Russian warships gathering off Syria waters

[AsteroidX]

Yup China owns you more or less HERE and with US at the edge of bankruptcy, this is war written all over.. remember history tends to repeat itself. Recently i heard a rumor of someone forecasting a war between some asians countries and US, unfortunaly i forgot where i heard that, if someone finds any real info post it please!

youll sooner see a civil war in US before this ever happens. We are not a people without a conscience.

[+and-then]

White Phosphorous is a poisonous chemical; nobody in their right mind would dare exposure to it. If released into the air it could kill thousands and sicken an entire population. Using it to cause gruesome burns on human flesh and to inflict terror and suffering on civilians and children is revolting and unacceptable. We have standards, rules of war, and some of us like to pretend that Israel is immune to them.

This is incorrect. The primary use for WP these days is to create smoke to provide cover. Back when it was still used as a weapon it did indeed create horrific burns on those it came in contact with. It burns upon contact with oxygen and due to this cannot be sprayed or disseminated in a manner that you describe. Artillery shells or bombs are used to deploy it and they have a very limited reach compared to true chemical weapons like Sarin and VX. This thread is about Syria, Yam. Syria has chemical weapons and has threatened to use them on "outside elements" that might threaten them. Just the threat is a crime. If Israel is someday forced into a corner and has to fight for it's survival I fully expect that they might use nukes. But the thing you keep forgetting or refusing to acknowledge is that they love LIFE, unlike their enemies - who worship death and say so often. So if they ever did use nukes it would be as a way of making the world face it's own evil as they were being destroyed. And since the Bible doesn't mention them checking out on history I don't worry overmuch about that eventuality. The people and culture you support in this conflict are the one's who feel immune to all laws.

Now, I'll leave the last word for you and I will move on to another thread before we devolve into an argument neither of us can afford

[DarkHunter]

White Phosphorous is a poisonous chemical; nobody in their right mind would dare exposure to it. If released into the air it could kill thousands and sicken an entire population. Using it to cause gruesome burns on human flesh and to inflict terror and suffering on civilians and children is revolting and unacceptable. We have standards, rules of war, and some of us like to pretend that Israel is immune to them.

Are you honestly comparing white phosphorous to a nerve gas like Sarin or VX, white phosphorous can not even be compared to weapons like Sarin or VX.

First white phosphorous is a poisonous chemical but no where near as deadly as Sarin or VX, the lethal ingestion of white phosphorous is about 1 mg per kg of body weight while for VX it is 10 mg through skin contact and for inhalation it is 30-50 mg min/m^3 while for Sarin it is 100 to 500 mg through the skin or 50-100 mg min/m^3. The toxicity of white phosphorous is no where near that of Sarin or VX, even then it is not toxic by inhalation like Sarin or VX but by ingestion.

Second you can't release white phosphorous into the air like Sarin or VX since white phosphorous is a solid and not a gas so releasing white phosphorous into the air wouldn't kill anyone unless they got burned by it or inhaled the smoke it produced, which the smoke is not toxic. While a person can die from ingesting white phosphorous the main causes of death from white phosphorous are burns and smoke inhalation. White phosphorous burns really hot and tends to stick to human skin that is why it is sometimes used as an incendiary weapon and when it burns it releases a thick heavy smoke almost instantly so that is why it is also sometimes used to make smoke screen. While white phosphorous is dangerous it isn't because it is highly toxic like Sarin or VX but because it burns hot and produces smoke.

Can you provide an example of Israel using white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon against civilian targets and not as a smoke screen. While using it as a smoke screen can cause fires and burns because white phosphorous is still being burned it is no where near as bad as when it is used as an incendiary weapon.

The rules of war are a joke, and a bad joke at that. A nation will use whatever and do whatever it has to do to win, while a nation may avoid using some weapons or doing certain things out of fear of the consequences from other countries a nation will use and do what it has to do to win and thinking otherwise is extremely naive. All these rules of war do is limit military capacity and effectiveness of a stronger country against a far weaker country in some kind of twisted form of fairness.

[Yamato]

This is incorrect. The primary use for WP these days is to create smoke to provide cover. Back when it was still used as a weapon it did indeed create horrific burns on those it came in contact with. It burns upon contact with oxygen and due to this cannot be sprayed or disseminated in a manner that you describe. Artillery shells or bombs are used to deploy it and they have a very limited reach compared to true chemical weapons like Sarin and VX. This thread is about Syria, Yam. Syria has chemical weapons and has threatened to use them on "outside elements" that might threaten them. Just the threat is a crime. If Israel is someday forced into a corner and has to fight for it's survival I fully expect that they might use nukes. But the thing you keep forgetting or refusing to acknowledge is that they love LIFE, unlike their enemies - who worship death and say so often. So if they ever did use nukes it would be as a way of making the world face it's own evil as they were being destroyed. And since the Bible doesn't mention them checking out on history I don't worry overmuch about that eventuality. The people and culture you support in this conflict are the one's who feel immune to all laws.

Now, I'll leave the last word for you and I will move on to another thread before we devolve into an argument neither of us can afford

No, it's a vicious chemical weapon. It's used by Israeli military as a weapon by being thrown down on top of peoples' heads to inflict injuries as terrifying and destructive as any other chemical. If it's spilled by accident, it's a toxic chemical that will disperse and will cause human sickness and death. Israel has been caught with widespread use of this terror weapon in densely populated civilian centers. If this kind of behavior is what really matters as you've been trying to convince us for months here, then Israel should be paying a heavy political price for this. Refusing to trade with Israel would be the least of all ideas.

White phosphorus can cause significant injury and death, and its use by the military has been highly criticized. Morbidity and mortality can occur by exposure to soft tissue, through inhalation, and by ingestion.

White phosphorus skin exposure results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. These burns carry a higher risk of morbidity and mortality. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and, as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. This deep absorption can result in heart, liver, and kidney damage. It has also been postulated that, because of its enhanced lipid solubility, these injuries result in delayed wound healing. Pathologic changes have been documented in the liver and kidney.^[3] These changes result in the development of progressive anuria, decreased creatinine clearance, and increased blood phosphorus levels. Depression of serum calcium level with an elevation in the serum phosphorus level (reversed calcium-phosphorus ratio) with electrocardiographic changes including prolongation of the QT segment, ST-segment depression, T-wave changes, and bradycardia also have been observed.

Oral ingestion of white phosphorus in humans has been demonstrated to result in pathologic changes to the liver and kidneys. The ingestion of a small quantity of white phosphorus can cause gastrointestinal complaints such as nausea, abdominal cramps, and vomiting. Individuals with a history of oral ingestion have been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome"). The accepted lethal dose is 1 mg/kg, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death.

Inhalation of white phosphorus smoke is presumed to be the least severe form of exposure, as it has not been shown to cause casualties. It may result in irritation to the eyes and nose and may cause a violent cough. However, prolonged exposure to the gas does have the potential to cause death.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/833585-overview#a0104

Edited January 10, 2013 by Yamato

[TheMacGuffin]

Nice regime the Russians have been supporting there, but it won't do them any good.

[Yamato]

Are you honestly comparing white phosphorous to a nerve gas like Sarin or VX, white phosphorous can not even be compared to weapons like Sarin or VX.

First white phosphorous is a poisonous chemical but no where near as deadly as Sarin or VX, the lethal ingestion of white phosphorous is about 1 mg per kg of body weight while for VX it is 10 mg through skin contact and for inhalation it is 30-50 mg min/m^3 while for Sarin it is 100 to 500 mg through the skin or 50-100 mg min/m^3. The toxicity of white phosphorous is no where near that of Sarin or VX, even then it is not toxic by inhalation like Sarin or VX but by ingestion.

Second you can't release white phosphorous into the air like Sarin or VX since white phosphorous is a solid and not a gas so releasing white phosphorous into the air wouldn't kill anyone unless they got burned by it or inhaled the smoke it produced, which the smoke is not toxic. While a person can die from ingesting white phosphorous the main causes of death from white phosphorous are burns and smoke inhalation. White phosphorous burns really hot and tends to stick to human skin that is why it is sometimes used as an incendiary weapon and when it burns it releases a thick heavy smoke almost instantly so that is why it is also sometimes used to make smoke screen. While white phosphorous is dangerous it isn't because it is highly toxic like Sarin or VX but because it burns hot and produces smoke.

Can you provide an example of Israel using white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon against civilian targets and not as a smoke screen. While using it as a smoke screen can cause fires and burns because white phosphorous is still being burned it is no where near as bad as when it is used as an incendiary weapon.

The rules of war are a joke, and a bad joke at that. A nation will use whatever and do whatever it has to do to win, while a nation may avoid using some weapons or doing certain things out of fear of the consequences from other countries a nation will use and do what it has to do to win and thinking otherwise is extremely naive. All these rules of war do is limit military capacity and effectiveness of a stronger country against a far weaker country in some kind of twisted form of fairness.

I'm honestly comparing White Phosphorus to a chemical weapon because that's what it is. Your buddy 'and then' denied that it was a chemical. What is he talking about? You should ask him. I've posted facts about White Phosphorus above. Israel uses it as an incendiary when it's burning men, women and children with it. Do some homework; don't make me carry water for you when you're on the internet. Don't make pretend this vapid implication that Israel never used it. Any one of us is more than capable of a Google search and reading and watching the evidence.

I have no reason to care that White Phosphorus is less toxic than Sarin or VX. That doesn't touch what I said. Israel doesn't have to use the most deadly chemical in the world for us to wake up. This is the Zionist game that you folks always play to distract away from Israel's crimes. Whatever Israel did, find something else in history or somewhere else in the world that's worse, and change the subject to that. Let's have some genuine WMD perspective here already. Israel has nukes, it's a renegade nuclear power armed to the teeth; it's the most militarized nation on earth per capita and it's a perpetual threat to world peace with its insane policies.

Obviously using chemicals in warfare doesn't mean diddly to anyone making this many excuses for Israel upon using them. So there's a much better chance that I'm going to genuinely care about Assad using his vaunted chemicals than others, and I won't just use it as another double standard false pretense for warmongering.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Yamato

[Clarakore]

I promised Saru I'll behave so I won't say who can bite whom and how satisfying it can be

That's right...I'm being a good boy...

If anything you could possibly post required moderation or for you to act good then how constructive, informative, or sophisticated could it be?

If only US dismantled that damn conglomerate back in 1945, when they had plans to do so, but Brits wished their project to be kept alive.

Better late than never. Thank you, NATO.

Quit telling me I should volunteer for victimization because you're tripping that way.

Simply saying NATO should have been dismantled is quite unrealistic and am unsure how it applies to the dialogue. Your statement also does not address my statement regarding NATO.

Your insistence on not being a victim does not include the same desire for others to not be victims.

Instead you would rather see another a victim than become one yourself. You should instead desire no victims anywhere.

And if others are the agressor yet you support using greater military force to win a war I won't congratulate you for succeededing where enemies failed and doing exactly what they wanted to do (regardless of scale).

You are not the good guys just for winning. For supporting winning your war it makes you just another supporter of combat.

Simplify or vilify all you care to, it changes nothing in history or on the current ground. The worldviews are diametrically opposed and a choice has to be made. To think otherwise is to be naive to the point of childishness.

Diametrically opposed worldviews? The Cold War is over. The unipolar dominance of America because they won the Cold War is also over. We are a mulitpolar world now so your backward thinking is two stages behind the current situation.

What I'm telling you is that the weapons used at Halabja were not simply "WW1 tech". Look into it.

I think the majority of evidence we have for Halabja is mustard gas. There is believed to be a cocktail of agents used as well including VX. Thing is if Iraq had the capability to produce VX they would have used more instead of relying on mustard gad and whatever else they had in what was most likely in limited supplies.

There still is no proof Iraq had the capability to manufacturer VX or any other compound you seem to be hinting at. It is also likely that the VX Iraq had was given to them by us and made at Newport.

[+and-then]

If anything you could possibly post required moderation or for you to act good then how constructive, informative, or sophisticated could it be?

Simply saying NATO should have been dismantled is quite unrealistic and am unsure how it applies to the dialogue. Your statement also does not address my statement regarding NATO.

Your insistence on not being a victim does not include the same desire for others to not be victims.

Instead you would rather see another a victim than become one yourself. You should instead desire no victims anywhere.

And if others are the agressor yet you support using greater military force to win a war I won't congratulate you for succeededing where enemies failed and doing exactly what they wanted to do (regardless of scale).

You are not the good guys just for winning. For supporting winning your war it makes you just another supporter of combat.

Diametrically opposed worldviews? The Cold War is over. The unipolar dominance of America because they won the Cold War is also over. We are a mulitpolar world now so your backward thinking is two stages behind the current situation.

I think the majority of evidence we have for Halabja is mustard gas. There is believed to be a cocktail of agents used as well including VX. Thing is if Iraq had the capability to produce VX they would have used more instead of relying on mustard gad and whatever else they had in what was most likely in limited supplies.

There still is no proof Iraq had the capability to manufacturer VX or any other compound you seem to be hinting at. It is also likely that the VX Iraq had was given to them by us and made at Newport.

I made no assertion that the current world situation was otherwise. I simply said that individuals must make a choice of which worldview to follow. Those who prefer the comfort and safety of a totalitarian state can easily get their wish fulfilled. It's those who want freedom who will always have to fight.

[Clarakore]

I made no assertion that the current world situation was otherwise. I simply said that individuals must make a choice of which worldview to follow. Those who prefer the comfort and safety of a totalitarian state can easily get their wish fulfilled. It's those who want freedom who will always have to fight.

I understand fighting for freedom is part of your narrrative but you will only take freedom from another by fighting if you win. It is also like fighting for peace, probably also part of your worldview but fighting and peace are opposites, you won't achieve peace by doing the opposite, war.

[DarkHunter]

I'm honestly comparing White Phosphorus to a chemical weapon because that's what it is. Your buddy 'and then' denied that it was a chemical. What is he talking about? You should ask him. I've posted facts about White Phosphorus above. Israel uses it as an incendiary when it's burning men, women and children with it. Do some homework; don't make me carry water for you when you're on the internet. Don't make pretend this vapid implication that Israel never used it. Any one of us is more than capable of a Google search and reading and watching the evidence.

I have no reason to care that White Phosphorus is less toxic than Sarin or VX. That doesn't touch what I said. Israel doesn't have to use the most deadly chemical in the world for us to wake up. This is the Zionist game that you folks always play to distract away from Israel's crimes. Whatever Israel did, find something else in history or somewhere else in the world that's worse, and change the subject to that. Let's have some genuine WMD perspective here already. Israel has nukes, it's a renegade nuclear power armed to the teeth; it's the most militarized nation on earth per capita and it's a perpetual threat to world peace with its insane policies.

Obviously using chemicals in warfare doesn't mean diddly to anyone making this many excuses for Israel upon using them. So there's a much better chance that I'm going to genuinely care about Assad using his vaunted chemicals than others, and I won't just use it as another double standard false pretense for warmongering.

I know it is used as an incendiary as I noted in my post but what you are claiming is simply not true that white phosphorous is a chemical weapon. White phosphorous is classified as a incendiary weapon not as a chemical weapon, it does not matter that white phosphorous is and of itself a chemical it is not defined as a chemical weapon because its toxic properties is not being used as a weapon but instead its burning properties. Since you have the internet you can look up the varies UN treaties that classify white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon and not as a chemical weapon. There is a debate on whether white phosphorous should also be considered a chemical weapon but for now it is only classified as an incendiary weapon and not as a chemical weapon.

I said in my post that Israel has used white phosphorous as a smoke screen which it has, just because a few civilians got burned because of that doesn't change the fact that its intended use was that of a smoke screen. What you are suggesting is that anytime a smoke screen is used and it burns someone it should instantly be considered a use of an incendiary weapon, that is simply madness. Any weapon that produces a smoke screen runs the risk of burning civilians since something is burning, what this would end up with is no use of smoke screens in a city, town, village, or anywhere a chance a civilian might be burned, that is just illogical, you have to look at how it is being used. Israel though has used white phosphorous against military targets in the field as an incendiary weapon, but because it was against military targets not near civilians it was a legal use of white phosphorous.

That white phosphorous is significantly less toxic then Sarin or VX actually touches a lot of what you have stated, first you stated white phosphorous is a chemical weapon when it isn't, second you compared its toxic properties to Sarin or VX. How is pointing out your incorrect information covering for Israel's sins. I would hardly consider Israel a renegade nuclear power, while it may classify as one under a literal definition it is far from being a threat to the world with its nuclear weapons. Why does it matter that Israel is highly militarized, it is short life span it had to fight multiple wars just to survive against a numerically superior foe, it would be expect for Israel to be highly militarized.

[+and-then]

I understand fighting for freedom is part of your narrrative but you will only take freedom from another by fighting if you win. It is also like fighting for peace, probably also part of your worldview but fighting and peace are opposites, you won't achieve peace by doing the opposite, war.

Can you explain this point, I really don't understand how you arrive at that conclusion. If I fight to be free then all I have taken from another is their will to dominate me. They are not seeking freedom but domination.

[+and-then]

I know it is used as an incendiary as I noted in my post but what you are claiming is simply not true that white phosphorous is a chemical weapon. White phosphorous is classified as a incendiary weapon not as a chemical weapon, it does not matter that white phosphorous is and of itself a chemical it is not defined as a chemical weapon because its toxic properties is not being used as a weapon but instead its burning properties. Since you have the internet you can look up the varies UN treaties that classify white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon and not as a chemical weapon. There is a debate on whether white phosphorous should also be considered a chemical weapon but for now it is only classified as an incendiary weapon and not as a chemical weapon.

I said in my post that Israel has used white phosphorous as a smoke screen which it has, just because a few civilians got burned because of that doesn't change the fact that its intended use was that of a smoke screen. What you are suggesting is that anytime a smoke screen is used and it burns someone it should instantly be considered a use of an incendiary weapon, that is simply madness. Any weapon that produces a smoke screen runs the risk of burning civilians since something is burning, what this would end up with is no use of smoke screens in a city, town, village, or anywhere a chance a civilian might be burned, that is just illogical, you have to look at how it is being used. Israel though has used white phosphorous against military targets in the field as an incendiary weapon, but because it was against military targets not near civilians it was a legal use of white phosphorous.

That white phosphorous is significantly less toxic then Sarin or VX actually touches a lot of what you have stated, first you stated white phosphorous is a chemical weapon when it isn't, second you compared its toxic properties to Sarin or VX. How is pointing out your incorrect information covering for Israel's sins. I would hardly consider Israel a renegade nuclear power, while it may classify as one under a literal definition it is far from being a threat to the world with its nuclear weapons. Why does it matter that Israel is highly militarized, it is short life span it had to fight multiple wars just to survive against a numerically superior foe, it would be expect for Israel to be highly militarized.

I was unaware that WP was still legal to be used against personnel as an incendiary weapon. I know that Israel used it as a smoke generator in urban areas to cover their troop movements and this is legal but I agree that Yam has no understanding of the effect of this weapon when used in a way that is truly offensive in nature. When used as an incendiary against troops it is horrific. No comparison to the few inadvertent burns caused by it's use as a smoke screen. The Vietnamese could show pictures of what it looks like to be shelled with willie pete.

[Clarakore]

I know it is used as an incendiary as I noted in my post but what you are claiming is simply not true that white phosphorous is a chemical weapon. White phosphorous is classified as a incendiary weapon not as a chemical weapon, it does not matter that white phosphorous is and of itself a chemical it is not defined as a chemical weapon because its toxic properties is not being used as a weapon but instead its burning properties. Since you have the internet you can look up the varies UN treaties that classify white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon and not as a chemical weapon. There is a debate on whether white phosphorous should also be considered a chemical weapon but for now it is only classified as an incendiary weapon and not as a chemical weapon.

I said in my post that Israel has used white phosphorous as a smoke screen which it has, just because a few civilians got burned because of that doesn't change the fact that its intended use was that of a smoke screen. What you are suggesting is that anytime a smoke screen is used and it burns someone it should instantly be considered a use of an incendiary weapon, that is simply madness. Any weapon that produces a smoke screen runs the risk of burning civilians since something is burning, what this would end up with is no use of smoke screens in a city, town, village, or anywhere a chance a civilian might be burned, that is just illogical, you have to look at how it is being used. Israel though has used white phosphorous against military targets in the field as an incendiary weapon, but because it was against military targets not near civilians it was a legal use of white phosphorous.

That white phosphorous is significantly less toxic then Sarin or VX actually touches a lot of what you have stated, first you stated white phosphorous is a chemical weapon when it isn't, second you compared its toxic properties to Sarin or VX. How is pointing out your incorrect information covering for Israel's sins. I would hardly consider Israel a renegade nuclear power, while it may classify as one under a literal definition it is far from being a threat to the world with its nuclear weapons. Why does it matter that Israel is highly militarized, it is short life span it had to fight multiple wars just to survive against a numerically superior foe, it would be expect for Israel to be highly militarized.

Excellent summary of WP.

I liked your post because of that but I disagree strongly regarding Israel.

The current Israeli government is a threat to the world and its stability.

Edited January 10, 2013 by I believe you

[+and-then]

Excellent summary of WP.

I liked your post because of that but I disagree strongly regarding Israel.

The current Israeli government is a threat to the world and its stability.

What solution do you offer? You do realize that you are saying that a country with a population of about 7 million people is a threat to the whole world, right? I don't mean this as a personal attack but I disagree with this mindset in the strongest terms. Israel IS a nuclear power and has been since the late 60's. But they have never threatened to use them against anyone not actively attacking them and then only when it looked as though they might be over run. If you had neighbors that threatened the lives of yourself and your children and the rest of the town told you to be quiet and stop making a fuss when you complained to the police, how would you react? Would you just meekly comply and allow the crazy neighbors to do whatever they wanted to do? Or would you stand and defend your home and family? People who blame Israel for the chaos in the M.E. are blind to the fact that they have real enemies that want them destroyed and not ONE person who vilifies them would accept the treatment that they justify against Israel.

[Mr.United_Nations]

When has this become an Israel debate again?

[+and-then]

When has this become an Israel debate again?

Whenever people post things about Israel that I disagree with I will usually choose to support their cause. Since I seem to be the only one here at UM who does, I don't think it should really be too much to digest. The idea that a country with the population of a large US city could be a threat to the whole world is a bit sketchy imo. But if mentioning Israel in a discussion of a country that shares a border with it bothers you then I recommend slow deep breaths

[Just Dave]

youll sooner see a civil war in US before this ever happens. We are not a people without a conscience.

Glad to hear that! Give power back to people who deserve it, not the corrupt and bad. I'll always support the civil movements especially now when politics are rotten as hell.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Glad to hear that! Give power back to people who deserve it, not the corrupt and bad. I'll always support the civil movements especially now when politics are rotten as hell.

what people? the people who are always paranoid?

[Clarakore]

What solution do you offer? You do realize that you are saying that a country with a population of about 7 million people is a threat to the whole world, right?

Numeration should not be considered here. It could be one woman with a nuclear weapon and she would still be a threat. The threat is not diminished.

I don't mean this as a personal attack but I disagree with this mindset in the strongest terms. Israel IS a nuclear power and has been since the late 60's. But they have never threatened to use them against anyone not actively attacking them and then only when it looked as though they might be over run.

They should not threaten, period. You are offering excuses.

If you had neighbors that threatened the lives of yourself and your children and the rest of the town told you to be quiet and stop making a fuss when you complained to the police, how would you react?

Not with nuclear weapons.

Would you just meekly comply and allow the crazy neighbors to do whatever they wanted to do? Or would you stand and defend your home and family?

Defend your home and family? By destroying the next door neighbors and starving their children plus denying them medication? I could go on but I would not call your idea of defending as a defense, it is an offense.

Save the best defense is an offense quotes, an offense is an offense and never a defense.

People who blame Israel for the chaos in the M.E. are blind to the fact that they have real enemies that want them destroyed and not ONE person who vilifies them would accept the treatment that they justify against Israel.

I understand they have enemies who want to destroy them, that does not give them the right to do so to others.

Only through a disarmed Israel will we ever have peace in the region. They remain a threat to the world and its stability especially because they believe they are always under attack, a siege mentality never produces reasonable decisions when it comes to making peace, in fact it appears to be a national pyschosis of sorts. They are not capable of peace as they are, especially armed.

Mostly the whole world disagrees with your views, your ideas are probably based on fundamental Christianity, that too is in decline, but your ideas are also badly misguided since they are only based on religiosity. Any other excuses you come up with are all there just to hold up your religious views.

As soon as you understand the Bible does not give anyone a right in the modern era to harm others under the guise of defense then you can join the rest of us Christians who do not favor a world with war.

Edited January 10, 2013 by I believe you

[Just Dave]

what people? the people who are always paranoid?

Why are they paranoid let me see... oh there we go... Media is filling headlines with war and crime events... Watching News or reading news always same blackday stories..

By the end of the day people in Military sectors actualy earn great sums of money on your paranoia.

[Helen of Annoy]

Simply saying NATO should have been dismantled is quite unrealistic and am unsure how it applies to the dialogue. Your statement also does not address my statement regarding NATO.

Not NATO ex-Yugoslavia should have been dismantled before!

I’m thanking NATO for helping, though they couldn’t really, directly help at first. Milosevic made possible they finally join the party.

Your insistence on not being a victim does not include the same desire for others to not be victims.

Unfortunately, I’m a mammal. My litter first. Sorry for being so unsophisticated and direct. If someone doesn't want to be a victim, I recommend they don't pick a fight. But they always do, because they see themselves competent enough to make others victims. When it fails, no one cries louder and more heart-wrenching than a psycho tasting his own medicine.

Instead you would rather see another a victim than become one yourself. You should instead desire no victims anywhere.

Excuse my bluntness, but I’m under impression you are not aware of nature of this world. No one is ever my victim if they let me live, preferably in peace.

And if others are the agressor yet you support using greater military force to win a war I won't congratulate you for succeededing where enemies failed and doing exactly what they wanted to do (regardless of scale).

Regardless of the scale, the owner of the house makes the rules and guests can kindly **** off if they don’t like them.

You are not the good guys just for winning. For supporting winning your war it makes you just another supporter of combat.

Wars are won by worse mammals, from herbivore perspective. Unfortunately again, I have teeth and intestines of omnivore.

I'm more than just supporter of winning my wars, I can also be, surprisingly for my delicate frame, quite useful.

Philosophy is a wonderful thing but it doesn't have much to do with survival and I hope I'm not too bad person if I'm not ready to let more ruthless or less enlightened than me survive by rolling over and letting them off me with no resistance. What a perverted idea, if I may add.

[Corp]

When has this become an Israel debate again?

Every other Syrian thread has been derailed so might as well do it with this one too. Maybe and then and Yamato need their own separate thread to debate these matters.

[Clarakore]

Not NATO ex-Yugoslavia should have been dismantled before!

I’m thanking NATO for helping, though they couldn’t really, directly help at first. Milosevic made possible they finally join the party.

OK thank you for the explanation and your honesty throughout your posts. I don't know much regarding the dissolution even if the region to me is fascinating, maybe one day you could fill me in on the Hrvatski point of view, but I wish you also knew and understood the Serb and Bosniak views too, then synthesize them all to create an above-ground view that would be more factual overall. Your honesty thus is limited but still highly appreciated.

Unfortunately, I’m a mammal. My litter first. Sorry for being so unsophisticated and direct. If someone doesn't want to be a victim, I recommend they don't pick a fight. But they always do, because they see themselves competent enough to make others victims. When it fails, no one cries louder and more heart-wrenching than a psycho tasting his own medicine.

We progress and have been throughout history. War will be outlawed one day, I am sure you will support that, hope you would anyways.

Your point of view, like an Israeli pov, is always that of the victim, "they are picking fights on us", but funny you guys win because you have more strength. I would like their point of views too, I don't see why you ignore them. We are a Brotherhood of Man. We are all one litter.

Now Croatians helped Nazis in WW2 against the Serbs who helped the Allies. What the Croatian Ustasi did was reprehensible on the level of Nazi SS and while some can point to a few and call them psychos it is the ordinary people who hold point of views such as yours which make that possible, your view is the bed for their disastrous action against humanity.

It is not as if when you guys did it, it was OK and just defense. But when they do it back it becomes a crime against humanity. No your side is equally guilty of that too.

Psychosis visits all litters equally it seems. Instead of hiding your own, or showcasing that of your enemies, again a synthesis view is required

Excuse my bluntness, but I’m under impression you are not aware of nature of this world. No one is ever my victim if they let me live, preferably in peace.

I love your sense of humor, "preferably in peace," lol.

I'm more than just supporter of winning my wars, I can also be, surprisingly for my delicate frame, quite useful.

Philosophy is a wonderful thing but it doesn't have much to do with survival

I agree. I am no pacifist. Sometimes greater forces compels us into war and roles.

The difference is in philosophy, war is wrong, it doesn't matter if some are compelled into it through conscription, if I were I would engage the enemy, but my heart will also be in knowing they are human, what their point of view is, and that they have mothers too. After the war I would help anyone. But as a civilian I would help anyone, even who you would call the enemy, I would shelter them from you, if you were my own kind.

and I hope I'm not too bad person if I'm not ready to let more ruthless or less enlightened than me survive by rolling over and letting them off me with no resistance. What a perverted idea, if I may add.

And your views are somehow humanitarian and enlightened? In my view yours are equal to your enemies. You share more than just a mutually understandable tongue.

[pallidin]

How can Israel ever live "in peace" while the neighbors, and Iran, are publicly hell-bent on totally destroying them?

Not to mention the fact that radical islamic muslims have publicly stated their desire to occupy the entire Middle East and place it under Sharia law, oh, and then the entire world.

Edited January 10, 2013 by pallidin

[AsteroidX]

Iran has demonstrated some minor changes in there ability to be a world player. ala: making a statement to the families of the Sandy Hook massacre.

Theres still a long ways to go. But lets try and work together to make this a better world.