Iran leader: Move Israel to Europe

[jsalcedo]

this calling for genocide of the Arabs is some scary stuff.

People tend to get more extreme when tucked safely behind their keyboards. I've been guilty of it myself.


I'm thinking that many Americans are sick of the middle east, sick of terrorists,
bombings, anti-semitic rhetoric and threats from petty dictators.

I don't think you will find anyone here seriously calling for Arab and Persian genocide.

Right guys?

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

You do realize that about 2/3 of the known world says the same thing about us for electing George Bush, don't you?

Talk about crazy people, this calling for genocide of the Arabs is some scary stuff. Pretty crazy.

1. The world is pretty sure that GWB is not going to sling nukes at them.

2. This talk of genocide is hyperpole. If Iran wants to go nuclear, we can too. "Genocide of Arabs" is a strawman. The question is do we really really want this nutbag in Iraq with his finger on the "button"? If the answer is no, we either:

a. support the rebellion (which does not exist today) in Iran to overthrow this nutball.

b. support a preemptive strike by Israel, who has been threatened by Iran. Hopefully limited to the nuclear capabilities of the country.

c. launch our own preemptive strike.

3. By the way if your answer to question number two is yes, you want him with nukes, I question your sanity.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

You do realize that about 2/3 of the known world says the same thing about us for electing George Bush, don't you?

Yes I am aware of that. Hey, I think I may even be one of those people. What is the point of that question?

Bush hasn't called for an entire race of people to be extinquished. He hasn't asked the nation of Iran to pick up and move to some other part of the world.

Don't get confused and forget who our enemies are. Iran is the country espousing genocide, and they are doing this in no uncertain terms.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I don't think you will find anyone here seriously calling for Arab and Persian genocide.

Right guys?

The only people using the word "genocide" are the ones wanting to put their spin on this. I used it to describe what Iran has threatened against Israel, and I'd say that is correct usage of the word.

I am not calling for genocide of the Arab peoples, but I believe that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is something to be considered against Iran if they continue down their current path. They are actively making threats of genocide themselves and within months will have the ability to carry out those threats.

I believe the world should put a stop to that in a manner that leaves no possibility of Iran doing such a thing.

To allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons when their government has made a clear threat of genocide would be irresponsible and inhuman.

 

[Cousin Mike]

Just to clarify, I don't consider nuking them in response to a nuclear attack genocide. I call that a necessary evil. Seems like some people just don't distinguish between a country's leader and it's people. That's why I pointed out the worlds opinions of us for electing Bush. I think we would be much better served supporting the people in overthrowing the Iranian government, and young people have tried, regardless of popular opinion. The people over there don't want to live in a strict, Muslim theocracy.

Also, for clarity, I do not want to see this guy with nukes, but probably not for the same reasons as others. I don't think he would push 'the button' so to speak, but I don't want the rest of the world pointing nukes at them either. I think the whole situation would cause far too much sh*t, and get out of control. The citizens of Iran (by and large, IMO) don't deserve to be punished for what this guy says.

Call me whatever you like, but the thought of using nuclear weapons doesn't appeal to me on any level unless it's the only possibility to save more lives than would be taken. I'm just not convinced that this guy is that much of a threat, but that's my opinion - I know some people do not agree.

 

[TexasRifleman]

There is a big difference between fighting a war and murdering an entire civilization (that we're not even at war with!) because their current president is a crackpot.

No, there isn't.

If their current president is a crackpot only, let him talk. The debate here is whether to allow this crackpot to possess nuclear weapons. You keep leaving out the part where his country will soon have nuclear weapons. If that is true, he moves much higher on the list than "crackpot" and unfortunately so do his countrymen.

There's a hell of a difference between being a crackpot, and being a crackpot capable of delivering such devestation to another nation and having the willingness to do so.

 

[jsalcedo]

I don't want the rest of the world pointing nukes at them either.

Growing up during the cold war was a little stressful at times.

I was around for the air raid drills and the looming threat of nuclear war was always on the back of everyones mind.

Looking back I think the fact that the East and West had nukes pointing at each other kept the wars small and the rhetoric fairly civil.

Armed polite society taken to the extreme.

Thats How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

 

[Cousin Mike]

You keep leaving out the part where his country will soon have nuclear weapons. If that is true, he moves much higher on the list than "crackpot" and unfortunately so do his countrymen.

See? That's what I am talking about.

In that case, given why we went in being WMD and Saddam's will to use them, and all that other stuff that turned out not to be true, why didn't we nuke Iraq? I understand the comment, but I cannot subscribe to that school of thought. Why can't we think of other ways to remove this guy without nuking Tehran? I guess that is all I am really asking.

jsalcedo, there is some wisdom there in your comment. I guess us youngbucks who didn't grow up back then might be a little oversensitive to nuclear talk, but I think like all younger people, we just want to live in a better world than the previous generation. When I hear this stuff about "nuke 'em, nuke this, nuke that," it really shows that things aren't as different as I thought.

Ahmadinejad's mouth isn't making things any better either.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Call me whatever you like, but the thought of using nuclear weapons doesn't appeal to me on any level unless it's the only possibility to save more lives than would be taken.

Is that all there is to it? Pure numbers?

So if Iran nuked Israel and 20 million died let's say, and if a pre-emptive strike against Iran would kill say 30 million, you would opt to allow Iran to go ahead and take that shot, simply because the math works out better?

I get the feeling a lot of people agree with you, but I just can't buy into this being just about numbers only.

The use of nuclear weapons certainly doesn't appeal to any sane person certainly. A sane person would never wish for the destruction of another race either. What we have in the leader of Iran is a person that's dreamed of both, and that should scare the rest of the world.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Growing up during the cold war was a little stressful at times.

I was around for the air raid drills and the looming threat of nuclear war was always on the back of everyones mind.

Looking back I think the fact that the East and West had nukes pointing at each other kept the wars small and the rhetoric fairly civil.

Armed polite society taken to the extreme.

Thats How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

I grew up then also and I saw how detente, although frightening, did serve it's purpose. But you had 2 countries in the US and USSR that didn't want to see themselves destroyed enough to take out their perceived enemy.

Here you have a culture where the common belief is that dying for your cause is noble and will be rewarded.

Can you trust someone that WANTS to die for his cause to participate in the stand off of MAD (mutually assured destruction)?

 

[Cousin Mike]

Agreed SIGman, this guys mouth is his biggest problem. But, this is not a numbers game to me.. Let's keep it fair buddy If Iran attacks, or we have reasonable, undisputeable evidence that Iran is going to strike Israel, then I would never say Israel should just let it happen. I believe in an eye for an eye. Not an eye for an unkind word. I just think we should be 100% positive that this guy is building a nuke before we react.

Remember, Saddam was buying plutonium from Africa so that he could get nuclear weapons too Saddam has much more of a clear track record of being insane than your Iranian friend. If nuking them wasn't the answer, I am not convinced that nuking Iran is the answer. The 20 million vs. 30 million thing, that just isn't the way I think. I just don't wanna nuke this guy on the same kind of intelligence that put us in Iraq, and find out 6 months later that he wasn't even building a bomb. I also think Israel would be best served by a less aggressive reaction. Bomb the nuclear sites, sure... Nuke the country? That's overkill IMO.

I also don't think that we need to fry someones country to take out their nuclear capabilities. To me some of this stuff seems like fantasizing about ways to achieve the desired goal of nuking Iran and the Persians, and "teaching those damned Arabs a lesson". There would be other ways of dealing with the problem without killing millions of people. Just my $0.02

 

[jsalcedo]

Can you trust someone that WANTS to die for his cause to participate in the stand off of MAD (mutually assured destruction

I think the ayatollahs, mullahs, shieks and head camel washers use religion to dupe deluded people to do their dirty work.

These powerful men of don't want to die for Allah they want maintain control, fear and oppression. The Iranian president is keeping the spotlight off of his despotism and redirecting it to the enemy ....Israel

That said,

A nuclear weapon is a powerful bargaining chip. I really don't think we want to play my missile is bigger than yours with the likes of Ahmadinejad.

It would be best if they were neutered with a couple of tactical air strikes just in case.

 

[stevelyn]

Kurush, I have heard several reports that the youth of Iran have had enough of the theocracy.

They should take action to clean up their messes, before the Israelis do. The President of Iran declared war against Israel a month ago. If the Iranians don't want to go to war, they should oust him from office.

Iran is on the verge of nuclear weapons, by their own volition. The present regime seems to be a threat to middle east security now. If they continue on this course there will be war.

Perhaps they would revolt if given the right motivation.

 

[The-Fly]

if iran does get the bomb, i think the obvious solution is park an Ohio ssbn off the persian gulf, and let the towel heads know about it. One mis-step on their part, and 24 Trident D-5's should be enough to convince them of the errors of their ways. Or better yet, maybe sell an older Ohio to Israel, and let them take care of their own problems

 

[Art Eatman]

1. How does Iran nuke Israel without killing a bunch of Arabs/Palestinians?

2. If Arabs are killed by an Iranian nuke, would there be glee and happiness in Riyadh, Cairo and Amman?

Art

 

[idakfan]

Why move Israel to Europe when they already control the foreign policy of the United States?

Pretty silly comment, like Israel really needs Europe when they Own the United States.

 

[ArmedBear]

1. How does Iran nuke Israel without killing a bunch of Arabs/Palestinians?

2. If Arabs are killed by an Iranian nuke, would there be glee and happiness in Riyadh, Cairo and Amman?

Art

1. How does Al Zarqawi kill American Occupiers without killing a bunch of Iraqi civilians?

2. If there is mourning in Riyadh, Cairo and Amman, would that bring a few million dead Israelis back to life?

(Saudi Arabit, Egypt and Jordan don't have nukes, right? So they can do what, exactly, if Iran does have them?)

...just tossing out some thoughts that Israeli strategists have to consider...

 

[shootinstudent]

Armed, I think Art's point is sound.

1. Look at what happened when Al Zarqawi killed a Palestinian family in Amman....outrage

2. Millions of dead in a nuclear blast would turn the rest on Iran's corrupt and brutal regime.

 

[ArmedBear]

Armed, I think Art's point is sound.

I didn't say it wasn't. It's just one-sided. I believe my points are sound, also, without refuting his.

1. Look at what happened when Al Zarqawi killed a Palestinian family in Amman....outrage

Oooooh! Outrage! The Iranian leadership will shrink like violets at the expression of outrage, just like the "insurgents" have stopped attacking Iraqis, since Jordanians have demonstrated.

2. Millions of dead in a nuclear blast would turn the rest on Iran's corrupt and brutal regime.

Which will bring exactly how many dead Israelis back to life?

If you're assuming sane, rational behavior on the part of Iran's corrupt and brutal regime, I merely need to point out corrupt and brutal rulers from Vlad the Impaler to Pol Pot to show why Israel cannot be so confident. Corrupt and brutal leaders can hardly be trusted to bow to the opinions of other leaders of Islamic states. The Taliban certainly did not.

 

[Fletchette]

Ok, I am going to play Devil's Advocate here (aptly named!)

***Disclaimer: these questions are not necessarily based on my opinion of the Middle East mess. However, these ARE the questions you will face if you ever debate an Arab from the Middle East. Saying "****" is generally not a very good counter-arguement***

1. If Germany and Austria feel guilty about the Holocaust, why not give up part of their land for a European Israel? Why does Israel belong in the Middle East?

2. How come Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons when Israel has? Where is the international outrage?

3. If Europeans implanted millions of people into Wyoming and called it a new nation, would you accept it, or fight to get them expelled?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Ok, I am going to play Devil's Advocate here (aptly named!)

1. If Germany and Austria feel guilty about the Holocaust, why not give up part of their land for a European Israel? Why does Israel belong in the Middle East?

2. How come Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons when Israel has? Where is the international outrage?

3. If Europeans implanted millions of people into Wyoming and called it a new nation, would you accept it, or fight to get them expelled?

1) Israel is not just about a place to live, they also feel that the area of the world they are in is the Holy Land. Why should only Muslims be allowed to live in their "Holy Land"

2) Israel didn't spend the 6 months prior to obtaining nuclear weapons ranting and raving about how it was hoping for the desruction of it's neighbors.

3) But that's exactly what you are suggesting. Moving Israel to Europe would mean that some people would be displaced.

Why is it that the way of war "to the victor belong the spoils" applies to everyone except Israel. Right or wrong they fought a war for the land they currently hold. Why should they move? The US fought a war to obtain our land, should we give it back to England? Should all territories ever taken in hostilities be returned to their previous owners? Of course not.

Israel fought, and won, a war for the land they currently hold. If another nation wishes to go to war to retake that land, they must deal with Israel and her allies. If Mexico decided they wanted Texas back (although some might say they already have it) would we not expect the US to stomp that idea flat?
If we needed help from our allies to hold our territory would they not come to our aid?

What's the difference, why does Israel have to play by special rules?

 

[R.H. Lee]

2. If Arabs are killed by an Iranian nuke, would there be glee and happiness in Riyadh, Cairo and Amman?

Moslems kill Moslems all the time. Iraqis kill other Iraqis, shiites kill sunnis and vice versa. The victims of the wedding party that was homicide bombed awhile back were Moslem, killed by Islamic terrorists. It doesn't seem to matter to them that their victims are other Moslems.

 

[Fletchette]

1) Israel is not just about a place to live, they also feel that the area of the world they are in is the Holy Land. Why should only Muslims be allowed to live in their "Holy Land"

2) Israel didn't spend the 6 months prior to obtaining nuclear weapons ranting and raving about how it was hoping for the desruction of it's neighbors.

3) But that's exactly what you are suggesting. Moving Israel to Europe would mean that some people would be displaced.

Why is it that the way of war "to the victor belong the spoils" applies to everyone except Israel. Right or wrong they fought a war for the land they currently hold. Why should they move? The US fought a war to obtain our land, should we give it back to England? Should all territories ever taken in hostilities be returned to their previous owners? Of course not.

Israel fought, and won, a war for the land they currently hold. If another nation wishes to go to war to retake that land, they must deal with Israel and her allies. If Mexico decided they wanted Texas back (although some might say they already have it) would we not expect the US to stomp that idea flat?
If we needed help from our allies to hold our territory would they not come to our aid?

What's the difference, why does Israel have to play by special rules?

Again, playing Devil's advocate, the Arabs would say, "Ok, we DO wish to retake the land, so we are attacking Isreal."

To answer the question:

If we needed help from our allies to hold our territory would they not come to our aid?

Unfortunately, no.

 

[RS2]

Israel fought, and won, a war for the land they currently hold. If another nation wishes to go to war to retake that land, they must deal with Israel and her allies. If Mexico decided they wanted Texas back (although some might say they already have it) would we not expect the US to stomp that idea flat?
If we needed help from our allies to hold our territory would they not come to our aid?

What's the difference, why does Israel have to play by special rules?

Texas - that is true to a degree (i.e., 1948), however look back about 30 years earlier. Up to and through World War I, the area that is Israel today was controlled/owned/occupied by the Ottoman Empire, which chose sides badly in that war. When the Empire fell and Germany et al. lost, the land became a Mandate under Great Britain's control. There NEVER was any autonomous sovereign entity called Palestine. The Jews NEVER took any land away from Arabs - the Arabs had already lost the land by virtue of allying themselves to Germany. Britain eventually tired of the climate, and in 1948 turned the whole mess over to the UN to deal with. A plan was drafted to create separate lands for Arabs and Jews, who were already pretty numerous. The Jews accepted the proposal, however the Arabs would accept nothing less than all. When Israel was created as a sovereign nation in May 1948, the Arab nations declared war and failed. In 1967, they tried again and failed again, losing more land to Israel, i.e., The West Bank, Gaza and Golan.

Israel should give back those lands the same way we should give back California, Texas or everything west of Jamestown, Virginia.

Ron

 

[Cousin Mike]

Moslems kill Moslems all the time.

This quote could be applied to anyone by simply substituting 'Moslems' with whatever you like. This is just another cheap shot that's 90% rhetoric and 10% fact.