2
   

'Israel should dismantle nuclear weapons' US Army War Colleg

 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 05:07 pm
Louise_R_Heller wrote:
Louise_R_Heller wrote:
I question these statements by Oralloy:
_______________________________________________________

1) "Only Nazi analysts regard Israel as a threat to world peace. "

=============================================

(1) is false, everytime there's a poll taken in Europe about 70% agree with the statement "Israel is the greatest threat to world peace" That's a lot of people and they can't all be Nazi analysts!!


Worth pointing out that the 70% agreement is with the strongest statement ("Israel is the greatest threat to wordpeace") and not to the weaker allegation posted by Oralloy where it's merely designated as "a" threat to world peace.


You misunderstand. I was not saying that someone had to be a Nazi AND an analyst to have such anti-Semitic beliefs. What I meant was that among analysts, only Nazis had such beliefs.

The 70 percent in these polls are most certainly all Nazis, but they are not all analysts.



Louise_R_Heller wrote:
Louise_R_Heller wrote:
I question these statements by Oralloy:
_______________________________________________________

2) "As for moral rights, Iran and North Korea violated treaties where they agreed not to have nuclear programs."
=============================================

(2) False also, neither Iran nor North Korea have signed any treaties agreeing to discontinue nuclear programs.

North Korea has entered into agreements to discontinue some stages of nuclear weapons development -- not at all the same thing.....


As to the NPT it contains a clause that countries can instantly and unilaterally withdraw from the agreement if their vital interests are at risk.


What I meant to post was "nuclear weapons programs".

The NPT forbids countries like Iran and North Korea from having nuclear weapons programs, and both were running nuclear weapons programs while a member (Iran still does so even today).

However, as countries that have violated the NPT, they forfeit their right to any nuclear program, so in a way my misstatement is true, since they continued nuclear programs after forfeiting their right to have them.
0 Replies
 
stevewonder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 05:09 pm
Galilite wrote:


Dear representatives of progressive mankind who wish Israelis to be thrown to the sea, would you mind telling me:
.


This question is not clearly addressed to me and you must be mistaking me for some other people.


A word of advice to the Israeli apologists here the following dont work to in free democratic societies

1) labelling people to silence them.

2) making blanket statements such as 'thats a lie!' and waving your hands in the air hoping people have cottoned on to the fact you have no arguement.

3) admiying you are suffering from verbal diarrhoea and then expect a rational discussion to ensue.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 05:11 pm
stevewonder wrote:
oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy further wrote:
However, Iran has a history of terrorism against Americans (bombings in Lebanon, kidnapping in Lebanon, Khobar Towers bombing -- and there was the whole issue of them seizing our embassy). If they continue to make terrorist attacks on us, I expect there will be broad public support for doing something much more substantial to them.


Iran's history of anti-American sentiment began in the early fifties with America's direct intervention and usurpation of Iranian sovereignty with America's overthrow of it's constitutionally elected government, and its replacement with the dictatorial American puppet, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran.


True, but I'm not sure how that justifies their attacks on us after they overthrew the Shah.

If they try terrorism on us post-9/11, they'll find themselves in a bad spot.



some Europeans are nazis........lOOOl

i suppose they are the ones that disagree with your fascism??

your are and oddity my fellow peep!!
:wink:


I have no Fascism for the Nazis to disagree with.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 05:17 pm
stevewonder wrote:
Galilite wrote:


Dear representatives of progressive mankind who wish Israelis to be thrown to the sea, would you mind telling me:
.


This question is not clearly addressed to me and you must be mistaking me for some other people.


A word of advice to the Israeli apologists here the following dont work to in free democratic societies

1) labelling people to silence them.

2) making blanket statements such as 'thats a lie!' and waving your hands in the air hoping people have cottoned on to the fact you have no arguement.

3) admiying you are suffering from verbal diarrhoea and then expect a rational discussion to ensue.



1. Speaking only for myself, I don't think labeling an anti-Semite will silence them. I merely think that such a label is an adequate response to their anti-Semitic comments.

2. Pointing out that anti-Semitic ravings are complete lies, is also an adequate response to an anti-Semite.

3. No comment.
0 Replies
 
stevewonder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 05:18 pm
Louise_R_Heller wrote:
I question these statements by Oralloy:
_______________________________________________________

1) "Only Nazi analysts regard Israel as a threat to world peace. "

2) "As for moral rights, Iran and North Korea violated treaties where they agreed not to have nuclear programs."
=============================================

(1) is false, everytime there's a poll taken in Europe about 70% agree with the statement "Israel is the greatest threat to world peace" That's a lot of people and they can't all be Nazi analysts!!

(2) False also, neither Iran nor North Korea have signed any treaties agreeing to discontinue nuclear programs.

North Korea has entered into agreements to discontinue some stages of nuclear weapons development -- not at all the same thing.....



Thanks Louise for an intelligent post, please await the well thought out rebuttals that will range from accusing you of being

a) nazi
b) member of an Islamist Miltant group
c) self hating jew
d) Liar (because Israel says so)

because apparently we should shut our damn mouths if we know whats good for us!! Laughing

Nobody but nobody questions the democratic free secular state of Israel.




:wink:
0 Replies
 
stevewonder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 05:20 pm
oralloy wrote:
stevewonder wrote:
Galilite wrote:


Dear representatives of progressive mankind who wish Israelis to be thrown to the sea, would you mind telling me:
.


This question is not clearly addressed to me and you must be mistaking me for some other people.


A word of advice to the Israeli apologists here the following dont work to in free democratic societies

1) labelling people to silence them.

2) making blanket statements such as 'thats a lie!' and waving your hands in the air hoping people have cottoned on to the fact you have no arguement.

3) admiying you are suffering from verbal diarrhoea and then expect a rational discussion to ensue.



1. Speaking only for myself, I don't think labeling an anti-Semite will silence them. I merely think that such a label is an adequate response to their anti-Semitic comments.

2. Pointing out that anti-Semitic ravings are complete lies, is also an adequate response to an anti-Semite.

3. No comment.


Please! Please! please!! Stop! you are boring me to death!!!Crying or Very sad

Laughing

no seriously dude you are!!!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:02 pm
stevewonder wrote:
Please! Please! please!! Stop! you are boring me to death!!!Crying or Very sad

Laughing

no seriously dude you are!!!


Better a bored anti-Semite than one who is out harming innocent Jews.
0 Replies
 
stevewonder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:06 pm
Published on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 by

the International Herald Tribune


Israel's Nukes Serve to Justify Iran's

by Jonathan Power


The more nuclear arms are lying around, the more the chances of them being used. So to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons is a laudable objective. But for the United States, Britain and France to insist on it is hypocritical.

These Western powers have argued convincingly for decades that nuclear deterrence keeps the peace - and themselves maintain nuclear armories long after the cold war has ended. So why shouldn't Iran, which is in one of the world's most dangerous neighborhoods, have a deterrent too?

And where is the source of the threat that makes Iran, a country that has never started a war in 200 years, feel so nervous that it must now take the nuclear road? If Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its nuclear ambitions, used to be one reason, the other is certainly Israel, the country that hard-liners in the United States are encouraging to mount a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear industry before it produces bombs.

The United States refuses to acknowledge formally that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though top officials will tell you privately that it has 200 of them. Until this issue is openly acknowledged, America, Britain and France are probably wasting their time trying to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons.

The supposition is that Israel lives in an even more dangerous neighborhood than Iran. It is said to be a beleaguered nation under constant threat of being eliminated by the combined muscle of its Arab opponents.

There is no evidence, however, that Arab states have invested the financial and human resources necessary to fight the kind of war that would be catastrophic for Israel. And there is no evidence that Israel's nuclear weapons have deterred the Arabs from more limited wars or prevented Palestinian intifadas and suicide bombers.

Nor have Israel's nuclear weapons influenced Arab attitudes toward making peace. In the 1973 Arab war against Israel and in the 1991 Gulf war, they clearly failed in their supposed deterrent effect. The Arabs knew, as the North Vietnamese knew during the Vietnam War, that their opponent would not dare to use its nuclear weapons.

Israelis say that they need nuclear weapons in case one day an opportunistic Egypt and Syria, sensing that Israel's guard is down, revert to their old stance of total hostility and attack Israel. But, as Zeev Maoz has argued in the journal International Security, these countries keep to their treaty obligations.

Egypt did not violate its peace treaty with Israel when Israel attacked Syria and Lebanon in 1982. Syria did not violate the May 1974 disengagement agreement with Israel even when its forces were under Israeli attack. Nor did Egypt, Jordan and Syria violate their treaty commitments when the second Palestinian intifada broke out in September 2000.

Since its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Egypt has reduced its defense spending from 22 percent of its gross national product in 1974 to a mere 2.75 percent in 2002. Syria's has fallen from 26 percent to 6.7 percent. The combined defense expenditures of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon amount to only 58 percent of Israel's. It is the Arabs who should be worried by Israel's might, rather than the other way round.

Israel's nuclear weapons are politically unusable and militarily irrelevant, given the real threats it faces. But they have been very effective in allowing India, Pakistan, Libya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, North Korea and now Iran to think that they, too, had good reason to build a nuclear deterrent.

Four of these nations have dismantled their nuclear arms factories, which shows that nuclear policies are not cast in stone. The way to deal with Iran is to prove to its leadership that nuclear weapons will add nothing to its security, just as they add nothing to Israel's.

This may require a grand bargain, which would mean the United States offering a mutual nonaggression pact, ending its embargo over access to the International Monetary Fund and allowing American investment in Iran. It would also mean America coming clean about Israel's nuclear armory and pressuring Israel to forgo its nuclear deterrent.

If Western powers want to grasp the nettle of nuclear proliferation, they need to take hold of the whole plant, not just one leaf.

Copyright © 2004 the International Herald Tribune
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:33 pm
oralloy wrote:
True, but I'm not sure how that justifies their attacks on us after they overthrew the Shah.


Apparently, any country, or group or peoples justifies its actions by any number of rationalizations, like America's rationalizations for overthrowing Iran's democratic government.

Specifically, Hezbollah attacked America in Lebanon to force America to leave that country. They bombed the Khobar Towers to force America to leave Saudi Arabia. The students who overran the American embassy in Iran wanted America to return the Shah to Iran so that he could face justice.

oralloy further wrote:
If they try terrorism on us post-9/11, they'll find themselves in a bad spot.

I agree.
0 Replies
 
Galilite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2005 03:59 am
stevewonder wrote:
Galilite wrote:
Dear representatives of progressive mankind who wish Israelis to be thrown to the sea, would you mind telling me:
.
This question is not clearly addressed to me and you must be mistaking me for some other people.
Very good! We're making progress here.

The second part, which starts with the word "Steve", was addressed to you.

Other part was addressed to the non-drooling participants who voted that Israel should give up the nukes and then Iran will not want to make up theirs. I believe this was the idea?

Note that, in general, questions suggest a possibility of response. That is, opposite of silence.
stevewonder wrote:
A word of advice to the Israeli apologists here the following dont work to in free democratic societies
Could you elaborate more about free democratic societies. Following the line of your postings - is it Cuba?
stevewonder wrote:
1) labelling people to silence them.

Such as:
An Israeli apologist wrote:
dude so when did you land........from Mars??
...
You are unable to construct an arguement to defend your position so you come here trying to troll the thread by whinging about grammar, when clearly you need lessons in that yourself.
...
Both of you combined dont have the strength of argument to defend your positions so you either

a) troll or
b) lash out with false accusations..........
...
Do you even go through your day with your eyes open??
...



stevewonder wrote:
2) making blanket statements such as 'thats a lie!' and waving your hands in the air hoping people have cottoned on to the fact you have no arguement.
Such as:
An Israeli apologist wrote:
Yes it is a given that Israel is a fascist state
...
Israelis are good at killing people
...
israel does promote racial superiority doctrines and can give you proofs longer than your arm [no proof given]
...
Theres no ethinc persecution in Israel im just stop this nonsense [again, what about me?]
...



stevewonder wrote:
3) admiying you are suffering from verbal diarrhoea and then expect a rational discussion to ensue.
I'll just quote one sentence:
An Israeli apologist wrote:
We are told by the right wing psycho pro Israeli media that we must not question the actions of the Israeli state yet ironically this fascist hang out is more insane than the Iranian president who may verbally tal about wiping out a state but the israelis have already done so, the modern state of Israel is built upon the corpse of the ethnically cleansed land of Palestine


Talking to yourself, Stevie?

stevewonder wrote:
Thanks Louise for an intelligent post, please await the well thought out rebuttals that will range from accusing you of being

a) nazi
b) member of an Islamist Miltant group
c) self hating jew
d) Liar (because Israel says so)

because apparently we should shut our damn mouths if we know whats good for us!! Laughing
No, just you (or is it "royal we" again? Ever tried to use "I" instead of "we"?). This would be your very significant contribution to making the world a better place.

Are you (only you, Stevie) going to deny you are a self-hating Jew? My own impression though is that you don't really give a rat's ass about the stuff you're yelling about - you're here just to piss everybody off.

Basically, I don't mind discussing any matters with opponents having any point of view. I think I talked to InfraBlue before and nobody got hurt, why is that? But when it starts with hysteria and
stevewonder wrote:
labelling people to silence them
...
verbal diarrhoea

my only desire is to put end to this so-called discussion. I searched a bit and saw that even people who agree with you try to avoid doing this in public - that's because you puke rather than talk.

I think you should give a lot of credit to Oralloy because he is polite enough to take you seriously and actually attempt to conduct an intelligent conversation. I am a simple guy and I admit, I entered this discussion with a sole intention to piss you off - not because of your opinions, but because of the way you express them.
0 Replies
 
stevewonder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2005 09:10 am
So you came here to 'take the piss' thanks for your honesty.

The honesty of you apologists is overwhelming me first M3 admits the nature of his contribution and now you ...maybe because its Christmas!!

There have been at least three people in this thread whom I have thanked for their intelligent contribution.........do you consider that puking??

You apologists are very upset that anyone has the gaul to come here and present a view contrary to what you expect us all to have.

Thatsthe real reason why you are upset. Understandable really given the absence of an arguement on your part.

I noticed how 'tolerant' you are when you describe those people who express their opinion on the poll that Israel Should give up its Nukes as wishng to throw Israel into the sea?? Another bullying tactic no doubt on your part to coherce people into agreeing with you and yet again showing your deep paranoia.


You have asked me some 'questions' in your post I would have replied to them but given your admission (and subsequent failure) to' piss me off' I shall not waste any more time with you.

Have nice day!! :wink:

Happy Christmas to ya!!
0 Replies
 
Galilite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 03:57 am
stevewonder wrote:
So you came here to 'take the piss' thanks for your honesty.
Don't know what this means, but - no.
stevewonder wrote:
The honesty of you apologists is overwhelming me first M3 admits the nature of his contribution and now you ...maybe because its Christmas!!
It must be some kind of primitive stupid cunning Nazi right wing Zionist oppressor dirty trick. Israeli apologists can't be honest.

Apologists. Funny, I didn't know I apologise for something. How 'bout some credit. I am an Israeli, after all. Am I not supposed to be a psycho Nazi right wing Zionist oppressor or equivalent?
stevewonder wrote:
There have been at least three people in this thread whom I have thanked for their intelligent contribution.........do you consider that puking??
No. The rest - yes.
stevewonder wrote:
You apologists are very upset that anyone has the gaul to come here and present a view contrary to what you expect us all to have.
Gaul? As "Frenchman" Laughing ?

What makes you think anybody cares about what you say? Do you think you are an authority just because you refer to yourself in plural? Did you look at the ratio of the replies to your threads? Did you notice how even people that agree with you generally avoid you when you start talking to them?

Are you going to submit the results of your numerous polls to UN or something?
stevewonder wrote:
I noticed how 'tolerant' you are when you describe those people who express their opinion on the poll that Israel Should give up its Nukes as wishng to throw Israel into the sea?? Another bullying tactic no doubt on your part to coherce people into agreeing with you and yet again showing your deep paranoia.
Ah, that's Stevie "we" like. This pearl should be stored somewhere between "I just called to say I love you" and "Superstition".
stevewonder wrote:
You have asked me some 'questions' in your post I would have replied to them
I only care about one 'question' which 'I' 'asked' (want more quotes?) at least twice, but I don't think you'ld reply - it requires some guts, which you are unlikely to have. It is not like quoting WorldNetDaily.
stevewonder wrote:
but given your admission (and subsequent failure) to' piss me off' I shall not waste any more time with you.
I urge you to try your best, but I find it rather difficult to believe that you are able to control your mouth. You'll have to do this in more than one thread though.
stevewonder wrote:
Have nice day!! :wink:

Happy Christmas to ya!!
Merry Christmas, happy Chanukah and whatever you are celebrating...
0 Replies
 
stevewonder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 07:42 pm
When you apologists try to make us believe that the Israeli administration functions on a moral platform you remove all strands of reason from intelligent discourse.

Which is perhaps what makes me so flipant.

I would like to apologise for making or appearing to make sweeping generalizations about ALL Israelis. There are many brave, morally upright intelligent Israeli citizens who are tryng to stand up for what is morally right and just, only to be bullied and silenced by labels and threats. The like of which can be even seen on this thread. So to those kind souls who fall into that category I apologize to you and stand with you in our endeavour to take the reins away from those who would lead humanity to further war and bloodshed.

As for those right wing fruit cakes who advocate war, torture, racism, terrorism and imperialism you can stick it in you pipe and smoke!!!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 07:57 pm
stevewonder wrote:
When you apologists try to make us believe that the Israeli administration functions on a moral platform you remove all strands of reason from intelligent discourse.


Israel made a good faith effort to make peace with the Palestinians. The result was the Intifada.

Why should we criticize Israel for defending themselves?


And even Sharon is going to let the Palestinians have their state. Just don't expect it to be anywhere near Jerusalem.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 03:21 am
oralloy wrote:
Israel made a good faith effort to make peace with the Palestinians. The result was the Intifada.


Barak's offer:

http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/final_status_map_taba.gif

High resolution: http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/final_status_map_taba.pdf



oralloy wrote:
And even Sharon is going to let the Palestinians have their state. Just don't expect it to be anywhere near Jerusalem.


Wow! Sharon is keeping the Jordan River Valley. I didn't realize that.

http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/disengagement_options_feb2005.gif

High resolution: http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/disengagement_options_feb2005.pdf

Bet the Palestinians wish they'd accepted Barak's offer.
0 Replies
 
Galilite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 05:20 am
stevewonder - attempt to return to sanity appreciated.

While I am not certain whether it is for real or a trick, I guess it does require significant effort on your part and deserves some credit.

No, in my opinion, Israeli administration does not function on a moral platform. Actually, I am not sure whether an average politician in the world functions on a moral platform. The way it is all happening, it is a lose-lose situation, a bad choice and a worse choice. So staying alive (in case of Israel) is the main focus.

In Saint-Exupery's Little Prince there is a curious character, a king (or a politician?) occupying an empty planet. He issues "commands" - simply following the course of reality:
Antoine de Saint-Exupery wrote:
"I'd like to see a sunset... Do me a favor your majesty... Command the sun to set."

"If I commanded a general to fly from one flower to the next like a butterfly, or to write a tragedy, or to turn into a seagull, and if the general did not carry out my command, which of us would be in the wrong, the general or me?"

"You would be," said the little prince quite firmly.

"Exactly. One must command from each what each can perform," the king went on. "Authority is based first of all upon reason. If you command your subjects to jump in the ocean, there will be a revolution. I am entitled to command obedience because my orders are reasonable."

"Then my sunset?" insisted the little prince, who never let go of a question once he had asked it.

"You shall have your sunset. I shall command it. But I shall wait, according to my science of government, until conditions are favorable."

"And when will that be?" inquired the little prince.

"Well, well!" replied the king, first consulting a large calender. "Well, well! That would be around... around... that would be tonight around seven-forty! And you'll see how well I'm obeyed."


If you look back at last 15 years, you'll see that except Oslo Agreement, no matter what political party Israeli prime ministers belonged to, they invariably followed more or less the same course (sometimes promising before a next agreement that they will never ever sign it).
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 08:20 am
Galilite wrote:


If you look back at last 15 years, you'll see that except Oslo Agreement, no matter what political party Israeli prime ministers belonged to, they invariably followed more or less the same course (sometimes promising before a next agreement that they will never ever sign it).

If you look back at the last 75 years, you'll see that with no exceptions, Israel has been under constant attack.
Your "except Oslo Agreement" indicates that in spite of this, Israel was willing to deal, and arm, and finance those who wished to destroy Israel.
Under Oslo, the PA came into existence; Israel and the world financed the PA; Israel armed and trained the PA; and Israel committed itself and indeed did, negotiate with the moral and actual equivalent of Osama bin Laden, Arafat the Rotting (y'mach shmo).
Arafat stole the money; the security forces armed and trained by Israel turned into armed factions that murdered each other and Israelis; and the PA is simply another one of the many gangs and warlords that spend most of their time murdering Palestinians...

The Israeli government is indeed like all other governments. So?
There is no government; no ruling faction or clan; no law; no order, at all in Gaza or the West Bank. It is chaos and anarchy and death created, not by Israel, but by those that live there.
And the suggestions are that Israel simply give up?
Tear down the fence?
Give the savage tribes more money?
Why?
My suggestion is that you all go over and help your helpless friends. Maybe your money and lives will feed the poor Arabs known as Palestinians. Try it!
0 Replies
 
Louise R Heller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 08:26 am
Quote:
If you look back at the last 75 years, you'll see that with no exceptions, Israel has been under constant attack.


Moishe

Are you saying Israel was established in 1930? That doesn't sound right!
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:23 pm
Louise_R_Heller wrote:
Quote:
If you look back at the last 75 years, you'll see that with no exceptions, Israel has been under constant attack.


Moishe

Are you saying Israel was established in 1930? That doesn't sound right!

Rolling Eyes
Okay.
For the last 57 years, Israel has been attacked.
For approximately the last 100 years the Palestinians, which is what the Jews were called before they became citizens of the State of Israel, living in what is today called the State of Israel, have been attacked.
0 Replies
 
Louise R Heller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 06:11 pm
Sorry Moishe, I'm not really picky, I'm just struggling to follow the arguments here.

I appreciate your and everybody else's restatements, clarifications and corrections......
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:39:23