Political Crossfire Forums

[yojimbo22]

Gnostic wrote: yojimbo22 wrote: I'll have to explain you how treaties work: reservations to certain aspects and articles in treaties are allowed, but only if that state has always believed in the reverse of what the article says...

You mean as in, what they wish to impose on every other nation on the planet under threat of civilian-attacking sanctions, if not exactly what they have in mind for themselves, still applies to every other nation but them that practise self-exemption....just because, maybe, militarily they can. Cute.


I never disagreed with you that the US is the worst actor on the international stage, in fact if you ever read a book on IL, or attend a course on it, the chances are the proffessors, if they are not American, will be ripping into the US' position on pretty much everything... still, if it was stricter, it would probably not work at all, and Kyoto wouldn't exist, and neither would anyone have signed the UN charter (yes, nations made reservations to that too... including the US)

[programmusic]

Gnostic wrote: programmusic wrote: if Israel followed the resolutions passed against it, it would cease to exist.

Extreme way of saying that Israel may face the horror of horrors of needing to comply with the same resolutions it wants to pass on everybody else.

There's also many valid reasons behind why Israel holds those dubious distinctions, but I suppose it will merely be passed off as antisemitic propaganda by the RW as usual.

No, any couuntry in the world would respond similarly to the way Israel responds to being attacked. Likely with less patience in most situations.

[battleax86]

Gnostic wrote: battleax86 wrote: Gnostic wrote: Chomsky? This is just plain reality. Care to debunk me by using facts and intelligent debate instead of merely calling what I say crap and accusing me of reading too much Chomsky?
If you had presented any facts, then I would also use facts. Accusing Washington of disregarding treaties at the behest of a "corporatocracy" without presenting any facts whatsoever to back yourself up doesn't really allow for the possibility of an intelligent debate. I've quite often seen how your "reality" diverges from the truth to the point where I wonder if you're living in a parallel universe that somehow has access to PCF.
How many facts do you want? How many examples of this hypocrisy do you need?
How come you haven't mentioned any?

Gnostic wrote: Any of them that I bring up you'll just poo-poo anyway with your RW rhetoric one way or another and spin it into whatever agenda best fits your argument.
In other words, I'll add a little intellectual honesty to your left-wing propaganda, something that you wouldn't want to get into the way of your anti-American twilight zone. Come on, put up or shut up.

Gnostic wrote: Like the following;
Gnostic wrote: What about the Israeli example. Care to explain that one for us?
yojimbo22 wrote: I already have. It helps to read a post in its entirety before responding to it.
You have what?
I've already explained it. Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't give one. By the way, I'm not yojimbo22... :lol:

Gnostic wrote: All you said was that Israel has'nt signed onto the NPT. That in itself is the primest example of self-exclusionary tactics I can think of, while they demand the same exact compliance they refuse to give from everyone else in the region, and that includes DC globally as well as Tel Aviv.
If you ratify a treaty, you are expected by everyone to follow it. Just because somebody else didn't sign the same treaty doesn't mean that they can't call you out for violating what you ratified.

Gnostic wrote: "We won't sign this treaty because it's inconvenient to us, but you better and you better follow it otherwise we'll sanction you to death by proxy with DC and maybe even aggressively attack you pre-emptively and without real provocation in order to enforce our corporate agendas on you and your entire population, because we CAN" is what they are basically saying, don't you think?
Wrong. Nobody was forced to sign the NPT. No one was threatening to attack any of the nations when they signed it, including Iran. Each nation did so voluntarily and, having done so of their own free will, they are expected to follow it. If they didn't like it, they didn't have to sign on. India didn't sign the NPT and nobody is threatening to attack them for building nuclear weapons. It's the same thing with Pakistan. If you don't like what's in treaty, don't sign it and then b**** about how somebody else isn't following rules that they never agreed to.

Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: Why do they think they are exempt from the same international laws and treaties the rest of the world has signed onto?
yojimbo22 wrote: Um...maybe because EVERY nation is exempt from a treaty that it hasn't signed. :lol:
lol real funny. that's just a hoot.
It's also the truth. If you're wondering why I was laughing right there, it was because I was surprised that I had to explain such a simple concept to somebody who seems somewhat intelligent.

Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: Don't you think that sort of agenda promotes states like Iran to persue a WMD program of their own?
yojimbo22 wrote: No, Israel's existence is what's promoting Iran to develop WMDs. They want to wipe them off the map.
Yawn. More RW propaganda. Like Iran is stupid and naive enough to think they could attack Israel with a nuke without being obliterated off the planet in retaliation, considering Israel has an extensive collection of nukes going back to the 60's.
Considering how they sent waves of suicide bombers, mostly young boys, against Iraqi troops in the 1980s, I wouldn't doubt their stupidity or naivety. The Iranian leadership doesn't think along the lines of self-preservation in what they see as a religious war. If they see a chance to destroy Israel, they just might do it, regardless of what might happen to them, because they'll be considered Islamic heroes and, if they're lucky, be martyred and get 70 virgins.

Gnostic wrote: Maybe Iran sees the self-exclusionary stance of the Zionists, coupled with their brutal repressions of the Palestinians, and maybe they merely desire protection and self defense and military parity and balance in the region. Shame on them.
Brutal repression my ass.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote: As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

Gnostic wrote: Since when did soveriegn nations ever have the right to defend themselves if they are'nt politically aligned with DC? How dare they!
They have the right to defend themselves: we're not bringing them up to the Security Council because they have a military. What they don't have the right to do is violate their treaties. They ratified the NPT and, therefore, waived their right to develop nuclear weapons.

Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: Faced with fascist hypocrisy coming from a neighbor like that, if I were prez of Iran, I'd be building myself a few nukes too. :roll:
yojimbo22 wrote: "Fascist hypocrisy." I love how you leftists throw words like "fascist" around without knowing what they actually mean. :lol:
well, Cap'n lol, in this context I use the term "fascism" to denote a political philosophy which condones brutal and blatant colonialization, intervention and aggression, and the outright contempt for international law that does'nt appease it.
Cap'n lol...you don't have anything against the smileys, do you? :lol:

Aside from the fact that this is nowhere near Israeli "political philosophy," that isn't even a correct definition of fascism. Try to stop throwing out random adjectives just because they have negative connotations. :wink:

Gnostic wrote: yojimbo22 wrote: Iran has stated its goal to wipe Israel off the map. Iran is building nuclear weapons. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on. It has nothing to do with any supposed Israeli hypocrisy. It has everything to do with the fact that Israel exists.
Aside from the valid argument over whether Israel even in reality has a right to exist in the first place, by the confiscation of land that belonged to someone else and further expansions, annexations and occupations after that, and the building of a world-wide condemned and land-grabbing wall meant to separate and disconnect and surround any future Palestinian state, as well as grabbing up all the water rights.....whew....
Aside from the fact that I could knock down three-fourths of your stated arguments against Israel's existence without doing any research whatsoever, let's get back on topic...

And I'd still like to know when I became yojimbo22.

Gnostic wrote: I'll just say that I don't condone or agree with the nutcases in power in Iran or their rhetoric at times, but they have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression
That's a pretty laughable statement, considering that Israel has not committed any aggression against Iran, while Iran continues to fund anti-Israeli terrorist groups. And yes, Iran has the right to defend itself against aggression from anybody, but, again, they DON'T have the right to violate their treaties.

Gnostic wrote: and furthermore the entire Islamic Revolution's existence can be traced straight back to American/Brit interventions and coups that always, inevitable, backfire and bite the RW'ers right in the ass and make the next generation pay for it.
When all else fails, blame it on the Right. :roll:

Even if we were to pretend (for the sake of argument) that it's completely America and Britain's fault that the mullahs are in power, so what? Are you saying that because of a mistake made 53 years ago, by people who are now mostly dead, we can't do anything to prevent this mistake from having the capability to kill millions with one bomb?

Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: Same reason most international treaties are never signed by Washington without a slew of exceptions and "RUD's" and other reservations making the United States and only the United States exempt from many of the obligations they expect everyone else to abide by under threat of sanctions and even military aggression,
battleax86 wrote: And we have the right to request those exceptions...same as everybody else. 8:)
Then why bother with them at all?
yojimbo22 wrote: Because our situation sometimes requires a few exceptions, while the rest of the treaty is acceptable.
How pat and neat that is. Convenient. Nice flowery rhetoric designed to veil the true monster which lurks inside....self-exclusion and self-justified aggression.
No, it's called diplomacy and negotiation designed to protect national interests, something that every nation has a right to do.

Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: And why make yourself into one big honkin hypocrite by demanding these treaties be followed under threat of sanction on everyone else while you conveniently overlook or obfuscate or make exceptions to them? That does'nt necessarily make the rest of the world want to play fair with you either.
yojimbo22 wrote: There's no hypocrisy. If these nations wanted to request the same exception or choose not to ratify the treaty at all, they were free to do so.
Oh, but since they showed good faith in ratifying such treaties it's ok for DC/Tel Aviv to refuse to do so themselves while remaining insistent those good faith nations adhere to the agreements tooth and nail. Funny, that.
Hey, if you don't sign a contract, then you don't have to follow it. If you do, don't get pissed that everybody expects you to follow it.

Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: and Israel practices the same as exemplified in their stubborn refusals to open their WMD arsenals to UN inspection while demanding the same of their antagonists.
battleax86 wrote: They demand the same of their antagonists because their antagonists have signed treaties prohibiting themselves from having nuclear weaponry. Israel has not. Therein lies the difference. :wink:
How convenient. Nice justification. Still does'nt answer the question, nor does it tackle the underlying problems with self-exemption from international law.
yojimbo22 wrote: Yes, it does answer the question. Your argument is like saying that if you sign a contract with one of your neighbors, ALL of your neighbors must abide by that contract.
Noooo....nice try though. What is actually being said here, by your side, is that if I enter into an agreement with my neighbor and sign it, and then later find some of that agreement is inconvenient to my goal of taking over my neighbor's land and restricting his access to defend himself from me, if I have bigger guns I can just ignore the agreement and threaten my neighbor with pre-emptive violence if he decides now not to abide himself.
You're wrong again. Israel never entered into any agreement regarding nuclear weapons. Iran did without being forced to ratify it by Israel, America, or anybody else. They are bound by it. Israel is not and doesn't have to be just because one of their enemies is. Your analogy was a nice try, though. Given the crappy argument you have to work with, I don't know if I could do any better.

Gnostic wrote: yojimbo22 wrote: Let me break it down into very simple terms: If you don't ratify a treaty, YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY IT.
heh, then you should'nt be up there demanding others abide by it either. Can you say hypocrisy?
It's not hypocrisy to demand that somebody follow a treaty that they ratified unless you are also violating a treaty that you've ratified.

Gnostic wrote: yojimbo22 wrote: If you do ratify a treaty, YOU ARE BOUND BY IT. If you violate a treaty that you're bound by, you are guilty of violating international law. It's not a very difficult concept to understand.
Israel has broken more UN resolutions, and refused to sign onto or submit to more international treaties and regulations, than any other nation on PLANET EARTH. That's an easy concept to understand, since it's a reality.
Really? Are we talking about General Assembly resolutions or Chapter 7 Security Council resolutions? As for the treaties, as I've already said, every nation, including Iran, has the right to refuse to sign onto a treaty. However, once they ratify that treaty, they are expected to abide by it.

Gnostic wrote: I really can't debate this anymore or the rest of your post because, simply, you refuse to see any hypocrisy or detriment or consequences to the faulty and aggressive self-exclusionary policies of DC and Israel.
On the contrary, you are seeing hypocrisy and detriment and "aggressive" policies where none exist.

Gnostic wrote: There is a million justifications for every one of their blatant transgressions and contempt for any laws or treaties which do not appease them.
Using all kinds of negative adjectives to describe American or Israeli foreign policy doesn't change the fact that there are indeed many logical and acceptable reasons for American and Israeli policies.

Gnostic wrote: They feel free to ignore any provisions, or entire treaties themselves, that the rest of the entire civilized world has embraced as basic standards of decency among nations.
So because many of the world's nations decide to sign an agreement among themselves, all nations MUST sign the agreement? That's complete bulls**t. A nation has the right to ratify treaties as it feels they are in its national interest. If a nation, be it Israel, Iran, or anybody else, feels that being bound to a particular agreement would be detrimental to their interests (in Israel's case, its surival), then that nation has the right not to sign the treaty. They can walk away from it like somebody walks away from an unsigned contract, regardless of what the rest of the world does.