Should the Arab countries disarm, there would be peace in the Middle East. Should Israel disarm, there would be the destruction of Israel.
Advocate, Nobody is advocating the disarming of Israel. It's about providing the Palestinians with democracy; protection of their property, freedom of movement, and equal treatment under its laws.
Nobody would advocate for the disarming of the US. If they did, they would be seen as fools.
cicerone imposter wrote:Advocate, Nobody is advocating the disarming of Israel. It's about providing the Palestinians with democracy; protection of their property, freedom of movement, and equal treatment under its laws.
Nobody would advocate for the disarming of the US. If they did, they would be seen as fools.
What are you talking about? Pals in Israel always had those things. Those outside of Israel had them until after the '67 war. Before that, when Israelis had never set foot in Palestine, the Pals mounted hundreds of attacks on Israel.
cicerone imposter wrote:Advocate, Nobody is advocating the disarming of Israel. It's about providing the Palestinians with democracy; protection of their property, freedom of movement, and equal treatment under its laws.
Nobody would advocate for the disarming of the US. If they did, they would be seen as fools.
Nobody would??
Wanna bet?
http://freepress.org/journal.php?strFunc=display&strID=19&strJournal=8
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcode.pl?frame=right2&type=srchres&case=/data/uscode/t21t25/2289.htm
Quote:As used in this chapter -
(a) The terms ''arms control'' and ''disarmament'' mean the
identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control,
reduction, or elimination, of armed forces
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcode.pl?frame=right2&type=srchres&case=/data/uscode/t21t25/2288.htm
http://www2.wcc-coe.org/iraqstatements.nsf/0/75ee207378911489c1256cfb005296f3?
OpenDocument
Quote:We wonder whether the international community should propose another: to disarm the United States and all other States of weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated war paraphernalia.
So as you can see, there actually ARE people calling for the US to be disarmed,and the part of the US code I quoted could be read to mean the US to disarm also.
mysteryman wrote:So as you can see, there actually ARE people calling for the US to be disarmed,and the part of the US code I quoted could be read to mean the US to disarm also.
Could you please explain, why definitons from the "ARMS EXPORT CONTROL - Control of arms exports and imports" "could be read to mean the US to disarm"?
Are you really saying that an US-President is going to disarm the US?
Quote:Presidential control of exports and imports of defense articles and services, guidance of policy, etc
Walter Hinteler wrote:mysteryman wrote:So as you can see, there actually ARE people calling for the US to be disarmed,and the part of the US code I quoted could be read to mean the US to disarm also.
Could you please explain, why definitons from the "ARMS EXPORT CONTROL - Control of arms exports and imports" "could be read to mean the US to disarm"?
Are you really saying that an US-President is going to disarm the US?
Quote:Presidential control of exports and imports of defense articles and services, guidance of policy, etc
From this link...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcode.pl?frame=right2&type=srchres&case=/data/uscode/t21t25/2288.htm
We get this ...
Quote:An ultimate goal of the United States is a world which is free
from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of armaments;
in which the use of force has been subordinated to the rule of law;
and in which international adjustments to a changing world are
achieved peacefully. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide
impetus toward this goal by creating a new agency of peace to deal
with the problem of reduction and control of armaments looking
toward ultimate world disarmament
Is the US part of the world?
WORLD DISARMAMENT could be read to include the US.
Walter Hinteler wrote:mysteryman wrote:So as you can see, there actually ARE people calling for the US to be disarmed,and the part of the US code I quoted could be read to mean the US to disarm also.
Could you please explain, why definitons from the "ARMS EXPORT CONTROL - Control of arms exports and imports" "could be read to mean the US to disarm"?
Are you really saying that an US-President is going to disarm the US?
Quote:Presidential control of exports and imports of defense articles and services, guidance of policy, etc
You have to understand that MM is a literalist.
Advocate wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:mysteryman wrote:So as you can see, there actually ARE people calling for the US to be disarmed,and the part of the US code I quoted could be read to mean the US to disarm also.
Could you please explain, why definitons from the "ARMS EXPORT CONTROL - Control of arms exports and imports" "could be read to mean the US to disarm"?
Are you really saying that an US-President is going to disarm the US?
Quote:Presidential control of exports and imports of defense articles and services, guidance of policy, etc
You have to understand that MM is a literalist.
If you mean that in the sense that I believe that words mean things, then you are absolutely correct, I am.
Thats why its always best to say exactly what you mean, and not to play word games.
All those calls for the disarmament of the US is just pie in the sky. It'll never happen no matter what nut-case calls for it.
FACT: The US spends more on our military than all of Europe combined.
That will not change just because some "foolish" people think their rhetoric has any value.
Who's going to enforce it? DUH!
cicerone imposter wrote:All those calls for the disarmament of the US is just pie in the sky. It'll never happen no matter what nut-case calls for it.
I absolutely agree with you.
FACT: The US spends more on our military than all of Europe combined.
That will not change just because some "foolish" people think their rhetoric has any value.
Who's going to enforce it? DUH!
You are the one that said...
[quote]Nobody would advocate for the disarming of the US
.
That is what I was responding to.
I agree that anyone that does call for that is a fool, but all I was trying to do is show you that your claim that NOBODY was wrong.
It does and has happened[/color].[/quote]
There's no cure for stupid; this world is full of them.
cicerone imposter wrote:There's no cure for stupid; this world is full of them.
You made a statement that was incorrect, that was stupid.
I corrected your mistake and passed on some information you may not have known.
That wasnt stupid.
That was sharing knowledge.
C I
don't give up your dreams.
Let us strive hard to understand this negative development
and let us leave this world without any regrets and remorse.
Individually we are good.
Together we will be better.
Under the heading of "Doh...and why the hell did it take you so long to wake up?"
Quote:Olmert Warns of End of Israel
Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:57 PM
In unusually frank comments, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned in an interview published Thursday that "the state of Israel is finished" if a Palestinian state is not created, saying the alternative was a South African-style apartheid struggle.
The explosive reference to apartheid came as Olmert returned from a high profile peace conference in Annapolis, Md., hoping to prepare a skeptical nation for difficult negotiations with the Palestinians.
Just hours after his return, the Israeli leader received an important boost when police recommended that prosecutors drop an investigation into whether he illegally intervened in the government's sale of a bank two years ago. The threat of indictment in the case cast a cloud over Olmert for months.
While Olmert has long said that the region's demography was working against Israel, the comments published in the Haaretz daily were among his strongest. Israeli officials have long rejected any comparison to the racist system once in place in South Africa.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/olmert_end_of_israel/2007/11/29/53363.html
blatham wrote:Under the heading of "Doh...and why the hell did it take you so long to wake up?"
Quote:Olmert Warns of End of Israel
Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:57 PM
In unusually frank comments, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned in an interview published Thursday that "the state of Israel is finished" if a Palestinian state is not created, saying the alternative was a South African-style apartheid struggle.
The explosive reference to apartheid came as Olmert returned from a high profile peace conference in Annapolis, Md., hoping to prepare a skeptical nation for difficult negotiations with the Palestinians.
Just hours after his return, the Israeli leader received an important boost when police recommended that prosecutors drop an investigation into whether he illegally intervened in the government's sale of a bank two years ago. The threat of indictment in the case cast a cloud over Olmert for months.
While Olmert has long said that the region's demography was working against Israel, the comments published in the Haaretz daily were among his strongest. Israeli officials have long rejected any comparison to the racist system once in place in South Africa.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/olmert_end_of_israel/2007/11/29/53363.html
If you think Israel will be perceived by its own people to be "finished" if a Palestinian state is not created, what do you think its people will want done with their country's nuclear weapons when Israel is nearly finished?
Annapolis may be a total waste of time and energy. It should be kept in mind that about 50 % of the Jews in Israel are relative to Jews who escaped from Arab countries.
Accept Israel as the Jewish State? "Never," Say Arab Leaders
by Daniel Pipes, Jerusalem Post, November 29, 2007
Surprisingly, something useful has emerged from the combination of the misconceived Annapolis meeting and a weak Israeli prime minister, Ehud ("Peace is achieved through concessions") Olmert. Breaking with his predecessors, Olmert has boldly demanded that his Palestinian bargaining partners accept Israel's permanent existence as a Jewish state, thereby evoking a revealing response.
Unless the Palestinians recognize Israel as "a Jewish state," Olmert announced on November 11, the Annapolis-related talks would not proceed. "I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state."
He confirmed these points a day later, describing the "recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people" as the "launching point for all negotiations. We won't have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people." The Palestinian leadership, he noted, must "want to make peace with Israel as a Jewish state."
Raising this topic has the virtue of finally focusing attention on what is the central topic in the Arab-Israeli conflict - Zionism, the Jewish nationalist movement, a topic that typically gets ignored in the hubbub of negotiations. Since nearly the birth of the state, these have focused on the intricacies of such subsidiary issues as borders, troop placements, armaments and arms control, sanctities, natural resources, residential rights, diplomatic representation, and foreign relations.
The Palestinian leadership responded quickly and unequivocally to Olmert's demand:
The Higher Arab Monitoring Committee in Nazareth unanimously called on the Palestinian Authority not to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Salam Fayad, Palestinian Authority "prime minister": "Israel can define itself as it likes, but the Palestinians will not recognize it as a Jewish state."
Yasser Abed Rabbo, secretary general of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's executive committee: "This issue is not on the table; it is raised for internal [Israeli] consumption."
Ahmad Qurei, chief Palestinian negotiator: "This [demand] is absolutely refused."
Saeb Erekat, head of the PLO Negotiations Department: "The Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity.
There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined."
Erekat's generalization is both curious and revealing. Not only do 56 states and the PLO belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, but most of them, including the PLO, make the Shari?'a (Islamic law) their main or only source of legislation. Saudi Arabia even requires that every subject be a Muslim.
Further, the religious-national nexus extends well beyond Muslim countries. Argentinean law, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe points out, "mandates government support for the Roman Catholic faith. Queen Elizabeth II is the supreme governor of the Church of England. In the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, the constitution proclaims Buddhism the nation's ?'spiritual heritage.'
?'The prevailing religion in Greece,' declares Section II of the Greek Constitution, ?'is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ'."
So, why the mock-principled refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state? Perhaps because the PLO still intends to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state.
Note my use of the word "eliminate," not destroy. Yes, anti-Zionism has until now mainly taken a military form, from Gamal Abdel Nasser's "throw the Jews into the sea" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "Israel must be wiped off the map." But the power of the Israel Defense Forces has prodded anti-Zionism toward a more subtle approach of accepting an Israeli state but dismantling its Jewish character. Anti-Zionists consider several ways to achieve this:
Demography: Palestinians could overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel, a goal signaled by their demand for a "right of return" and by their so-called war of the womb.
Politics: Arab citizens of Israel increasingly reject the country's Jewish nature and demand that it become a bi-national state.
Terror: The 100 Palestinian attacks a week during the period, September 2000-September 2005 sought to induce economic decline, emigration, and appeasement.
Isolation: All those United Nations resolutions, editorial condemnations, and campus aggressions are meant to wear down the Zionist spirit.
Arab recognition of Israel's Jewish nature must have top diplomatic priority. Until the Palestinians formally accept Zionism, then follow up by ceasing all their various strategies to eliminate Israel, negotiations should be halted and not restarted. Until then, there is nothing to talk about.
Advicate, Get a hold of the current National Geographic magazine, and turn to page 58. Read that article, and tell us you're willing to submit yourself to a life like the Palestinians in Israel?
Can't you post it? Muslim-Israelis, in general, have lives better than Muslims in the rest of the ME.
Advocate wrote:Can't you post it? Muslim-Israelis, in general, have lives better than Muslims in the rest of the ME.
Your ignorance on this issue is overwhelming. Your mental block refuses to acknowedge facts about Israel that is unlike your ability to "see" other issues in the clear light of day.
