Jump to content

Morch

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    13,729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9,098 Excellent

About Morch

  • Rank
    Sorrow floats

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Thailand

Recent Profile Visitors

18,064 profile views
  1. No preconditions. No bullying. Sure thing. They just want to help. Note that there was nothing said (other than by yourself) about the US being "some warm and fuzzy world Grandpa", but seems like you're quite comfortable portraying China as such. Try harder.
  2. Nothing in what you posted above actually makes Iran's nuclear program and ambitions into a non-issue. If it was a non-issue, there wouldn't be an inspections regime. Declaring the inspections regime did not permanently erase Iran's nuclear program and capabilities. That Iran was deemed to be in compliance doesn't imply a non-issue in any way. You're grasping at straws. Trump's moves can certainly be criticized, and as posted on past topics, if Iran's other activities were an issue - there were probably better ways of dealing with them without reneging on the Iran Deal.
  3. Iran is an NPT signatory and was found to be in breach of its commitments and obligations. Hence sanctions, hence inspections regime. Israel is not an NPT signatory, hence not on the receiving end of its provisions for such cases. The rest of your post if drivel, and that's being charitable. What it comes down to is that further nuclear proliferation is alright, provided it panders to your political views. Current agreements are more about limiting proliferation, not abolishing nuclear weapons altogether. It's what grown ups call pragmatism, or realism. Look it up. But, of course, much easier to go for some nonsense such as if X got nukes, so should Y. In essence, the NPT etc. is more like saying X having nukes is not great, but X and Y having them is worse. Taking action against countries which already possess nuclear military capabilities is complicated, and dangerous. If one was to follow your "reasoning", we'd have a planet full of righteous nations armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Good luck with that.
  4. @dexterm The assertions cited were made by his family and the mayor of the town. As far as I'm aware, none of them was at the scene. The fact that someone had a history of mental health issues doesn't automatically classify him as a non-threat, or directly bears on security forces reaction. But obviously, you don't really care one way or the other. On the previous post the attack was labeled "an act of legitimate resistance....", now it's milked as an instance of Israeli police brutality or something. No reference whatsoever to the guy actually trying to stab a policeman. All you're interested in is the bash opportunity - and if there isn't one, you'll spin one into being. That you allege "missing edited footage" would require some sort of reference - that you make such claims carries very little weight, by itself.
  5. Could you possibly pay attention to what you post and replies made? Your original "view" was that "It would have been great to have a powerful ally in the area to balance Iraqi, Saudi, Israeli, Afghan and assorted nutters". My reply to that was that Iran becoming an ally anytime soon was never on the cards. Your personal preferences are, indeed, immaterial in this context. To put it otherwise, regardless of how one sees Trump's moves, Iran remains a dodgy player.
  6. @dexterm The routine almost copy-pasted rant, complete with the usual misleading and nonsense comments. That you announce something to be a "war crime" doesn't make it so. Your grasp of what actually constitutes such seems rather subjective. You keep using "unarmed" as a blanket term, disregarding reports to the contrary or even Hamas/Islamic Jihad own statements. The nonsense about "...simply want to return home...." is the usual simplistic fare. Same goes for the border bit. Both been addressed, in depth, numerous times - but expected you'll just plow on. The bogus assertion that the "violence could be ended in an instance" is counterfactual. To remind, violence played a central role in the Blockade coming about. Getting back to reality, the only instances in which the violence "ended in an instance" were when Hamas decided to. This was even the case with regard to previous lulls this time around. Harping on your own formulations of the supposed Palestinian "right of return" doesn't change facts. Them facts require both a recognition of Israel's sovereignty, and having no hostile intentions. That you would ignore that is expected as well - we've been over it on multiple past topics. It is unlikely such a move could be achieved without some sort of comprehensive agreement. As for your run of the mill allegations regarding "something to hide" etc... about per script. Nothing whatsoever on the attacker's action, but rather an unfounded conspiracy theory variant. Considering the person in question was a citizen of Israel, I somehow doubt your assertions about "legitimate resistance" hold much water - but then, I don't really consider you a legal expert. Nor, for that matter, to hold much of an acceptable position regarding violence, particularly in light of supposedly being a great "humanist". Regardless, the family already claimed he had mental issues etc...
  7. Considering this was addressed on multiple past topics, in which you partook - either a memory or comprehension issue. The alternative would be that you actually get it, but prefer pretending not to.
  8. Let me keep them US Dollars for you then.
  9. You personal preferences are immaterial.
  10. Is was never a non-issue. The sanctions and inspections regime did not make it a non-issue. The inspections regime was in place because it was (and is) an issue. Judging the inspections regime a full success (thus allowing the non-issue comment) can not be supported. The inspections regime was (or rather, is) an ongoing thing, and a relatively new effort, at that. I get the point you're trying to make, I just think that you went over the top there.
  11. Keep them simplistic nonsense comments coming. Because sure - only the US and Israel got nuclear arms. And these are only relevant in the context of Iran. If you haven't got a clue as to why Iran was placed under sanctions and the following inspections regime, perhaps its time to do some reading.
  12. Comments about "false picture" are amusing, coming from certain posters.
  13. You just want China to get a break bullying its neighbors. Not okay.
  14. Funny, and here I was thinking "hypocritical" would apply to ignoring anything reflecting negatively on China, and dabbling in alternative facts when necessary.
  15. Are the straw-men you put up in your posts made in China?
×