|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 26, 2013 0:26:46 GMT
Even if one believes that Saddam Hussein was innocent of having WMDs--and I continue to believe that it is quite possible that he simply spirited these weapons across the border (perhaps to Syria) prior to the outbreak of hostilities--this begs the question: For how much longer will some continue to use the Iraq War as a justification for the belief that American intelligence is always wrong? Saddam's WMD were taken to Syria on snowy Christmas eve. A special airbourne convoy was arranged and, so as to keep it away from America's massive local intel, they used stealth reindeer, Rudolf guiding the way using infra red navigational technology mounted in his nose. Perhaps, considering how much surveillance there was, America missed that little trick. That magical journey apart, please tell me how the invasion of Iraq has improved the situation in that country, made the world safer and how a similar invasion of Iran would be any better or any less of a total mess. Who ever suggested an "invasion" of Iran? I certainly do not believe that the US should be phobic about the possibility of going to war with any nation--Iran included--but any such war would almost certainly be instigated by Iran. And it would surely not include boots on the ground--which is precisely what the word, "invasion," implies. Oh, and I would like to reiterate my question: "For how much longer will some continue to use the Iraq War as a justification for the belief that American intelligence is always wrong?" |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 26, 2013 2:41:09 GMT
American military bases surround Iran, a country with no ability to attack America.
America removed the elected government and installed a dictator, ensuring the problems we see today.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 26, 2013 16:41:29 GMT
(1) I agree that it is hard to say just what, precisely, would have have been the upshot if the US had not entered WWII against Germany--it is a bit like one's speculating as to what would have happened if the Confederacy had (somehow) prevailed in the American Civil War--but I believe it was right for the US to oppose the Nazis, regardless of whether the motives for our doing so were entirely pure. (2) Although I agree with your (apparent) point that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was ultimately unjustified in invading Kuwait, I do not agree that the only justification for going to war is "self-defense when another nation attacks or invades a country." If country X assaults country Y's vital self-interests--for instance, if Iran were to suddenly close the Strait of Hormuz, thereby threatening the West's ability to maintain functioning economies-- that would amount to a legitimate reason fot going to war, in my opinion. (3) Your view that " ny nation founded upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, social status, gender [huh? how might a single-gender society last for more one generation, anyway?]...is inherently tyrranical" is one that simply ignores the historical context of the founding of Israel. The Jewish people have been hunted down for millenia, following the Diaspora--the Holocaust being the ultimate example of this desire of some to annihilate the Jewish people--so it should be understandable enough that many (including those of us who are non-Jews) would want to make it very difficult for history to repeat itself in this regard.
(4) We agree, apparently, that "pure" (plebiscitary) democracy is not ideal. As the old saying goes, it essentially amounts to two foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner.
(5) To declare that North Vienam "was able to overcome the military power of the United States" seems a bit disingenuous, to say the least. The US fought the Vietnam War halfheartedly--"with one habd tied behind its back," as it has often been expressed--and did not lose, therefore, to a superior military force, but to a lack of political will. (6) I believe the reason that so many Middle Eastern countries desire the "dismantling of Israel's nuclear weapons" is clear enough: Arab-majority states (which most others are--Iran's being an exception) are not especially congenial to a Jewish-majority state. Note: I do not know why the color of the type changed at one point--it was entirely unintentional; and I have tried to change it to black, but without success--so please disregard this little glitch. The change in color is not intended to signify anything; it is merely an accident.
Once agian, point by point.
1) We need only remember that not only did Germany declare war on the United States in Dec 1941 but that it also activelly began to attack US shipping along the East Coast of the United States at the same time. We were under "attack" and self-defense of our nation was the reason behind the US involvement in WW II. It had nothing to do per se with the war between Germany and the USSR or between Germany and the UK and was completely unrelated to the Holocaust.
2) No nation has a "right" to the natural resources of another country and every nation has a "right" to defend it's territorial waters. The Straits of Hormuz are mentioned but realize that there is divided sovereignty over these waters at the narrowist part Oman and Iran divide the Straits between them. Iran can technically close it's 1/2 of the waterway but cannot close the Oman part of the waterway as that would be an act of war agianst Oman. If both Oman and Iran decided to close the entire Straits of Hormus then it is within their "National Rights of Sovereignty" to do so under international law as these narrow stretch of water is not a part of the International Waters that are protected by treaty agreements.
As noted though no nation has any Right to the natural resources of another nation to begin with so the US has no valid complaint related to "Middle East" oil that might be prevented from traveling by water to the rest of the world. That oil could also be provided to international markets by "overland" shipment that bypasses the Straits of Hormuz to reach open ports. For example Saudi Arabia could simply ship it's oil by rail to it's Red Sea ports as opposed to shipping it through the Persian Gulf.
3) There are no "single gender" societies but we know for a fact that women were fundamentally treated as chattel under the laws of the United States for over 150 years (based predominately upon Biblical tradition) and were denied equality based upon the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" in the United States. They couldn't even vote in federal elections until well into the 20th Century and are still subjected to invidious discrimination in employment today.
4) The "Disporia" occured 2,000 years ago and not a single "Jewish" family can actually trace it's ancestry back that far. Not a single European Jew had any claim to "Palestine" although there were Jews in Palestine at the turn of the 20th Century to which Palestine was their homeland.
We should also note that the Holocaust was really based upon Ayrian supremacy and that all "undesireables" were subjected to it and not just the Jews. There really isn't any difference between a nation founded upon Ayrian supremacy and Jewish supremacy as both employ the same basic practices of ethnic purge to achieve the same ends. The Nazi Germans first and foremost encouraged Jews to leave and then resorted to enslavement and eventually genocide to achieve their ends.
The "Zionist" purge of non-Jews began in 1948 where terrorism and coercion was used to force over 400,000 Arabs out of part of the territory of Palestine for the creation of Israel was, for all practical purposes, no different than the Nazi policies of ethnic purge. Had it not been for the "purge" the Israeli Declaration of Independence would not have been adopted based upon a vote of the population. These "non-Jews" were the residents of what became Israel and their civil rights as "citizens" were grossly violated and that was tyranny by and definition. That tyranny by Israel continues today where it is violating international law (that it expressly and voluntarily agreed to based upon the Geneva Conventions) by the Israeli government allowing Israeli citizens to immigrate to territory under the military occupation of Israel and the forcing of the non-Jewish citizens of these lands from their homes.
Of course the violations of the Rights of the Palestinian (which included Arabs, Jews and Christians) began under the Mandatory of Britian that had no authority under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to "give" Palestine to European Jews in the first place. We can also note that much of the support for "Zionism" was based upon anti-Sematism as the European nations wanted to rid themselves of the "European Jews" that they hated. Nazi Germany wasn't the only nation to hate the European Jews at the time.
5) No foreign nation of occupation can defeat a determined insurgency that is willing to "fight forever" to rid itself of that foreign occupation.
That is exactly how the French lost Vietnam and it is also why the USSR was kicked out of Afghanistan. The US could not have defeated Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam as the Vietnamese People (including many South Vietnamese) were violently opposed to the US occupation of Vietnam. What the hell, in Iraq in 2007 the US military was basically getting it's ass kicked by about 40,000 Iraqi insurgents 1/2 of which were under al Sadr and the other 1/2 were Sunni rebels. Had al Sadr not unilaterially decided to call off his militias (so that the US would leave) and the Sunni militias been willing to accept money to fight al Qaeda (that they didn't like to begin with) the US would have lost in Iraq.
6) Nations in the Middle East are afraid of Israel because it is the most militarily aggressive nation in the Middle East. Israel has been militarily occuppying Palestine (excluding Gaza that it routinely invades and is at war against) since 1967 in violation of UNSC Resolution 242. It has routinely invaded Lebanon (and complains about Hezbollah that was formed as a citizen militia to fight agianst Israeli occupation to begin with). It has attacked other nations including Syria and Iraq. Israel is basically a very violent military power in the region which is why it presents a serious military threat to the other nations in the Middle East. It has earned that reputation and the other Middle East nations are not irrational in their serious concerns related to the military threat that nuclear weapons in Israel represents.
So we return to the topic of the thread. Not even the US can claim that Iran is actually attempting to produce a nuclear weapon. We know that Iran has some of the technology to do so but there is no actually evidence that it is attempting to use that technology. There is nothing in the NPT that prohibits a nation from having the knowledge or technology to produce a nuclear weapon though. The prohibition is exclusively related to not actually producing a nuclear weapon (or facilitating another nation in producing a nuclear weapon which Israel actually did with S Africa in the past).
Israel has used chemical weapons in Beruit in the past and this causes a fear in other nations that Israel is far more likely to use nuclear weapons than even Iran if Iran were ever to produce one. Iran is basically a non-aggresive nation militarily whereas Israel is exactly the opposite. I can understand the fear by the Middle Eastern nations as I wouldn't trust Israel as far as I could spit based upon Israel's history of the use of military force in the region. I don't even trust the United States to not use nuclear weapons based upon our military interventionisms of the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 27, 2013 15:45:03 GMT
(1) I agree that it is hard to say just what, precisely, would have have been the upshot if the US had not entered WWII against Germany--it is a bit like one's speculating as to what would have happened if the Confederacy had (somehow) prevailed in the American Civil War--but I believe it was right for the US to oppose the Nazis, regardless of whether the motives for our doing so were entirely pure. (2) Although I agree with your (apparent) point that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was ultimately unjustified in invading Kuwait, I do not agree that the only justification for going to war is "self-defense when another nation attacks or invades a country." If country X assaults country Y's vital self-interests--for instance, if Iran were to suddenly close the Strait of Hormuz, thereby threatening the West's ability to maintain functioning economies-- that would amount to a legitimate reason fot going to war, in my opinion. (3) Your view that " ny nation founded upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, social status, gender [huh? how might a single-gender society last for more one generation, anyway?]...is inherently tyrranical" is one that simply ignores the historical context of the founding of Israel. The Jewish people have been hunted down for millenia, following the Diaspora--the Holocaust being the ultimate example of this desire of some to annihilate the Jewish people--so it should be understandable enough that many (including those of us who are non-Jews) would want to make it very difficult for history to repeat itself in this regard.
(4) We agree, apparently, that "pure" (plebiscitary) democracy is not ideal. As the old saying goes, it essentially amounts to two foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner.
(5) To declare that North Vienam "was able to overcome the military power of the United States" seems a bit disingenuous, to say the least. The US fought the Vietnam War halfheartedly--"with one habd tied behind its back," as it has often been expressed--and did not lose, therefore, to a superior military force, but to a lack of political will. (6) I believe the reason that so many Middle Eastern countries desire the "dismantling of Israel's nuclear weapons" is clear enough: Arab-majority states (which most others are--Iran's being an exception) are not especially congenial to a Jewish-majority state. Note: I do not know why the color of the type changed at one point--it was entirely unintentional; and I have tried to change it to black, but without success--so please disregard this little glitch. The change in color is not intended to signify anything; it is merely an accident.
Once agian, point by point.
1) We need only remember that not only did Germany declare war on the United States in Dec 1941 but that it also activelly began to attack US shipping along the East Coast of the United States at the same time. We were under "attack" and self-defense of our nation was the reason behind the US involvement in WW II. It had nothing to do per se with the war between Germany and the USSR or between Germany and the UK and was completely unrelated to the Holocaust.
2) No nation has a "right" to the natural resources of another country and every nation has a "right" to defend it's territorial waters. The Straits of Hormuz are mentioned but realize that there is divided sovereignty over these waters at the narrowist part Oman and Iran divide the Straits between them. Iran can technically close it's 1/2 of the waterway but cannot close the Oman part of the waterway as that would be an act of war agianst Oman. If both Oman and Iran decided to close the entire Straits of Hormus then it is within their "National Rights of Sovereignty" to do so under international law as these narrow stretch of water is not a part of the International Waters that are protected by treaty agreements.
As noted though no nation has any Right to the natural resources of another nation to begin with so the US has no valid complaint related to "Middle East" oil that might be prevented from traveling by water to the rest of the world. That oil could also be provided to international markets by "overland" shipment that bypasses the Straits of Hormuz to reach open ports. For example Saudi Arabia could simply ship it's oil by rail to it's Red Sea ports as opposed to shipping it through the Persian Gulf.
3) There are no "single gender" societies but we know for a fact that women were fundamentally treated as chattel under the laws of the United States for over 150 years (based predominately upon Biblical tradition) and were denied equality based upon the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" in the United States. They couldn't even vote in federal elections until well into the 20th Century and are still subjected to invidious discrimination in employment today.
4) The "Disporia" occured 2,000 years ago and not a single "Jewish" family can actually trace it's ancestry back that far. Not a single European Jew had any claim to "Palestine" although there were Jews in Palestine at the turn of the 20th Century to which Palestine was their homeland.
We should also note that the Holocaust was really based upon Ayrian supremacy and that all "undesireables" were subjected to it and not just the Jews. There really isn't any difference between a nation founded upon Ayrian supremacy and Jewish supremacy as both employ the same basic practices of ethnic purge to achieve the same ends. The Nazi Germans first and foremost encouraged Jews to leave and then resorted to enslavement and eventually genocide to achieve their ends.
The "Zionist" purge of non-Jews began in 1948 where terrorism and coercion was used to force over 400,000 Arabs out of part of the territory of Palestine for the creation of Israel was, for all practical purposes, no different than the Nazi policies of ethnic purge. Had it not been for the "purge" the Israeli Declaration of Independence would not have been adopted based upon a vote of the population. These "non-Jews" were the residents of what became Israel and their civil rights as "citizens" were grossly violated and that was tyranny by and definition. That tyranny by Israel continues today where it is violating international law (that it expressly and voluntarily agreed to based upon the Geneva Conventions) by the Israeli government allowing Israeli citizens to immigrate to territory under the military occupation of Israel and the forcing of the non-Jewish citizens of these lands from their homes.
Of course the violations of the Rights of the Palestinian (which included Arabs, Jews and Christians) began under the Mandatory of Britian that had no authority under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to "give" Palestine to European Jews in the first place. We can also note that much of the support for "Zionism" was based upon anti-Sematism as the European nations wanted to rid themselves of the "European Jews" that they hated. Nazi Germany wasn't the only nation to hate the European Jews at the time.
5) No foreign nation of occupation can defeat a determined insurgency that is willing to "fight forever" to rid itself of that foreign occupation.
That is exactly how the French lost Vietnam and it is also why the USSR was kicked out of Afghanistan. The US could not have defeated Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam as the Vietnamese People (including many South Vietnamese) were violently opposed to the US occupation of Vietnam. What the hell, in Iraq in 2007 the US military was basically getting it's ass kicked by about 40,000 Iraqi insurgents 1/2 of which were under al Sadr and the other 1/2 were Sunni rebels. Had al Sadr not unilaterially decided to call off his militias (so that the US would leave) and the Sunni militias been willing to accept money to fight al Qaeda (that they didn't like to begin with) the US would have lost in Iraq.
6) Nations in the Middle East are afraid of Israel because it is the most militarily aggressive nation in the Middle East. Israel has been militarily occuppying Palestine (excluding Gaza that it routinely invades and is at war against) since 1967 in violation of UNSC Resolution 242. It has routinely invaded Lebanon (and complains about Hezbollah that was formed as a citizen militia to fight agianst Israeli occupation to begin with). It has attacked other nations including Syria and Iraq. Israel is basically a very violent military power in the region which is why it presents a serious military threat to the other nations in the Middle East. It has earned that reputation and the other Middle East nations are not irrational in their serious concerns related to the military threat that nuclear weapons in Israel represents.
So we return to the topic of the thread. Not even the US can claim that Iran is actually attempting to produce a nuclear weapon. We know that Iran has some of the technology to do so but there is no actually evidence that it is attempting to use that technology. There is nothing in the NPT that prohibits a nation from having the knowledge or technology to produce a nuclear weapon though. The prohibition is exclusively related to not actually producing a nuclear weapon (or facilitating another nation in producing a nuclear weapon which Israel actually did with S Africa in the past).
Israel has used chemical weapons in Beruit in the past and this causes a fear in other nations that Israel is far more likely to use nuclear weapons than even Iran if Iran were ever to produce one. Iran is basically a non-aggresive nation militarily whereas Israel is exactly the opposite. I can understand the fear by the Middle Eastern nations as I wouldn't trust Israel as far as I could spit based upon Israel's history of the use of military force in the region. I don't even trust the United States to not use nuclear weapons based upon our military interventionisms of the past.
(1) Again, you point merely to the motives behind America's involvement against Germany in WWII. As I have noted previously, those motives are entirely irrlelevant--Lincoln's motives during the American Civil War were not entirely noble, either--but this involvement was quite just. (2) Iran claims, as its own "territorial waters," much more than the 22 nautical miles that are set under the terms of this agreement. (By the way, even within this 22-nautical-mile zone, vessels are allowed the right of "innocent passage"; and a vessell carrying oil, rather than weaponry, certainly should fit this definition.) (3) To note that American women, until about 100 years ago, "couldn't even vote in federal elections," is to attempt to tug at the heartstrings gratuitously. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fortunes of American women at the dawn of 2014. (4) Following the Holocaust--which, as you have noted, was not the first instance of anti-Semitism in Europe; but it was certainly the most horrible one--Jews decided to never again allow themselves to be placed in such a vulnerable position. That is why the state of Israel was created. (True, reasonable people may differ over the matter of whether the creation of a single Jewish state made the extermination of an entire ethnic group more difficult or easier, by concentrating so many Jews in a single place. But that is a practical argument, not a moral argument.) (5) I have no reason to believe that a higher percentage of South Vietnamese favored the communist North than vice-versa. (6) How you can cavalierly dismiss Israel's concerns about Hezbollah--which routinely rains rockets down upon Israel--is simply flabbergasting to me. (7) You gloat that we "can[not] claim that Iran is actually attempting to produce a nuclear weapon"--even though all the evidence suggests precisely that--meaning, presumably, that you would wait until Iran actually does exactly that (or, at least, becomes so close as to have acquired "breakout capability"), and then lamemt that it is just too late to do anything about it. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 27, 2013 20:43:32 GMT
I will only address item 7 as that is the real issue of the thread.
There is something "we" can do immediately that will ensure that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon and that is for all of the nations of the Middle East to agree to the Middle East WMD Free-Zone Treaty that provides inspections to ensure against any nation having WMD's, WMD programs or even the delivery systems for these weapons. Every nation in the Middle East, including Iran, supports this treaty agreement except Israel.
It is Israel and not Iran that is allowing the proliferation of WMD's, including nuclear weapons, in the Middle East by refusing to join in support for this treaty agreement.
www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/mewmdfz
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 27, 2013 21:49:14 GMT
I will only address item 7 as that is the real issue of the thread.
There is something "we" can do immediately that will ensure that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon and that is for all of the nations of the Middle East to agree to the Middle East WMD Free-Zone Treaty that provides inspections to ensure against any nation having WMD's, WMD programs or even the delivery systems for these weapons. Every nation in the Middle East, including Iran, supports this treaty agreement except Israel.
It is Israel and not Iran that is allowing the proliferation of WMD's, including nuclear weapons, in the Middle East by refusing to join in support for this treaty agreement.
www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/mewmdfz
Althoughg the state of Israel has never openly admitted to possessing nuclear weapons (and probably never will), it is an open secret that Israel does have nukes. To insist, however, that Israel should forfeit its nuclear capacity is, essentially, to suggest that it should commit national suicide. You have previously suggested your antipathy to Israel as a Jewish state; yet it was founded precisely to serve as that; not as shrine to multiculturalist doctrine. Certainly, the land mass it occupies--which is about the size of, say, Connecticut--would continue to survive, regardless of what might happen to the state of Israel itself. But you appear to be cheerleading for the disappearance of the Jewish state; and that is an idea that I find utterly repellent. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 27, 2013 23:17:53 GMT
Update: Iran has now announced, on state TV, that it is pushing ahead with a the construction of a new generation of centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
I suppose we could all pretend that this is for "purely peaceful purposes," join hands, and recite the chorus of "Kumbaya"...
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 28, 2013 12:28:43 GMT
I will only address item 7 as that is the real issue of the thread.
There is something "we" can do immediately that will ensure that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon and that is for all of the nations of the Middle East to agree to the Middle East WMD Free-Zone Treaty that provides inspections to ensure against any nation having WMD's, WMD programs or even the delivery systems for these weapons. Every nation in the Middle East, including Iran, supports this treaty agreement except Israel.
It is Israel and not Iran that is allowing the proliferation of WMD's, including nuclear weapons, in the Middle East by refusing to join in support for this treaty agreement.
www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/mewmdfz
Althoughg the state of Israel has never openly admitted to possessing nuclear weapons (and probably never will), it is an open secret that Israel does have nukes. To insist, however, that Israel should forfeit its nuclear capacity is, essentially, to suggest that it should commit national suicide. You have previously suggested your antipathy to Israel as a Jewish state; yet it was founded precisely to serve as that; not as shrine to multiculturalist doctrine. Certainly, the land mass it occupies--which is about the size of, say, Connecticut--would continue to survive, regardless of what might happen to the state of Israel itself. But you appear to be cheerleading for the disappearance of the Jewish state; and that is an idea that I find utterly repellent.
Israel cannot use it's nukes even in self-defense as the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable, period. If Israel or any nation was to use nuclear weapons in any war I would be the first to advocate a full retallitorty strike by the five authorized nuclear weapon nations.
Even if the US was to use it's nuclear weapons I'd advocate a full nuclear retallitory strike against the United States by the UK, China, France and Russia as the use of nuclear weapons in war really is that unacceptable. We can only prevent nuclear war by having the explicit requirement that nuclear weapons can never be used as a weapon of war by any nation for any reason, ever!!! If that is not the case then someone will rationalize the use of nuclear weapons and it will lead to the destruction of civilization and most of the life on this planet.
We cannot allow any "rationalizations" for the use of nuclear weapons.
Israel loses nothing by giving up it's nuclear weapons that it cannot use, ever!!!
As for Israel it is no different to me than Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or many other countries that are founded based upon religion, race, ethnic heritage, social status, economic status, or other invidious criteria. All such nations are inherently tyrannical as they divide the people into two groups where the group with power (i.e. the preferential group) always oppresses those in other groups. Israel faces a serious problem based upon projected demographic changes where Israeli Arab (Muslim) citizens will outnumber the Israeli Jewish citizens not later than 2048. When that occurs then the Arab (Muslims) will gain control of the Israeli government based upon the "power of the vote" and the "Jewish State of Israel" will fundamentally cease to exist and be replaced by an Arab (Muslim) government.
Excluding a "Holocaust" by the the "Zionists" (which the world will not likely allow) the Jewish Nation of Israel will disappear after about 100 years of existance based upon "democracy" and sadly, in all likelihood, it will be replaced by a "Muslim" regime that is also tyrannical.
The Israeli politicians are well aware of this fact but what, if anything, they can do about it remains highly questionable.
"Jewish" tyranny being replaced by "Muslim" tyranny is a no-win proposition for the protections of the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 28, 2013 15:06:40 GMT
Althoughg the state of Israel has never openly admitted to possessing nuclear weapons (and probably never will), it is an open secret that Israel does have nukes. To insist, however, that Israel should forfeit its nuclear capacity is, essentially, to suggest that it should commit national suicide. You have previously suggested your antipathy to Israel as a Jewish state; yet it was founded precisely to serve as that; not as shrine to multiculturalist doctrine. Certainly, the land mass it occupies--which is about the size of, say, Connecticut--would continue to survive, regardless of what might happen to the state of Israel itself. But you appear to be cheerleading for the disappearance of the Jewish state; and that is an idea that I find utterly repellent.
Israel cannot use it's nukes even in self-defense as the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable, period. If Israel or any nation was to use nuclear weapons in any war I would be the first to advocate a full retallitorty strike by the five authorized nuclear weapon nations.
Even if the US was to use it's nuclear weapons I'd advocate a full nuclear retallitory strike against the United States by the UK, China, France and Russia as the use of nuclear weapons in war really is that unacceptable. We can only prevent nuclear war by having the explicit requirement that nuclear weapons can never be used as a weapon of war by any nation for any reason, ever!!! If that is not the case then someone will rationalize the use of nuclear weapons and it will lead to the destruction of civilization and most of the life on this planet.
We cannot allow any "rationalizations" for the use of nuclear weapons.
Israel loses nothing by giving up it's nuclear weapons that it cannot use, ever!!!
As for Israel it is no different to me than Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or many other countries that are founded based upon religion, race, ethnic heritage, social status, economic status, or other invidious criteria. All such nations are inherently tyrannical as they divide the people into two groups where the group with power (i.e. the preferential group) always oppresses those in other groups. Israel faces a serious problem based upon projected demographic changes where Israeli Arab (Muslim) citizens will outnumber the Israeli Jewish citizens not later than 2048. When that occurs then the Arab (Muslims) will gain control of the Israeli government based upon the "power of the vote" and the "Jewish State of Israel" will fundamentally cease to exist and be replaced by an Arab (Muslim) government.
Excluding a "Holocaust" by the the "Zionists" (which the world will not likely allow) the Jewish Nation of Israel will disappear after about 100 years of existance based upon "democracy" and sadly, in all likelihood, it will be replaced by a "Muslim" regime that is also tyrannical.
The Israeli politicians are well aware of this fact but what, if anything, they can do about it remains highly questionable.
"Jewish" tyranny being replaced by "Muslim" tyranny is a no-win proposition for the protections of the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
It is true that a Western taboo against the first use of nuclear weapons developed after WWII. However, if Israel considered its very existence (yes, as a Jewish state) threatened, it might very well abrogate this taboo. And justifiably, in my opinion. And your view (which seems almost deterministic) that we are certain to be faced with either Jewish tyranny or Muslim tyranny is a bit too dark for me... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 28, 2013 15:36:25 GMT
It is true that a Western taboo against the first use of nuclear weapons developed after WWII. However, if Israel considered its very existence (yes, as a Jewish state) threatened, it might very well abrogate this taboo. And justifiably, in my opinion. And your view (which seems almost deterministic) that we are certain to be faced with either Jewish tyranny or Muslim tyranny is a bit too dark for me...
The "taboo" against the use of nuclear weapons (and WMD's in general) was not limited to Western nations as it was embraced by virtually all of the nations on the planet. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by votes in the UN General Assembly where overwhelminly nuclear weapons and WMD's have been condemned.
Neither Israel or any nation can rationalize the use of nuclear weapons, period. Perhaps Israel least of all as it has historically been one of the most aggressive military nations since it's very creation. If Israel's existance is threatened by other nations it will be because of the historical wars propagated by Israel and for no other reason.
As for the probability that the "Jewish State of Israel" will be replaced by a "Muslim State of Israel" that is based upon demographic projections but it could have been avoided to begin with and could still be avoided today but I seriously doubt that the "Zionists" are willing to address that. Israel could voluntarily abandon the invidious criteria of "religion, race, ethnic heritage" of the Jewish people and create a nation were all individuals are identical under the law. If that was done today then there would be no foundation for trading the tyranny of a "Jewish" state for the tyranny of a "Muslim" state based upon a change in demographics.
Remember history because the European Jews were oppressed prior to the creation of Israel and when Israel became a nation then the Jews became the oppressors. As noted once they Jews become a minority then will become the oppressed once again unless they stop the cycle of oppression. They have that choice but it means giving up the foundation for the oppression (i.e. relgious, racial, and ethnic discrimination) and I find it doubtful they will do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 28, 2013 18:08:03 GMT
It is true that a Western taboo against the first use of nuclear weapons developed after WWII. However, if Israel considered its very existence (yes, as a Jewish state) threatened, it might very well abrogate this taboo. And justifiably, in my opinion. And your view (which seems almost deterministic) that we are certain to be faced with either Jewish tyranny or Muslim tyranny is a bit too dark for me...
The "taboo" against the use of nuclear weapons (and WMD's in general) was not limited to Western nations as it was embraced by virtually all of the nations on the planet. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by votes in the UN General Assembly where overwhelminly nuclear weapons and WMD's have been condemned.
Neither Israel or any nation can rationalize the use of nuclear weapons, period. Perhaps Israel least of all as it has historically been one of the most aggressive military nations since it's very creation. If Israel's existance is threatened by other nations it will be because of the historical wars propagated by Israel and for no other reason.
As for the probability that the "Jewish State of Israel" will be replaced by a "Muslim State of Israel" that is based upon demographic projections but it could have been avoided to begin with and could still be avoided today but I seriously doubt that the "Zionists" are willing to address that. Israel could voluntarily abandon the invidious criteria of "religion, race, ethnic heritage" of the Jewish people and create a nation were all individuals are identical under the law. If that was done today then there would be no foundation for trading the tyranny of a "Jewish" state for the tyranny of a "Muslim" state based upon a change in demographics.
Remember history because the European Jews were oppressed prior to the creation of Israel and when Israel became a nation then the Jews became the oppressors. As noted once they Jews become a minority then will become the oppressed once again unless they stop the cycle of oppression. They have that choice but it means giving up the foundation for the oppression (i.e. relgious, racial, and ethnic discrimination) and I find it doubtful they will do that.
'Israel', let's face it, will murder anyone it feels it can get away with murdering, just like its great German model. Racism is not a sane creed. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 28, 2013 23:07:02 GMT
'Israel', let's face it, will murder anyone it feels it can get away with murdering, just like its great German model. Racism is not a sane creed. South Africa was a white state where every non white was treated like crap. Most of the world deplored this open bigotry and did quite a lot to change that sorry state of affairs. Israel get paid $ billions to do the same thing except they kill more people, attack more countries, have more UN resolutions against them and, just to put a fat dollop of whipped cream on the jelly, sell their gifted American weapons to China who passes them on to Iran who, in turn, pass them on to various other countries. Iran, the subject of this thread, is surrounded by forces from a country it can't hope to effectively attack on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction crap, when that same aggressor helped develop Israel's WMDs. Did they ever find the WMD in Iraq? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 29, 2013 12:25:46 GMT
Update: Iran has now announced, on state TV, that it is pushing ahead with a the construction of a new generation of centrifuges for uranium enrichment. I suppose we could all pretend that this is for "purely peaceful purposes," join hands, and recite the chorus of "Kumbaya"...
That isn't a specific concern per se as the NPT does authorize a member nation to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Iran has not produced any enriched uranium to above 20% so far that that is far from being "weapons grade" uranium enrichment that must be refined to 90% or more. Iran does not have the means of enriching uranium to 90% according to the IAEA at this time.
Of greater concern was that one Iranian politican proposed enrichment to 60% that is still not "weapons grade" but for which I know of no peaceful uses. Of course that was just one Iranian politican and was not reflective of the Iranian government and politicans make all sorts of proposals most of which never become reality. For me it was little different than John McCain's proposal that the US go to war against Iran. A lot of inflammatory rhetoric without much substance.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 29, 2013 14:55:10 GMT
Update: Iran has now announced, on state TV, that it is pushing ahead with a the construction of a new generation of centrifuges for uranium enrichment. I suppose we could all pretend that this is for "purely peaceful purposes," join hands, and recite the chorus of "Kumbaya"...
That isn't a specific concern per se as the NPT does authorize a member nation to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Iran has not produced any enriched uranium to above 20% so far that that is far from being "weapons grade" uranium enrichment that must be refined to 90% or more. Iran does not have the means of enriching uranium to 90% according to the IAEA at this time.
Of greater concern was that one Iranian politican proposed enrichment to 60% that is still not "weapons grade" but for which I know of no peaceful uses. Of course that was just one Iranian politican and was not reflective of the Iranian government and politicans make all sorts of proposals most of which never become reality. For me it was little different than John McCain's proposal that the US go to war against Iran. A lot of inflammatory rhetoric without much substance.
I would certanly not present myself as an expert on the matter of uranium enrichment (I am not). But it is my understanding that it is much more difficult to go from zero percent to 20 percent enrichment than it is to go from 20 percent to 90 percent; so Iran may be on the verge of "breakout" capability... |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 29, 2013 15:07:02 GMT
It is true that a Western taboo against the first use of nuclear weapons developed after WWII. However, if Israel considered its very existence (yes, as a Jewish state) threatened, it might very well abrogate this taboo. And justifiably, in my opinion. And your view (which seems almost deterministic) that we are certain to be faced with either Jewish tyranny or Muslim tyranny is a bit too dark for me...
The "taboo" against the use of nuclear weapons (and WMD's in general) was not limited to Western nations as it was embraced by virtually all of the nations on the planet. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by votes in the UN General Assembly where overwhelminly nuclear weapons and WMD's have been condemned.
Neither Israel or any nation can rationalize the use of nuclear weapons, period. Perhaps Israel least of all as it has historically been one of the most aggressive military nations since it's very creation. If Israel's existance is threatened by other nations it will be because of the historical wars propagated by Israel and for no other reason.
As for the probability that the "Jewish State of Israel" will be replaced by a "Muslim State of Israel" that is based upon demographic projections but it could have been avoided to begin with and could still be avoided today but I seriously doubt that the "Zionists" are willing to address that. Israel could voluntarily abandon the invidious criteria of "religion, race, ethnic heritage" of the Jewish people and create a nation were all individuals are identical under the law. If that was done today then there would be no foundation for trading the tyranny of a "Jewish" state for the tyranny of a "Muslim" state based upon a change in demographics.
Remember history because the European Jews were oppressed prior to the creation of Israel and when Israel became a nation then the Jews became the oppressors. As noted once they Jews become a minority then will become the oppressed once again unless they stop the cycle of oppression. They have that choice but it means giving up the foundation for the oppression (i.e. relgious, racial, and ethnic discrimination) and I find it doubtful they will do that.
Your view that Israel has "propogated" all these wars in which it has been involved since 1948--why, its Arab neighbors have just been innocent bystanders, and a bloodthirsty Israel has attempted, gratuitously, to annihilate them!--is supported by nothing but historical revisionism. And your suggestion that the Jews abandon the fact of their Jewishness as the raison d'etr for the state of Israel is simply absurd. Israel was not created so that European Jewry--what little was left of it--might have an alternative to Manhattan or Miami. Nor was it created to serve as a shrine to multiculturalism. |
|
