"will of the people" argument

@saberking321 what makes you believe that? Income is always higher in peace times than in wars, so your whole argument is some notion that the US would install a friendly government? Unless it launches a ground invasion, nothing will happen and it needlessly bombed civilian infraszructure.

@anonymous_III said ^

@saberking321 what makes you believe that? Income is always higher in peace times than in wars, so your whole argument is some notion that the US would install a friendly government? Unless it launches a ground invasion, nothing will happen and it needlessly bombed civilian infraszructure.

I'm hoping if they kill enough supreme leaders the regime will implode

@saberking321 said ^

@saberking321 what makes you believe that? Income is always higher in peace times than in wars, so your whole argument is some notion that the US would install a friendly government? Unless it launches a ground invasion, nothing will happen and it needlessly bombed civilian infraszructure.

I'm hoping if they kill enough supreme leaders the regime will implode

1985 USSR style or 1918 Sverdlovsk style? Because neither helped the 'people' much. Also implosion means dictatorship/oligarchy at best, civil war at worst. Leaderless countries lead to struggle for power, that you agree, right?

Also, by that logic, everyone would be justified assasinating foreign heads of state, and I believe we are united in wanting to avoid that

@anonymous_III said ^

@saberking321 what makes you believe that? Income is always higher in peace times than in wars, so your whole argument is some notion that the US would install a friendly government? Unless it launches a ground invasion, nothing will happen and it needlessly bombed civilian infraszructure.

I'm hoping if they kill enough supreme leaders the regime will implode

1985 USSR style or 1918 Sverdlovsk style? Because neither helped the 'people' much. Also implosion means dictatorship/oligarchy at best, civil war at worst. Leaderless countries lead to struggle for power, that you agree, right?

Also, by that logic, everyone would be justified assasinating foreign heads of state, and I believe we are united in wanting to avoid that

Iran is a special case. The only worse country is North Korea. I think most Iranians want a US puppet rather than the extremists they have now. I don't think there's much support for civil war, most of the population are not extremists unlike Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan

@saberking321 Ah, I see. You think? This is the exact topic of this thread.
Who are we to 'think' on what the 'will of the people' is?

And does thinking/believing something allow us to bomb other nations?

Were we in Plato's republic, we would make a poll. Unfortunately we are not.

Are you arguing everywhere there is a civil war, only extremists would take part / cause violence? It only requires a power struggle between local leaders to kick off one.

@anonymous_III said ^

@saberking321 Ah, I see. You think? This is the exact topic of this thread.
Who are we to 'think' on what the 'will of the people' is?

And does thinking/believing something allow us to bomb other nations?

Were we in Plato's republic, we would make a poll. Unfortunately we are not.

Are you arguing everywhere there is a civil war, only extremists would take part / cause violence? It only requires a power struggle between local leaders to kick off one.

That's right, only extremists take part in civil war

@saberking321 said ^

@saberking321 Ah, I see. You think? This is the exact topic of this thread.
Who are we to 'think' on what the 'will of the people' is?

And does thinking/believing something allow us to bomb other nations?

Were we in Plato's republic, we would make a poll. Unfortunately we are not.

Are you arguing everywhere there is a civil war, only extremists would take part / cause violence? It only requires a power struggle between local leaders to kick off one.

That's right, only extremists take part in civil war

unfortunately, no. Prove that two powerful men with huge followings will not turn against each other to control more of a country's resources.

Examples I can think of are Pompey vs Caesar, Nigerian civil war, Myanmar civil war, and endless conflicts between lords in medieval/early modern times.

Probably I miss a lot of better suiting examples

@tpr said ^

"the US statements"

• First it was to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, now to destroy the navy and the ballistic missiles.

"Iran was close to making a Nuke"

• Not nearly close. 60% is not 90%. Of course it takes more energy to centrifuge large quantities of uranium hexafluoride with a small amount of U-235 than a smaller quantity with a higher amount. It does take more steps to reach 90% than to reach 60%.

"Jews are Palestinians."

• ??? Jews are Jewish, Palestinians are Muslim or Christian.
  The Philistines inhabited Gaza, Askelon, Asdod, Ekron, and Gat since 1200 B.C. They are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.

"deoccupied by Israel"

• Jordan lost the war and Israel occupied the West Bank.

"the war for Israel's independence"

• Started with terror attacks like the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946.
  The point is that Israel bombs Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Qatar without justification.

"headline without any evidence"

• Israel has test fired the 3-stage Jericho IV in december 2019.

Enrichment of uranium gets easier as you move along the process. Getting from 0-4% is a lot harder than getting from 60-90. Enrichment is a process of removal, not just addition. To get started, you have to process a massive amount of "trash" (U-238) to find a tiny bit of "treasure" (U-235). At the start, you are straining through tons of material, which takes an enormous amount of time and machinery. By the time you hit 60%, you have already removed about 98% of the bulk. Because the total volume of material is now so small, the remaining machines don't have to work nearly as hard or as long to finish the job. You’ve already done the "heavy lifting" of clearing out the waste, so the final jump to 90% is a quick sprint to the finish line. That is why 60% enrichment is actually very close.

Also, the war of independence started with Arabs rejecting the UN partition plan and attacking a bus with Jewish civilians on it. If you don't believe me, look up the Fajja bus attacks.

Also, yes, Israel reclaimed the West Bank from Jordan using Uti Posidetis Juris as its justification.

Uti possidetis juris (Latin for "as you possess under law") is a principle of international law that dictates that newly independent states should inherit the same administrative borders they had as colonies or mandates.

"Arabs rejecting the UN partition plan" * Yes, the Mufti of Jerusalem rejected the 2 state solution back then.
Also Mahmoud Abbas did not accept right away the 2 state solution that Ehud Olmert offered.

"attacking a bus with Jewish civilians" * Yes, but the creation of the state of Israel was forced by a campaign of terrorism like the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946.

"West Bank" * International law forbids annexation of occupied territory.