Political Crossfire Forums

[nrhy]

Pareve wrote: nrhy wrote:
that´s the thought of an individual, but would the communities as a whole agree to attack israel, even when aware of the overwhelming consequences (nuclear)? ..That´s definetly a NO.
Right. That's my point.

nrhy wrote: The point stands, Israel has no right to claim superiority over any country just because it contains nukes.

Huh? Who said Israel was claiming superiority over any other nations? Nukes don't make or break a country. I mean, look at North Korea. They have nuclear weapons and yet they are still one of the crappiest countries on Earth. Israel could claim superiority because their economy is better, or because they are more developed, or because the standard of living is higher, or because their military is one of the best in the world, but honestly, having a nuclear weapon isn't impressive enough to make a nation superior to another nation.

Sorry about the mis inf...its late and I´m falling asleep.
North Korea is a different story, the regime needs the nuke in order to stay in power, whereas Israel needs it to make sure that everyone recognizes it and respects any desicion it makes.

[superskippy]

Not at all, we have never once asserted anything upon the basis of us having nuclear weapons nor have we ever proclaimed that we have these weapons nor have we even carried out a test in fact it wasnt known to the public until the 1970's that we even had the possability that we had nuclear weapons. These weapons have one purpose and that purpose has already been stated in this thread.

[fiction416]

I think the real question in this thread is not whether it is OK for Israel to have nukes - we all know they have them, and that they will not give them up - but whether it is OK for Iran to have nukes? Israel will look like hypocrites when they protest against their neighbors having the very same weapons they posses.

The real question is; Does having a balanced military opponent to Israel in teh Middle East work?

The sub-question is: When has Iran stated thier intention for nuclear arms?

[fiction416]

superskippy wrote:
Quote: Nothing like having Brute Force & Coercion as the mantra for a nation, eh?

Our nuclear mantra would be more like "You defeat us, and we will destroy you."

Quote: For a supporter of the only Jewish state to trumpet threats of a nuclear holocaust, touches on an irony that is rather bitter, in lieu of the holocaust the Jews suffered in WW2

No one is trumpeting threats, we have stated what will occur if combined Arab arms do someday defeat the IDF and march on Israel. It is our last ditch weapon that will ensure a conclusion on our terms, and yes it is a weapon of annihilation.



In an effort to keep this on topic, inre: Nuclear Arms & Israel

I would just like to point out that you sound like my worst case senario for a sore loser; an emotional selfish reactionary warmonger.

You'd rather have the last word & annihilate a portion of the world, rather than go out with any grace... good to know where your virtues rest.[/b]

[The Comrade]

fiction416 wrote: I think the real question in this thread is not whether it is OK for Israel to have nukes - we all know they have them, and that they will not give them up - but whether it is OK for Iran to have nukes? Israel will look like hypocrites when they protest against their neighbors having the very same weapons they posses.

no actually the real question is what was each nations intent?

israel for one got the technology from france so there incae of a yom kippur style assault on israel, israel could make sure to IMMEDIATLY stop the hostilities(probably with a nuclear strike on cairo, demascus, amman). also the technology was for a scenario in which russia threatened to invade israel. with nukes, russia would never attempt such a thing.

Quote: The real question is; Does having a balanced military opponent to Israel in teh Middle East work?

no it doesn't work. isntead of small scale wars you'll just have one big cluster f**k of a war that will completely screw things up.

people complain about human rights violations and disproportionate warfare now? image what it would be like if israel and iran just went all out.

Quote: The sub-question is: When has Iran stated thier intention for nuclear arms?

i think it's obvious what they're doing.

and why the double standard?

israel has never admitted to having or making nuclear weapons yet you say they do have them.

iran has never said they are making nuclear weapons and they have never sufficiently denied it either and yet you say "THERE IS NO POSSIBLY WAY THEY WOULD MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS".

[Pareve]

fiction416 wrote: I think the real question in this thread is not whether it is OK for Israel to have nukes - we all know they have them, and that they will not give them up - but whether it is OK for Iran to have nukes? Israel will look like hypocrites when they protest against their neighbors having the very same weapons they posses.

The real question is; Does having a balanced military opponent to Israel in teh Middle East work?

The sub-question is: When has Iran stated thier intention for nuclear arms?

You're assuming that Iran, a theocracy, and Israel, a liberal democracy, are morally equivalent. They aren't. There's nothing hypocritical about witholding nukes from countries who do not respect the rights of their citizens.

Iran has stated their intention openly numerous times. Isn't that sort of a stupid question? I mean, have you read a newspaper in the last year or so?

"Balanced military opponent?" Riiiight. I hate to break it to you, but one only needs to look at Iran's past military record to see how they would deal with a nuclear weapon. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iranians just sent wave after wave of poorly armed people at the Iraqi army, relying on their superior population. In order to pump up enthusiasm, there is a fountain in a place called Martyr's Square in Tehran that has been infused with red dye, so it looks like the fountain is flowing with blood. If you think Iran would use nuclear weapons reasonably, you're kidding yourself.

PBS Link About Iran

[fiction416]

Pareve wrote:

You're assuming that Iran, a theocracy, and Israel, a liberal democracy, are morally equivalent. They aren't. There's nothing hypocritical about witholding nukes from countries who do not respect the rights of their citizens.

As the only Jewish state - is there not a theological influence in Israel?
Furthermore, Israel has state sponsored Racist Laws, along with Laws that Limit Democracy.

I don't think you want to compare Morals with Israel & It's neighbors - there are no winners in the Middle East when it comes to this.

Pareve wrote: Iran has stated their intention openly numerous times. Isn't that sort of a stupid question? I mean, have you read a newspaper in the last year or so?

1) Don't patronize me

2) For the most part, those comments have been taken out of context by the Media.


Pareve wrote: "Balanced military opponent?" Riiiight. I hate to break it to you, but one only needs to look at Iran's past military record to see how they would deal with a nuclear weapon. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iranians just sent wave after wave of poorly armed people at the Iraqi army, relying on their superior population. In order to pump up enthusiasm, there is a fountain in a place called Martyr's Square in Tehran that has been infused with red dye, so it looks like the fountain is flowing with blood. If you think Iran would use nuclear weapons reasonably, you're kidding yourself.

How many countries has Iran Invaded in it's recent history?

Now compare that to Israel.

[Pareve]

fiction416 wrote:
As the only Jewish state - is there not a theological influence in Israel?
Furthermore, Israel has state sponsored Racist Laws, along with Laws that Limit Democracy

I don't think you want to compare Morals with Israel & It's neighbors - there are no winners in the Middle East when it comes to this.

Oh, I think comparing the morals of Israel and it's neighbors is a completely reasonable thing to do. All of the countries surrounding Israel are either horribly corrupt, totalitarian, or theocratic. Israel certainly has a leg up, what with their crazy ideas about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and whatnot. Israel certainly has a Jewish influence, but there is a signifigant difference between an influence and THE influence. Now, if Kahane Chai took control of Israel, perhaps we'd be talking about the same thing, but I think that it is quite obvious that we aren't. Israel does not have racist laws. All Israeli citizens are equal under the law, whether they be Arab, Druze, etc. The only differences are that Jews may not marry non-Jews (this has been a signifigant source of debate in recent years) and that Arab Israelis are not required to undergo mandatory military service. The Palestinians have declined the option of becoming Israelis in favor of their own poorly managed sovereignty. That isn't Israel's problem, except when said government instigates attacks against Israel. Taking security measures against a group who's stated goal is often to destroy you is entirely reasonable.

fiction416 wrote:
1) Don't patronize me

2) For the most part, those comments have been taken out of context by the Media.
How about we hear from the Iranian president in his own words?

"We are asked why we have started [nuclear] research. We answer that there is no limitation to research. There are no limits imposed on research in NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty] or in the Additional Protocol. Nor have we made such a commitment. Research is necessary for the life and dynamism of a nation."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Wow, how could anyone think that Iran wants anything besides peace? :roll:




fiction416 wrote:
How many countries has Iran Invaded in it's recent history?

Now compare that to Israel.

How many countries have attacked Iran in recent history? You can't honestly blame every war Israel has fought on Israel. The Six Day War, The Arab-Israeli War, The Yom Kippur War, The War of Attrition, The First Lebanon War, and the Second Lebanon War, were all instigated by surrounding nations and terrorist organizations. Israel cannot be blamed for defending itself and winning.

[superskippy]

Quote: The real question is; Does having a balanced military opponent to Israel in teh Middle East work?

Did it work before? Answer that and you'll have your answer now.

Quote: In an effort to keep this on topic, inre: Nuclear Arms & Israel

I would just like to point out that you sound like my worst case senario for a sore loser; an emotional selfish reactionary warmonger.

A sore loser eh? Well than so be it, I make this very clear if we fall by Arab arms their world will also be set to the sword. We are not going to view this from an ethical aspect of what we might do to avert it by surrendering and leaving as we let Israel become occupied, when we created our state we knew we werent going to leave. We are going to look at it from what can we do to avert our defeat to Arab arms when the price is too high, we are going to strike them down if need be.

Quote: You'd rather have the last word & annihilate a portion of the world, rather than go out with any grace... good to know where your virtues rest

You are a fool to talk about 'going out with grace' what in the hell is that supposed to mean, this would be a real war for ultimate price: Israel. There is no graceful defeat or subjucation, we are going to use everything we have to repel them and strike them down.

So yes we would most definatly rather have the last word and annihilate them then let them win and claim the prize. And if it ever comes to that, we will.

[cap'n queasy]

When the only choice is an ethical suicide, screw ethics.

:lol:

[superskippy]

Exactly, if one of those options is the western ethical and moral one, and the other gives us a chance as survival, we will without a second doubt choose the latter.

[Claudia Schiffer]

superskippy wrote: Exactly, if one of those options is the western ethical and moral one, and the other gives us a chance as survival, we will without a second doubt choose the latter.

you can survive like the rest of the Jews in the world. :roll:

[Pareve]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: superskippy wrote: Exactly, if one of those options is the western ethical and moral one, and the other gives us a chance as survival, we will without a second doubt choose the latter.

you can survive like the rest of the Jews in the world. :roll:

You mean at the mercy of others, assuaged by foreign culture at all sides, with no safe place to retreat to should the worst happen, as it has happened so many times throughout history?

Great idea. I mean, it's not like anything bad ever happened to Jews before there was an Israel, right? :roll:

[superskippy]

Quote: you can survive like the rest of the Jews in the world.

I wasnt talking about Jew's, I was talking about Israel, my country, and my homeland. We are not going to disperse just because it would suit your likings, to the contrary we will make sure our enemies burn if that is what it takes to stave of defeat and that ultimate final price.

[fiction416]

superskippy wrote: Quote: you can survive like the rest of the Jews in the world.

I wasnt talking about Jew's, I was talking about Israel, my country, and my homeland. We are not going to disperse just because it would suit your likings, to the contrary we will make sure our enemies burn if that is what it takes to stave of defeat and that ultimate final price.


You sound certifiably crazy; of the warmonger fanatical genocidal type

[superskippy]

Which only goes to show that you have drawn a very wrong conclusion. The ultimate final price is the loss of Israel we will use any weapon to prevent that from occuring.

[Saracen]

Dear God, I must be missing a large part of the debates ever since I went towards posting sparingly! :lol:

[superskippy]

You have no idea! I really have missed you and the rational and though provoking posts you normally bring to debates. :-D
:lol:
But can you vouch for me just this once that I am not a genocidal maniac? Please?

[Pareve]

superskippy wrote: You have no idea! I really have missed you and the rational and though provoking posts you normally bring to debates. :-D
:lol:
But can you vouch for me just this once that I am not a genocidal maniac? Please?

Didn't you know that everyone who's pro-Israel automatically wants to throw acid at Arab children? I thought it was implied.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: You have no idea! I really have missed you and the rational and though provoking posts you normally bring to debates. :-D

Likewise, skippy, but I have more imporant things in life to attend to, and even defending Islam here on PCF is becoming a small part of it.

Quote: But can you vouch for me just this once that I am not a genocidal maniac? Please?

Okay. Now, whoever said that superskippy is "a genocidal maniac", know that he's just a soldier. He's following orders. Also, do you have any proof that superskippy has a high kill rate everytime he's on duty and even off duty? I assure you that skippy doesn't wish for death. He's a good lad, and I've known him for more than half a year now. If anything, he did not say anything that would qualify him as such. Granted, fiction, I hated that bolded quote as much as you do, but he's not a genocidal maniac. You could say "Macchiavellian", but genocidal? I think he would resort to a more peaceful solution, if he had one, to prevent seeing Israel burn in front of him.

Btw, I am an advocate of the one-state solution, but the Palestinian two-state solution is something I also support at the moment because it seems to be the more practical settlement.