It was intentional, not a mistake, it was a planned and executed event.
When Israel makes a mistake, so they claim, innocent civilians die.
When Israel makes a mistake, so they claim, innocent civilians die.
Should Israel strike Iran?
- Thread starter The Kin2
- Start date
Quote from bsmeter:
You were doing ok, but then you had to post this!
Well unlike most Americans at least you're trying. Keep going.
The areas on the tip of South Africa were mostly uninhabited wilderness when the original Dutch settlers got there. At a point they wound up running into the Zulu inhabitants further North and had some wars. However, the blacks that were in South Africa at the time of the overthrow were not Zulus ( Zulus actually supported the White South Africans) they were immigrants and descendants of former slaves brought into South Africa.
You could try for a thousand posts and you will never get zEVADER to answer your question. This is his favourite trolling method. Remember RM's warning - the exchange you are having with Z right now, in his eyes, is not about the subject at hand - it is all about trolling you, getting you to respond. The only thing he wants is responders, people who will engage him in debate. That's why he hates hap, RM, and I, along with so many others here. We won't engage him anymore, we just hammer at him whenever he posts nonsense.
Well the Iranians do not seem to understand the situation.
Israel has tactical nuclear weapons, and their pilots are the best in the mideast theatre. I'd like to fly over there myself and drop the big one right onto president Ahmadiinejad's ass. I think the sooner we vaporize that jerk the better.
In fact, lets just nuke the whole country and start over.
Steve
Israel has tactical nuclear weapons, and their pilots are the best in the mideast theatre. I'd like to fly over there myself and drop the big one right onto president Ahmadiinejad's ass. I think the sooner we vaporize that jerk the better.
In fact, lets just nuke the whole country and start over.
Steve
FWIW I dont believe the US supplied any arms to Britain pre 1941, they did however aid in sending boots, clothing, food and transports, all of which were extremely impt in helping Britain.
Didnt Germany have an alliance with Japan knowing full well the plan would be for them to control the Pacific, including the US interests there, thereby having the Japanese fight the US?
Your ridiculous claim that I don't have the "guts" to answer your poorly phrased questions on an anonymous message board is absolutely absurd, and typical of the aggressive personality you have been demonstrating of late.
Sorry, I am not a fanatical black and white thinker who knows with self righteous certainty what was or was not the absolutely right thing to do. It was not my decision to make.
There is much to much complexity to spout such ridiculous notions that anyone knows what was "right" or "wrong" when long term implications are not known. Might as well ask is it right to have a doctrine of preemption.
I don't have a certain answer, as what Israel did was an act of war (if Iraq had done the reverse, you would certainly call it an act of war), and the doctrine of preemption that we are seeing in Iraq right now is generating the seeds that may well create even more harm and danger to the US than existed before Saddam.
As I have never seen Saddam as a suicidal maniac, and knowing that it is suicide for anyone to use nuclear weapons against a country that has an arsenal of them, I am not convinced that Saddam's efforts being curbed have really made things better in that area.
I have said before, I believe in a balance of power, and the power vacuum that is now gone with Saddam's departure shows the type of insanity that follows.
Sorry, I am not a fanatical black and white thinker who knows with self righteous certainty what was or was not the absolutely right thing to do. It was not my decision to make.
There is much to much complexity to spout such ridiculous notions that anyone knows what was "right" or "wrong" when long term implications are not known. Might as well ask is it right to have a doctrine of preemption.
I don't have a certain answer, as what Israel did was an act of war (if Iraq had done the reverse, you would certainly call it an act of war), and the doctrine of preemption that we are seeing in Iraq right now is generating the seeds that may well create even more harm and danger to the US than existed before Saddam.
As I have never seen Saddam as a suicidal maniac, and knowing that it is suicide for anyone to use nuclear weapons against a country that has an arsenal of them, I am not convinced that Saddam's efforts being curbed have really made things better in that area.
I have said before, I believe in a balance of power, and the power vacuum that is now gone with Saddam's departure shows the type of insanity that follows.
Uhhh, what do we do for fuel while we wait for the radioactivity to die down, and the radioactive winds to blow over the middle east?