In that sense then very few Jews were killed by Hitler as those most of them were not religious Jews. The religious Jews went to Palestine from Thierenstadt Camp which Hitler showed to the world that he treated Jews well. Unfortunately Jews have always looked at it as a bloodline as well as a religion. deBeers still thinks Jewish as all the diamond cutting are handled by Jews in Belgium at Antwerp, I think. Notice Ernest Oppenheimer also controlled the London diamond cartel that bought diamonds.
What I am saying is that the troubles Jews experience are of their own making and trying to get all governments to fight all their wars is wrong like in Iran or Palestine. These two problems stem from Jewish occupation of Arab lands. They would have been better off in Madagascar as it is a large enough island.
If you go into the history of Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls you will note that the Essenes, proto-Christians, were ascetic Jews living in the desert area of Qumram (?). Jesus seems to have come from this branch and the Jewish priest had him executed as a Jew for blasphemy. Christianity has Jewish roots.
Around the time of the Jewish revolt in 70 AD where the army of proclaimed Jewish messiah all committed suicide in Masada rather than be enslaved by the Romans many Essenes had emigrated to neighboring countries such as Arabia. It was these proto-Christians that fought with Mohammed thinking he was the Jewish messiah after all Moses did marry an Arab girl - Zipphorah(?). It was from them that Mohammed adopted the Judiac-Christian base for the Quran. So it has Jewish and Christian roots.
Foofie was implying that Oppenheimer wasn't Jewish anymore because he doesn't follow the religion. Many of the Jews killed were not following the religion either so by his reasoning those Jews killed were not Jews. It is just the logic of the argument. If he refuses to accept that Oppenheimer was Jewish then those killed by Hitler who didn't follow the religion weren't Jewish either as most of the Jews killed were not religious. No one is denying that people were killed. It is Foofie trying to have it both ways. Oppenheimer is not Jewish because he doesn't follow the religion while he wants us to accept that most of the people killed who didn't follow the religion were Jewish. It is a matter of fallacious logic and you are taking it out of context.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Precisely my point. It is common sense for those nations who have nukes to prevent those that do not from obtaining them.
I disagree. It's common sense for them to try. After all, it's a integral part of nuclear strategy to keep the others from having nukes.
But to say it's common sense to do so ignores that sometimes the costs will be greater than the payoff.
Funny but you fail to appreciate the costs associated with Iran's common sense desire to obtain nukes.
Quote:It really doesn't matter whether or not there is a "right" to prevent a nation from obtaining nukes although self-defense is a generally accepted right of nations and could be invoked in any effort to prevent another nation from obtaining them - particularly a bordering nation.
This argument makes no sense. If it would be "self defense" for Israel to attack Iran for trying to make nukes, then it is just as much "self defense" for Iran to make nukes to deter Israeli attacks.
It, apparently, makes no sense to a biased mind.
If Iran wishes to invoke their right to self-defense as their rationale for obtaining nukes, so be it, but anyone who understands the actual geo-political dynamics of the region knows that a non-nuclear Iran doesn't have much to fear from Israel. For years Iran has been aiding and abetting the enemies of Israel without any credible fear of Israeli retaliation. If they have the balls to support Hamas and Hezbollah it's a bit of a stretch for them to declare they need nukes to protect themselves from Israel.
Having said this, let's assume they rationally fear Israeli aggression. Their fear, by no means, nullifies the fear Israel may have about them.
Your "self defense" has the constitution of taffy.
Your argument has the constitution of the bowel disorder known as the skithers, but you launched the first silly salvo and so I guess you win.
Quote:What is an "acceptable" method of preventing Iran from obtaining nukes is a matter of opinion and subject to debate. There is not uniform or overwhelming agreement that a military strike doesn not constitute a reasonable attempt to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. I appreciate the argument that it is unreasonable, but don't accept it as axiomatic.
It is an illegal aggression, of the type that justifies their pursuit of the deterrent. But morality and law aside, it's stupid because short of all-out war they can't prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. It can only strongly discourage them, but at the same time it can also strongly encourage them.
Sorry Robert, but your fatalism about Iran obtaining nukes is not shared by everyone. "Illegal aggression?" Give me a break. Illegal by what code? That which has been established by a group of nations that is unquestionably anti-Israel? A code that never seems to be applied or enforced against the bad actors of the world? Iran is breaking "international law" left and right, but you and the UN don't seem to have much of a problem with their transgressions. Ditto Sudan, North Korea, Russia, China etc. Spare me your politically selective outrage about "illegal aggression."
Quote:If Iranian nukes are inevitable, and unstoppable then so too is nuclear proliferation around the globe, and so why are so many nations, including our own, involved in a pointless effort to prevent both?
Iranian nukes are only inevitable if they are determined to acquire them at all costs. It makes sense for the world to try to increase the costs but at the same time, it doesn't make sense to try to deter them at all costs.
You've dodged the question. If you accept that Iranian nukes are inevitable, then you must accept that Saudi, Nigerian, Venezualan, and Taiwanese, nukes are also inevitable. Yet my bet is that you are a huge supporter of efforts to restrict global nuclear proliferation.
And what I was arguing, is that the only way to completely guarantee that they don't build a nuke is to sign up to a cost that is not advisable, and recognition of our limitations in this regard is advisable.
This is the language of appeasement. The cost of preventing nuclear proliferation will always be greater than what you can accept. As each and every two bit nation on earth obtains nukes, the probability of a nuclear war increases. Chances are good that it won't involve the US, but should that cause us to relax and let the nukes roll?
Like engineer has already stated, we'll likely need carrots in addition to the stick.
It, apparently, makes no sense to a biased mind.
"Illegal aggression?" Give me a break. Illegal by what code? That which has been established by a group of nations that is unquestionably anti-Israel? A code that never seems to be applied or enforced against the bad actors of the world? Iran is breaking "international law" left and right, but you and the UN don't seem to have much of a problem with their transgressions. Ditto Sudan, North Korea, Russia, China etc. Spare me your politically selective outrage about "illegal aggression."
Funny but you fail to appreciate the costs associated with Iran's common sense desire to obtain nukes.
If Iran wishes to invoke their right to self-defense as their rationale for obtaining nukes, so be it, but anyone who understands the actual geo-political dynamics of the region knows that a non-nuclear Iran doesn't have much to fear from Israel. For years Iran has been aiding and abetting the enemies of Israel without any credible fear of Israeli retaliation. If they have the balls to support Hamas and Hezbollah it's a bit of a stretch for them to declare they need nukes to protect themselves from Israel.
Having said this, let's assume they rationally fear Israeli aggression. Their fear, by no means, nullifies the fear Israel may have about them.
Your argument has the constitution of the bowel disorder known as the skithers, but you launched the first silly salvo and so I guess you win.
Sorry Robert, but your fatalism about Iran obtaining nukes is not shared by everyone. "Illegal aggression?" Give me a break. Illegal by what code? That which has been established by a group of nations that is unquestionably anti-Israel? A code that never seems to be applied or enforced against the bad actors of the world? Iran is breaking "international law" left and right, but you and the UN don't seem to have much of a problem with their transgressions. Ditto Sudan, North Korea, Russia, China etc. Spare me your politically selective outrage about "illegal aggression."
You've dodged the question. If you accept that Iranian nukes are inevitable, then you must accept that Saudi, Nigerian, Venezualan, and Taiwanese, nukes are also inevitable. Yet my bet is that you are a huge supporter of efforts to restrict global nuclear proliferation.
This is the language of appeasement. The cost of preventing nuclear proliferation will always be greater than what you can accept.
As each and every two bit nation on earth obtains nukes, the probability of a nuclear war increases. Chances are good that it won't involve the US, but should that cause us to relax and let the nukes roll?
You are taking the Nazi definition of a Jew which is of the bloodline so Oppenheimer by this reasoning is a Jew.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Funny but you fail to appreciate the costs associated with Iran's common sense desire to obtain nukes.
I fully appreciate the costs. They can further become a pariah state, and the economic costs to them may well outweigh any security advantages.
But if they are willing to accept those costs, they will have nukes. I personally think they are more interested in a breakout capacity than nukes right now which would reduce that cost to them.
If Iran wishes to invoke their right to self-defense as their rationale for obtaining nukes, so be it, but anyone who understands the actual geo-political dynamics of the region knows that a non-nuclear Iran doesn't have much to fear from Israel. For years Iran has been aiding and abetting the enemies of Israel without any credible fear of Israeli retaliation. If they have the balls to support Hamas and Hezbollah it's a bit of a stretch for them to declare they need nukes to protect themselves from Israel.
Having said this, let's assume they rationally fear Israeli aggression. Their fear, by no means, nullifies the fear Israel may have about them.
Your argument has the constitution of the bowel disorder known as the skithers, but you launched the first silly salvo and so I guess you win.
Sorry Robert, but your fatalism about Iran obtaining nukes is not shared by everyone. "Illegal aggression?" Give me a break. Illegal by what code? That which has been established by a group of nations that is unquestionably anti-Israel? A code that never seems to be applied or enforced against the bad actors of the world? Iran is breaking "international law" left and right, but you and the UN don't seem to have much of a problem with their transgressions. Ditto Sudan, North Korea, Russia, China etc. Spare me your politically selective outrage about "illegal aggression."
You've dodged the question. If you accept that Iranian nukes are inevitable, then you must accept that Saudi, Nigerian, Venezualan, and Taiwanese, nukes are also inevitable. Yet my bet is that you are a huge supporter of efforts to restrict global nuclear proliferation.
This is the language of appeasement. The cost of preventing nuclear proliferation will always be greater than what you can accept.
As each and every two bit nation on earth obtains nukes, the probability of a nuclear war increases. Chances are good that it won't involve the US, but should that cause us to relax and let the nukes roll?
Robert Gentel wrote:
But if they are willing to accept those costs, they will have nukes. I personally think they are more interested in a breakout capacity than nukes right now which would reduce that cost to them.
Robert, it is you who have insisted that it is common sense for nations like Iran to seek nukes, but then you offered the following when I countered that it was common sense for nations with nukes to prevent those without them from obtaining them
But to say it's common sense to do so ignores that sometimes the costs will be greater than the payoff. --- RG
So were you ignoring the fact that the costs for Iran will be greater than the payoff?
If Iran wishes to invoke their right to self-defense as their rationale for obtaining nukes, so be it, but anyone who understands the actual geo-political dynamics of the region knows that a non-nuclear Iran doesn't have much to fear from Israel.
Here again you insist on granting common sense and intelligent strategy to Iran but no other nation. Israel has shown absolutely no indication that it wishes to expand it's territory beyond what is called Palestine. Iran has nothing to fear from Israel if their intentions are peaceful, and while they clearly are not, Israel has yet restrained from retailiating directly against Iran, a restraint that few other nations, including the US, would demonstrate.
Even if it brings down strong economic sanctions and military attacks? ...
I'm surprised that you continue to fail to recognize that if it is "common sense" and "wise military strategy" for Iran to seek nukes, that it is equally "common sense" and "wise military strategy" for other nations to seek to block them from their goal.
There are good and sensible reasons why the members of the Nuclear Club does not want to admit new members, but there are even better reasons why they don't want Iran to join.
Quote:Having said this, let's assume they rationally fear Israeli aggression. Their fear, by no means, nullifies the fear Israel may have about them.
Of course not. And that is one reason Israel isn't about to give up their nukes either.
Robert, it is you who have insisted that it is common sense for nations like Iran to seek nukes, but then you offered the following when I countered that it was common sense for nations with nukes to prevent those without them from obtaining them
But to say it's common sense to do so ignores that sometimes the costs will be greater than the payoff. --- RG
So were you ignoring the fact that the costs for Iran will be greater than the payoff?
Here again you insist on granting common sense and intelligent strategy to Iran but no other nation.
Israel has shown absolutely no indication that it wishes to expand it's territory beyond what is called Palestine.
Iran has nothing to fear from Israel if their intentions are peaceful, and while they clearly are not, Israel has yet restrained from retailiating directly against Iran, a restraint that few other nations, including the US, would demonstrate.
Your argument is akin to rationalizing drug dealers possessing extreme armaments because their "enemies" have the same.
Even if it brings down strong economic sanctions and military attacks?
You seem to wish to view Iran through glasses that filter out all intent, legitimacy, morality and self-preservation and have come to the conclusion that all of these extraneous factors aside, Iran seeking nukes is "common sense" and "wise military strategy," and yet you seem to insist on employing all of these filters when it comes to those nations who do not want to see Iran with nukes.
I'm surprised that you continue to fail to recognize that if it is "common sense" and "wise military strategy" for Iran to seek nukes, that it is equally "common sense" and "wise military strategy" for other nations to seek to block them from their goal.
There are good and sensible reasons why the members of the Nuclear Club does not want to admit new members, but there are even better reasons why they don't want Iran to join.
Where's the argument to accompany the "silly salvo"? Calling an Israeli strike on Iran self-defense really is a stretch, but that is your claim so feel free to argue for it.
The silly salvo was "Your "self defense" has the constitution of taffy." If you don't appreciate this sort of excahnge, don't initiate it.
As for your point (such as it is), once again you seem to see the wisdom in Iran's nuclear ambitions for defensive purposes, but consider Israel's concern over a nuclear Iran as "a stretch," or "taffy."
No, you make up your mind. I'm not concerned about what is or is not internationally "legal," but you obviously are, and yet again you are applying one standard to Israel and another to Iran.
The selective use of "illegal" to describe Israeli actions when it is nowhere to be found when describing those of all the truly bad actors in the world is beyond intellectual dishonesty.
You are selective when you contend that Iran's actions are common sense and Israel's are illegal.
So by this definition, nuclear weapon capabilities are "inevitable" in every other nation on earth, unless the Nuclear Club chooses to invade each and every aspiring member?
Obviously your argument is that Iran with nukes is preferrable to a complete invasion of Iran. You could be right. It's possible that once Iran has nukes it will stop it's nasty ways and never use them to advance their madness for power, but isn't it equally possible that an Iranian nuke will be used somewhere in the world? Clearly you have more faith in a regime that has given no reason to deserve such faith, than I --- or the Israelis.
You assume that worldwide sanctions and Israeli strikes will not prevent them from having nukes. That is a very large assumption.
Are you really describing Israel as "expansionist?" Based on what facts?
We'll see as far as an Israeli strike is concerned, but I bet you didn't believe they would hit Iraq or Syria.
How has "everything up to military aggression" worked so far?
There are two real examples of nations trying to join the Club who have, so far, been prevented from doing so: Iraq and Syria. In both cases it was military aggression that provided the prevention.
Quote:What part of not supporting military aggression means relaxing to you?
All of it.
There are two real examples of nations trying to join the Club who have, so far, been prevented from doing so: Iraq and Syria. In both cases it was military aggression that provided the prevention.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Robert, it is you who have insisted that it is common sense for nations like Iran to seek nukes, but then you offered the following when I countered that it was common sense for nations with nukes to prevent those without them from obtaining them
But to say it's common sense to do so ignores that sometimes the costs will be greater than the payoff. --- RG
So were you ignoring the fact that the costs for Iran will be greater than the payoff?
The costs aren't always greater than the payoff. For India and Pakistan they weren't. Pakistan was lucky enough that we suddenly needed them after 9/11. They ultimately didn't pay much of a cost for their nuclear option and given their conflict with a nuclear neighbor it had a lot of upside for them.
Depending on how the international community reacts, and depending on what risks Iran faces, the costs for them to build nukes would be greater than the benefit.
Ah...so the costs are only always greater for the nations that attempt to restrict membership in the Club than for the wannabes.
Your point (the costs doesn't always exceed the payoff) clearly has validity, and it may be so when it comes to nukes, but it's hard to believe that a strong argument can be made that North Korea or Pakistan are better off for having nukes. Perhaps the corrupt and oppressive regimes have temporarily benefited, but not so the peoples of these nations.
My argument all along has been if that you are going to take a real politik approach to the question and ignore the question of whether or not the world is safer with rogue nations like Iran having nukes, then you need to be consistent.
Instead you seem bound and determined to shackle Israel and the US with the consequences of actions which prompt your native disapproval.
You are manufacturing reasons why Iran's security concerns are legitimate and Israel's are not.
If Iran's development of a weapon system which can destroy Israel is simply a matter of "common sense," it is very difficult to understand how you will not grant Israel the same "common sense" validation of a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Quote:Here again you insist on granting common sense and intelligent strategy to Iran but no other nation.
I don't see how I'm doing that. I think we just disagree on the risk posed by a nuclear Iran as well as the success rate a military strike against Iran would bring.
Here is how you are doing it:
If Israel mounting a military attack on Iran is a credible result of Iran's seeking nukes, then all the consequences of such an attack are part of the risk Iran must consider, and yet you seem to want to remove this factor from Iran's strategic calculus.
Quote:Israel has shown absolutely no indication that it wishes to expand it's territory beyond what is called Palestine.
I think that's quite arguable, see: Golan Heights. Sinai Peninsula, Lebanon.
Arguable?
Really?
So the territories Israel has laid claim to as a result of wars with neighbors which have sought her destruction is expansionism?
Israel has occupied Lebanon twice as a response to terrorist attacks launched from that simple sister of a nation and twice she has withdrawn. How does that suggest expansionist intent?
Considering the clear superiority of Israel's military within the region, if she were truly expansionist, as you contend, she would also be a lot larger by now.
She certainly would have made better use of the leverage of her nuclear capabilities. We can be fairly certain that Iran will not fail to do so if it becomes a nuclear power.
They returned some, but not all, of those territories outside of Palestine, but in the case of the Sinai the US told them we'd let Russia bomb them to kingdom come if they didn't return it. The Sinai was not a just defensive move, like you might counter with, it was also land grab by proxy because of the nationalization of the Suez Canal.
But all that aside, Israel has been growing ever since its creation. They are very clearly an expansionist nation. Golan Heights is globally recognized as Syrian territory but they claim they need it as a strategic buffer for their defense and it's about a coin flip as to whether they'll ever give it back.
I really like Israel, and I don't see them as an evil menace, but it's foolish to deny their expansionist nature or their willingness to engage in "preemption" (which to the other guys may well just be aggression).
See above.
Clearly, you and I have a very different definition of "expansionism."
I'm disappointed that you buy into this anti-Israel tripe.
Clearly, I'm not denying their willingness to engage in preemption. Hell, I'm predicting it.
Preemption in this case, is just plain "common sense," as it was with Iraq and Syria.
Again, you seem to want to restrain Israel's options based on your sense of right and wrong, but have no such qualms about Iran.
Frankly, I'm not surprised since you've declared you"really like" Israel.
Obviously, you expect more from Israel than you do Iran, just as I suspect you expect more from America than from the rest of the world.
Fine and dandy.
So do I, but if you insist on laying the expectations of your morality on Israel, then your cool, abstract assessment of Iran's desires seems quite shallow and contrived.
Quote:Iran has nothing to fear from Israel if their intentions are peaceful, and while they clearly are not, Israel has yet restrained from retailiating directly against Iran, a restraint that few other nations, including the US, would demonstrate.
I agree that Iran doesn't have an existential threat from Israel, but that you keep saying how sure you are that Israel will bomb their nuclear facilities (which they have every right to, and which don't automatically constitute aggression) kind of pokes holes in that theory. If Iran had functional nukes Israel would probably not consider such attacks on their territory.
This makes little sense.
You seem to want to ignore the fact that Iran is funding and promoting the groups that are launching rockets and terrorist attacks against Israelis. This alone is, arguably, sufficent reason for Israel to strike Iran. That they have not is testiment to the influence the US has on Isareli foreign and strategic policy.
Should Israel launch the attacks I predict, it will not result in an end to the Iranian regime, unless it chooses to retaliate.
The most significant difference between these two opponents is that Israel's dispute is with the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, while the Iranian regime draws no such distinction. They will be as happy to kill Israeli school children as Bibi Netanyahu.
And as to restraint that the US would not demonstrate, it happens to be restraint that we already do demonstrate.
Really?
Like our invasion of Afghanistan?
Should it be proven or assumed that Iran is behind attacks on the American homeland, we will not exhibit the restrain we demand of Israel.
Quote:Your argument is akin to rationalizing drug dealers possessing extreme armaments because their "enemies" have the same.
Your argument is aking to just deciding who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and making some the cops and others the robbers.
Yes it is. The Israeli democratic government represents the good guys, and the Iranian tyrannical regime represents the bad guys.
There are many people in this country who would argue that our cops are the bad guys and certain robbers are the good guys. A nice conceit, but when the robbers are attacking you and your family, who ya gonna call?
I don't have a problem casting the Iranian regime as the bad guy and Israel as the good guy. If you do, that's fine, but you need to apply the same amoral objectivity to both parties, and you are not.
Israel isn't the good guys depending on whose side you are living on. Israeli presidents and politicians admit that if they were Palestinians they'd be terrorists.
Nonsense.
Quote:Even if it brings down strong economic sanctions and military attacks?
No. If their pursuit of nuclear weapons brings strong economic sanctions (not just sanctions against nuclear material) then I don't think the security advantage would outweigh the economic advantage.
As to military attacks that's harder to quantify without knowing the nature of the military attacks. If it's Israeli bombing it presents both a cost and a reward for them to pursue nukes. The cost is in the small amounts of lives lost, and progress lost in their nuclear programs, but the willingness for Israel to be the aggressor just highlights how useful the nukes would be.
Quote:You seem to wish to view Iran through glasses that filter out all intent, legitimacy, morality and self-preservation and have come to the conclusion that all of these extraneous factors aside, Iran seeking nukes is "common sense" and "wise military strategy," and yet you seem to insist on employing all of these filters when it comes to those nations who do not want to see Iran with nukes.
That's just not true. I've said that it is common sense (and part of page one of nuclear strategy) for other nations to attempt to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. And it is.
I just don't think it's a pursuit worth it at all costs.
Robert, you can juke and jive all you want, but it should be clear to anyone reading your posts that you apply different standards of behavior to the wannabes and the members. Perhaps this is an inherent affection for the underdog, but sometimes the underdog is a rabid dog.
Quote:I'm surprised that you continue to fail to recognize that if it is "common sense" and "wise military strategy" for Iran to seek nukes, that it is equally "common sense" and "wise military strategy" for other nations to seek to block them from their goal.
There are good and sensible reasons why the members of the Nuclear Club does not want to admit new members, but there are even better reasons why they don't want Iran to join.
In this post I said: "It's common sense for them to try. After all, it's a integral part of nuclear strategy to keep the others from having nukes."
How am I not recognizing that it's "common sense" to not want to admit new members? I explicitly said it was "common sense".
With the proviso that the cost of the members is not less than the payoff, while the cost to the wannabes is.
Quote:Where's the argument to accompany the "silly salvo"? Calling an Israeli strike on Iran self-defense really is a stretch, but that is your claim so feel free to argue for it.
The silly salvo was "Your "self defense" has the constitution of taffy." If you don't appreciate this sort of excahnge, don't initiate it.
I'm not sure what you object to about it, using a stupid metaphor or the argument itself. The argument is that your claim that an Israeli attack would be "self-defense" is a stretch.
By that reasoning just about any aggression is "self defense" as long as there is some animosity between the parties and the possibility (which always exists) that one might eventually attack the other.
Well, I do object to your use of a stupid metaphor and responded accordingly.
I also object to the argument that it is a "stretch" to consider an Israeli strike as "self-defense."
If my neighbor is quite bellicose in his criticism of me and suggests I and my family should be wiped off the face of the earth, I don't think it is a "stretch" for me to be gravely concerned with the fact that he has purchased a bulldozer and crates of TNT.
Perhaps some of my other neighbors might argue that since he started calling for the demise of my family he was rightfully afraid of the warnings I gave him about kicking his ass. They might also argue that in light of my counter-threats, he needed the bulldozer and TNT.
Why would I care?
Given his talk and his securement of the means to actually destroy my house and family I think it would be reasonable for me to launch a preemptive strike as a measure of self-defense.
Remember when Bernard Getz turned on his subway assailants?
Arguments were made that the injuries Getz inflicted on his assailants were not in proportion to the threat they posed.
Bullshit.
The assailants may have only been armed with a screwdriver when they menaced Getz, but how was he to know that the encounter would not end with a screwdriver driven into his brain through his left eye?
Moreover, the encounter and its "disproportionate" results would never have occurred if the thugs had abided by the law and common civility. They had a choice and they made the wrong one. They should never have been allowed to cry "No fair!"
If the Iranian regime allows it's little turd of a president to threaten Israeli existence and then develops nuclear weapons contrary to the will of 99% of the rest of the world, then they don't get to cry "No fair!" when Israeli jets attack their facilities.
Quote:As for your point (such as it is), once again you seem to see the wisdom in Iran's nuclear ambitions for defensive purposes, but consider Israel's concern over a nuclear Iran as "a stretch," or "taffy."
No, I think that Israel attacking Iran in preemptive self-defense is a stretch. I think their "concern" is "common sense".
But I've already said all this, so I'm just repeating myself here.
Ditto
Quote:No, you make up your mind. I'm not concerned about what is or is not internationally "legal," but you obviously are, and yet again you are applying one standard to Israel and another to Iran.
Where did I do this?
Quote:The selective use of "illegal" to describe Israeli actions when it is nowhere to be found when describing those of all the truly bad actors in the world is beyond intellectual dishonesty.
But just making up claims about your interlocutor's position isn't? Finn, where am I being selective about describing aggression as illegal? Point out something you believe is illegal or that I should consider illegal and I'll tell you if I agree, but I don't think there's any such example that I've shown inconsistency about.
Quote:You are selective when you contend that Iran's actions are common sense and Israel's are illegal.
Iran pursuing nuclear weapons can be both illegal (as long as they remain party to the NPT) as well as common sense.
Israel's actions would be illegal if they attacked Iran. Their concern is common sense, as I've said many times now.
Is Iran's attempt to develop nuclear weapons "illegal" or not, and what the hell does it matter?
We hope and strive to live in a nation of laws, but there is no chance at all that we live in a world of laws.
Why should Israel compromise her security in an effort to abide by "international law," when she knows her enemies couldn't care less, and that the rest of the world will allow politics to undermine any application of such law?
If this isn't common sense, I don't know what is.
Quote:So by this definition, nuclear weapon capabilities are "inevitable" in every other nation on earth, unless the Nuclear Club chooses to invade each and every aspiring member?
Only if every other nation is determined to acquire nukes regardless of the consequences. I haven't said anything that would indicate that I believe this is so.
Other nations rarely possess such determination to acquire nukes.
Quote:Obviously your argument is that Iran with nukes is preferrable to a complete invasion of Iran. You could be right. It's possible that once Iran has nukes it will stop it's nasty ways and never use them to advance their madness for power, but isn't it equally possible that an Iranian nuke will be used somewhere in the world? Clearly you have more faith in a regime that has given no reason to deserve such faith, than I --- or the Israelis.
I don't think it's impossible that their nukes could be used outside of deterrence, but I think it's highly unlikely.
Well, that's small comfort to me and Israel, and forgive us if we don't count on it.
Quote:You assume that worldwide sanctions and Israeli strikes will not prevent them from having nukes. That is a very large assumption.
I think you might be misreading me, or maybe I've miswritten me. I think that sanctions and strikes can dissuade them from pursuing nukes, but I don't think that either can prevent them outright.
In short, it may work, it may not.
As it is with all efforts.
The question is whether or not it should be attempted.
Quote:Are you really describing Israel as "expansionist?" Based on what facts?
Their incessant expansion.
Quote:We'll see as far as an Israeli strike is concerned, but I bet you didn't believe they would hit Iraq or Syria.
I wasn't yet 1 in age when they hit Iraq so that certainly came as a surprise to me, but Syria wasn't something surprising to me.
Quote:How has "everything up to military aggression" worked so far?
Poorly, but not everything up to military aggression has even been tried.
Quote:There are two real examples of nations trying to join the Club who have, so far, been prevented from doing so: Iraq and Syria. In both cases it was military aggression that provided the prevention.
And there are others who were dissuaded by other reasons including sanctions.
Namely?
Quote:Quote:What part of not supporting military aggression means relaxing to you?
All of it.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think that the risks merit the military action at this time and I don't think that not supporting military action is "appeasement" etc.
Perhaps, but thanks for an interesting and engaging debate which (expect for the taffy and skithers part) has remained quite civil.
Again, thanks.
Ah...so the costs are only always greater for the nations that attempt to restrict membership in the Club than for the wannabes.
Your point (the costs doesn't always exceed the payoff) clearly has validity, and it may be so when it comes to nukes, but it's hard to believe that a strong argument can be made that North Korea or Pakistan are better off for having nukes. Perhaps the corrupt and oppressive regimes have temporarily benefited, but not so the peoples of these nations.
Instead you seem bound and determined to shackle Israel and the US with the consequences of actions which prompt your native disapproval.
You are manufacturing reasons why Iran's security concerns are legitimate and Israel's are not.
If Iran's development of a weapon system which can destroy Israel is simply a matter of "common sense," it is very difficult to understand how you will not grant Israel the same "common sense" validation of a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Here is how you are doing it:
If Israel mounting a military attack on Iran is a credible result of Iran's seeking nukes, then all the consequences of such an attack are part of the risk Iran must consider, and yet you seem to want to remove this factor from Iran's strategic calculus.
Arguable?
Really?
So the territories Israel has laid claim to as a result of wars with neighbors which have sought her destruction is expansionism?
Israel has occupied Lebanon twice as a response to terrorist attacks launched from that simple sister of a nation and twice she has withdrawn. How does that suggest expansionist intent?
Considering the clear superiority of Israel's military within the region, if she were truly expansionist, as you contend, she would also be a lot larger by now.
Irredentism, revanchism or reunification are sometimes used to justify and legitimize expansionism, but only when the explicit goal is to reconquer territories that have been lost, or to take over ancestral lands. A simple territorial dispute, such as a border dispute, is not usually referred to as expansionism.
Greater Israel (seeks to create an Israeli state including all of mandatory Palestine)
Clearly, you and I have a very different definition of "expansionism."
I'm disappointed that you buy into this anti-Israel tripe.
Preemption in this case, is just plain "common sense," as it was with Iraq and Syria.
Again, you seem to want to restrain Israel's options based on your sense of right and wrong, but have no such qualms about Iran.
Frankly, I'm not surprised since you've declared you"really like" Israel.
Obviously, you expect more from Israel than you do Iran, just as I suspect you expect more from America than from the rest of the world.
So do I, but if you insist on laying the expectations of your morality on Israel, then your cool, abstract assessment of Iran's desires seems quite shallow and contrived.
The most significant difference between these two opponents is that Israel's dispute is with the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, while the Iranian regime draws no such distinction. They will be as happy to kill Israeli school children as Bibi Netanyahu.
Quote:And as to restraint that the US would not demonstrate, it happens to be restraint that we already do demonstrate.
Really?
Like our invasion of Afghanistan?
Should it be proven or assumed that Iran is behind attacks on the American homeland, we will not exhibit the restrain we demand of Israel.
Yes it is. The Israeli democratic government represents the good guys, and the Iranian tyrannical regime represents the bad guys.
There are many people in this country who would argue that our cops are the bad guys and certain robbers are the good guys. A nice conceit, but when the robbers are attacking you and your family, who ya gonna call?
I don't have a problem casting the Iranian regime as the bad guy and Israel as the good guy. If you do, that's fine, but you need to apply the same amoral objectivity to both parties, and you are not.
Quote:Israel isn't the good guys depending on whose side you are living on. Israeli presidents and politicians admit that if they were Palestinians they'd be terrorists.
Nonsense.
Robert, you can juke and jive all you want, but it should be clear to anyone reading your posts that you apply different standards of behavior to the wannabes and the members.
Quote:In this post I said: "It's common sense for them to try. After all, it's a integral part of nuclear strategy to keep the others from having nukes."
How am I not recognizing that it's "common sense" to not want to admit new members? I explicitly said it was "common sense".
With the proviso that the cost of the members is not less than the payoff, while the cost to the wannabes is.
If my neighbor is quite bellicose in his criticism of me and suggests I and my family should be wiped off the face of the earth, I don't think it is a "stretch" for me to be gravely concerned with the fact that he has purchased a bulldozer and crates of TNT.
Given his talk and his securement of the means to actually destroy my house and family I think it would be reasonable for me to launch a preemptive strike as a measure of self-defense.
If the Iranian regime allows it's little turd of a president to threaten Israeli existence and then develops nuclear weapons contrary to the will of 99% of the rest of the world, then they don't get to cry "No fair!" when Israeli jets attack their facilities.
Is Iran's attempt to develop nuclear weapons "illegal" or not, and what the hell does it matter?
Why should Israel compromise her security in an effort to abide by "international law," when she knows her enemies couldn't care less, and that the rest of the world will allow politics to undermine any application of such law?
Quote:And there are others who were dissuaded by other reasons including sanctions.
Namely?
Perhaps, but thanks for an interesting and engaging debate which (expect for the taffy and skithers part) has remained quite civil.
Again, thanks.
