Greece rejects joint maneuver with Israel against Iran

[senojekips]

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.

I never said you did, so why are you trying to deny someone what your country has had for years?

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

From where you have 100 times as many nukes as needed to kill every man woman and child on earth,down to where you merely have 10 times enough,.... Wow, that really shows your concern, eh?

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.

we've already been through this. You have broken dozens of treaties, promises and conventions so stop whining about someone else doing the same. We all know that it is merely to enable Israel to keep their military advantage over their neighbours. I'll bet that if Australia or another of your allies started developing a nuclear deterrent there wouldn't be all this fuss.

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

So, instead of being able to kill us all 100 times over you can only do it 10 times over. I can feel the huge relief already.

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.

And,....

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.

:lol:

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.

You have the unmitigated gall to use the excuse of "morality" as a reason after what Israel has done and is still continuing to do?

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.

Are you off your medication or something? Israel,... stable? They have been at war virtually non stop since 1947 and are almost totally responsible for the rise in Muslim fundamentalism which has led to the state of International terror we have today. They have had more UN resolutions raised against their actions than any other country on earth, and you still say they are a stable country.....

I'm giving up on you, you are a certifiable lunatic and certainly not worth me trying to show what an idiot you are, you seem to do it far better than I ever could. Bye bye,....

 

[RayManKiller3]

I never said you did, so why are you trying to deny someone what your country has had for years?

Again, you are still getting lost. Because Iran had definately and willingly on their own signed the NPT agreement, they were locked into a binding contract. Upon failure to comply with the agreement, all signature-related parties are able to send out sanctions against them.

It is hypocritical in a sense, but it is still legitimate.

From where you have 100 times as many nukes as needed to kill every man woman and child on earth,down to where you merely have 10 times enough,.... Wow, that really shows your concern, eh?

I think you are missing the point of NPT. It was never expected to be quick in reducing nuclear arms among countries, especially between Russia and U.S.

It is a long term goal which requires trust in all parties... Because trust is hard to obtain, U.S and Russia reduces its arms with one another.

we've already been through this. You have broken dozens of treaties, promises and conventions so stop whining about someone else doing the same. We all know that it is merely to enable Israel to keep their military advantage over their neighbours. I'll bet that if Australia or another of your allies started developing a nuclear deterrent there wouldn't be all this fuss.

So, instead of being able to kill us all 100 times over you can only do it 10 times over. I can feel the huge relief already.

You can claim Israel is protesting so it can remain at an advantage as it definately have no reason except self-defense to protest.

Again.... Hypocracy do not at all effect legitimacy. I can not speculate what the world community would do if Australia decided to go military nuclear, as the chances of that happening is low. Due to how unpredictable such a scenario is, isn't it silly to bet on it?

As for U.S breaking agreements, the only ones I can think of at the moment are the ones concerning Native Americans.

And,....
:lol:

The point is to show that U.S is trying to be as fair as possible. If U.S was being unreasonable, they wouldn't have sanctioned Israel, the one who you claim have unconditional support from U.S.

You have the unmitigated gall to use the excuse of "morality" as a reason after what Israel has done and is still continuing to do?

I told you I do not support everything Israel does. I used "morality" to state that doing something that caused a problem (what you call Israeli land stealing), is indeed immoral. You will ruin the lives of 5 million people, a lot of them innocent, because of something you feel was illegal? I do not think that is moral. Morality is subjective though, so you probably think it is moral.

Morality do not always equal legality. This is something most should know. Just because something is legal do not mean it is moral and just because something is illegal do not mean it is immoral.

If a kid takes a lolipop from another kid, then yes you can correct this by giving it back to the original lolipop owner. This analogy do not work with with a situation on the scale of Israel.

Are you off your medication or something? Israel,... stable? They have been at war virtually non stop since 1947 and are almost totally responsible for the rise in Muslim fundamentalism which has led to the state of International terror we have today. They have had more UN resolutions raised against their actions than any other country on earth, and you still say they are a stable country.....

I'm giving up on you, you are a certifiable lunatic and certainly not worth me trying to show what an idiot you are, you seem to do it far better than I ever could. Bye bye,....

What you state is silly. U.S have been in conflicts almost non-stop. U.K has been in conflicts almost non-stop, so many countries been at conflict non-stop, are you trying to say all those countries are unstable? That is not what determines stability. Stability as in a country that is succeeding. A state that is thriving and so are it's people. Stability is determined by how well the government and it's people (or the people and it's government) stand together. What you are looking for is the word "rogue state" as you are saying Israel is a threat to world peace.

Stable as in not warring or killing itself to such a degree as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Syria (at the moment) etc. Not to mention the Israelis are a little more predictable. Do not attack them or threaten them and they will not do much to you.

 

[senojekips]

What you state is silly. U.S have been in conflicts almost non-stop. U.K has been in conflicts almost non-stop, so many countries been at conflict non-stop, are you trying to say all those countries are unstable?

Are you still trying to prove your stupidity? If so you are doing a great job. Tell us all how much land the US and Britain have stolen from it's owners and the occupied holding the owners under military rule?
Either Wake TFU or go back to sleep.

You just have absolutely no idea of what is going on in the world do you? Solid ivory from the top teeth, up.

Like I said Bye bye,...

 

[RayManKiller3]

Are you still trying to prove your stupidity? If so you are doing a great job. Tell us all how much land the US and Britain have stolen from it's owners and the occupied holding the owners under military rule?
Either Wake TFU or go back to sleep.

You just have absolutely no idea of what is going on in the world do you?

Like I said Bye bye,...

I guess we perceive "stability" of a nation differently. If we have such different views, then agreeing with one another is definately not likely, especially with your attitude.

I stated how I perceive "stability" in my post, which is in tuned with the definition of the word "stability".

Considering there are already 2 threads regarding Israel in such ways, it would probably be best to drop it.

to say something about the main topic:
I think the main reason Greece is not siding with Israel is for economic concerns.

 

[VDKMS]

Yes I did. Read the last line of my quote.

No you didn't, read the comments.

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.)

I don't care who he is it is just his opnion. All those degrees he has just tell me he is well educated, just as Danielle Busby the Texas mom accused of slashing her baby's throat, she earned a degree in economics from Southern Methodist University, graduating summa *** laude in 2001. She taught and tutored math at Dallas ISD, is fluent in Spanish, and performed missionary work in Africa and Central America.

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).

You should read this : Tilting at Windmills? Blacksliding on Energy & Protectionism in Disguise
or this Australian government car subsidies spark rift in corporate circles, and there are more. Governments are free to help their economy, some justified others maybe not, but before you attack someone you better look in the mirror first.

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??

What international agreements were against Israel in 1947?

 

[VDKMS]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...merica-Iran-nuclear-strike-tensions-rise.html

Nowhere in that article says China and Russia are going to attack the US. It is also 4 months old.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-3xeP7NFRE"]China Threatens World War Three If Anyone Attacks Iran 2011 - YouTube[/ame]

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.

It is not because it is all over the internet that it is still valid. Like your first link, this is several months old. In the mean time, China has reduced its oil imports from Iran drastically, just as the US and the EU has increased their sanctions, without causing WW3. Up until now it's the Chinese government that decides what it is going to do and not a professor or a General. Next time you do your research don't forget to check the date

 

[VDKMS]

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.:thumb:

You are quite wrong. Israel propably has nukes for several decades and not used it once. Israel only meddles in foreign countries that are hostile to her. You cannot say that for Iran. How long will it take before Iran will use it's nukes to get what it wants? It meddles in any country that strives for a religious dictatorship, with or without binding embargos. They were caught in Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen. They threaten to block the strait of Hormuz, allthough that strait does not belong to Iran alone, but also to Oman.

 

[Del Boy]

Senojekips quote:-

'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' [/quote]

''What the recipient was prepared to accept ??'

Well - would that be the one and only claim you have to 'your' occupation of their stolen lands?

Obviously then you have no genuine claim whatsoever; unlike Israel which has a formidable and undisputable claim.

On this forum I have established a number of times that claim in terms of historical links including DNA, archeology, detailed history including that of the Roman historian Josephus and the ejection of Jews from the muslim countries of the Middle East, their lands and properties and wealth stolen from them in the process, amounting to some billions.

At no time did I present the important Biblical and religious references to their presence in their homeland. I did not need to do so in order to establish the case. I see the whole of the moon and have sufficient brain power to understand both sides of a sad situation between two peoples. I have no wish to see them continually killing each other as happens all over the other countries of the middle east.

 

[VDKMS]

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.

Neither did the Israelis in 1947! A Palestine didn't exist, it was a former part of the Otoman Empire and the International Community gave the blessing for the creation of Israel. It was all legal.
And if you treat the Aboriginals so nicely then why did rights protesters burn the Australian flag outside Parliament on Australia Day?

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

Judgment at Nuremberg 65 years later. Fair process, or miscarriage of justice?

The defense of superior orders was an accepted general principle of law recognized by the community of nations. In convicting lower-ranking soldiers the Nuremberg trials were, in a sense, applying international law retrospectively. Before the trials, lower-ranking soldiers could claim that in following orders from their superiors they were not breaking any law. At the trials they were told that their actions were crimes against humanity: that their actions were criminal even though they were not in breach of international law as settled at the time that their acts were committed.

 

[George]

You are quite wrong. Israel propably has nukes for several decades and not used it once. Israel only meddles in foreign countries that are hostile to her. You cannot say that for Iran. How long will it take before Iran will use it's nukes to get what it wants? It meddles in any country that strives for a religious dictatorship, with or without binding embargos. They were caught in Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen. They threaten to block the strait of Hormuz, allthough that strait does not belong to Iran alone, but also to Oman.

Not to mention ties to Hugo Chavez, the Mexican drug cartels & an Iranian book glorifying Islamic Terrorism has been found inside the US abandoned along a trail used to smuggle Illegals into the US.

 

[VDKMS]

From where you have 100 times as many nukes as needed to kill every man woman and child on earth,down to where you merely have 10 times enough,.... Wow, that really shows your concern, eh?

What do you in fact want? On the one hand you want the US and Israel to abandon nukes and on the other hand you would allow Iran to have some!

we've already been through this. You have broken dozens of treaties, promises and conventions so stop whining about someone else doing the same. We all know that it is merely to enable Israel to keep their military advantage over their neighbours. I'll bet that if Australia or another of your allies started developing a nuclear deterrent there wouldn't be all this fuss.

That's what you say. List the dozens of broken treaties, promises and conventions please.

 

[VDKMS]

You just have absolutely no idea of what is going on in the world do you? Solid ivory from the top teeth, up.

If you would say that to yourself, that would be a big improvement.

 

[senojekips]

If you would say that to yourself, that would be a big improvement.

It would only placate pro zionist idiots like yourself, and I have no intention of denying the truth to suit your purposes.

 

[senojekips]

What do you in fact want? On the one hand you want the US and Israel to abandon nukes and on the other hand you would allow Iran to have some!

You should go back and read what I said,... not what you want me to have said.

That's what you say. List the dozens of broken treaties, promises and conventions please.

Well, you can start with virtually every treaty ever made with their own native American population,... then more recently the arrangements with the Hmong in Laos, the Marsh Arabs in Iraq.

Go on get off your lazy @rse and go and have a look for once, instead of relying on others to do your research for you.

 

[YuriBierazo]

Nowhere in that article says China and Russia are going to attack the US. It is also 4 months old.

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



It is not because it is all over the internet that it is still valid. Like your first link, this is several months old. In the mean time, China has reduced its oil imports from Iran drastically, just as the US and the EU has increased their sanctions, without causing WW3. Up until now it's the Chinese government that decides what it is going to do and not a professor or a General. Next time you do your research don't forget to check the date

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/12/china-joins-russia-orders-military-to-prepare-for-world-war-iii/

http://www.brecorder.com/top-stories/0/1171030/

Finally found the right links i wanted to post. In the second link it shows in no way has China reduced imports from Iran. Iv listen my proof and you have failed to do so about your info.

Just because a link is 4 months old doesn't mean the Chinese government has decided to just give in and not defend Iran from a powerful country such as the U.S.

 

[YuriBierazo]

Reread the second link. They are slightly reducing instead of not at all....my bad

 

[YuriBierazo]

You should go back and read what I said,... not what you want me to have said.

Well, you can start with virtually every treaty ever made with their own native American population,... then more recently the arrangements with the Hmong in Laos, the Marsh Arabs in Iraq.

Go on get off your lazy @rse and go and have a look for once, instead of relying on others to do your research for you.

No matter what is said senojekips they will not listen to us. There will probably not be an agreement over this so its pointless. Whatever happens, happens whether we want it or not.

 

[RayManKiller3]

No matter what is said senojekips they will not listen to us. There will probably not be an agreement over this so its pointless. Whatever happens, happens whether we want it or not.

Well the problem is you guys like to try demonizing U.S and Israel to use them as an example to allow Iran nukes.

For example, Seno is stating that we should not complain about what Iran is doing when we are doing the same. We are following NPT, so we are not exactly doing the same, and hypocracy do not effect legitimacy anyways. Just like you said "who doesn't have nukes anyways?"; there are only 7 (U.S, U.K, France, Russia, China, Israel, and North Korea) countries that have nukes out of the 100+ countries out there. Do you really believe increasing the number of nuclear holders out there is a good thing? Not all countries have the mentality of the Soviets and U.S, which kept both of them from using nukes or warring with one another.

I told you why the world is and have a right to protest and sanction Iran over this, which you still have not seemed to recognize. Stop making it seem like it is just U.S and Israel that is against a nuclear Iran. U.S has been following the NPT agreements and so have the rest of the western countries. Israel is NOT part of the NPT and have never been part of it. We sanctioned them for having nukes until the 6 day war. Why did we stop sanctioning them because of the 6 day war? Because it proven that Israel will be attacked over and over (at that time), until they don't exist and that nukes was the main way to prevent it.

No threat will come from Israel, U.S, or any other western country if Iran just comply with IAEA. The only way Israel can even strike Iran is with another Arab nation and/or U.S's help. They CAN NOT do it themselves. If Iran let the IAEA do its job and prove that Iran do not have a military nuke program, then no one will be willing to help Israel strike them in fear of consequences.

Just agree with that and I will stop responding to you. Who cares if China and Russia do not want higher sanctions on Iran, are you forgetting those two countries interest are in Iran? You guys make it seem the sanctions hurt only Iran, it hurts all the countries doing the sanctions as well. My goodness it is difficult to debate with you two lol.

 

[Frances69]

I told you why the world is and have a right to protest and sanction Iran over this, which you still have not seemed to recognize.

 

[senojekips]

I told you why the world is and have a right to protest and sanction Iran over this, which you still have not seemed to recognize.

We know why it's done,... It's really only being protested about at the insistence of the US and Israel, (which is the same thing). The US doesn't want the Israelis to lose their nuclear advantage. I don't seem to remember this much fuss with talk of bombings and sanctions etc., when the Israelis were found to have nukes.

As for the fact that Iran has broken a voluntary agreement, you only have to have a look at your own history to know how little that means. It's all been said before.

If the Israelis never had nukes I would agree that Iran has no need either. If you want to de-escalate this middle eastern nuclear race, let the Israelis get rid of their nuclear capability first. As yet we don't even think Iran has any, so it's stupid to ask them to step down.

I'm sure that if China or Russia started re-arming the US would too,... so why can't the Iranians defend themselves similarly?

Well the problem is you guys like to try demonizing U.S and Israel

There is no need for anyone to "demonise" Israel and their supporters, they have been doing that themselves for over 60 years far better than I could. All I have to do is point it out.