Home More advice Politics & Law
I mean the country who has nuclear weapons call it iran or any other country how can they will benefit anyway if they blow up the world. I dont now many of this just what i have heard in the media, but not even the country owner of these weapons would benefit from that so i think its a loose- loose situation. What do you think ? Tell me please thank you.
@Onemandog - If I may be direct, you do not see "see the muslim religion telling it's followers to hate and kill us." What you see is the American news media constantly feeding you words and images of Muslims that match one certain kind of portrayal that makes for dramatic news stories, and insulating you from any deeper understanding of the reality of Islamic experience and culture. A few weeks ago, there was a massive wave of violent demonstrations throughout the Islamic world against a crude and hateful film, right? Wrong. Take, for example, the world's most populous Islamic country, Indonesia: Several hundred people demonstrated violently there - in a country of several hundred million, of whom 50,000 attended a Lady Gaga concert that same week. Most of the other demonstrations against the film, whether peaceful or violent, were similarly small and marginal. Several places saw larger protests, all nonviolent, organized (like many of the smaller ones) by minority Islamist groups who saw an opportunity to try to bolster their influence. Only one country had demonstrations that were both violent and large enough to be truly threatening, and they were also the most widespread (multiple cities) and the longest sustained. No surprise, that country was Pakistan, where the USA is now conducting a drone war (in your name and mine, of course) that continues to kill hundreds of innocent civilians. The one act of serious anti-American violence in all this - the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others - turned out to be the work not of anti-film protestors at all, but of a local Al Qaeda affiliate that had been planning it for some time. That attack actually generated a movement of grassroots resistance by ordinary Libyan Muslims AGAINST the Islamist militias! In all the countries of the world combined, well under one million Muslims took part in protests of any kind against the film. That's fewer than 1 out of a thousand (0.1%) of the world's billion-plus Muslims. OMD, if it were true that Muslims are being told to hate and kill us, they're sure not paying much heed. Regarding Israel, that country is as well-prepared to defend itself as any other. On the other hand, since Israel was last attacked by neighboring countries in 1973, all of its major military actions have been by its own choice. A big part of the motivation for zionism was the desire to do away forever with the "eternal victim" status of the Jewish people by making of us (or many of us) a national community endowed with all the powers of statehood. But your are right that a sense of victim-identity endures from pre-Israel days among some Jews, and that fear leads many of them to want Israel to adopt more militaristic rhetoric and policies. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy: The expectation of hostility leads one to act in ways that will almost certainly provoke further hostility even if there were none there to begin with. In my view, what Israel needs from friends like you is not to "enable" it (in the AA sense) to act on its stickiest post-traumatic perceptions, rushing headlong into ever greater polarization and alienation from its neighbors. Rather, Jews need to learn to see our history as history, and to see our political empowerment - and all the options it makes possible - as the current reality we live in. We need our friends to reassure us not only that they will continue to stand with us, but also that we no longer need to see the whole rest of the world as pogromists, that our Arab neighbors are not nazis, that it is possible to deescalate and depolarize. You ask, "Is that really possible?" As one good starting place among many, I refer you here: http://funadvice.com/r/bvishdrqj4m (Please note that Rabbi Melchior is talking not just about the majority of ordinary Muslims and Islamic religious leaders, but specifically about Islamist political and clerical leaders!)
I like your formulation: Excessive retaliation (called "disproportionate force" in international law) warrant revisiting the apportionment of culpability for aggression. I'm not looking for any denunciations of Hamas. As I said, I think it's generally better to denounce actions rather than parties (though I agree there are exceptions). For example, even while criticizing the "manicheism" (simplistic moral dualism) of some of the views you have expressed, I have clearly not been eschewing you (nor, I think, expressing any hostility toward you) as an adherent of those views. In fact, I'm quite enjoying this conversation - the first with you in which I feel you are actually taking in what I say and responding substantively to some of it, rather than to what your preconceived expectations tell you I must think. {:^) Let me remind you that it was you who brought the Palestinians into the discussion. I have no problem with that - unless you now want to tell me I'm changing the subject by pursuing it. Between Israel and Iran, the question of who is the aggressor is, as in most real-life situations, complicated. Each side has certainly committed acts of armed violence against the other - whether directly or through proxies, overtly or covertly. Each has a legitimate self-defense concern. But neither has yet committed a direct, overt act of war against the other, and both wisely seem to prefer avoiding that if they can. On the other hand, the mutual escalation of hostile rhetoric makes both sides feel increasingly vulnerable - as Onemandog described on Israel's part - and leads both to place their reliance increasingly on military measures to maintain their security. But don't kid yourself that discussing "hostilities between Israel and Iran" returns us to "the boundaries of the thread." On the contrary, I think you were quite right to respond to Onemandog's concern for Iran's alleged religious hatred of Israel by linking to a video on the "History of Iran & USA," not Israel. Between the USA and Iran, there is no ambiguity about our country's role as unmatched aggressor over the last 60 years - a record against which the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Teheran and abhorrent treatment of 52 hostages for over a year pales by comparison.
@Miscegenymiser - 1) Who started it is not the only question in assessing responsibility. For example, after you shave my beard, if I were to retaliate (G!d forbid) with lethal force against your family, then I, too, would be an aggressor. 2) "Manichean" doesn't mean "making a judgment call as to the right and wrong of reality"; rather, it means making simplistic and dualistic judgement calls in the face of a morally complex reality. In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, for example, it generally means assigning all blame to either the Jewish side or the Arab side, even though the conflict arose through a historical encounter in which each side committed its own "original sin" against the other. 3) This recognition does not imply "that all parties are EQUALLY culpable"; merely that all parties are significantly culpable. That provides a basis for reconciliation that does not require the parties (or their global partisans; i.e., me and you) to agree on a finely-tuned apportionment of blame. 4) I find it oddly encouraging that you wrote: "It sounds to me as though you are apologizing for Israel's role in this tumult." In the past you have sometimes denounced me for views or motivations that you attributed to me, and you could have done so again, but instead this time you explicitly acknowledged the attribution as your own perception. If you review everything I've written here, I'm confident that you will not find any such apology. (I wonder, do your eyes automagically glaze over when you read my earlier statement that Israel, like other parties, has acted "aggressively and shamefully"?) My declining to denounce Likud outright is no more (or less) enabling of their aggression than is your declining to similarly denounce Hamas. Movement toward a just peace is more readily to be made, I think, if we focus our denunciations on the outrages of hatred and violence (whether terrorist or systemic) rather than on groups of people who, in the end, will have to find a way to live together.
Hayyim, you're misappropriating the terms manichean and aggressor in an effort to disqualify me as paranoid... as if this logical fallacy wins the argument for you. An aggressor is the party which initiates the confrontation. Reality is subjective to an extent... and I think the gnostics would agree to that in theory, but even subjective reality adheres to common themes of right and wrong. There can be parties who act in the wrong, do you not agree? For example, if I come along and shave away your award winning beard, I am the agressor and in the wrong. If you retaliate, it is arguable that you are in the wrong following the axiom that two wrongs don;t make a right, but it can not be arguable that you are not the aggressor. Your retaliation would not have occurred had I not invited it through my own actions... so it is arguable that even the wrong you perpetrated in retaliation is ultimately attributable to my original aggression, and that ultimately I am responsible for all ensuing troubles. Ironically, those commandeering the term "manichean" to distinguish themselves from the more rudimentary minded, are themselves making a judgment call as to the right and wrong of reality. So... to conclude... I cannot agree to your position that all parties are equally culpable, that is to dismiss the causation outright. Perhaps my half-hearted label was incorrect in essence, but not entirely in sympathies. It sounds to me as though you are apologizing for Israel's role in this tumult whereas the likudniks are claiming victimhood all the while championing PREVENTIVE war. You may not be likudnik, but because you do not denounce them outright, you are enabling their aggressions. Manichean or not... I wonder if your sympathies would carry over to any other group, eg the KKK, because, you know, good and bad are subjective. I suppose I will just have to monitor your future comments to see exactly how consistent your philosophy is.
@hayyim... Who asks. "Finally, MM, you wrote: "you just DON'T like my comment that paints likud interests in somewhat less than a sacrosanct tone." I wonder, are you just trying to get my goat by associating me with Likud, or are you really that oblivious?" Little from column A... little from column B... if by oblivious you mean very astute. Speaking of Orwellian double speak... this is why I'm picking up Likud sympathies... when you take issue with me calling the strike on Iran, "preemptive" instead of 'preventive' I disagree fundamentally with your nomenclature. War is not peace. So either say what you mean or drop the pretenses, because your language doesn't exactly jibe with the position you're fronting. You missed the point of my siamese analogy. Irradiating the liver is not injurious... it's fatal. If Hamas dropped the bomb on Israel... they would also be destroying Palestine... maybe this fact would effect circumspection. Maybe not... maybe militant islamists have discovered a kink in the armor... and it would behoove Israel to start engaging in sincere diplomacy for a change. Pakistan could likewise supply a "suitcase nuke" to sympathetic Islamic militants. Perhaps instead of peppering the pakistani population with drone strikes... the US could engage in real diplomacy to dissuade this scenario as well. As far as the religious connotations... it was never my assertion. I was replying to a direct question from onemandog, and provided the history of Iran's fundamentalist's shia regime coming to power... via the west's overthrow of Mossadegh in an effort to gain control of Iran's natural resources. I don't see this as religious turmoil. My contention is that it is still about creating a Western hegemon for resources and banking/currency monopolies.
Btw, the background video you linked for Onemandog is excellent, with just one flaw: In many Islamic countries, when autocratic governments repress independent political activity, the mosque becomes the only permissible place for large numbers of people to gather freely. Unless the religious leadership can be kept in line by intimidation and/or cooptation, they are the most likely source of public representation and leadership for any popular protest. The Shah was never "forcibly trying to rid Iran of Islam." Rather, he was trying to curtail the independence and power of the imams (clergy) who he rightly saw as a potential threat to his program of consolidating all power in the hands of the monarchy and its institutions. This matters because the error supports Onemandog's mistaken idea that religious differences and hatreds are at the root of these conflicts. What's really going on in these conflicts (as in the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example) is that while many religious groups do have distinctly religion-based political agendas, they are just one of many kinds of institutional interests involved in modern political contests for power that would be happening along more-or-less similar lines even if there were no religion in the picture. Why is it important to understand this fact, that religions are not at each other's throats by their very essence (especially in the Middle East where they have a long history of peaceful and largely positive relationships)? For one thing, because religious leadership and religion itself have as much potential to contribute to building peace as they do to breed extremism. And in deeply religious societies like those of the Middle East, their role may well be indispensable if peacemaking is to prevail.
@hayyim...Damn... just when I thought I was about to be inducted into the fan club. First of all, I thank you for the 'like'. I'm genuflecting in your general direction... which just so happens to be in perfect view of a cat licking its a$$... but i'm sure that's merely coincidental. Of course you CAN 'like' my second comment... all you gotta do is point and click... you just DON'T like my comment that paints likud interests in somewhat less than a sacrosanct tone... color me unsurprised. Now that the niceties are out of the way... I can sympathize with your position on nuclear weapons and their proliferation. If there were some way to eradicate all such weaponry and technology from the planet... I would be on board as well... Nuclear armageddon is not the world I aspire to. There are many means of mass destruction that would need to go too. Means that we have employed since Vietnam that are not as awesome... but have proven proficient enough at massacring and maiming populations just the same. Until that great love in... I will settle for not blowing up Iranians to ease the worries of Bibi Netanyahu. I'm somewhat reticent to believe Hamas would resort to nuclear war in an effort to unseat Israel... that's like irradiating your liver to spite your vestigial twin. Likewise... would Hezbollah be willing to snuff out Palestinians in order to attack Israel? Iran certainly hopes not, because that would be the perfect impetus for Israel to unleash on Iran connecting the shia militants to that great shia imamate. Again... the same argument applies here. The only way to justify a preemptive strike on Iran is to deem those Israeli lives saved of greater value than the Iranian lives taken.
Who is attacking Israel? The Palestinians?
The gentleman in the video is Patrick Clawson, scholar, economist with the World Bank, fellow with The Washington Institute for Near East Policy... a "think tank" established by AIPAC... American Israeli Public Affairs Committee... a lobbying group that has been indicted for espionage in the past, but is also the second most influential lobbying group in America. He is suggesting that an Iranian submarine be sunk covertly to elicit a counterattack that would be used to justify an American response. So we are talking about a preemptive strike on Iran, ostensibly to stave off an Iranian attack against Israel, despite the fact that Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 200 years and the fact that Israel is armed with enough nuclear weaponry themselves to make such an invasion suicidal. I'm sorry, but this scenario doesn't make any sense no matter how much religious residue one imbues it with. There is a substantial Jewish community living in Iran. If Iran is so staunchly anti-israeli... why does the community persist? I don't have a problem with Israel acquiring nuclear weaponry to use to deter an attack. I do have a problem with Israel demanding Iran not be permitted to acquire a deterrent themselves. Why should Israel be the benefactors of the double standard? This seems to be an exercise in special pleading. If an Iranian life is worth the same as an Israeli life... then how can anyone justify a preemptive strike? If an Israeli life is worth more than an Iranian life... how many Iranian casualties are justifiable to "prevent" an attack against Israel?
@onemandog... The notion that one country is so determined to annihilate another that they would soldier forth despite an assured mutual destruction only has a basis in the tripe that unfortunately passes for mainstream news. Like filletofspam said... Israel has refused to sign onto the NN-PT... and actually, in accordance with the symington amendment, the US is prohibited from providing aid to non-signatories. For some reason... this standard does not apply in the case of Israel, which receives the plurality of our aid. The best intelligence estimates that Israel has a cache of at least a few hundred nuclear weapons... and have had them for a while... http://funadvice.com/r/16aifjhdm8d. Israel can wipe out the entire population of Iran several times over. Iran is aware of this fact, i guarantee you, and does not have a death wish. Propaganda for this showdown with Iran has been ongoing, a cold war of sorts, for half a century... at least since the ouster of Mossadegh. It continues with the impugnment of Ahmadinejad. Iran has not invaded a country since 1798. So ask yourself... is this push for war really about the security of Israel... or does the preponderance of 60 years worth of agitation in effort to gin up a war with Iran suggest an ulterior motive? To that point i will post a video of a spokesman for the neocon think tank, Washington Institute for Near East Studies, who appears to be advocating for the enticement of an incident to blame on Iran that will provide a new casus belli for an American invasion. Nice to know that the erudite elite are concentrating on the really important stuff, ain't it?
Skipping to the substantive part then... I asked onemandog whom he was referring to concerning the "attack" of Israel, when I suggested Palestinians. It was rhetorical. I was intending the question... what his alleged attackers had to do with my point concerning Iran's threat capacity to Israel. I'm not sure if you missed the point or just intentionally ignored it. Whatever the case, you replied to my rhetorical question and have continued to frame your argument around the Israel/Palestine conflict... at least in regards to your calling my viewpoints manichean, with the exception in your last post. If you will refer back to my original reply to onemandog... you will recall that it was regarding Iran's potential threat to Israel... along with the follow up, which you deigned unworthy of the vaunted Hayyim "like" My point, disregarding the covert but thinly veiled Mossad attacks on Iranian scientists, and the stuxnet attacks on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, is that the Likud party actively soliciting the US bombardment of Iran makes the Likud position the aggressive position in the matter this thread initially pertained to, that is Israel's vulnerability to Iranian nukes. I don't see the moral ambiguity you continue to insist is there. I agree, America is guilty of past wrongs against Iran. In this instance, however, it is the Likud party warmongering. That you take issue with my posts, speaks more to your "thoughts on the matter" than any misplaced preconceptions you ascribe to me... real or imagined.
I'll keep this as short as possible... assuming your hiatus indicates that time is as valuable to you as it is myself. Your aggression analogy is intentionally complicated. I was working under the premise that our discussion involved two parties... eg, Israel and Iran and extending to all proxies in this thread. Yeah... I can agree that retaliation on a new party would make the respondent an aggressor, but this would be a separate case. If you modify your argument to suggest that retaliations in excess supersede and warrant the aggression adjudication be reevaluated... then I can see your point better. Such retaliation requires an initiating catalyst, without which it could not have occurred. Can you give any examples to help elaborate your argument? I was not attempting to define manicheism, I was characterizing an irony I found inherent in the philosophy of those eschewing its perceived adherents. That they can determine a truth and keep within the tenets of such a philosophy. You're straying outside the boundaries of the thread... So... It is unclear exactly what denunciation for Hamas you would expect from me in regards to the hostilities between Israel and Iran. If you wish to elaborate on this as well, then we can better flesh it out. Until then, I remain steadfast in my position and disagree with your argument that a significant culpability can be meted out to all parties invoved. As far as attributing motive to your viewpoints... I suppose its just paranoia... ;)
Leaving western and israeli intelligence reports regarding Iranian support of terrorism out of it... I addressed your concerns of a suitcase nuke making its way to Hamas, Hezbollah, Qods... whomever. As exhibited in the video I posted here, and according to your own argument... connecting Iran to acts of terrorism provides the casus belli for the Likud. To this end... the speaker in the video... an advocate on behalf of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee... suggested a false flag to provide such a catalyst. Who is the aggressor? The Iranian regime are savvy enough to know that any nuclear attack on Israel will ultimately be attributed to Iran and provide justification for counter strikes... thus we are back to the assured destruction of Iran should any suitcase nuke find its way to the hands of your supposed terrorist. The Likud party have been urging American intervention to snuff out an imminent Iranian nuclear threat since 1992, http://funadvice.com/r/3qqa9otq26 This as Iran opened its facilities up for IAEA inspection, all the while, Israel refusied to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and acquired a formidable armory. That's two decades worth of unsubstantiated fearmongering. Who is the aggressor? Despite your persistent desire to couch this entire debate in moral relativism... it is obvious who seeks war... who the aggressor is... it's the party that has sought it for two decades.
My pleasure. And thank you for your comment, gracious in its paranoid and manichean way. Manichean in that, as you say here, you see Israel and the West not just as aggressors, but as "the" aggressors, implying that the other parties involved - Palestinians, Arab states, and Iran (as well as, formerly, the Soviet Union) - are innocent victims in this conflict. In my view, they have all acted (and often continue to act) aggressively and shamefully; Israel and the West have merely been more successful in their misdeeds. In your view, that makes me a closet Likudnik because, for a manichean, there can only be two sides, the good guys and the bad guys, and so (here comes the paranoid part...) if I don't see things as you do, I must be aligned with the bad guys. If you care, my "side" is best represented by the video and video link I posted in this thread a couple of days ago. Similar to you, I'm willing to settle for not blowing each other up. But even for that limited purpose - and certainly for anything more worthwhile - I think the best course of action is to speak and work not for the acceptably "realistic" compromise, but rather for what you very nicely called "the world [we] aspire to...that great love in."
Miscegenymiser, I can't "like" this second comment from you as I did the first, because of two areas of disagreement:
First, I do have a problem with Israel or Iran or the USA or anyone else acquiring (or retaining) nuclear weaponry. They are inherently genocidal, and ought to be banned from the face of the earth.
Second, you ask, "Who is attacking Israel? The Palestinians?" as though it were a rhetorical question. But it is not. What makes the prospect of Iranian nukes so scary for Israelis is not, in my view, the possibility of a direct Iranian nuclear attack. Rather, it is the much greater likelihood that such weapons could easily find their way into the hands of groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and others who have repeatedly launched small-scale attacks against Israel, even when they are way outclassed in military power and technology and subject to sometimes massive retaliation. Would they be more circumspect once they had the wherewithal to inflict much graver injury?
For that reason among others, Onemandog, as a Jew, I hear and appreciate your passion for the well-being of Israelis. But that well-being is not served by encouraging an eternal-victim mentality, nor by demonizing Iran.
Lol, I would be very surprised if there are any crowds witnessing our exchange. If I have at any point crossed beyond the border of civility, please forgive me; it was not my intention. Speaking of which, I try to apologize only for my own misdeeds; Israeli leaders - like Iranians, Palestinians, Americans, etc.- can issue their own apologies, and I wish they all would. The 1995 article is indeed available, and it was to that article (as well as the comment on it) that I referred. Of course Israeli and U.S. officials feared in the '90s as they do now - each for their own rather different reasons - the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran (just as Iran fears the USA and Israel). That was never at issue. But a week and a half ago you claimed much more than that: "The Likud party have been urging American intervention to snuff out an imminent Iranian nuclear threat since 1992." Nothing in any of your citations suggests that. If you have a different idea from mine about what motivates you to cling so tenaciously to such an accusation despite the lack of evidence for it, I'd be very happy to hear it. I haven't a clue what letter combinations you're talking about, but I appreciate the effort at levity.
That's no way to justify anything, and there is no way to justify a preventive strike on Iran (which is what it would be, not preemptive). Of course neither Hamas nor Hezbollah would start a nuclear war with Israel, simply because they would not have the capacity. But even a single nuclear device would make possible (G!d forbid) the most spectacularly destructive terrorist attack imaginable. As for their willingness to accept self-injury as the cost of spiting their twin, that is the nature of the whole conflict. Hamas, especially, has shown its willingness to continue launching its crude rockets against southern Israel despite the predictable consequence that it periodically subjects Gazan Palestinians to massive Israeli retaliation (just as Israel continues its occupation and repression of Palestinians despite the awful costs to Israeli lives and society). Why would possession of an almost infinitely more powerful weapon suddenly make them more circumspect? Finally, MM, you wrote: "you just DON'T like my comment that paints likud interests in somewhat less than a sacrosanct tone." I wonder, are you just trying to get my goat by associating me with Likud, or are you really that oblivious?
The citation is a NYTimes commentary from Jan. 11th, 1995 concerning the article, "Iran May Be Able to Build an Atomic Bomb in 5 Years, U.S. and Israeli Officials Fear" (news article, Jan. 5, 1995)NYTimes. The article it pertained to was not available in online archives. That you would nitpick this citation serves to illustrate the lengths you take to obfuscate and confound the issue. If you are so obtuse that you cannot discern the pertinence of the citation to my previous claim... then yes, best just to let it go... like you suggest. I refer to you in the third person to imbue a little levity. One would think that you, if anyone, would appreciate the jocularity as it employs six of your seven favorite letter combinations in sequential order. Of course you engage in jest yourself when you claim that your apologies are recognition of moral ambiguity. I'm pretty sure the line of civility has long since been disregarded by both of us, and you're hardly an innocent bystander in the muck dept. Though I do understand that self righteous histrionics play well to certain crowds.
Then allow me to point it out... from the article, "Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought, and could be less than five years away from having an atomic bomb, several senior American and Israeli officials say.The date by which Iran will have nuclear weapons is no longer 10 years from now," a senior official said recently, referring to previous estimates. "If the Iranians maintain this intensive effort to get everything they need, they could have all their components in two years. Then it will be just a matter of technology and research. If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years."
The reassessment of Iran's nuclear potential is now described by Israeli officials as the most serious threat facing their country.
Senior Israeli officials say that if the program is not halted, they will be forced to consider attacking Iran's nuclear reactors, a tactic they used against Iraq in 1981, when Israeli warplanes bombed an Iraqi reactor." Happy to oblige...
We already know we disagree about whether a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran's proxies against Israel poses a real threat to the latter; no need to rehearse it further. Israel's pursuit for the last year or two (notwithstanding your unsupported 1992 claim) of a direct U.S. military strike against Iran, and its threats to carry one out on its own, are obnoxious and unjustifiable, but they clearly do not constitute actual military aggression. Likewise for the Iranian leadership's fairly constant barrage of genocidal incitement against Israel since the Oslo War ("Al-Aqsa Intifada"). To focus on who has "sought" war is misplaced when the two parties are already engaged in an ongoing low-level war. But I can see how acknowledging that fact might interfere with letting your reflexive anti-Israel sentiment trump your own stated principles regarding the inadmissibility of armed aggression.
Contrary to filetofspam, I don't think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed in order to end the war quickly or save lives - certainly not Japanese lives. As I understand it, the Japanese were already on the verge of surrendering anyway. I think these two atomic bombs - the only ones ever used in war - were dropped mainly to intimidate other great powers, especially the Soviet Union, and thereby consolidate the USA's claim to unchallenged military supremacy. A classic act of state terrorism in my book.
Since then, I think the countries (governments) that have sought or obtained nuclear weapons have done so for their value in deterring aggression: Any other country - whether a neighboring rival (as in India and Pakistan) or a global superpower (as in Iran and the USA) must be very hesitant to attack a country that has the ability to retaliate with even a small nuclear counterforce.
Your new citation matches the previous one in having nothing to do with your claim. But aside from that, do you mean to say that you "concede" that an Iranian nuke could pose a real threat to Israel, and that both (all) sides share in the moral culpability for the conflict? If so, I am happy to acknowledge that your views on this subject are less fixated than I had previously thought. Recognition of moral ambiguity is, of course, inconsistent with "apologist sentiment for any criticism" of either party. Maybe as you get more accustomed to that frame of reference, you will no longer take criticism of one party to imply uncritical support for another (especially in the presence of substantial evidence to the contrary). Why do you speak of me in the third person now? Have we reached the limit of your capacity for civil disagreement? If so, then yes, best to just let it go.
Well Hayyim, as much as I hate to ask, is tha t really possible? I mean, I have compassion for all "people", and hold nothing against anyone for being born into something and having no choice, but am I missing the mark when I see the muslim religion telling it's followers to hate and kill us? Christians and Jews of Israel? We aren't out hating or wanting to kill anyone. I mean, don't you feel bad for Israel there feeling like a sitting duck never knowing when they will be attacked? I don't know, I admit I'm not oriented with every "detail" in these things and certain people love to exploit that, but I know right from wrong and "can" see the forest for the trees. This IS a true mess, and I'm not so sure that any amount of talking or negotiating can change certain people's minds. It's like having the flu, anti-biodics won't help you, it has to run it's course.
Ask and ye shall receive. I scoured the interpipes for confirmation to satisfy the doubting PimpKing, nee hayyim, in lieu of the lack of citations given in the CSM article I cited... I came up with this... http://funadvice.com/r/16cmus8ft9m It's from 1995, but it'll have to suffice. Suffice it to say... that's just a year or two interim in hayyim rhetoric. Such is the veracity of hayyim speak. To the rest... I concede. The law of diminishing returns has at long last adduced the zero sum game this conversation has degenerated to... at least for me. Save for the fact it reveals that inasmuch as hayyim wishes to portray myself as a paranoid anti-israel reactionary... his tenacity in his attempt parallels his own paranoid apologist sentiment for any criticism of Israel. I'm afraid the worm has already turned, trenth.
LOL... you are grasping for straws now. The article speaks for itself.... to anyone reading it objectively that is. You're comment is nit-picking writ incredulous. I can and have admitted when I was wrong in this thread. That you cannot, speaks volumes about who you are, and what you're about. You use condescension and sophistry to try and confound any legitimate criticism in an effort to save face for Israel... even as I have specified that it isn't the sentiment of the Israeli nation, but rather that of the Likud party. This makes me a paranoid, knee-jerk, anti-semite in your opinion, [paraphrasing... I see just how pedantic you can be concerning citations] The hubris has gone to your head, I'm afraid.
There are several points to nuclear weapons. They can be the most efficient way to win victory in war. Truman believed that using nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would end the war quickly and save both American and Japanese lives. They can be a deterrent to prevent other nations from attacking. Relative peace during the cold war was maintained by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Should a nuclear exchange happen between the US and USSR the result would be so devastating that even the winner would loose far more than they could ever hope to gain. The last is as a bargaining chip. North Korea starting building nukes in order to have something to negotiate with the west.
Thank you for this information and I will "think" on it. I admit I'm likely not up to speed on "everything" that is taking place. I just believe that whole heartedly that there is no permanant solution to this situation. I definatley am against preemptive strikes ect ect and war in general. I also believe that all that is going on is part of prophecy. You have educated me quite abit, and I see no reason we couldn't discuss this without either of us getting angry or turning it into a mess. Let me ask you, what is your honest take on the religious role in this entire thing? I don't even know who you are so I'm going to your profile right now and see.
The thing with nuclear weapons is this... If other countries believe that your country actually has nuclear weapons and if other countries believe that you are actually insane enough to use them, they will not start a war with you.
I doubt that the USA would have even thought about invading Iraq if there had been any proof that Saddam Hussein actually owned a nuke. But Saddam had no nuke. So the US-Soldiers could just jump into their tanks and roll all the way to Teheran. If Saddam had actually had a nuke and maybe even a rocket that could have flown accross the Atlantic, that would have been handeled otherwise.
Mea culpa then. I fell into the trap of semantics through my own ignorance... so thank you for correcting me. No... I'm neither paranoid, nor manichean... at least not exclusively. I do believe that Israel and the West are the aggressors in this case, and I've listed and posted videos of my reasoning. Since you've not really addressed my assertions... I will take it that your calling me manichean is just an attempt to marginalize my position. For this reason I could not "like" this comment. I do appreciate the tutelage, however. You're correct in that I do not share the world views of the Likud party.
Now hold on, is it not true that israel has given"land for peace" away? And is it not true that Israel has been under attack for many years? There are religious reasons for this, and Israel has not been the aggressor. I will watch the video since I just realized that you posted it. Don't misunderstand me and think that I want war of any kind. I am against it belive me i've seen it. I was against us going to Iraq. But you have to ubderstand that Israel is a different ballgame. All I want is for Israel to be left alone and live in peace, and be able to defend themselves if they have to.
I began by recognizing that you meant your question to be rhetorical, and that is precisely what I differed with. I don't think the thread of my argument was obscure, but here it is again in its simplest form: The primary way that Iran threatens and aggresses against Israel is by the material support it gives to armed Palestinian and Lebanese groups. That is also the primary way that a small Iranian nuke would threaten Israel. That, in combination with Israel's covert attacks and Likud's rattling of Israeli and U.S. sabres, is what makes for moral ambiguity.
Ok I watched the video and that guy is way off base and does'nt have a clue. Who is he anyway? Now, about Israel refusing to sign NN-PT: Would you? If you were them? I'm telling you that I ran wants to kill the Israelies. Bottom line. It is religion based. There are times when being politically just won't work and you have to see the truth!!! The american gov't and the media can't even see that. Noone wants to admit it. The ones with the "agenda" are laughing at everyone scrambling to figure it out, when nothing will change it.
MM, regarding nomenclature: First, the distinction between preemptive and preventive war is standard, not my own. See, for example, the Wikipedia page on either entry. Second, if one of us were making a word choice reflecting some closeted sympathy for a Likud-led strike on Iran, that would have to be you, since preemptive war is universally considered more justifiable than preventive war. But while I know you share Likud's paranoid and manichaean style, I don't suspect you of covert agreement with the substance of their views.
Since the longest thread in this discussion pertains to Israel and Iran, I hope I'm not "hijacking" the question by posting the two following videos. The first one was begun in Israel and can be found here:
http://funadvice.com/r/bvb5o6f1b31
The one you see here shows some of the Iranian response. (I especially recommend the segment from around 1:08 to 2:15)
The point? When you hear all the belligerency and paranoia, demonizing and war-mongering, don't believe the hype!
Miscegiemyser; Wow this stuff is so long.......alittle much for me to respond to right now. No offense I'm just tired, working 12 hour days right now. I want us to have an understanding. You said you were a Jew and thanked me for my sentiment for Israel (or something like that I think it was to me) Anyway, I'm Christian and believe that now more than ever Christians and Jews need to unite. I suggest we keep this in "short bursts" in order to communicate better.
@onemandog: There was no intended animosity. I make pointed remarks in effort to bring attention to certain aspects I feel warrant closer inspection. That's all. As far as the religious underpinnings between the Israeli/Iranian hostilities... leaving Esther in the old testament... here is the link to a quick video that helps illustrate it all. http://funadvice.com/r/bvbbqcsfa4p Thanks for stopping by the profile... just overlook all the clutter.
But Iran is definitely trying to get nuclear power plants. And, then and again, some secret service guy somewhere drops a rumor that there is some secret nuke-building in progress. We can't know whether Iran is spreading those rumors in order to scare everyone or whether Irans enemies are spreading these rumors in order to damage Irans reputation or whether there is something to it actually.
I think there is alot to it. I will leave religion out of this unless I'm asked to explain. They obviously hate Israel and want to kill them. I feel sorry for Israel having to sit there feeling like "sitting ducks". Israel is saying to the UN, "We need to do something!! We can't just sit here and wait for our people and country to be destroyed and then take action!! It will be too late!!"
Woahh hold up for a minute, i think this question is slightly wrong.. Iran dont have nuclear bombs first off. Second of all you may or may not know about Hiroshima.. The usa nuked it and its said to have ended the war. Thirdly i dont think a nuclear bomb could destroy the WHOLE world...
Israel never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and is widely believed to already have nuclear weapons. If we are going to tacitly permit Israel to build their nuclear arsenal telling Israel's enemies that they can't arm themselves will not go over very well.
Onemandog, yes that was me before, as Miscegenymiser pointed out, identifying myself as a Jew. You wrote: "now more than ever Christians and Jews need to unite." I am almost with you in that sentiment, if we can expand it to "Christians and Jews and Muslims."
its all about the power struggle if you have nukes then you are the bad a** of the world and if you have none then you can't start a war without the balls to back it up. nukes are just a way to prove that you can kill a whole hell of alot of people.
Sorry, but what is it you think you're pointing out? Not a word here about Israel asking the USA to do anything.
'My guns bigger than your gun' .....ideally, a Security deterrent...making an enemy attack not worth it to them
@onemandog.... I think you've confused me with Hayyim... He's the yid. I'm just poor white trash
BTW, My concession was to the law of diminishing returns.
The video of Patrick Clawson hocking war at any cost:
