Originally Posted by senojekips

Originally Posted by San Diego Foreign Policy Examiner
By far the greatest threat to U.S. national security is the willful unapologetic ignorance of the average American citizen. The average American tends to not care about everything that does not affect them directly. It is a worldwide recognizable trait that all other people of the world seem to know except Americans. Source: http://www.examiner.com/foreign-poli...ional-security

It would appear that you are a perfect example of the above.

Did you also read the comments? I don't think so.

The fact that they are not abiding by a voluntary treaty carries about as much weight as the US chewing Australia's @rse about not dropping all trade barriers to their goods, while they give US grain farmers subsidies to compete against us worth almost as much as our trade share. The US is in no position to hold the blowtorch on anyone's feet about "trust". We may not buck about it on a diplomatic level, but that does not mean that we are so stupid as to not be aware of what is going on.

It seems to be a two way street :
"While the U.S. has moved forward with several free trade agreements, our competitors are aggressively negotiating new market access. Australia, Canada, the EU and the Mercosur block are all negotiating agreements with wheat importing countries that, if implemented, would put U.S. wheat farmers at a price disadvantage due to often dramatic differences in tariffs. "
2012 National Trade Estimate Report Foreign Trade Barriers
BTW if Australia is not happy with it they can file a complaint at the WTO. But I think it has nothing to do with Australian policy but with your opinion.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Did you also read the comments? I don't think so.

Yes I did. Read the last line of my quote.
So many Americans didn't agree with it, considering the article, that is hardly surprising, and it further proves the point of the writer, who you will note is an American writing for a US publication (Jaja Malik Atenra is a graduate of the University of San Diego, with a Master degree in Teaching with an emphasis in International Relations. He also holds a B.A. in Anthropology from the San Diego State University. Currently Jaja is conducting independent research on the impact of U.S. foreign policy in Africa. Areas of Focus: U.S. Foreign Policy, Africa, Terrorism, Security Issues, Islam, Nuclear Non-Proliferation.)

Originally Posted by VDKMS

It seems to be a two way street :
"While the U.S. has moved forward with several free trade agreements, our competitors are aggressively negotiating new market access. Australia, Canada, the EU and the Mercosur block are all negotiating agreements with wheat importing countries that, if implemented, would put U.S. wheat farmers at a price disadvantage due to often dramatic differences in tariffs. "
2012 National Trade Estimate Report Foreign Trade Barriers
BTW if Australia is not happy with it they can file a complaint at the WTO. But I think it has nothing to do with Australian policy but with your opinion.

It is free trade (without Government protectionism) Australia has no trade tariffs, nor do we undertake "dumping" at less than cost like the EU, therefore Australia is quite within its rights to negotiate favourable agreements, that is the whole idea of free trade within the meaning of the agreement. If the US can't compete in this field that is not our fault, they should try improving their farming practices, not trying to hobble us because we have been willing to make huge sacrifices in the past, and exploit our natural seasonal advantage with sales to the Northern hemisphere. We can't compete with the US in corn production, so we produce the crops where we have a natural advantage, and we don't complain about our inability to compete in corn (or dozens of other things).

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Do you not recall me saying it was hypocritical? Even though it is hypocritical, they still have a right to call foul when someone breaks an agreement with them. Sure it causes them to lose respect and credibility, I never said it didn't. I am basically saying that U.S, Israel, and all other countries protesting Iran have a right to do so, even though what they are doing is hypocritical.

Read back through you own posts, I don't think you know what you are saying. You have just admitted that it's hypocritical, and yet you still want to do it and wonder why you lose respect and credibility. Which is the point I was making. (Shakes head)

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

We all look after our national interest, however when one forgets all else just for national interest, it becomes complete selfishness.

Thank you,... now turn around and take a look in the mirror....

So why exactly are you decrying another country for doing what you freely admit is only natural behaviour?

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

For example: Why are you complaining about Israel "colonizing" Palestine, when Great Britain (I am sure you're ancestors are from there), colonized Australia from the Aboriginals?

You will say "because times were different", but I see that as only an excuse.

A "excuse", eh??... I suppose that it's just a coincidence that when Australia and the US were colonised, there were no International agreements against it, whereas that is not the case with Israel in 1947??

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Where in the hell did you get that information?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ions-rise.html

China Threatens World War Three If Anyone Attacks Iran 2011 - YouTube

China Threatens World War Three If Anyone Attacks Iran 2011 - YouTube

Its all over the damn internet look it up.....Iv done my research trust me. Im not the kind of person who talks about something i don't know about.

Iran getting nuclear missiles isn't that bad. They haven't done anything wrong. All that Iran said was that the political elite of Iran needs to be removed and not the country itself. Having a nuclear weapon is good as a feeling of safety in case a nuclear war does happen. For example if your country has no nukes and someone decides to nuke you there isn't anything you can do about it, but if you have nukes the people thinking about bombing you with there nukes might reconsider due to the consequences that might occur. Perfect example is the cold war.

Originally Posted by YuriBierazo

Iran getting nuclear missiles isn't that bad.

VD just doesn't want to see Iran get nukes because he knows that it will neutralise Israel's "big stick" advantage over Iran. Knowing that any country would need very few nukes to effectively turn postage stamp sized Israel into a green glass dessert. You'll note that he's never said a word against Israel's nuclear capability.

It's called, mutually assured destruction and as you pointed out, it has worked before.

Originally Posted by YuriBierazo

Iran getting nuclear missiles isn't that bad. They haven't done anything wrong. All that Iran said was that the political elite of Iran needs to be removed and not the country itself. Having a nuclear weapon is good as a feeling of safety in case a nuclear war does happen. For example if your country has no nukes and someone decides to nuke you there isn't anything you can do about it, but if you have nukes the people thinking about bombing you with there nukes might reconsider due to the consequences that might occur. Perfect example is the cold war.

You do realize the difference between Russia and U.S and some other countries, right? The more countries get nukes, increases the chance someone using a nuke. That is simple.

As for me, I personally don't care if they get a nuke or not, but others do not want them with it. The main worry is that the M.E will turn into a nuclear arms race, which is very possible.

Are we to believe everyone on Earth hold simple logic that will keep them from using nuclear war heads? Not sure if I trust the unexpectedness of humanity with so much destructive weapons.

If no one or not as many have nukes, the chances of someone using a nuke is vastly lowered.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

You do realize the difference between Russia and U.S and some other countries, right?

No,... please tell us what this difference is,....

Originally Posted by senojekips

Read back through you own posts, I don't think you know what you are saying. You have just admitted that it's hypocritical, and yet you still want to do it and wonder why you lose respect and credibility. Which is the point I was making. (Shakes head)

I still want to do what? I am telling you why they (the west and Israel) have a legitimate, despite contradicting concern. I do not wish either way on this situation. I do not want Iran with nukes due to my speculation of a possible nuclear arms race in the M.E. I also do not wish an attack on Iran. I am simply stating that this could be over quickly if they comply. If they have nukes, a planned attack on them is definately increased possibility. If they prove they don't have it, then they can rub it in the faces of the west.

Hypocracy do not destroy legitimacy... Only respect and credibility.

Now that I think about it... Are you talking about me calling out China or Iran?

Thank you,... now turn around and take a look in the mirror....

So why exactly are you decrying another country for doing what you freely admit is only natural behaviour?

I can name quite a few things U.S done that wasn't in its immediate national interest for the benefit of others. I can not, however find much the same for China... Could be they don't air their good deeds, but because I don't see it, it don't exist to me.

A "excuse", eh??... I suppose that it's just a coincidence that when Australia and the US were colonised, there were no International agreements against it, whereas that is not the case with Israel in 1947??

Yes that is an excuse. What they did was still wrong, it do not matter what authority was in place at the time. Because you want extreme measures taken on Israel, then why don't you advocate the same for your country?

Again.... Many Nazis that were tried, were tried before the laws were set. Laws were drafted just to set a trial for many of the nazis. By your logic, they shouldn't have been sentenced.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

I still want to do what? I am telling you why they (the west and Israel) have a legitimate, despite contradicting concern. I do not wish either way on this situation. I do not want Iran with nukes due to my speculation of a possible nuclear arms race in the M.E. I also do not wish an attack on Iran. I am simply stating that this could be over quickly if they comply.

Like most International Islamic terrorism and the ongoing problems in the middle east that causes it, could be over quickly if the US stopped supporting the Israelis? So you feel it was OK when the US and Russia had nukes, but you don't think anyone else should be able to use then for their defence?

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Hypocracy do not destroy legitimacy... Only respect and credibility.

There is no legitimacy, you have no right to deny other sovereign countries that which you have yourself, and your argument is hypocritial.

[quote=RayManKiller3;622341]Now that I think about it... Are you talking about me calling out China or Iran?[quote] Haven't you been reading my posts?

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

I can name quite a few things U.S done that wasn't in its immediate national interest for the benefit of others.

Away you go, list them, and I'm not talking about "immediate" national interest whatever that is, I'm talking about the expectation of something in return.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Yes that is an excuse. What they did was still wrong, it do not matter what authority was in place at the time. (There was no "authority" at the time) Because you want extreme measures taken on Israel, then why don't you advocate the same for your country?

Obviously it is not an excuse in the case where no law was broken, no excuse was needed at that time, every major maritime country in the world was colonising other countries. This was not true in 1947.

I owned many firearms which are now illegal in my country, I do not have to apologise for having them at that time, because i was breaking no law, and no, that is not an "excuse". Same thing,....

The English settlers in Australia broke no International laws, they also made it a capital crime to murder the natives here in 1832. We have since admitted to the Aboriginals, and the world, that it is their country we have formally apologised and have recognised this fact in law, we also pay every Aboriginal man woman and child a clearly defined agreed "rent" for the land they have given up, paid every two weeks.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Again.... Many Nazis that were tried, were tried before the laws were set. Laws were drafted just to set a trial for many of the nazis. By your logic, they shouldn't have been sentenced.

I can see that this is going to take some time, so I think you had better start another thread before I answer.

OK,.... List the Nazis that were charged and convicted, without having committed any International crime at that time of the alleged offence.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Like most International Islamic terrorism and the ongoing problems in the middle east that causes it, could be over quickly if the US stopped supporting the Israelis? So you feel it was OK when the US and Russia had nukes, but you don't think anyone else should be able to use then for their defence?

The problem with you're statement is that I do not believe U.S stopping support of Israel will reduce Islamic terrorism to the extent it sounds like you saying. Also I have no where supported U.S and the Soviets/Russians having nukes./

We are trying to REDUCE the amount of countries with nukes, thereby we can convince ourselves that we may reduce it ourselves.

There is no legitimacy, you have no right to deny other sovereign countries that which you have yourself, and your argument is hypocritial.

So you're talking about nuclear weapons? U.S has a right to call this out because it is following the NPT. The fact is Iran did sign it. Even leaving NPT, they can still get sanctioned lol. We signed a new START with Russia which like before, we will comply with.

However, U.S will hesistate to keep reducing its arsenal if it see other countries obtaining it.

In fact we sanctioned Israel for having nukes until the 6 day war by what I read. We sanctioned Pakistan and India as well until Bush excepted them of the list.

Away you go, list them, and I'm not talking about "immediate" national interest whatever that is, I'm talking about the expectation of something in return.

Something is always expected in return... What you are saying is broad. I am talking about deeds that are done with little expectations for a good investment.

Obviously it is not an excuse in the case where no law was broken, no excuse was needed at that time, every major maritime country in the world was colonising other countries. This was not true in 1947.

I owned many firearms which are now illegal in my country, I do not have to apologise for having them at that time, because i was breaking no law, and no, that is not an "excuse". Same thing,....

The English settlers in Australia broke no International laws, they also made it a capital crime to murder the natives here in 1832. We have since admitted to the Aboriginals, and the world, that it is their country we have formally apologised and have recognised this fact in law, we also pay every Aboriginal man woman and child a clearly defined agreed "rent" for the land they have given up, paid every two weeks.

I agree with this not being charged before a law is set, but what you are wanting Israel to do is to go back to the "Palestinians". This is something your country have not really done. The fact you are telling them to do that simply because it is illegal now is still contradicting in a moral perspective.'

One of the main reasons your country have not done what you want Israel to do is the vast amount of time that it occurred. It is morally incorrect to try, "correcting" it that way. Not to mention Israal, U.S, and Australia are stable countries. I feel the same should apply to Israel. I believe they have soveriegnty now, as they fought for it many times over. They have been a country for more than 60 years now. I think it is too late to divide it now. I believe this to be so even if they did "steal" the lands illegally. I do not believe Israel "stole" the land though.

I can see that this is going to take some time, so I think you had better start another thread before I answer.

OK,.... List the Nazis that were charged and convicted, without having committed any International crime at that time of the alleged offence.

This will definately take some time to find. Crimes against humanity as far as I know wasn't set in stone until the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which was created in 1945.

Do you know how many critics there were of the Nurumberg trials?

Either way, the main trial was full of people that was claimed "guilty" for Crimes against Humanity.

I read Hague and can not find how they link that to the London Charter (those that support the Nurumberg trials) in order to establish legitamacy... I will drop this argument if someone can explain that to me.

For now, I will see the trials as an example of ex post facto law.