Iran supports terror groups, sure. How do you define terror groups... are you really claiming the USA are innocent? Or Russia? Or China? Or France? Or Germany? Anyway this is irrelevant to the argument, and you know it. Pure sophist waffle, and I thought that went out of fashion with Socrates. As for Germany building a fence, that would make them fascist and attempting to make Poland a ghetto. And don't cite the Berlin wall on me know, that's a different story entirely of course, but euqally inhumane. Noone has the right to build a fence at their border.
What debate? I merely stated that Iran IS a supporter of terrorists. That you could argue the US does the same isn't the point. (And no, you couldn't, incidentally, although the US is hardly "innocent", something I've never claimed.) Why in the world not? How can you turn Poland into a "ghetto" when its their own country? This is the weirdest argument I've ever read. If the US wants to build a fence on the Mexican border (you know......they way they already have) they're certainly allowed to do so.
Ah, but you are not just warning, you are advocating war. There are people who warn about Bush, and people who advocate war against him. The latter are maniacs, of course.
Odessit, PLEASE STOP RESPONDING TO IM. You're hurting your own side with some of your posts and you just encourage him to spew more nonsense. Put him on ignore. Obsessed Stalinists need someone to preach to. If they have no audience they're ossified.
the feeling is mutual at it worst state! that's funny, I lived in Iran for so long yet to hear a single anti-Judaism or anti-Christianity propaganda from mainstream.... you do realize that there are a lot of minorities living in Iran, right? and creating public hatred towards these minorities is jut too dumb to do even for the mullahs.... even when I went to church in Tehran (that would be Iran’s capital city) and Christian celebrations in Iran I didn't hear anybody complaining about mistreatment.... even laws are not strict for Christians and Jews in Iran (not as they are for Muslims)... but hey I can see the propaganda window that you view Middle East and Iran from, is really working.... they even manage to introduce Iran as an Arab state to you....
I realise you are a lawyer, but you are argueing over words rather that content. I take it you didn't get the sophist reference... never mind. As for turning Poland into a ghetto, for me one of the central aspects of building a ghetto is restricting people's freedom to move or travel out of a confined area. If Germany were building a fence at the Polish border, they would do this. Of course the term ghetto is rather ill defined, and we can spend hours debating the exact definition, but you are smart enough to realise that the main point is that no country has the built in right to restrict the right of free movement of its neighbours. Borders are arbitrary lines, and the citizens of country A have no less right to be in country B than the citizens of country B. If you don't agree with this, you should go back to Russia to make your point.
I know full well what a sophist is. The issues here are quite real rather than vocabulary based. Are you serious? Then what's the point of a country? If Iran wants to prohibit me from visiting Iran (not that it does - merely an example - I almost went to Iran this past winter), they're at full liberty to do so. Borders may be somewhat arbitrary (although they're usually not arbitrary at all), but they're certainly real lines. Speaking of sophistry. I didn't get to the US because I simply felt like going one day. If you think that's what it took, I'm frankly disappointed with your knowledge of politics and history over the past 50 years.
The issues is the idea of the fence, not the execution. arthur has a problem with the concept. If you want to discuss Israel's execution of the idea, I'm not particularly happy over some of those aspects, even though I believe concerns about it to be overblown.
That's completely wrong. Israel has no particular problems with Iran. Iran is choosing to have a problem with Israel.
Let's all see this through: Terrorism is caused by Terrorists who claimed that they are fighting for the suffering Palestinians brothers. Who made Palestinians suffer? Israelis. Who supports Israel? USA. Therefore terrorists attacked USA. In return, USA attacked Afghanistan which housed the terrorists, and Iraq which has nothing to do with 9/11 but has lots of oil. The war seems to be in a cycle of perpetuity that nobody seems to be winning (except HALLIBURTON maybe) Many wisemen in Washington realize that in order to get out of this quagmire, USA must do the following: 1) Give up the support to Israel entirely 2) Get out of Middle East entirely and let the chip fall 3) Mind our own business - making money from everyone who wants to do business with us And I agree.
Incidentally, can I say yet again how surprised I am that this has turned into an Israeli debate once IM showed up on the thread?
Yes, fair enough. I realise it wasn't exactly on a whim that your parents decided to leave Russia. But I fail to understand how you can believe in blocking borders to foreigners given your background. Anyway, the difference seems to be that you argue from a legal point of view (where you are certainly correct), whereas I argue from a moral point of view. Anyway morals are of course also subjective (though I am suprised you, given your education, don't seem to subscribe to the Critique of Applied Reason), so we should let things lie. In any case, I need to go to bed.
That isn't the bloody point. Because, arthur, I didn't leave because I happened to like one place more than another. And the borders weren't simply "open". I haven't claimed I oppose immigration on principle. But if the United States had not let me in, that would have been their prerogative. I'd have gone to Israel. Which, oddly enough, is why I'm usually somewhat concerned about Israel, because if there's one place that would take me, always, its Israel. There is no moral right of people to live in a country of their choice. Otherwise everyone would simply move to "better" countries.
Let's see, if this was 65 years ago and say US entered WWII to help against Nazis who wanted to kill all Jews, but it would make all Germans hate Americans, you would not suggest Americans enter war? You suggest let the chip fall, or in actual translation - let Arab nations attack Isael as they did in 48, 56, 67, 73, and see if they can destroy the Jewish state, what they have been trying to do for some time now. You are very kind, but you have to ask yourself the following question, what if it was not Israel, but a nation your parents or you were from, would you recceomend the same?
Well, isn't that just dandy. And this is when I thought the man is just confused, but I guess it's much worse than that
Yes, let the chip fall to where it may, that's the idea. If they destroyed the Jewish state, so be it; if Israel fought back and occupied the whole ME, so be it. We will be friend with either sied of them. Let the chip fall to where it may. America should remain neutral and do business with both sides as long as fight was fair and square. Of course we will denounce any inhumane treatment or evil deeds of either side of the war, yet do business with them regardless. The keyword is: remaining neutral. Today's reality is: America acts like a racist in Middle East by overwhelmingly supporting Israel, who has done lots of evil deeds to the Palestinians. That's not good. That generates hatred toward us. That's the excuse bin Laden used in 9/11 attack.
You are becoming a bigger joke by the day. Your foreign policy appears to have been drawn up with crayons.