My OperaYou need to be logged in to post in the forums. If you do not have an account, please sign up first.
Should Israel sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Israeli PM Netanyahu pulls out of US nuclear summit......Mr Netanyahu made the decision after learning that Egypt and Turkey intended to raise the issue of Israel's presumed nuclear arsenal, .......
Mr Obama is due to host dozens of world leaders at the two-day conference, which begins in Washington on Monday.
Israel has never confirmed or denied that it possesses atomic weapons.......
It seems clear that this issue is crucial to any long term peace in the area.
Should Israel sign?
| Option | Results | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |  |
33% | 4 |
| Yes with reciprocal agreements | |
17% | 2 |
| Not at this time | |
8% | 1 |
| No, never | |
17% | 2 |
| A Beer as well please | |
42% | 5 |
| Total number of votes: | 12 | ||
However there is an escape route where many of us are gathering to avoid Armagedon:
see The DnD Sanctuary for gaming, for discussions on Browsers or anything in particular, and just Lounging about.
However there is an escape route where many of us are gathering to avoid Armagedon:
see The DnD Sanctuary for gaming, for discussions on Browsers or anything in particular, and just Lounging about.
The other two legs of the treaty are no-brainers. We can see how disarmament is going. And the peaceful use of nuclear energy? A treaty is needed for that?
Obama's recently declared policy shift is a shape shift, a tale told by an idiot(sorry, Obama), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (Sorry Mr. Shakespeare!).
Sure Israel should sign it, and Muslims should love Christians and Jews, etc., and all should join hands and sing "Kumbayah".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7569469/Benjamin-Netanyahu-cancels-trip-to-nuclear-summit.html
10. April 2010, 16:08:44 (edited)
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If the errant child does not behave, Obama should cut off his pocket money and cheap toys...
Yes, because destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations is just the thing to improve the security and progress (what there is of that) of the region. The US gives aid to many other countries, many of whom are just as 'petulant' as Israel, some of whom are worse. Why not go on a destabilization spree and see what happens? Just for fun. Like it or not, US dollars prop up many economies through a variety of mechanisms, the withdrawal of which wouldn't be in anybody's best interests. Perhaps it's best to stop pretending Israel is an errant child and is in fact a nation state.
Originally posted by Immanis:
South Africa have nuclear weapons
Not any more.
Originally posted by string:
It seems clear that this issue is crucial to any long term peace in the area.
I'm not convinced it is. The current news stories will pass. Israel has had nuclear weapons for an awfully long time. I'm not entirely comfortable with then possessing such weapons. I'm less worried about Iran having them. Not because I fear any crazy pre-emptive first strike by Israel - I'm convinced they'd use them only in self defense, only as a last resort. But the region is a powder keg, and who knows what the future holds.
Should they sign up to the NPT? Probably not*. That would create too many complications in my opinion. Firstly, they'd really need to make public the details of their arsenal, and that I suspect would cause more of an issue for the neighbours, politically and otherwise, than the current position they maintain. When the status quo has caused no serious incident, then the status quo is fine by me.
*Unless they announced total disarmament at the same time. Unlikely.
Israel is, emotion aside, a fairly insignificant country. It has oranges, and some hi-tech stuff but not oil nor much land. All it has is determination to survive and to obtain as much extra land as possible in doing so. It's main export seems to be aggravation.
Sooner or later, and it has now happening, the argument on whether Israel is worth the trouble is going to come up, and there is no certainty where other countries will stand on that one. Even in the States I sense the start of impatience with the current violent status quo.
It is hardly surprising that surrounding Muslim countries harbour ambitions to develop nuclear weapons when they believe Israel has them and persuading them not to develop these things may hand, in the end, on Israel being constrained in their signature of the non-proliferation treaty. Considering the idiotic mindset of some of those countries, these are high stakes indeed.
But it is surely in Israel's strategic interest to obtain a lasting settlement before international patience eventually runs out; they cannot surely be so simple as to believe they will remain America's pet for ever.
I begin to wonder, in fact, if they actually have Nuclear weapons. Possibly they rely on bluff and the protective nuclear strength of the United States. It would suit them well for people to believe that they have it, but look where that led Saddam in the end. Possibly they do not have such weapons and figure that signing the treaty would expose that fact and make them more vulnerable. I cannot think of any other rational explanation. Any takers?
However there is an escape route where many of us are gathering to avoid Armagedon:
see The DnD Sanctuary for gaming, for discussions on Browsers or anything in particular, and just Lounging about.
Originally posted by string:
But it is surely in Israel's strategic interest to obtain a lasting settlement before international patience eventually runs out; they cannot surely be so simple as to believe they will remain America's pet for ever.
This is, in my opinion, exactly why Israel would not disarm, as far as any nuclear weaponry is concerned. It's their ace up the sleeve. I'm sure that Israel would like a peaceful settlement. But in the absence of that, and especially in the context of the neighbours having nuclear ambitions, they are never going to give up what is their one 'guarantee' of future survival.
Originally posted by string:
It is hardly surprising that surrounding Muslim countries harbour ambitions to develop nuclear weapons when they believe Israel has them and persuading them not to develop these things may hand, in the end, on Israel being constrained in their signature of the non-proliferation treaty. Considering the idiotic mindset of some of those countries, these are high stakes indeed.
You're not wrong. But....can you imagine how hard (not to mention hypocritical) it would be for the West to argue against Iran or others from developing nuclear weapons if Israel confirmed its nuclear store, which it would have to do in the event of signing the NPT? Can you imagine the reaction in the UN, in every political meeting, in every peace conference, at every single turn, if Israel confirmed the existence and size of their nuclear arsenal? Western policies and efforts (even the well intentioned ones!) would turn to dust overnight. How does that help anyone or anything.
I'm not arguing for the current situation, or claiming that all is well....just suggesting that this particular path isn't perhaps the safest nor easiest one to tread. At the moment there is a (safe) assumption that Israel has nuclear weapons, but as it's a shadowy, secretive part of their military it's at least a little bit 'out of sight, out of mind'. A little..
Originally posted by string:
Even in the States I sense the start of impatience with the current violent status quo.
Indeed, and something needs to be done, but this is a separate from the nuclear issue in my opinion.
Originally posted by string:
Possibly they do not have such weapons and figure that signing the treaty would expose that fact and make them more vulnerable. I cannot think of any other rational explanation. Any takers?
All things are possible, but in this case I would say they're just 'typical Israelis'. Fergie knows what I mean
Originally posted by Acorn15:
I never wrote it.
Indeed. We all misquote from time to time. As you well know. It's now fixed.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Perhaps you were (as usual) too eager to criticise any view that I might hold
See above. Although it has to be said, the views you hold very often are wanting on an intellectual basis. As fictional propoganda for the BNP....you'd do well.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
He didn't even condescend to really admit his very obvious mistake but used a dance to avoid the humility of an apology.
Mr Howie, I would have thought you would have been steering very well clear of any conversations involving humility and the lack of an apology!!!
There is this from just days ago: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=5021541
You made a rather obvious mistake and refused to even accept you had done so, even though it's very clear you had!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
he has a particularly conceited notion of self intelligence appraisal.
Only when comparing myself to you Mr Howie!
Originally posted by Acorn15:
He also missed the fact that my point was regarding Netanyahu's petulant refusal to go to the conference. The conference is not only for nuclear-weilding powers...
No I didn't. Read properly.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
the "intellectual basis" comment rubs both ways!
That is true. You and Mr Howie, not you alone. Reading comprehension in particular.
I apologize!
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Sadly, you did. Your reply is there for all to see.
No, I didn't. And yes, it is.
Your comment if full....
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If the errant child does not behave, Obama should cut off his pocket money and cheap toys...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7569469/Benjamin-Netanyahu-cancels-trip-to-nuclear-summit.html
My reply, in full.....
Originally posted by garydenness:
Yes, because destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations is just the thing to improve the security and progress (what there is of that) of the region. The US gives aid to many other countries, many of whom are just as 'petulant' as Israel, some of whom are worse. Why not go on a destabilization spree and see what happens? Just for fun. Like it or not, US dollars prop up many economies through a variety of mechanisms, the withdrawal of which wouldn't be in anybody's best interests. Perhaps it's best to stop pretending Israel is an errant child and is in fact a nation state.
You posted a comment based on a story of Netanyahu refusing to go to the conference, with 'suggestions' as to what Obama should do about it. I posted a reply in response to your 'suggestions'. I made no comment or reference as to whom could attend the conference, whether it be nuclear or non nuclear powers. I responded only to your comment about what Obama should do about it.
Again....read properly.
Well, that, and Israel's PM should go bugger himself.
I mean seriously, them not attending this summit is trivial compared to the staggering number of human right abuses committed against the Palestinians. May all Zionists rot.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
I think Israel's supply of weapon's that the US sends should be cut until this time next year.
That's just not an effective solution, partly for reasons I gave before. Do you want to give encouragement to neighbouring states to attack a nuclear power? I see this as low risk, but given the potential consequences, low risk is too much risk. You could argue that nothing will happen if the weapons are cut - well if that is true, and it may be, then what exactly is the stick in that?
There are ways to bring Israel into line with international thinking and, more importantly, our standards of human rights. And money is one weapon, but not in the ways suggested so far. Perhaps this would make a good topic...
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Well, that, and Israel's PM should go bugger himself
I'd pay to see that. How much does Hancock charge per hour. He'd be a great help.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
May all Zionists rot.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I have no qualms with the existence of Israel. I do have a problem with the non existence of a state for the Palestinians. Not all Zionists are evil buggers. Some are, for sure. Most are perfectly nice, largely normal people trying to live their lives.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Israel should be subjected to the same scrutiny as Iran and N. Korea with the same suggested penalties for non-cooperation.
I'd have agreed, if we were talking in an era when their nuclear arsenal is in development. Why not the same penalties as India and Pakistan instead? Oh, wait...
Perhaps the US UK agreement then? Ah...
Sod it. Let's go the Saddam route. It's just too damn complicated an international issue to sort out at all.
Originally posted by garydenness:
No, I didn't. And yes, it is.
I need no apology. But...still no acknowledgement of your mistake? Tut tut.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Do you want to give encouragement to neighbouring states to attack a nuclear power?
Of course not.
They would however, have to be particularly daft to attack a group of people who have quite possibly the best trained and most efficient (recent incidents nonwithstanding) secret service in the world. Well, that and the fact that these 9 million people or so are sitting on a pile of nukes.
All the religious "wearing-on-the-sleeve" that goes on doesn't help matters much either.
*Cue John Lennon's song "Imagine" *
Originally posted by garydenness:
You could argue that nothing will happen if the weapons are cut
Good point.
Originally posted by garydenness:
There are ways to bring Israel into line with international thinking and, more importantly, our standards of human rights.
Yes indeed, but they seem to have a "holier-than-thou-art" attitude about them (which is to be expected with any group that worships the malevolent deity, Yahweh) and have thus far rebuffed any and all attempts to bring them into int'l thinking and most especially human rights. I'm not nearly as concerned if Israel can be arsed to get onboard with modern int'l thinking as I am at the horrific human rights abuses occurring there.
Originally posted by garydenness:
I'd pay to see that. How much does Hancock charge per hour. He'd be a great help.
Originally posted by garydenness:
I have no qualms with the existence of Israel.
Nor do I. In fact, I'm glad they have their own state.
However, I do have very serious qualms with the Zionist gov't that heads the state.
I mean heck, let's pretend Mr Howie is a Jew from Russia. He decides to move to Israel. He thinks that a spot of land that a Palestinian owns is an excellent place to build a house. The Zionist gov't of Israel clears out the Palestinian who owns the land and then gives it to Mr. Howie to build a house on. (also gives him a sum of money as well) That is so very wrong that is truly quite damnable.
Originally posted by garydenness:
I do have a problem with the non existence of a state for the Palestinians.
As do I. This is one of my chief problems with the Zionist gov't of Israel.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Most are perfectly nice, largely normal people trying to live their lives.
Indeed?
So stealing land, discriminating against a group of people by way of car tags, and segregating and killing a group of people is ok? (It's amazing the way one can change their mind on a subject when religion plays no part in thinking, isn't it?
) I know exactly what you are saying, but the Zionists who do in fact represent them make it very difficult to not lump them all into one. (And yes, I was a bit hasty in saying "all". Rather I should have said the Zionist gov't currently in power)http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Yes indeed, but they seem to have a "holier-than-thou-art" attitude about them (which is to be expected with any group that worships the malevolent deity, Yahweh) and have thus far rebuffed any and all attempts to bring them into int'l thinking and most especially human rights. I'm not nearly as concerned if Israel can be arsed to get onboard with modern int'l thinking as I am at the horrific human rights abuses occurring there.
All true, but I think there are two things here in the West's favour that is not the case with numerous other states, especially in the Mid East. Firstly, the state of Israel does operate a genuine democracy. Secondly, the government does tend to work for the people they represent*, as opposed to themselves. Thirdly, the West backs and has backed Israel for a long time - there is no illusion on either side as to whose side we are on.
*Anyone wishing to argue against this point, please use Iran/Syria/Egypt/pre 2003 Iraq etc as the comparison.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
I know exactly what you are saying, but the Zionists who do in fact represent them make it very difficult to not lump them all into one. (And yes, I was a bit hasty in saying "all". Rather I should have said the Zionist gov't currently in power)
I agree with a lot of the sentiments you allude to. But I'm just tired of hearing the word Zionism used in certain contexts. On these forums in particular, Mr Howie has done his best to equate Zionism to shirt lifters, rag heads, Pakis and all the other nonsense. For sufficient time, with sufficient frequency, that to a degree he has succeeded.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Indeed?
So stealing land, discriminating against a group of people by way of car tags, and segregating and killing a group of people is ok?
I missed this bit. But no, of course it isn't. Whilst I would hold the state of Israel responsible for a lot of the troubles the country suffers from, it would be wrong to declare the problems all emanate from a single source, or that only the Israelis are using violence to solve issues. When the British left, it is worth remembering, the Palestinians were intent on driving every last Jew into the sea.
It's an oft quoted bit of text that. But not a myth. My father, who served there in 2 Paras before the British departure, remembers many Palestinians repeating it plenty to anyone who would listen. And despite the actions of the Jews towards the British, and the official position the Brits took at the UN (abstention) the majority of British military personnel my father came into contact with, tended to favour the Israelis. Such is life.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Not all Zionists are evil buggers. Some are, for sure. Most are perfectly nice, largely normal people trying to live their lives.
In all such disputes about the actions and beliefs of a people, it's worth remembering that most people everywhere fall into the description of folks in your last sentence. Even Brits and Mississippians.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
So stealing land, discriminating against a group of people by way of car tags, and segregating and killing a group of people is ok?
No.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If the errant child does not behave, Obama should cut off his pocket money and cheap toys...
Good lord, man, you're asking Obama to cut aid to our defense industry? Are you mad?
Writing in Bloomberg News, Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) says:
* About 70 percent of the $3 billion aid must be used by Israel to purchase American military equipment. This provides real support for U.S. high- tech defense jobs.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Originally the term had a wider aim but that was lost an awful long time ago. Indeed hijacked.
Yes, that's what I said....
Originally posted by garydenness:
On these forums in particular, Mr Howie has done his best to equate Zionism to shirt lifters, rag heads, Pakis and all the other nonsense. For sufficient time, with sufficient frequency, that to a degree he has succeeded.
12. April 2010, 15:46:09 (edited)
Originally posted by Acorn15:
I thought this was done and dusted. Why are you revisiting it?
Did you? In other words, you'd hoped that by ignoring it, you'd be saved what you seem to see as an embarrassing mistake on your part, would go away?
Are you still refusing to acknowledge your error? It was very clearly your error, as I demonstrated. I copied and pasted the full text for your review. Very kind of me I thought, to make your life easier....
I certainly acknowledged my error quickly enough. Be nice to think you were man enough, Christian enough and humble enough to do the same. And not a complete carbon copy of Mr Howie (but with better spelling!) who is none of the above.
You did after all manage to take the time in two separate posts to accuse me of making a mistake. It doesn't seem a hardship to spend even less time to take the opportunity to accept you were actually in the wrong.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
How many Palestinians in the Cabinet? It is a lot easier when one forces out the inhabitants and does not let them return.
Until recently, one. How many Jews in Hamas?
Arabs are represented in meaningful numbers across the Israeli political, civil and judicial spheres. They occupy about 10% of the seats in parliament If I remember rightly.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
But do they really? Are you suggesting that most Israelis want to continue building illegal settlements? What part does the religious fanatics play? They are a minority but hold more sway than the larger moderate group.
Yawn. You missed the asterisk. Deliberately, I suspect...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
And that is in the West's favour?
As far as having influence over Israeli decision making, yes.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
How many enemies did the USA have in the ME before Israel was founded?
Irrelevant to the point I was making. Keep on topic please.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Might I suggest you prove this. I seemed to have missed it...
No need for me to do any such thing. I suspect you're the only person who missed it. Deliberately. Again. And given your past record for poor reading comprehension, it seems a futile endeavor.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Whilst those that I met did not. Curious that.
We know where your prejudice comes from then! All is revealed....bad parenting!
Originally posted by garydenness:
Do you want to give encouragement to neighbouring states to attack a nuclear power? I see this as low risk, but given the potential consequences, low risk is too much risk. You could argue that nothing will happen if the weapons are cut - well if that is true, and it may be, then what exactly is the stick in that?
"Low risk is too much risk". By doing nothing you can't do anything wrong...? I like the rhetoric
The stick in that would be to make Israel more co-operative except you consider that it already is.
Originally posted by garydenness:
As far as having influence over Israeli decision making, yes.
I miss to notice that influence but maybe it's just me. I hope you are right.
Originally posted by garydenness:
There are ways to bring Israel into line with international thinking and, more importantly, our standards of human rights. And money is one weapon, but not in the ways suggested so far. Perhaps this would make a good topic...
Like an embargo ?
If there are better ways you know about to bring Israel into line with international thinking and, more importantly, our standards of human rights than Mr Obama might be interested in your topic.
However I'm afraid he won't notice even if such a topic would exist
Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle: when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.
Originally posted by garydenness:
All true, but I think there are two things here in the West's favour that is not the case with numerous other states, especially in the Mid East. Firstly, the state of Israel does operate a genuine democracy. Secondly, the government does tend to work for the people they represent*, as opposed to themselves. Thirdly, the West backs and has backed Israel for a long time - there is no illusion on either side as to whose side we are on.
Agreed.
Originally posted by garydenness:
But I'm just tired of hearing the word Zionism used in certain contexts. On these forums in particular, Mr Howie has done his best to equate Zionism to shirt lifters, rag heads, Pakis and all the other nonsense. For sufficient time, with sufficient frequency, that to a degree he has succeeded.
Yes, I understand what you are getting at.
Oftentimes, emotion can bungle my arguments. As I have said, the human rights abuses simply set me off.
Originally posted by garydenness:
When the British left, it is worth remembering, the Palestinians were intent on driving every last Jew into the sea.
Indeed. Again, as both worship old Yahweh, that fact that I did not know about does not surprise me.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Such is life.
Indeed.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Very subtle of you thedawgfan to want to drag me back into the Israeli thing again.
That was not my intention, though I am not surprised that you did dive back in.
Simply put, whenever Israel is discussed on here, your long-winded rants about Zionism and Jews just pop to mind.
I know of course that you have no problem with me using you as an example (as Glaswegians are always good sports) so I did.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by Krake:
"Low risk is too much risk". By doing nothing you can't do anything wrong...?
You said that, not me.
Originally posted by Krake:
The stick in that would be to make Israel more co-operative except you consider that it already is.
No I don't. If you want to continue guessing what I think rather than asking, by all means feel free to do so. But there's no need to post it really, is there...
Originally posted by Krake:
I miss to notice that influence but maybe it's just me. I hope you are right.
Of course they have influence. Lots of it. The question is, are they willing to exercise it, and just as importantly, in which direction? There are lots of very pro Israeli people in the US who don't think they are doing much wrong. And they aren't all 'Jewish Zionists'.....
Originally posted by Krake:
Like an embargo ?
" width="17" height="17">
If there are better ways you know about to bring Israel into line with international thinking and, more importantly, our standards of human rights than Mr Obama might be interested in your topic.
However I'm afraid he won't notice even if such a topic would exist
An embargo? Sanctions? I suspect they'd work better on Israel than they do on Iran or pre 2003 Iraq. But.....
A lot of the 'solutions' that are being offered here beging with "If...."
That part of the sentence is fine. It's all the words that come after it that are just pure nonsense. If it were all so easy, it'd have been done long ago, and we wouldn't be discussing a problem that doesn't exist
My 'solution'. Oh the solutions are easy. All of them. I'll give you one. Making the region prosperous, secure, stable, well governed, properly policed, embedded in positive international trade and politics on an even and fair basis, a decent infrastructure and above all a proper Palestininian state that co exists side by side with Israel. Simple. How do we get there? How do 'we' do it? Any plans of your own? Ones that stand up to reality - in other words, plans that aren't simply pie in the sky, and don't have a hope in hell of happening? I really don't have one of any concrete substance. Sorry to disappoint. That's the reality of the situation. There are too many embedded interests, too much hatred, too many complex deals, too many complications, too little regional stability etc etc etc.
I have an understanding of the goal, and where the goal is. I understand that it is not going to be achieved, if ever, in the short or medium term. I understand that many of the suggestions offered here will do nothing more than aggravate the situation and put back any chance of achieving the goal.
Originally posted by garydenness:
There are lots of very pro Israeli people in the US who don't think they are doing much wrong.
"Lots" is an understatement. Say rather the vast majority.
Originally posted by garydenness:
And they aren't all 'Jewish Zionists'.....
No, rather just christians with "selective morality".
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by garydenness:
Any plans of your own?
Are you kidding ?
Originally posted by garydenness:
I really don't have one of any concrete substance. Sorry to disappoint.
You don't disappoint me. You would rather have if you would have come up with easy solutions
"There are too many embedded interests", we have no clue about, may I add.
The most sad thing is that the very few political leaders who would have the power and authority (I'm not so naive to say responsibility as well) to do something about it seem to be dazzled by their own agenda and some short term interests.
Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle: when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.
Originally posted by Krake:
"There are too many embedded interests", we have no clue about, may I add.
Religious interests, financial interests, prejudices....that sort of thing.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
How many enemies did the USA have in the ME before Israel was founded?
Founded by? How much did the US have to do with that? Lemme see....who was intimately involved?
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Originally posted by garydenness:
There are lots of very pro Israeli people in the US who don't think they are doing much wrong.
"Lots" is an understatement. Say rather the vast majority.
The breakdown is interesting. This is from Gallup in Feb. of this year. Over the years there are variations with "activity" in the area.
Originally posted by string:
Should Israel sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
NO... they have to start Armageddon.... It is Written!
I am ungrateful to those teachers.
Kahlil Gibran
"The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence. He inspires self-distrust. He guides their eyes from himself to the spirit that quickens him. He will have no disciple."
Amos Bronson Alcott
Zionism is alive and well because it has used history, emotion and anything to get what it wants. Time and time again when Tel Aviv government propaganda reps appear on tv they show utter contempt for what others in the world think. The country should never have been allowed to declare it's form of UDI but it used history to get what it wanted and stuff those who lived around and amongst them. It is an intransigent State and although I deplore it it is unfortunately a fact of life we are saddled with. We can thank the US for propping it up financially and the Arabs for botching the 6 Day War.
Should give Laurel and Hardy a twittering time that one?
Originally posted by rjhowie:
If you cannot browbeat the person into submitting to a stance hit them with anything at all to try and neutralise or ridicule them.
We try facts. When they don't work on you, and you post ridiculous response, well..... :clown:
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Should give Laurel and Hardy a twittering time that one?
I don't use Twitter much. Sorry.
Originally posted by string:
I begin to wonder, in fact, if they actually have Nuclear weapons. Possibly they rely on bluff and the protective nuclear strength of the United States. It would suit them well for people to believe that they have it, but look where that led Saddam in the end. Possibly they do not have such weapons and figure that signing the treaty would expose that fact and make them more vulnerable. I cannot think of any other rational explanation. Any takers?
It is always good to look at the non-obviousness, such as Israel not having nukes. If true this could explain the American position of material support in exchange of Israel not going nuclear
Originally posted by string:
It is hardly surprising that surrounding Muslim countries harbour ambitions to develop nuclear weapons when they believe Israel has them and persuading them not to develop these things may hand, in the end, on Israel being constrained in their signature of the non-proliferation treaty. Considering the idiotic mindset of some of those countries, these are high stakes indeed.
It would be clever of Israel not to have nukes and it's enemies thinking that they are in an arms race with Israel will attempt to produce nukes. Israel fully knowing that when the neighbors come close to obtaining nukes the US will take them out. It does appear that recently the world has figured out the Arab mindset and how to play their game using their rules.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Not surprised thedawgfan that you agree with your lost and re-found half of the Laurel and Hardy in Me-he-co.
Well, facts do tend to have a way of getting people to agree with one another.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Lumping my views on other matters which many will agree with when I criticise Israel or Zionism shows the blinkers on both of you so have a goodly mental cuddle.
Your reading comprehension is still lacking. I simply used you as an example because I figured you would be a good sport about it. Obviously I was wrong. Please don't worry, I shan't be using a withering violet as an example ever again except with the violet's express permission.
(So much for all the fanfare about Glaswegians being a good sport about things.
)Oh, and goodly isn't a word.
Frankly though, I'm still a bit confused as to how you figure I am somehow attacking you, when it was I who led a follow-up charge against Zionism?
As I mentioned to Gary, it was wrong for me to lump all of the Zionists together. After all, shall I lump you, Johnnysaucpn and Acorn15 into the same category as "Gormless" Gordon Brown? Is that right to do?
Originally posted by rjhowie:
If you cannot browbeat the person into submitting to a stance hit them with anything at all to try and neutralise or ridicule them.
Please feel free to provide examples of how I did either of the things you mention.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by grysmn:
It would be clever of Israel not to have nukes and it's enemies thinking that they are in an arms race with Israel will attempt to produce nukes. Israel fully knowing that when the neighbors come close to obtaining nukes the US will take them out.
That's....well, I don't know what that is. The concept of Israel adopting a policy of encouraging hostile neighbours to develop nuclear weapons in the hope that a saviour will come to the rescue.....
Not really a very sensible policy, that one. Remember, these are people who don't recognize saviours when they turn up.
Not a policy that I suspect Israel would follow in a million years. Or one eternity, whichever comes first.
Originally posted by grysmn:
It does appear that recently the world has figured out the Arab mindset and how to play their game using their rules.
There's naiveté for you. Many non Arabs have understood for many hundreds of years the ins and outs of Arabian culture and thinking. Which, of course, lead the way for hundreds of years. What you refer to as the Dark Ages was anything but dark in the Arabian lands.
No, the real problem is that too few in the West choose to listen or learn from those who do understand Arab culture and thinking. Example - Lawrence of Arabia. There's so much to be learned from his experiences. And the actions taken by the British on (or rather, against) his advice. And yet the US military have made the book of his life required reading, without actually understanding what the message was.
It's not actually magic, mysticism or anything else at work here. And ultimately, they share more similarities with us than differences from us. You should have learned at least that by now.
Originally posted by garydenness:
That's....well, I don't know what that is. The concept of Israel adopting a policy of encouraging hostile neighbours to develop nuclear weapons in the hope that a saviour will come to the rescue.....
Not really a very sensible policy, that one. Remember, these are people who don't recognize saviours when they turn up.
Well, they are Jews, Gary!
Remember how the US led the Soviet Union into an arms race to bankrupt them. Clever, eh?
.........................................
Arab mindset? I haven't figured out what the Canadian mindset is yet.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Arab mindset? I haven't figured out what the Canadian mindset is yet.
I can't figure out my own mindset. It seems to change daily.....
or Originally posted by garydenness:
Did you? In other words, you'd hoped that by ignoring it, you'd be saved what you seem to see as an embarrassing mistake on your part, would go away?
Are you still refusing to acknowledge your error? It was very clearly your error, as I demonstrated. I copied and pasted the full text for your review. Very kind of me I thought, to make your life easier....
Not in the least. I was pointing out that you revisited it after the subject appeared finished. That is not the same as accepting your views.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Until recently, one. How many Jews in Hamas?
I don't know. As Cocoa would point out, ther are still a few "Jews" who are Christian or Muslim (if you use the term in the genetic sense) so it is quite possible that there are some.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Arabs are represented in meaningful numbers across the Israeli political, civil and judicial spheres. They occupy about 10% of the seats in parliament If I remember rightly.
A relatively small number given that those who wish to return are barred...
Originally posted by garydenness:
Yawn. You missed the asterisk. Deliberately, I suspect...
No, it was irrelevant to the point.
Originally posted by garydenness:
As far as having influence over Israeli decision making, yes.
Then it isn't working too well, as Gen. Petraeus might point out.
Originally posted by garydenness:
No need for me to do any such thing. I suspect you're the only person who missed it. Deliberately. Again. And given your past record for poor reading comprehension, it seems a futile endeavor.
No, really. You made a statement, obviously in the hope that those reading it will just accept it. Please back it up with fact.
Originally posted by garydenness:
We know where your prejudice comes from then! All is revealed....bad parenting!
Tut! Tut! You must try better! I suspect that I have met more ex-soldiers who served in Palestine than yourself.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Simply put, whenever Israel is discussed on here, your long-winded rants about Zionism and Jews just pop to mind.
But please remember that they are not synonymous, as rj has pointed out.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
So you will offer them regarding your comment on rj as I asked?
Will you acknowledge your error as I asked? Let's keep matters in chronological order...
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=5069501
Originally posted by Acorn15:
I am only pointing out that the subject requires a level playing ground. If you are right then we should tear up the pact.
I'd like to know what dire consequences would follow. The German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of '39 worked. Poland never attacked.
Originally posted by string:
Should Israel sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Oh Yes,
Originally posted by Jaybro:
I'd like to know what dire consequences would follow. The German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of '39 worked. Poland never attacked.
You might be right about the consequences but in the meantime one can wonder what treaties/conventions are good for anyway?
Should we better abolish them or only selectively apply them to the underdogs?
Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle: when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
So you will offer them regarding your comment on rj as I asked?
Will you acknowledge your error as I asked? Let's keep matters in chronological order...
My comment that you took issue with:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
He also missed the fact that my point was regarding Netanyahu's petulant refusal to go to the conference.
Your comment upon which I based my point:
Originally posted by garydenness:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If the errant child does not behave, Obama should cut off his pocket money and cheap toys...
Yes, because destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations is just the thing to improve the security and progress (what there is of that) of the region. The US gives aid to many other countries, many of whom are just as 'petulant' as Israel, some of whom are worse. Why not go on a destabilization spree and see what happens? Just for fun. Like it or not, US dollars prop up many economies through a variety of mechanisms, the withdrawal of which wouldn't be in anybody's best interests. Perhaps it's best to stop pretending Israel is an errant child and is in fact a nation state.
Now, let us see the comments you attribute to rj...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Originally posted by garydenness:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
So you will offer them regarding your comment on rj as I asked?
Will you acknowledge your error as I asked? Let's keep matters in chronological order...
My comment that you took issue with:Originally posted by Acorn15:
He also missed the fact that my point was regarding Netanyahu's petulant refusal to go to the conference.
Your comment upon which I based my point:Originally posted by garydenness:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If the errant child does not behave, Obama should cut off his pocket money and cheap toys...
Yes, because destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations is just the thing to improve the security and progress (what there is of that) of the region. The US gives aid to many other countries, many of whom are just as 'petulant' as Israel, some of whom are worse. Why not go on a destabilization spree and see what happens? Just for fun. Like it or not, US dollars prop up many economies through a variety of mechanisms, the withdrawal of which wouldn't be in anybody's best interests. Perhaps it's best to stop pretending Israel is an errant child and is in fact a nation state.
Now, let us see the comments you attribute to rj...
You've quoted a couple of pieces of text without any actual explanation or acknowledgement that you made an error. I'd already quoted them and linked to it for you. So what is your point, exactly? A bodyswerve, some would say. You've done nothing to suggest the error was mine. No explanation as to how my reply was in anyway out of context with your comment, or failed to address the key parts of your comment.
It's the sort of answer I'd expect from a politician. All words, no meaning, no substance, no answers. No honesty.
Now, are you honest and decent enough to acknowledge your mistake, or not?
Originally posted by garydenness:
Now, are you honest and decent enough to acknowledge your mistake, or not?
Ah the usual Dennes, Ignore and repeat! No mistake on my part.
Netenyahu could have attended the conference. As it was open to nuclear and non-nuclear powers , he could do so without, "destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations ". He didn't.
Simple enough for you?
Now, I have spent two posts answering your query. Perhaps you will answer mine. Let us see the comments you attribute to rj...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
No mistake on my part.
I'm afraid so. If this is all too complex for you, perhaps you shouldn't have joined in. Nonetheless, as the below demonstrates clearly, you seem to have failed to read my posts properly. Perhaps you should read the below carefully and take time to digest it.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Netenyahu could have attended the conference. As it was open to nuclear and non-nuclear powers....
Really? Dearie me.....please read properly. I am well aware of the content of the article. As previously posted...
Originally posted by garydenness:
You posted a comment based on a story of Netanyahu refusing to go to the conference, with 'suggestions' as to what Obama should do about it. I posted a reply in response to your 'suggestions'. I made no comment or reference as to whom could attend the conference, whether it be nuclear or non nuclear powers. I responded only to your comment about what Obama should do about it.
So exactly what in my original response ever suggested I had....in your own words....
Originally posted by Acorn15:
missed the fact that my point was regarding Netanyahu's petulant refusal to go to the conference. The conference is not only for nuclear-weilding powers...
Your 'point' was not actually 'Netanyahu's petulant refusal to go to the conference'. You linked to that article and then made a 'point' based on it, about what Obama should do. Pocket money and toys. Remember? I responded to your comment based on the article.
I missed no facts.
You are now adding stuff and further digging yourself in deeper.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Netenyahu could have attended the conference. As it was open to nuclear and non-nuclear powers , he could do so without, "destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations ". He didn't.
Who said anything whatsoever about Netanyahu and his attending the conference 'would destabilise a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations'? Not me. You're either inventing stuff in the hope that if you confuse yourself sufficiently you will confuse everyone else, or you simply have no idea what you are talking about. If the former, you failed. If the latter, well....
Should I repeat it again for you? Okay dokey....
Originally posted by garydenness:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If the errant child does not behave, Obama should cut off his pocket money and cheap toys...
Yes, because destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations is just the thing to improve the security and progress (what there is of that) of the region. The US gives aid to many other countries, many of whom are just as 'petulant' as Israel, some of whom are worse. Why not go on a destabilization spree and see what happens? Just for fun. Like it or not, US dollars prop up many economies through a variety of mechanisms, the withdrawal of which wouldn't be in anybody's best interests. Perhaps it's best to stop pretending Israel is an errant child and is in fact a nation state..
In no way could that be interpreted in such a way as to suggest I referred to Netanyahu. I responded to a suggestion as to what Obama should do. I refer repeatedly to US financial dollars, reinforcing the fact I am talking about US financial aid to Israel. I refer to the withdrawl of US aid. It is explicit. Very clear. It couldn't be clearer.
And besides....if I had been referring to Netanyahu, then how could you claim I had missed your point about Netanyahu? You would simply then have to disagree with my opinion. This is of course besides the point, as obviously I wasn't. But either way, you've now contradicted yourself...
You either made a flippant comment to start with, and having been called on it are now trying to bodyswerve any which way you can rather than own up. Or you failed to read and comprehend a clearly worded response properly and have never since bothered to actually read back. Or you are simply making trouble.
You made the mistake. Own up.
Don't confuse the two of us , you will really get him mad.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
What a load of crap from Dennes again. If you cannot understand plain English, then I am not going to help you.
You can't even spell my name correctly. Perhaps you shouldn't lecture on English ability, given my username is present on every post....
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Of course perhaps all this waffle is designed to avoid giving proof to back up your accusations of rj...
What utter nonsense. I have posted quotes in full, I have explained anything requiring explanation, I have taken the time to recount the dispute in full to aid your memory, I have been thoroughly consistent. What I haven't done is made a mistake. Unlike yourself. What I haven't done is offer vague and unsubstantiated arguments. Unlike yourself.
The key point, it seems, at the moment:
You are now claiming that my original response (to your original quote) suggested that Netanyahu not attending the conference would destabilise Israel. Let's get this clear:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Netenyahu could have attended the conference. As it was open to nuclear and non-nuclear powers , he could do so without, "destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations ". He didn't.
This is dishonest on so many counts.
Firstly your latest response suggests you are claiming my original post was about Netanyahu, in which case I hadn't missed your 'point' about the conference. You would simply then have to disagree with my point. This is beside the point though - clearly I was not refering to Netanyahu.
Secondly, because you made no such point about Netanyahu and the conference AT ALL!!! You linked to a newspaper article about the subject. You made no comment about it yourself. Your 'point', the only thing you commented on, was what Obama should do about it. Take away Israels money and toys. Need reminding? Your comment in full:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If the errant child does not behave, Obama should cut off his pocket money and cheap toys..
Thirdly, because I had so clearly been referring to Obama. It could not have been any clearer. To try and claim now, all this time later, that you thought I was referring to Netanyahu's refusal to go to a conference, instead of what I was referring to, the consequences of Obama withdrawing aid, is childish.
Do you need reminding, again, of that original post?
Originally posted by garydenness:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If the errant child does not behave, Obama should cut off his pocket money and cheap toys...
Yes, because destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations is just the thing to improve the security and progress (what there is of that) of the region. The US gives aid to many other countries, many of whom are just as 'petulant' as Israel, some of whom are worse. Why not go on a destabilization spree and see what happens? Just for fun. Like it or not, US dollars prop up many economies through a variety of mechanisms, the withdrawal of which wouldn't be in anybody's best interests. Perhaps it's best to stop pretending Israel is an errant child and is in fact a nation state.
There we go. Care to explain how you thought I was referring to Netanyahu not going to a conference? Do you see his name, or a conference, mentioned even once? By either of us? No. Do you see Obama mentioned? US financial aid mentioned? Yes......
And you have no excuse to claim that you misinterpreted it. Besides the fact my original post was perfectly clear, since that original post, I have explicitly described this debate including the following, very early on in the discussion....
Originally posted by garydenness:
You posted a comment based on a story of Netanyahu refusing to go to the conference, with 'suggestions' as to what Obama should do about it. I posted a reply in response to your 'suggestions'. I made no comment or reference as to whom could attend the conference, whether it be nuclear or non nuclear powers. I responded only to your comment about what Obama should do about it.
Everything is in black and white, for all to see. That's the one thing you have correctly pointed out.
You made a mistake. Clearly you are not big enough or humble enough to admit it.
You failed for a long time to offer any explanation as to what you thought was wrong about my post, you offered lots of one or two liners, you've tried to divert on numerous occasions, and your latest tactic is to make demands that I prove a statement about RJ. Anything and everything to try and bodyswerve, change direction and avoid acknowledging that you made a mistake. Claiming I am waffling to avoid commenting about RJ? That, it is obvious, is actually what you are doing to avoid what you clearly perceive to be a personal embarrassment.
So, are you going to be the man you claim to be and own up? To acknowledge that the mistake was yours. Or prove yourself to be the sort of person I believe you to be?
Originally posted by garydenness:
You can't even spell my name correctly. Perhaps you shouldn't lecture on English ability, given my username is present on every post....
Originally posted by Denny77:
Dennes"
Don't confuse the two of us , you will really get him mad
This should about do:
Originally posted by garydenness:
Indeed. We all misquote from time to time. As you well know. It's now fixed.
Originally posted by garydenness:
You are now claiming that my original response (to your original quote) suggested that Netanyahu not attending the conference would destabilise Israel. Let's get this clear:
What I did was show my post and your reply.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Secondly, because you made no such point about Netanyahu and the conference AT ALL!!! You linked to a newspaper article about the subject. You made no comment about it yourself. Your 'point', the only thing you commented on, was what Obama should do about it. Take away Israels money and toys. Need reminding? Your comment in full:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If the errant child does not behave, Obama should cut off his pocket money and cheap toys..
Thank you for proving what a mess you are making of this!
You are trying hard, I'll give you that, however my post and your reply cover it, no matter how many long-winded paragraphs you type. Of course, as I suggested before, this might just be to avoid answering the question regarding your accusations aimed at rj.
Smoke and mirrors.
Originally posted by OnetimePoster:
Israel's signing of a non-proliferation treaty would have as much effect as Gary and David signing some kind of non-aggression pact.
17. April 2010, 15:35:09 (edited)
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Of course, as I suggested before, this might just be to avoid answering the question regarding your accusations aimed at rj.
Your question about RJ is simply to take the heat off of you. Smoke and mirrors? You are dodging, bull shitting and making yourself look a dishonest fool.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Thank you for proving what a mess you are making of this!
" width="17" height="22">
You are trying hard, I'll give you that, however my post and your reply cover it, no matter how many long-winded paragraphs you type
Yawn. No they don't. As much as you might wish it were so. Long winded? Sounds like reading comprehension issues on your part to me. So basically you've got no explanation as to how exactly I made a mistake, and you are unwilling to acknowledge that you made a mistake? Despite the fact it is obvious. I know you did, you know you did, and any poor sod bored enough to have followed this knows you did.
You're quick to try and ram a mistake down some one elses throat, and make sure you get a retraction or acknowledgement. But you don't like the taste of your own medicine, do you?
Let's simplify things further. Maybe it will sink in.....although I won't hold my breath....
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Netenyahu could have attended the conference. As it was open to nuclear and non-nuclear powers , he could do so without, "destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations ". He didn't.
Are you saying, that in my response to your post, you believe that I was referring to Netanyahu and not Obama, when I referred to 'destabilisation'?
Yes or no. It's really quite simple.
Do you not remember the MCB debate?
Originally posted by Acorn15:
This should about do:
No, in your case it's not a typo. You've been making that exact mistake for years.
Originally posted by Krake:
You might be right about the consequences but in the meantime one can wonder what treaties/conventions are good for anyway?
Should we better abolish them or only selectively apply them to the underdogs?
They're like secret handshakes. Everybody knows they're silly, but it's hard to avoid them at the lodge meeting.
.........................................
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Yep, Jaybro! And the Czechs didn't invade either and the Austrians were even more helpful by putting down welcome carpets. The one thing that Tel Aviv took from WW2 was the use of Blitzkrieg. Just shows what can be learned?.......
I know what you mean, Rj. I to sleep every night with a yamika next the bed in case I need it in the morning.
And the guilt I feel over being an interloper on Indian land is overwhelming.
And those poor bastards in mesolithic Scotland! What have you done?
Stealing somebody else's land is the rule, not the exception. Not noble, but all too common.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
And the guilt I feel over being an interloper on Indian land is overwhelming.
Don't feel guilty the Indian mafia will be buying it all back shortly......with my money. That should give you some joy.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Your question about RJ is simply to take the heat off of you. Smoke and mirrors? You are dodging, bull shitting and making yourself look a dishonest fool.
It was a different subject but you keep refusing to answer it unless I agree with your gobledeegook argument. Now please answer it.
Originally posted by garydenness:
nd of course, we've been here before. You , Acorn, have a history of refusing to accept a mistake on your part, using vague wording, one liners without substance, not answering difficult questions, answering questions that haven't been asked in order to avoid answering questions that actually were asked, and all the other weasel word tactics to avoid accepting the obvious - you made a mistake.
Right back at you! That reminds me, I am still awaiting your answer. You wouldn't be, "refusing to accept a mistake on your part, using vague wording, one liners without substance, not answering difficult questions, answering questions that haven't been asked in order to avoid answering questions that actually were asked, and all the other weasel word tactics to avoid accepting the obvious - you made a mistake" (as usual) by any chance?
Originally posted by garydenness:
No, in your case it's not a typo. You've been making that exact mistake for years.
Hello Pot, my name is Kettle....
Originally posted by Acorn15:
It was a different subject but you keep refusing to answer it unless I agree with your gobledeegook argument.
As usual, you cannot respond to a simple, straight question with a simple answer. I see no point in proceeding on further points if you are unwilling or incapable of doing so with this point. Try again...
Originally posted by garydenness:
Are you saying, that in my response to your post, you believe that I was referring to Netanyahu and not Obama, when I referred to 'destabilisation'?
Yes or no. It's really quite simple.
and : popcorn: *http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by garydenness:
As usual, you cannot respond to a simple, straight question with a simple answer. I see no point in proceeding on further points if you are unwilling or incapable of doing so with this point. Try again...
I am waiting. You should supply the relevant quotes supposedly made by rj or apologise (something you are not noted for). You keep avoiding it.
Either put up or shut up.
19. April 2010, 15:35:22 (edited)
Originally posted by Acorn15:
You keep avoiding it.
No I am not. I am simply not going to be deflected by your distractions, which you are employing to avoid admitting making a mistake.
You are in no position to start demanding answers to your questions, given your refusal to provide a proper answer to a prior question.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Either put up or shut up.
Back at you!
I am asking a simple question. A yes or no answer is perfectly sufficient. What's your problem in giving a straight answer to a simple question? Why all the bodyswerves? The dodging and ducking? Are you really in training to be a politician? Try again. Here goes...
Originally posted by garydenness:
Are you saying, that in my response to your post, you believe that I was referring to Netanyahu and not Obama, when I referred to 'destabilisation'?
Yes or no. It's really quite simple.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Remember how the US led the Soviet Union into an arms race to bankrupt them. Clever, eh?
No, it was not in that the USSR suffered victory (at least in terms of nuclear armament (esp. strategic nuclear weapons) and rocket technology (necessary for the deployment/deliverance of the weapons) in the arms race. It was more a cultural thing than anything else, people wanted the "decadent western culture"... At least so it was here, I am not quite sure about the USSR, though.
(Actually, there were more issues involved. A socialist planned economy to be better, to perform better than capitalist market economy, needs far more superior and much more powerful supercomputers or telecommunications infrastructure. Unfortunately, the USSR had neither. And perhaps not even because it could not have them — virtually nothing is impossible in a socialist economy, although some trade-offs are always unavoidable — but it perhaps did not even wanted to have them and somehow even shunned them. The Chilean government at least attempted for the latter (telecommunications) in their project Cybersyn (before the U.S.-supported capitalist coup d'état). An effective socialist economy simply requires much more freedom and openness and fewer restrictions in the flow of information than a capitalist economy does. It is a requirement for socialist economy, if it is to outperform capitalist economy. However, this naturally put those countries (and their regimes) into a dilemma: obviously, they wanted to have a superb and superior economy, but making these changes could have meant that it would have run contrary to their authoritarian nature of their regimes — and it definitely would have — which meant that it would have been like playing with armed grenade. It could go off at any time, so nobody risked taking the step that it could blow it up irreversibly, and therefore everyone preferred to just struggle along. And with the spread of the technology being deliberately stifled, the gap was growing larger, until glasnosť (and later perestrojka) came. Well, there could be other, finer issues involved, but that sums it up pretty nicely, IMHO.)
(Of course, Israel is in no such position to make any other country "suffer (a similar) victory"...)
Originally posted by Acorn15:
So nothing should be done about N. Korea and Iran seeking nuclear weapons? The bow and arrow is somewhat more limited!
No, that would be fine with me...
Now back to the topic:
Well, I would not care. And I don't think that it would make any difference. If Israel did decide to sign the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons ("NPT"), it would sign it as a nuclear power.
Actually, I don't understand the bashing of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ("DPRK") and the constant and incessant verbal and diplomatic aggression of the USA against it. With Iran, that is fine and understandable, since Iran is still a signatory of the NPT. But the DPRK is not, not any longer. It validly withdrew from the treaty more than 7 years ago, the 3-month period passed more than 7 years ago, and the withdrawal became effective then. I wonder whether it ever gets to the stupid heads of the American aggressive powermongers that the DPRK is already "out" of it (and no longer a target for their diplomatic bullying).
Personally, I think it is fine if every state equips with whatever weapons it deems necessary to match those of their potential or perceived adversary... It is "simple reciprocity", simple as that...
And one last thing — however, one of paramount importance: it is currently the USA that is in the most blatant violation of the NPT, because of its program of "nuclear sharing".
Originally posted by garydenness:
No I am not. I am simply not going to be deflected by your distractions, which you are employing to avoid admitting making a mistake.
Originally posted by garydenness:
You are in no position to start demanding answers to your questions...
Indeed I am and you avoidance shows that you realise you made a mistake due to your antipathy towards rj. A man would admit it. I take it that you are refusing?
I am asking a simple question. A yes or no answer is perfectly sufficient. What's your problem in giving a straight answer to a simple question? Why all the bodyswerves? The dodging and ducking? Are you really in training to be a politician? Try again. Here goes...
Originally posted by Antikapitalista:
No, that would be fine with me...
That is a fair enough answer as I believe that the rules should apply to all or none.
19. April 2010, 23:46:37 (edited)
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Indeed I am and you....
Blah, blah, blah. No you're not. If you want answers you have to be prepared for a bit of quid pro quo.
Besides, if RJ has a problem with my comment, he can take it up for himself. I'm sure he can fight his own battles.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
I take it that you are refusing?
Absolutely. Congratulations. Your reading comprehension is improving, at last. Now that you have understood the fact that I will indeed refuse to answer your question until you ask my prior question, which I have made clear on numerous occasions....
Are you saying, that in my response to your post, you believe that I was referring to Netanyahu and not Obama, when I referred to 'destabilisation'?
Yes or no. It's really quite simple.
Last chance to be a man and come clean.
PS. As flattered as I am that you think so highly of my literary contributions to the forum as to copy and paste them and call them your own....it does seem the most childish retort of all the childish retorts we have both contributed thus far
Originally posted by grysmn:
If and only if the PLO and Hamas amend their Charters calling for the elimination of Isreal.
That won't happen until Israel ends the systematic genocide, segregation, discrimination and general hatred of the Palestinians.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by garydenness:
Blah, blah, blah. No you're not. If you want answers you have to be prepared for a bit of quid pro quo.
Not a very clever reply. Transparent actually. All can see that I have answered your question but you keep, dissecting, twisting and turning and then coming up with the claim that I have not tried to answer you. Those who are less inclined to dissect and twist, and who have read my original comment and your reply, will make up their own minds as to what I was saying. I have tried and will try no further.
On the other hand, you have made no effort to back up your pernicious claim regarding rj. This is because he did not write the things that you have claimed, you are too proud to admit it and the open-minded will be aware of it. Perhaps it was just an attempt to besmirch him (nothing new there). Tut! Tut!
Originally posted by garydenness:
PS. As flattered as I am that you think so highly of my literary contributions to the forum as to copy and paste them and call them your own....it does seem the most childish retort of all the childish retorts we have both contributed thus far
Don't be flattered (although I suspect your pride will overule this) as it was a simple way of pointing out the pot and kettle nonsense in this exchange. Anyone (except yourself perhaps) reading the exchange would see the tongue-in-cheek aspect of my reply.
Now, back to the subject:
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
That won't happen until Israel ends the systematic genocide, segregation, discrimination and general hatred of the Palestinians.
Very true. Any reaction from the Palestinians to the latest Israeli land-grabs will be blamed on the Palestinians.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
All can see that I have answered your question
Incorrect. All can see you have avoided acknowledging your mistake. Those who may have bothered to follow it anyway...
But time to end it. In conclusion, a summary. You made a suggestion as to what Obama should do regards a newspaper piece...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If the errant child does not behave, Obama should cut off his pocket money and cheap toys...
I responded with the consequences of Obama doing such a thing...
Originally posted by garydenness:
Yes, because destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations is just the thing to improve the security and progress (what there is of that) of the region. The US gives aid to many other countries, many of whom are just as 'petulant' as Israel, some of whom are worse. Why not go on a destabilization spree and see what happens? Just for fun. Like it or not, US dollars prop up many economies through a variety of mechanisms, the withdrawal of which wouldn't be in anybody's best interests. Perhaps it's best to stop pretending Israel is an errant child and is in fact a nation state.
You claimed I missed your point...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
He also missed the fact that my point was regarding Netanyahu's petulant refusal to go to the conference. The conference is not only for nuclear-weilding powers..
Which I hadn't. Of course. I had commented on your suggestion as to what Obama's future policy should be. Who the conference audience could or couldn't be is irrelevant to anything I had said.
I reiterated my point. This made it quite clear that I had responded to your suggestion that Obama should withdraw aid to Israel. It is absolutely clear that I am referring to the consequences of Obama withdrawing aid, and not Netanyahus refusal to go to a conference. In fact I have explicitly stated that my post did not have any reference as to who could or couldn't go to the conference. Only about what Obama should do.
Originally posted by garydenness:
You posted a comment based on a story of Netanyahu refusing to go to the conference, with 'suggestions' as to what Obama should do about it. I posted a reply in response to your 'suggestions'. I made no comment or reference as to whom could attend the conference, whether it be nuclear or non nuclear powers. I responded only to your comment about what Obama should do about it.
You then dodged, body swerved and tried other tricks to avoid answering, before coming out with this gem. Suggesting that I had earlier claimed that Netanyahu, by attending the conference, would be "destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations ". As seen it the direct quote below.
Now way out for you here. You have put in quotation marks my earlier comment and tried to attribute them to your 'point'. A point you hadn't actually made originally. Two mistakes for the price of one.
As you can read from my posts above it is absolutely clear, even to a rather dim witted person, that I had referred to the withdrawal of aid by Obama as being the element that could be a factor in "destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations ".
In fact, you couldn't read anything else into my posts. I had, as put in bold above, been quite explicit that I had been referring to the consequences of Obama withdrawing aid, and equally explicit in pointing out I hadn't referred to who could or couldn't attend the conference.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Netenyahu could have attended the conference. As it was open to nuclear and non-nuclear powers , he could do so without, "destabilizing a nuclear power surrounded by hostile nations ". He didn't.
And at precisely this point, you refused to answer a simple, straight question. Because you knew that not only had you made a mistake, but you'd now made several, and there was no getting away from it. The only options left to you were to acknowledge your mistake, or to be silly and simply.......
Originally posted by garydenness:
Or prove yourself to be the sort of person I believe you to be?
Case closed.
Do feel free to waffle on about nonsense, and pretend that your mistake was mine, blah blah blah!
Originally posted by Acorn15:
I have tried and will try no further.
With such a miserable effort thus far, that's a sensible decision!
Originally posted by Acorn15:
On the other hand, you have made no effort to back up your pernicious claim regarding rj
I answered your original question. Quite some time ago. Didn't like the answer? Too bad!
And "we" (the rest of us) note the arrogance continuation of garydenness mindset who uses "'we' try facts". Kind of slipped there. It is the mindset of what can happen on a Forum when a wee group of similar minds wants to hog it. And anyway his fact is at the end of the day just an opinion as mine are. If you are outside that box somehow you are to be sniffed at or wasted. He assumes (built in) that his wonderful supercilliousness passes for a high standard of intellgence. Dear, oh dear, it is always the same when you get someone from a humble background getting a diploma to teach ot whatever and it goes to their head! Just as well he is in Me-he-co as he would be frustrated at bein ignored in a more advanced lace...like the UK. Well let him have his period of glory being impressed when he comes back he will be amongst the legions of the grey again!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
And "we" (the rest of us) note the arrogance continuation of garydenness mindset who uses "'we' try facts"
I thought you'd take it as read that when I said 'we', I wasn't talking on behalf of your good self, Mr Howie!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Well obviously you are in bed with the wonderful "People's" Republic of N) Korea. obviously down to eating grass and totally regimented into robots sometimes is preferable than any alternative.
Not just eating grass, Rj. Look at this tower of Babel.
That's in the People's Republic!There is a bit of a problem, though. It was started over 20 years ago and has never been finished, probably will never be opened. A perfect emblem of the PR, which is neither socialist nor capitalist but an amalgam of failed Communism and a bad dream. It gives capitalism a better name.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Well you can discount garydenness,
For me the verdict was out... Now I have to put him to the top of my list of most admired on D&D
Heres to the great dennes,
my nomination for # 1Originally posted by garydenness:
I answered your original question. Quite some time ago. Didn't like the answer? Too bad!
No you did not. That subject so far:
Originally posted by garydenness:
...On these forums in particular, Mr Howie has done his best to equate Zionism to shirt lifters, rag heads, Pakis and all the other nonsense. For sufficient time, with sufficient frequency, that to a degree he has succeeded.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Originally posted by garydenness:
On these forums in particular, Mr Howie has done his best to equate Zionism to shirt lifters, rag heads, Pakis and all the other nonsense
Might I suggest you prove this. I seemed to have missed it...
Originally posted by garydenness:
I suspect that everyone missed it as it is not there!No need for me to do any such thing. I suspect you're the only person who missed it. Deliberately. Again. And given your past record for poor reading comprehension, it seems a futile endeavor.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
So you will offer them regarding your comment on rj as I asked?
Originally posted by garydenness:
(sic)Will you acknowledge your error as I asked? Let's keep matters in chronological order...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Now, let us see the comments you attribute to rj...
No reply.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
No replyNow, I have spent two posts answering your query. Perhaps you will answer mine. Let us see the comments you attribute to rj...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
What a load of crap from Dennes again. If you cannot understand plain English, then I am not going to help you.
Of course perhaps all this waffle is designed to avoid giving proof to back up your accusations of rj...
Originally posted by garydenness:
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Of course perhaps all this waffle is designed to avoid giving proof to back up your accusations of rj...
What utter nonsense. I have posted quotes in full, I have explained anything requiring explanation, I have taken the time to recount the dispute in full to aid your memory, I have been thoroughly consistent. What I haven't done is made a mistake. Unlike yourself. What I haven't done is offer vague and unsubstantiated arguments. Unlike yourself
Up to this point, we can see that you had not posted any such to back your comments regarding your claim.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
You are trying hard, I'll give you that, however my post and your reply cover it, no matter how many long-winded paragraphs you type. Of course, as I suggested before, this might just be to avoid answering the question regarding your accusations aimed at rj.
Smoke and mirrors.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Your question about RJ is simply to take the heat off of you. Smoke and mirrors? You are dodging, bull shitting and making yourself look a dishonest fool.
Still not answered...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Originally posted by garydenness:
Your question about RJ is simply to take the heat off of you. Smoke and mirrors? You are dodging, bull shitting and making yourself look a dishonest fool.
It was a different subject but you keep refusing to answer it unless I agree with your gobledeegook argument. Now please answer it.
Originally posted by garydenness:
nd of course, we've been here before. You , Acorn, have a history of refusing to accept a mistake on your part, using vague wording, one liners without substance, not answering difficult questions, answering questions that haven't been asked in order to avoid answering questions that actually were asked, and all the other weasel word tactics to avoid accepting the obvious - you made a mistake.
Right back at you! That reminds me, I am still awaiting your answer. You wouldn't be, "refusing to accept a mistake on your part, using vague wording, one liners without substance, not answering difficult questions, answering questions that haven't been asked in order to avoid answering questions that actually were asked, and all the other weasel word tactics to avoid accepting the obvious - you made a mistake" (as usual) by any chance?
Originally posted by garydenness:
No, in your case it's not a typo. You've been making that exact mistake for years.
Hello Pot, my name is Kettle....
Originally posted by garydenness:
In other words, proof still not supplied.As usual, you cannot respond to a simple, straight question with a simple answer. I see no point in proceeding on further points if you are unwilling or incapable of doing so with this point. Try again...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
I am waiting. You should supply the relevant quotes supposedly made by rj or apologise (something you are not noted for). You keep avoiding it.
Either put up or shut up.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Point still not addressed.No I am not. I am simply not going to be deflected by your distractions, which you are employing to avoid admitting making a mistake.
You are in no position to start demanding answers to your questions, given your refusal to provide a proper answer to a prior question.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Either put up or shut up.
Back at you!
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Indeed I am and you avoidance shows that you realise you made a mistake due to your antipathy towards rj. A man would admit it. I take it that you are refusing?
I am asking a simple question. A yes or no answer is perfectly sufficient. What's your problem in giving a straight answer to a simple question? Why all the bodyswerves? The dodging and ducking? Are you really in training to be a politician? Try again. Here goes...
Originally posted by garydenness:
Blah, blah, blah. No you're not. If you want answers you have to be prepared for a bit of quid pro quo.
Besides, if RJ has a problem with my comment, he can take it up for himself. I'm sure he can fight his own battles.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
I take it that you are refusing?
Absolutely. Congratulations. Your reading comprehension is improving, at last. Now that you have understood the fact that I will indeed refuse to answer your question until you ask my prior question, which I have made clear on numerous occasions....
FINALLY! A refusal to answer!
Originally posted by Acorn15:
...On the other hand, you have made no effort to back up your pernicious claim regarding rj. This is because he did not write the things that you have claimed, you are too proud to admit it and the open-minded will be aware of it. Perhaps it was just an attempt to besmirch him (nothing new there). Tut! Tut!
Your latest answer regarding your rj claim is:
Originally posted by garydenness:
I answered your original question. Quite some time ago. Didn't like the answer? Too bad!
That is patently untrue. Your replies above show that it is not a mistake either.
Originally posted by Denny77:
For me the verdict was out... Now I have to put him to the top of my list of most admired on D&D
Heres to the great dennes, my nomination for # 1
Birds of a feather...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
Birds of a feather...
or great minds...
Originally posted by Acorn15:
FINALLY! A refusal to answer!
Cough cough. Finally? Really? And you make that statement based on my telling you that I wouldn't answer your question until you had answered my prior question when.....well, you quoted two previous examples of my making that same point! I suggest you look up the word 'finally' in the dictionary, and learn to tell the difference between that and 'yet again'.
Originally posted by Acorn15:
No you did not. That subject so far:
Yes I did. Here it is again. You're just going to have to accept that you very simply didn't like my response! Tough luck!
Originally posted by garydenness:
No need for me to do any such thing. I suspect you're the only person who missed it. Deliberately. Again. And given your past record for poor reading comprehension, it seems a futile endeavor.
Acorn, you made a mistake. A silly mistake. As detailed in my last post above. Clearly detailed. You could have simply acknowledged your silly, rather trivial mistake at the beginning. "Oops, my bad! I didn't read the post properly!" Or even "I did indeed make a mistake - I misunderstood you"
But you didn't. Because you never do. Because you're simply too egotistical and have far too much pride to admit a mistake. So you just carried digging yourself a hole. And I will confess, I rather enjoyed watching you....I swear I could hear your posts beginning to echo as you dug deeper and deeper.
And you claimed I'm not known for accepting my errors. Actually, when I make a mistake, I'll happily acknowledge it. I might even apologize. I did so the other day, when I failed to read the humour in a post and took it more seriously than I was meant to. I've done so on a fair number of occasions.
And I've even accepted making a mistake when debating you, and regarding RJ, even after I'd begun digging a hole for myself. Personally, I'd prefer a moment of temporary embarrassment at having not read a post properly that to make an utter fool of myself by pretending I've not made a mistake. But if you prefer the latter rather than the former, then that's up to you!
And to try and hide your mistake, you pluck a comment I made about Mr Howie and start demanding proof. Mr Howie hasn't disputed my comment, thus far. No one else was interested. So when did you become Mr Howies online protector. Do you believe him to be a sissy boy who needs looking after? I think he'd disagree. So do I. Seems you have ulterior motives behind this tactic!
Finally (and I'm using the word in a correct context here - a free lesson for you!), I won't answer your silly questions or requests when you so blatantly refuse to produce honest, real, sensible responses to my questions. Of course I won't. Welcome to the real world. This is how life works. We all expect a little quid pro quo, and those who BS, waffle, duck and dive and generally play silly games can expect some of the same back at them, or simply a refusal to co-operate with their silly games.
Do feel free to continue pretending otherwise!
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
And didn't garydenness do well weaseling out of the "we". Three out of three for not admitting a mistake and doing a politician but still wrong of course! Meanwhile the Zionists smile and continue their protected arrogance in the ME.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
And didn't garydenness do well weaseling out of the "we".
Did I? Thank you!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
". Three out of three for not admitting a mistake and doing a politician but still wrong of course!
Mr Howie, considering the huge gaffe you made recently, one which you refused to acknowledge or apologise for, you really should be more careful about what you accuse others of!
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
*The Supreme Pontiff of D&D, thedawgfan, nominates Acorn15's most recent post for longest post of the year (thus far) *
It was required to point out Gary's false claim. It was made up of quotes as opposed to waffling arguments.
This is like Cris Matthews Hard ball.
I am ungrateful to those teachers.
Kahlil Gibran
"The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence. He inspires self-distrust. He guides their eyes from himself to the spirit that quickens him. He will have no disciple."
Amos Bronson Alcott
Originally posted by Acorn15:
You still stand accused of making false accusations Gary.
Yes, but the accusation comes from you. So....it's not of any great concern! I'll live. And I probably won't wake up in a cold sweat tonight!
I was also once accused of farting on a train. By a drunken bum covered in a decades worth of unwashed stench. You can imagine my embarrassment.....similar to now really!
Originally posted by Acorn15:
It was required to.....
....boost his hurt pride!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
And I nominate adding Denny another self assessing great mind to the resident wee group of the Crazy Gang membership here (!)
Why thank you, you all had to start small reckon
Originally posted by Acorn15:
It was required to point out Gary's false claim. It was made up of quotes as opposed to waffling arguments.
I shall stay out of y'alls tiff.
I was just trying to put some humour in there amongst this most interesting court battle.
Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:
This is like Cris Matthews Hard ball.
Chris Matthews show hasn't been hard ball since Obama got elected. It's been Christ Matthews Soft Ball since January. I'll never forget seeing this episode of his show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPk1gOdSkdM(Talk about kissing arse.....
)Originally posted by grysmn:
The ideal way to determine who to support in the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. Would be to hold a contest where which ever government wins gains the support of all outsiders. This contest would last five years. The winning government would be determined by it's support of equality of freedom for all religions, atheists and agnostics. Furthermore the court systems fairness must based on the merits of case presentation and not the religion or non religion of the plaintiffs. Winner takes all, winner gets all the support!
Erm, you do realize that the Palestinians would win hands down by way of your suggestion? The only major country to support Israel economically and militarily is us (US) of course.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Chris Matthews show hasn't been hard ball since Obama got elected.
I haven watch it since OBAMAMAMA took office.. But you got my drift?
I am ungrateful to those teachers.
Kahlil Gibran
"The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence. He inspires self-distrust. He guides their eyes from himself to the spirit that quickens him. He will have no disciple."
Amos Bronson Alcott
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
episode of his show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPk1gOdSkdM
(Talk about kissing arse.....
i couldn't bring myself to watch anything past. A Speech worthy of Abraham Lincoln...
I am ungrateful to those teachers.
Kahlil Gibran
"The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence. He inspires self-distrust. He guides their eyes from himself to the spirit that quickens him. He will have no disciple."
Amos Bronson Alcott
Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:
A Speech worthy of Abraham Lincoln...
I am all choked up....definitely should be part of curriculum.
I was thinking the best way to determine the winning government worthy of outside support would be to select three groups of people, equally represented of religious, and sexual orientation groups, from Gaza, West Bank and Israel. Pay each member of the various groups a thousand dollars each to parade their religious and sexual preferences for one mile in the three largest cities in Gaza, the three largest cities W. bank and the three largest cities in Israel. So that each member who survives could possible collect up to $9k.The government deemed most worthy of outside support will be the government of the area most chosen by the marchers for the locations of their parades displaying their preferences. Governments that respect the right to exercise choice of religion, non religion and sexual preference, deserve to be supported.
Originally posted by grysmn:
I was thinking the best way to determine the winning government worthy of outside support would be to select three groups of people, equally represented of religious, and sexual orientation groups, from Gaza, West Bank and Israel. Pay each member of the various groups a thousand dollars each to parade their religious and sexual preferences for one mile in the three largest cities in Gaza, the three largest cities W. bank and the three largest cities in Israel. So that each member who survives could possible collect up to $9k.The government deemed most worthy of outside support will be the government of the area most chosen by the marchers for the locations of their parades displaying their preferences. Governments that respect the right to exercise choice of religion, non religion and sexual preference, deserve to be supported.
Alternatively, might I suggest something as equally sensible, but a lot more practical. Why not get all the candidates to pick their noses and flick the boogers. Whoever can flick their bogey the furthest wins everything.
Originally posted by garydenness:
Alternatively, might I suggest something as equally sensible, but a lot more practical. Why not get all the candidates to pick their noses and flick the boogers. Whoever can flick their bogey the furthest wins everything.
No fair your level of expertise places you at the expert level.
Originally posted by grysmn:
No fair your level of expertise places you at the expert level.
You bet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7620705/Benjamin-Netanyahu-defies-Barack-Obamas-demands-over-East-Jerusalem.html
Originally posted by Acorn15:
If true, should the USA continue supplying money and cheap arms? Where is the quid pro quo?
If I explain why the USA should continue supplying money and cheap arms, and where the quid pro quo is, will you then suggest I missed something that you hadn't written in your post?
Originally posted by garydenness:
If I explain why the USA should continue supplying money and cheap arms, and where the quid pro quo is, will you then suggest I missed something that you hadn't written in your post?
Not in the least, if you actually address the question (I HAVE asked a question in this case).