Should the U.S Support Netanyahu?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Yeah, but those are WESTERN politicians, hence, good.

My post was in context to "How to worsen US-Arab relations." Though to be fair Pakistan isn't even Arab.

Though, the difference being, Assange would have a trial. The Minister is paying for an assassination.

The Minister. That would be the minister for the railways. Impressive. (not having a go at you....rather I find it rather amusing in a Pythonesque kind of way..)

[Zaras]

My post was in context to "How to worsen US-Arab relations." Though to be fair Pakistan isn't even Arab.

Though, the difference being, Assange would have a trial. The Minister is paying for an assassination.

The Minister. That would be the minister for the railways. Impressive. (not having a go at you....rather I find it rather amusing in a Pythonesque kind of way..)

And the Ayatollah called for a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. So?

[Gauthier]

The Minister. That would be the minister for the railways. Impressive. (not having a go at you....rather I find it rather amusing in a Pythonesque kind of way..)

And the Ayatollah called for a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. So?

Oh right, because Pakistan follows the decrees of the Minister for Railways.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

The Minister. That would be the minister for the railways. Impressive. (not having a go at you....rather I find it rather amusing in a Pythonesque kind of way..)

And the Ayatollah called for a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. So?

Salman Rushdie is a shit author?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

And the Ayatollah called for a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. So?

Oh right, because Pakistan follows the decrees of the Minister for Railways.

Just as well there were no silly walks involved!

[Ralkovia]

And the Ayatollah called for a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. So?

Oh right, because Pakistan follows the decrees of the Minister for Railways.

No, because someone is paying for an American citizen to be murdered.

[Zaras]

Oh right, because Pakistan follows the decrees of the Minister for Railways.

No, because someone is paying for an American citizen to be murdered.

You haven't heard of paid hitmen, have you?

How is it different when brown people do it?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Oh right, because Pakistan follows the decrees of the Minister for Railways.

No, because someone is paying for an American citizen to be murdered.

Ronald Reagan funded the Contras, whose aim was to unseat, in some cases by murder, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But again, it's OK when a Westerner does it.

That, and the murder of a guy in a Dubai hotel by Mossad using British passports. But again, OK cuz not Arab.

[Laerod]

Oh right, because Pakistan follows the decrees of the Minister for Railways.

No, because someone is paying for an American citizen to be murdered.

And the government distanced itself. Not that that's enough, mind you, but they're not supporting this guy.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Oh right, because Pakistan follows the decrees of the Minister for Railways.

No, because someone is paying for an American citizen to be murdered.

Incredibly naive....School of the Americas anyone?

[Ralkovia]

No, because someone is paying for an American citizen to be murdered.

You haven't heard of paid hitmen, have you?

How is it different when brown people do it?

It's very different when that brown person is a member of a government.

[Zaras]

You haven't heard of paid hitmen, have you?

How is it different when brown people do it?

It's very different when that brown person is a member of a government.

No it isn't. It's some shit minister nobody cares about.

[Choronzon]

It's really easy to say that when your not on the receiving end.

Indeed it is. On the receiving end it must suck. However, I am not on the receiving end. I don't pretend to be interested in fairness and don't count myself as a citizen of the World. I will and have happily experienced other cultures, however I am a citizen of the US first. US interests are usually my own and work in benefit of the US and its allies.

The problem is your view is short sighted and foolish. Having everyone hate the fuck out of you in no way makes you safer and furthers your interests.

[Calimera I]

Yes, they should. It's a mather of time and Iran will seriously develop a nuclear bomb.

[Ralkovia]

No, because someone is paying for an American citizen to be murdered.

Ronald Reagan funded the Contras, whose aim was to unseat, in some cases by murder, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But again, it's OK when a Westerner does it.

That, and the murder of a guy in a Dubai hotel by Mossad using British passports. But again, OK cuz not Arab.

Again, Cold War. Stopping Nicaragua from falling to the commies and all that jazz. We were in a 'cold' war with the soviets, where every state that fell under their control, endangered the US.

Mossad murdered a bomb maker and terrorist planner. There's a world of difference between the two.

[New Roermond]

While a full blown invasion of Iran wouldn't be feasible with the state of the American and European economies,

I am convinced that the current state of the economy in America and Europe does not have very much influence on the ability to invade Iran. If the economy shrinks 1 percent it is still big enough to fund the weapons and pay the soldiers that are necessary to invade Iran.

Politically it could even be expedient to attack Iran when it goes bad with the economy. If the invasion succeeds it will give the population a feeling that the government is succesful. instead of feeling like the government is doing badly because of the state of the economy. It would also cause an increase in spending and in employment so it would even be good for the economy to attack Iran.

I don't think it would be strategical to invade entire Iran and start a war though. Obviously, the problem is only the development of nuclear weapons. Tactical attacks on nuclear weapon plants, the assassination of Iranian scientists and making sure that uranium can't get into Iran would already solve the biggest part of the problem and would be much cheaper in terms of money and in terms of human lives. Also, the common people of Iran would not have to suffer under such an attack while a full blown invasion would disrupt the live of all, and it would injure and kill too many.

Trade embargoes can also be used as a more peaceful way of making the Iranians stop their nuclear development programmes. It does mean a cost to us though, in the rising price of oil, and even more so it hurts the people in Iran who will have to pay much more for imported goods and will be unable to get some goods such as medication.

[Laerod]

Ronald Reagan funded the Contras, whose aim was to unseat, in some cases by murder, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But again, it's OK when a Westerner does it.

That, and the murder of a guy in a Dubai hotel by Mossad using British passports. But again, OK cuz not Arab.

Again, Cold War. Stopping Nicaragua from falling to the commies and all that jazz. We were in a 'cold' war with the soviets, where every state that fell under their control, endangered the US.

Mossad murdered a bomb maker and terrorist planner. There's a world of difference between the two.

Crime's a crime.

[Choronzon]

Ronald Reagan funded the Contras, whose aim was to unseat, in some cases by murder, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But again, it's OK when a Westerner does it.

That, and the murder of a guy in a Dubai hotel by Mossad using British passports. But again, OK cuz not Arab.

Again, Cold War. Stopping Nicaragua from falling to the commies and all that jazz. We were in a 'cold' war with the soviets, where every state that fell under their control, endangered the US.

Mossad murdered a bomb maker and terrorist planner. There's a world of difference between the two.

I reject your premise that we needed to stop the world from "going red." The domino theory was silly then and its silly now.

[Choronzon]

Yes, they should. It's a mather of time and Iran will seriously develop a nuclear bomb.

Which should be viewed as a good thing. Right now Israel has an arsenal, and they are the only ones in the Middle East. Another country to counter their power will make the region more stable, not less.

[Laerod]

Yes, they should. It's a mather of time and Iran will seriously develop a nuclear bomb.

Which should be viewed as a good thing. Right now Israel has an arsenal, and they are the only ones in the Middle East. Another country to counter their power will make the region more stable, not less.

Iran's not a stabilizer. Israel's ability to bully others in the region won't somehow cancel out Iran's nuclear-supported bullying.

[Calimera I]

Yes, they should. It's a mather of time and Iran will seriously develop a nuclear bomb.

Which should be viewed as a good thing. Right now Israel has an arsenal, and they are the only ones in the Middle East. Another country to counter their power will make the region more stable, not less.

Isreal is one of the only stable nations in the region. Iran has loonatic rulers. They can't have any nuclear arms.

[Ralkovia]

It's very different when that brown person is a member of a government.

No it isn't. It's some shit minister nobody cares about.

Yes it is. It's a shit minister who offered $100,000 for someone (including the good ole Al-qu or Taliban) to come murder an American citizen. He's advocating an attack on the US. The Pakistani government hasn't forced this man to resign, hasn't fired him, hasn't done anything.

[Choronzon]

Which should be viewed as a good thing. Right now Israel has an arsenal, and they are the only ones in the Middle East. Another country to counter their power will make the region more stable, not less.

Iran's not a stabilizer. Israel's ability to bully others in the region won't somehow cancel out Iran's nuclear-supported bullying.

Its a situation far more preferable than Israel being the sole power, and history has shown that another country in the region with an arsenal will bring more stability, not less.

Since you're not going to get Israel to give up its nukes, this situation will have to do.

[Choronzon]

Which should be viewed as a good thing. Right now Israel has an arsenal, and they are the only ones in the Middle East. Another country to counter their power will make the region more stable, not less.

Isreal is one of the only stable nations in the region. Iran has loonatic rulers. They can't have any nuclear arms.

There is no reason to believe that the Iranian state is not run by rational self interested actors.

[Divair]

Isreal is one of the only stable nations in the region.

Hilarious.