Your Bloody Soap Box · Public discussion

Hamas wins?

Started by davidmc · · Last activity · 129 posts · 10,125 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Your Bloody Soap Box
Published
27 January 2006
Last activity
14 February 2006
Original author
davidmc
Posts
129
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
10,125
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 121–129 of 129
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. limerickman said:

    In recent times (the last 100 years), women in western society have been emancipated in may regards (they were given the vote in the early 20th century, for example).

    On the wider question of liberties - a lot of what may be defined as liberties
    in the West are not in fact liberties.
    I would argue that in fact vast sections of western society do not enjoy liberties.


    Yes, female emancipation is a relatively recent phenomenon

    Quoted post said:

    It's a very wide issue and not immediately on topic but it's an interesting issue nonetheless.


    That's a good one. Remember who started this thread 😕 Me :eek: 🙄

  2. something to ponder.

  3. A tough question. I suppose it depends on whether you feel absolutely certain that the mulahs would hold the world to ransom if they had a bomb. This is the fear and now even Russia is getting nervous.
    On the other hand, you could point out Pakistan hasn't been reckless with its nuclear weapons so I guess you need to carry out any action under legal authority - agreed by the U.N.

    stevebaby said:

    How does this fit in with your previous opinion of"not favouring war except in self defence"? 😕

  4. Colorado Ryder said:

    Interesting argument. You make the claim the US doesn't comply then ask me to prove they do. Wasn't it you that wanted Carrera to post sources for his statements? Practice what you preach. Show your sources that the US doesn't comply.

    Hey dude, if it's good enough for the US President then it's good enough for me...

  5. stevebaby said:

    You make a lot of spelling mistakes.
    Not much in the way of education,then..hmmm...?

    Just got back to work from the weekend. Why are you insulting me over spelling mistakes? Is it because my views differ from yours? Is this your idea of diplomacy? When you disagree with some one, attack them verbally and insult them. How diplomatic. Before you answer with (its better than going to war with some one. as you would seem to champion) dont bother because your boring me.

    You must indeed be highly educated. Im sorry for my spelling errors, can you say the same for being so rude?

  6. darkboong said:

    Hey dude, if it's good enough for the US President then it's good enough for me...

    Does that mean you can't prove they don't comply?

    dosfan.lib.uic.eduusiaea1.htm

    This link strongly suggest full co-operation by the US with the IAEA.

  7. Colorado Ryder said:

    Does that mean you can't prove they don't comply?

    dosfan.lib.uic.eduusiaea1.htm

    This link strongly suggest full co-operation by the US with the IAEA.

    Hmm, it rather proves my point :

    "1) The U.S. offer excludes activities of direct national security significance and does not contain any limitations on use of nuclear material by the United States. (Therefore, the agreement provides that at any time the United States can remove a facility from the list of those eligible for safeguards should the facility become associated with activities of direct national security significance, and the United States can transfer nuclear material from eligible facilities to any location including non-eligible facilities.)"

    Therefore IAEA Inspection is solely at the disgression of the US, and at any point the US can quite simply declare any facility to contain activities of "national security significance". Thus the US edition of the treaty is effectively useless, inspections of military significance would necessarily *have* to take place in order to comply with the NPT (as opposed to the NPT-Not-Lite-But-Toothless that the US signed up to). Iran already complies with far more rigorous requirementss, yet those aren't enough (and have been dismissed as inadequate by the US), thus the US inspection regime is also inadequate.

    George Bush agreed to adopt the additional IAEA 1998 protocols in order to provide more access to the entire fuel cycle... However :

    "The U.S. Additional Protocol is identical to that which
    non-nuclear weapons states are being asked to accept, with the
    exception that that the U.S. Protocol does not obligate the United
    States to apply the Protocol to activities or locations of direct
    national security significance to the United States."

    ie : The US-IAEA agreement is still toothless.

    With respect to the current political situation :
    Iran is quite specifically being accused of not complying with the NPT on the basis that it allegedly barred access to sites of "national security significance". Therefore I can only conclude that either the US is failing to comply with the NPT, or Iran ain't signed up to the same NPT... The latter is certainly the case, the former is highly likely.

  8. Carrera said:

    A tough question. I suppose it depends on whether you feel absolutely certain that the mulahs would hold the world to ransom if they had a bomb. This is the fear and now even Russia is getting nervous.
    On the other hand, you could point out Pakistan hasn't been reckless with its nuclear weapons so I guess you need to carry out any action under legal authority - agreed by the U.N.

    Pakistan and india have threatened each other with nuclear weapons.

  9. MPCRUSHER said:

    Just got back to work from the weekend. Why are you insulting me over spelling mistakes? Is it because my views differ from yours? Is this your idea of diplomacy? When you disagree with some one, attack them verbally and insult them. How diplomatic. Before you answer with (its better than going to war with some one. as you would seem to champion) dont bother because your boring me.

    You must indeed be highly educated. Im sorry for my spelling errors, can you say the same for being so rude?

    No.
    😄 😄 😄 😄 😄 😄 😄 😄

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.