quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I feel horrible repling to you ahlamalek, I feel its like laughing at a little kid when he doesn't something stupid - it will only encourage him. Regardless this is the clear it up to anyone else there that actually might of thought you had something resembling a point. Syrian harbours many terrorist organizations as identified by the UN and the USA. Infact many terrorist organizations have their headquarters in all openess in the streets of Damascus. Israel habrours no terrorist organizations as identified by either the UN or the USA. Not one.

wow you *now* quote the UN when it supports your point? when will Israel adopt and apply UN resolutions to end this stupid ongoing war between the jewish people and palestinians?

I, and many others, believe that Israel is *also* a terrorist state!

(notice the emphasis on the "also")

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy dont blind yourself... a nation does not have to use its WOMD to be called a threat to the US or any other nation. take for example North Korea. with the heavy sanctions imposed on NK from all over the world, the main industry NK has to make foriegn money is its military. NK is known to be one of the biggest exporters of military equipment (remember the interception of scuds to yemen a few months ago). now image NK having the capability to make small nuclear weapons (as they do) they would be able to make a shit load of money by selling it to those who are interested. those same buyers may be of various degrees of threat to their enemies. i belive syria too can not be trusted to keep its WOMD to itself, i can easily see them being given or sold to terror organizations who do pose a threat to the US or other countries. it is when syria stops aiding and supporting terrorism that i will consider their possession of WOMD legit.

please don't compare NK to Syria.

and how about Israel selling military technology to China and India?? Even the US administration doesn't approve it.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek please don't compare NK to Syria.

why not? the case i was pointing out had similarities. both pose a threat to the US, although maybe not directly

quote:

and how about Israel selling military technology to China and India?? Even the US administration doesn't approve it.

Israel was going to sell spy planes to china but becuase of US disapproval the transaction never took place. so as far as i know israel has never sold militray technology to china (can you prove me wrong?). and since India is somewhat of an ally of the US i dont see why it should matter if israel sells weapons to that country. i can see how someone can call china an 'evil' country but india is no where near there.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

well the US still thinks that India shouldn't have them:

US: Aid conditional on no "Phalcon" sale to India

Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman: If the objection is for commercial reasons, it is not legitimate.

Dror Marom 27 Mar 03 17:29

The Bush administration has informed Israeli officials in Washington that it opposes Israel’s selling three Phalcon AWACS planes to India.
Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman MK Yuval Shteinitz (Likud) said, “If the objection is for commercial reasons, it is not legitimate. The deal with India is completely different from the one with China.”

Steinitz told Army Radio, “If there was a risk that the planes might threaten the US, we’d take that into consideration, as an ally. However, if this is merely commercial competition, it is absolutely out of place. Although it would be unwise to confront Washington, but Israel must preserve its interests.”

The reports from Washington claim that the administration informed Israel that the $1 billion special military grant was contingent on canceling the Phalcon deal with India, which is worth almost $1 billion.

In 1999, under pressure from President Bill Clinton, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak cancelled the deal to sell four Phalcon planes to China. A probably reason for the US request to cancel sophisticated early-warning planes to India is the tension between the two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, and the US’s delicate position arising from the Iraq War.

The US is worried that supplying AWACS might accelerate the arms race in the already tense subcontinent.

India has become one of the largest buyers of Israeli arms in recent years. Following the cancellation of the Phalcon deal with China, it was widely thought that the US administration was trying to improve the Boeing’s (NYSE:BA) opportunities in the global AWACS market by pressuring Israel Aircraft Industries subsidiary Elta Electronics Industries not to sell AWACS to the Chinese Air Force.

Published by Globes [online] - www.globes.co.il - on March 27, 2003

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

Ok, so that article just proved Izzy right. What is your point?

quote:

In 1999, under pressure from President Bill Clinton, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak cancelled the deal to sell four Phalcon planes to China. A probably reason for the US request to cancel sophisticated early-warning planes to India is the tension between the two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, and the US’s delicate position arising from the Iraq War.

my point is that Israel was and still tries to transfer technologies to countries like India and China (maybe others but who knows right?).

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You got to spend money when the situation demands it ... syria doesn't.

'cause dubya has the iraqi oil now, so he doesn't need Syria just yet..

___________________

get font

I see your 4 Crushs and raise you 3 As The Rush Comes. - Yan from PvD's first summerstage event in '03

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 'cause dubya has the iraqi oil now, so he doesn't need Syria just yet..

i saw a lecture here given by madeline albright (former sec of state) and agian she backed up how BS of a reason that this war is being done for oil. she gave the arguement that the iraqi oil infrustrucure needs so much rebuilding and funding that it would take 10 years for america to get iraq to maximum capacity oil output and to pay itself back for the investment needed.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek my point is that Israel was and still tries to transfer technologies to countries like India and China (maybe others but who knows right?).

and my point is that Israel has never funded or transfered technologies with rouge nations (never actually sold to china, and india is legit in my point of view) or terrorist orginizations, something syria is guilty of. thus israel poses no threat to the rest of the world, and so its possession of WOMD could be precieved as being handled more resposibly then syria's.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 'cause dubya has the iraqi oil now, so he doesn't need Syria just yet..

Hmmmm yes another educated forecast ... maybe you should take into consideration that Syria doesn't have very many oil reserves and is anticipiated to become an oil IMPORTER sometime in the next decade.

A: Syria had no oil of any use to anyone, let's get this straight!

B: Along with Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc. Syria has been proven to harbor terrorists that work against "the West".

C: Even if Syria does not have weapons of mass destruction yet, it wouldn't be too damn difficult for them to get WOMD's. After they get those WOMD's, all hell would break loose.

D: What importance does Syria hold? Gee, let's see, they've done nothing constructive in the last century except for invade Lebanon and just stay there. Oh right, they declared war on Israel a couple of times, and LOST!

E: Bush will probably ending up doing something with Syria, only God could tell s at this point. If Bush radnomly bombed Syria, it would be a PR nightmare, and the world would go insane. I say give it a while, and then stir up the discussion.