NationStates Jolt Archive

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061212/D8LVAPKG1.html

Personally, I'm very glad. Now Israel can defend itself from the crackpot extremist governments surrounding it. Here's to Israel!

Then they must be a rogue state like North Korea surely.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061212/D8LVAPKG1.html

Personally, I'm very glad. Now Israel can defend itself from the crackpot extremist governments surrounding it. Here's to Israel!

They should come out and say it officially. They are still denying it right now. Would seem to be that everyone and there brother knows or thinks that Israel has nukes.

So the most aggressive nation in the middle east has nukes, I think NATO should invade to topple this regime or at least U.N sanctions be placed after all fair is fair

Meh, in other news, the Pope is Catholic.

Meh, in other news, the Pope is Catholic.

So that must mean that bears....

So that must mean that bears....

Crap in the Kremlin

Super, now the world is a much safer place. Why can't we just give every country a nuclear bomb so everyone can "defend" themselves against others? Or why don't we just get every citizen a gun so he/she could defend him or herself against others? What an greeeeat idea...

I dont really care which countries has or hasnt nuclear weapon, I just now I would feel a lot safer if they didnt excist at all but thats just me...

I dont really care which countries has or hasnt nuclear weapon, I just now I would feel a lot safer if they didnt excist at all but thats just me...

QFT

Crap in the Kremlin

but in russia does'nt the kremlin crap on you?

I suspect Israel has had nukes for quite some time. Infact it wouldn't shock me if we gave them to 'em.

Not every nation has a nutcase nation *coughcoughIrancough* breathing down their neck and publicly saying that they would blow you off the map. How would all you british react if the french said they were going to destroy you? And americans, what if China did? I bet you would do the same.

Thats great news ..Israel has every right to defend herself and all that needs to be done now is intergrate American troops with the Israeli army....Out of the 145,000 troops America has in Iraq half should be brought home the other half sent into Israel and together eliminate the terrorist pigs together and the countries that support them ..Who in this world could stand against them with there advanced technology?NOBODY ....and if they tried we use are nuclear aresanal because we've done it once and we would do it again ...:mp5:

Not every nation has a nutcase nation *coughcoughIrancough* breathing down their neck and publicly saying that they would blow you off the map. How would all you british react if the french said they were going to destroy you? And americans, what if China did? I bet you would do the same.

considering Iran is relatively far away and with little ability to attack Israel I think your point is moot (especially since Israel has done fine without using nuclear weapons)

also should any war erupt in the middle east what target could be justifiably nuked?

Oh and as for the question no I couldn’t give a rats arse about France so long as nothing can be done to possibly inflict harm

Not every nation has a nutcase nation *coughcoughIrancough* breathing down their neck and publicly saying that they would blow you off the map. How would all you british react if the french said they were going to destroy you? And americans, what if China did? I bet you would do the same.

And of course when Israel threatens to attack Iran (and, not that you care but the 'wipe off the map' comment was mistranslated) Iran should not be allowed to defend itself.

Because Israel HAS said that it would cheerfully blow up Iran's reactors.

But of course that's self-defence while Iran seeking nuclear power MUST be an aggressive move against Israel, right?

considering Iran is relatively far away and with little ability to attack Israel I think your point is moot (especially since Israel has done fine without using nuclear weapons)

also should any war erupt in the middle east what target could be justifiably nuked?

Oh and as for the question no I couldn’t give a rats arse about France so long as nothing can be done to possibly inflict harm

Iran has missiles fully capable of reaching Israel. All they need are nuclear warheads.

Are you saying that Hiroshima was "justifiably nuked"? A slight pause while I laugh at you.

other half sent into Israel and together eliminate the terrorist pigs together and the countries that support them

you want the U.S to go to war with itself and pretty much the whole globe :eek:

..Who in this world could stand against them with there advanced technology?NOBODY

surely you mean Afghan and Iraqi citizens?

....and if they tried we use are nuclear aresanal because we've done it once and we would do it again ...:mp5:

*sigh* “Hw 0ld r u?”

Iran has missiles fully capable of reaching Israel. All they need are nuclear warheads.

no Iran has missiles capable of being shot down and I seriously doubt Iran has nuclear delivery technology

Are you saying that Hiroshima was "justifiably nuked"? A slight pause while I laugh at you.

Where did I say Hiroshima was justifiable :confused: a slight pause whilst you put words in my mouth eh?

Great...a thread with news from about 1973

I always wanted to be 7 again!!

I say we nuke Israel with the most radioactive, destructive, environment-destroying, land-melting, air-polluting thing we can drop on someone from above, and after everything melts and everyone dies and the land is infected and kills anything that walks on it...


THEN we give it back to the Palestinians. Hurrah.

no Iran has missiles capable of being shot down and I seriously doubt Iran has nuclear delivery technology



Where did I say Hiroshima was justifiable :confused: a slight pause whilst you put words in my mouth eh?

Hiroshima was justifiable. Without it Japan would have went on fighting, the A-bomb showed them that they were defeated, and it saved American lives. It, in the long run, created Japanese democracy, so yes, it was fully justified.

Where did I say Hiroshima was justifiable :confused: a slight pause whilst you put words in my mouth eh?

You implied by your statement that somehow, nuking a target was justifiable.

Or that someone could justify it. How?

I say we nuke Israel with the most radioactive, destructive, environment-destroying, land-melting, air-polluting thing we can drop on someone from above, and after everything melts and everyone dies and the land is infected and kills anything that walks on it...


THEN we give it back to the Palestinians. Hurrah.

I like your plan, but sice that land is theirs, we don't we blow crackhead muslim Iran off the map? But first we can ship off all the liberals there.

I say we nuke Israel with the most radioactive, destructive, environment-destroying, land-melting, air-polluting thing we can drop on someone from above, and after everything melts and everyone dies and the land is infected and kills anything that walks on it...

a happy meal?

and your idea of solving the middle east conflict is intriguing to say the least:D

a happy meal?

and your idea of solving the middle east conflict is intriguing to say the least:D

Honestly? We've tried everything BUT nuking their asses to kingdom come. I'm a pinko commie baby-eating liberal bastard as much as the next guy, but even I know when to just snap and start spanking your kid if he doesn't listen after FIFTY YEARS.

Hiroshima was justifiable. Without it Japan would have went on fighting, the A-bomb showed them that they were defeated, and it saved American lives. It, in the long run, created Japanese democracy, so yes, it was fully justified.

make another thread if you want to debate that

Or that someone could justify it. How?

I think as a counter attack to a nuclear strike or maybe as a last resort

though we are drifting into another debate entirely

I say we let Iran get nukes as well so we watch them have a war then go in and take their oil. :D

Personally, I'm very glad. Now Israel can defend itself from the crackpot extremist governments surrounding it. Here's to Israel!

Yeah, and Israel isn't a crack pot extremist Government.....:rolleyes:

Personally, I don't understand how people maon and cry when one some small country like North Korea admits to TESTING a nuke but seem to find it fine and dandy that America has over 6'000 of them armed and ready.

Hiroshima was justifiable. Without it Japan would have went on fighting, the A-bomb showed them that they were defeated, and it saved American lives. It, in the long run, created Japanese democracy, so yes, it was fully justified.

Pfft. Japan was on its knees, assaulted from all sides and quickly losing the war. I doubt the deaths of about a few thousand more American soldiers to take the country justifies the complete annhilation and toxification of two entire cities.

I know! Why don't you go to Japan and go to a hospital in Hiroshima and say to one of the people suffering from cancer, from an act done 50 years ago, and tell them it was justifiable because it saved your precious American lives? Because of course, saving the soldiers who volunteered to go to a war is worth the cost of millions of Japanese civilians who were innocent bystanders.

Honestly? We've tried everything BUT nuking their asses to kingdom come. I'm a pinko commie baby-eating liberal bastard as much as the next guy, but even I know when to just snap and start spanking your kid if he doesn't listen after FIFTY YEARS.

Yes, because, after all, Israel is just a child that needs to listen to its parents and not..you know...a sovereign state.

Is anyone else horrified by the fact that this is news to so many in this thread?

Looks like Bush is continuing his streak of brilliant foreign policy disasters.

Do what I always say... blame the French, they gave Israel a nuclear reactor.

And to think that israel don't have nukes.... the naivety..

Funny. We invade countries, on the premise that they have WMD that at generally abide by UN resolutions, and don't have WMD, and leave countries that don't abide by UN resolutions and have WMD alone. The irony...

Looks like Bush is continuing his streak of brilliant foreign policy disasters.I don't think there's a person on this board who dislikes Bush more than I do, but you can't blame this on him. He wasn't even a failed oilman yet when Israel got their first nukes.

Funny. We invade countries, on the premise that they have WMD that at generally abide by UN resolutions, and don't have WMD, and leave countries that don't abide by UN resolutions and have WMD alone. The irony...
Israel has better PR people working for them.

I don't think there's a person on this board who dislikes Bush more than I do, but you can't blame this on him. He wasn't even a failed oilman yet when Israel got their first nukes.
Every time you improperly blame Bush, god kills a kitten. Think of the kittens!

I was referring to Gates' statement. Did you even read the article?

You people should read more Tom Clancy books...

Great, now the 2 nations who have started the most wars in the past 5 years both have nuclear weapons.
How come its fine for the USA, which is the only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons in combat, is at war in Afganistan, and illegally went to war in Iraq, to have nuclear weapons, and many people don't mind Israel, who have only just invaded Lebanon, having them, but almost everyone is completely against the idea of Iran (not sure when they last started a war, but it wasn't within the past 5 years) begining to think about the possiblity of moving towards getting them at some point in the distant future?

I don't think there's a person on this board who dislikes Bush more than I do, but you can't blame this on him. He wasn't even a failed oilman yet when Israel got their first nukes.

Me, for one.

Democracies can have nukes because they would never use them unless they absolutely had to. Iran and North Korea are ruled by psychotic, megalomaniacal dictators who would use nukes for silly reasons. I am glad it is finally being made apparent that Israel has nukes (even though anyone with half a brain could have seen that years ago) because it means Ahmadinejad might think twice before starting a nuclear war.

Israel has better PR people working for them.
But Iran has good PR, no?
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/14/pgahmadinejad_1501_narrowweb__300x406,0.jpg

You people should read more Tom Clancy books...
On that note, the Sum of All Fears was on C4 last night. I managed to get my new DVD recorder working, too.:D

where's america when you need it? :mad:

watch out Germany!

I suspect Israel has had nukes for quite some time. Infact it wouldn't shock me if we gave them to 'em.

Israel has not signed the NPT. NPT signees are not allowed to share nuclear technology with non-NPT signees.

So.. if the USA did that its government should be executed.

I don't know why this news surprises people...

Israel has not signed the NPT. NPT signees are not allowed to share nuclear technology with non-NPT signees.

So.. if the USA did that its government should be executed.
We don't know if the US did it, but Israel has had it's nukes since around the Yom Kippur War. If you want to know why Egypt really signed the treaty with Israel, I think the nukes had a hand in it.

Democracies can have nukes because they would never use them unless they absolutely had to.

America didn’t have to use nukes in WWII but they did (even if it would save lives and such)

Iran and North Korea are ruled by psychotic, megalomaniacal dictators

Iran is not a dictatorship it has an elected president (thus under your logic Iran is trustworthy)

because it means Ahmadinejad might think twice before starting a nuclear war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6167304.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5377914.stm

never mind the fact that even North Korea hasn’t resorted to nuclear war and that Iran is run by sane politicians

where's america when you need it?:mad:

Burning South American crops of course:p

Meh, this is hardly news. Still, if any nation needs a nuclear deterrent then it's Israel.

Israel has not signed the NPT. NPT signees are not allowed to share nuclear technology with non-NPT signees.

So.. if the USA did that its government should be executed.

Back in the good ol' 50s, France and england wanted to take care of that issue with the Suez channel, now, in the process to get israel's help, the french gave israel nuclear reactor technology... and since then, israeli scientists advances nuclear study on their own....
The end

Yes, because, after all, Israel is just a child that needs to listen to its parents and not..you know...a sovereign state.

Not Israel specifically - the middle-east in general. They're acting like children. There was a comedian on Comedy Central a few days ago, he put it pretty nicely - "Here's my impression of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. ... 'MOOOOOM, ISREAL'S TOUCHING ME!'."

I'm politically incorrect, you see - I don't really care about their feelings, because they're killing people and killing themselves and somehow we get tangled up into it - shit's gotta stop. It's ridiculous, it's immature, and there's no reason for it. Someone's gotta be the Samuel L. Jackson tellin' that bitch to be cool - sayin "Bitch, be cool!" - so they can all be like Fonzi, and what's Fonzi like? "Cool?" Correctamundo.

Seriously, it pisses me off.

Democracies can have nukes because they would never use them unless they absolutely had to. Iran and North Korea are ruled by psychotic, megalomaniacal dictators who would use nukes for silly reasons. I am glad it is finally being made apparent that Israel has nukes (even though anyone with half a brain could have seen that years ago) because it means Ahmadinejad might think twice before starting a nuclear war.

Ahmadinejad is not in any position to start a nuclear war.
Unlike North Korea, Iran does not yet have the capacity to develop its own nukes. The current debate is about Iran's uraniam enrichment programme: at this stage, it is still theoretically possible (though highly unlikely, given Teran's refusal to allow IEAE inspectors in) that Iran's intentions are entirely peaceful.

Iran is not a dictatorship it has an elected president

Just a quick quibble: in Iran the Guardian Council can veto any act of parliament; they can also prevent anyone they disaprove of from standing for election. While I agree that they're not a dictatorship they're not really a democracy either.

Just a quick quibble: in Iran the Guardian Council can veto any act of parliament; they can also prevent anyone they disaprove of from standing for election. While I agree that they're not a dictatorship they're not really a democracy either.

Regardless of who the president is, it's the religious leaders that rule the country.

Regardless of who the president is, it's the religious leaders that rule the country.

:eek:like the Queen!

:eek:like the Queen!

But with cooler beards.

But with cooler beards.

Are they even religious anymore? I know people used to consider kings to be picked by god, but queens, and inbred royal families?

Are they even religious anymore? I know people used to consider kings to be picked by god, but queens, and inbred royal families?

yes they are allegedly chosen by God to rule (they also head the Anglican church I do believe)

But with cooler beards.

https://salempress.com/Store/images/editorial/charlemagne.jpg

I raise you an emperor Charlemagne *knows I can’t possibly win*

yes they are allegedly chosen by God to rule (they also head the Anglican church I do believe)

Okay, ignoring the obvious stupidity of the situation, they don't even rule anymore. Did god retire them or something? Is there anyone left who believes this bullshit?

Are they even religious anymore? I know people used to consider kings to be picked by god, but queens, and inbred royal families?

I think the Divine Right of Kings has been unfashionable since it was pointed out that, if all kings are chosen by God, then Nero was doing God's work. :D

but in russia does'nt the kremlin crap on you?
So true! ^_^

Okay, ignoring the obvious stupidity of the situation, they don't even rule anymore. Did god retire them or something? Is there anyone left who believes this bullshit?

Theoretically the Queen still has a shedload of power. In practice it's not used but it's still technically there.

Okay, ignoring the obvious stupidity of the situation, they don't even rule anymore. Did god retire them or something? Is there anyone left who believes this bullshit?

its mainly ceremonial position now (as in it makes allot of money out of tourists)

the good side is the army is sworn to the Queen and so it is the royals job to keep parliament in check (one of those British things I guess)

its mainly ceremonial position now (as in it makes allot of money out of tourists)

the good side is the army is sworn to the Queen and so it is the royals job to keep parliament in check (one of those British things I guess)

Yeah, it's great that the entire British army is sworn to a senile old woman who's out of touch with normal life.

Democracies can have nukes because they would never use them unless they absolutely had to. Iran and North Korea are ruled by psychotic, megalomaniacal dictators who would use nukes for silly reasons. I am glad it is finally being made apparent that Israel has nukes (even though anyone with half a brain could have seen that years ago) because it means Ahmadinejad might think twice before starting a nuclear war.

Iran is a "Democratic" Theocracy, not something that I would want to live under but that's their choice and for them to deal with. Their President was elected and doesn't deserve to be labeled a megalomaniac, other than saying some disturbing things. Iran has no record of aggression, as I can recall Iran has not invaded or attacked any other country in the last 100yrs, it was invaded by Saddam's Iraq who the USA supported. Possibly they fund terror organizations but the USA has done the same for decades.

President Bush however has also said some outrageous things as well, and the US government has also been compared to a Christian Theocracy that has invaded numerous countries in the past 100yrs in the name of capitalism.

You may not see it from where you sit but much of the world sees the US as a bigger threat with megalomaniacs at the helm than Iran.

So the most aggressive nation in the middle east has nukes

That could not be any more retarded, never.

Yeah, it's great that the entire British army is sworn to a senile old woman who's out of touch with normal life.

source?

Yeah, it's great that the entire British army is sworn to a senile old woman who's out of touch with normal life.

What a lame predictable comment, something that normally ownly spurs from wannabe communists.

Ahmadinejad is not in any position to start a nuclear war.
Unlike North Korea, Iran does not yet have the capacity to develop its own nukes. The current debate is about Iran's uraniam enrichment programme: at this stage, it is still theoretically possible (though highly unlikely, given Teran's refusal to allow IEAE inspectors in) that Iran's intentions are entirely peaceful.

May I recommend a well known book called "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. One of the big strategies in it is portraying misinformation; such as not being able to do something,(Iran's nuclear capabilites, whether it be true of not) or saying you have something BIG (kinda like Saddam saying he had WMD).

With that in mind, its possible that North Korea is bluffing (or have barley anything), and that Iran had Nukes for a while. But for Israel, they might be using the same strategy. Information (whether true or not) can give quite a lot of leverage.

I suspect Israel has had nukes for quite some time. Infact it wouldn't shock me if we gave them to 'em.
Actually, Israel has long had its own Nuclear weapons and technology. Their weapons sectors are very advanced, and they used to work with Zuid-Afrika on joint secret nuclear weapons projects....eventually giving ZA nuclear weapons. ZA then got rid of its nuclear weapons and fell apart into the pice of shit it is today.

What a lame predictable comment, something that normally ownly spurs from wannabe communists.

... I'm sorry, what about me saying an old woman who's been rich and pampered since birth being out of touch and senile is communist at all?

I don't like royal families. The very idea of it bothers the hell out of me, and the fact that they're simply there for tourism and ceremony furthers the point that they're useless.

... I'm sorry, what about me saying an old woman who's been rich and pampered since birth being out of touch and senile is communist at all?

I don't like royal families. The very idea of it bothers the hell out of me, and the fact that they're simply there for tourism and ceremony furthers the point that they're useless.
To be honest, I don't mind the Queen so much. It's the clingers-on and Prince Charles that piss me off big time.

good, now iran will just try twice as hard to secretly develope then announce once they have them.

seriously, i do think it is good for israel to have nukes. but with israel's enemies being so close to their own country it would most likely have to be absolute last resort "im taking you out with me" type of deal.

I suspect Israel has had nukes for quite some time. Infact it wouldn't shock me if we gave them to 'em.

A.) We gave a good quantity of Plutonium to the Israelis, as well as the design schemes.
B.) They had nukes during the Yom Kippur War, there were unsubstantiated reports that they were preparing for a strike should the Arabs achieve a breakthrough.
C.) It's called deterrence, keep everyone else scare shitless, and they'll stop launching conventional wars against you.

But, seriously, why does this matter? It's been known for ages.

Israel has better PR people working for them.
Yeah, it's all a conspiracy. Jews and Freemasons run the world. The sky is green. Dirt is made of cake and salt. A tall glass of cheese a day will keep the doctor away.

You can't negotiate with people that are trying to kill you. Israelis don't run around with dynamite strapped to their chests blowing up children. They happen to be on the receiving end of that in case you hadn't noticed.

Tell me, after years of that kind of violence, would you feel safe and be civil? Would you want to try to talk to folks who clearly don't care about dying so long as they get to kill you and your family? I wouldn't. To achieve peace you must brace for war.

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace. - George Washington

If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War. - George Washington

You can't negotiate with people that are trying to kill you. Israelis don't run around with dynamite strapped to their chests blowing up children. They happen to be on the receiving end of that in case you hadn't noticed.

yes the actions of the few always decide the views of the many :rolleyes:

and George Washington quotes? Lol

yes the actions of the few always decide the views of the many :rolleyes:

and George Washington quotes? Lol
Those few are still killing a lot of people and terrorizing a whole lot more. Israel has every right to defend itself against hostile governments and people.

Those few are still killing a lot of people and terrorizing a whole lot more. Israel has every right to defend itself against hostile governments and people.

so what your saying is if one guy blows himself up on a bus the whole middle east should suffer?

so what your saying is if one guy blows himself up on a bus the whole middle east should suffer?
When the whole mid-east is saying that the Holocaust either didn't happen or wasn't such a bad thing I don't think they've got the moral high-ground.

There's a shock. Funny how Iran, a country who hasn't done anything is considered evil for trying to get nuclear energy for its people while the most aggressive, hostile "nation" in the middle east who has now admitted to having nukes is considered a beacon of freedom.

There's a shock. Funny how Iran, a country who hasn't done anything is considered evil for trying to get nuclear energy for its people while the most aggressive, hostile "nation" in the middle east who has now admitted to having nukes is considered a beacon of freedom.

Iran took over our embassy and took our people hostage.

To be honest, I don't mind the Queen so much. It's the clingers-on and Prince Charles that piss me off big time.
I actually gained a bit of respect for Charles when I read about what he's doing as far as urban planning in Wales. Pretty interesting stuff.

Iran took over our embassy and took our people hostage.
26 years ago. It didn't take that long for us to get back into decent relations wih Vietnam, and we did way worse shit to them.

26 years ago. It didn't take that long for us to get back into decent relations wih Vietnam, and we did way worse shit to them.

They still did it, didn't they?

Then they must be a rogue state like North Korea surely.

Whereas NK withdrew from the NPT, Israel never signed it in the first place, so they are not the same. Kim Jong-Il made agreements to stop his nuke program in exchange for economic aid. Israel's nukes are necessary to deter attacks from the REAL rogue nations like Syria.

There's a shock. Funny how Iran, a country who hasn't done anything is considered evil for trying to get nuclear energy for its people while the most aggressive, hostile "nation" in the middle east who has now admitted to having nukes is considered a beacon of freedom.

How can Israel be aggressive when all their wars have been defensive? The countries like Egypt who intended to exterminate all the Jews in the 48 war are much more aggressive. Also aggression goes beyond just physical acts. Hitler's demands before WW2 were considered aggression, just like Ahmadinejad's threats to wipe Israel off the map are also aggressive.

When the whole mid-east is saying that the Holocaust either didn't happen or wasn't such a bad thing I don't think they've got the moral high-ground.

so your saying if a large amount of people in a group deny the holocaust then all in that group must be the same thus millions can be attacked for little reason

They still did it, didn't they?

You'd think we'd be over it now.

Hitler's demands before WW2 were considered aggression, just like Ahmadinejad's threats to wipe Israel off the map are also aggressive.

so your comparing the German Reich to Iran, charming never mind the massive Godwin (and what demands are you blabbering about?)

so your comparing the German Reich to Iran,

that's not that far a comparison

so your comparing the German Reich to Iran, charming never mind the massive Godwin (and what demands are you blabbering about?)To some, every dumbass demogogue with half an army is exactly the same as Hitler before WWII. Those people are stupid.

As much as I enjoying all these debates concerning israel... I also finding it disturbing that so many people outside of the middle east are obsessive about it.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061212/D8LVAPKG1.html

Personally, I'm very glad. Now Israel can defend itself from the crackpot extremist governments surrounding it. Here's to Israel!

Not that it couldn't anyway.

Yom Kippur War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War)

Six Day War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)

There's a shock. Funny how Iran, a country who hasn't done anything is considered evil for trying to get nuclear energy for its people while the most aggressive, hostile "nation" in the middle east who has now admitted to having nukes is considered a beacon of freedom.

No, Iran isn't supposed to have nukes because it has an unstable government, the leader of which stated that he wanted to kill all jews.

that's not that far a comparison

yeah I'm sure a peaceful nation that keeps itself to itself is really going to steamroll its way across central and eastern Asia:rolleyes:

if anything Iran can be compared to the U.S post WWI-Pearl harbour, a power that doesn’t act like one

Democracies can have nukes because they would never use them unless they absolutely had to. Iran and North Korea are ruled by psychotic, megalomaniacal dictators who would use nukes for silly reasons.

*CoughAmericanpropagandacough*

Lets see. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did America absolutely have to use them? No. So why did they do it? Because Roosevelt wanted to show off his big bomb to the world. And for the love of Christ, the Korean War ended years ago. You don't have to keep up the same iron curtain effect to North Korea as your doing to Cuba. Every country, no matter what there leader, would never use a nuke for a "silly reason." The only time a country would use a nuke would be if someone nuked them, thus cancelling it out as none of them would ever try it.

For all I'm concerned with, Israel can gather whatever weapons they want, since it is their country to defend.

No, Iran isn't supposed to have nukes because it has an unstable government, the leader of which stated that he wanted to kill all jews.

Iran deserves nuclear weapons. What they do with them once they have them is the will of God.

I don't really care about their feelings, because they're killing people and killing themselves and somehow we get tangled up into it

Actually, it is our fault. We created Israel. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We tried to take control over the Middle East. Its our mess and we have to clean it up.

Iran deserves nuclear weapons. What they do with them once they have them is the will of God.

And so the will of God would like to see the world go to Defcon 5?

Mattorn;12074929']For all I'm concerned with, Israel can gather whatever weapons they want, since it is their country to defend.

its not a clever thing to do though and hardly a good thing for the human race

though yes all nations should have the right to nuclear technology but its hardly fair that only Americas friends should be allowed them

As much as I enjoying all these debates concerning israel... I also finding it disturbing that so many people outside of the middle east are obsessive about it.

What are you doing there anyway?

As much as I enjoying all these debates concerning israel... I also finding it disturbing that so many people outside of the middle east are obsessive about it.

Considering it is arguable that many of the problems in the Middle East are surrounding Israel I see no problem for those in the world to be concerned with what happens there. The unstability in the region does effect those from outside the Middle East so I really don't see what the problem is when people talk about it, hardly "obsessive" to want to try to make suggestions on how to affect events there.

but in russia does'nt the kremlin crap on you?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Actually, it is our fault. We created Israel. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We tried to take control over the Middle East. Its our mess and we have to clean it up.

If by "we" you mean the United Nations, then yes, we created Israel.

Considering it is arguable that many of the problems in the Middle East are surrounding Israel I see no problem for those in the world to be concerned with what happens there. The unstability in the region does effect those from outside the Middle East so I really don't see what the problem is when people talk about it, hardly "obsessive" to want to try to make suggestions on how to affect events there.

I can accept a debate... but I don't know if you notice that there are several threads going around, while starting each on a different topic, go in the same fashion... (not to mention that same people participate in all and say the same things)

What are you doing there anyway?.

Being an israeli

Yeah, it's great that the entire British army is sworn to a senile old woman who's out of touch with normal life.

And its great that all of America is sworn to a man whose screwed up more foreign policies than Theodore Roosevelt and talks to his dog on television...

How can Israel be aggressive when all their wars have been defensive? The countries like Egypt who intended to exterminate all the Jews in the 48 war are much more aggressive. Also aggression goes beyond just physical acts. Hitler's demands before WW2 were considered aggression, just like Ahmadinejad's threats to wipe Israel off the map are also aggressive.

Aggression comes in other forms besides war.

its not a clever thing to do though and hardly a good thing for the human raceIt's not for the human race, it's for Israel. Like I said, they have the right to defend themselves.

though yes all nations should have the right to nuclear technology but its hardly fair that only Americas friends should be allowed themOh, so somehow it's Israel's fault that they're friends with America and, say, Iran isn't? Life isn't fair, pal. These things happen.

And so the will of God would like to see the world go to Defcon 5?

Worldwide DEFCON 5 would be pretty nice actually. Pacifism forever, man ;)

How can Israel be aggressive when all their wars have been defensive?

Yeah, and of course Lebanon was defensive. An entire invasion and decimation of a country struggling to become Democratic is perfectly justifiable for some Hezbollah Militia taking a few potshots at Israel. And whats more is the mental aggression. Israel is living in a region which is mostly Muslim, on land that used to belong to Palestine. But instead of trying to get into good faith with the other countries and keep to themselves they act as if they own the Middle East. And then they complain when other countries don't like them.

Was the UN around when Israel was made after WWII?

....Okay, that was...silly. In fact, that was just an unjustified and unforgivable assault on the human mind.

I can accept a debate... but I don't know if you notice that there are several threads going around, while starting each on a different topic, go in the same fashion... (not to mention that same people participate in all and say the same things)

I am simply responding to your post. Debates about Israel are all going to end up in the same place however. There is no real way around that. Regardless, I do not consider people talking about the situation there to be obsessive in the slightest.

Mattorn;12074971']Oh, so somehow it's Israel's fault that they're friends with America and, say, Iran isn't? Life isn't fair, pal. These things happen.

So as you can see any action against Iran on its nuclear programme is completely unjustifiable, now that we have that cleared up we can work on disarmament considering nuclear weapons affect the entire globe in fact it would be entirely justified that fines placed on nations that have nuclear weapons since it puts the whole world at risk

Yeah, and of course Lebanon was defensive. An entire invasion and decimation of a country struggling to become Democratic is perfectly justifiable for some Hezbollah Militia taking a few potshots at Israel.
That is so utterly ridiculous! Think about what you're saying there, RSU. The ruling power in Lebanon takes a few potshots (eight dead soldiers and kidnappings) at Israel and they should just let it pass? Seems to me that this was a defensive war, since the first aggression was from Lebanon itself.

Israel is living in a region which is mostly Muslim, on land that used to belong to Palestine.
Israel conquered Palestine fair 'n square, so they really don't have to give it back. Just in case you were thinking about it.

So as you can see any action against Iran on its nuclear programme is completely unjustifiable,
Any action against Iran from a country who is in no danger from this program, like, perhaps, the US. However, other countries such as Israel may perceive this as a threat, and can take action accordingly.

now that we have that cleared up we can work on disarmament considering nuclear weapons affect the entire globe in fact it would be entirely justified that fines placed on nations that have nuclear weapons since it puts the whole world at risk.
Nuclear weapons are perfectly justifiable for nations to have.

And its great that all of America is sworn to a man whose screwed up more foreign policies than Theodore Roosevelt and talks to his dog on television...

I don't like him either! They're both unfit leaders!

Mattorn;12075044']Any action against Iran from a country who is in no danger from this program, like, perhaps, the US. However, other countries such as Israel may perceive this as a threat, and can take action accordingly.

so under that logic all nation surrounding the middle east can take nay action they please against Israel? And a war in the middle east is not a threat to U.S security? (I’m talking oil hear especially)

Mattorn;12075044']Nuclear weapons are perfectly justifiable for nations to have.

They are however not justifiable to use

Iran deserves nuclear weapons. What they do with them once they have them is the will of God.

You're referring to Khomnei(sp?) as God?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061212/D8LVAPKG1.html

Personally, I'm very glad. Now Israel can defend itself from the crackpot extremist governments surrounding it. Here's to Israel!

Amen to that. The moolah-crats in Tehran in particular are now on notice. A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket won't live to see Israel wiped off the map.

JC #24

You're referring to Khomnei(sp?) as God?

Is that tool for real?

Naw, he must be a satirist of some kind.

Amen to that. The moolah-crats in Tehran in particular are now on notice. A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket won't live to see Israel wiped off the map.

JC #24
Why am I not surprised to number you among the uninformed on this issue?

Although I'm no great fan of Israel I support nuclear armament in general. Now if only we could arm the rest of the region. :mp5:

Although I'm no great fan of Israel I support nuclear armament in general. Now if only we could arm the rest of the region. :mp5:
We could have a good ol' nuclear holocaust. Because, like, that's a great idea...

We could have a good ol' nuclear holocaust. Because, like, that's a great idea...

I think you over-estimate people's will to die. MAD is a powerful incentive not to start nuking each other.

And works beautifully against someone who believes he/she's going straight to heaven, do not pass go, do collect 40 virgins for killing the enemies of their faith.

And works beautifully against someone who believes he/she's going straight to heaven, do not pass go, do collect 40 virgins for killing the enemies of their faith.

If you believe that with the strength of conviction to condemn your nation to the nuclear fires then you would have already attacked Israel, rather than attaining a place in public office. Once again how sure are you that the governments are really willing to lose everything to destroy Israel. There has to be someone left to kill the rest of the infidels and enemies of the faith/state.

We could have a good ol' nuclear holocaust. Because, like, that's a great idea...

Gotta love juvenile fantasies of violence.

If you believe that with the strength of conviction to condemn your nation to the nuclear fires then you would have already attacked Israel, rather than attaining a place in public office. Once again how sure are you that the governments are really willing to lose everything to destroy Israel. There has to be someone left to kill the rest of the infidels and enemies of the faith/state.

Actually I was simply pointing out with my twisted sense of humour that for someone who truly believes that it is the will of their god to incinerate another nation MAD doesn't work, hence the he/she. They may even believe that they're sending their people to heaven with them. The first time I heard something like that was Bill Hicks talking about George Bush Snr sitting next to the legendary big red nuke button going "Tell me when Lord, tell me when." Besides you're ignoring that for a fanatic who believed that was their purpose in life, that would become their overiding priority even to doing things that would seem completely against it, if it meant getting closer.

Thats great news ..Israel has every right to defend herself and all that needs to be done now is intergrate American troops with the Israeli army....Out of the 145,000 troops America has in Iraq half should be brought home the other half sent into Israel and together eliminate the terrorist pigs together and the countries that support them ..Who in this world could stand against them with there advanced technology?NOBODY ....and if they tried we use are nuclear aresanal because we've done it once and we would do it again ...:mp5:

yeah cause america has been very good at REDUCING the amount of terrorists in the world....:rolleyes:

Wohoo we're talking about something they had since the 60s!

Oh and according to the mullahs in Iran.

If Israel launches Allah will send someone from upon high to turn the nukes around.

Really, that's what some of them believe.

and the bullets will bounce off them as well, right? I love religion. It does such a grand job of reducing the dumber animals in the herd.

I doubt Iran will actually GET a nuclear weapon for three reasons:
1. Israel has one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, so hiding the location would be nearly impossible.
2. Israel has the ability to launch attacks on Iran using missiles.
3. When its existence is threatened, Israel will use everything in its power to deal with the threat. I honestly believe that if it came down to it, Israel would use its own nukes to destroy Iran's nuclear program.

Oh, and we did not give Israel nukes. That was the French.

If I'm not mistaken Israel has gotten nukes from countries other than France. Will try to find my source, read it not too long ago. Edit: Not finding my original source since I deleted that entire folder a while back, but on wiki and bbc etc only France and Britain are mentioned as aiding them in starting it up. I thought I read of another country somewhere, but I can't remember who it was and can't find it atm.

What I don't understand is why is it ok with people for Israel to not have to say yea or nay to having them? Are there any other countries that have them or have a high possibility of having them that do not have to let it be officially known that they have them, are purchasing them or are producing or planning on producing? As far as I can tell only Saudi Arabia is the one that is not known for sure, but they said they were planning on it, or wanting to create nuclear weapons in 2003.

Oh, and we did not give Israel nukes. That was the French.

Thank you, I said that before

Cool, let's hope they use them soon on the whole region, gets rid of the problems.

As far as I can tell only Saudi Arabia is the one that is not known for sure, but they said they were planning on it, or wanting to create nuclear weapons in 2003.
The Saudis and Egypt would be another candidate, maybe even Turkey. That's the problem with Israel making this stuff public - one likely reaction would be that the major Arab powers immediately try to equal things out again by building their own nukes, and you end up with the whole region armed.

As it is, everyone knows Israel has them, but as long as they don't say so officially, their neighbours can save themselves the hassle.

This is ridiculous. Everyone knows Israel has nuclear weapons; everyone has known for years that Israel has nuclear weapons. This will surprise no one; it is no public relations disaster at all, except for Olmert himself.

... Iran has no record of aggression, as I can recall Iran has not invaded or attacked any other country in the last 100yrs...

*cough*HezbollahinvadedIsraelandisfundedbyIran*cough*

Oh my, I must have developed a cold of some sort. Apologies.

*cough*HezbollahinvadedIsraelandisfundedbyIran*cough*

Oh my, I must have developed a cold of some sort. Apologies.
Yeah, that one sounds pretty nasty.

*cough*Wasn'tmuchofaninvasionthoughwasit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar%27it-Shtula_incident)*cough*

Oh, damn, I must have caught it as well. :eek: ;)