Why should Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons? [Archive]

Segnosaur

1st August 2007, 06:51 AM

Well, as some people have suggested, if you are going to criticize non-super power nations for having Nuclear weapons, then you should also be prepared to give equal criticism to countries like Pakistan.

Now, while I do think the world would probably be better off without nuclear weapons, if any country WERE to posses them I'd prefer them to be owned by countries that are the least likely to use them. In order of preference, that means:

- Stable, functional secular democracies (of which Israel is one)
- Dictatorships which are stable and unlikely to get directly involved militarily with larger nations (China and the old U.S.S.R. fell in this category)

The least desirable situation would be for nuclear weapons to be owned by countries which are theocratic dictatorships, or countries with unstable governments.

And before people derail the thread and start talking about how "The only country to use Nukes was the democratic U.S.", the situation during WW2 was very different than it is now, with the U.S. involved in a war that was started by another country, of which continued military action could have even been more costly in terms of lives lost.

ETA: There is one other reason.... unlike countries like Iran, Israel did not sign the nuclear non-poliferation treaty.

Lothian

1st August 2007, 07:05 AM

And before people derail the thread and start talking about how "The only country to use Nukes was the democratic U.S.",Ok, I will derail with America is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic :).

Matteo Martini

1st August 2007, 07:09 AM

or America ?

Agreed.
No country should posses nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Matteo Martini

1st August 2007, 07:16 AM

Well, as some people have suggested, if you are going to criticize non-super power nations for having Nuclear weapons, then you should also be prepared to give equal criticism to countries like Pakistan.

Now, while I do think the world would probably be better off without nuclear weapons, if any country WERE to posses them I'd prefer them to be owned by countries that are the least likely to use them. In order of preference, that means:

- Stable, functional secular democracies (of which Israel is one)
- Dictatorships which are stable and unlikely to get directly involved militarily with larger nations (China and the old U.S.S.R. fell in this category)

The least desirable situation would be for nuclear weapons to be owned by countries which are theocratic dictatorships, or countries with unstable governments.

I somewhat do not feel confortable at all at the thought that Iran could get nuclear weapons soon, but, you may agree, that the criteria that you have set are extremely debatable.
Why, for example, China should have nuclear weapons while Iran should not?
How do you define if a dictatorship is likely or not " to get directly involved militarily with larger nations "?
How can you dismiss, Mr. A. claim that big nations want to be alone to have nuclear weap, just in order to be able to bully smaller ones?

Segnosaur

1st August 2007, 07:55 AM

I somewhat do not feel confortable at all at the thought that Iran could get nuclear weapons soon, but, you may agree, that the criteria that you have set are extremely debatable.

You're right, they are debatable. For better or worse, there is no black-and-white rules here.

Why, for example, China should have nuclear weapons while Iran should not?

China has been functioning as a dictatorship for a lot longer and appears to be stable. Iran's government is not totally stable (there are student dissidents who could overthrow the government in the same way that the Shaw was overthrown in '79), and much of the government revolves around a president who has talked about 'wiping Israel off the map'. I haven't heard of China making any such threats.

How do you define if a dictatorship is likely or not " to get directly involved militarily with larger nations "?

A couple ways to measure that...
- Has the country made verbal or other threats against other countries? (Iran calling the U.S. 'satan', or threatening to 'wipe Israel off the map'); Iran's support of various terrorist groups
- Does the country have a vested interest in avoiding military conflict? (For example, it would be against China's interest to attack the U.S. because its economy is tied to the U.S. so tightly. Iran, on the other hand, might actually benefit from attacking the U.S. or Israel since its economy would likely be unaffected significantly, and such actions would be politically popular in the middle east.)

How can you dismiss, Mr. A. claim that big nations want to be alone to have nuclear weap, just in order to be able to bully smaller ones?
Because big nations don't need nuclear weapons to bully smaller ones; they typically have more than enough conventional arms to do so. Also, a large nation would be unlikely to use nuclear weapons since it may be subject to retaliation by other nations.

Matteo Martini

1st August 2007, 08:41 AM

You're right, they are debatable. For better or worse, there is no black-and-white rules here.

China has been functioning as a dictatorship for a lot longer and appears to be stable. Iran's government is not totally stable (there are student dissidents who could overthrow the government in the same way that the Shaw was overthrown in '79), and much of the government revolves around a president who has talked about 'wiping Israel off the map'. I haven't heard of China making any such threats.

Mmmm..
Chinese general sees U.S. as nuclear target

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/15/news/china.php

Oh, wait, I forgot!!

George W. did make some statement like this!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6836247/
Bush on Iran:
No option
‘off the table’

A couple ways to measure that...
- Has the country made verbal or other threats against other countries? (Iran calling the U.S. 'satan', or threatening to 'wipe Israel off the map'); Iran's support of various terrorist groups

Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war
against the Filipino Huk revolt.

Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an
independence rebellion in Ponce.

Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of
democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah
to power.

Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to
the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the
Viet Minh.

Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the
democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas
in power.

Lebanon - 1958 - Navy supported an Army occupation of
Lebanon during its civil war.

Panama - 1958 - Troops landed after Panamanians
demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone.

Vietnam - 1950s-75 - Vietnam War.

Laos - 1962 - Military occupied Laos during its civil
war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas.

Panama - 1964 - Troops sent in and Panamanians shot
while protesting the United States presence in the
Canal Zone.

Indonesia - 1965 - The CIA orchestrated a military
coup.

Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a
national election.

Guatemala - 1966-67 - Green Berets sent in.

Oman - 1970 - Marines landed to direct a possible
invasion into Iran.

Laos - 1971-75 - Americans carpet-bomb the countryside
during Laos' civil war.

Chile - 1973 - The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing
President Allende who had been popularly elected. The
CIA helped to establish a military regime under
General Pinochet.

Angola - 1976-92 - The CIA backed South African rebels
fighting against Marxist Angola.

Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan
fighters.

El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers
aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN.

Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the
Contra War against the Sandinistas.

Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during
Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American
barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the
Mediterranean.

Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases
near the Honduran border.

Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the
side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for
government during coup.

Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in
overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama
civilians were killed.

- Does the country have a vested interest in avoiding military conflict? (For example, it would be against China's interest to attack the U.S. because its economy is tied to the U.S. so tightly. Iran, on the other hand, might actually benefit from attacking the U.S. or Israel since its economy would likely be unaffected significantly, and such actions would be politically popular in the middle east.)

What??
What reason should have iran to attack the U.S.??
To gain popularity?
Is that the American Idol?

Because big nations don't need nuclear weapons to bully smaller ones; they typically have more than enough conventional arms to do so. Also, a large nation would be unlikely to use nuclear weapons since it may be subject to retaliation by other nations.

I do not find the above arguments very compelling..

Upchurch

1st August 2007, 10:42 AM

Agreed.
No country should posses nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
so.... swords and bows?

Segnosaur

1st August 2007, 10:47 AM

...and much of the government (of Iran) revolves around a president who has talked about 'wiping Israel off the map'. I haven't heard of China making any such threats.

Mmmm..
Chinese general sees U.S. as nuclear target

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/15/news/china.php

Ok... first of all, the article itself states that 'targeting' the U.S. was the opinion of ONE general, not general government policy.

Secondly, the article ALSO makes it clear that this one general's opinions involve the use of nuclear weapons in a fight over Taiwan (i.e. once conflicts are already in progress). This is a different situation than someone saying "we will unilaterally wipe country X off the map for no reason".

Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war
against the Filipino Huk revolt.

(additional list of U.S. military interventions deleted)

That the U.S. engages in activities promoting its 'hegemony' is not in dispute. Of course, many other countries do it... Russia (in Afghanistan), China (in Tibet), etc. also do it. Yet in each of those conflicts, nuclear weapons were not used, nor were they likely to...
- The larger country in question was able to accomplish its goals via conventional arms
- Using nukes would have brought condemnation from the world community and possible retaliation

What??
What reason should have iran to attack the U.S.??
To gain popularity?
Is that the American Idol?

Yes, in a way it is.

I really don't pretend to know what goes through the heads of the leaders of Iran, whether they are actually religious fanatics or whether they just play up that aspect to gain and/or remain in power.

If the leaders really are religious fanatics, they may view an attack on the U.S. (the 'great satan') as justified by their god. If they are just making statements like that to get power, then keep in mind that anti-American sentiment in the middle east is running high; if they strike at the 'great satan' then all those people with anti-American sentiment will cheer on Iran, giving them more influence.

...big nations don't need nuclear weapons to bully smaller ones; they typically have more than enough conventional arms to do so. Also, a large nation would be unlikely to use nuclear weapons since it may be subject to retaliation by other nations.
I do not find the above arguments very compelling..
Then tell me why none of the situations where a large nation has attacked (or somehow interfered) with a smaller nation resulted in nuclear conflict?

Alt+F4

1st August 2007, 10:56 AM

Why should the international community propose this solution for Isreal and not, for example, for Pakistan?

Cause MaGZ knows that Israel is filled with Jews and Pakistan isn't.

Deus Ex Machina

1st August 2007, 10:57 AM

I somewhat do not feel confortable at all at the thought that Iran could get nuclear weapons soon, but, you may agree, that the criteria that you have set are extremely debatable.

That's because it is an attempt to rationalize and already confusing situation

Why, for example, China should have nuclear weapons while Iran should not?

Because China has them and I doubt that anyone has the force big enough to take them away.

Iran doesn't have them - yet.

How do you define if a dictatorship is likely or not " to get directly involved militarily with larger nations "?

Best judgement. Maybe listen to what they actually say? I mean it's no secret that Iran wants to eradicate Israel, they have said it often enough.

How can you dismiss, Mr. A. claim that big nations want to be alone to have nuclear weap, just in order to be able to bully smaller ones?

A moment's thought will give you the answer to that.

The big nations don't need nuclear weapons to bully smaller ones, they have bigger armies, more weapons and they have bigger economies.

In fact, for bullying purposes, nuclear weapons aren't much help.

If they were we could have turned eastern afghanistan and Baghdad to glass and had done with it.

Lothian

1st August 2007, 11:13 AM

If the leaders really are religious fanatics, they may view an attack on the U.S. (the 'great satan') as justified by their god. Would that be like religious fanatics Bush and Blair were God driven to attack Iraq ?

Deus Ex Machina

1st August 2007, 11:22 AM

Mmmm..
Chinese general sees U.S. as nuclear target

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/15/news/china.php

Oh, wait, I forgot!!

George W. did make some statement like this!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6836247/
Bush on Iran:
No option
‘off the table’

wow, I am surprised you didn;t try to suggest that biological and chemical weapons were also "threatened". Amazing you just create your stuff out of whole cloth.

AS for your list - why did you not just provide a link to the sourcce for the info?

Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war
against the Filipino Huk revolt.

Actually not - did you bother to check the facts?

Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an
independence rebellion in Ponce.

Er - this would be the military responding to an armed rebellion in a commonwealth of the USA?

Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of
democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah
to power.

Yes they did. What does it have to do with threatening people?

Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to
the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the
Viet Minh.

Once again what has this to do with "threats"?

Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the
democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas
in power.
...snip..

Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the
Contra War against the Sandinistas.

I was going to comment on all the stuff but I realized that you just copied and pasted this stuff and actually don't have much of a clue about it all except that somehow you think it means something.

Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during
Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American
barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the
Mediterranean.

You apparently have no idea what the Marines were in beirut to do - have you?

What other troops suffered from the exact same attack at the same time in the same location? Do you know?

Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the
side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

Intervened? You seem to have developed a new definition for the word "intervened". At what point did the US get between Iran and Iraq in favor of Iraq?

What??
What reason should have iran to attack the U.S.??
To gain popularity?
Is that the American Idol?

Ooh I dunno - maybe casting the relationship between the US and Iran as a Theological struggle might have something to do with it?

I do not find the above arguments very compelling..

well of course not, you cut and paste arguments instead of studying.

Segnosaur

1st August 2007, 11:29 AM

Would that be like religious fanatics Bush and Blair were God driven to attack Iraq ?

Whether Bush or Blair really felt their attack on Iraq was motivated by their religion is irrelevant. (Even if it was, it did not result in the use of nuclear weapons, so its irrelevant here.)

Both the U.S. and U.K. are secular 'democracies' with checks and balances in place to prevent leaders from either gaining too much power, or taking actions which truly are devastating. (And even if the intervention in Iraq was a 'bad' decision, it does not compare in scope to what would happen if one of those nations decided to use nuclear weapons.)

Tsukasa Buddha

1st August 2007, 11:36 AM

Well, as we are the police of the world, and we must force our ideas onto other nations...

Undesired Walrus

1st August 2007, 11:52 AM

They shouldn't.

Would you trust Woody Allen with a nuclear weapon?

calm down...

Lothian

1st August 2007, 01:23 PM

Davo

1st August 2007, 02:47 PM

Looks to me like you are deciding who you want to ban then fitting the rules round that rather than the other way round.

Agreed, there is always the tendency for bias when ones own country has nuclear weapons. However if I was living in Iran I`d probably want my country to have Nuclear weapons as a deterrant for invasion. To record, no country having nukes has been invaded, so you can see the logic in Iran`s obtaining of weapons.

Aoidoi

1st August 2007, 03:14 PM

I'm not going to knock on their door and ask them to hand over their nukes.

brodski

1st August 2007, 03:20 PM

Whether Bush or Blair really felt their attack on Iraq was motivated by their religion is irrelevant. (Even if it was, it did not result in the use of nuclear weapons, so its irrelevant here.)

Both the U.S. and U.K. are secular 'democracies' with checks and balances in place to prevent leaders from either gaining too much power, or taking actions which truly are devastating. (And even if the intervention in Iraq was a 'bad' decision, it does not compare in scope to what would happen if one of those nations decided to use nuclear weapons.)

Sicne when was the UK a secular state? our head of State is also the head of our official state religion. Senior clerics in our state religion are automatically given positions in our government. There is no separation of Powers in the UK and few formal checks or balances.

The motos of our head of state are My God and My right and Nobody Touches Me With Impunity, and we have nuclear weapons. Scary, huh? :boxedin:

Undesired Walrus

1st August 2007, 03:34 PM

Sicne when was the UK a secular state? our head of State is also the head of our official state religion. Senior clerics in our state religion are automatically given positions in our government. There is no separation of Powers in the UK and few formal checks or balances.

The motos of our head of state are My God and My right and Nobody Touches Me With Impunity, and we have nuclear weapons. Scary, huh? :boxedin:

Not really. The Queen is a benign political image who's only function is get money from camera-happy tourists.

The religous leaders of Iran control policy, censor anything that will criticise the government or show female flesh, not allow film crews to film within female living areas, and stone homosexuals.

That you cannot tell the difference is scary.

fuelair

1st August 2007, 03:41 PM

I somewhat do not feel confortable at all at the thought that Iran could get nuclear weapons soon, but, you may agree, that the criteria that you have set are extremely debatable.
Why, for example, China should have nuclear weapons while Iran should not?
How do you define if a dictatorship is likely or not " to get directly involved militarily with larger nations "?
How can you dismiss, Mr. A. claim that big nations want to be alone to have nuclear weap, just in order to be able to bully smaller ones?If, by bully, you mean -guide them calmly and carefully into doing what is not terrible for them and better for the US, yes I agree. And I truly wish the US had pulled a Heinlein when we were the only ones who did.

Thunder

1st August 2007, 04:08 PM

Israel's nuclear weapons are the only think insuring its survival. if they did not have nukes, they surely would have faced another war by the combined forces of egypt, syria, iraq, lebanon, saudi arabia, and iran.

There are few cases where a nation's very existance may be dependant on nukes. Israel is one of them..and may be the only one.

And, Israel needs nukes to protect itself from the hateful desires of Islamic Extremists, Neo-Nazis, and White Supremacists.

MaGZ

1st August 2007, 05:54 PM

Do you have any specific concerns regarding Israel's nuclear program, MaGZ?

Israel has three submarines given to them by the Germans (holocaust propaganda has its rewards) and around 200-400 nukes. Israel can wipe out every major city in the world.

webfusion

1st August 2007, 06:22 PM

Israel can wipe out every major city in the world.

Not a legitimate concern.

calm down...

Oliver

1st August 2007, 06:54 PM

Why should Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

It shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons for reasons like this:
http://www.lebanonembassy.se/images/krig/index.php

MaGZ

1st August 2007, 07:41 PM

It shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons for reasons like this:
http://www.lebanonembassy.se/images/krig/index.php

Last year Israel could not defeat Hezbollah military so they waged war against Lebanon’s civilians by destroying their homes. The most evil thing Israel did in that war was to seed the souther border of Lebanon with cluster bombs a few days before the cease fire.

webfusion

1st August 2007, 07:44 PM

It shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons for reasons like this:
LINK TO WAR PIX

Hmmmmmmm, a logical fallacy from Oliver.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html

jsiv

1st August 2007, 07:48 PM

It shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons for reasons like this:
http://www.lebanonembassy.se/images/krig/index.php

Israel shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons because it has aggressive neighbors that like to attack on a regular basis?

Nice logic there. Some might argue that this is exactly why Israel needs nuclear weapons. That is, to deter against any full-scale attacks against them.

Israel has actually shown amazing restraint in the use of force over the years.

gtc

1st August 2007, 07:51 PM

Oliver's argument has as much relevance as me linking to a site containing photos of the holocaust as support for an argument that Germany shouldn't have an army.

jsiv

1st August 2007, 07:54 PM

Oliver

1st August 2007, 07:58 PM

Last year Israel could not defeat Hezbollah military so they waged war against Lebanon’s civilians by destroying their homes. The most evil thing Israel did in that war was to seed the souther border of Lebanon with cluster bombs a few days before the cease fire.

Curious enough - That doesn't sound like a fallacy, it much more looks like Terrorism, doesn't it? Oh wait, Israel is only struggling to survive.

Anyway: Let's hear Osama's opinion on that:

Speaking to Tayssir Alouni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayssir_Alouni) of Al Jazeera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera) on 20 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_20) 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001), bin Laden cited Qana again even as he declared, "if killing those that kill our sons is terrorism, then let history witness that we are terrorists," and referring to a "balance of terror" between Muslims and the United States.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#_note-23)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#Response_by_Al-Qaeda_associated_individuals

Looks like Osama has a point from his muslim point of view. :eye-poppi :rolleyes:

webfusion

1st August 2007, 08:00 PM

Last year Israel could not defeat Hezbollah military so they waged war against Lebanon’s civilians by destroying their homes. The most evil thing Israel did in that war was to seed the souther border of Lebanon with cluster bombs a few days before the cease fire.

Cluster munitions are increasingly the focus of discussion at the meetings of the Convention on Conventional Weapons, with ever more states calling for a new international instrument dealing with cluster munitions. At this time, they are not banned, and are in the arsenals of many major nations' Armed Forces. There was no "seeding" involved here ------ these bombs were dropped, and they exploded onto the targets assigned. Those cluster bomblets apparently have a "dud rate" of around 14% (+/-) and that is one nature of the complaint against their use.

As for the claim that Israel couldn't defeat Hezbollah militarily ---- dude, the IDF was killing Hezbollah fighters wholesale. The Hezbollah guys were hiding in those homes, hiding among the civlian population, and dressed as civilians.

Sorry, but they opened the can of worms by attacking Israel, and ended up getting the IDF to open our own can of whoop-ass.

Policenaut

1st August 2007, 08:04 PM

Didn't the Isreali Army drop leaflets telling the cities they were going to be bombed beforehand?

WildCat

1st August 2007, 08:05 PM

Looks like Osama has a point from his muslim point of view. :eye-poppi :rolleyes:

If Israel shared Osama's POV they would be justified in nuking every single muslim nation on earth and hunting down and killing all the survivors.

Osama is a genocidal murderous madman who justifies his crimes by saying his magical invisible sky fairy demands he do what he does. That you give credence to this rather bizarre justification makes you a useful idiot at best and a supporter of genocide at worst.

You are hopeless Oliver.

Oliver

1st August 2007, 08:09 PM

Didn't the Isreali Army drop leaflets telling the cities they were going to be bombed beforehand?

Pffft. Weak point. Didn't Osama warn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Attacks_on_United_States_targets) the US that he will attack? :rolleyes:

Hint:
August 6 PDB (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22August+6+PDB+%22&btnG=Search)

Oliver

1st August 2007, 08:12 PM

If Israel shared Osama's POV they would be justified in nuking every single muslim nation on earth and hunting down and killing all the survivors.

Osama is a genocidal murderous madman who justifies his crimes by saying his magical invisible sky fairy demands he do what he does. That you give credence to this rather bizarre justification makes you a useful idiot at best and a supporter of genocide at worst.

You are hopeless Oliver.

Nope. I'm looking at it in a neutral way and guess what:
Both sides are an ignorant bunch of Nut-Jobs. And your biased view is...? :rolleyes:

jsiv

1st August 2007, 08:13 PM

Cluster munitions are increasingly the focus of discussion at the meetings of the Convention on Conventional Weapons, with ever more states calling for a new international instrument dealing with cluster munitions. At this time, they are not banned, and are in the arsenals of many major nations' Armed Forces.

As an ironic sidenote, the current Norwegian government vocally opposes cluster munitions and support the ban...

...While Norway at the same time refuses to give up its very large arsenal of said weapons as they form an integral and crucial part of our northern defense.

As you so rightly said, the only real issue with cluster munitions is the failure rate. They are not, like MaGZ seems to imply, land mines. That some fail to detonate is unfortunate, but really something that will always be an issue when you're dropping thousands of them. Work to reduce the failure rate, not to ban a very good weapon.

webfusion

1st August 2007, 08:18 PM

Didn't the Israeli Army drop leaflets telling the cities they were going to be bombed beforehand?

Yep, and those cities were by-and-large evacuated. At which point, the IDF ground troops went in and faced the Hezbollah directly, decimating them, in battles that continued right up to the cease-fire.

At the time, this was the declaration made by Israel's strongest ally:
"With this resolution, a new, stronger Lebanon can emerge, with the world's help," said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who cast the United States' vote. "Hezbollah now faces a clear choice between war and peace."

And we know exactly what choice Hezbollah made since the UN-brokered deal went into effect (which IIRC, included the unconditional return of the kidnapped IDF soldiers Goldwasser and Regev).

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/23/hezbollah_rearmed_nasrallah_tells_rally/

Israel is not a threat to Lebanon. Israel is not threatening to use nuclear weapons against anyone. That whole line of argument is nonsense.

Silly Green Monkey

1st August 2007, 08:19 PM

So Goldwasser and Regev were returned after all?

WildCat

1st August 2007, 08:20 PM

Nope. I'm looking at it in a neutral way
No, you're not.

Both sides are an ignorant bunch of Nut-Jobs.
Defending yourself from attack makes you an ignorant nut-job?

And your biased view is...? :rolleyes:
People who attack others solely for the fact that they don't worship some invisible magical sky fairy the same way they do deserve anything and everything they get. Same goes for those who support, fund, provide cover for, and are otherwise allied with them.

Israel has been attacked repeatedly simply because their attackers desire a Jew-free middle east. Now those attackers cry when they get smacked down, and useful idiots the world over feel sorry for them. It truly is a bizarro-world!

webfusion

1st August 2007, 08:22 PM

So Goldwasser and Regev were returned after all?

No. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/889158.html)

Segnosaur

1st August 2007, 08:24 PM

Both the U.S. and U.K. are secular 'democracies' with checks and balances in place to prevent leaders from either gaining too much power, or taking actions which truly are devastating. (And even if the intervention in Iraq was a 'bad' decision, it does not compare in scope to what would happen if one of those nations decided to use nuclear weapons.)

Looks to me like you are deciding who you want to ban then fitting the rules round that rather than the other way round.

Uhhh... no.

In an earlier post, I gave a very specific hierarchy for who I would most 'trust' with nuclear weapons. It seems your argument is based on the fact that I don't consider the U.S. and U.K. to be 'theocracies' similar to Iran. Sorry... but anyone familiar with politcs should be able to understand the differences in the way the constitution and government works in both the U.S. and U.K., and in Iran, regardless of the number of times President Bush says "god" in his speeches.

jsiv

1st August 2007, 08:24 PM

So Goldwasser and Regev were returned after all?

Haha, funniest thing I've read all day. Of course they weren't. No one outside of Israel seems to care about that though.

You can't trust terrorists.

webfusion

1st August 2007, 08:35 PM

Haha, funniest thing I've read all day. Of course they weren't. No one outside of Israel seems to care about that though.

Not entirely true --- as I just linked in post #53 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2824008&postcount=53) the article mentions that both the Germans and the Americans are trying to mediate the situation, with United Nation's Mideast envoy Michael Williams taking an active role.

The problem at this stage is the Hezbollah wants to get Sami Kuntar (http://incontext.blogmosis.com/archives/017844.html) released, which was their original demand in the aftermath of their cross-border missile attack against Israeli civilian targets on the morning of July 12, 2006 (that bombardment was a diversion for the kidnapping of Goldwasser & Regev as hostages).

It should be mentioned, in context, that despite IAF raids over those next 48-hours into the Lebanese countryside, which destroyed over 30 targets, only two Lebanese were reported killed.

One of the things the Israelis are agonizing over even today, is that the war kept going, instead of PM Olmert giving clear orders to stop right then and there. The Winograd Commission of inquiry has essentially blamed Olmert for that failure to stop.

Oliver

1st August 2007, 08:35 PM

No, you're not.

Defending yourself from attack makes you an ignorant nut-job?

People who attack others solely for the fact that they don't worship some invisible magical sky fairy the same way they do deserve anything and everything they get. Same goes for those who support, fund, provide cover for, and are otherwise allied with them.

Israel has been attacked repeatedly simply because their attackers desire a Jew-free middle east. Now those attackers cry when they get smacked down, and useful idiots the world over feel sorry for them. It truly is a bizarro-world!

I started a new thread about that. Believe it or not - both sides are a bunch of Idiots. And all your replies so far imply that you already chose one side of the Idiot-Idiot scala. :rolleyes:

The Eric Cartman Principle of Foreign Policy - JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75646&highlight=cartman)

Damien Evans

1st August 2007, 08:43 PM

Ok, I will derail with America is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic :).

Hey, that's my line

Damien Evans

1st August 2007, 08:52 PM

I started a new thread about that. Believe it or not - both sides are a bunch of Idiots. And all your replies so far imply that you already chose one side of the Idiot-Idiot scala. :rolleyes:

The Eric Cartman Principle of Foreign Policy - JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75646&highlight=cartman)

Screw Oliver, I'm going home;)

Mycroft

1st August 2007, 09:06 PM

Agreed, there is always the tendency for bias when ones own country has nuclear weapons. However if I was living in Iran I`d probably want my country to have Nuclear weapons as a deterrant for invasion. To record, no country having nukes has been invaded, so you can see the logic in Iran`s obtaining of weapons.

Argentina invaded United Kingdom territory on March 19, 1982. AFAIK, the UK was a nuclear power at that time.

strathmeyer

1st August 2007, 09:12 PM

Because the civilized world isn't a bunch of bigots?

Mycroft

1st August 2007, 09:36 PM

Pffft. Weak point. Didn't Osama warn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Attacks_on_United_States_targets) the US that he will attack? :rolleyes:

Hint:
August 6 PDB (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22August+6+PDB+%22&btnG=Search)

How do you construe that as OBL warning the US?

Mycroft

1st August 2007, 09:43 PM

Would that be like religious fanatics Bush and Blair were God driven to attack Iraq ?

Not very much.

Looks to me like you are deciding who you want to ban then fitting the rules round that rather than the other way round.

Sure, because you find a superficial similarity and then use it to convince yourself that two very different things are exactly the same.

The problem is that you don't serve the cause of skepticism very well when you do that. Normal people can tell the difference between a theocratic Iran where religious leaders literally hold the reigns of power, and a western leader who makes a few comments of a religious nature.

Oliver

1st August 2007, 09:47 PM

How do you construe that as OBL warning the US?

In order that this PDB was also based on OBL's warnings ... Like this one:

In his 23 August (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_23) 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996) declaration of jihad against the United States, Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) wrote...

"Your blood has been spilt in Palestine and Iraq, and the horrific image of the massacre in Qana in Lebanon are still fresh in people’s minds." In November 1996, he told the Australian journal Nida'ul Islam about Qana again, saying that when the United States government accuses terrorists of killing innocents it is "accusing others of their own afflictions in order to fool the masses."

Speaking to Tayssir Alouni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayssir_Alouni) of Al Jazeera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera) on 20 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_20) 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001), bin Laden cited Qana again even as he declared, "if killing those that kill our sons is terrorism, then let history witness that we are terrorists," and referring to a "balance of terror" between Muslims and the United States.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#_note-23)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#Response_by_Al-Qaeda_associated_individuals
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#_note-23)

JoeTheJuggler

1st August 2007, 09:48 PM

Actually world pressure could also be brought against Israel to abandon her program as South Africa did. Place a total embargo on all things Israeli: No trade, no airline connections, nothing.

And I think the OP was sort of pointing toward this.

In fact, from the US standpoint, we're doing just about the exact opposite.

I think we still give more foreign aid to Israel (even though their per capita income is higher than mine) than any other country. It seems like there is nothing that can do that will even bring a censure from the U.S.

Policenaut

1st August 2007, 10:00 PM

That wasn't a warning. That was a vague threat to do future harm on whatever day, whatever city, and however they want. This does in no way, shape, or form compare to dropping leaflets on a city telling that city to evacuate cause it will be bombed later this week.

Mycroft

1st August 2007, 10:05 PM

In order that this PDB was also based on OBL's warnings ... Like this one:

In his 23 August (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_23) 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996) declaration of jihad against the United States, Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) wrote...

"Your blood has been spilt in Palestine and Iraq, and the horrific image of the massacre in Qana in Lebanon are still fresh in people’s minds." In November 1996, he told the Australian journal Nida'ul Islam about Qana again, saying that when the United States government accuses terrorists of killing innocents it is "accusing others of their own afflictions in order to fool the masses."

Speaking to Tayssir Alouni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayssir_Alouni) of Al Jazeera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera) on 20 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_20) 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001), bin Laden cited Qana again even as he declared, "if killing those that kill our sons is terrorism, then let history witness that we are terrorists," and referring to a "balance of terror" between Muslims and the United States.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#_note-23)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#Response_by_Al-Qaeda_associated_individuals
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#_note-23)

Maybe you don't understand what a warning is?

To make it comparable to Israel warning Lebanese villages, Bin Laden would have had to contact the WTC and the Pentagon and tell them an attack would happen on 9/11. Instead all you're pointing to is his rationalizations for being a terrorist.

Oliver

1st August 2007, 10:22 PM

Maybe you don't understand what a warning is?

To make it comparable to Israel warning Lebanese villages, Bin Laden would have had to contact the WTC and the Pentagon and tell them an attack would happen on 9/11. Instead all you're pointing to is his rationalizations for being a terrorist.

Well, what do you call the PDB, the Jihad-Declaration, the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole incident and so on then? Accidents? :boggled:

Sorry, but for every rational President, this was more than a warning. It were very serious threats.

Surprise, surprise - people don't care about such insignificant things like incompetent presidents. Let's shift to the small fishes Libby and Gonzales instead. :rolleyes:

[/Banana-Rebublic]

brodski

1st August 2007, 10:27 PM

Not really. The Queen is a benign political image who's only function is get money from camera-happy tourists.

The religous leaders of Iran control policy, censor anything that will criticise the government or show female flesh, not allow film crews to film within female living areas, and stone homosexuals.

That you cannot tell the difference is scary.

I would check the needled on your sarcasm meter. ;)

Mycroft

1st August 2007, 10:53 PM

Well, what do you call the PDB, the Jihad-Declaration, the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole incident and so on then? Accidents? :boggled:

Well, the PDB is certainly a warning, but it wasn't from Bin Laden, it was about Bin Laden. Can you see the difference?

The Embassy bombings, the USS Cole incident and so on were previous attacks. One could certainly infer more attacks were forthcoming, but that's still very different from a warning. A warning is when someone tells you about an attack before it happens.

Sorry, but for every rational President, this was more than a warning. It were very serious threats.

Well we can both agree that GWB is not a very good President, but that's a far cry from agreeing that OBL warned the US about 9/11. He didn't.

Surprise, surprise - people don't care about such insignificant things like incompetent presidents. Let's shift to the small fishes Libby and Gonzales instead. :rolleyes:

[/Banana-Rebublic]

Now you're changing the topic. You were claiming that OBL warned the US about 9/11 and now you're claiming GWB is incompetent. While I certainly don't disagree with the later, it still has nothing to do with the former.

Lothian

2nd August 2007, 02:29 AM

Uhhh... no.

In an earlier post, I gave a very specific hierarchy for who I would most 'trust' with nuclear weapons. It seems your argument is based on the fact that I don't consider the U.S. and U.K. to be 'theocracies' similar to Iran. Sorry... but anyone familiar with politcs should be able to understand the differences in the way the constitution and government works in both the U.S. and U.K., and in Iran, regardless of the number of times President Bush says "god" in his speeches.You said that The least desirable situation would be for nuclear weapons to be owned by countries which are theocratic dictatorships, or countries with unstable governments. I am suggesting you are drawing rings round bullet holes.

Why should a theocratic dictatorship be at the top (or bottom of your list). Why do you consider the Vatican state more dangerous than North Korea ? I don’t see why a theocratic dictatorship is necessarily more dangerous than a dictator with a secular ideology. Do Buddhist dictators come into your list ?

The problem is that you don't serve the cause of skepticism very well when you do that. Normal people can tell the difference between a theocratic Iran where religious leaders literally hold the reigns of power, and a western leader who makes a few comments of a religious nature.Skepticism is about critical thinking. Keeping an open mind and challenging derived conclusions. That is what I am doing. A conclusion has been drawn and I am looking at how and why it was reached. I am not saying America or the UK should not have nuclear weapons because their leaders are religious fanatics. I am questioning whether being a religious fanatic is one of the criteria and if so how it is weighted.

If you think the cause of scepticism is advanced by accusing people of being abnormal, you are mistaken.

fuelair

2nd August 2007, 06:47 AM

fuelair

2nd August 2007, 06:48 AM

Israel shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons because it has aggressive neighbors that like to attack on a regular basis?

Nice logic there. Some might argue that this is exactly why Israel needs nuclear weapons. That is, to deter against any full-scale attacks against them.

Israel has actually shown amazing restraint in the use of force over the years.
More than I would have!!!!:)

Segnosaur

2nd August 2007, 08:56 AM

The least desirable situation would be for nuclear weapons to be owned by countries which are theocratic dictatorships, or countries with unstable governments.

Why should a theocratic dictatorship be at the top (or bottom of your list). Why do you consider the Vatican state more dangerous than North Korea ? I don’t see why a theocratic dictatorship is necessarily more dangerous than a dictator with a secular ideology.

In case you didn't notice, I had originally stated that not only would I not want a theocracy to have nuclear weapons, but I also wouldn't want them to be owned by countries with unstable governments. Personally, I consider North Korea to be an example of an 'unstable government', partly because the leader himself is a bit nuts, but also because of his influence. (I don't expect Kim Jong-Il to loose power any time soon, but so much of North Korea's identity is tied up with him. Compare that to places like China and/or the old U.S.S.R., where the transfer of power from one leader to another upon the leader's death usually meant only minor changes.) Of course, given a choice I'd prefer that if anyone did have nuclear weapons, I'd still prefer them in the hands of stable democracies over any type of dictatorship.

Granted, I didn't go into any detail earlier about what I considered a 'stable' dictatorship, but then the main issue in the thread was about Israel and I didn't want to get into a side track.

And yes, its also true that I didn't bring up things like the Vatican, or a hypothetical Buddhist theocracy. That's because in the modern world, the only theocracies of relevance are ones based on Islam.

Skepticism is about critical thinking. Keeping an open mind and challenging derived conclusions. That is what I am doing. A conclusion has been drawn and I am looking at how and why it was reached.

Well, actually what you did was you posted a statement (not a question) that I was fitting my 'rules' to fit a preconceived bias. If you wanted to know how or why my conclusions were reached, you could try actually asking questions. Heck, give me any 2 countries and (assuming I know enough about them) I can tell you which I'd prefer to have nuclear weapons.

I am not saying America or the UK should not have nuclear weapons because their leaders are religious fanatics. I am questioning whether being a religious fanatic is one of the criteria and if so how it is weighted.

It is not only necessary for a country to be run by a 'religious fanatic' for me to be worried, but it is also necessary for that country to have the proper checks and balances in place to prevent them from obtaining absolute power.

And yes, the particular religion does worry me a little. While not every Muslim is a believer in violent action, in today's society there is a much greater probability that a Muslim will support (for example) terrorist acts than (say) a Buddhist. I'd also be worried about a country run by a leader who was a member of a suicide cult, or an extreme fundamentalist christian who was preaching 'end of days' material.

If you think the cause of scepticism is advanced by accusing people of being abnormal, you are mistaken.
Well, you were the one who brought up Bush and Blair during a discussion about theocracies. I suspect most people would assume you were equating the U.S. and U.K. with countries like Iran.

Lothian

2nd August 2007, 09:27 AM

In case you didn't notice, I had originally stated that not only would I not want a theocracy to have nuclear weapons, but I also wouldn't want them to be owned by countries with unstable governments.I noticed but one at a time ;)

Personally, I consider North Korea to be an example of an 'unstable government', partly because the leader himself is a bit nuts, but also because of his influence. (I don't expect Kim Jong-Il to loose power any time soon, but so much of North Korea's identity is tied up with him. Compare that to places like China and/or the old U.S.S.R., where the transfer of power from one leader to another upon the leader's death usually meant only minor changes.) Of course, given a choice I'd prefer that if anyone did have nuclear weapons, I'd still prefer them in the hands of stable democracies over any type of dictatorship.I think it is too simplistic. I agree that a democracy is better than a dictatorship but would a democratic Iran be ‘safer’ than Liechtenstein ? I think ultimately the countries we want to have weapons are the ones that won’t use them.

Granted, I didn't go into any detail earlier about what I considered a 'stable' dictatorship, but then the main issue in the thread was about Israel and I didn't want to get into a side track.

And yes, its also true that I didn't bring up things like the Vatican, or a hypothetical Buddhist theocracy. That's because in the modern world, the only theocracies of relevance are ones based on Islam.I disagree that you can define suitability to hold weapons by the dominant religion.

Well, actually what you did was you posted a statement (not a question) that I was fitting my 'rules' to fit a preconceived bias. If you wanted to know how or why my conclusions were reached, you could try actually asking questions. Heck, give me any 2 countries and (assuming I know enough about them) I can tell you which I'd prefer to have nuclear weapons.Your country and another one. :) Which I guess is my whole point. People are happy for themselves to have weapons but don’t want anyone else to. Counties argue against others developing them but the arguments do not appear to be based on objective criteria.

It is not only necessary for a country to be run by a 'religious fanatic' for me to be worried, but it is also necessary for that country to have the proper checks and balances in place to prevent them from obtaining absolute power.

And yes, the particular religion does worry me a little. While not every Muslim is a believer in violent action, in today's society there is a much greater probability that a Muslim will support (for example) terrorist acts than (say) a Buddhist. What about other religions. What about Christians in Northern Ireland?

I'd also be worried about a country run by a leader who was a member of a suicide cult, or an extreme fundamentalist Christian who was preaching 'end of days' material.I agree

Well, you were the one who brought up Bush and Blair during a discussion about theocracies. I suspect most people would assume you were equating the U.S. and U.K. with countries like Iran. I did and I wasn’t trying to.

Segnosaur

2nd August 2007, 10:32 AM

I noticed but one at a time ;)

But when you have multiple conditions that have to be met (such as I did), you can't pick just one and ignore the other.

I think it is too simplistic. I agree that a democracy is better than a dictatorship but would a democratic Iran be ‘safer’ than Liechtenstein ? I think ultimately the countries we want to have weapons are the ones that won’t use them.

I agree... the safest countries to have nuclear weapons are the ones that won't use them. But then, that's what my whole 'ranking' system was for.

Democracies are least likely to use them because they have to be accountable to their people. Stable dictatorships may not be as 'safe' as democracies, but since they usually have some controls that prevent their use of nukes. (For example, China's economic involvement with the west.) Unstable dictatorships/theocracies are the most likely to use them, so they're the ones I'd least want to have nukes.

I disagree that you can define suitability to hold weapons by the dominant religion.

In theory, you're right. However:
- I was not just talking about the 'dominant' religion, I was also talking about their entire system of government, the checks and balances in place, and its stability. If there were such a thing as a 'liberal democratic Islamic state' (one that allowed free elections, supported human rights, rejected violence and was in no danger of collapsing), I would feel safer with them having the bomb than say the "Federal republic of Christian Armageddonists".
- Sadly, in today's world, the only theocracies that are a issue ARE Islam ones. Doesn't mean that Islam is flawed (well, no more flawed than Christianity or other religions), its just that for whatever reasons (historical and cultural) the Islamic theocracies ALSO tend to engage in practices (such as threats to 'wipe Israel off the map'.)

Your country and another one. :) Which I guess is my whole point. People are happy for themselves to have weapons but don’t want anyone else to. Counties argue against others developing them but the arguments do not appear to be based on objective criteria.

Actually, I don't care if my country gets nuclear weapons, but I'm relatively comfortable with countries like the U.S., U.K. and China having them.

And yes, there are no 'perfect' criteria to measure how 'worthy' a country is to have the bomb, but its not (as you suggested) trying to fit the criteria to an existing bias.

What about other religions. What about Christians in Northern Ireland?

What about them? Is Northern Ireland currently a theocracy?

Oliver

2nd August 2007, 10:46 AM

Well, the PDB is certainly a warning, but it wasn't from Bin Laden, it was about Bin Laden. Can you see the difference?

The Embassy bombings, the USS Cole incident and so on were previous attacks. One could certainly infer more attacks were forthcoming, but that's still very different from a warning. A warning is when someone tells you about an attack before it happens.

Well we can both agree that GWB is not a very good President, but that's a far cry from agreeing that OBL warned the US about 9/11. He didn't.

Now you're changing the topic. You were claiming that OBL warned the US about 9/11 and now you're claiming GWB is incompetent. While I certainly don't disagree with the later, it still has nothing to do with the former.

Yes, OBL warned the US. That's what several of his Speeches were about including the two Fatwas prior to 9/11:
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa#_ref-e1996_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa#_ref-e1996_1) Text of the 1996 fatwa (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html), translation by PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_System)
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa#_ref-e1998_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa#_ref-e1998_1) c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa#_ref-e1998_2) Text of the 1998 fatwa (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html) translation by PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_System)

Pardalis

2nd August 2007, 11:04 AM

Oliver

2nd August 2007, 11:10 AM

Are you saying there is a terror threat now? :confused::confused:

Nope. Just the usual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_attacks) Terror-Argle-Bargle. :)

Pardalis

2nd August 2007, 11:16 AM

Nope. Just the usual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_attacks) Terror-Argle-Bargle. :)

I was about to say something in return, but what's the use...

:(

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd August 2007, 12:11 PM

Why shoudn't they ?
Because the world is not fair. SA got rid of theirs because the builders lost control of the goverment. They were going to lose the weapon away. Israel would rather die then lose theirs-and they probably would if they did.

Mycroft

2nd August 2007, 12:12 PM

Yes, OBL warned the US. That's what several of his Speeches were about including the two Fatwas prior to 9/11:
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa#_ref-e1996_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa#_ref-e1996_1) Text of the 1996 fatwa (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html), translation by PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_System)
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa#_ref-e1998_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa#_ref-e1998_1) c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa#_ref-e1998_2) Text of the 1998 fatwa (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html) translation by PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_System)

This is the kind of nonsense that convinces people you are less than objective.

First, let's recall what began this line of discussion:

Didn't the Isreali Army drop leaflets telling the cities they were going to be bombed beforehand?

The answer, by the way, is yes. Israel would warn the civilian populations of areas they were going to bomb by dropping leaflets, making mass cell phone calls, and by other means. Many would argue that doing this was foolish from a military point of view, but it's clear they were making an effort to minimize civilian casualties while still pursuing their war goals.

And your response:

Pffft. Weak point. Didn't Osama warn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Attacks_on_United_States_targets) the US that he will attack? :rolleyes:

Hint:
August 6 PDB (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22August+6+PDB+%22&btnG=Search)

Except the answer is no, Osama did not warn the US about 9/11. The examples you cite are not warnings but threats. The PDB did not come from OBL, past terrorist actions are not warnings of future terrorist actions, and while insane rationalizations for jihad may certainly indicate the person making them is dangerous, they did not specifically warn anyone about 9/11.

To be comparable to the Israeli warnings, Al Qaeda would have had to specifically notify people in the WTC and the Pentagon and tell them something was going to happen on 9/11. Nobody did that because the goal of terrorist organizations is to maximize civilian casualties, not to minimize them.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2823951#post2823951

Mycroft

2nd August 2007, 12:22 PM

Skepticism is about critical thinking. Keeping an open mind and challenging derived conclusions. That is what I am doing.

Except you're not. Statements such as:

Why should a theocratic dictatorship be at the top (or bottom of your list). Why do you consider the Vatican state more dangerous than North Korea?

Not only misrepresents your opponents argument but ignores the obvious facts that the Vatican is not a military power and is not trying to get nuclear weapons. Far from "critical thinking", that's just being argumentative for the purpose of being argumentative.

Oliver

2nd August 2007, 01:33 PM

This is the kind of nonsense that convinces people you are less than objective.

First, let's recall what began this line of discussion:

The answer, by the way, is yes. Israel would warn the civilian populations of areas they were going to bomb by dropping leaflets, making mass cell phone calls, and by other means. Many would argue that doing this was foolish from a military point of view, but it's clear they were making an effort to minimize civilian casualties while still pursuing their war goals.

And your response:

Except the answer is no, Osama did not warn the US about 9/11. The examples you cite are not warnings but threats. The PDB did not come from OBL, past terrorist actions are not warnings of future terrorist actions, and while insane rationalizations for jihad may certainly indicate the person making them is dangerous, they did not specifically warn anyone about 9/11.

To be comparable to the Israeli warnings, Al Qaeda would have had to specifically notify people in the WTC and the Pentagon and tell them something was going to happen on 9/11. Nobody did that because the goal of terrorist organizations is to maximize civilian casualties, not to minimize them.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2823951#post2823951

I don't understand your point here. You're really arguing that the Holocaust would have been fine if Hitler would have said: "Jews, we're gonna kill you. Please leave Europe"? :confused: That's what you argue: They warned several cities and it's the victims fault that they died?

And to make my point clear I was trying to make. It is INDEED a weak point to argue: "But, but, but ... they were warned". That's no excuse for anything beside ones own mental illness. :boggled:

jsiv

2nd August 2007, 01:41 PM

You're right, Oliver. Israel should have sent the Care Bears into Lebanon to give every last terrorist a great big hug.

Oliver

2nd August 2007, 01:59 PM

You're right, Oliver. Israel should have sent the Care Bears into Lebanon to give every last terrorist a great big hug.

Actually - No. They should've droped one of their Nuclear heads and kill 140,000 citizens and every Terrorist in this city. You remember, that always works.

Oh wait. What is the difference between Terrorists and Civilians?
I mean, this guy could have been a Terrorist, too ... some day ...

Warning: Graphical reality of cool sounding Bombs:
deleted

So your point seems to be that these kind of things don't produce new Terrorists, eh? Maybe you don't see the connection between violence and more violence.

Quite frankly, if this would have been my child, I also would tend to bring the terror back to the ones who killed my child. That's when I start to understand that Terrorism in western terms is a hoax and Hezbollah has it's reasons to fight back, too.

Unfortunately you fail to see the world from a rational point of view. Instead you prefer the root of evil ideology "WE GO(O)D! YOU BAD!". :boggled:

Segnosaur

2nd August 2007, 02:06 PM

jsiv

2nd August 2007, 02:11 PM

Actually - No. They should've droped one of their Nuclear heads and kill 140,000 citizens and every Terrorist in this city. You remember, that always works.

Are you saying the outcome of World War II would have been better if Japan had never been bombed by the US?

Oh wait. What is the difference between Terrorists and Civilians?
I mean, this guy could have been a Terrorist, too ... some day ...

Warning: Graphical reality of cool sounding Bombs:

Newsflash. People die in war. Your emotional appeal has no effect on me.

So your point seems to be that these kind of things don't produce new Terrorists, eh? Maybe you don't see the connection between violence and more violence.

It does produce some new terrorists, but it is not the only (or even the main) reason terrorists exist. Israel does not hit the civilians on purpose, and do infact go out of their way to minimize civilian casualties.

Quite frankly, if this would have been my child, I also would tend to bring the terror back to the ones who killed my child. That's when I start to understand that Terrorism in western terms is a hoax and Hezbollah has it's reasons to fight back, too.

Hizballah is the reason this child died. Had Hizballah not kept attacking Israel after they withdrew from Lebanon, this child would have been alive today. If Hizballah had made an effort to keep civilians away from the fighting, this child might have been alive today as well. Think about that for a few minutes, Oliver.

Unfortunately you fail to see the world from a rational point of view. Instead you prefer the root of evil ideology "WE GO(O)D! YOU BAD!". :boggled:

Huh?

Davo

2nd August 2007, 02:17 PM

Argentina invaded United Kingdom territory on March 19, 1982. AFAIK, the UK was a nuclear power at that time.

O.K you are correct, regarding the localised squabble over the Falkland Islands, but I think you see my overall point. This wasn`t an all out invasion of the UK as a whole.

danielk

2nd August 2007, 02:34 PM

I don't understand your point here. You're really arguing that the Holocaust would have been fine if Hitler would have said: "Jews, we're gonna kill you. Please leave Europe"? :confused: That's what you argue: They warned several cities and it's the victims fault that they died?

Apart from the fact that there's a difference between intentional mass murder and civilian casualties in a war, this analogy isn't meaningful with regards to the warning either. The correct analogy would be a warning sign "Achtung: Gift! Lebensgefahr!" in the gas chambers, accompanied by a screeching siren and no camp warden holding anyone back who suddenly has second thoughts about dying. Sounds ludicrous? It is, because under these conditions the Holocaust would never have happened.

And to make my point clear I was trying to make. It is INDEED a weak point to argue: "But, but, but ... they were warned". That's no excuse for anything beside ones own mental illness. :boggled:

The only one using "But, but, but..." tactics are you. The distortions you are willing to commit to in order to preserve your assumption of moral equivalence are astonishing. If it weren't for the serious topic it would almost be comical.

Dumbledore

2nd August 2007, 02:49 PM

Ma GZ where is your proof of these claims, three submarines, 200-400 nukes?

Oliver

2nd August 2007, 03:15 PM

Are you saying the outcome of World War II would have been better if Japan had never been bombed by the US?

Newsflash. People die in war. Your emotional appeal has no effect on me.

It does produce some new terrorists, but it is not the only (or even the main) reason terrorists exist. Israel does not hit the civilians on purpose, and do infact go out of their way to minimize civilian casualties.

Hizballah is the reason this child died. Had Hizballah not kept attacking Israel after they withdrew from Lebanon, this child would have been alive today. If Hizballah had made an effort to keep civilians away from the fighting, this child might have been alive today as well. Think about that for a few minutes, Oliver.

Huh?

Well, if Hezbollah was responsible for this childs death, I'm sure you agree with my pretty similar comparison that the Victims of 9/11 were Americas own guilt as a response for their foreign politics. Agreed? :rolleyes:

You still prefer the "We are go(o)d - you are bad"-fallacy.

So let me ask you: Why and when was Hezbollah "born"? :rolleyes:

Oliver

2nd August 2007, 03:16 PM

Ma GZ where is your proof of these claims, three submarines, 200-400 nukes?

I don't believe you. You're the evil guy from Harry Potter. :boxedin:

Davo

2nd August 2007, 03:25 PM

Secondly, Israel has a very specific military target... i.e. terrorist groups that had carried out certain activities against Israel. What was the military target that Hitler had in targeting the jews?

That didn`t seem to be the case, I wouldn`t have an issue if only the rocket launchers were being targetted. Bridges, power stations, infrastructure,roads were being hit deliberately with obvious civilian casualties.

webfusion

2nd August 2007, 05:23 PM

Oliver proposes:Actually - No. They should've droped one of their Nuclear heads and kill 140,000 citizens and every Terrorist in this city. You remember, that always works.

So, why didn't they?

webfusion

2nd August 2007, 05:27 PM

Ma GZ where is your proof of these claims, three submarines, 200-400 nukes?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/892941.stm --- dateline August 2000
(UP TO 200)

and

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/dolphin/Dolphin.html
Three Dolphin-class subs, with missile-launch capabilites.

Oliver

2nd August 2007, 05:33 PM

Oliver proposes:

So, why didn't they?

A. Because the Nuclear Weapon Program was meant to be a secret.
B. And besides that - they aren't as crucial as the Americans in Hiroshima.
C. Especially because they would lose all international support, which would essentially mean: "Good Bye, Israel".

webfusion

2nd August 2007, 05:50 PM

MaGZ

2nd August 2007, 05:59 PM

The most evil thing the rest of the world -- including Lebanon (if it's even possible to argue that Hizballah is seperate from the official government) -- did was not deal with the very real threat that South Lebanon posed to Israel.

The most evil thing Hizballah did was put their own civilian population at risk by engaging in warfare from residential areas. At least the civilians that weren't part of Hizballah. The lines are very blurry.

The Israelis destroyed entire city blocks in Souther Beirut, mostly apartment complexes.

The Israeli Army this time did not make it to Beirut, so your claim there was combat in residential areas is false.

MaGZ

2nd August 2007, 06:07 PM

Cluster munitions are increasingly the focus of discussion at the meetings of the Convention on Conventional Weapons, with ever more states calling for a new international instrument dealing with cluster munitions. At this time, they are not banned, and are in the arsenals of many major nations' Armed Forces. There was no "seeding" involved here ------ these bombs were dropped, and they exploded onto the targets assigned. Those cluster bomblets apparently have a "dud rate" of around 14% (+/-) and that is one nature of the complaint against their use.

As for the claim that Israel couldn't defeat Hezbollah militarily ---- dude, the IDF was killing Hezbollah fighters wholesale. The Hezbollah guys were hiding in those homes, hiding among the civlian population, and dressed as civilians.

Sorry, but they opened the can of worms by attacking Israel, and ended up getting the IDF to open our own can of whoop-ass.

Israel’s ‘immoral’ use of cluster bombs in Lebanon poses major threat – UN aid chief
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19670&Cr=Leban&Cr1

BTW, Israel started the war last year and got her ass kicked: a failure of Israeli Intelligence.

Oliver

2nd August 2007, 06:10 PM

Illogic.

A. Not secret. See my post #96 above (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2826930&postcount=96)

B. Don't know what this means --- "crucial" ???

C. If using nuclear weapons means "Bye bye Israel" then why have them at all?
Under what circumstances could they be deployed?

A. Yes it is. Israel never confirmed the existence of their A-Bombs officially.
B. I meant: "they aren't as cruel as the Americans in Hiroshima." Sorry for my mistranslation.
C1. An attack that would be considered as critically for Israels existence.
C2. The deterring nature of atomic potential. (Feel free to cite Freud now)

KoihimeNakamura

2nd August 2007, 06:12 PM

And the UN aid chief also denounced Hizbollah. What is good for the goose is apparently also good for the gander.

MaGZ

2nd August 2007, 06:22 PM

Ma GZ where is your proof of these claims, three submarines, 200-400 nukes?

Israel Has Sub-Based Atomic Arms Capability
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54225-2002Jun14?language=printer

The 200-400 figure is a common estimate.

webfusion

2nd August 2007, 07:57 PM

MagZ proclaims:BTW, Israel started the war last year and got her ass kicked.

:dl:

Matteo Martini

2nd August 2007, 08:44 PM

so.... swords and bows?

What about, competing with business, and not with nuclear weapons?

Matteo Martini

2nd August 2007, 09:02 PM

Ok... first of all, the article itself states that 'targeting' the U.S. was the opinion of ONE general, not general government policy.

Yes.

Secondly, the article ALSO makes it clear that this one general's opinions involve the use of nuclear weapons in a fight over Taiwan (i.e. once conflicts are already in progress). This is a different situation than someone saying "we will unilaterally wipe country X off the map for no reason".

It is different, but not completely different.
My point was that other political figures in other countries have said things similar to what Mr. A. said

That the U.S. engages in activities promoting its 'hegemony' is not in dispute. Of course, many other countries do it... Russia (in Afghanistan), China (in Tibet), etc. also do it. Yet in each of those conflicts, nuclear weapons were not used, nor were they likely to...
- The larger country in question was able to accomplish its goals via conventional arms
- Using nukes would have brought condemnation from the world community and possible retaliation

The same would happen to Iran if they attacked nuclearly Isreal or the US
Off topic:
The condemnetion from the world community would happen if they know who exploded the bomb..

Yes, in a way it is.

I really don't pretend to know what goes through the heads of the leaders of Iran, whether they are actually religious fanatics or whether they just play up that aspect to gain and/or remain in power.

If the leaders really are religious fanatics, they may view an attack on the U.S. (the 'great satan') as justified by their god. If they are just making statements like that to get power, then keep in mind that anti-American sentiment in the middle east is running high; if they strike at the 'great satan' then all those people with anti-American sentiment will cheer on Iran, giving them more influence.

I do not see attacking Iran as the solution of the problem

Then tell me why none of the situations where a large nation has attacked (or somehow interfered) with a smaller nation resulted in nuclear conflict?

My point was that Mr. A. may think that, possessing nuclear weapons may be a good way not to get bullied by the U.S

Matteo Martini

2nd August 2007, 09:09 PM

Because China has them and I doubt that anyone has the force big enough to take them away.

Iran doesn't have them - yet.

So, who got nukes first, wins?

Best judgement. Maybe listen to what they actually say? I mean it's no secret that Iran wants to eradicate Israel, they have said it often enough.

I do not know if Mr. A. said that more than once.
And I do not find just a ( stupid ) sentence of Mr. A. like the only argument to decide which country should have nukes or not.

A moment's thought will give you the answer to that.

The big nations don't need nuclear weapons to bully smaller ones, they have bigger armies, more weapons and they have bigger economies.

In fact, for bullying purposes, nuclear weapons aren't much help.

If they were we could have turned eastern afghanistan and Baghdad to glass and had done with it.

So, why do big nations keep nuclear weapons?

Matteo Martini

2nd August 2007, 09:14 PM

If, by bully, you mean -guide them calmly and carefully into doing what is not terrible for them and better for the US, yes I agree. And I truly wish the US had pulled a Heinlein when we were the only ones who did.

I do not know if the intentions of the US are always so straight and pure-hearted..

Matteo Martini

2nd August 2007, 09:21 PM

Quote MM:
Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power.

Yes they did. What does it have to do with threatening people?

....

jsiv

3rd August 2007, 12:26 AM

The Israelis destroyed entire city blocks in Souther Beirut, mostly apartment complexes.

And infrastructure used to bring supplies to the terrorists.

The Israeli Army this time did not make it to Beirut, so your claim there was combat in residential areas is false.

I never said that the Israeli army engaged in hand-to-hand combat in Beirut, so I'm not sure what it is you think you've disproven. Hizballah and palestinian terrorists have made a habit of setting up shop in residential areas and lobbing rockets at Israel, in other words engaging in warfare. If they had not continued to do this after Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, we wouldn't be discussing this at all as there would have been no new invasion.

steverino

3rd August 2007, 08:22 AM

To record, no country having nukes has been invaded, so you can see the logic in Iran`s obtaining of weapons.

O.K you are correct, regarding the localised squabble over the Falkland Islands, but I think you see my overall point. This wasn`t an all out invasion of the UK as a whole.

Israel gets invaded every day.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1830753&Language=en

Two Al-Qassam missiles fired on Israel
Military and Security 7/28/2007 12:05:00 AM

GAZA, July 27 (KUNA) -- Two Al-Qassam missiles were launched from the northern Gaza Strip Friday evening on southern Israel, a military spokesman said. One of the missiles caused damage to houses.
The Palestinian militants fired one Al-Qassam rocket into the western Negev, east of Gaza, Friday evening, while an earlier one had landed in Ashkelon, the spokesman told Radio Israel.

steverino

3rd August 2007, 08:34 AM

Place a total embargo on all things Israeli: No trade, no airline connections, nothing.

My girlfriend has Multiple Sclerosis. She has no symptoms due, in large part, according to her doctors, to Copaxone, by Teva Neuroscience, developed in Israel.

http://www.copaxone.com/?s_kwcid=copaxone|674753892

http://www.tevaneuro.com/upload/BrochureFinal.pdf

The roots of Teva Neuroscience are traced to the
research of Professor Michael Sela, Professor Ruth
Arnon, and Dr. Dvora Teitelbaum of the
Weizmann Institute of Science. Their quest for
drug therapies for autoimmune diseases led to the
development of a treatment for multiple sclerosis.
Known as Copolymer 1, and later named
COPAXONE®(glatiramer acetate injection), the
compound was found to reduce the frequency of
relapses in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosiResearch done by Teva Neuroscience and our partners, focuses on helping people live...

webfusion

3rd August 2007, 12:38 PM

No one outside of Israel seems to care about (Goldwasser and Regev) though.

Update:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/889633.html
The United Nations Security Council on Friday called on Hezbollah to immediately and unconditionally release abducted Israel Defense Forces soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

They aren't going to be released, as the Hezbollah will ignore the Security Council.

jsiv

3rd August 2007, 12:46 PM

Yeah, but that's because, uhm, uhm, because Israel is holding that mass-murdering whatshisname as a political prisoner!

It's sad that the media has mostly lost interest now that Israel isn't dropping bombs anymore. I certainly can't remember seeing anything about it in the papers here recently.

Dumbledore

3rd August 2007, 01:05 PM

Not to be hard headed but I still do not see the 200-400 warhead estimate for Israel. In one of the articles posted I saw an upper limit of 200 as plausible. As for the three subs, the Germans made them and Israel paid for them, whats the big deal? Most modern attack subs are going to have nuclear capabilities given the development of nuclear deployment in multiple platforms. I think that Israel does have nuclear weapons and they have shown great restraint in not using them, personally I do not think that Israel would not exist today without this nuclear threat. Especially since many people think it is plausible to associated Israel with terrorists when they are defending their civilians from missile attack. As I stated before what would the US do if terrorists where launching missiles at us from Canada or Mexico? Would we be so criticized for the innocent who were killed because the terrorist were using them as a shield? Would we wait and consider how many more terrorists we might create by stopping the missile attacks?

Segnosaur

3rd August 2007, 01:59 PM

(On Iran's threats towards Israel vs. China's statements on Taiwan)

It is different, but not completely different.

Despite some minor similarities, they are different enough to make comparisons irrelevant. Saying "We want country X destroyed" indicates a desire to initiate hostilites. Saying "We'll use whatever means possible in a military confrontation" does not indicate the same desire to initiate hostilities. (Heck, if I remember correctly, during the cold war the U.S. never explicitly said that it it would not discount a first-use nuke policy if it were engaged in a loosing conventional war. That didn't mean the U.S. was planning on attacking Russia, they were just honest about how they would respond if hositilites were to break out.)

My point was that other political figures in other countries have said things similar to what Mr. A. said

I'm sure other political figures DID say things similiar to the statements of Iran's leadership. And if any of those political figures are dictators of countries, I wouldn't want THEM to have nukes either.

That the U.S. engages in activities promoting its 'hegemony' is not in dispute. Of course, many other countries do it... Russia (in Afghanistan), China (in Tibet), etc. also do it. Yet in each of those conflicts, nuclear weapons were not used, nor were they likely to...
- The larger country in question was able to accomplish its goals via conventional arms
- Using nukes would have brought condemnation from the world community and possible retaliation

The same would happen to Iran if they attacked nuclearly Isreal or the US

The difference is, the U.S. and Israel actually care (at least to some extent) about what other contries think, and would risk serious economic and diplomatic reprocussions. Personally, I don't think Iran would have the same concerns.
- It mainly looks for support among other Islamic states (most of which already hate the 'great satan') so while the western world would condem Iran, its neighbours would possibly be cheering it on.
- Iran does not have the same economic ties that Israel and the U.S. do. A trade embargo as punishment for using nukes (or even a drop in trade) would hurt the U.S. and Israel a lot more than it would harm Iran.

I do not see attacking Iran as the solution of the problem

And I never suggested that it was a solution that I supported.

My point was that Mr. A. may think that, possessing nuclear weapons may be a good way not to get bullied by the U.S
The problem is, he's also stated that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map".

Oh, and by the way... just what has the U.S. done to 'bully' Iran? Have they invaded in the past few decades? While I'm sure they've engaged in at least a few covert operations (of which Iran has also done in other countries), basically the U.S. is trying to get Iran to live up to its obligations under various treaties such as the Nuclear non-poliferation treaty.

Oh, and if he wants to avoid being 'bullied' by the U.S., perhaps there are easier ways:
- Quit threatening to wipe other countries off the map
- Quit oppressing your own people, and allow free elections
Strangely, most countries have liberal democracies are not threatend by invasion by the 'great satan'.

webfusion

3rd August 2007, 02:28 PM

Yeah, but that's because, uhm, uhm, because Israel is holding that mass-murdering whatshisname as a political prisoner!

Whatshisname Samir Kuntar was guilty of several deaths, including Danny and Einat Haran, (an Israeli policeman was also killed in the terroristic events of 1979) and to be accurate, I wouldn't characterize him as a "mass-murderer" but that's splitting hairs.

In 1985, the PLF seized the Achille Lauro, an Italian cruise ship, demanding that Israel release Kuntar, along with other Palestinian prisoners. (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200607/INT20060718b.html)

It's sad that the media has mostly lost interest now that Israel isn't dropping bombs anymore. I certainly can't remember seeing anything about it in the papers here recently.

Look and see if the Security Council demand for the the release of these IDF men is published in papers outside of Israel.

jsiv

3rd August 2007, 02:44 PM

Whatshisname Samir Kuntar was guilty of several deaths, including Danny and Einat Haran, (an Israeli policeman was also killed in the terroristic events of 1979) and to be accurate, I wouldn't characterize him as a "mass-murderer" but that's splitting hairs.

Poor choice of words maybe, but regardless, no sensible person could support that kind of exchange.

Look and see if the Security Council demand for the the release of these IDF men is published in papers outside of Israel.

I just checked the four largest national papers (Aftenposten, TV2 Nettavisen, VG, Dagbladet) in Norway, and the only recent articles mentioning the Security Council were about Norwegian forces deploying to Darfur.

When searching for Israel, the only recent news is soccer-related. Oh, and something about how Israel is the greatest threat to the Middle East and another one on the dangers of Jewish racism. Nettavisen has an article on Chocolate Spas in Israel and something about a union strike. VG mentions the Saudi thing, with emphasis on the US putting pressure on Israel to increase the chances of peace.

The articles I found by searching for their names (Regev, Goldwasser) were mostly months old.

Maybe not all that scientific, but there you go.

webfusion

3rd August 2007, 03:16 PM

...Oh, and something about how Israel is the greatest threat to the Middle East.

That claim is being put forward by ---- (drumroll, please) --------

Iran. (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050627/2005062711.html)

Matteo Martini

3rd August 2007, 10:48 PM

Despite some minor similarities, they are different enough to make comparisons irrelevant. Saying "We want country X destroyed" indicates a desire to initiate hostilites. Saying "We'll use whatever means possible in a military confrontation" does not indicate the same desire to initiate hostilities. (Heck, if I remember correctly, during the cold war the U.S. never explicitly said that it it would not discount a first-use nuke policy if it were engaged in a loosing conventional war. That didn't mean the U.S. was planning on attacking Russia, they were just honest about how they would respond if hositilites were to break out.)

..if the hostilities " were to break out "
You can always start first, and say that you have been " forced " into doing this, by the opponent' s behaviour.
Or, you can force the opponent to attack you, and then whine as you have been attacked.
Like if history do not provide us with a list of examples.

I'm sure other political figures DID say things similiar to the statements of Iran's leadership. And if any of those political figures are dictators of countries, I wouldn't want THEM to have nukes either.

And, what if those political leaders are American?

The difference is, the U.S. and Israel actually care (at least to some extent) about what other contries think, and would risk serious economic and diplomatic reprocussions.

Yes, they cared so much about what the world thinks, that they attacked Iraq, in opposition of the opinion of Russia, China, France, India, ..

Personally, I don't think Iran would have the same concerns.
- It mainly looks for support among other Islamic states (most of which already hate the 'great satan') so while the western world would condem Iran, its neighbours would possibly be cheering it on.

Iran does not economicall depend on Syria, it depends on India, China, Russia and Europe
And, I would like to know how many of the Islamic countries have labeled the U.S. as the " great satan ", list, please..

- Iran does not have the same economic ties that Israel and the U.S. do. A trade embargo as punishment for using nukes (or even a drop in trade) would hurt the U.S. and Israel a lot more than it would harm Iran.

No??
Who does Iran sell oil to?

And I never suggested that it was a solution that I supported.

Then we are not that far away..

The problem is, he's also stated that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map".

That maybe was just a slogan that he said in an occasion, and, he refused to say twice, for as much as I know.
I saw few interview of him, and, when asked about Israel, if it was true that he wanted to " wipe Israel off the map ", he basically changed his position

Oh, and by the way... just what has the U.S. done to 'bully' Iran?

Threatening them with the menace of invasion?

Have they invaded in the past few decades? While I'm sure they've engaged in at least a few covert operations (of which Iran has also done in other countries), basically the U.S. is trying to get Iran to live up to its obligations under various treaties such as the Nuclear non-poliferation treaty.

Iran has always said that they are abiding to the NPT.
And the U.N. Non proliferation agency ( El Baradei ) agrees.

Oh, and if he wants to avoid being 'bullied' by the U.S., perhaps there are easier ways:
- Quit threatening to wipe other countries off the map

Already replied

- Quit oppressing your own people, and allow free elections

This is not America' s business
Then, go to China

Strangely, most countries have liberal democracies are not threatend by invasion by the 'great satan'.

A long list of countries, in which the government is democratically elected, have the majority of the populations disliking/hating the U.S. in an some ways.
I would say, I have traveled the world quite a lot, and it has been hard to find places where the majority of the people are supporting the U.S. behaviour..

jsiv

4th August 2007, 02:49 AM

That maybe was just a slogan that he said in an occasion, and, he refused to say twice, for as much as I know.

FckLO8HcNyo

I saw few interview of him, and, when asked about Israel, if it was true that he wanted to " wipe Israel off the map ", he basically changed his position

Ah, but who was the intended audience. It's nothing new that politicians say one thing at home, and something completely different when addressing the outside world. It's all about who you're appealing to. Arafat is another fine example of this kind of two-facedness.

Matteo Martini

4th August 2007, 04:06 AM

FckLO8HcNyo

Wow..
I have to admit that this video made me change my opinion on Mr. A.
( not that now I admire George W. )
Drat!!
Thanks for posting it..

Matteo Martini

5th August 2007, 05:46 PM

I will like to know what Ion and Oliver have to say about this video.
Really interesting..

asmodean

6th August 2007, 02:20 AM

They shouldn't.

Would you trust Woody Allen with a nuclear weapon?

Nope. But I'd gladly hand some over to Mel Brooks. Nuclear slap-stick can only be a good thing.

Segnosaur

7th August 2007, 01:58 AM

I'm sure other political figures DID say things similiar to the statements of Iran's leadership. And if any of those political figures are dictators of countries, I wouldn't want THEM to have nukes either.

And, what if those political leaders are American?

Ummm... you DO realize that American leaders are actually VOTED into office? The U.S. is not a dictatorship.

And while your at it, please give me a list of all political leaders who have said they want Iran or any other country 'wiped off the map'. (Note: let me preemptively say that expressing desire for a change in government does not mean 'wiping a country off the map. In WW2, I could say that getting rid of the Nazis was a good thing without saying all germans should be killed.)

The difference is, the U.S. and Israel actually care (at least to some extent) about what other contries think, and would risk serious economic and diplomatic reprocussions.
Yes, they cared so much about what the world thinks, that they attacked Iraq, in opposition of the opinion of Russia, China, France, India, ..

Caring what other countries think does not mean that you automatically have to be subservient to them.

Its a question of degrees... The use of nuclear weapons is a much more serious issue and would result in much more condemnation than the use of conventional arms to overthrow a government, regardless of how unpopular military action is or was.

Iran does not economicall depend on Syria, it depends on India, China, Russia and Europe

Iran does not economicall depend on Syria, it depends on India, China, Russia and Europe

Economic support is not the only issue... political support is.

And, I would like to know how many of the Islamic countries have labeled the U.S. as the " great satan ", list, please..

Note that when I use the phrase "great satan", I'm using it as shorthand to refer to all countries that are hostile to the U.S., even if they didn't use that exact phrase.

Iran and Syria are the two most notable examples of this. However, there are also countries (most notably Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) which have governments which are allies of the U.S., but have larges segments of the population which could easily become hostile to the U.S. and western countries.

Iran does not have the same economic ties that Israel and the U.S. do. A trade embargo as punishment for using nukes (or even a drop in trade) would hurt the U.S. and Israel a lot more than it would harm Iran.

No??
Who does Iran sell oil to?

The big difference here is that there is a global demand for oil that will always allow Iran to find a market. Compare that to the U.S. and/or Israel, where many of their exports (manufactured goods for example) are also available from other countries.

The problem is, he's also stated that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map".

That maybe was just a slogan that he said in an occasion, and, he refused to say twice, for as much as I know.
Well, I think jsiv did a pretty good job at debunking your argument when he posted the clip of him basically calling once again for the destruction of Israel.

However, a few more things should be said:
- Simply saying it ONCE should be enough. Heck, he didn't even have the Mel Gibson defense ("I was drunk"). If he had changed his position, where are his public apologies? Where are his calls for diplomatic and economic ties with Israel?
- Keep in mind that this is ALSO the country that A) provides funding for terrorist groups that DO have the publicly stated purpose of wiping Israel off the map, B) hosted a conference regarding holocaust denial, and C) when faced with a natural disaster (earthquake in Bam) accepted help from all countries EXCEPT Israel. It says something when the government in Iran would rather see its own citizens suffer and die than accept aid from Israel. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-26-iran-earthquake2_x.htm)

Iran has always said that they are abiding to the NPT.

Iran is not the one who decides whether Iran is abiding by the treaty.

And the U.N. Non proliferation agency ( El Baradei ) agrees.

A few things:
- Given the fact that IAEA inspectors have just showed up in Iran for inspections, and that some facilities had been off limits for months, any claims that they are following the terms of the NPT are premature at best
- Frankly, I have significant doubts about the abilities of the IAEA. There have been several very glaring failures (Libya, and Iraq before gulf war 1) where the IAEA was unaware of exactly how far advance nuclear programs were until political situations actually gave them more access.

[quote]
This is not America' s business

So, what you're saying is that any country should be free to do anything it wants to its own citizens (including murder, genocide, and anything else) and every other country in the world should just accept their actions?

[quote]
Strangely, most countries have liberal democracies are not threatend by invasion by the 'great satan'.[quote]
A long list of countries, in which the government is democratically elected, have the majority of the populations disliking/hating the U.S. in an some ways.
I would say, I have traveled the world quite a lot, and it has been hard to find places where the majority of the people are supporting the U.S. behaviour..
What exactly is your point?

I never claimed that the U.S. is beloved by the world.

It is rather significant however that in all these countries where the majority of people dislike the U.S., none of the ones that are democracies are in any danger of being overthrown.

Sword_Of_Truth

7th August 2007, 03:15 AM

Why should Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Two words: "Never again."

JJR

7th August 2007, 04:49 AM

Okay, maybe letting Israel have nuclear weapons was kind of silly . . . you know, and so was . . . India. As a priest in the LDS church (Mormon) I'm supposed to believe that the new JeruSALEM will be on the American continent anyway. That's in, uh, the Articles of Faith. No question about it, really. It's already done. Palestinians get their land back that way btw.

The Jews should come here, have a big party, and just mellow out. What's with these nuclear weapons? Make love, not war.

Make lots of love.

JJR

7th August 2007, 04:55 AM

Two words: "Never again."

Duh. You know how we operate though. Three words. "Anti-missile-missiles" or, today 2 words, "Star Wars". You know that big sattelite will swat anything out of the sky that it needs to.

Ultimately, we're all just fighting Communism. I think Israel is secretly Communist, and OH BOY does Israel think that the Terrorist Islamics are dirty Commies!!!

It just seems like we all agree on some level at least. That's how we will procede, brothaman.

EDIT: MY brotha.

Sword_Of_Truth

7th August 2007, 07:13 AM

As a priest in the LDS church (Mormon) I'm supposed to believe that the new JeruSALEM will be on the American continent anyway. That's in, uh, the Articles of Faith.

I remember reading somewhere in one of Ezra Taft Bensons books, where he quoted David O. MacKay saying the US govt. was justified in building more nukes since the badguys have them therefore we need them for self-defense.

Also, mormons tend to feel a strong affinity for the jews since both our religions have been targeted for extermination in the past.

Given the tragic history of the jewish people, especially what happened to them under the third reich, if they feel that 400 "crowd pleasers" is a good hedge against another Holocaust, then more (fire) power to 'em.

JJR

7th August 2007, 07:33 AM

I remember reading somewhere in one of Ezra Taft Bensons books, where he quoted David O. MacKay saying the US govt. was justified in building more nukes since the badguys have them therefore we need them for self-defense.

Also, mormons tend to feel a strong affinity for the jews since both our religions have been targeted for extermination in the past.

Given the tragic history of the jewish people, especially what happened to them under the third reich, if they feel that 400 "crowd pleasers" is a good hedge against another Holocaust, then more (fire) power to 'em.

We have nukes. They should just let us take care of everything and trust us . . . unlike what Hitler did. If he had trusted us things could have been different. Sometimes that's the way life is. You have to be able to bend.

I still think it sucks. Hey, I still hate what happened to Jerry Garcia . . . but he did miss his chance to evolve. He sort of abandoned Christ, like the Jews in Rome did, and I suppose God or Nature or whatever it is we all love made a decision. If you can't alter your programming in a time of crisis you're too linear or geocentric or whatever to make the right decisions. A leap of faith is sometimes needed. Reach for the heleocentric there.

Israel should come to America, where a group of Jews are the largest group that lobbys Congress, nearly every movie is directed or produced by a Jew or two, and the news services are owned by Jews. If they find that intimidating (uh oh - Isralie hippie alert) then they can join the A.C.L.Jew where they will (I'm not kidding) find mostly Jews running everything.

At least that's what everyone says, and I think it sounds good. America is a good safe place to relax and learn at a comfortable rate. Our standard of living is quite high for most citizens.

I reccomend beer, weed, and sex. Doctor's orders, man. ;)

P.S. I just think it's a little rough over there. Btw - we do need to find a way to make America a nice place to be in for all of this to work. We're close to this becomming true, I hope. The war on drugs continues . . .

David Swidler

7th August 2007, 10:09 AM

We have nukes. They should just let us take care of everything and trust us . . . unlike what Hitler did. If he had trusted us things could have been different. Sometimes that's the way life is. You have to be able to bend.

I still think it sucks. Hey, I still hate what happened to Jerry Garcia . . . but he did miss his chance to evolve. He sort of abandoned Christ, like the Jews in Rome did, and I suppose God or Nature or whatever it is we all love made a decision. If you can't alter your programming in a time of crisis you're too linear or geocentric or whatever to make the right decisions. A leap of faith is sometimes needed. Reach for the heleocentric there.

Israel should come to America, where a group of Jews are the largest group that lobbys Congress, nearly every movie is directed or produced by a Jew or two, and the news services are owned by Jews. If they find that intimidating (uh oh - Isralie hippie alert) then they can join the A.C.L.Jew where they will (I'm not kidding) find mostly Jews running everything.

At least that's what everyone says, and I think it sounds good. America is a good safe place to relax and learn at a comfortable rate. Our standard of living is quite high for most citizens.

I reccomend beer, weed, and sex. Doctor's orders, man. ;)

P.S. I just think it's a little rough over there. Btw - we do need to find a way to make America a nice place to be in for all of this to work. We're close to this becomming true, I hope. The war on drugs continues . . .

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're playing the part of a caricature and not expressing your own views.

On second thought, no.

Good God, man, what have you been smoking? What makes you think, after not being able to count on anyone to come to the rescue when Hitler's minions were slaughtering Jews by the millions, that Jews in general, and Israelis in particular, will rely any other nation for security more than absolutely necessary?

Dumbledore

7th August 2007, 11:42 AM

We have nukes. They should just let us take care of everything and trust us . . . unlike what Hitler did. If he had trusted us things could have been different. Sometimes that's the way life is. You have to be able to bend.

I still think it sucks. Hey, I still hate what happened to Jerry Garcia . . . but he did miss his chance to evolve. He sort of abandoned Christ, like the Jews in Rome did, and I suppose God or Nature or whatever it is we all love made a decision. If you can't alter your programming in a time of crisis you're too linear or geocentric or whatever to make the right decisions. A leap of faith is sometimes needed. Reach for the heleocentric there.

Israel should come to America, where a group of Jews are the largest group that lobbys Congress, nearly every movie is directed or produced by a Jew or two, and the news services are owned by Jews. If they find that intimidating (uh oh - Isralie hippie alert) then they can join the A.C.L.Jew where they will (I'm not kidding) find mostly Jews running everything.

At least that's what everyone says, and I think it sounds good. America is a good safe place to relax and learn at a comfortable rate. Our standard of living is quite high for most citizens.

I reccomend beer, weed, and sex. Doctor's orders, man. ;)

P.S. I just think it's a little rough over there. Btw - we do need to find a way to make America a nice place to be in for all of this to work. We're close to this becomming true, I hope. The war on drugs continues . . .

Sigh why in god's name do people believe in this Jewish conspiracy crap. Do they really think the world is that simple, or do they believe that they are simply smart enough to realize the truth when others don't. Complete and utter garbage!!

On the other hand it is great for comic material, so I guess I can't complain too much, let the comedy continue!!!!:D

JJR

7th August 2007, 12:04 PM

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're playing the part of a caricature and not expressing your own views.

On second thought, no.

Good God, man, what have you been smoking? What makes you think, after not being able to count on anyone to come to the rescue when Hitler's minions were slaughtering Jews by the millions, that Jews in general, and Israelis in particular, will rely any other nation for security more than absolutely necessary?

We put them there in the first place. Whatever, though. If they want to be stupid and stay where it sucks that's their business. I think that's really lame, though. Don't matter . . . and, no, I don't want the hostilities to continue so that I can meet some ghastly kind of quota or . . whatever. I'd like the hostilites to cease and for everyone to educate themselves. Read the book.

Sword_Of_Truth

7th August 2007, 12:05 PM

We have nukes. They should just let us take care of everything and trust us . . . unlike what Hitler did. If he had trusted us things could have been different. Sometimes that's the way life is. You have to be able to bend.

I still think it sucks. Hey, I still hate what happened to Jerry Garcia . . . but he did miss his chance to evolve. He sort of abandoned Christ, like the Jews in Rome did, and I suppose God or Nature or whatever it is we all love made a decision. If you can't alter your programming in a time of crisis you're too linear or geocentric or whatever to make the right decisions. A leap of faith is sometimes needed. Reach for the heleocentric there.

Israel should come to America, where a group of Jews are the largest group that lobbys Congress, nearly every movie is directed or produced by a Jew or two, and the news services are owned by Jews. If they find that intimidating (uh oh - Isralie hippie alert) then they can join the A.C.L.Jew where they will (I'm not kidding) find mostly Jews running everything.

At least that's what everyone says, and I think it sounds good. America is a good safe place to relax and learn at a comfortable rate. Our standard of living is quite high for most citizens.

I reccomend beer, weed, and sex. Doctor's orders, man. ;)

P.S. I just think it's a little rough over there. Btw - we do need to find a way to make America a nice place to be in for all of this to work. We're close to this becomming true, I hope. The war on drugs continues . . .

Either you were yanking my chain about being a mormon, or you are having a great deal of difficulty abiding by the Word of Wisdom (the mormon doctrine which prohibits alcohol and mind altering drugs).

JJR

7th August 2007, 12:08 PM

Sigh why in god's name do people believe in this Jewish conspiracy crap. Do they really think the world is that simple, or do they believe that they are simply smart enough to realize the truth when others don't. Complete and utter garbage!!

On the other hand it is great for comic material, so I guess I can't complain too much, let the comedy continue!!!!:D

Logical fallacy. Missing the point.

I said that if such a Jewish conspiracy were true . . . I don't mind!!! Cool, dude!! Let's play video games, Jewishmon!!! Party!!!

It's all good now.

JJR

7th August 2007, 12:17 PM

Either you were yanking my chain about being a mormon, or you are having a great deal of difficulty abiding by the Word of Wisdom (the mormon doctrine which prohibits alcohol and mind altering drugs).

I asked a missionairy about living strictly by the Word. He said that only Jehova's Witnesses ex-communicate people for smoking cigarettes and such. Mormons believe that you are still a saint . . . just one that does not live by the Word of God.

You wouldn't understand because you are not Mormon and don't know what a Mormon means by being, "Perfect". Dum dum dum . . . the missionairy (male) who baptized me said, "You've got tying your shoes down, and have since you were little. That's a skill you have down pretty perfectly. Well, that's how it is with the mortal sins. You know how not to kill people and so on. Therefore, when it comes to the basic commandments, you are already perfect."

I was also told that it is not anyone's place to spy on people and report "bad" activity to the Bishop. Also, that minor sins are not to be reported to him . . . only a really major one like breaking up a marriage. Then it is your place to go to him and talk about it.

You have to understand a thing to become a thing, and perfection is a road, not a destination. The desire to be perfect should guide our evolution as we accellerate toward new horizons. Nature will handle things just fine.