Malaysia warns US against attacking Iran
S Hole
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1210482,00050004.htm
Malaysia, which chairs the world's biggest grouping of Muslim
countries, has warned the United States that an attack on Iran would
be of "great concern" to the Islamic world.
Mark Test
news:92569047.05012...@posting.google.com...
Are they warning the Iranians equally regarding atomic weapons?
Mark
--
"It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."
Robert E. Lee
ignoramus
wrote:
>"S Hole" <bora_pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:92569047.05012...@posting.google.com...
>> Malaysia warns US against attacking Iran
>> http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1210482,00050004.htm
>>
>> Malaysia, which chairs the world's biggest grouping of Muslim
>> countries, has warned the United States that an attack on Iran would
>> be of "great concern" to the Islamic world.
>
>Are they warning the Iranians equally regarding atomic weapons?
>
>Mark
I don't think so. Maybe Malaysia is waiting for US to warn Israel
about its nuclear arsenal first.
John
news:qtm7v0d334aftcd43...@4ax.com...
Or even to fulfil its own treaty obligations to reduce the US nuclear
arsenal?
I know, I know, the US keeping its word in an international treaty? That'll
be the day...
amin...@netdoor.com
wrote:
OOOOOOOHHHHHHHH, we are sooooo scared!!!!! NOT
Al Minyard
Tiger
Gee, Malaysia is pissed. Oh I'm scared now........
FRED WELLMAN
"John A. Stovall" <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qo18v0p6qkp3recuu...@4ax.com...
> there.
>
> Look at all the plants there.
>
> http://www.svtc.org/icrt/corps/inttable.htm
>
You seem to forget these jobs can be moved back to the US. A minor
inconvenience compared to having your country destroyed. Fred
Observer
"Mark Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:4JQId.8216$rp1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Malaysia, which chairs the world's biggest grouping of Muslim
>> countries, has warned the United States that an attack on Iran would
>> be of "great concern" to the Islamic world.
>
> Are they warning the Iranians equally regarding atomic weapons?
Why?
Because only white shits are allowed
to have nukes?
Observer
"FRED WELLMAN" <fwel...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:V8-dnWsOyMW...@wideopenwest.com...
>> You seem to forget these jobs can be moved back to the US. A minor
> inconvenience compared to having your country destroyed. Fred
Kah..kah..kah.
Typical us country bumpkin talking...
LOL.
Fred J. McCall
:Malaysia warns US against attacking Iran
And we should care about this why, again?
--
Wheresoe’er ye be death will overtake you,
though ye were in lofty towers. -- Koran
Pan
wrote:
>"ignoramus" <remove_me...@freeonline.com> wrote in message
>news:qtm7v0d334aftcd43...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:58:40 GMT, "Mark Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"S Hole" <bora_pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:92569047.05012...@posting.google.com...
>>>> Malaysia warns US against attacking Iran
>>>> http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1210482,00050004.htm
>>>>
>>>> Malaysia, which chairs the world's biggest grouping of Muslim
>>>> countries, has warned the United States that an attack on Iran would
>>>> be of "great concern" to the Islamic world.
>>>
>>>Are they warning the Iranians equally regarding atomic weapons?
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>> I don't think so. Maybe Malaysia is waiting for US to warn Israel
>> about its nuclear arsenal first.
I am not in favor of Israel's nuclear capability, because I'm
concerned that in extremis, they may resort to it, possibly destroying
large parts of the Middle East.
That said, one salient point is that Israel has never spoken in favor
of destroying Iran, but Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction
of Israel, arms Hezbollah and other organizations dedicated to its
destruction, and has repeatedly voiced strong opposition to any peace
agreement with Israel. You might want to have a look at the article I
excerpt below:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/530512.html
"In contrast to the Iranian use of Europe, Bush's independent ally,
Cheney cites Israel as an ally even less amenable to American control.
One of the concerns, he noted in the interview, is that Israel is
liable to act against Iran `without being asked. ... If in fact the
Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear
capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their
objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide
to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the
diplomatic mess afterward.'"
>Or even to fulfil its own treaty obligations to reduce the US nuclear
>arsenal?
I'm unaware the U.S. is in breach of that. Please inform us which
provisions they're in breach of. That would be the START treaties with
the former USSR?
>I know, I know, the US keeping its word in an international treaty? That'll
>be the day...
Whether the U.S. is exemplary or not (and we certainly agree that it
isn't) is not particularly relevant to the question of whether it is
dangerous for the Iranian regime to have access to nuclear weapons.
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Peter Skelton
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>bora_pa...@yahoo.com (S Hole) wrote:
>
>:Malaysia warns US against attacking Iran
>:http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1210482,00050004.htm
>:
>:Malaysia, which chairs the world's biggest grouping of Muslim
>:countries, has warned the United States that an attack on Iran would
>:be of "great concern" to the Islamic world.
>
>And we should care about this why, again?
Being tough enough to beat anybody anytime is not tough enough to
control everybody all the time.
Peter Skelton
David
"Observer" <obser...@yahoo1.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:41f4...@news.starhub.net.sg...
I agree with you. before even have their country destroyed, the US would
have to bring the jobs back home while facing the competition of the
companies that would still have factories opened there. I guess part of the
jobs would actually not go back to the US, but rather go to China or India,
in one way or another.
Same kind of issue with Taiwan, imho. Ths US can defend taiwan, have it
destroyed anyway, and China would benefit from the destruction by gaining
wider access to the chips market (instead of Taiwan).
I think some are conscious of that in the Far-East ;)
redc1c4
oh dear, now i'll be up nights worrying about whether or not we've
offended that great superpower, Malaysia.
redc1c4,
(but then again, maybe i won't...... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
FRED WELLMAN
> build a sub-micron silicon fab plant?
>
No but I am quite sure the US built the first one. We have more chips in
junk than most third world countries have. If cost is the issue WW2 and the
Cold War should not have been fought. As far as Islam notice how little the
richest Islamic countries donated to aide the victims. Those Islamic
countries will stab each other in the back, faster than the French do, when
the chips are down. Fred
Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>"ignoramus" <remove_me...@freeonline.com> wrote in message
And what would those be?
Nicholas Smid
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b898v01a1bskes3gn...@4ax.com...
> bora_pa...@yahoo.com (S Hole) wrote:
>
> :Malaysia warns US against attacking Iran
> :http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1210482,00050004.htm
> :
> :Malaysia, which chairs the world's biggest grouping of Muslim
> :countries, has warned the United States that an attack on Iran would
> :be of "great concern" to the Islamic world.
>
> And we should care about this why, again?
>
are getting worried about what the cowboys in DC will get up to next. These
are the people the US should be promoting as models to be emulated, well
that is alegidly what all these invasions are for isn't it, to set up
democratic governments? yes I know the US definition of democratic
government, in other countries isn't anything like what the rest of us would
use, it means a government that dose what Washington says, and dosn't even
pause to ask how high when told to jump, rather it asks humbly if its alowed
to come down yet.
Oh well hopefull only 4 more years to go.
Jim McLaughlin
SNIPS
> Because moderat, democratic, Islamic states who are no great friends of
Iran
> are getting worried about what the cowboys in DC will get up to next.
"...moderat (sic.), democratic Islamic states..."...?????
And just which ones are moderate, democratic, Islamic...."?
If they are Islamic, Sharia is the domestic law, and jihad is the
underling foreign policy doctrine.
Hint: Malayasia's PM has, within the last two years, publically called
for the extirmination of all Jews, worldwide. Not just the elimination of
Isreal, but extermination of all Jews, worldwide, because of their religion.
Democratic?
Multiparty elections like New Zealand, right?
See, New Zealand is democratic by any definition. It sure as hell
doesn't do "what the US tells it", but its democratic none the less.
But you can't find a Muslim state that is democratic by any definition.
Hint: Malaysia is a one party state. Last fellow who ran against the
incumbents is doing life for treason.
Again please identify those "democratic" Islamic states.
Moderate?
Sharia, jihad?
What world do you live in and what definitions of "moderate",
"democratic" or "Islamic" apply in that world?
Or are you living in an "Alice in Wonderland / Through the Looking
Glass" world where words mean just what you want them to mean, no more, no
less, a la the Queen of Hearts?
Lewis Carroll would be proud of you.
-- Jim McLaughlin
Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.
***************************************************************************
Jack Love
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:25:08 -0500, "FRED WELLMAN"
><fwel...@wideopenwest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>Not easily. Do you have any idea how long and how much it costs to
>build a sub-micron silicon fab plant?
>
Let's see, US companies paid for the first through n-th of them. Why
wouldn't we be able to pay for new ones here?
Pan
<jim.mclaughl...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Hint: Malayasia's PM has, within the last two years, publically called
>for the extirmination of all Jews, worldwide. Not just the elimination of
>Isreal, but extermination of all Jews, worldwide, because of their religion.
That's total, unadulterated bullshit on every count, and you have a
lot of gall crossposting this crap to soc.culture.malaysia, where all
of us know the truth. You obviously never read the speech by the
_FORMER_ PM.
> Democratic?
>
> Multiparty elections like New Zealand, right?
>
> See, New Zealand is democratic by any definition. It sure as hell
>doesn't do "what the US tells it", but its democratic none the less.
>
> But you can't find a Muslim state that is democratic by any definition.
Democratic is a matter of degree, isn't it, considering the problems
with elections in the US?
The following Muslim states are democratic in some measure:
Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, and I
think Gambia. There are probably more I can't remember off-hand
(Niger?).
> Hint: Malaysia is a one party state.
Barisan Nasional has various advantages, including control of the
government-run media, but Malaysia is no one-party state. To begin
with, Barisan Nasional is a coalition of several parties.
> Last fellow who ran against the
>incumbents is doing life for treason.
Total, unadulterated bullshit.
> Again please identify those "democratic" Islamic states.
>
> Moderate?
>
> Sharia, jihad?
[snip]
What is the legal system in Turkey? Is shari'a the law of the land in
Indonesia? What is the difference between shari'a in Malaysia and
Saudi Arabia? I know it'll be hard for you to relax your ingrained
prejudices long enough to actually learn something, but it would help
you if you tried.
Kristan Roberge
Mark Test wrote:
> "S Hole" <bora_pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:92569047.05012...@posting.google.com...
> > Malaysia warns US against attacking Iran
> > http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1210482,00050004.htm
> >
> > Malaysia, which chairs the world's biggest grouping of Muslim
> > countries, has warned the United States that an attack on Iran would
> > be of "great concern" to the Islamic world.
>
> Are they warning the Iranians equally regarding atomic weapons?
The thing with nuclear weapons is that no country which possesses working
ones has even been
invaded. So iran probably figures the sooner they have 'em, the sooner
they can stop worrying about
being invaded.
Kristan Roberge
Observer wrote:
no, squinty eyed yellow ones can have them too...
Kristan Roberge
"John A. Stovall" wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:25:08 -0500, "FRED WELLMAN"
> <fwel...@wideopenwest.com> wrote:
>
> >
> Not easily. Do you have any idea how long and how much it costs to
> build a sub-micron silicon fab plant?
probably less than the saudis contributed to bush's re-election campaign.
Kristan Roberge
FRED WELLMAN wrote:
WW2 and the cold war were fought by BORROWING money from people who had
it. Well more than 25% of the USA is now owed to foreigners as is.
As to the islamic countries not donating to aide the victims, if you mean the
tsumani victims,
the probably see it as Allah getting rid of heathens anyways.
Kristan Roberge
Jack Love wrote:
paying for the factories isn't the problem, its paying for the WORKERS to
staff the factories... or do you want
to go back to paying $5000 for a bottom end IBM home computer ?
Jim McLaughlin
of democracy in Malaysia.
Explain the repression of Anwar Ibrahim in your one party, no opposition
allowed, Malaysia, and how that is "democratic".
I am sure with the "advantages" conferred by its control of the media
Barisan Nascional can spin this one, too.
Here is another hint for you: Turkey proclaimed itself a SECULAR,
not an Islamic, state in 1921 under Attaturk.
Turkey is democratic, but not an Islamic state.
There are no democratic Islamic states.
And you don't really want me posting the texts of Mahathir Mohamad's
various Hitlerite fantasies here. It'll do you ulcer no good.
If you don;t like the cross postings , take it up with Nicholas Smid,
from New Zealand, who initiated the cross posting.
I'm sure its upsetting to you, and all those like you "...who know the
truth..." ( having had it revealed to you in fatwas or Barisan Nascional
press releases) but tough sip boys. Thats the nature of the real world in
the 21st Century. Folks who have equal access to the facts disagree with
you and can and do post those facts right where you inconveniently can't
ignore and cannot suppress them.
Democracy and freedom of speech really irritate in that way, don't they.
Really galls you, doesn't it.
-- Jim McLaughlin
Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.
***************************************************************************
"Pan" <panNO...@musician.org> wrote in message
news:5789v0hsfvd38jmf4...@4ax.com...
Pan
<jim.mclaughl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Anwar Ibrahim would really get a laugh from your post concerning the nature
>of democracy in Malaysia.
I doubt it.
>Explain the repression of Anwar Ibrahim in your one party, no opposition
>allowed, Malaysia, and how that is "democratic".
First of all, I'm not Malaysian.
Anwar Ibrahim was released from jail and is speaking freely. But you
didn't notice that, just as you didn't notice that Tun Dr. Mahathir
retired as PM.
> I am sure with the "advantages" conferred by its control of the media
>Barisan Nascional can spin this one, too.
I have no interest in spinning anything.
> Here is another hint for you: Turkey proclaimed itself a SECULAR,
>not an Islamic, state in 1921 under Attaturk.
You said Muslim:
>> > But you can't find a Muslim state that is democratic by any
>definition.
Turkey is a Muslim country, as are all the others I mentioned.
[snip]
> And you don't really want me posting the texts of Mahathir Mohamad's
>various Hitlerite fantasies here.
[snip]
I know very well what he said in his speech. It was discussed
thoroughly at the time. There was a lot of good and some very glaring,
awful bullshit in it. It was an antisemitic speech, but for you to
claim that Mahathir was calling for the Jews to be wiped out is almost
insane, if you actually read the speech.
> If you don;t like the cross postings , take it up with Nicholas Smid,
>from New Zealand, who initiated the cross posting.
I'm not complaining about crossposting, just pointing out what an
idiot you are for crossposting such utter garbage about Malaysia to a
newsgroup about Malaysia.
> I'm sure its upsetting to you, and all those like you "...who know the
>truth..." ( having had it revealed to you in fatwas or Barisan Nascional
>press releases)
Once again, an unwarranted assumption that I'm both Malaysian and a
Barisan Nasional supporter. You're making a greater and greater fool
out of yourself on soc.culture.malaysia.
> Folks who have equal access to the facts disagree with
>you
[snip]
You have access to facts, yet spread utter bullshit. What's your
excuse?
> Democracy and freedom of speech really irritate in that way, don't they.
>Really galls you, doesn't it.
Not at all. I'm a civil libertarian. You, however, are either a
willful ignoramus or a deliberate liar.
Pan
<krob...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
[snip]
>As to the islamic countries not donating to aide the victims, if you mean the
>tsumani victims,
>the probably see it as Allah getting rid of heathens anyways.
Where do they think the heathens were in Aceh?
Jack Love
<krob...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>paying for the factories isn't the problem, its paying for the WORKERS to
>staff the factories... or do you want
>to go back to paying $5000 for a bottom end IBM home computer ?
>
>
>
You totally misconstrue what the effective wage differential would do.
But inumeracy is your strong point so carry on.
ignoramus
>On 23 Jan 2005 07:55:33 -0800, bora_pa...@yahoo.com (S Hole)
>wrote:
>
>>Malaysia warns US against attacking Iran
>>http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1210482,00050004.htm
>>
>>Malaysia, which chairs the world's biggest grouping of Muslim
>>countries, has warned the United States that an attack on Iran would
>>be of "great concern" to the Islamic world.
>
>OOOOOOOHHHHHHHH, we are sooooo scared!!!!! NOT
>
Of course you shouldn't be scared. He said it would only be of "great
concern".
Many of you are overreacting here......
intruder
<mark_i...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>it. Well more than 25% of the USA is now owed to foreigners as is.
>>
>>As to the islamic countries not donating to aide the victims, if you mean the
>>tsumani victims,
>>the probably see it as Allah getting rid of heathens anyways.
>So you mean even Allah makes collateral damage, 50.000 heathens at the
>expense of 150 Achenes Muslims?
I meant 150 thousand.
>>
>>
jay
hey monyet, 'kau ingat yang 150000 'tu semua-nya islam. bahlul.
John
news:46m8v0953qrse0elu...@4ax.com...
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/npttext.html
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
The NPT opened for signature 1 July 1968, and entered into force on March
5th, 1970
...
Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good
faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race
at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and
complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Surprised you haven't heard of this before!
FRED WELLMAN
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:19 -0500, "FRED WELLMAN"
> overseas.
>
> And all those chips in our junk come from plants over there. I
> suggest you read what on the chips on your computer's mother board.
>
>
Before you show more of your ignorance the first chips were developed and
manufactured in the US. This means we built PLANTS to make the chips. When
it became cheaper to send the plants overseas they did. But to make a
statement the US never manufactured chips is to stupid to believe. PLONK
Fred
intruder
what about those in bollywood land and those from the cradle of the
Taliban?
>
>
>
jay
are you trying to get one for your chief monkey benladen? keep on
wishing monkey.
i hope bush gets your tallywhacker whacked. freakin' terrorist.
jay
<mark_i...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>it. Well more than 25% of the USA is now owed to foreigners as is.
>>
>>As to the islamic countries not donating to aide the victims, if you mean the
>>tsumani victims,
>>the probably see it as Allah getting rid of heathens anyways.
>So you mean even Allah makes collateral damage, 50.000 heathens at the
>expense of 150 Achenes Muslims?
idiot, what makes you think all the achenese were muslims? dumbass.
intruder
>it. Well more than 25% of the USA is now owed to foreigners as is.
>
>As to the islamic countries not donating to aide the victims, if you mean the
>tsumani victims,
>the probably see it as Allah getting rid of heathens anyways.
intruder
Yes.
Luckily they did not have them during the Iran and Iraq war.
Or during the Israel Arab conflict, surely those Iranians would have
said they were invaded because Muslim brothers have been attacked.
>
>
>
>
intruder
tsk tsk, absolutely no sense of humor. Ignore Ingnoramus Ignore!
Better you visit those sex site of underaged girls again!
>
FRED WELLMAN
"Kristan Roberge" <krob...@ca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:41F4A7F7...@ca.inter.net...
Just exactly whom did we borrow money for WW2 from? The UK was going broke,
Russia had none and I doubt Germany was loaning. Most of the early Cold War
money was from the US tax payer. The 25% owned by "foreigners" is land and
buildings. The money we are borrowing is in the form of Treasury notes,
which are only backed by the good faith of the US Government.
>
> As to the islamic countries not donating to aide the victims, if you mean
> the
> tsumani victims,
> the probably see it as Allah getting rid of heathens anyways.
If the above is true why donate any money. In fact why should the US have
donated any money? Fred
>
Scott Ferrin
wrote:
relation to cessation of the nuclear arms race. . ."
Yeah we've done that. We taken thousands of nukes out of service.
How many has China removed from service? As for unilateral
disarmament it ain't gonna happen in your wildest dreams. Last I
heard Russia tore up START II and decided to keep their SS-18s AND are
bragging that they're deploying NEW ICBMs. And we're STILL
deactivating our Peacekeeper ICBMS when by all right we could keep
them in service. So anybody who whines that the US isn't doing their
part needs to get a clue.
John
'...and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and
complete disarmament under strict and effective international control'
was the bit I was really thinking of. Nothing there about it being
contingent on what China did, or about anything being unilateral.
I'll give *you* a slight clue; you shouldn't sign treaties you have no
intention of honouring. You shouldn't criticise other countries for breaking
a treaty you are breaking yourself either.
If anything I'd say you sound slightly whiny. I was answering your question
about which treaty disarmament obligations the US (and the other 'Nuclear
Powers') were ignoring. Sorry you didn't like the answer.
Scott Ferrin
>I'll give *you* a slight clue; you shouldn't sign treaties you have no
>intention of honouring. You shouldn't criticise other countries for breaking
>a treaty you are breaking yourself either.
Let me put it to you this way. Who IS honoring the treaty and who
broke it first? Russia scrapped START II when we left the ABM Treaty
(which is ALLOWED under that treaty). Despite that we're still taking
nukes out of service. And you DO know what a treaty is don't you?
When one side throws it away it's dust in the wind. There is no
obligation to continue to follow it by the other parties because there
IS no longer a treaty. Go whine to Russia that they should continue
to abide by the ABM Treaty and see how far you get. Or go whine to
China about non proliferation. Or Pakistan, or North Korea.
>
>If anything I'd say you sound slightly whiny. I was answering your question
>about which treaty disarmament obligations the US (and the other 'Nuclear
>Powers') were ignoring. Sorry you didn't like the answer.
Not that I don't like it, I just think your answer is uninformed. I
notice you glossed over the fact that the US has taken thousands of
nukes out of service while others have done very little if anything by
comparison and at least one signitory of that treaty is INCREASING
their nuclear platforms. But of course the US is the bad guy in your
eyes.
Fred J. McCall
:> "undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures
:> relation to cessation of the nuclear arms race. . ."
:>
:> Yeah we've done that. We taken thousands of nukes out of service.
:> How many has China removed from service? As for unilateral
:> disarmament it ain't gonna happen in your wildest dreams. Last I
:> heard Russia tore up START II and decided to keep their SS-18s AND are
:> bragging that they're deploying NEW ICBMs. And we're STILL
:> deactivating our Peacekeeper ICBMS when by all right we could keep
:> them in service. So anybody who whines that the US isn't doing their
:> part needs to get a clue.
:
:'...and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and
:complete disarmament under strict and effective international control'
:
:was the bit I was really thinking of. Nothing there about it being
:contingent on what China did, or about anything being unilateral.
Sorry, but the "undertakes to pursue negotiations" pretty much says
it's not unilateral.
:I'll give *you* a slight clue; you shouldn't sign treaties you have no
:intention of honouring. You shouldn't criticise other countries for breaking
:a treaty you are breaking yourself either.
I'll give *you* a slight clue; you shouldn't try to reinterpret what
treaties mean in order to criticize the US for not engaging in
suicide. It just makes people think you're a loon.
:If anything I'd say you sound slightly whiny. I was answering your question
:about which treaty disarmament obligations the US (and the other 'Nuclear
:Powers') were ignoring. Sorry you didn't like the answer.
But you answered it by lying. Sorry you don't like reality.
<plonk>
John
>
>>I'll give *you* a slight clue; you shouldn't sign treaties you have no
>>intention of honouring. You shouldn't criticise other countries for
>>breaking
>>a treaty you are breaking yourself either.
>
>
> Let me put it to you this way. Who IS honoring the treaty and who
> broke it first? Russia scrapped START II when we left the ABM Treaty
> (which is ALLOWED under that treaty). Despite that we're still taking
> nukes out of service. And you DO know what a treaty is don't you?
> When one side throws it away it's dust in the wind. There is no
> obligation to continue to follow it by the other parties because there
> IS no longer a treaty. Go whine to Russia that they should continue
> to abide by the ABM Treaty and see how far you get. Or go whine to
> China about non proliferation. Or Pakistan, or North Korea.
Well, that was kind of my point. There isn't a lot of point in complaining
if the Iraninans are trying to arm up with nukes (and I am not aware of any
evidence that they are), as from their point of view, the treaty, having
been contemptuously ignored by the 'Nuclear Powers' is, in your own words,
dust in the wind'.
Bays
>Malaysia warns US against attacking Iran
Ahhhhhaaaa....................... The Dog(s) BARKS again !!!!!!!!!!
Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>"Scott Ferrin" <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote in message
I decided to go back and read this a little closer and the only thing
they "agree" to is "we'll talk about it". I don't see anywhere where
it says "Russia will dismantle 3200 warheads by this day and the US by
that day." I also notice the phrase "good faith" in there. We all
know how much stock we can put in the word of your average Middle East
Mullah. Of course liberals typically take a perverse joy in avoiding
that minor detail.
Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>"Scott Ferrin" <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote in message
>news:a2jcv0lsjbifafbrd...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I'll give *you* a slight clue; you shouldn't sign treaties you have no
>>>intention of honouring. You shouldn't criticise other countries for
>>>breaking
>>>a treaty you are breaking yourself either.
>>
>>
>> Let me put it to you this way. Who IS honoring the treaty and who
>> broke it first? Russia scrapped START II when we left the ABM Treaty
>> (which is ALLOWED under that treaty). Despite that we're still taking
>> nukes out of service. And you DO know what a treaty is don't you?
>> When one side throws it away it's dust in the wind. There is no
>> obligation to continue to follow it by the other parties because there
>> IS no longer a treaty. Go whine to Russia that they should continue
>> to abide by the ABM Treaty and see how far you get. Or go whine to
>> China about non proliferation. Or Pakistan, or North Korea.
>
>Well, that was kind of my point. There isn't a lot of point in complaining
>if the Iraninans are trying to arm up with nukes (and I am not aware of any
>evidence that they are),
You're the only one.
as from their point of view, the treaty, having
>been contemptuously ignored by the 'Nuclear Powers' is, in your own words,
>dust in the wind'.
Exactly what is it we're ignoring? Specifics.
Andy Dingley
<krob...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>The thing with nuclear weapons is that no country which possesses working
>ones has even been
>invaded.
The UK was.
So was Israel
(although the state of their deterrent at the time is debatable)
Andy Dingley
<fwel...@wideopenwest.com> wrote:
>You seem to forget these jobs can be moved back to the US. A minor
>inconvenience compared to having your country destroyed. Fred
That's an amazingly ignorant statement to make.
Who makes the fabs and the equipment to go in them ?
How long does it take to make a new fab ?
How long does it take to do something as simple as dismantle a working
fab, move it across state to another location and re-open it ?
The answers are at the _very_ long and complicated end of the scale.
Most of the jobs in a working fab are not hugely skilled and would
indeed be quite easy to replace. That's just not the hard part though.
(And yes, I have packaged my own dice, albeit in a lab, not a
production fab)
Andy Dingley
<jim.mclaughl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Turkey is democratic, but not an Islamic state.
>
> There are no democratic Islamic states.
Which state has the best record on past genocide, or for recent and
on-going repression of an ethnic minority ? Malaysia or Turkey ?
As to whether "Turkey" is an Islamic state or not, then that depends
which half of it you look at. The West is relatively Westernised and
secular, but look at the ructions in Europe at present over the
possible entry of Anatolia to the EU.
Pan
<din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:58:50 -0800, "Jim McLaughlin"
><jim.mclaughl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Turkey is democratic, but not an Islamic state.
>>
>> There are no democratic Islamic states.
>
>Which state has the best record on past genocide, or for recent and
>on-going repression of an ethnic minority ? Malaysia or Turkey ?
I'd have to say Malaysia, when you look at the genocidal Turkish
campaign against the Armenians and the scorched-earth policy in
Kurdish villages combined with longstanding and only recently repealed
prohibitions on the use of the Kurdish language (which is not to
overlook the barbarity of the PKK).
>As to whether "Turkey" is an Islamic state or not, then that depends
>which half of it you look at. The West is relatively Westernised and
>secular, but look at the ructions in Europe at present over the
>possible entry of Anatolia to the EU.
That's partly prejudice, don't you think? Much like the fact that
European countries were very slow to come to the defense of Bosnia and
its Muslim population at a time when the U.S. was at least somewhat
pushing for action.
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Carey Sublette
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:42:11 -0000, "John" <gui...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>>> And what would those be?
>>
>>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/npttext.html
>>
>>Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
>>
>>The NPT opened for signature 1 July 1968, and entered into force on March
>>5th, 1970
>>
>>...
>>Article VI
>>
>>Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in
>>good
>>faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race
>>at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general
>>and
>>complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
>
>
> I decided to go back and read this a little closer and the only thing
> they "agree" to is "we'll talk about it". I don't see anywhere where
> it says "Russia will dismantle 3200 warheads by this day and the US by
> that day." I also notice the phrase "good faith" in there. We all
> know how much stock we can put in the word of your average Middle East
> Mullah. Of course liberals typically take a perverse joy in avoiding
> that minor detail.
When one considers that the official policy of the U.S. government is to
maintain its nuclear force as far into the future as government planning
allows, and that no talks on "complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control" have ever been undertaken by the U.S. (or
any other nuclear power), and that there are no plans or even mere lip
service to ever doing so, it is impossible to imagine that this provision
has been fulfilled in any way.
sfe...@xmission.com
Which provision is that?
John
news:knrfv0hn5n4ogmfn2...@4ax.com...
Read the text between the liitle " marks. These are called quotation marks
btw. Come back if you still don't understand.
Are you really this stupid?
DM
By whom?
Jim McLaughlin
"DM" <david...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ct92jr$hbq$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > The UK was.
>
> By whom?
>
Argentina.
Falklands.
Though some may quibble about the between the British Island off the coast
of the west coast of Europe and the Falkland Islands off the east coast of
South America.
--
Jim McLaughlin
Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.
***************************************************************************
Jim McLaughlin
> "DM" <david...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:ct92jr$hbq$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > The UK was.
> >
> > By whom?
> >
>
> Argentina.
>
> Falklands.
>
> Though some may quibble about the difference between the British Islands /
Isles off the west coast of Europe and the Falkland Islands off the east
Scott Ferrin
wrote:
><sfe...@xmission.com> wrote in message
No but apparently you are. You obviously didn't read between the
"little " marks".
zzbu...@netscape.net
The other countries didn't have to.
Since in the cold war, the US and the USSR had 50,000+ nukes
between them, and the other countries had about 1000.
So the US has stopped disarming for the UN and EU morons,
since it has been proven that when Russia disarmed,
all Russia and the UN did was throw a
parade in Berlin and then proceed to "lose"
half of the USSR's tactical nuclear weapons.
So, General Policy has changed to moron's and
Al Qauda dies before they are anymore
idiots in Korea making UN decisions.
Mark Test
news:fxOJd.6421$r27....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> When one considers that the official policy of the U.S. government is to
> maintain its nuclear force as far into the future as government planning
> allows, and that no talks on "complete disarmament under strict and
> effective international control" have ever been undertaken by the U.S. (or
> any other nuclear power), and that there are no plans or even mere lip
> service to ever doing so, it is impossible to imagine that this provision
> has been fulfilled in any way.
>
>
the world
will follow their lead? That vision does give me a "warm fuzzy", but then
reality
hits me. We're gonna have to live with the threat of a nuclear "strike/war"
for
some time, unfortunately.
Mark
--
"It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."
Robert E. Lee
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Scott Ferrin" <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote in message
Carey, I'm sure you've heard of the Baruch Plan. The Soviets
torpedoed it.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Andy Dingley
>> look at the ructions in Europe at present over the
>>possible entry of Anatolia to the EU.
>
>That's partly prejudice, don't you think?
Yes, but light on the "partly". Most of Europe is terrified of
Islam. Germany loves (or West Germany did in the past) Turks, but
just as gastarbeiter, not citizens. France has enough trouble with
Islam already and doesn't want any more. Oddly Britain is one of the
more relaxed about it and one of the better integrated with an
existing Islamic population.
> Much like the fact that
>European countries were very slow to come to the defense of Bosnia and
>its Muslim population
No, not like it. That was much more about other links _with_ the
non-Bosnian states; Russia and the Serbs, Germany and the Croats. We
didn't dump on the Bosnians and let them rot (as we sadly did, me more
so than anyone) because we didn't like them, it was because our
friends had friends on the other side, and we didn't want to rock the
boat.
>at a time when the U.S. was at least somewhat
>pushing for action.
Ooh ! I'm not touching _that_ one with a long stick !
--
Smert' spamionam
John
In a strange elliptical way this post is actually quite illuminating.
Scott Ferrin
wrote:
Well to clue you in then "talking" is all that is required. Nowhere
is it said that they will be gone by X date. Nowhere is i said they
will be 50% gone by X date. Indeed it's not even said when they will
DECIDE on a date. START and START II were a beginning but Russia
walked away. Sorry to disappoint you with facts.
John
I think maybe it's the 'in good faith' bit you aren't getting.
The 'at an early date bit' might also be worth thinking about, given that
this treaty came into force in 1970.
sfe...@xmission.com
>"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good
>faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race
>at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and
>complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
>
>I think maybe it's the 'in good faith' bit you aren't getting.
Yeah maybe we should take lessons from those Mullahs in the Middle
East huh?
>
>The 'at an early date bit' might also be worth thinking about, given that
>this treaty came into force in 1970.
"at an early date" is essentially meaningless. Early compared to
what? If the treaty had been more than a feel-good/
let's-pat-ourselves-on-the-back document it would have had specifics.
Dates, numbers, inspection methods etc. You know, like REAL treaties
(SALT and START for example).