Iranian Nuclear Program and the U.S.

[Dark Moth]

Pretty much everyone is getting on the case of Iran having nukes but they aren't the only one's who may have nuclear missiles.  In fact Israel has the appearance of having nuclear missiles themselves and recently bought 2 diesel powered submarines that are capable of launching Jericho class missiles that can carry nuclear warheads.  Iran has the right to protect itself from Israel if that nation chooses to attack by whatever means they have at their disposal, and vice versa.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You fail to realize there's a lot higher chance of Iran striking Israel first than vice-versa, unless perhaps if Iran continues and broadens its aggressive support of terrorist groups in the ME.

Edited August 25, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Craigboy2]

That the UN *should* be the police man of the world should not even be up for debate.  Police men, by definition, are those who uphold the laws of a community.  The police men of the world are then, by extension, those who uphold the laws of the world.  International law should not be established by one (US), or even a group (modernized), of nations.  I think we can all agree that the US and the modernized nations only have their own best interests in mind, and not the majority of the world's population, which live in developing countries.  To allow such a force to police the world would be to create an oligarchy of the elite - the police force would then simply be a corrupt extension of the rich and the powerful, and terrorism might, then, become even justified as a form of resistance.

 

That the UN *could* be the police man of the world is a much more polemical argument, and something of a tragedy.  The inefficiency of its bureaucracy and the deadlock of the Security Council are both very poignant issues that vastly undermine what the UN could be.  But its fulfilmment should be the ultimate goal - for there to emerge a world nation, the UN, and not the US or Europe or China or Russia, must be the police man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Police men where I live bust me and my friends for jay walking (we do it because it's pretty dangerous crossing at the stop light, people drive over the crosswalk and the WALK sign is only up for a few seconds and because all of them cross walks are way out of the way we're going) instead of the people my friends and I see all the time selling drugs in parking lots (sometimes parkining lots with cameras, they're not very smart).

Edited August 26, 2006 by Craigboy2

[Judge Hades]

You fail to realize there's a lot higher chance of Iran striking Israel first than vice-versa, unless perhaps if Iran continues and broadens its aggressive support of terrorist groups in the ME.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Israel is a country that practicaly destroyed a nation because two of their soldiers were captured on a disputed border. Their first response was to kill hundreds of people and cause billions of dollars on property damage instead of diplomacy and for what? They didn't get their soldiers back, not that they really cared to. All they wanted was an excuse to satiate their bloodlust.

[Volourn]

"Israel is a country that practicaly destroyed a nation"

 

Dramatic much? Leboanon wasn't even close to being destroyed.

 

 

"Their first response was to kill hundreds of people and cause billions of dollars on property damage instead of diplomacy and for what?"

 

Yeah, killing hundreds of people = destroying a whole country. And, 9/11 cost billions of dollars yet the US was NEVER nearly destroyed. I seriosuly doubt Isreal's offensive was menat to destroy Lebanon nor did it even come close to that.

 

P.S. That doesn't mean I'm making like of the deaths themselves. Death is *never* a laughing matter.l

[Colrom]

There is this idea about deterence/neutalization using continuous or periodic destruction or disruption.

 

You may notice that Israel, and recently the US as well, periodically destroys the surrounding Arab culture's airfields and bridges and power generation systems and chemical plants and all those infrastructures that lead to social advancement.

 

One of the benefits to Israel is that international firms are not inclined to invest in the surrounding Arab countries and the citizens of the Arab aountries are therefor more available for a song to work in the factories the firms build in Israel instead.

 

This is certainly a policy.

 

Too bad huh!

 

Nothing good can come of it.

[metadigital]

Israel is a country that practicaly destroyed a nation because two of their soldiers were captured on a disputed border.  Their first response was to kill hundreds of people and cause billions of dollars on property damage instead of diplomacy and for what?  They didn't get their soldiers back, not that they really cared to.  All they wanted was an excuse to satiate their bloodlust.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My word that is a particulary biased and misinformed opinion.

[Judge Hades]

Misinformed, eh?

 

In this war between Lebonon and Israel how many civilians did Israel kill and how many Hezbollah targets?

 

Now how many Hezbollah missiles and infantry killed civilians compared to how many military targets?

 

You will find that Israel did far more damage to the civilian population and civilian properties than any legitimate military targets. I go by the numbers, Meta. The numbers are not in Israel's favor.

[Dark Moth]

Post a link.

 

Even still, Israel was not the one who provoked this war. And to be honest, if you think Iran's the big victim in all this, you're either seriously misinformed or worse. Who the hell do you think finances Hizbollah in the first place? Who's their biggest sponsor? Gee, I wonder who it is. Don't fool yourself. Iran is no victim here. It can easily be argued their also responsible for provoking this war. Last time I also checked, Iran stated before that one of their goals is the destruction of Israel. Not that that implies anything, no sir. No, Israel has nothing to fear from Iran.

 

There is this idea about deterence/neutalization using continuous or periodic destruction or disruption. 

 

You may notice that Israel, and recently the US as well, periodically destroys the surrounding Arab culture's airfields and bridges and power generation systems and chemical plants and all those infrastructures that lead to social advancement.

 

One of the benefits to Israel is that international firms are not inclined to invest in the surrounding Arab countries and the citizens of the Arab aountries are therefor more available for a song to work in the factories the firms build in Israel instead.

 

This is certainly a policy.

 

Too bad huh! 

 

Nothing good can come of it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow.

 

The utter veracity of your statement boggles my mind.

 

After all, the US and Israel just periodically blow up bridges and factories for no reason, even in times peace.

 

That is in no way biased or misinformed opinion. No sir.

Edited August 26, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Colrom]

Well, Dark Moth, do you prefer this phrasing and this author better?

 

"JERUSALEM ISSUE BRIEF

Vol. 3, No. 16 3 February 2004

 

 

 

21st Century Threats Facing Israel

Maj. Gen. Dan Haloutz

Commander of the Israel Air Force

 

 

 

Israeli society is the first place where legitimacy is needed for military actions. Many of the questions raised regarding our actions come from the Israeli people. Being raised on democracy and pluralism, being raised as an open society, Israeli society asks questions that we must answer with the right answers.

 

Low-intensity conflicts are continuous, compared with full-scale conflicts that are usually shorter, sharper, and with an end result to the conflict that is much clearer.

 

Continuous conflict is a kind of war of attrition, not only between military forces, but also between societies. It comes down to which society can endure more, which society is capable of bearing the conflict and continuing their lives at the same time.

 

Our neighbors are now dispersing their military forces as part of a new doctrine calling for a

Edited August 26, 2006 by Colrom

[Colrom]

Dark Moth,

 

I never said anything about "for no reason". That is your mischaracterization.

 

Of course there are rationalizations. It's just that the reasons given in public may not be the real reasons or all the reasons.

 

If you want reasons the General provides some.

 

Keep in mind though, that every punk thief and killer has a reason for what they do.

 

Also, I never said anything about "in times of peace". That is also your mischaracterization.

 

Yikes.

 

In fact some people might consider that a major problem in the Middle East is that all promises are broken and all peaces are ended with treachery.

 

Hence, in so far as the inevitable beginning of hostilities is always on their mind, there really is no peace of mind for anyone.

 

They need to build their skills at waging peace.

 

They could start by building bridges - real and figurative!

 

Edited August 26, 2006 by Colrom

[alanschu]

Misinformed, eh?

 

In this war between Lebonon and Israel how many civilians did Israel kill and how many Hezbollah targets?

 

Now how many Hezbollah missiles and infantry killed civilians compared to how many military targets?

 

You will find that Israel did far more damage to the civilian population and civilian properties than any legitimate military targets.  I go by the numbers, Meta.  The numbers are not in Israel's favor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So, how many civilians did Israel kill and how many Hezbollah targets?

 

How many Hezbollah missiles and infantry killed civilians compared to military targets?

[Judge Hades]

You telling me you don't know? Have you at all been paying atention to the news?

[Dark Moth]

One of you hasn't. And I don't think it's alanschu.

[Judge Hades]

Whatever, Dark Moth. You are too biased for Israel. It wouldn't surprised me if you do belong to that Morale Majority nutter group.

[Dark Moth]

I know. We moral nutters just keep letting those darn facts get in the way of things, don't we?

 

Of course I'd say a nutter would be more prone to make a statement like this:

They didn't get their soldiers back, not that they really cared to.  All they wanted was an excuse to satiate their bloodlust.                 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, I added your smilies for you.

Edited August 27, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Colrom]

Wow!

 

Some ethical problems goin on.

 

Statements mischaracterized.

 

Quotes altered!

 

Yikes!

[Dark Moth]

The only thing I added were the smilies. " The quote itself is unaltered.

 

Going back to your statement, the way you phrased it was very vague and easy to misinterpret. You made it sound like the U.S. and Israel were the only bad guys acting in the ME. Then you vaguely, yet slyly seem to make a connection between the US/Israel and punks and killers. Is that what you intended? You of course were so quick to bring shame upon the western nations and Israel while disregarding the actions of the enemies they face. You completely ignored the thousands of rockets fired by Hizbollah into Israeli civilian simply in wake of the past few weeks, not counting the many years Hizbollah's been fighting Israel. Not also forgetting the car bombs and suicide bombers blowing themselves up in market places. And don't ever forget it wasn't Israel who provoked this war.

 

Meanwhile you seem to be living in a neo-hippy fantasy where these problems are easily solved. You make these Arab nations look like poor victims who are constantly bullied and exploited by the big bad US and its sidekick Israel. If that is not what you intended, please clarify this and correct me. The article you quoted actually has little bearing on my original point itself. Meanwhile, remember that this is a war. Despite the hundreds of history books you claim to have read, you seem to have very little understanding of what is going on in the ME. Those bridges and airfields you mentioned are used to fight Israel, not just 'cultural development'. In times of war, things like that are dealt with. One bridge destroyed might mean more Israeli lives saved. Where can one draw the line? It's never changed, the same thing applied in WWII. Like it or not, Israel needs to do whatever it can to defend itself. This is defense. Ever since its foundation Israel has had to constantly defend itself from enemies just for its survival. This conflict is literally hundreds of years old and has its roots very deep in ethnic hatred that has existed even before the foundation of Israel. It, unfortunately, is not something so easily solved. While I as much as any would like to see peace come to that war-struck region, merely extending an olive branch won't help.

 

The Gaza pullout was hailed as a huge step toward the peace process, and what good did it too? The terrorists merely claimed it as a victory for Islam and used the new territory as a base for launching attacks deeper into Israel. Those figurative bridges you mentioned have been attempted to be built in the past. But it has met little success. Why? Whether you'll admit it or not, Israel is surrounded by enemies who will not be satisfied until one thing is achieved - it being the complete and utter destruction of Israel itself, and nothing less. They won't be satisfied until every Jew lies dead in the streets and Israel is no more. Sad, but true. If you doubt me, just look at what these people say yourself. Just look at their actions, or look in one of those history books you claim to have read.

Edited August 27, 2006 by Dark Moth

[alanschu]

You telling me you don't know?  Have you at all been paying atention to the news?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No, I don't know. What were the numbers?

[Azarkon]

Eh, Israel should just accept that it's going to be fighting a permanent war from here on out. Not something any nation should have to do but those are the unfortunate cards history has dealt. Even if Iran and Syria are crushed the terrorists will not be diminished, unless the entirety of the ME is nuked, which is something that Israel do not have the moral authority to do unless it itself is nuked first, in which case what would be left to save?

 

We live in an age of diminishing natural resources and growing worldwide tension - an age of cataclysmic climate change poised before the brink of natural and political disaster. What lies at the end of the tunnel, I don't know - all I know is that this is the age whence man's sense of morality and foresight will be definitively tested. If we succeed, the result is mere survival. But if we should fail, then not only us, but our children, will bear the consequences, and they are dire indeed.

Edited August 27, 2006 by Azarkon

[Hurlshort]

I think eventually the mentality of the Middle East will change. It may be another century or two, but Islam is a young religion and it's going through the same cycles that Christianity went through. Currently, leaders of many Middle Eastern countries are using their religion to promote violence against non-believers. The Catholic Church did the exact same thing with the Crusades. Christian Warriors went the the Middle East to purge the holy land of heathens. Now Muslim warriors seek to do the same. Eventually, I hope that true religious leaders will step up and realize that this battle is killing Islam.

 

The big problem is that war is much more destructive today than it was during the crusades. Islam is a beautiful religion, and I hope it will find peace soon. The greater jihad is the battle within oneself. The lesser jihad is against the enemies of Islam. If powerful muslims start worrying more about the greater jihad, I believe a shift in methodology is inevitable.

Edited August 27, 2006 by Hurlshot

[Fionavar]

Just a reminder to please discuss the topic at hand with respect. Discuss the subject, not the person.

[metadigital]

Eh, Israel should just accept that it's going to be fighting a permanent war from here on out.  Not something any nation should have to do but those are the unfortunate cards history has dealt.  Even if Iran and Syria are crushed the terrorists will not be diminished, unless the entirety of the ME is nuked, which is something that Israel do not have the moral authority to do unless it itself is nuked first, in which case what would be left to save?

 

We live in an age of diminishing natural resources and growing worldwide tension - an age of cataclysmic climate change poised before the brink of natural and political disaster.  What lies at the end of the tunnel, I don't know - all I know is that this is the age whence man's sense of morality and foresight will be definitively tested.  If we succeed, the result is mere survival.  But if we should fail, then not only us, but our children, will bear the consequences, and they are dire indeed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

                Yes.  After the First World War Shandor

                decided that society was too sick to

                survive.  And he wasn't alone.  He had close

                to a thousand followers when he died.  They

                conducted rituals, bizarre rituals, intended

                to bring about the end of the world.

... So be GOOD, for goodness sake, woh-oooh ...

[Colrom]

(w00t)

Edited August 27, 2006 by Colrom

[Judge Hades]

Leave it to a Christian to misquote and make fun.

 

Speaking of Christian nutjobs there is this Republican U.S. Representative from Florida, who by her own statements has declared herself to be a bigot and hater of a portion of population, stated that spearation of church and state is a lie that if you vote for lawmakers who are Democrat and secular you are voting in people who will "legistlate sin."

 

Another reason why to never vote Republican.

 

Back to the topic at hand, the only way the sitation in the Middle East will change is if one side completely wipes out the other. Either Israel will need to wipe out the Arab populations and destroy the Islamic governments or the Islamic nations wipe out Israel. As long as either side exists there will be no peace.

 

Alanschu, last I checked there was about 1200 Lebenonese dead, with less than a hundred being Hezzbollah soldiers, rest being civillians while Israeli deaths were barely past the hundred mark total with a good chunk of them being military personal. It seemed that Israeli forces were going out of their way to target civillians. Hell, just recently in Gaza they targeted a clearly marked Journalist vehicle with a rocket.

 

As much destruction some of these terrorists do, Israel is far from being a victim. More like an instigator.

[Fenghuang]

The premise of the thread is what right does the US have to tell other countries, such as Iran, to stop producing nuclear weapons and developing nuclear technologies if we ouselves will not disarm and stop the same.  I am not just criticizing the Bush Administration for our nuclear program has gone far longer than Bush have been in office obviously.

 

The point I am trying to make tha if the US and other countries, such as Europeans, want the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technologies stopped or limited in countries such as Iran and North Korea then we need to lead by example.  This shouldn't be a "do as we say not as we do" thing. 

 

I would love to see all nations get rid of their nuclear weaponry but as long one nation has them then other nations will seek to have them in order to "protect" themselves through "assured mutual destruction" defense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

America and Co.: Hey Iran and NK, check it out, we've gotten rid of all our nukes, now you can too!

Iran and NK: O RLY?

America and Co.: YA RLY!

Iran and NK: NO WAI!

America and Co.: SRSLY!

Iran and NK: <launches warheads>

America and Co.: OUCH! That really hurt, now seriously, we got rid of ours, now you're supposed to ditch yours.

Iran and NK: <launch another volley of warheads>

America and Co.: Guys?

America and Co.: Well ****.

Edited August 27, 2006 by Fenghuang