No one said that.[/quote][/quote]
And they hadn’t. And they still haven’t. This quote was intended to be a parody of your own:
I’m sure urodacus will be along any moment now to confirm that he didn’t really mean it.
Be that as it may you’ve got the order the wrong way around.
I was parodying his statement from page 2 of this thread:
My point is that you are the one trying to panic over Israel using nuclear weapons in an aggressive war against neighbouring countries, when there’s zero evidence that they would even think of doing something so stupid, and much evidence to the contrary.
Why give them a defense against a nuclear attack? Who’s going to attack them with nuclear weapons?
No they are not calling themselves ‘Mad dogs’. You’ve cherry picked an archaic quote from Moshe Dayan, who died approximately 28 years ago.
Oh, so nuclear weapons only deter people with other nuclear weapons? Is that what you’re saying? On the contrary, nuclear weapons are an excellent deterrent for a nation outnumbered by foes with conventional weapons.
This is completely wrong. Who are they attacking? More aggressive than what? Where’s the evidence? They fought three major wars before they had nuclear weapons, and none since. You call that ‘more aggressive’?
I think you need to tell that to the Japanese. 
How surprising!
And so on and so forth. Sorry, where’s the evidence that pre-emptive strikes are ‘immoral and unethical’? All you’ve done is cite a law you don’t agree with from a book in which you don’t believe, made a wild guess about what its purpose was, and attempted to interpret this as a prohibition of pre-emptive strikes.
It’s how all properly waged wars start. This is Warfare 101. It’s not supposed to be fair. It’s supposed to get you as much as possible whilst losing as little as possible. That’s the whole point. But where’s the evidence that it’s ‘immoral and unethical’?
It’s called a ‘pre-emptive’ strike precisely because it’s something you do before war formally commences. Ideally it prevents fullscale war from developing.
I guessed you missed all the dialogue over the last 50 years. Try reading it.
Exactly. So we have one country to whom Israel is being aggressive.
So what? That wasn’t the point under discussion. It’s a major problem for you that there’s only one country to which Israel is currently being aggressive, and Israel isn’t being aggressive to all the other countries it used to be aggressive to. Yet you’re trying to paint Israel as the recalcitrant aggressor.
Sorry, what’s that? How is that an aggressive move?
That’s the kind of ‘aggression’ you have in mind? Standard political trash talk?
No, that’s not what I argued. Go back and read it again.
Quite.
That wasn’t my point, but thanks for conceding it.
But you simply make this statement out of prejudice, not out of logical and rational thought based on actual facts. You just don’t like Israel.
No that wasn’t actually my point.
You were trying to claim that Israel needs to be ‘handled’ in some way (bombed into oblivion, it seems), on the basis that they’ve been ‘aggressive’ to other nations in the area. Yet you give a free pass to nations which have genuinely and repeatedly been aggressive to other nations in the area.
I suggest you stop visiting 911conspiracy.com.
Oh certainly. Tell that to the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Iran.
In your opinion. The rest of what you wrote is a calculated misrepresentation of reality. It also ignores this, which you’ve avoided thus far.
But you want us to be certain about what he said. Specifically, you want us to think he was advocating genocide.
It could mean ‘I will have war with Amalek from generation to generation’ (Exodus 17:16). Does that seem appropriate to the situation? Oh I think it does. He was asked about how anxious he was. Trying to contrive a link to a quote which implies he was saying ‘We should kill every man, woman, and child of them’ is simply ludicrous.
Random indeed. Do you think perhaps your research technique could stand improvement?
Well that’s hardly surprising, Amalek was a perennial enemy of Israel. In fact they were a perennial enemy of just about everyone. They were known for their hit and run attacks on camel trains, and for targeting the weak.
Many, yes.
I don’t take those statements as indicating ‘depth of anxiety’. But I don’t see the quote in question making any reference to genocide.
But he didn’t quote any divine orders for the complete genocidal destruction of an ancient Jewish enemy. In the context of anxiety, he said ‘Think Amalek’, and as you just said yourself ‘Genocide does not equal anxiety’.
First of all I am not ‘the self proclaimed religious expert’. On the contrary, I consistently repudiate any suggestion that I am even formally trained in this field. I have never represented myself as an authority. Secondly, you said yourself that you had scooped up a list of quotes, had no intention of verifying them, and wanted other people to do the work for you. Not only that, but you said you had no intention of even reading any of them. This being the case, my statement was entirely justified. It wasn’t a personal attack at all. It was completely true.
Thirdly, if you have an argument to make from these quotes, please make it. Then I’ll actually have something to ‘repudiate’. I don’t have anything to repudiate here.
Tell it to the people of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Western Europe, Northern Europe, and eastern North America:
[quote]The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear reactor accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union. It is considered to be the worst nuclear power plant disaster in history and the only level 7 instance on the International Nuclear Event Scale. It resulted in a severe release of radioactivity following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor. Two people died in the initial steam explosion, but most deaths from the accident were attributed to radiation.
On 26 April 1986 01:23:45 a.m. (UTC+3) reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant, near Pripyat in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, exploded. Further explosions and the resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area. Four hundred times more fallout was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
The plume drifted over extensive parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Northern Europe, and eastern North America, with light nuclear rain falling as far as Ireland. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. According to official post-Soviet data, about 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus.[/quote]
Why? No one is suggesting that Iran’s nuclear reactor be forced into an uncontrolled meltdown with all the cooling systems deactivated, resulting in a massive steam explosion.
I’m giving up, Fortigurn.
Why? No one is suggesting that Iran’s nuclear reactor be forced into an uncontrolled meltdown with all the cooling systems deactivated, resulting in a massive steam explosion.[/quote]
Okay, I admit it. I don’t really read your war mongering drivel closely but only skim it for effect. What exactly is this ‘pre-emptive strike’ you keep babbling on about then? Is it something you picked up from John Bolton’s comic book series on the End Times along with the rest of your hare-brained ideas?
You and Fortigurn should permanently give up trying to think above your pay grades because it’s just not happening.
I’m glad you acknowledge not reading my posts properly. I don’t advocate war at all. My personal view of what Israel should do is completely different.
Could I be clear on this? You don’t actually know what a pre-emptive strike is? And I’ve never heard of John Bolton. You’re confusing me with the standard rabid North American evangelical, who is gibbering with delight at the prospect of a global war which they are convinced will constitute Armageddon and the end of the world. I am radically far from that position.
You and Fortigurn should permanently give up trying to think above your pay grades because it’s just not happening.[/quote]
Thank you for typing this. 
Actually,i was thinking that you’ve trotted out just about every emotionial punch card that one can trot out. Did you bring up memories of the Holocaust yet or the Crusades? What else you got up your sleeve?
Please edumacate me. I is unedumacated.
ice raven already raised the Holocaust.
What’s left?
[quote=“lbksig”]
Israel didn’t develop nuclear weapons because her neighbors did. She did it as a deterrent to her larger neighbors invading her vis a vis a conventional war. Iran doesn’t have much to fear from an invasion from Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan or (now) Iraq. It’s not like Israel is going to be able to blaze a path across Syria and Iraq to open a conventional war in Iran. Iran has more to fear from Pakistan’s nuclear weapons than Israel’s.
Iran isn’t developing nuclear weapons because Israel has them. They are developing them so that they can keep the US at arm’s length, aka tell the US to go pound sand. “Don’t like what we are doing? Well fuck off or we’ll drop the bomb on Israel” is an effective threat unless you can wipe out all their missiles in an alpha strike. That’s a large gamble to take when civilians are at risk. That would make Iran a regional hegemon, which is a worse scenario than the present.[/quote]
But I’m not convinced that Iran would ever really use the bomb. I really have the feeling with Iran that Ahminejad gets a hell of a lot of mileage out of verbally attacking Israel, verbally standing up to the US, and that makes him popular locally. It really seems like just a lot of rhetoric to me, designed to win support but I don’t think he’s ever been serious about a full on invasion or complete nuclear destruction. Yes, he’ll make life difficult for Israel. Yes, he’ll fund terrorists on Israel’s borders. Yes, he’ll obstruct the US every way he can, just “because.” Yes, he’s annoying. But to actually nuke Israel would be suicide. To actually attempt to invade would have severe consequences. I don’t think he’s insane, and I certainly don’t think he’s stupid. He was running circles around Bush intellectually, saying “If you have the right to pre-emptive strikes, so does everyone”, “Nuclear power is guaranteed under International law, we’re going to get it.”
Besides, assuming Iran gets the bomb, surely such threats could be fairly easily countered? The area is not renowned for having sophisticated weaponry. Missile attacks on Israel from Iraq were woefully inadequate - and later attacks from Lebanon, which were supposedly funded and supplied by Iran and Syria, were also inaccurate and mostly harmless. How dangerous, really, then is a long range missile from Iran? Surely if they fired it could be detected and shot down far from Israel’s borders, and would probably land on a (Muslim) country inbetween? This would immediately a) draw international outrage and action, and not even China nor Russia would support Iran in this instance, and b) strongly reduce local support for Iran.
The Amalek quote I came across in a Times magazine about Iran about 2 months ago, so I knew it existed, and searched for it. If you google “Shimon Perez wiped off map” the first ten hits come up with variations on “The president should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map.”
The point I was making though was about how the media is so one-sided. So often I’d hear something like the “Iran, which has threatened to wipe Israel off the map”, or “Israel is surrounded by countries that want to wipe it off the map” or some such. Every casual conversation, every time the conflict is mentioned in the press or on the news, this comes up. Then I’m reading Time, and what the hell? So my intention here is NOT to somehow prove that Israel wants to destroy Iran utterly, but simply to protest the endless misquoting of a phrase when Israel has said similar stuff.
Ooh, I like talking to you. It’s refreshing. You make me think about the situation in new ways. What you say is interesting and informative.
Why then, though, is there always so much Israel/Palestinian/Muslim bullshit always in the news? Why isn’t it always Sunni vs Shia with the occasional vs Jew thrown in? Because Israel is in the center, because Israel has so much power in the media, because Israel is too aggressive, or some other reason?
[/quote]Right now the UN Security Council, and the US, are guaranteeing that there won’t be any more nuclear powers in the region. They can’t take away the weapons that Israel already has, but Israel isn’t going to launch a nuclear strike against populated Iranian cities. Who can say the same about Iran? So long as Iran pursues nuclear weapons, they make themselves a target for the UN Security Council, the US and Israel. If they stop pursuing them, what reason would there be for Israel to strike at Iran?[/quote]
Ok. My argument still stands though that Iran can argue that Israel is an aggressor, and that they have an international legal right to obtain nuclear technology, and an international right to defend themselves from aggression. I’m not talking about whether or not they are innocent of provoking the aggression in the first place, the point is whether they can present themselves in this light to international countries and to local dispirited Muslims.
If they can, my argument that presenting the region with a nuclear shield, and clearly stating that it’s to defend Muslim countries against Israeli nuclear attack as much as it is to defend Israel from nuclear attack or Muslim countries from Muslim attack would go a long way to making the US seem objective and making it seem fair and reasonable and could be something concrete to put on the table when asking Iran not to pursue nuclear technology. Because otherwise, despite the reality on the ground, it looks like bullying.
[quote]Your scenario sounds more like an innocent guy in the park who gets jumped from behind for the purpose of being mugged/murdered. In war you don’t give the other guy a fair shot. You employ snipers, camouflage, fighter pilots go behind another aircraft where they can’t defend themselves and fire a missile. That’s the point. The point is to win with as few casualties on your side and as many as necessary on the other side to get them to stop fighting. You make it too costly for them to continue on the path they have chosen.
A better example would be this. You see the guy in the park walking. You know he’s been shooting at your house when he gets drunk and its a matter of time before he hits one of your kids. You tried reasoning with him when he’s sober but he denies doing it. You try talking to the police, but they are ineffective at preventing him. You are at your wits ends after digging out bullets out of your kitchen, the bedroom where your children sleep and ducking every time you hear a car backfire. You have a chance to stop him by sneaking up behind him and bonking him on the head with a bat. His house doesn’t get destroyed, his neighbors aren’t harmed and his kids won’t be in the cross fire. Would you prefer instead to confront him in front of his door with you, your three best buddies and enough ammo to start WW3 because that’s braver?[/quote]
No, I don’t think that’s more appropriate, sorry. If you started the story with “You know that you blew up his grandmother’s house a couple of years ago”, and ended with “you know where his house is and can blow that one up too” then perhaps.
The numbers of Palestinian dead and Israeli dead tell a story of far more casualties on the Palestinian side than Israeli, and that’s part of the problem. I’ve tried to avoid discussing “who did what first” because as far as I can see Palestinians have been sending suicide bombs or firing random rockets into Israel or settler villages, and the Israelis have been responding with attack helicopters and over the top military assaults. Then both sides cry foul and act the victim. Look, I’m not saying either side’s innocent, and I’m not saying either side is “right”. I’m pretty sure the’re both guilty as hell and far in the wrong. What I’m saying is that open dialogue is essential to peace, and that pre-emptive strikes are at best counter-productive.
While true, a large reason for the Marshal plan and the “throwing money around and rebuilding Europe” is directly due to the failure of the Treaty of Versailles. The ToV, which blamed Germany for the war, placed a number of restrictions on it, and crippled it’s economy, was viewed as insulting and unfair by Germany, and this Treaty, hailed as bringing “Peace in Our Time” and “The War to end all Wars” failed spectacularly. The Marshall plan on the other hand, took great care not to alienate Germany or Japan, not to lay the blame at their feet, but to constuctively help the shattered countries rebuild. It took care to ensure that the losers had no grounds to cry foul or to feel bitter.
I don’t know, and I agree that this is a major problem in the middle East. I think that with New Zealand solution may only have occurred because society evolved over 150 years, and later white generations saw the treatment of the Maori as unjust. If there had been constant conflict, would society have evolved in this manner.
Again, I think Northern Ireland has been a crackpot tit for tat violent feuding idiocy for centuries, and was only solved when both sides said “enough violence, let’s forgive the past and start talking.” Which I think was one hell of a brave and difficult thing to do, as it meant that people on both sides had to let go of hopes of justice or revenge for slain loved ones and family members, and put that aside. And would that happened with outsiders constantly adding funds and fuelling the violence? I’ don’t know. Certainly it would have taken a lot longer.
[quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]Here’s some good advice for Ice Raven.
guywhite.wordpress.com/2009/03/1 … -liberals/[/quote]
You think I’m acting like that, or that I need to act like that to counter Fortigern?
As far I can see, that’s all he’s doing.
[quote=“ice raven”][quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]Here’s some good advice for Ice Raven.
guywhite.wordpress.com/2009/03/1 … -liberals/[/quote]
You think I’m acting like that, or that I need to act like that to counter Fortigern?
As far I can see, that’s all he’s doing.[/quote]
Dat = true fing. The intrawebs is for people like that, selling stuff and cat video people, nowadaysly.
Semi-interesting thread, btw.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
My point is that you are the one trying to panic over Israel using nuclear weapons in an aggressive war against neighbouring countries,[/quote]
:loco: I’m not trying to panic at all. Why did this come from? I’m saying that Iran could easily feel that way, and can present it this way - big, powerful, aggressive nuclear Israel, but Iran will defend the muslim peoples!
On the contrary, we have shown that they are aggressive, and are nuclear.
Really? None of which you’ve presented.
They could easily argue “Israel” or the US. Anyway, thanks for not addressing my point but responding with a question. So, by failing to address the point, you’re implying that it would be better to try to physically prevent them from gaining stuff they’re entitled to have under international law, and can arguably be justified in having, rather than buy them off with alternatives?
No they are not calling themselves ‘Mad dogs’. You’ve cherry picked an archaic quote from Moshe Dayan, who died approximately 28 years ago. [/quote]
Which was re-quoted in 2003 by an Israeli professor! The thinking hasn’t changed!
Oh, so nuclear weapons only deter people with other nuclear weapons? Is that what you’re saying? On the contrary, nuclear weapons are an excellent deterrent for a nation outnumbered by foes with conventional weapons.[/quote]
Hmmm, and I thought the Israelis were so proud of their almighty super-advanced armed forces, and their victories in the Yom Kippur war and Six Day War? Am I wrong?
So are you saying that the Israeli’s are completely innocent, like fluffy bunny rabbits. They would never over react to an attack by sending gunships to level apartment buildings, hell they’d never even react? They certainly wouldn’t invade Lebanon to solve a futuristic problem, thumbing their noses at world criticism because they think no-one’s going to do anything about it! No, they’re cute Hello Kitties?
I think you need to tell that to the Japanese. [/quote]
Tell that to the Russians. Tell that to the Ukrainians. Hell, tell that to the Swedes.
How surprising! [/quote]
Just “We have several hundred atomic rockets and warheads and can launch them at all targets, perhaps at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our airforce” and “We can take the world down with us and we will before Israel goes under.” – said however many years ago but repeated in 2003. But the way, I’m not trying to argue that Israel is a serious threat to Europe – although they must have thought of it. I’m not trying to say that in the slightest. This is in response to one of yet another attempted derailment by you away from the main topic. You asked for a quote, I gave it to you.
What the fuck? Who the hell are you to make random rabid assumptions about what I believe or don’t believe? How do you know what I believe, or not? Should I start making such assumptions about you?
I happen to believe in that “law.” I reject the book, but that particular law makes sense.
What’s “wild” about the “guess” about it’s purpose? It seems perfectly logical to me, and the prohibition of pre-emptive strikes in this situation follows logically too. I note that you haven’t provided an alternative interpretation, nor challenged the logic, nor supplied any evidence as you’re so keen to ask of me. Instead, your first response is “attack the person.” I can’t be bothered with much more of this crap.
It’s how all properly waged wars start. [/quote]
And is it how all properly wages wars finish? It’s my wish that this ridiculous middle Eastern conflict one day comes to a peaceful end. It’s not yours? It’s not the Israelis? They should always focus on “how to start the next conflict” instead of “how to finish this”?
And as stated by me and you, they’re not in a war. So… relevance? What about the point, that violence should be used as little as possible, as per police instructions? I notice you didn’t bother to respond to that part. Big surprise there, miss the point completely and go off on a tangent. I’ll tell you what’s wrong with being unfair, and trying to get as much as possible whilst losing as little as possible when in a non-war situation where one side vastly overpowers the other – it costs a hell of a lot more and you lose a hell of a lot more in the long run. Look at the subjugation of the blacks in America. Look at aboriginals around the world. Look at the aggressive responses by people who feel they are oppressed and marginalized.
As above, but you’re not interested in discussing the ethics, you’re just interested in attacking the person.
It’s called a ‘pre-emptive’ strike precisely because it’s something you do before war formally commences. Ideally it prevents fullscale war from developing. [/quote]
Well, Iraq worked well!
I guessed you missed all the dialogue over the last 50 years. Try reading it. [/quote]
I’m sorry, is this supposed to be your “evidence”? I’m sorry, I can’t understand it, you haven’t elaborated very well. The statement is “Pre-emptive strikes kill dialogue” and your response is “read the dialogue.” I’m supposed to “read the dialogue” for the past 50 years to find out how pre-emptive strikes have helped it? :loco: I’m sorry could you narrow it down a little? How about giving some concrete examples where pre-emptive strikes have helped dialogue?
So what? That wasn’t the point under discussion. It’s a major problem for you that there’s only one country to which Israel is currently being aggressive, and Israel isn’t being aggressive to all the other countries it used to be aggressive to. Yet you’re trying to paint Israel as the recalcitrant aggressor. [/quote]
So by your logic a sleeping bully is a reformed bully? Because he’s not bullying at that specific time, he never is and never was and never will be a bully?
Your logic is faulty.
That’s the kind of ‘aggression’ you have in mind? Standard political trash talk? [/quote]
It’s a damn sight more serious than “Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth?” as Israel has the capability and the paranoia to do it.
No, that’s not what I argued. Go back and read it again. [/quote]
Oops, silly me, I must have read it wrong.
Me:“Israel is aggressive.”
You:“Who has it invaded”
Politbureau:“Lebanon”
You:”A month long incursion for the purpose of subduing a non-Lebanese enemy which was raining rockets down on Israeli territory? Sure, I don’t believe they should have entered Lebanon without the cooperation and consent of the Lebanese. But this clearly wasn’t an ‘invasion’ of Lebanon.”
Me: “So the invasion of Lebanon is not in the slightest bit aggressive?”
You: “I didn’t say that!”
So, ok, Fair enough. You didn’t say that, you avoided the point – again. So, it [i]was[i] aggressive then?
But you simply make this statement out of prejudice, not out of logical and rational thought based on actual facts. You just don’t like Israel.[/quote]
Yet again – don’t argue the point, don’t argue the logic, just make an abusive unjustified personal attack. Fuck it, after this post I’m done with you. Fuck the fuckity fuck off. :fume:
Where’s my prejudice? You have no idea of what my beliefs are, you’re just jumping to your personal prejudiced assumptions based on no evidence. For the record – as I have consistently stated – The whole Middle East is a mess and has been for the past 50 years. Actually longer than that, more like the past thousand years, but for the past fifty it’s important because of oil. It’s my personal view that both Israel and the surrounding countries are to blame. I think “freedom fighters” and “terrorists” and “anti jews” have been attacking Israel constantly in underhanded ways for decades and I think that’s deplorable – but I also think to Israel responses are often over the top and arrogant. I think Israel especially is perceived to be aggressive, especially by other countries in the area, and that’s part of the problem. It’s all very well if the almighty Jewish propaganda machine can persuade most Israelis, Jews, Americans and random others that they are correct and righteous and the “poor victim”, but when the end goal is peace with their Muslim neighbours and internal peace then it’s just not enough. I think the Middle East conflict is complicated and difficult to understand, with many contributing factors and a hell of a lot of baggage. You need to go back to the British and American exploitation of Iran to understand Iran’s current position. You need to go back to the crusades to get another perspective. There are multiple countries competing for control of oil. There are multiple countries seeking continual conflict. (I suspect parts of America want conflict and other parts want peace, but that’s just a gut feeling. Probably true for many interested countries though.) I don’t think the conflict is simple, and I don’t think it’s all the fault of the Israelis or the fault of all the Iranians. That’s far too simplistic.
So just how the fuck am I “prejudiced”? And where the hell am I “not based on logic or actual facts”? What the fuck’s with the “You just don’t like Israel” simplistic prejudiced bullshit? :fume:
I haven’t mentioned any of this before because I didn’t see the need. I wanted to keep the topic simple and constructive: Israel can be perceived (by Iran) as a local nuclear aggressor, so how about offering Iranis protection showing American good faith, instead of battering against them? I was hoping for some constructive argument here, such as “That would go down bloody well considering the American exploitation of Iran back in past decades and the American interference with the Shah. If we gave them something real and tangible it could really help at the negotiating table.” Or “You haven’t considered this. Or some other suggestion as to how the negotiations could really be helped, and maybe some interesting thought provoking conversations on how this whole damn mess started and what’s the best way to finish it. I really, really, didn’t want to get bogged down in “who’s right, who’s wrong”, “Poor innocent Jews – remember the Holocaust!” “It was the evil iraNazis!” “Noes, it was the bad Israeli fascists!” So I just didn’t go there. By your insistence, here we are, and I’m apparently prejudiced.
Quite.
That wasn’t my point, but thanks for conceding it.
No that wasn’t actually my point.
The reason I don’t get your points is that you haven’t actually argued anything. You never do. I have no idea what the hell you’re trying to say, as you’re constantly attacking and repudiating and making personal attacks but never try to present a logical train of thought. We’ve been arguing for days and I have no idea what your ideas are other than “not anything you say.” You haven’t presented a single well supported idea, much less a full cohesive argument with a coherent point of view. I really think you should go back to school and learn how to discuss issues.
No, I never said that. Where did I advocate bombing Israel into oblivion?
“Free pass”? Where did I ever say that? Show me that I’ve ever said these unnamed nations are not partly responsible and should not be held accountable? Now you’re seriously misrepresenting me!
YOU have been suggesting that Israel is not and has not been aggressive, and should have free passes with nuclear power, unmitigated right to pre-emptive strikes, nuclear defence umbrella but have never stated why nor why the surrounding nations should have it differently.
Never been there. Is that where you get your ideas?
Oh certainly. Tell that to the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Iran. [/quote]
Don’t get it. Elucidate. I presume you’re talking about Iraq, and not treatment of aborigines, first peoples and blacks. Assuming you’re talking about Iraq, I have no idea about whether you’re trying to say the invasion was unsuccessful, in which case it confirms my point, or successful, in which case I have no idea what you mean. Is this another of your “not-point points”?
OH MY GOD, you presented a piece of evidence! Wonder of wonders! But out of context with no explaining text to make a point, much less a rational argument. No idea what you mean to prove with that little set of graphs which I’d never seen and thus wasn’t avoiding.
But you want us to be certain about what he said. Specifically, you want us to think he was advocating genocide.
It could mean ‘I will have war with Amalek from generation to generation’ (Exodus 17:16). Does that seem appropriate to the situation? Oh I think it does. He was asked about how anxious he was. Trying to contrive a link to a quote which implies he was saying ‘We should kill every man, woman, and child of them’ is simply ludicrous. [/quote]
Your interpretation doesn’t make sense to me, but I guess so. So then you have 4/5 interpretations advocating genocide and 1/5 meaning something meaningless. Whatever. It’s really not a big issue with me, as I never believed Ahminejad ever had any serious desire to destroy Israel. I thought he made a quote, and it was misquoted and repeated ad infinitum on international media, while Israelis who had made similar statements (open to misinterpretation) (if you really insist) were not.
Random indeed. Do you think perhaps your research technique could stand improvement? [/quote]
Nope! Not considering where I’m living, not considering that I don’t have ready access to a decent university library, not considering that my personal reading library here in Taiwan is 50% teaching books and 50% novels, not considering I just don’t have the time to spend hours every day doing something that isn’t putting bread on the trable, and especially not considering I’m arguing with a person with no coherent point of view, no presented and supported argument, and who has presented a grand total of 1, that is “one” fact – that he took from Google! 
:fume: Right. That’s it. I’m done. Good bye. :fume:
[quote=“ice raven”][quote=“lbksig”]
Israel didn’t develop nuclear weapons because her neighbors did. She did it as a deterrent to her larger neighbors invading her vis a vis a conventional war. Iran doesn’t have much to fear from an invasion from Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan or (now) Iraq. It’s not like Israel is going to be able to blaze a path across Syria and Iraq to open a conventional war in Iran. Iran has more to fear from Pakistan’s nuclear weapons than Israel’s.
Iran isn’t developing nuclear weapons because Israel has them. They are developing them so that they can keep the US at arm’s length, aka tell the US to go pound sand. “Don’t like what we are doing? Well fuck off or we’ll drop the bomb on Israel” is an effective threat unless you can wipe out all their missiles in an alpha strike. That’s a large gamble to take when civilians are at risk. That would make Iran a regional hegemon, which is a worse scenario than the present.[/quote]
But I’m not convinced that Iran would ever really use the bomb. I really have the feeling with Iran that Ahminejad gets a hell of a lot of mileage out of verbally attacking Israel, verbally standing up to the US, and that makes him popular locally. It really seems like just a lot of rhetoric to me, designed to win support but I don’t think he’s ever been serious about a full on invasion or complete nuclear destruction. Yes, he’ll make life difficult for Israel. Yes, he’ll fund terrorists on Israel’s borders. Yes, he’ll obstruct the US every way he can, just “because.” Yes, he’s annoying. But to actually nuke Israel would be suicide. To actually attempt to invade would have severe consequences. I don’t think he’s insane, and I certainly don’t think he’s stupid. He was running circles around Bush intellectually, saying “If you have the right to pre-emptive strikes, so does everyone”, “Nuclear power is guaranteed under International law, we’re going to get it.”
Besides, assuming Iran gets the bomb, surely such threats could be fairly easily countered? The area is not renowned for having sophisticated weaponry. Missile attacks on Israel from Iraq were woefully inadequate - and later attacks from Lebanon, which were supposedly funded and supplied by Iran and Syria, were also inaccurate and mostly harmless. How dangerous, really, then is a long range missile from Iran? Surely if they fired it could be detected and shot down far from Israel’s borders, and would probably land on a (Muslim) country inbetween? This would immediately a) draw international outrage and action, and not even China nor Russia would support Iran in this instance, and b) strongly reduce local support for Iran.
[/quote]
No one is really sure if Iran would use the bomb or not. You are right about the immediate retaliation and further isolation, along with spreading nuclear radiation to all the nearby countries (dependent on the wind direction and speed). Then again, they are all Sunni in that region so it might be a boon for Iran, since the Sunni’s believe the Shia’s to be heretical apostates who need to be wiped off the map. That’s why Sunni leaders, in private, wouldn’t mind if Israel destroyed Iran’s nuclear production facilities. They fear Iran’s regional ambitions more than they fear Israel’s. Regarding the missile though, it may not be shot down in time, but it also doesn’t need to be pinpoint accurate when you are dealing with a nuclear weapon. Anywhere in the general vicinity will cause enough devastation to claim a “victory” and lament that so many innocent Muslims died while attacking the Jews.
Ahmadinejad is/was basically full of hot air though. He was decrying the Evil Satan and Israel because economic conditions in Iran were so poor and it was an effective way of transferring the focus off himself. High unemployment among college grads, 30% inflation, inability to sell exports, etc etc. He probably wouldn’t authorize the use of nuclear weapons on Israel, but that’s also not really the issue. His preemptive strike claim is flawed though since his threat to Israel was what started the situation. It gave the “right” to use preemptive strikes against Iran, not vice-versa. Iran can’t simultaneously claim the “right” of preemptive strikes while also being the instigator in the situation.
However, no one denies Iran their right to pursue civilian nuclear power for electricity generation. The centrifuges that Iran has purchased are dual use, and while the fuel can be used to make nuclear weapons, it can also be legitimately used for electricity generation. What isn’t clear is the purpose of their heavy water plant, which they placed off limits to the IAEA inspectors for this, and only this, reactor. The enrichment they are doing at Natanaz is the type used for making civilian nuclear fuel pellets. Their denying sites to the IAEA is what is worrisome and suggests a clandestine program to get nuclear weapons.
Well it might be that the media is ignoring the Israel response because it is that, a response. Ahmadinejad made his statement in October of 2005. Peres made his response in May of 2006. That might be a leading reason of why Peres’ response got far less notice because it sounded like posturing rather than a threat. “You think you can kick my ass? Well I’ll kick your ass first!”.
Are you disputing that Israel has several hostile neighbors whom, in the past, have invaded during wars? I don’t see how that quote has any issues to it. It seems rather straightforward. Maybe you can elaborate on how that quote has an issue?
This will be overly simplified for sanity sake. It was Sunni vs Shia vs Kurd vs Turk first. After the Ottoman empire collapsed and the region was split up into different countries by the Europeans, the Turks were out of there. Now the different groups mostly banded together against the Europeans when they weren’t fighting each other. Now WW2 comes and ends and the region is not longer under European control. Israel is established and its Sunni and Shia vs Jew. After several wars the Sunnis can’t beat Israel and then it goes back to Sunni vs Shia in the Iran-Iraq war. Iran isn’t destroyed and neither is Iraq.
Sometime there after simmering resentment by the Palestinians explodes and now its Sunni and Shia supporting the Palestinians against the Jews. Except that the Palestinian refuge camps in Egypt and Jordan are hell holes because the Jordanians and Egyptians don’t like Palestinians either. The rest of the Muslim world doesn’t really like the Palestinians but they are at least Muslim, so they are supporting them against Israel in public. When push comes to shove, only Syria and Iran really do anything to support the Palestinians. The rest of the Muslim countries just like the drama going on because it distracts their populace from asking questions like “why are you so repressive towards me? why do we have oil but still have low standards of living? why don’t I get to vote like the Jews do?” It’s geopolitics and it’s practical for the Muslim leaders to publicly support the Palestinians, even if some of them are basket cases, but privately think Israel is doing a better job.
Ok. My argument still stands though that Iran can argue that Israel is an aggressor, and that they have an international legal right to obtain nuclear technology, and an international right to defend themselves from aggression. I’m not talking about whether or not they are innocent of provoking the aggression in the first place, the point is whether they can present themselves in this light to international countries and to local dispirited Muslims.
If they can, my argument that presenting the region with a nuclear shield, and clearly stating that it’s to defend Muslim countries against Israeli nuclear attack as much as it is to defend Israel from nuclear attack or Muslim countries from Muslim attack would go a long way to making the US seem objective and making it seem fair and reasonable and could be something concrete to put on the table when asking Iran not to pursue nuclear technology. Because otherwise, despite the reality on the ground, it looks like bullying.
[/quote]
Iran can argue that, but no one agrees with that. Save for Lebanon in 2006, all of Israels war’s have been defensive. Even in Lebanon the goals were largely defensive; to destroy and deprive Hezbollah of weapons caches and kill off as many Hezbollah ‘soldiers’ as possible. It wasn’t to take territory like Iraq’s goals in the 8 year war with Iran. Iran’s argument that they are just protecting themselves from Israeli aggression doesn’t have any merits when they are the instigators. It only works with others who have a blind hatred of Israel rather than dealing with facts, and there are lot of people like that in the Middle East.
How do you propose that the US create a “nuclear shield”? That anti-ballistic missile airborne laser system is still in the works and not tested. If Israel destroys all her nuclear weapons, which won’t happen, that doesn’t preclude Iran from developing them. If the US and Russia can’t agree on destroying stockpiles of thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons, how do you propose getting Israel to unilaterally destroy their trump card?
I’d prefer the focus be on getting the world off it’s oil addiction to trying to create some “shield” over there. Then every repressive regime in that area of the world will collapse like a house of cards.
What little faith I had in humanity and, in particular, its educational systems has all but vanished as a result of this thread.