Wow. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Oct 30, 2005, 05:24 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,320	Fair enough. I'm relieved to see that McCain seems to have recovered his balls. Let's see if other, non-neocon Republicans start emerging from the woodwork. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Oct 30, 2005, 06:05 pm	#59 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,320	To understand what a neocon is, you first have to grasp what a conservative is (i.e. someone who wishes to conserve what has already been achieved). See Jeffords. As I see it, the neocons are a movement in right-wing US circles that has been slowly slithering into government circles since the Ford administration and has come into its own with Boy George's accession to power. 1) They believe in US global supremacy à la post-WWII and are prepared to warp any principle to make things that way. 2) They believe in the global imposition of unfettered capitalism (what I would actually more acurrately refer to as "neo-liberalism") manifested as deregulation, as privatization of resources and services, as drastically reduced social services, and as dismissal of the value of community, civil society, and the public -- public as in public land or public goods. They are personified by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Co. You can see why they are antithetical to traditional conservatives, who sadly have been totally buffaloed in US politics these past four years. Shame! "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Oct 30, 2005, 06:12 pm	#60 (permalink) (top)
Boetie Hot Lava Posts: 1,227	While Bush Jr was on vacation just before 911 the Middle East wanted to discuss the issue of Zionism. Bush Jr gave the middle east the finger. Bush Jr by giving the middle east the finger signaled that he is all for the racial policy of Zionism to eradicate the Arabians via the same method Hitler used to eradicate the Jews. Some have even said Bush Jr is Sharon's poodle. There may be some truth to that.