Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb

[BuddyOne]

COUNT ON IT

Israel will handle the problem just fine. I anticipate impeccable timing and appropriate effect.

Students will not be happy.

Buddy

 

[Dannyboy]

Land for peace is the partition

Umm, no, it isn't. They are two totally different things. Partition came from UN Resolution 181 in 1947. Land for Peace came from UN Resolution 242 at the end of the 67' war.

and the settlements that were built after 67 are pretty good proof that the Israeli government never intended to give the land back

At the Khartoum Summit, just a couple months after the war, the Arab states announced that there would be no peace, no recognition, and no negotiation regarding Israel. After that, what should the Israelis have done with the land? Hmmm, I don't know. Use it, maybe?

 

[shootinstudent]

Besides, my graphic descriptions of the horrors that can be visited were in response to your assertations that technically they cannot be done.

Right, but graphic doesn't mean more possible. Your only response to my argument that anti-US powers would take advantage of a clear opportunity to assail our position of power was "Yeah right."

Chances are the Arabs you know are immigrants or descendents of immigrants that have assimilated and adopted the local culture, or they are educated foreign students that abhor their own societies. To get the complete picture, perhaps you should see a few beheading videos too. Just for a perspective's sake.

No, they are well educated people from across the Arab spectrum of states who love their home cultures, and recognize the problems that underdevelopment and political oppression have caused. I haven't met any who see terrorism as a good thing. I think to argue that as the "perspective" one should take on Arab culture is like arguing that to really understand American culture, you should look at photos of lynchings and gang murder victims.

That is a horrible parallel to make. European jews did not put on rolls of dynamite and did not run into Bavarian beerhouses to kill Germans.

It's a fine parallel: All the same arguments are being used..."they are going to kill our children!", etc etc. It is possible, believe it or not, to find examples of Rabbis who argue extremist viewpoints and killing...in the extreme minority. That's not the issue; the issue is: Why should we take any individual crime and generalize to an entire people based on it? That is what the blood libel does...and the "Arabs are killing our kids" line today follows precisely its form.

On what basis do you conclude that radicals represent all of the Arab world? No doubt an extensive amount of time spent learning about Arab culture, history, and speaking to Arab people...right?

 

[CAnnoneer]

But then again, he's serving his country while you sit at your computer

Cousin Mike,

My respects and gratitude go to your brother. I hope he comes back safe, sound, and victorious. He is doing a dangerous, thankless job to make sure that what we are talking about does NOT come to pass.

That being said, my estimate of the state of affairs, if you allow me to have a deviant opinion, is that if 3000 casualties produced the Patriot Act and Gtmo, and 2000 casualties are making people want to pull out of Iraq, then it is a reasonable speculation that a dozen soviet nukes smuggled into our borders and detonated in major metropolitan areas will engender a most vigorous response.

 

[shootinstudent]

Umm, no, it isn't. They are two totally different things. Partition came from UN Resolution 181 in 1947. Land for Peace came from UN Resolution 242 at the end of the 67' war.

Resolution 242 simply declares all land seizure in 1967 illegal and demands that Israel return it. Resolution 181 set the original borders and included an international Jerusalem. The idea behind land for peace is that a return to the 1967 borders (ie, something more like the Partition plan envisioned) would amount to giving the Palestinians what they were promised by the UN and the British.

At the Khartoum Summit, just a couple months after the war, the Arab states announced that there would be no peace, no recognition, and no negotiation regarding Israel. After that, what should the Israelis have done with the land? Hmmm, I don't know. Use it, maybe?

Yeah, the land use didn't wait...Jerusalem was annexed into Israel the day the war ended in 1967. If that doesn't tell you that the grab for Jerusalem was intended from the beginning, I don't know what could...http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/Jerusalem+After+the+Six+Day+War+-1967-.htm

 

[Cousin Mike]

Cousin Mike,

My respects and gratitude go to your brother. I hope he comes back safe, sound, and victorious. He is doing a dangerous, thankless job to make sure that what we are talking about does NOT come to pass.

That being said, my estimate of the state of affairs, if you allow me to have a deviant opinion, is that if 3000 casualties produced the Patriot Act and Gtmo, and 2000 casualties are making people want to pull out of Iraq, then it is a reasonable speculation that a dozen soviet nukes smuggled into our borders and detonated in major metropolitan areas will engender a most vigorous response.

Thank you for your kind words about my brother.

Obviously, I hope that never happens. Honestly, I don't think it will, but of course no one can guarantee anything. In that terrible event, obviously drastic measures must be undertaken - including a nuclear retaliation if need be. But calling for the genocide of Arabs or anyone else, now or even then, is nuts. If we have to turn a country over there into a parking lot, that's one thing. But eliminating an entire ethnicity, or trying to destroy a whole religion is one of the most sick ideas anyone could ever have, and frankly an idea that I would never expect to see advocated here. I hope that we have not become so fear driven as a nation that we consider horrible things like that in times of difficulty.

A most vigorous response to a nuclear attack on the U.S.?
Sign me up and give me my rifle.

Genocide? I'll never accept it as an answer to anything.

 

[Dannyboy]

Resolution 242 simply declares all land seizure in 1967 illegal and demands that Israel return it.

Obviously, you haven't bothered to read 242.

 

[TexasRifleman]

U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;


Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

 

[NineseveN]

Dead canaries don't sing.

Now that's the best quote in this thread so far IMHO. I lol'd.

Okay, back to the hate race.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Cousin Mike: What about the young Arab-American Muslim men who put on our uniform to fight those thugs in Iraq and elsewhere?

Overlooking the rest of your foaming-at-the-mouth self righteous diatribe for the moment, I'll address this one misguided statement. There is no such thing as and 'Arab-American Muslim'. One is either an American, or one is not.
Theodore Roosevelt said it best:

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.............. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."

So, Cousin Mike, an American who puts on our uniform and serves our country does not have allegiance to any other country and should not be so denigrated by you as to refer to them as a hyphenated American. To do so is to imply that they are somehow less than any other American.

Now, for the rest of your post-if you have some problem with my statements, you need to take issue with their veracity; that is the substance and methodology of debate. When your 'argument' degenerates to attacking me personally simply because you don't like what I've said, that 'argument' becomes completely ineffectual.

 

[scout26]

recognize the problems that underdevelopment and political oppression have caused.

I always laugh when I hear that line. (Every Isreali citizen, yes, including Arabs/Muslims/Druze/Christians have the same rights. Guess what rights Jews in Arab countries have ???) Plus I heard that one of the big complaints against the wall is that it cuts off Palestinians from Isreal and economic opportunities.

Maybe the people there need to recognize who caused those problems. (HINT: It wasn't the Isrealis nor the Jews).

As a co-worker once told me, "If we hadn't have found oil under the sand, they'd still be chasing their goats around the desert and no-one would care." How much Oil money have we poured into Middle East ??? Heck if every Alaskan gets a couple thou a year from Oil, what do you think the average Saudi would get ???

I'm not anti-Arab. I'm anti-"Kill all the (insert hated demographic here)". I don't hear the Isrealis saying "We need to kill all the Muslims." What I hear them saying (mostly) is "Can't we all just get along ??? We can't ??? Okay, then I'm going to NOT let you just kill me."

I did not/have not/and will not advocate "nuking" anyone for GP. I merely stated that if Iran gets a nuke and does use it (as they have threatened to) against Isreal, then I predict the Isrealis will open a can-o-whoopazz that everyone will regret.

P.S. UN resolutions are not "Law", just ask Saddam.

P.S. Thank you brother for his service, As a veteran myself, I understand and appericate the sacriface that he and his comrades are making on our behalf.

 

[NineseveN]

This thread is becoming scary. Advocating genocide on the Arabs? Saying with conviction that all Arabs are unreasonable and hate the Jews? I guess if I used the word 'racist', the whole thread would turn on me for stating the obvious. SO I'll use the word 'insane' instead. That's insane almost to the point of being criminal, and that's not the America my little brother is in Iraq fighting for. Maybe some of you should talk to someone like him who has actually spent time with those people, and sees what they go through, but still respects them as human beings and individuals. But then again, he's serving his country while you sit at your computer, stuffing your fat face and talking about people needing to be killed like it's nothing but a numbers game. Advocating genocide on a racial/religious basis, while you condemn someone else for doing the same thing. This is just hypocracy to the point of lunacy. How are you better than anyone else for doing that?

I don't see Genocide as a reactionary thing. I know both sides have their own opinions, but when the enemy does not abate or cease and desist, what do you do? You keep fighting. If they escalate, you escalate. That's war. The Palestinians don't seem like they're gonna give up anytime soon, the threat of death does not deter them, and I do not see Israel pulling out anytime soon.

One side has to win or both sides have to quit, it's as simple as that. For me, it has nothing to do with racial or religious motives, I'm a white Agnostic, I could give 2 turds about a holy land or a shrine. I simply see things this way:

Neither will quit, one has to win. When your enemy is suicidal for the sake of collateral damage, they don't leave you a ton of options except extermination if they won't sit down and talk and quit fighting. This is not genocide.

If that's all you have to offer in terms of a solution, R.H. Lee, you're the most dangerous type of person in the U.S. A man with no morals, wrapping a sick, twisted ideology in our flag. It's nice to know you have no consideration of the Arabs who love this country so much they left everything they knew, including their families, behind to come here and be free. What about the young Arab-American Muslim men who put on our uniform to fight those thugs in Iraq and elsewhere? Maybe you don't see a difference between them, but I think most of America does. Or maybe you've just convinced yourself that good Arabs don't exist. Maybe you just don't like anyone who thinks or looks differently than you. You wouldn't be the first. As a man who could lose his brother at the hands of the bad guys at any moment, let me tell you one thing. America is better than what you advocate, and so are our soldiers. If these people are so inherently evil, why does my brother always call home with wonderful stories about his relationships and experiences with the Iraqi's in his area? Why does he take so much pride in helping them get their country back? Why do most of our men and women in uniform feel the same way? Why do children and adults alike thank him everyday for helping their country and their people?

From what I see, you're just as sick and angry as the people we are fighting... And so is anyone who thinks genocide is an answer to anything. Turn off Bill O'Reilly and come join the real world. There's more than one type of person in it, and thats what makes it a great place. If you don't know that, you've learned nothing from life, and I feel sorry for you.

While this paragraph got a bit off track and was not directed at me:

I thank your brother for his service. However, keep in mind, you're just the same as every person that you claim is "at your computer, stuffing your fat face and talking about people needing to be killed like it's nothing but a numbers game"...except, you chose a different horse in this race. Does that make you any better?

What do you think will happen to the Israeli’s if the US pulls out our support, as you seem to advocate? Genocide.

What if you're wrong on your "personal belief, Iran wouldn't be stupid enough to send a nuke towards Israel."? What happens? A Nuclear event, then Genocide.

Or how about, "I think Iran is bluffing"? What happens? You guessed it, a Nuclear event, then perhaps Genocide?

You accuse R.H. Lee and I suppose through association, some of us, as advocating genocide, yet through your proposals and what you "think", you're simply advocating the same genocide from the other side, even if you're doing it passively. So think about that while you sit in front of your computer, (not going to insult you like you chose to insult others about stuffing their fat faces) and advocate your theories on who's bluffing and who's not or criticize US support for Israel. If you're wrong, Israel dies. If we pull support, Israel may die. 6 of one, half dozen of the other. The fact that your brother is serving in Iraq des not give you any more of a right to an opinion on who should or should not die (even if your fail to acknowledge your positions have far reaching consequences on the lifespan of Israel) any more than it gives those that disagree with you the same right. If that was a sincere outburst based on frustration and emotion, I understand and again, I truly hope your brother makes it home safe and sound.

If you used that as leverage to give credence to the notion that your opinion is better than someone else’s or you used it for a hot button sympathy ploy, that's an utterly despicable thing. I suspect it's the former, you seem like a decent person, but you never know, and I figured since we're being honest, I'd share how I felt about what I "think" are 'possibilities'.

Thanks for reading.

 

[shootinstudent]

Dannyboy,

Looks like TexasSIGman posted the resolution. What does

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

mean to you?


scout26,

I always laugh when I hear that line. (Every Isreali citizen, yes, including Arabs/Muslims/Druze/Christians have the same rights. Guess what rights Jews in Arab countries have ???)

Yeah, but not all the people who are under Israeli military rule are allowed to have Israeli citizenship. If that were the case, Arabs would be a voting majority in Israel, and the government wouldn't be Jewish anymore. Does that sound like equal rights for everyone in the land to you?

As a co-worker once told me, "If we hadn't have found oil under the sand, they'd still be chasing their goats around the desert and no-one would care." How much Oil money have we poured into Middle East ??? Heck if every Alaskan gets a couple thou a year from Oil, what do you think the average Saudi would get ???

Your co-worker wasn't working on something to do with middle eastern history. You should read about the Ottoman empire. If we hadn't found oil under the sand, we probably wouldn't have insisted on ripping it apart and installing the House of Saud into power...you do realize that the religious radicals came to power because of, not in spite of, US support, right?

scout, I think the problem here is that people are judging the situation based on inaccurate views of what has gone on between Israel and its neighbors in the past. I think if we look honestly at what's gone on, then we'll see that an attack on Iran at this point won't do much to settle the long term issues, but it will do plenty to convince anyone who gains some military advantage at any point in the future that a pre-emptive strike on Israel is the only option...how safe is that for Israelis?

 

[Cousin Mike]

In quick response to NineseveN

1.) I am also going to the military... So I stand by my statement, although I will admit that the 'fat face' part was a hotheaded statement that I probably should not have made. I chose to mention my brother because I am proud of him, but also because if he could read this he would scream!

2.) I am not advocating -even passively- the genocide of anyone. Not Israel, and not the Persians, Arabs, or anyone else. I have said multiple times that Israel has every right to exist and defend themselves - I have also said that my only problem with Israel is that IMHO, their tactics in the occupied territories leave something to be desired. I also happen to think Israel could terminate this problem without using nuclear weapons.

You equate the term genocide to a simple consequence of war. This is not an acceptable definition. Genocide is the targeted, premeditated attempt to wipe out (kill) an entire group of people based on race, religion, etc. This is never acceptable as an answer to anything. Not from one side, not the other, not from anyone. To consider yourself a man of religion, and at the same time speak favorably of genocide baffles me. Either you don't mean it in it's true definition, or you need more help than I am able to give.

As for my brother... You assume correctly. I am so #@$%ing tired of people talking badly about Arabs and Islam. My frustration with this thread is almost through the roof. How dare you judge 1 billion people based on the statements of one man? How dare any of you? Sorry, but that is just how I feel, and it does make me angry. As for the latter suggestion, I have no interest in pushing you peoples buttons. My only concern with my brother is the same concern that you share. That he makes it back safely. I thank you for your statements regarding him, by the way.

You should hear him speak about how beautiful things can be over there, and how nice the majority of the people are. You should also hear how much respect he has for Islam as a religion, and how it is practiced in its true form.
No one here has a right to judge Islam, or the people of Iran, or the people of any religion or nation. That is just my opinion. Islam is a wonderful religion, and I think many of you here would be surprised to see exactly how similar to Christianity it is in it's true form. The fact that people equate Islam to this radical extremist bullsh*t you see on the news frightens me. I've seen the word Allah referenced as if it's a name for another God. This is proof of the ignorance we're dealing with here. We could go on forever, me citing verses from the Qu'Ran, you citing the words of terrorists, so I'll leave that point alone. The point is, people are PEOPLE. You don't agree with everything your government does. Why do people assume that Iranians are any different? The fact that most of you people probably don't know ANY Arabs or Muslims, and it's obvious you've never bothered to do so much as a Google search on the religion and it's true principles (let alone read a Qu'Ran and look for yourself) only adds to my frustration with some of the views expressed here.

Understand the key word is 'some'. I know people disagree with me, that's fine. My views are usually not the majority views, I've always been that way. All that said, I have no problem with disagreeing on a subject. My problem is the hatred some people seem to have, and how misplaced it is. I understand people have their own issues, and worries. I know people are tired of the whole M.E. region and the crap that goes on there on a daily basis. I'm sure I'm not the only here with a family member in Iraq. My problem is:

I don't like hate. I won't apologize for that. I don't like it wrapped in a SD logic, I don't accept it in the form of nationalism or anything else. Hate is hate, and it's wrong. Blanket hatred of a people is not only stupid, it's a mental disorder in my opinion. Such hate fueled by ignorance is even worse. And it seems to me that some of you hate these people enough to advocate destroying them. That scares me.

 

[NineseveN]

In quick response to NineseveN

1.) I am also going to the military... So I stand by my statement, although I will admit that the 'fat face' part was a hotheaded statement that I probably should not have made. I chose to mention my brother because I am proud of him, but also because if he could read this he would scream!

You're not in yet, so shutchyer pie-hole!

Just kidding.

2.) I am not advocating -even passively- the genocide of anyone. Not Israel, and not the Persians, Arabs, or anyone else. I have said multiple times that Israel has every right to exist and defend themselves - I have also said that my only problem with Israel is that IMHO, their tactics in the occupied territories leave something to be desired. I also happen to think Israel could terminate this problem without using nuclear weapons.

I stand by my argument that asking Israel to take the gambles that Iran will not initiate a nuclear event against them may lead to their genocide, which is, in effect agreeing with it passively. However, I won't stick on that point, it's an area I don't think we are likely to agree on. Israel's tactics are harsh, no doubt, so are the tactics of their enemies. That's a fact of war. You can play by gentleman's rules when it's gentlemen you're fighting, other than that, things don't quite work out the way we'd like them to.

You equate the term genocide to a simple consequence of war. This is not an acceptable definition.

I think you missed the point, I was not defining genocide; I was suggesting that motive has everything to do with it. If you wipe out your enemy simply based on who they are, then perhaps that's the definition of genocide. However, if you wipe them out because you are at war and they will not abate, surrender or concede, well, you did what you had to do. We can't honestly expect a warring country to say, "well, gee, they're down to 1000 soldiers and 5000 civilians, and now the civilians are taking up arms against us, I guess we have to leave them alone and let them kill us, because if we defend ourselves and we end up wiping them out, it will be genocide". That's absurd, and was the absurd point I was making.

Genocide is the targeted, premeditated attempt to wipe out (kill) an entire group of people based on race, religion, etc. This is never acceptable as an answer to anything. Not from one side, not the other, not from anyone.

Agreed. But wars of attrition are not necessarily genocide.

To consider yourself a man of religion, and at the same time speak favorably of genocide baffles me. Either you don't mean it in it's true definition, or you need more help than I am able to give.

I don't think you were speaking to me here, I have already declared my lack of belief in religion or God/Yahewah/Bhudda/Mohammed/the cat in the hat. I don't favor genocide, nor do I necessarily like wars of attrition, but one is not the same as the other is the point I am making.

As for my brother... You assume correctly. I am so #@$%ing tired of people talking badly about Arabs and Islam. My frustration with this thread is almost through the roof. How dare you judge 1 billion people based on the statements of one man? How dare any of you? Sorry, but that is just how I feel, and it does make me angry. As for the latter suggestion, I have no interest in pushing you peoples buttons. My only concern with my brother is the same concern that you share. That he makes it back safely. I thank you for your statements regarding him, by the way.

You should hear him speak about how beautiful things can be over there, and how nice the majority of the people are. You should also hear how much respect he has for Islam as a religion, and how it is practiced in its true form.
No one here has a right to judge Islam, or the people of Iran, or the people of any religion or nation. That is just my opinion. Islam is a wonderful religion, and I think many of you here would be surprised to see exactly how similar to Christianity it is in it's true form. The fact that people equate Islam to this radical extremist bullsh*t you see on the news frightens me. I've seen the word Allah referenced as if it's a name for another God. This is proof of the ignorance we're dealing with here. We could go on forever, me citing verses from the Qu'Ran, you citing the words of terrorists, so I'll leave that point alone. The point is, people are PEOPLE. You don't agree with everything your government does. Why do people assume that Iranians are any different? The fact that most of you people probably don't know ANY Arabs or Muslims, and it's obvious you've never bothered to do so much as a Google search on the religion and it's true principles (let alone read a Qu'Ran and look for yourself) only adds to my frustration with some of the views expressed here.

Understand the key word is 'some'. I know people disagree with me, that's fine. My views are usually not the majority views, I've always been that way. All that said, I have no problem with disagreeing on a subject. My problem is the hatred some people seem to have, and how misplaced it is. I understand people have their own issues, and worries. I know people are tired of the whole M.E. region and the crap that goes on there on a daily basis. I'm sure I'm not the only here with a family member in Iraq. My problem is:

I don't like hate. I won't apologize for that. I don't like it wrapped in a SD logic, I don't accept it in the form of nationalism or anything else. Hate is hate, and it's wrong. Blanket hatred of a people is not only stupid, it's a mental disorder in my opinion. Such hate fueled by ignorance is even worse. And it seems to me that some of you hate these people enough to advocate destroying them. That scares me.

I did not see anti-Muslim sentiment prevalent in this thread. Of course, I wasn't looking for it either. I do know Muslims, some are nice folk, some are suspect. The religion is one of peace just as much as Christianity is, and it can and has been perverted into violence just the same too.

What I have stated in this thread applies only to the situation in the Middle East with Israel, it does not apply to any other region, race, religion or conflict. I am not advocating that Israel nuke the markets, I am advocating that if Israel truly feels there is a credible nuclear threat from Iran, the option to nuke the reactor facility is a better choice than the alternative possibilities.

 

[scout26]

Your co-worker wasn't working on something to do with middle eastern history. You should read about the Ottoman empire. If we hadn't found oil under the sand, we probably wouldn't have insisted on ripping it apart and installing the House of Saud into power...you do realize that the religious radicals came to power because of, not in spite of, US support, right?

scout, I think the problem here is that people are judging the situation based on inaccurate views of what has gone on between Israel and its neighbors in the past. I think if we look honestly at what's gone on, then we'll see that an attack on Iran at this point won't do much to settle the long term issues, but it will do plenty to convince anyone who gains some military advantage at any point in the future that a pre-emptive strike on Israel is the only option...how safe is that for Israelis?

Point 1. It was the Brits and the French who divvied up the ME after WWI, not the US. Sorry, pesky Historical fact, so explain to me again why they're mad at us.

Point 2. "judging the situation based on inaccurate views of what has gone on between Israel and its neighbors in the past." I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Isreal has been attacked by its neighbors how many times ??? Who mortars and rockets villages and settlements filled with civilians ??? Who's sending suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians ??? Who's paying off the families of suicide bombers ???

How much forebearance would you have with say just one neighbor who like to run around his yard pointing his guns at you and your family and then shooting into your yard while your kids are outside playing ???? Now imagine if the whole neighborhood did that..... and you can't just move.

The fact that Isreal has not used nuclear weapons demonstrates how much restraint they shown. Do you think that if another country launched SCUD missles, (like Iraq did to Isreal in GW-One), at say NY and LA, that we wouldn't drop a nuke on them ???

 

[shootinstudent]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/cron/

Part 1: There's a concise if bare bones timeline of the House of Saud. Look at 1933.

Isreal has been attacked by its neighbors how many times ??? Who mortars and rockets villages and settlements filled with civilians ??? Who's sending suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians ??? Who's paying off the families of suicide bombers ???

Both sides. Israel has attacked its neighbors and taken their land...just like the neighbors have retaliated against Israel, and the Palestinians have indeed supported terrorism. Israeli bombs are not perfect either, though, and have certainly killed more palestinian civillians than the suicide bombs have killed in Israel. Israel is to be praised for arresting and prosecuting Jewish terrorists when it can, however, and for prosecuting military crimes...though its record isn't perfect on that, according to some in the Israeli military.

The fact that Isreal has not used nuclear weapons demonstrates how much restraint they shown. Do you think that if another country launched SCUD missles, (like Iraq did to Isreal in GW-One), at say NY and LA, that we wouldn't drop a nuke on them ???

No, I don't think we would. We didn't nuke afghanistan, nor did we nuke Iraq in response to an assassination attempt on GH Bush.

The neighbor analogy is a terrible one, because it assumes the house all belongs to Israel in the first place. That is incorrect. I see no logical reason for denying the Palestinians a right to control their land, and from their perspective, those Israelis they are attacking are the invading neighbors, not the other way around. That many of them have chosen to attack civillian targets is absolutely deplorable and sick, but it doesn't change the facts of the situation.

 

[NineseveN]

Reality...is...slowly...slipping...away....can't...take...much...more...

I think if we look honestly at what's gone on, then we'll see that an attack on Iran at this point won't do much to settle the long term issues, but it will do plenty to convince anyone who gains some military advantage at any point in the future that a pre-emptive strike on Israel is the only option...how safe is that for Israelis?

Safer than giving Iran an Atom bomb.

 

[ArmedBear]

Safer than giving Iran an Atom bomb.

See, that's my point with the bears and the rifle.

You make the call. It's not easy.

I'd give shootinstudent about 1 in 5 odds of surviving a confrontation with a real dangerous criminal, even if he had a gun in his hand. Or I'd give 5 to 1 odds that he wouldn't be so damned sure of his opinion if HIS life were at stake.

 

[Art Eatman]

"Both sides. Israel has attacked its neighbors and taken their land...just like the neighbors have retaliated against Israel..."

Israel attacked Jordan? Egypt? Lebanon as a country/government, separately from dealing with the murder squads sent from it as a sanctuary? Invaded Syria beyond securing the Golan Heights in order to end rocket attacks?

All in all, given the never-ending public calls for genocide by the Arab world against Israel, I'd have to say that never in history have we seen so much forebearance.

Give me a break!

Art

 

[R.H. Lee]

I see no logical reason for denying the Palestinians a right to control their land

That seems to be the recurring theme. Maybe the only workable solution is for the Jews to round up the squatters and evict them from Israel. Or at least, place them on reservations, much the same as we did with the American Indians during the 19th century. Other options are quickly being exhausted by 'Palestinian' aggression and terrorist activities.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Right, but graphic doesn't mean more possible.

We had a similar discussion before, and both now and then I have yet to hear your answer why what I described cannot be technically done and would not work. Stop dancing and evading. No globalism and morality sermons, just earthy facts based on exact knowledge and science. Again, you are not fooling anyone.

At THR, we are trying to get to the bottom of things in search of objective truth. Highschool debate-club demagogy is not fooling anyone with above-room-temperature IQ.

Your only response to my argument that anti-US powers would take advantage of a clear opportunity to assail our position of power was "Yeah right."

That is a bold-faced lie. In our previous discussion on the same topic, I explained why it is in China's best interest to do exactly nothing even if we deploy against a third party. Both then and now you are dancing and offering no substantive response.

I think to argue that as the "perspective" one should take on Arab culture is like arguing that to really understand American culture, you should look at photos of lynchings and gang murder victims.

So you deny that crime and racism are huge issues in America?

It's a fine parallel

You say "fine", jews will say "simply ridiculous and insulting".

On what basis do you conclude that radicals represent all of the Arab world?

You should read more carefully, like longeyes recommended to you some time ago. It was R.H. Lee that said "all". I accept the collateral damage to the supposedly uninvolved as a mixture of collective responsibility, guilt by tacit support/agreement, and unfortunate necessity.

No doubt an extensive amount of time spent learning about Arab culture, history, and speaking to Arab people...right?

That is a heck of an ironic thing to say for somebody who routinely gets decimated by a swarm of other posters in cases ranging from outright factual falsehoods to cherry-picked convenient misinterpretations. Dude, your pants are on fire.

Dance and moralize as much as you like. It is clear to every objective observer that you are not interested in the truth - you have made up a virtual reality suitable for your weltanschauungen and you desperately scrounge and google for isolated facts that corroborate that version of the world. That is why you routinely get trashed on factual details - because you cherry-pick your evidence all the time and refuse to acknowledge fundamental uncomfortable truths about the world.

But I must say you are very amusing to bash. So, keep it coming

 

[CAnnoneer]

I'd give shootinstudent about 1 in 5 odds of surviving a confrontation with a real dangerous criminal, even if he had a gun in his hand. Or I'd give 5 to 1 odds that he wouldn't be so damned sure of his opinion if HIS life were at stake.

ROTFLOL

That's what I was thinking.

An armed robber will demand his wallet and he will say: "Here it is. I know you are oppressed and misunderstood, so I am being a nice human being and lending you a hand." The robber will shyt in his pants with laughter and pistol-whip him until blue.

An armed burglar will catch him at home and he will say:" Let's sit down on my psychoanalytical couch and explore your childhood. All this aggression. Are you certain you were not sodomized by the evil white man in your youth? Let's explore and release these pent-up feelings of righteous indignation." At which point, the burglar will herniate his gut with laughter and pistol-whip him until blue.

Several gangbangers in a rough neighborhood...

Nah, this is getting too ad hominem.

Lord, I apologize, may pigmies in New Guinea...

 

[shootinstudent]

Israel attacked Jordan? Egypt? Lebanon as a country/government, separately from dealing with the murder squads sent from it as a sanctuary? Invaded Syria beyond securing the Golan Heights in order to end rocket attacks?

Art, yes...Israel has attacked all of the above. See November 15th, 1966, a US advisor's comments to the President on Israeli attacks on Jordan (this is preceeding the 67 war): http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xviii/zh.html

It also built settlements immediately after the 67 war, thus causing the Palestinians to believe that Israel never was going to allow them to have their own government anyway. That was a serious poison pill for future negotiations.

Maybe the only workable solution is for the Jews to round up the squatters and evict them from Israel. Or at least, place them on reservations, much the same as we did with the American Indians during the 19th century.

The problem is that most of the Palestinians have been there for much, much longer than most of the Israelis. The Palestinians generally see this as an exact repeat of the American campaign against the Indians. Do you think that period was an example of the moral high ground?

Both then and now you are dancing and offering no substantive response.

It's not dancing. Pretending that the Chinese are too dependent to take advantage of such a situation is a dodge. What exactly would America do to a China that threatened its interests, under the proposed circumstances?

As for your nuke everyone idea...look at a map sometime. Do you realize how large a land area would have to be hit to make this plan work? From Morocco to Indonesia, in a continuous line. How do you propose so many nukes be launched without turning all those neighboring states against us as well?

So you deny that crime and racism are huge issues in America?

I deny that crime and racism define American culture, or that most Americans are okay with crime and racism. Sure, they're problems...but I don't hold American culture or most Americans personally responsible for it. Indeed, I think most Americans would agree that they are terrible problems.

You say "fine", jews will say "simply ridiculous and insulting".

That depends on who. I know Israelis who are more peace-process than I am. Ariel Sharon's plan isn't that different from the one I'm advocating. Yet another reason not to generalize.

That is a heck of an ironic thing to say for somebody who routinely gets decimated by a swarm of other posters in cases ranging from outright factual falsehoods to cherry-picked convenient misinterpretations. Dude, your pants are on fire.

Okay...so let's see the factual data. This "swarm of other posters" is uniformly without citation or documentation. The best RH lee came up with was a commentary from "Jewish Virtual Library." If you have any specific proof that the facts I'm citing are false, I'd be happy to see the documentation. I encourage everyone to actually try to discredit me on these threads...that way you'll all read a bit more into what's going on, and hopefully there will be something constructive to come out of it.

I'd give shootinstudent about 1 in 5 odds of surviving a confrontation with a real dangerous criminal, even if he had a gun in his hand. Or I'd give 5 to 1 odds that he wouldn't be so damned sure of his opinion if HIS life were at stake.

I'd give a set of odds for a person's ability to defend himself based on his view of the Israel-Palestine situation about a 1 in 6 billion chance of being valid.

I'll take the opportunity to point out that the best lesson I ever learned about surviving confrontations is taking pains to avoid them in the first place. Not entirely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

I can understand how the Israelis ended up with the mentality they did...it was a violent time and a very evil crime had been committed against their people. The Arabs weren't responsible for that crime, though, and the continuation of the Survival mentality has caused problems. Treating every threat as if it requires the most dire response creates more problems than it solves, and I think if you look at the Israeli electorate, they've begun to learn that lesson and are in support of the Peace process.

Edit: A citation for that claim about the Israeli electorate, just so I'm not accused of "falsifying" or "cherry picking" on that one either...http://truman.huji.ac.il/polls.asp

 

[NineseveN]

Or I'd give 5 to 1 odds that he wouldn't be so damned sure of his opinion if HIS life were at stake.

That's the thing, again, I am not Jewish, I am not religious, I don't really care about the Jewish plight more than to the extent that I understand that to allow an enemy that has professed a desire to rid the region of the Jews to have nuclear capabilities would be a mistake. Israel nuking all of Iran would be a mistake as well, but a pre-emptive strike on their reactors is not out of line and is exactly what I would suggest. I doubt Israel would even consider nuking all of Iran unless they were 100% sure Iran had the nukes and were going to use them. Hard to blame them on that.

If the US had the same history with Canada as Israel had with the rest of the ME enemies, do you really think for one second that we would allow Canada to become a Nuclear power if they were not already one? Not a chance, no sane country would. If things were stabilized and peaceful, those options are not needed, but things are not stable, even during the so-called cease fire, things are as tense as they ever were.