IAEA chief tells Israel to give up nukes

[rooboy]

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed el Baradei, has called for Israel to give up its nuclear weapons in the interests of peace in the Middle East.

In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, Dr el Baradei says while Israel has never admitted having nuclear weapons, the IAEA operates on the assumption that it does possess them.

Without a dialogue between Israel and its neighbours aimed at eradicating weapons of mass destruction, Dr el Baradei says he fears there will be a continued incentive for other countries in the region to develop the means to match Israel's arsenal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1009227.htm

[0007]

1. All counties should give up their nukes -

Of course they won't because nuclear power is more powerful than the love of brotherhood.

Israel could be the king of the world.

[rooboy]

3. One of Richard Butler's more sensible statements...

was in an interview he gave about 6 months ago. He said that the UN security council was basically a club for the 5 nuclear powers to make sure they were the only ones who could have the bomb.

Of course, the cat's out of the bag now...

[pistoff democrat]

47. Apparently no one told Iran...

or Iraq before Israel saved the world in 1981.

[Darranar]

49. 'Saved the world'?

Sorry, I don't see how bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor saved the world.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Nor me...

Wouldn't the world have had to have been under threat in the first place for it to have been saved?


Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Did I miss that particular moment of world-saving?

How did the bombing of Osirak save the world, exactly? And in 1981 wasn't Saddam Hussein a favoured friend of the US? All things being equal, I would suspect that particular moment of 'world-saving' should have been criticised by the US and at least punished by the US in some way...

Violet...

[Darranar]

65. It WAS criticized and punished.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. How dare the US punish Israel for saving the world!!!

But, yeah, I already knew it was criticised and punished at the time, and only later when Iraq fell out of favour was it turned into a saga of heroic proportions...

Violet...

[Gimel]

85. this is it, Violet

"How dare the US punish Israel for saving the world!!!"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm

[Jester_11218]

2. He will be accused....

It is only a matter of time before they will lable him as an anti-semite. You are not permitted to critisise Israael!!!

[cantwealljustgetalong]

88. ooops,...

there it is...

[BuckeFushe]

4. Oh yeah, that will happen........NOT

Yup, peace and brotherhood. The Arab world wants to kill every one in Israel, and they should give up the nukes.


"Turtle, give up your shell so you can enjoy the sun" said the seagull.


Why is it always Israel's job to further peace when a whole generation has been taught that they are only for hating and killing, and a new generation is learning the same? I realize they are not completely innocent, but this goes beyond absurd.

[drdon326]

7. BF...

I couldnt have said it any better.

[bpilgrim]

13. sharon needs all the NUKES he can get to maintain israeli security

been doin a fine job, probably could use a few hndred more... but HEY nobodys PERFECT :evilgrin:



peace

[Gimel]

93. Not

But giving up developed weapons unilaterally would only embolden enemies. that is only done in context of a peace agreement or regional disamament agreemnt.

[htuttle]

14. Can a turtle hurl multiple shells at the seagulls' nesting ground...

...to destroy all the eggs and make it uninhabitable for centuries?

Nuclear weapons are offensive in nature. Their defensive value rests on the threat of their offensive use.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. The Arab world wants to kill everyone in Israel??

I guess that might fly as an excuse if you also believe that Israel wants to kill everyone in the Arab world. Of course neither rather silly scenario is believable, but these warnings of armageddon seem to fill a purpose in once being trotted out acting as an argument for just about anything....

The reason why Israel and any other state armed with nuclear weapons should give them up is a simple one. There should be no place in the world for weapons with the potential to wipe out massive numbers of people in such an indiscriminate way. And excuses that they'd never be used and that they're there to provide some sort of balance of power don't work. During the Cold War arms race, weapons were being built at an alarming rate, and their effectiveness as deterrents wouldn't have worked if there hadn't been a belief on the other side that they'd never be used. In the case of Israel, there is no balance of power because there is no other state in the region with nuclear weapons. So all Israel having them achieves is an understandable desire from other states in the region who do see Israel's nuclear capacity as a threat to jump on board and try to get their own nuclear weapons so they can level things up and have a deterrent to that threat. And from there, it's a hop, skip and a jump to a full-blown arms race until one of the racers collapses from the incredible strain on it's economy that such heavy military spending will logically produce...

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. This just in

The world is not the ideal place you wish it to be. A huge chunk of folks in the Arab world DO wish to destroy Israel. The nukes are there as a way to ensure, "Never Again" has teeth.

[bluesoul]

29. So Israel can have them all they like

just Iran and other Arab countries shouldn't for the same reasons (deterence)? Do you deny Iran the right to have them or not?

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Yes, I do

Iran backs terror groups and the last thing I want is to have terror groups roaming around with a nuclear weapon.

[bluesoul]

41. So you apply

DOUBLE standards. OK I see that now..

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. I apply realistic ones

When a nation is surrounded by enemies and non-friends like Israel is, when it has fought numerous wars for survival and when it is under constant terror attack, I apply REALISTIC standards.

Do I want the whackos in Iran giving nukes to their terror buddies? Not on your life.

The only other nation that comes quickly to mind that might have a similar need is Taiwan.

[bluesoul]

44. And how about all those surrounding Israel

With people like Sharon and their bloody past, you never know. Not even mentioning the extremists that are part of his government. Yet that in your mind cannot present a danger to Israel's neighbours and other Arab countries.

Only Israel and Israel alone is threatened. No other Arab country in your mind could be either by Israel, USA or other's wanting "regime change", ha Muddle? Amazing...

[sushi]

81. Realistic standards?

So that is what you call double standards!

You can't deny any country the right to have nukes, if they can afford them, for self-defense! Israel feels threatened by the countries around it. The countries around Israel feel threatened by Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. The nuke club

Fearing danger to the world, the nuke club has always been kept small. Those who have them want to avoid more nations getting them because that increases the chance they will be used.

Look at Pakistan and India. They both have them and it is a fair likelihood they might use them.

While it is a possible thing to keep NEW nations from getting nukes, it ain't possible to take away existing ones.

[sushi]

92. India and Pakistan won't use them

because they both have them. If one uses nukes the other will retaliate, so it's pointless. Why destroy yourself.

Since it isn't possible to take away existing ones, it probably would be good for everybody, who wants nuclear weapons, and have the money, to be able to get them. Then no one will use them, because no one wants to self-destruct. I'm afraid that it's only a matter of time, and money, that any country that wants nuclear weapons, will be able to get their hands on them.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Got any credible evidence of that claim?

That a HUGE chunk of folks in the Arab world do wish to kill all Israelis? And note that what was originally said was that, and not 'destroying Israel', because I've noticed that people will be accused of wishing to destroy Israel even if they support a binational state with equal rights and protection for all, and that state is called Israel....

Muddle, read my post again. I explained why nukes are no answer to anything and why they would set off an arms race. Do you want to address what was said? Because what you said doesn't in any way explain how nukes work as a deterrent. And I'm not interested in blood-thirsty musings about how Israel WILL nuke some other neighbouring state into oblivion if it sees a threat to its existance....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. For starters

I would include ALL of the members of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure. That alone is a huge number. But if you have doubts to the rest, there is no hope for you.

Nukes are an answer. Even if they start an arms race, that race will occur either way. You can't just put the nuclear djinni back in a bottle. The technology to build nukes is relatively simple. Banning them won't keep such weapons from those who want them.

As for deterence, it is not "bloodthirsty" for the Arab enemies of Israel to know that they face an Israeli military armed with nukes. If Israel is hard-pressed, they have a military option that gives them an edge on survival.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I asked for credible evidence...

Sorry, but yr opinion based on casting a small number of extremists in the Occupied Territories as a 'HUGE chunk of the Arab world' isn't credible. How many is a huge number, Muddle? 5 or more? ;) Hey, using that logic there's a huge number of extremist Israelis who want to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and Gaza of Palestinians. Or how about this? A HUGE chunk of the Arab world are terrorists?

Even if they start an arms race, that race will occur either way.

Huh? You've lost me on 'that race will occur either way'. The whole point is that arms races should be avoided and that one state having nukes while others don't is a sure-fire way to start an arms race...


Banning them won't keep such weapons from those who want them.

Well, if the technology is so simple (I strongly suspect that it isn't) and those who want them can get them, why hasn't Bin Laden gotten hold of them? There's a guy who wouldn't be shy about using a nuke!

If Israel is hard-pressed, they have a military option that gives them an edge on survival.

Do you understand the devastation and mind-boggling loss of life that would happen if Israel were ever to use a nuclear weapon? And that a vast part of that loss of life would be of innocent people? And using them on a neigbour would ensure that there would be NO survival for Israel, along with the entire region. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Unless a complete lunatic (and while I despise Sharon, he's not a lunatic) were to gain power in Israel, the use of nukes is not a military option at all....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. A small number?

There aren't a small number of extremists in the Palestinian terror network. Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Tanzim, Fatah, Hezbollah just for starters. Small number? Not likely.

Now, how about Syria? Do you think they don't support the destruction of Israel? How about Iran (technically not Arab, but they usually count them, so I will as well.)?

Whether Israel has nukes or not, the Arab nations will seek to get them.

Nuclear technology is "so simple," but it is doable for a state. It requires a fair amount of infrastructure or a lot of money and you just buy one. That is what I think bin Laden will likely do.

The use of nukes is ALWAYS a military option. Just the threat of using them is a military option. If an enemy seems likely to be able to defeat you, you can threaten to use a nuclear weapon to even the odds. And, though innocents would likely die, if Israel gets to the point of having to use a nuke, innocents would die in any case.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. A huge chunk??

Remember, Muddle? That was yr claim. That a HUGE chunk of the Arab world wants to kill all Israelis. So wouldn't using that logic of yrs that the existence of a small number of extremists in the Occupied Territories supports yr claim that a HUGE chunk of the Arab world wants to kill all Israelis also lead to the conclusion that a HUGE chunk of the Arab world are terrorists, or a HUGE chunk of Israelis are religious nutters who want to commit ethnic cleansing on the Palestinians?

And yes, unless you can provide some credible figures of how many terrorists exist in the Occupied Territories, I'll go with the common-sense school of thought that compared to the population in the West Bank and Gaza the number is small....


What about Syria?? It isn't "The Arab World" Muddle. There's a lot of states in that, and they're not all the same. And the govt of Syria even if it did want to kill all Israelis, which somehow I doubt, is NOT the population itself. And no, Iran is not an Arab state, so don't waste time going there...

How on earth do you know whether a state in the region would seek out nuclear weapons if Israel hasn't got them? Israel's got them, so that's not something that you can say with any certainty at all. What is much more certain is that because Israel seeked out nuclear weapons itself, it's understandable why states that feel threatened by that would seek to balance the power in the region...

Did you mean to say that nuclear technology isn't so simple? Because you'd be right if you said that...

Okay, at what point would a nuclear armed Israel feel threatened enough to use a nuke? See, this isn't making sense to me right now. On one hand yr arguing that the purpose of the nukes is to deter neigbouring states from attacking Israel, but on the other hand you seem to be acknowledging their failure as a deterrent because you talk about how they WILL be used in certain circumstances...

Violet...

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

37. OH VI ??

is the any fundamentalist thugocracy that denies
women equal rights and supports terrorism you dont trust??

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Easy answer...

Don, I don't trust the fundy thugocracy which denies women equal rights (if in doubt check out laws on abortion) and supports terrorism that is the good ol' USA. But then again I don't trust any regime like that, so I'm not playing favourites. But can you run quickly through each Arab state and explain to me how they're all fundy thugocracies that support terrorism? See, I wasn't aware that Egypt and Jordan, just to name two were run by fundy thugocracies...

btw, Muddle's comment I was addressing was that a huge chunk of the Arab world wants to kill all Israelis. I wasn't aware that he was only speaking of what fundy thugocracies there are, and wasn't speaking of the populations themselves....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Misrepresenting what I said

Big surprise.

I said a huge chunk of folks in the Arab world want to destroy Israel. Some, no doubt, want to kill all Israelis as well, but I doubt that is a mandatory belief to join the club.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. No, I'm not...

Please go back and read the sub-thread from the start, Muddle. I responded to someone who claimed that the Arab world wants to kill all Israelis. Yr the one who popped up and addressed my response by inserting 'destroy Israel' for 'kill all Israelis'. I explained to you why I wasn't interested in turning the sub-thread into a discussion of who wants to 'destroy Israel' as that's NOT what was being discussed, and just by reading posts in this forum, there's some who believe that those who support a binational state with equal rights and protection for all citizens want to destroy Israel. Yet even after I pointed that out, you continued to argue about the HUGE chunks of the Arab world stuff. If you want to continue some argument about how many people where want to destroy Israel, yr on yr own, because that's NOT what was being discussed originally in the sub-thread and was not anything to do with the post you originally responded to...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

58. That's the same as implying that there are so many

that want all Palestinians to be killed and destroyed. Two way street...

[drdon326]

32. LOL

Thats funny....Inspector Clueless aka el Baradei cant figure
out Iran has nuclear weapons when he found radioactive nuclear
samples from Iran and after Iran denied having them. And now he wants
israel to to unilaterally disarm.

Apparently el Baradei has too much free time on his hands.

[pistoff democrat]

50. Look, in the first place, BuckeFushe:

in the words of the old English group, (Eric Burdon and) The Animals: "Baby, Please Don't Go"!

Your post is wonderful.

[edzontar]

5. About time...

WMDs, serial violation of UN resolutions, etc.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Shocking

Mohamed el Baradei is an Egyptian and former member of the Egyptian diplomatic corps. It is shocking that he might want Israel to get rid of its nukes.

Just because Israel is at peace with Egypt, it doesn't make them friends.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Absolutely shocking!

The man is an Egyptian!! Does that have anything to do with whether or not Israel should dispose of it's Weapons of Mass Destruction? No, but I'm telling you....The Man Is An Egyptian!!! He's probably been an Egyptian the entire time the IAEA has existed, and probably been the only head of the IAEA, which should change it's name to Egyptian Ayrab Non-Friends Who Want To Push Israel Into The Sea!! Dammit, but what sort of Egyptian warmongering is this stuff from him about wanting Israel to enter into a dialogue with its neighbours with the end view of getting rid of those nukes?? Doesn't he know they're Peace Nukes?? ;)

Seriously, Muddle. I fail to see where anything he said was wrong or unreasonable at all. Nukes are not good things, either for the population of the state that has them, or for the populations of states they're being used as a threat towards...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Nope the man is a former member of the Egyptian diplomatic corps

Slightly significant difference.

It should not surprise you that the Arab non-friend neighbors of Israel want to limit Israel's military capacity. It is equally unsurprising that the governmental functionaries of those non-friends try to make that happen.

Sorry, but for a state like Israel that remains surrounded by enemies and non-friends, having nukes ARE a good thing. Maybe if Australia was surrounded by enemies on all sides you might agree.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. And what's that got to do with anything he said??

You haven't explained it. Nor have you explained why you think the head of the IAEA since it's inception has been the same man. Is there some point at which the IAEA changed tack on Israel having WMD?

Uh, Muddle. I think you need to read up a bit on Australia's foreign policy, which much like that of Israel has been built on a foundation of invasion anxiety and a perception of Australia being an isolated and vunherable fortress surrounded by hostile neighbours (in this case Asian). Before you pooh-pooh that and say Australia has never been attacked by an Asian neighbour, let me remind you that it was. Let me remind you that SE Asia isn't exactly friendly towards Australia, and besides Israel is NOT surrounded by enemies on all sides, as Egypt and Jordan both have peace treaties with Israel. So, having filled you in on that, I can categorically state that I don't agree with any claim that nukes are a good thing. There are so many reasons why they're not, and I think many of them have been covered in this thread...

Violet...

[pistoff democrat]

52. That's a relief!

Egypt and Jordan both have peace treaties with Israel. That changes everything. :crazy:

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Glad you learnt something tonight, PO Dem...

I thought everyone knew about Egypt and Jordan signing peace treaties with Israel, but it doesn't hurt that people who didn't get to learn of these things :)

Violet...

[pistoff democrat]

54. To be fair, Muddle,

Australia does have her enemies...however, you are correct in that the topography isn't alike one little bit.

Did you enjoy Israel taking those scuds in 1993 courtesy of Bush I via Iraq...now imagine if Israel hadn't removed Iraq's nuclear facility, forward to 1993.

Well, at least we wouldn't be having such rancorous discussions! :eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

61. To be fair, PO Dem...

Muddle didn't mention anything about topography in his post. Maybe you can point out where he did?

Violet...

[Darranar]

64. Nothing would have happened...

Saddam is a survivalist. He would not have used nukes unless he was attacked, and not even the Republicans would have been stupid enough to do that.

[drdon326]

69. ( shaking my head in disbelief )

"He would not have used nukes unless he was attacked"

And you know this with absolute certainty how??

He killed over 1,500,000 of his own people.

Do you honestly think he was some humanitarian??

[Darranar]

70. No, I honestly think he was some survivalist...

Did Stalin ever use nukes? He killed countless millions of his own people.

And that is still assuming that Iraq could have acquired nukes...

[drdon326]

72. ( starting to open 'smelling salts' )

uhhh..he isnt a survivalist....hes a cold blooded
megamaniacal psychotic murdering despot.

[Darranar]

75. No, he was simply a brutal and despicable despot...

who happened to also be an oppurtunist, like many other despots.

[drdon326]

78. ( starting to hit the emergency button on my phone )

an opportunist buys shoes when theyre on sale.

SH IS a psychotic brutal dictator.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. Brutal dictators can't be opportunists???

Don, the most brutal and psychotic dictator in modern times, Hitler, was an opportunist. The two things aren't mutually exclusive...


Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

73. Saddam was an opportunist...

He gassed the Kurds because he knew the US would look the other way. He wasn't all that keen on estranging his relationship with the US back then because of all the perks that came with being a US ally. IF (and I stress if as strangely enough those alleged WMD never did end up being found, did they?) he had possessed nukes, he wouldn't have used them unless there was something in it for him....

Darranar pointing that out doesn't at all imply that he thinks Saddam was a humanitarian, don...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

74. What NUKES?

The ones they never found? Are you among those that still believe the Bush lies?

[tlcandie]

8. Okay, well then shall we draw straws to see which of the fab 5 give it up

first?

I mean...live in fear and insecurity or get real! Someone, somewhere has to be the FIRST to start the move towards peace.

Like someone else stated, Whoever has the cajones to do this will be king of the world...

Greed and fear...great bedfellows! Gotta love em!

[Walt Starr]

9. So long as Israel has nukes, there can be no complaining about

any Arabic nation possessing nukes.

[loudnclear]

10. If Israel says no, then every Arab nation in the region should proceed to

build whatever they feel they need to protect themselves.

[jayfish]

11. Why Build When...

you can buy. Just give ol Putie Pute a call and offer him all of the oil money he can stand. Then maybe Russia could afford to relent on all that Iraqi debt.

Jay

[Zhade]

12. Um, there's no need to assume Israel has nukes...

...not when Mordechai Vanunu provided photographic evidence that they exist.

A slant by the media, or el-Baradei? It's been proven Israel has nukes, why "assume" when we already know for a fact...?

[Walt Starr]

16. I believe I know why it's necessary to "assume"

Because if you really investigated and looked at the signatures of the nuclear core, you'd find the thing originated in the U.S.

Can't have that info getting out there in the wild as anything more than a "conspiracy theory" now, can we?

[Zolok]

15. Can't see much hope for disarmament here...

The Arabs won't send ambassadors to Israel so why should Israel send it's nukes to the scrapyard?
It would be a diplomatic problem IF THERE WERE ANY DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AT PLAY HERE!!
The Arab League should've thrown in the towel and recognized Israel after the Six Day War....they'd a gotten the West Bank back (and more than likely the Gaza as well, as for the Golan... that is a bilateral problem)...they might've headed off Tel Aviv's nuclear program before serious deployment could begin.
But of course the Arab diplomatic leadership has been and is now utterly hopeless in every way.

[tlcandie]

17. OMG...

Interesting to see when peeps have ONE-sided views only and then we wonder WHY were are in Iraq and WHY we are in the mess we are in as a country and as a world!

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Thanks for explaining it that way...

The Arabs won't send ambassadors to Israel so why should Israel send it's nukes to the scrapyard?

Using that logic if any other state won't send ambassadors to another state, the jilted state can then use that jilting as an excuse to either keep bristling with WMD or build themselves up into a formidable force of missiles named with really sexy acronyms. Oh-kay, but WMDs in the hands of the very jilted Taliban would have been a bit of a worry, methinks. I wonder if the logic of jilting in diplomacy can be extended so the next time Australia's application for membership of ASEAN is rejected, we can turn to the US, borrow some of their nukes and aim them at the losers who snubbed us? Oooh! I just thought of another one! Why should Israel send it's nukes to the scrapyard when all bar one other state refuses Israel's demands to move their diplomatic missions from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

Which Arabs won't send ambassadors to Israel? Egypt has had diplomatic representation there in the past. Regardless, considering the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory, it's really no surprise that there wouldn't be the level of diplomatic representation there would be if the occupation didn't exist...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. I think that was a metaphor

For the fact that the Arab world still has not made peace with Israel. Even Egypt and Jordan are, at best, non-enemies. Israel has no Arab friends nor is it likely to.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I suspect that it wasn't...

Especially as Egypt and Jordan, despite yr protestations to the contrary in face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary, have made peace with Israel....

Violet...

[pistoff democrat]

57. And, conversely,

if there was no occupation, there wouldn't be any diplomatic representation either...just the sound of the Arab states descending once again on Israel just as they did in 1948 upon the UN Creation of the State of Israel rather than simply accepting a 2-state solution as had the Israelis. ...never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Nah, that doesn't work...

There's no reason to believe that there wouldn't be diplomatic representation if the occupation was ended. After all, Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories are a major cause of anger, and understandably so. And unless I'm wrong, there has been diplomatic representation in Israel at some stages, so it's a bit of a going nowhere sort of argument, but I did like how that posters logic led to other scenarios based on diplomatic and regional jilting ;)

Violet...

[NickB79]

18. Question: how can nukes be defensive in nature?

Ok, I know a lot of people advocate Israel being allowed to possess nuclear warheads based on the hostility of their neighbors around them. However, when you look at a map, virtually all the warheads would have to land within a few hundred miles of Israel's borders if fired at enemy positions. These countries are quite small, smaller than many US states. A few dozen nukes going off all around your borders would contaminate the entire ME for decades, if not centuries, with radiation. Even if Israel were to win the battle, they would lose the war by having to evacuate their entire country. How is it defensive to set off a nuke in your backyard? It's like using a gun in self-defense by shooting through your own body to hit the criminal, its suicidal. I'm sure you could argue the MAD policy like the US and the USSR had, but relying on this really is like its acronym, mad!

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Checks and balances

Israel is still a small nation with a relatively small army. Nukes provide the checks and balances to keep the Arab nations from genuinely trying to destroy Israel. If it ever gets close to happening, Israel will not care whether the area is contaminated or not because they will already be in the process of being destroyed.

[tinnypriv]

20. Once again: "The most powerful in the Middle East"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=15302

IDF stronger than ever | Strategic Studies report: Gulf between the Arabs grows larger | After Iraq, Israel stronger; her neighbours weakened

Etc..

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. I will agree that the Israeli army is the best in the Mideast

When the U.S. is not stationed there full time.

But being the best doesn't mean you can't lose. Especially if a whole bunch of other nations ally against you.

As proven in the past, the Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. -- can all afford to lose. Israel cannot.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. They're the most powerful...

The 'best' is a really subjective term, whereas power isn't. And the size of a state or of it's military has zero to do with the power it has. Large states with massive populations don't wield military power in relation to size and it goes the other way round as well...

What can the Arab nations afford to lose that Israel can't? And why can they afford to lose it?

Violet...

[pistoff democrat]

60. I do believe

he is referring to the losses to Israel of wars started by those Arab countries already. They lost; they still live.

Another all-out war for Israel and it will be the end of Israel, therefore the ME as we know it.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. And there's no reason to believe...

That a war on the same scale for Israel would result in nothing more than egg-on-the-face, humiliation, and even more unnecessary losses of troops for Israel. It's just not realistic to talk as though the most powerful military state in the region would face total annihilation in another war. How would that annihilation happen when Israel has such a powerful military and is the only nuclear power in the region?

Violet...

[NickB79]

22. And in the process

They doom hundreds of thousands to millions of civilians, both Arab and non-Arab, in the surrounding area to die of radiation poisoning and various cancers for generations to come?

"If it ever gets close to happening, Israel will not care whether the area is contaminated or not" That's exactly my point; they wouldn't care if their actions poison millions of men, women and children not involved in the war itself. Poisoning the well/scorched earth policy at work.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Gee, if they are going to be destroyed

You blame THEM? I think perhaps blaming the enemies who would be attacking might be more appropriate.

[pistoff democrat]

62. Nope!

It's like with rape

It's like with discrimination in this country against African- Americans

BLAME THE VICTIM


Well, we've learned...from before Masada to after the Shoah...way too much for such a small percentage of the world population to bear...this time, you don't get to murder us all...so sorry if you are unable to understand that.

[bluesoul]

63. Palestinians are the

victims...

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Can you explain something that was in yr post?

this time, you don't get to murder us all...so sorry if you are unable to understand that.


Who do you mean when you say 'you'?

Also, if a state were to ever launch a nuclear attack, there's no-one else to blame for the ensuing destruction and massive loss of life but that state itself. Blaming the victim?? Hardly. I don't understand how a scenario like that could even be compared to those woman-haters who blame women for getting raped...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

77. I guess those of us not agreeing with Sharon

want them all murdered by their logic...

[Violet_Crumble]

80. I'm not sure, but I hope PO Dem explains it...

When I read the post I guessed that 'you' might be a reference to anyone in the world who isn't Jewish. But I'm not sure, which is why I asked her what she meant by it...

Violet...

[sushi]

84. In other words,

if we go down you all go down with us. Isn't giving up the settlements and signing a peace treaty better than this depressing possibility?

[durutti]

87. Please

Israel has the fourth most powerful military in the world and the backing of the world's lone superpower.

[Jim Sagle]

24. Ain't happenin'. This thread can close up shop.

[pistoff democrat]

67. Right! Now let's discuss

North Korea and Iran and the other countries' nuke capabilities.

Jim: one, two, three: this thread ain't nuthin' ...


:loveya:

:pals:


:kick: :kick:

[cantwealljustgetalong]

89. or why does France need nukes?...

let them give them up first...it's a lot easier to surrender without them anyway...bada boom...

[Jim Sagle]

90. Shhhhh!!!! I can't say that anymore.

:-(

[durutti]

86. Alternatively, arm Israel's neighbors w/ nukes.

One of the Arab countries or Iran needs to get nukes. India wouldn't stop an Israeli first-strike, and Pakistan's increasingly aligned with the U.S., which might prevent it from doing the same. There needs to be a nuclear balance in the region.

Saudi Arabia, I think, would be the best candidate, since it's protecting important oil fields, and apparently has begun seeking nukes already.

Now, before someone denounces me for not demanding disarmament of all nations: I would love to live in a world where there are no nuclear weapons. But given the current state of the world, there's really no way to pursue universal disarmament. Instead, we should pursue the best policy of containment.

[Jim Sagle]

91. Yeah, THAT'S the way to world peace.

:wtf:

[cantwealljustgetalong]

94. the way to world peace?...

I thought it was directions to the funny farm...