Is Russia right to oppose sanctions?

[KeyboardJockey]

how can you possibly complain about ANY other poster EVER going for the man, not the ball, when you do so, so very, very often? like, e.g. here? And if you dispute this, I WILL provide chapter and verse that you are a FAR WORSE offender than all other s on this.
post by post.
don't dispute this.
I'll tear you apart-this is a warning.
and can you please stop running away and FINALLY name the 'loads' of countries 'liberated' from tyranny by the US in WW2-'peacetime'

yes Mr White Feather answer RJ's question as well. You can ignore me as much as you want -- Do you know RY even ignored three polite PM's?? -- so not only is he a coward to discuss on here he is too cowardly to discuss the matters in hand in a private arena.

So RY are you going to answer polite questions -- or are you going to continue to shout abuse from the cess pitt.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

an answer please RY;


WELL???

I wouldn't hold your breath -- cowards are like that -- all mouth nd no action.

 

[mears]

I could add that the US continually threatens use of nuclear weapons in a 'pre-emptive' strike, in clear contravention of all treaties on such weapons of mass destruction.

So here we are again with major powers harbouring enough weaponry to destroy the World several times over, threatening war on a country over the issue of weapons of mas destruction they do not posses.

Sanctions are merely the precursor to war. Sanctions on Iraq were murderous leading to the deaths of children in their hundreds of thousands. It ups the stakes and can be almost guaranteed to provide grounds for further action - sanctions busting, economic retaliation (If Iran cut off oil supplies down goes the World economy) etc.

Did you support George Bush's invasion of Iraq? The ones that ended the sanctions killing "hundreds of thousands" of children?

If not, what policy pre - invasion would you have implemented?

 

[rogue yam]

how can you possibly complain about ANY other poster EVER going for the man, not the ball, when you do so...here?

You are saying stupid things. A charge was made against Pres. Bush (that he has "continually threatened nuclear attack"). I pointed out that this was obvious falsehood. An assertion was made about U.S. strategic policy (that we had "recently" put the nukes on the table). Again, I pointed out the obvious falsehood of the assertion (i.e. that the nukes have always been on the table since we first invented them). This is "going for the ball". You claim otherwise due to your own shortcomings.

 

[TAE]

Did you support George Bush's invasion of Iraq? The ones that ended the sanctions killing "hundreds of thousands" of children?

If not, what policy pre - invasion would you have implemented?

There was no need for an invasion, as the reason for the sanctions (WMD) was no longer there.

 

[nino_savatte]

Therefore what? Does this make Groucho's lies true?

That's rich coming from someone who lies more than a certain other poster I could mention.

 

[nino_savatte]

Did you support George Bush's invasion of Iraq? The ones that ended the sanctions killing "hundreds of thousands" of children?

If not, what policy pre - invasion would you have implemented?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!

 

[Hanfstaengl]

Did you support George Bush's invasion of Iraq? The ones that ended the sanctions killing "hundreds of thousands" of children?

If not, what policy pre - invasion would you have implemented?

How about sanctions on Israel, why should they have anymore right to nuclear technology than Iran? A tough line on Israels nuclear ambitions would have eased a lot of tensions in the Middle East, it seems like the US is solely to blame for the turmoil and that they will be the only country to benefit from it.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

How about sanctions on Israel, why should they have anymore right to nuclear technology than Iran? A tough line on Israels nuclear ambitions would have eased a lot of tensions in the Middle East, it seems like the US is solely to blame for the turmoil and that they will be the only country to benefit from it.

Well said! Although I believe that Israel does have a right to exist but if the US had been a bit more condemnatory of Israel's military use of nuclear tech (and the french who supplied a fair bit of it) then their image and relationships with governments and people in the Arab world would have been far better than it is now.

 

[rogue yam]

why should (Israel) have anymore right to nuclear technology than Iran?

Uh...because they have no oil or gas deposits to speak of and are subject to economic boycott and military attack by all of the energy producing nations of the Middle East.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Uh...because they have no oil or gas deposits to speak of and are subject to economic boycott and military attack by all of the energy producing nations of the Middle East.

Utter bollocks. The US has been involved in an extremely foolish no questions asked backing of Israel for many years. Resolutions condemning Israelli incursions into neighbouring states have been blocked by the USA. This has understandably made the other ME angry and made a just settlement between the Israellis and the Palestinians more and more difficult.

Yes Israel has been under attack but how many of those attacks have Israel brought on itself becuase of it's own actions.

 

[Hanfstaengl]

Uh...because they have no oil or gas deposits to speak of and are subject to economic boycott and military attack by all of the energy producing nations of the Middle East.

The US could have supplied Texan oil, they always seemed so very capable at propping up the Israeli state.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The US could have supplied Texan oil, they always seemed so very capable at propping up the Israeli state.

Or the US could have bought in North Sea Oil, or Venezuelan Oil etc etc. Yet another RY argument shot down in humiliating flames.

 

[rogue yam]

Utter bollocks. The US has been involved in an extremely foolish no questions asked backing of Israel for many years. Resolutions condemning Israelli incursions into neighbouring states have been blocked by the USA. This has understandably made the other ME angry and made a just settlement between the Israellis and the Palestinians more and more difficult.

Yes Israel has been under attack but how many of those attacks have Israel brought on itself becuase of it's own actions.

The question at hand was why should Israel have nuclear power. Your reply completely misses the point. Are you drunk?

 

[rogue yam]

The US could have supplied Texan oil, they always seemed so very capable at propping up the Israeli state.

I expect we would sell Israel oil and why not? The point, though, is that Israel wants greater self-sufficiency and protection from supply disruption due to attack or embargo. They are, and have been, a nation under siege. They do what they must, as they see fit. Why would anyone expect otherwise from them?

 

[Groucho]

Did you support George Bush's invasion of Iraq? The ones that ended the sanctions killing "hundreds of thousands" of children?

If not, what policy pre - invasion would you have implemented?

I opposed the invasion and the sanctions. But then, unlike the US and UK I would not have supported Saddam in the first place, nor did I agree to selling arms to Iraq.

I would support an arms trade embargo, just as I did re Iraq in the 1980s when UK and US were still selling arms to Iraq.

On the Groucho 'lies' - why not just google 'pre-emptive nuclear US' ? The repeated threat of a US pre-emptive nuclear strike seems clear enough to me to be so described. If it makes you happier insert 'implied' before threat - but Bush et al have not exactly been subtle.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The question at hand was why should Israel have nuclear power. Your reply completely misses the point. Are you drunk?

More insults from the ever verbose RY.

I haveno problem with Israel having nuclear power (the same as I have no problem with Iran having nuclear power) but your post was based on the fact that Israel was under threat from agressive neighbours who may cut off their oil supply. As I and other posters have pointed out Israel could have got oil from other sources.

Your post in case you have forgotten read
'Uh...because they have no oil or gas deposits to speak of and are subject to economic boycott and military attack by all of the energy producing nations of the Middle East.'

However, it is well documented that Israel has NOT made peaceful use of nucear power.

and btw the only drunk round here appears to be you -- drunk not on the fruits of the vine but of the foetid pus that dribbbles from Uncle Sams propaganda nipple.

Now I've clarified my previous posting

When the fuck are you going to answer my original question re the nations liberated by the USA?

Those in other nations reading RY's ranting postings must be laughing the bloody heads off at such a sad specimen of a coward.

 

[Hanfstaengl]

I expect we would sell Israel oil and why not? The point, though, is that Israel wants greater self-sufficiency and protection from supply disruption due to attack or embargo. They are, and have been, a nation under siege. They do what they must, as they see fit. Why would anyone expect otherwise from them?

So who is unfit to see otherwise, the Iranians, the Urbanites or the Uranians. All I can say is let's hope things cool down a bit and the Americans adopt an isolationist policy rather than try an inflict it on anyone else.

 

[spring-peeper]

I opposed the invasion and the sanctions. But then, unlike the US and UK I would not have supported Saddam in the first place, nor did I agree to selling arms to Iraq.

I would support an arms trade embargo, just as I did re Iraq in the 1980s when UK and US were still selling arms to Iraq.

On the Groucho 'lies' - why not just google 'pre-emptive nuclear US' ? The repeated threat of a US pre-emptive nuclear strike seems clear enough to me to be so described. If it makes you happier insert 'implied' before threat - but Bush et al have not exactly been subtle.

Actually, you were asked for a link to prove your claim that the US threatens other countries with nuclear weapons.

If ry can get chased around for not proving a link, then I suppose I can too.

So again, please provide the link or retract the statement.

 

[Hanfstaengl]

Actually, you were asked for a link to prove your claim that the US threatens other countries with nuclear weapons.

If ry can get chased around for not proving a link, then I suppose I can too.

So again, please provide the link or retract the statement.

The United States is the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in war, having in 1945 dropped two of them on cities in Japan – one on Hiroshima and another on Nagasaki. (Source Wikipedia)

 

[rogue yam]

However, it is well documented that Israel has NOT made peaceful use of nucear power.

Israel does not yet produce electricity from nuclear power. That does not mean that their development of the capability to do so is not "peaceful". (And yes, of course, I expect, as do most others, that Israel has nuclear weapons.)

 

[Streathamite]

EXPECT???? jesus.
everybody bloody knows Israel got nukes.
and can you please name the 'loads' of nations liberated from tyranny by the US?
stop cowarding out of the question.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Israel does not yet produce electricity from nuclear power. That does not mean that their development of the capability to do so is not "peaceful". (And yes, of course, I expect, as do most others, that Israel has nuclear weapons.)

So what over purpose does nuclear power have besides producing electricity? Israel has definitely contributed to the proliferation of wmd in the middle east and have jailed Israelli citizens (Mordechai Vannunu ) for publicising this.

So we have a rogue state Israel with WMD why don't we see US marines disembarking at Tel Aviv and occupying this state like they have done with such devastating consequences in Iraq.

Now fool I've answered your point so do me the courtesy of answering my original question.

 

[rogue yam]

The United States is the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in war

Yes we nuked Japan, and no, we have never said we wouldn't nuke anyone else (even absent a nuclear attack on the U.S.) but the charge on this thread was that Pres. Bush (the man) was "continually threatening" to nuke our enemies. The President simply does not make such threats. If pressed to forswear the use of nukes, or the first-use of nukes, he will say exactly what every single U.S. President since WWII has said, which is "War is always the last resort, and a nuclear strike is the war tactic of absolute last resort, but we will not take it off the table." One would think that the world would be used to this posture by now given its long-standing consistency.

 

[rogue yam]

All I can say is let's hope things cool down a bit and the Americans adopt an isolationist policy...

It seems reasonable to me that someone might want the U.S. to be somewhat more isolationist that our current posture, but I don't think that any modern, idustrial nation reliant on international commerce, etc. would be happy if the U.S. became completely isolationist. Just for starters, whose navy would patrol and defend the world's shipping lanes?

 

[rogue yam]

So we have a rogue state Israel with WMD...

In what sense is Israel a "rogue state"?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

EXPECT???? jesus.
everybody bloody knows Israel got nukes.
and can you please name the 'loads' of nations liberated from tyranny by the US?
stop cowarding out of the question.

Maybe he is one of those Americans whose real flag is this....

 

[KeyboardJockey]

In what sense is Israel a "rogue state"?

They've invaded and occupied their neighbours territory. Oppressed a proportion of their own Arab citizens, induldged in ethinic cleansing, allowed atrocities to happen when they occupied Lebanon etc etc.

Now white feather boy I answered your question answer mine.

 

[Hanfstaengl]

It seems reasonable to me that someone might want the U.S. to be somewhat more isolationist that our current posture, but I don't think that any modern, idustrial nation reliant on international commerce, etc. would be happy if the U.S. became completely isolationist. Just for starters, whose navy would patrol and defend the world's shipping lanes?

I look forward to the day that US warships are barred from the Med, only then will the region (and its neighbours) be able to go forward and develop in a sane and peaceful manner.

 

[spring-peeper]

It seems reasonable to me that someone might want the U.S. to be somewhat more isolationist that our current posture, but I don't think that any modern, idustrial nation reliant on international commerce, etc. would be happy if the U.S. became completely isolationist. Just for starters, whose navy would patrol and defend the world's shipping lanes?

I was not aware that your country was responsible for all shipping lanes though out the world - cool.

This is only in international waters, right? You leave the waters owned by other countries alone, right?