Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'

Gobán Saor

wes wrote: »

I will point to Iran's actions, they have not engaged in a war of aggression for something like a 100 years.

Ha ha!:D Technically correct, perhaps. But they do fight by proxy. Hizbollah, for instance, is armed and financed by Iran. Its self-admitted policy is to establish Islamic rule in the entire territory of Israel/Palestine, "eliminating" anyone who might resist. Sounds pretty aggressive to me:rolleyes:.

wes wrote: »

Israel has engaged in such wars, numerous times.

That's a matter of opinion, not of fact. It could be argued that most if not all of Israel's wars were defensive. Pre-emptive strikes, at worst. Israel has never gone to war against any country that acknowledged its right to exist. (Unless, of course, that country allowed armed forces that don't acknowledge its right to exist to operate from its territory.)

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not the best analogy for the argument, I don't think. Federal law has prohibited the transfer of firearms to mentally ailed persons since 1968. The problem is that sometimes some sneak through the cracks, much as some countries have snuck through the nuclear weapons cracks such as Israel or Pakistan. This does not mean that efforts should not be made to restrict the acquisitions by others or that those knowingly attempting to circumvent the limitation should not suffer reprecussions if found out.

NTM

Well, thats my point, they can slip through the cracks.

Still the more countries that have them and the more that will want them. Eventually more and more people will get them.

wes

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Ha ha!:D Technically correct, perhaps. But they do fight by proxy. Hizbollah, for instance, is armed and financed by Iran. Its self-admitted policy is to establish Islamic rule in the entire territory of Israel/Palestine, "eliminating" anyone who might resist. Sounds pretty aggressive to me:rolleyes:.

Hizbollah, were created in response to Israel invasion of Lebanon. Israel is currently occupying part of Lebanon. Iran may be backing them, but they consider it a defensive action since Israel is still occupying parts of Lebanon as well as Palestine. So what I am saying is not technically correct. It is correct.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion, not of fact. It could be argued that most if not all of Israel's wars were defensive. Pre-emptive strikes, at worst. Israel has never gone to war against any country that acknowledged its right to exist. (Unless, of course, that country allowed armed forces that don't acknowledge its right to exist to operate from its territory.)

The 1956 war, was a war of aggression. That is a statement of fact. The French, British and Israel, wanted control of the Suez. The entire plot has been laid bare at this point. To call what those countries as anything other than a war of aggression is ridiculous.

Then there is the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which kicked off the 1948 war (Deir Yassin taking place before it started).

Those are 2 examples. Hardly opinion, as Israel intentions have always been very clear. We need look no further than the colonies being built in the West Bank as I type.

Sesshoumaru

Only 150? Well I suppose its enough to lay waste to all of the middle east. Not sure why any Irish person should care? Its not like Israel is a threat to our survival.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Well, thats my point, they can slip through the cracks.

Still the more countries that have them and the more that will want them. Eventually more and more people will get them.

Are you suggesting that there should not still be attempts to limit their prolification?

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there should not still be attempts to limit their prolification?

NTM

Nope, just that they will fail as long as other people have nuclear weapons.

Look at it this way, India started a nuclear program, then Pakistan had to have one. They both eventually got them.

Now we have Israel with weapons, its only a matter of time until someone else in the region gets them. Sure non proliferation will work for a while, but will eventually fail.

I don't want anyone to have them, but its inevitable that the best efforts will fail. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but I am being realistic, it will fail eventually.

Basically, if we want non-proliferation to work, everyone would have to give them up. I don't see even India or Pakistan giving up there weapons let alone the US, China etc.

Kev_ps3

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Only 150? Well I suppose its enough to lay waste to all of the middle east. Not sure why any Irish person should care? Its not like Israel is a threat to our survival.

Either are Iran or North Korea btw

marcsignal

humberklog wrote: »

I like the naivety of the OP. It's almost cute..

charming.......would you be more comfortable, if the peasants remain fickle ??

humberklog wrote: »

I don't believe in pasting a load of notes from wiki or where-ever but go have a look at that dude.
.

'Hitler's Scientists' John Cornwell, Viking 2003, p 430

interesting read

djpbarry

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Only 150? Well I suppose its enough to lay waste to all of the middle east. Not sure why any Irish person should care?

:rolleyes: Right...

Why should we care about anything, eh? People die all the time, but "I don't know them so I don't care", right?

Sesshoumaru

djpbarry wrote: »

:rolleyes: Right...

Why should we care about anything, eh? People die all the time, but "I don't know them so I don't care", right?

I'm not a man with a mission. I'm just being realistic, I have day to day stuff like looking after my family that consume a lot of my energy. I can't go on a crusade for every international issue. It would be nice if the middle east was a nuclear free zone. But if I had to reluctantly pick a country that should have them, then Israel would be my top choice. I'll sleep ok at night unless the Arab regimes decide to attack Israel again.

humberklog

marcsignal wrote: »

1.(a) charming.......1.(b) would you be more comfortable, if the peasants remain fickle ??



2.'Hitler's Scientists' John Cornwell, Viking 2003, p 430

interesting read

1.(a) Sorry if that read as a snooty statement marcsignal. It wasn't intended. I was genuinely surprised that the core of this news item would appear surprising though.
1.(b) No.
2. Never heard of it and probably wouldn't go outta my way to look it up as there's more reading material bandied about here than at a Scientologist convention. But am curious to the jist if you could be of any help. I'll have to refer you to part 1.B of your post.

djpbarry

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I'm not a man with a mission. I'm just being realistic, I have day to day stuff like looking after my family that consume a lot of my energy. I can't go on a crusade for every international issue.

Who said you should? You asked why anyone in Ireland should care about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East; well, given the obvious destructive power of said weapons, along with the unstable nature of certain Middle Eastern countries, I would have thought the situation would be of concern to everyone in the world, not just the residents of Ireland.

Liam Byrne

Poblachtach wrote: »

As far as I am concerned the US falls into the latter category.
Someone above made a great point that ''Israel hasn't actually lost a war.'' And till it is losing a war, then we would see the weapons being used I believe.

Hence my quotes around "those nasty other people in other countries"....most people, for some reason, don't seem to realise that the U.S. falls into that category (or at least didn't realise it until they were caught lying through their teeth about the reasons for invading Iraq).

Lemming

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

It would be nice if the middle east was a nuclear free zone. But if I had to reluctantly pick a country that should have them, then Israel would be my top choice. I'll sleep ok at night unless the Arab regimes decide to attack Israel again.

To be perfectly honest, I don't trust a single country in the ME - Israel included - with nukes. Israel has demonstrated time and again that it is perfectly willing (and active) in carrying out murders, kidnappings, espionage etc. in other countries including Ireland (like the two Mossad agents that were found out but managed to skip the country a few years ago).

WooPeeA

marcsignal wrote: »

According to "Jimmy Carter" (The Big Anti-Semite) Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7420573.stm

So why is everyone so worried about Iran and North Korea ??

Because Israel is a friend of most of the countries. Iran wants to destroy Israel, and it's the official president's option. North Korea is the most brutal and worst regime in today's world.. That's why.

speedboatchase

Good for Israel

wes

WooPeeA wrote: »

Because Israel is a friend of most of the countries. Iran wants to destroy Israel, and it's the official president's option.

There President is a figure head. The Supreme Leader is the guy who calls the shots.

I will also remind you that Israel has also had political figures threaten people in the region, most recently the deputy defense minister threaten Palestinians in a similar manner.

Then there are any number of politicians in Israel who refer the Palestinians as a demographic threat for merely existing. Israel is hardly a country that the West should be friend with, its is a apartheid state and should be treated the same as apartheid South Africa was.

I personally see a lot to be worried about with Israel having WMD's.

As for Iran there is no evidence that they even have WMD's, where as Israel actually does have them. There is a world of difference between worrying about a nation that has no WMD's and one that does.

WooPeeA wrote: »

North Korea is the most brutal and worst regime in today's world.. That's why.

That is certainly true, and while Israel is no where near as bad as that. There still pretty brutal in there own right towards the Palestinians.

So why not worry about both?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

wes wrote: »

Then there are any number of politicians in Israel who refer the Palestinians as a demographic threat for merely existing. Israel is hardly a country that the West should be friend with, its is a apartheid state and should be treated the same as apartheid South Africa was.

well they are.. the united states was great friends with apartheid south africa weren't they?

wes

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

well they are..

Whether the Palestinian are one or aren't doesn't really matter. My point was that Israel referring to them in that way, shows there hardly in a position to complain about Iran, when there politicians engage in such rhetoric.

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

the united states was great friends with apartheid south africa weren't they?

They were, but they eventually wised up. I think the same needs to happen again.

humberklog

[quote=wes;



I think the same needs to happen again.[/quote]



Not gonna for a while! (and rightly too imo) What with Obama pinning his colours to the flag.

I am confused with your previous posts Wes. What connection are you making regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians and your perceived threat that Israelis nuclear arsenal pose?

wes

humberklog wrote: »

Not gonna for a while! (and rightly too imo) What with Obama pinning his colours to the flag.

Well, the US has shown itself completely morally bankrupt (and there total hypocrisy) time and time again, so you arecorrect, I doubt they will change anytime soon.

humberklog wrote: »

I am confused with your previous posts Wes. What connection are you making regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians and your perceived threat that Israelis nuclear arsenal pose?

I was making the point that if we are to judge Iran and North Korea due to there oppressive regimes, then Israel should be held to the same standard. I was just contrasting them with Israel, whom are oppressive to the Palestinians.

I was also, pointing out that Israeli politicians engage in rhetoric similar to the Iranians. If we are to judge Iran in such a fashion based on rhetoric, then why not Israel? Whom actually have WMD's, whereas the Iranian WMD's are in the same place as Iraqs WMD's, in the minds of mad men who run the US and the UK.

humberklog

wes wrote: »

1. I was making the point that if we are to judge Iran and North Korea due to there oppressive regimes, then Israel should be held to the same standard. I was just contrasting them with Israel, whom are oppressive to the Palestinians.

2. I was also, pointing out that Israeli politicians engage in rhetoric similar to the Iranians. (A) If we are to judge Iran in such a fashion based on rhetoric, then why not Israel? (B) Whom actually have WMD's, whereas the Iranian WMD's are in the same place as Iraqs WMD's, in the minds of mad men who run the US and the UK.

1. I'm still not making the connection with the OP.

2. (A) Israel share much the same social values as western democracies. (Palestinians aside) E.g Free open elections, equal education and job prospects among the sexes, freedom of sexual and artistic expression to name a few. Therefore making it easier for western societies to make cultural connections and comparisons which in a broader scope allows smoother diplomacy between states.

2. (B) As opposed to the minds of the mentally healthy men running (insert choice of country).

wes

humberklog wrote: »

1. I'm still not making the connection with the OP.

I was replying to another user post, not directly to the OP of the thread.

humberklog wrote: »

2. (A) Israel share much the same social values as western democracies. (Palestinians aside) E.g Free open elections, equal education and job prospects among the sexes, freedom of sexual and artistic expression to name a few. Therefore making it easier for western societies to make cultural connections and comparisons which in a broader scope allows smoother diplomacy between states.

Israel is an apartheid state, and therefore not a democracy. The treatment of the Palestinians can not be so easily brushed away. Most Western nations do not imprison entire populations due to there ethnicity. Nor do they pump **** onto minorities land, or build roads for the express use for one ethnic group, or have marriage laws that discriminate against one ethnic group, or claim that a state is for there for one ethnic group etc. The fact that Israel calls itself a Jewish state, means that it is not like a Western state. Western states are states for all there citizens, Israel is not. This is Israel own definition of itself btw and not mine.

Israel discrimination against Palestinians (both with and without Israeli citizenship), shows that it could not be more different than a Western nation.

It may share some surface similarities to Western nations, but a closer look shows that isn't the case.

humberklog wrote: »

2. (B) As opposed to the minds of the mentally healthy men running (insert choice of country).

The US/UK make claims to be about justice etc. A lot of those other countries have no issues saying what they are.

The US/UK claim to be acting on the betterment of everyone, perhaps they should take a walk through a city in Iraq and see how thats going.

humberklog

wes wrote: »

1. I was replying to another user post, not directly to the OP of the thread.



2. Israel is an apartheid state, and therefore not a democracy. 3. The fact that Israel calls itself a Jewish state, means that it is not like a Western state.



4.It may share some surface similarities to Western nations, but a closer look shows that isn't the case.

1. !st mention of palestinians was on post No.8. Your post. I still can't see connection to OP.

2. Why do you make that statement when quoting my post?

3. Why?

4. It is, you are wrong.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

awesome arguing.

GuanYin

Mordeth, contribute to the discussion or don't post.

Sand

Eh Wes, the reason why its concerning to have nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and less so to have them in the hands of Israel [ Or China, or whatever other less than anarcho-socialist utopia holds nukes] is because the Iranians are a ruled by a theocracy. Not in a "Oh a republic, where the President is a Christian believer", but an honest to god-full-blown theocracy.

Theocrats believe in magical sky gods and have designed whole crazy reams of fan-fiction and rules and punishments around this crazy belief. They believe in crazy, irrational things. And their system of government is based entirely on this - everything else is secondary.

Now If China has nukes, Im okay with that since they know that other powers have nukes too - and for all their other crimes they are aetheists and rational. MAD works here. Israel also is basically rational and defensive, they arent going to nuke anyone as their arsenal is there to secure their borders not for some religious duty to destory Mecca.

Now on the other hand, the Iranian leadership are clerics and basically, if they think their magical sky god is telling them to nuke Israel and clock out in a blaze of glory....well, I start to get worried.

Just because the police have guns, and are an imperfect human organisation that **** up and shoot the wrong people does not mean its perfectly all right to arm coke snorting, violent gangs of Chavs with the latest military hardware.

The US/UK make claims to be about justice etc. A lot of those other countries have no issues saying what they are.

The US/UK claim to be acting on the betterment of everyone, perhaps they should take a walk through a city in Iraq and see how thats going.

I love my quote from Orwell. "Just the same as ", "Just as bad as"....the naive style of argument he despised from lefties back in his day is still as popular as ever. Let me demonstrate....NGOs and aid organisations like to pretend they are holier than thou, out saving the world, the sick and starving. Only it turns out they are actually sexually abusing vulnerable kids who they should be saving. Id guess, to keep to your principles of "Not Perfect = Total Evil!!!" youd argue that NGOs and aid organisations are just as vile and sick as the SS?

Right?

Liam Byrne

Sand wrote: »

Theocrats believe in magical sky gods and have designed whole crazy reams of fan-fiction and rules and punishments around this crazy belief. They believe in crazy, irrational things. And their system of government is based entirely on this - everything else is secondary.

As distinct from Bush who believes in imaginary WMDs and thinks God talks to him directly ????

LMAO!!!!!

Sand

Hi Liam, I refer you to the post you didnt read before you replied to it...

the Iranians are a ruled by a theocracy. Not in a "Oh a republic, where the President is a Christian believer", but an honest to god-full-blown theocracy.

A republic does not stop being a republic because the elected head of state isnt an avowed atheist. Thank you, come again.

Bottle_of_Smoke

WooPeeA wrote: »

Because Israel is a friend of most of the countries. Iran wants to destroy Israel, and it's the official president's option. North Korea is the most brutal and worst regime in today's world.. That's why.

Ahmadinejed jsut said it should be wiped from the map. That doesn't mean destruction, it just means it shouldn't be a Jewish state. Where you stand on that is another matter.

Would be up to the Ayatollah anyway.