Bio not provided
Under Jewish religious law (Halacha), the only time an abortion is permitted is during child birth, if it appears the birth of the infant will cause the death of the mother. The life of the mother overrules the life of the embryo. But only if the LIFE of the mother is in danger, and not her health or lifestyel.
Liberal Jews have taken this tiny loophole to support abortion in the name of endangering the health or lifestyle of the woman. And then the argument shifted to "privacy" and "right" of the woman "to choose." The father has no say.
I repeat, what about the children? Who has the right to dominate and control the very life of children?
1 year, 10 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/why_do_they_hate_us
Yeah, but again, what about the children? How do men get equity in their children if they have ZERO power over women? Unless women believe that men have less love for, or less interest in, or less rights to the children just because fate made it so that only women can conceive them. Again, what about the children?
It's all the fault of the Jews. EVeryone knows that all the problems in the universe are due to the Jews. Didn't the God of Israel create the universe? Didn't the Jews invent God? Didn't the Jews kill God? Didn't God kill Jews? Ckearly, to cure all the problems in the universe you have to get rid of God and the Jews. Hitler believed it. The Muslims believe it. Almost everyone, even many Jews believe it.
It's not hatred; it's a power struggle, and has been going on since "Adam and Eve." Men got the upper hand for a few thousand years, and now it's the women who are getting the upper hand. It's all about power, particularly over the children.
It's all about the children. Who controls the children? The semites were particularly patriarchal, more than most other races, but the bottom line essence of the political power struggle between men and women is over who controls the children. The "war against women" ultimately boils down to who is in control of the children in the final analysis.
The thing still apparently still not well learned from the 1930s is that a Party that has an Army attached to it must not be allowed to participate! It's either bullets or ballots; it can't be both. A faction with a militia, be it communist, royalist, fascist, Nazi, KKK or Islamist must be ipso facto excluded from the democratic process. Such parties must verifiably disarm and disband their "military wings" before they are allowed to put up candidates to run for parliament.
1 year, 10 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/tk
Every sovereign country has the right to nuclear weapons UNLESS they signed the NPT after 1969 and already had them. There is nothing ambiguous about the treaty itself> The treaty is VERY clear. The US began to press for this treaty when it saw it couldn't stop even Israel from developing nukes in the 1960s when it even sent inspectgors into Dimona, which had been built in collabaration with the French after the Suez Crisis when the US, the USSR and the US all combined to oppose France and Israel in that 1956-57 war. That's when France and ISrael decided they could not count on the US and had to have their own "frappe d'force" or nuclear deterrents.
So the US had the UN create a treaty which essentially does the following:
(1) States that DO NOT sign the treaty can develop whatever weapons they want, provided they can do so indigenously. That is totally from within. No one is allowed to sell them reactors, or nuclear fuels, or nuclear parts or nuclear knowlege of any kind!
(2) States that DO sign the treaty however, CAN buy nuclear reactors from anyone that sells nuclear reactors.They can do whatever nuclear work they want to for scientific research and energy purposes BUT MAY NOT PRODUCE A WEAPON, PERIOD!
IF the above treaty had existed in 1956, France would not have been to build a nuclear reactor for Israel, or for Saddam Hussein, nor would Russia have been allowed to build one for Iran, etc.
The treaty was drafted in 1969 and it took some arm twisting to get all but three states to sign it> Those three states that have chosen not to sign the treaty are India, Israel, and Pakistan. THerefore it became technically illegal to sell nuclear reactors to ISrael, India and Pakistan after 1969, but by that time those three countries had already come a long way.
The problem was with those regimes who signed the treaty, but then chost to try to SUBVERT the treaty. They not only were able to legally purchase reactors, but were illegally acquiring nuclear knowledge and parts from the black market network of A.Q. Khan, father of the Pakistani bomb, in order to try to build hidden bomb programs. Iraq and Libya finally were forced to come clean. Some other states felt it wasn't worth the effort and the sanctions. But the three countries who never signed the treaty have no impediment as long as they can do so INDIGENOUSLY without any outside support whatsoever.
The known nuclear powers who signed the treaty, i..e, the US, UK, Russia, France, China are all committed to eventually getting rid of their nukes but there is no specific timeline that holds them. That was one of India's objections to the treaty. Pakistan said it had no choice if India was going nuclear. Israel admits to nothing, one way or the other. To do so would give its neighbors an additional excuse to break the treaty, and so for Israel "mum's the word."
1 year, 10 months ago on Conversation @ http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/04/18/a_tactical_nuclear_mistake
The reason why the US kept nukes in Europe was because we did not want Germany, Italy, Poland and every other European country going nuclear on its own, the way France did anyway after the Suez Crisis. We put them in Europe to keep proliferation by our allies at a minimum. Without our participation in NATO, every western and eastern European country would develop its own nukes. Just as Israel developed its own nukes in cooperation with France because the US never gave Israel a formal treaty of alliance such as NATO or the US-Japan Security treaty, or ANZUS for Australia/New Zealand, etc. The US extended its nuclear umbrella over those countries so they would NOT all start producing their own to protect themselves against the USSR. We did not put them in Europe for own pleasure, but to keep our allies from proliferating. Every industrialized country in the world today can produce nukes if it feels it has no higher protection from the US or somebody else watching over it.
As for the missile shield, I do believe we should reassure the Russians and cooperate with them in this field against the increasing development of ICBMs by rogue states such NK, Iran and others. However, the question is, how democratic and how peaceful will the Putin regime be? And they naturally question our motives as well.
The US and Europe should not encircle Russia, and Russia should not encircle Europe and America. Russia is still physically the largest country on earth, and so it has everybody on its borders. Australia is lucky and has nobody on its borders. Maybe we should all store all our nukes in Antarctica and then would have to go get them only when we are attacked?
When 56 Muslim countries fully accept and RESPECT the RIGHT of the Jewish state to exist with Jerusalem as its united capital, then ISrael can start disarmament talks after peace is fully established (as the US has with Russia) with its former adversaries, not only about nukes, but regarding all WMDs including chemical, biological and other weapons as well as conventional weapons. Israel is numerically outnumbered 100 to 1 by the Muslim world, and they have ten times as much conventional armaments, and so those have to be factored in as well..
The Iranian leadership is a revolutionary leadership dedicated to EXPORTING its revolution just as the Soviet Union was at one time. Not long after it came to power, it sent agents to Mecca to start disturbances. It has dreams of a Shia Caliphate and its attacks on Israel is to try to get the Arabs on its side somehow. That is why it arms and trained Hezbollah and even Hamas een though the latter is Sunni Arab. It has taken on the mantle of "the Resistance." The only Muslim power capable of confronting Israel. But its overall objective is to become the hegemon of the Middle East and this threatens everyone in the region as well as the oil-dependent West. By contrast, NK's objective has always been to try to gain control of South Korea, although I believe survival of the regime is as about as much as it realistically knows it can get by having nukes. If Iran gets nukes, the stakes are MUCH higher for everyone. Pakistan is totally checked by India, so it doesn't represent a genuine threat to anyone unless the Islamists somehow gets control over those nukes, which is improbable but not impossible.
1 year, 10 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/13/backed_into_a_corner
Iran has no right to have nuclear weapons after signing the NPT. Pakistan did not sign the NPT and so does have nuclear weapons, so there is already a "Muslim bomb." How many Muslim states will now be entitled to have nukes? All 56? But I agree that no attack on Iran, short of a full nuclear attack, can succeed to stop Iran if they are determined to go ahead. Iran is too big and strong to be stopped by conventional weapons. So any Israel attack that isn't a nuclear attack will fail.
As for the price of oil, naturally pulling any large producer out of the market drives up prices, however with or without Iran, the price of oil will rise over time, because of China, India and the rest. So the price of oil should not be the major consideration in stopping IRan from getting the bomb. It will be going up in any case.
During WWII, the USSR backed certain parties who occupied parts of northern Iran. The US in 1946 helped get the Russian's stooges out of northern Iran.
See Wikipedia "Iran crisis of 1946" for details:
"The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Following an official US protest, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2, on January 30, 1946; the Soviets replied on March 24, 1946 and pledged immediate withdrawal, but in fact remained for a few more weeks.
In a second stage through the spring, the US supported the Iranian complaint against Soviet actions lodged with the Security Council in Resolution 3 and Resolution 5.
In a third stage in mid December 1946, the US supported the shah’s government to send the Iranian army to re-occupied Mahabad and Azerbaijan. The leaders of the Azerbaijan enclave in Iran fled to the Azerbaijan SSR, and the leaders of the Kurdish Republic were tried and sentenced to death. They were hanged in Chwarchira Square in the center of Mahabad in 1947.
A fourth stage was initiated in 1947 and centered on the issue of Soviet designs on Iran's northern oil resources...." See the article for the rest.
Once the US finally decides to kick its oil addiction, or is forced to do so, the Arabs will go back to their tents, sheep and scorpions, and will be dying of famine in the blistering sandy heat. You'll be running to the Jews to give you food and water :)
What "Rothschild abuses?" The WEst abused itself by addicting itself to the oil it discovered and sent trillions to increase the Arab populations there from 20 million to nearly 400 million in the space of a century!
The ability of Muslim Arabs to lie, lie, lie and make up poems and fairy tales is inexhaustible. I guess that what happens when an illiterate people living in tents in the desert among the scorpions, raiding each other's sheep and water wells do when they force themselves into civilized societies. The fact is, that thanks to western thirst for oil,the Arab population in the Middle East grew nearly 20 times, from 22 million after WWI to nearly 400 million today. All thanks to the oil that Britain and American discovered, developed and got themselves addicted to. America's oil addiction took sheikhs who were eating fried locusts in raggedy tents and put them into gold-plated palaces. The Muslims Arabs should be bending down and kissing American ASS for all the wealth we have sent over there in exchange for black goo that we found for them under their hooves.
If Israel were intent on exterminating the Arabs in their midst, it would have happened a long time ago. The fact is that the Arabs have increased from 1.2 million to 5.5 million west of the Jordan river since 1948, but the Jewish population has so far kept pace with 5.8 m illion versus 600,000 in 1948, mostly due to large immigration.
As for the US, it has mostly liberated Muslims from oppression, in Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Kurdistan, etc. It has also been feeding Palestinians in camps since 1948. Camps that their Arab "brothers" purposely kept them in to radicalize and use against Israel.
Israel helped kick the Soviet Union out of the Middle East during the Cold War. Israel has taken out Muslim nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria. Israel even lent the US some 50 Israeli UAV drones during the first Gulf/Kuwait war because the US in 1991 did not have any drones. Working mostly behind the scenes, Israel has helped the US effort far more than the public is aware of, especially in intelligence gathering.
First of all, in Israel the Jews are still a majority west of the Jordan river today, some 5.8 miliion Jews vs 5.5 million non-Jews, mostly Muslim Arabic speakers. Also, as Arab women increasingly join the work force, their own high birthrate has declined rapidly. And the Hassidic Jewish population is growing rapidly, so the "demographic threat" to a Jewish majoriti west of the Jordan river has not yet fully materialized.
As for the white, Euro-American population, it is indeed in rapid decline, but that decline is finally stabilizing. Whites are still well over 60% of the US population, but I agree that Whites do not want to become a minority group in a country founded by white Founding Fathers (mothers somewhat excluded at that time). Nobody wants to be part of a minority. And abortion is indeed a rampant threat to any nation's future, because without sufficient children, there obviously is no future, except a future of rapid decline. But I think we will find some solution and demographic stabilization eventually. It is good that the Republicans have brought up the issue, because regardless of where one stands on it, it is a crucial issue that has to be dealt with.
@Persian Gulf Reply @zenwick @Persian
North Korea has survived everything to have a bomb program. Regimes willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of its people can take a lot of economic and military punishment. So certainly Iran can survive without exporting a drop of oil. It has a vibrant economy with a brilliant population. Germany had no oil and fought a hard war with no oil. My mother saw Geman trucks running on wood. The developed synthetic oil from coal. Iran can survive massive punishment, and the only question is how much this regime is willing to sacrifice for a bomb program.
Israel has nothing to do with it, except that IRan has stated it will never recognize the "Zionist entity" and it will help it disappear. But otherwise, Iran has obligations to be totally transparent under a SOLEMN TREATY that it signed. Nobody is against a peaceful nuclear power program in Iran. That has NEVER been questioned. What everyone is against is using to to build up a nuclear bomb capability.