Kucinich: NDAA Authorizes War Against Iran

[Nightbat®]

I think ATM it's all just "Saber rattling" Iran threatens straight of hormuz after economic sanctions, USA removes 'Restrictions to war"

Everyone just trying to show how big their d*cks are

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Haak

But you said they only started backtracking after Ehud Barak left office, which was approximately a decade ago.

Yeah,after nearly three decades of stalling clinton twisted both sides arm into a peace deal, that was some advancement, then one year later they backtracked in the deal and have been continuind to doing so ever since, that is why is plain bonkers to say they have not stalled and that they havent gone against UN resolution 242, maybe if bush hadn't won back in 2000 and if Al Gore had continue to push both sides into going forward with the peace deal we would not be discussing it, but todays reality is plain foir everyone to see.

"Because is Israel beligerance that started it all" is what you said,

If you want to go to the start of it all, yeah, before ww2 the Israelis pushed for the creation of a state of their own knowing quite well that land had already been occupied by the palestines for centuries.But hey, the UN approved the deal and everybody must accept the boundaries the UN set for the state of Israel. But the whole problem would never had happened if they hadn't make a push to take the land of other people.

so yes that was your point. And Iran is just as much capable as Israel is.

The sad thing is that the previous president of Iran was a moderate that wasn't really interested in attacking Israel, but the USA had to elect a beligerant president like G. W. Bush and they obviously elected a beligerant president hoping it will protect them. Extremes have a need for their opposite, when the world is at peace nobody votes for extremists. So mark my words, if whoever is elected in 2012 for president of the USA shows beligerancy towards Iran you can be damn sure that in 2013 they will elect a beligerant president.

[Ithekro]

It use to be that when one won a war, they could keep the "spoils of war" via treaties and the like.

That seems to be how Israel operates.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It use to be that when one won a war, they could keep the "spoils of war" via treaties and the like.

But there are rules for that.

1) You share with the people of the conquered land the nationality of the conquering nation, like rome did in times of the empire or Russia did in time of the empire.

2) You kill most of the people that inhabited the conquered land, like rome did with the carthage or the USA did with the native americans.

When you choose a third option of simply oppresing the people of the conquered lands it will blow in your face sooner or later, about 500 years ago hernan cortez defeated the aztec empire with a handful of men because all the people that the aztecs oppresed rally behind him to destroy the empire. 200 years ago in the same place the people revolted because the goverment of spain did not give the people born in the american continent the same rights of those born on spain. I can't recall one example where oppresion was the right long term method of administering a terrirtory.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

1) You share with the people of the conquered land the nationality of the conquering nation, like rome did in times of the empire or Russia did in time of the empire.

It's the best option, all it takes is good administration.

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

2) You kill most of the people that inhabited the conquered land, like rome did with the carthage or the USA did with the native americans.

The least choice among the three. Its simply "robbery with homicide", in a huge scale though. It'll just seed hatred not only on the conquered people but to the whole international community.

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

When you choose a third option of simply oppresing the people of the conquered lands it will blow in your face sooner or later, about 500 years ago hernan cortez defeated the aztec empire with a handful of men because all the people that the aztecs oppresed rally behind him to destroy the empire.

The second choice but like option one.. all it takes is good administration.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Yeah,after nearly three decades of stalling clinton twisted both sides arm into a peace deal, that was some advancement, then one year later they backtracked in the deal and have been continuind to doing so ever since, that is why is plain bonkers to say they have not stalled and that they havent gone against UN resolution 242, maybe if bush hadn't won back in 2000 and if Al Gore had continue to push both sides into going forward with the peace deal we would not be discussing it, but todays reality is plain foir everyone to see.

I'm saying they have stalled. What I'm saying is that that's all that's happened. The only thing that Resolution calls for is a full retreat but not an immediate one. The only way you can say they're breaking it is if you believe they plan to occupy Palestine forever, and that's just a little hard for me to believe. The reason I think it's stalled (or rather, one of the reasons) is due to Netanyahu's idiocy, not because of an attempt to occupy Palestine forever.

If you want to go to the start of it all, yeah, before ww2 the Israelis pushed for the creation of a state of their own knowing quite well that land had already been occupied by the palestines for centuries.But hey, the UN approved the deal and everybody must accept the boundaries the UN set for the state of Israel. But the whole problem would never had happened if they hadn't make a push to take the land of other people.

So which one is it? Are you saying which one is belligerent matters or not?

The sad thing is that the previous president of Iran was a moderate that wasn't really interested in attacking Israel, but the USA had to elect a beligerant president like G. W. Bush and they obviously elected a beligerant president hoping it will protect them. Extremes have a need for their opposite, when the world is at peace nobody votes for extremists. So mark my words, if whoever is elected in 2012 for president of the USA shows beligerancy towards Iran you can be damn sure that in 2013 they will elect a beligerant president.

...

Okay...

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. I definitely do not condone a military strike from Israel or anything. I'm just pointing out that Israel does havegood reason to be tense about Iran seeking Nuclear capability. That being said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...84M0GE20120523

I'd much rather Britain condemn any action from Israel much less get involved in it, so it pisses me off to no end that the most dove-ish option is diplomatic support...

[Ridwan]

Well this sounds good....

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Arturia Polaris

Discuss

News Article

Personally I'm horrified at this prospect of war all over the place.

Arturia, Ex Niker

As usual, my man Dennis hits the nail right on the head.
He is correct.
Iran isn't building nukes as far as we know.
This crap about "having to stop a nuclear Iran" is nothing more than the US military industrial complex salivating at the chance to make billions on another "war for profit."

It scares me that neither Dennis nor Ron Paul will be in congress soon.

We are quickly degenerating into the late Roman Empire.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

Ok we get it. You're an anti-semite Hezbollah sympathizer. Can we get back on topic now?

Really hope that was sarcasm...