• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,230
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Israeli leaders and state officials have a pronounced desire to dominate the section of the Middle East that they believe has been ordained to their possession directly by Yahweh.
History debunks your assertion. If empire was the goal, Israel would never have signed comprehensive peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), would never have withdrawn from Lebanon (1982/2006), nor would she currently be involved in bi-lateral negotiations with Syria and Palestine to settle all outstanding territorial disputes.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Maybe. From what I've read regarding it, it's more concern for ourselves rather then Israel.

1) Israel is unlikely to stop Iran's program
2) An attack would likely result in open war
3) US assets in Afghanistan and Iraq would be subject to strikes

With very little benefit and obvious massive costs, even the most rabid warmonger would have to say no.

Ah, so "warmonger" is now a state of mind as opposed to a policy. Fair enough.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
But the presentment of their foreign policy is based on a black and white perception of the world.
Its a speech to the COMMON person. Its not a high level policy document. Have you no understanding of propaganda and "dumbing it down"? You think even a QUARTER of the population could comprehend the background and in depth analysis that is required when designing foreign policy? You are having a serious problem of understanding the PURPOSE and MOTIVATION for speeches, IMHO.

Generally they do hold an ideological commitment that our way is the best way to do things and as Israel does things our way we should back them whatever.
In other words: people think that their own opinion or reasoning is correct and that it should be implemented?:shock: Well duh.

Pretty gloomy outlook, there are no serious ideological divisions left in the world the great powers are pretty interdependent, Europe is more stable than ever, a "depression" is pretty unlikely.
:shock: What planet are you living on?

Have you overlooked the conflicts and wars of the last 10 years alone?

People like Gates aren't interested in abandoning Israel, they just don't base their entire foreign policy around Israeli interests. They base it, funnily enough, on American interests.
Only tinfoil hats truly believe we are slaves to Israel. We have had mutual interests for a long time and thus we have a close relationship for quite some time.

Also the UK and Israel are very different types of allies for the US. The US doesn't offend the rest of Europe by backing us no matter what, the UK is a globalish power in her own right and generally helps US security rather than hinders it.
You got the general idea of the analogy. Don't over analyze it.
 

Delphi

New member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Wow! It's been a long time since I saw a liberal give Bush any credit whatsoever for doing something right.

And what choice would he have but to "rein" them in? I think our tab is maxed out with the World Bank 'O War. :twocents:
 

conquer

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
964
Reaction score
69
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.


You must understand the difference between "Israel asking to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran" with "Bush -the warmonger- trying to invade Iran sending US troops over there". :mrgreen:
 

Agnapostate

Banned
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
5,497
Reaction score
912
Location
Between Hollywood and Compton.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
History debunks your assertion. If empire was the goal, Israel would never have signed comprehensive peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), would never have withdrawn from Lebanon (1982/2006), nor would she currently be involved in bi-lateral negotiations with Syria and Palestine to settle all outstanding territorial disputes.

Israel's initial invasion of Lebanon was egregious enough, let alone the fact that they employed the use of American cluster munitions against civilian areas. Israel would not need to be engaged in any "peace process" had it not been for their annexation of the Golan Heights and continued illegal settlement constructions in the Occupied Territories. Neither has Israel been particularly willing to engage in peace treaties with the Palestinians in the past, perhaps most potently evidenced by their predetermined will to violate the partition plan.

David Ben-Gurion said:
After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.
 

Soaring

New member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
25
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the technological know-how to make such weapons is a future far worse than most that I can imagine.
Yes it is, but what I have a conern about, is that Iran has been lying all along, telling the world that they are only building nuclear plants for energy sources. What do they have to hide? If they are going to build a nuclear bomb, then why not tell the world their intentions and be done with it. Why all the secrecy? However, If I was the king of Israel, I would head my bombers straight toward the nuclear facilities of Iran. Iran will launch its' first nuclear bomb on Israel. Israel cannot sit idly by and have that happen.
 

Richard Nixon

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
473
Reaction score
129
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
History debunks your assertion. If empire was the goal, Israel would never have signed comprehensive peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), would never have withdrawn from Lebanon (1982/2006), nor would she currently be involved in bi-lateral negotiations with Syria and Palestine to settle all outstanding territorial disputes.

Hogwash. All 'peace' negotiations that have ever taken place between Israel and Palestine have been so unbalanced that it's almost ridiculous, and the peace agreement with other nations was largely a result of the US offering financial aid. Egyptian governments still let the Gazan's float through the Rafah crossing when Israeli blockades get too much. The Oslo peace accord? Fundamentally flawed. Whilst Israel talked of peace they expanded the settlements, OK'd the creation of thousands of new homes and demolished hundreds of Palestinian homes. The Palestine's weren't treated as little more than a sub-section, given a government where more power lies in the executive, which in the case of a puppet like Arafat is not a good thing.

Israel may not be looking for an empire in the wider, stricter sense, but it's definitely expansionist. It still sits on occupied lander.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,230
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Israel's initial invasion of Lebanon was egregious enough, let alone the fact that they employed the use of American cluster munitions against civilian areas.
Don't mess with folks and bad stuff won't happen...

The conflict began when Hezbollah militants purposely fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[20] Of the seven Israeli soldiers in the two jeeps, two were wounded, three were killed, and two were captured and taken to Lebanon.[20] Five more were killed in a failed Israeli rescue attempt.
2006 Lebanon War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel would not need to be engaged in any "peace process" had it not been for their annexation of the Golan Heights and continued illegal settlement constructions in the Occupied Territories. Neither has Israel been particularly willing to engage in peace treaties with the Palestinians in the past, perhaps most potently evidenced by their predetermined will to violate the partition plan.
Once again, you mess with folks and the gamble doesn't pay off... there are consequences. Too bad so sad.

Hogwash. All 'peace' negotiations that have ever taken place between Israel and Palestine have been so unbalanced that it's almost ridiculous, and the peace agreement with other nations was largely a result of the US offering financial aid.
Not according to the memoirs of various US presidents who brokered negotiations.

Egyptian governments still let the Gazan's float through the Rafah crossing when Israeli blockades get too much.
Really? IIRC, the Egyptians repaired the barrier that separates Gaza from Egypt after it was breached with bulldozers. You should perhaps peruse the status of the Rafah Crossing during the last three years.

Israel may not be looking for an empire in the wider, stricter sense, but it's definitely expansionist. It still sits on occupied lander.
Land captured during war. In the absence of peace accords with Palestine and Syria, she will continue to occupy captured territory. Believe it or not lol, Russia still occupies Japanese islands captured during World War II.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Israel's initial invasion of Lebanon was egregious enough...

Hezbollah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers was the incident that led to Israel's military mission. Before then, Hezbollah's rocket fire into Israel was commonplace. Every country has a right to act in self-defense. Israel is no exception.

Israel would not need to be engaged in any "peace process" had it not been for their annexation of the Golan Heights and continued illegal settlement constructions in the Occupied Territories.

Syria had the opportunity to receive most of the Golan Heights except for a tiny strip of a few hundred meters along Lake Tiberius. The Palestinians had the chance to gain a fully sovereign state on 97% of the West Bank (inclusive of land swaps), 100% of the Gaza Strip, all of East Jerusalem except for the Western Wall under President Clinton's bridging proposal. Yasser Arafat did not accept that agreement.

Israel has more than met the test of peace. Where nations are willing to engage in reasonable negotiations and accept reasonable agreements, they have achieved peace with Israel. Egypt and Jordan are two examples.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Whilst Israel talked of peace they expanded the settlements...

Had Yasser Arafat accepted President Clinton's bridging proposal, the Palestinians would have gained 97% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. Israeli settlements would have been removed from the territory given to the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat did not.

In August 2005, Israel unilaterally and completely withdrew all of its settlements from the Gaza Strip. The residents of Gaza had an enormous opportunity to begin building a viable society and economy. Instead, terrorist organizations such as Hamas began a war of attrition via rockets.
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
93,926
Reaction score
31,949
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hezbollah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers was the incident that led to Israel's military mission. Before then, Hezbollah's rocket fire into Israel was commonplace. Every country has a right to act in self-defense. Israel is no exception.



Syria had the opportunity to receive most of the Golan Heights except for a tiny strip of a few hundred meters along Lake Tiberius. The Palestinians had the chance to gain a fully sovereign state on 97% of the West Bank (inclusive of land swaps), 100% of the Gaza Strip, all of East Jerusalem except for the Western Wall under President Clinton's bridging proposal. Yasser Arafat did not accept that agreement.

Israel has more than met the test of peace. Where nations are willing to engage in reasonable negotiations and accept reasonable agreements, they have achieved peace with Israel. Egypt and Jordan are two examples.
To me this proves that a final peace is not possible with the current players. The only way to maintain the status quo is to deny anyone over there the ability to make nukes. The status quo is the current situation, and is about as peaceful as it's going to get.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The only way to maintain the status quo is to deny anyone over there the ability to make nukes.

I strongly believe Iran must not be permitted to develop or attain nuclear weapons. Such a development would fundamentally alter the region's balance of power and pose a mortal threat to vital U.S. allies and interests in the region. Israel is a tiny country, so the threat posed by Iran would adversely impact Israel in a disproportionate fashion. In addition, Iran could use its nuclear umbrella to encourage increased terrorist activity by Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations, as well as to bolster radical political movements that could undermine the prospects for success from what diplomacy is currently taking place. Other states would also be inclined to try to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.

All in all, the region would grow more unstable and dangerous.
 

Richard Nixon

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
473
Reaction score
129
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not according to the memoirs of various US presidents who brokered negotiations.

To which? US offering of aid or the unbalanced nature of the talks? Or both?

Tashas said:
Really? IIRC, the Egyptians repaired the barrier that separates Gaza from Egypt after it was breached with bulldozers. You should perhaps peruse the status of the Rafah Crossing during the last three years.

And they've re-opened it a few times now, despite Israeli pressures to close it. They kept it open a lot longer than Israeli wanted it to, too.

Tashas said:
Land captured during war. In the absence of peace accords with Palestine and Syria, she will continue to occupy captured territory. Believe it or not lol, Russia still occupies Japanese islands captured during World War II.

There's a sharp contrast between occupation and building on that occupied land. It violates international law, it goes against promises made by Rabin during the Oslo accord and it infringes on the basic human rights of the Palestinian people.

Donsutherland said:
Had Yasser Arafat accepted President Clinton's bridging proposal, the Palestinians would have gained 97% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. Israeli settlements would have been removed from the territory given to the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat did not.

In August 2005, Israel unilaterally and completely withdrew all of its settlements from the Gaza Strip. The residents of Gaza had an enormous opportunity to begin building a viable society and economy. Instead, terrorist organizations such as Hamas began a war of attrition via rockets.

The West Bank and Gaza are some 23% of the original territory. The fact the land they conceded is away from the water supplies and allowed all major settlements to be near the roads and good land is hardly inspiring confidence. Not accepting it is hardly surprising.

And yet this withdrawal still decided who can go in and out of Gaza, or whether a family in the West Bank can go and see their families in the strip. Israel still controls their airspace and their waters. They promoted partial freedom. Military raids still happened straight after the withdrawal. The problem is that neither side has any real determination for peace. Israel continues to settle and groups like Hamas continue to order a jihad every five seconds. There is simply no real willingness to concede. Israel will withdraw troops from Gaza but build a thousand more Israeli homes in the West Bank. Hamas will sign a truce and fire rockets into Sderot.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,230
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
To which? US offering of aid or the unbalanced nature of the talks? Or both?
You read them. Particularly the memoirs of Clinton, Madeline Albright, Dennis Ross etc. They all agree that Palestine squandered a golden opportunity.

And they've re-opened it a few times now, despite Israeli pressures to close it. They kept it open a lot longer than Israeli wanted it to, too.
Egypt and the EU jointly administer the Rafah Crossing. Egypt unilaterally closed the border when Hamas seized power in Gaza. As a matter of fact, many Palestinians stranded in Egypt were granted conveyance through Israel to re-enter Gaza on the Israeli side.

There's a sharp contrast between occupation and building on that occupied land. It violates international law, it goes against promises made by Rabin during the Oslo accord and it infringes on the basic human rights of the Palestinian people.
I personally do not agree with the settlements.

The West Bank and Gaza are some 23% of the original territory. The fact the land they conceded is away from the water supplies and allowed all major settlements to be near the roads and good land is hardly inspiring confidence. Not accepting it is hardly surprising.
These are among the items being negotiated at the present. At this time, I think the only viable solution is a land swap.

And yet this withdrawal still decided who can go in and out of Gaza, or whether a family in the West Bank can go and see their families in the strip. Israel still controls their airspace and their waters.
As with any nation, Israel has every right to regulate the movement of people and material within and through Israel proper.

They promoted partial freedom. Military raids still happened straight after the withdrawal.
Rockets fired from Gaza struck Sderot the very day after the withdrawal.

The problem is that neither side has any real determination for peace. Israel continues to settle and groups like Hamas continue to order a jihad every five seconds.
Last month, the government of Israel forbade any new settlement construction.

There is simply no real willingness to concede. Israel will withdraw troops from Gaza but build a thousand more Israeli homes in the West Bank. Hamas will sign a truce and fire rockets into Sderot.
No additional settlement homes will be built in the West Bank. Israel has released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, but Cpl. Shavit still remains in captivity. With the mediation of Turkey, Israel and Syria are negotiating the Golan Heights. Israel and Abbas are and have been engaged in settlement negotiations.

Do you imagine it easy to untangle and resolve 60 years of strife and acrimony? This will take time and no doubt require concessions by both antagonists.
 

JMak

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
568
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Bush administration has been pushing hard for a ME peace deal in the last few months; such a strike by Israel would have put off any hope of an accomplishment. But for whatever the reason, good for Bush for reigning them in, and his recent decision to open a US liaison office in Teheran.

:rofl

As if the constant rocket attacks by Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah and Hamas don't have any influence on the prospect for a such a deal, right?

It seems to me that each time we get close to such a deal, the Iranians, with their paid-proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas, launch new rounds of suicide bombings and rocket attacks.

Yet, Israel gets raked over the coals for responding to such attacks.

Disgusting.

Israel should have told Bush that they were merely giving a courtesy heads-up that were planning such an attack against Iran. They should protect and respect their sovereignty as much as we used to here in the US when we actually considered embassy attacks and attacks against our naval vessels as acts of war.

Now we treat such events as a consequence of our own making... :roll: :shock:
 

JMak

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
568
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
As with any nation, Israel has every right to regulate the movement of people and material within and through Israel proper.

A side note: I wonder why so many people in the US either ignore this function (as well as responsibility) of sovereignty or condemn it?

Many people like you and I take this right of sovereignty for granted, yet, it seems that most American liberals/Democrats despise it as they characterize the exercise of such sovereignty as racism, nativism, nationalism, etc.

Lets hope the Israeli's hold steadfast to this principle of sovereignty and avoid the mistake the US has made in essentially believing that non-citizens have some innate right to cross our borders and then remain here as long as they like.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
85,178
Reaction score
54,764
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.

I'm glad Bush is pushing for some diplomacy. It wasn't Bush that I was worried about desperately wanting to attack Iran; it was McCain. I think Bush let too many people have his ear and looking back probably did some things he wouldn't have if on his own. McCain to me seemed well more the warmonger.

But I'll give Bush props for sure, there have been a few things he's done that I agree with. I think Israel gets a lot of leeway and has taken advantage of that in the past. They need to be told to knock it off, pouring fuel on the fire doesn't solve the problem.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
85,178
Reaction score
54,764
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
A side note: I wonder why so many people in the US either ignore this function (as well as responsibility) of sovereignty or condemn it?

Many people like you and I take this right of sovereignty for granted, yet, it seems that most American liberals/Democrats despise it as they characterize the exercise of such sovereignty as racism, nativism, nationalism, etc.

Lets hope the Israeli's hold steadfast to this principle of sovereignty and avoid the mistake the US has made in essentially believing that non-citizens have some innate right to cross our borders and then remain here as long as they like.

I find the talk of respecting and understanding soveriegnty to be ironic from those whom whole heartily supported the Iraq war.
 

JMak

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
568
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I find the talk of respecting and understanding soveriegnty to be ironic from those whom whole heartily supported the Iraq war.

Oh, geez...are you serious?

I was talking about a nation's sovereign right to control its borders and to be responsible for its borders.

How does that, in any way, say anything about my views on the Iraq war?

What? If I say that a nation's sovereignty entitles it to control it borders and to be responsible for its borders means that I cannot argue that war is justifiable?

Screw your head on straight...
 

Truth Detector

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
1,400
Location
Ventura California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.

Id give this story ZERO credence; Israel would NEVER ask.

:2wave:
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
85,178
Reaction score
54,764
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Oh, geez...are you serious?

I was talking about a nation's sovereign right to control its borders and to be responsible for its borders.

How does that, in any way, say anything about my views on the Iraq war?

What? If I say that a nation's sovereignty entitles it to control it borders and to be responsible for its borders means that I cannot argue that war is justifiable?

Screw your head on straight...

First off, it was a general comment. I have heard many people break out the sovereignty argument when defending Israel. I have heard many of those same people defend the removal of the Iraqi government and occupation of Iraq. I find that to be rather ironic. These things are true whether or not you personally fall into the category.

Secondly, it's not that war isn't justifiable (this is a rather large leap in logic here as well. I don't think you really considered my words before jumping on the attack). It's that this particular one was not. To understand that base of what sovereignty is, one could not accept the Iraq war as justifiable. Iraq was a sovereign nation which in no way threatened the sovereignty of the United States. Thus, when we go in on an undeclared war and remove the government of a sovereign state; that is infringement of the sovereignty of that land. War is sometimes justifiable, and can be perfectly within the lines of sovereignty. But I think your little response there proved my point. Some don't take it for the whole of what it is. Rather they'll use the term and use sovereignty to defend some positions, but will conveniently sweep it under the rug for other arguments.

As for my head being on straight, it is. I know well the concepts of soveriegnty and argue on the side of it oft.
 
Last edited:

JMak

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
568
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
First off, it was a general comment. I have heard many people break out the sovereignty argument when defending Israel. I have heard many of those same people defend the removal of the Iraqi government and occupation of Iraq. I find that to be rather ironic. These things are true whether or not you personally fall into the category.

What "things" are true? That "many people break out the sovereignty argument" and "many of those same people defend the removal of the Iraqi government and occupation of Iraq"?

Okay, no argument from me...all sorts of people say all sorts of things.

I just don't see the irony that you expressed qhen directly addressing my comment.

Secondly, it's not that war isn't justifiable (this is a rather large leap in logic here as well. I don't think you really considered my words before jumping on the attack). It's that this particular one was not.

Opinions vary, of course.

To understand that base of what sovereignty is, one could not accept the Iraq war as justifiable. Iraq was a sovereign nation which in no way threatened the sovereignty of the United States.

In your opinion.

Thus, when we go in on an undeclared war and remove the government of a sovereign state;

That it was declared would have mattered at all I this analysis? Of course not. Congress authorized this war, period.

that is infringement of the sovereignty of that land.

Any war constitutes an infringement of a nation's sovereignty. Whether it is declared or otherwise and whether the nation attacked constitutes a threat or otherwise. No matter the circumstances, the introduction of foreign troops over another's border constitutes a violation of sovereignty.

War is sometimes justifiable, and can be perfectly within the lines of sovereignty.

Huh? Whether a war is justifiable is pointless relative to whether a nation's sovereignty has been violated. Despite a declaration of war, Japan's sovereignty was violated when the US bombed Japanese cities.

But I think your little response there proved my point. Some don't take it for the whole of what it is. Rather they'll use the term and use sovereignty to defend some positions, but will conveniently sweep it under the rug for other arguments.

My "little" response? :roll:

My response conveyed my point. That I believe that you can advocate strong control of your own borders as required by a nation's sovereignty and advocate for war in some instances. There is no irony.

Citing a sovereign's obligation and responsibility for its borders has nothing to do with one's position justifying war.

Now, had I argued that a nation's borders are not to be violated under any circumstances then argued that the US has a right to violate those borders at will, you'd have a point.

As for my head being on straight, it is. I know well the concepts of soveriegnty and argue on the side of it oft.

If your head was on straight you wouldn't have attributed some bogus irony to my comments.
 
Top Bottom