Arcesious Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 My parents seem to be enjoying entertaining the thought of thinking that this is a sign of the end times, or 'Great Tribulation' about to happen any time... But, when you look at it differently, all it's ever been is a war over religion and belief, territory, the unfairness towards palestinians several decades ago, and the arrogance, greed, and sufferage of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Arc: Several decades ago? Have you ever seen their boulevards of broken glass, urine and crap? The houses being demolished because palestinians can't get building permits? The dozends of people going through the sewage system to awoid standing for hours at checkpoints? The walls ripping their land to pieces? I could go on and on, point being it is still happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Edit: Oh, wait... Sorry. I misinterpretted your post. At the time I made the post your replied to, I had momentarly forgotten about how long this has been going on... Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Edit: Oh, wait... Sorry. I misinterpretted your post. At the time I made the post your replied to, I had momentarly forgotten about how long this has been going on... Carry on. The above Palestinian/Israel one has been going on since 1948 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Point Man Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 What's the big deal? Just because Israel trains for contingencies does not mean they will actually bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. The US trained on how to attack the Soviet Union, but we never did. We train on various scenarios, with the hope that we will never have to carry them out. You cannot get a bully to stop without a credible threat of force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 You cannot get a bully to stop without a credible threat of force. Israel are a bully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverNight Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 I am curious how that idea was started, since, from all the reading I've done -admittedly not as much as I would like in this area- I've come to the conclusion that Israel has mainly been getting attacked ever since they were able to set up shop where they are. Granted there was Lebanon, but I'm generalizing here. So, I would appreciate it if you could clarify how Israel is a bully. Please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 First, look at the history of the land mass of Palestine. Then look at a recent map of a palestinian city, try to trace a way from a residental area to a typical workplace, add 5 hours for every checkpoint you need to pass to see how long it would take to get there. Read up on the palestinian pain, notice town butcherings, refugee camp destruction, etc. Should start you off quite nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 I was talking to my Dad about this the other day, and he said that they (Israel) does this all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 You mean reharsing attack plans? Sure, however this time it might not be just a bluff. A lot of Israels regional power comes from being the sole nuclear power in the region, with Iran armed, Israel can no longer strike wherever and whenever it wants. It also makes it possible for opponents in a war to take and hold territory. Besides, most analysts expect that if Israel intend to attack Iran, it'll be just after the U.S election. Late enough that they won't be acused of trying to influence the election, early enough so that they can "force" the U.S to support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 ^^^ So let me get this straight: You're in favor of a terrorist nation having access to nukes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da_Man_2423 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 I was talking to my Dad about this the other day, and he said that they (Israel) does this all the time. You mean reharsing attack plans? Sure' date=' however this time it might not be just a bluff. [/quote'] I don't think anyone had mentioned this...sorry if someone had, didn't read the whole thread. This sure as hell wasn't a bluff, and it sure as hell wasn't rehearsing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 ^^^ So let me get this straight: You're in favor of a terrorist nation having access to nukes? I'll hazard a guess here. He probably would say he's not, but that Israel has them anyway. I'd also have to say that if he thinks that Iran having nukes would be a regional equivalent of the MAD doctrine is shortsighted. If the Iranians could be trusted to only use nukes in the event that they themselves were attacked first, it might be arguable that standing by while they develop nuclear weapons and doing nothing might be justifiable. Given the apocalyptic mentality of the radical muslim, it's the eqivalent of cutting your nose off to spite your face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 ^^^ So let me get this straight: You're in favor of a terrorist nation having access to nukes? Are you saying the Israel is a terrorist nation? Or Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Are you saying the Israel is a terrorist nation? Or Iran? I don't think Q is... I think however the Israeli government is a bunch of terrorists, guess I can kiss good bye to visiting the blood... sorry Holy Land if their security services review my posts here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Okay then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 I don't think anyone had mentioned this...sorry if someone had, didn't read the whole thread. This sure as hell wasn't a bluff, and it sure as hell wasn't rehearsing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera Since that time, especially after the first Gulf War, several prominent US politicians have "retroactively supported" the operation.[9] Those who believe that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons in the 1980s view Operation Opera as necessary action, even if it were considered a clear violation of international law by the U.N. Security Council. Some legal scholars believe that the action did not violate international law since it followed the rule of anticipatory self-defense.[10] Professor Louis Rene Beres wrote that, "Israel’s citizens, together with Jews and Arabs, American, and other coalition soldiers who fought in the Gulf War may owe their lives to Israel’s courage, skill, and foresight in June 1981." Are you saying the Israel is a terrorist nation? Or Iran?Well, uh, since Israel already has nukes, and has had them for decades without using them I might add, I guess that would probably mean that I'm referring to Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Tot: Your mind reading skills are fairly good, I do however disagree with your assesment of Irans "sanity". While Amadhinejad preaches death and destruction, the real leader is far more modest, though what he says would have been cause for concern, if what he said was directed at other nations instead of at his own citizens. Look at Irans foreign policy, they might be a unpleasant country, but they are at least rational. Besides, Iran dosen't really want Israel wiped out, it actually benefits quite a lot from its existence. Shi'ite and Sunnis are quite happy to fight each other, and being one of few Shi'ite countries, it is quite happy to have a lightning rod called Israel close by. Q: There are allready quite a few of those, has worked out reasonable enough so far, though in my perfect world neither Israel, or Iran would have nukes. Da Man: Just because they have done it in the past dosen't neccesarly mean they'll do it again, though I guess it's to much to ask to have them learn from that failed attack. R7: Both J7: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Well, I think that Jonathan makes a good point in a round about fashion, by which I mean that we really aren't talking about Iranians, Israelis, Americans, etc.. BUT their governments. As for Osirak, Mur'phon, is that the "failed attack" to which you refer? If so, could you explain your reasoning there? I think that the Iranians may have learned from that incident, as their nuke facilities aren't all sitting in one spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Failed attack if the goal was to prevent it's neighbours from getting the bomb, if the goal was just to prevent one of them, it was a sucsess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Q: There are allready quite a few of those' date=' has worked out reasonable enough so far, though in my perfect world neither Israel, or Iran would have nukes.[/quote']You'll have to forgive me when I say that I believe that your attitude towards a subject as grave as nuclear proliferation is more than a tad bit flippant. Da Man: Just because they have done it in the past dosen't neccesarly mean they'll do it again' date=' though I guess it's to much to ask to have them learn from that failed attack.[/quote']Did we read the same article? That strike couldn't have been more successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Well, I think that Jonathan makes a good point in a round about fashion, by which I mean that we really aren't talking about Iranians, Israelis, Americans, etc.. BUT their governments. I think it is a key detail people often forget; there is a big difference between the people and governments. All to quickly other nations individuals are dehumanised and turned into a stereotype who all think and believe the same thing. e.g. People talk about Iran as if everyone in Iran want's Nukes and hates the west, which isn't true; Iran has a very large middle class, who are very westernised and bare not hatred at all of the West. Also the impression I get from my Iranian friends here, is that the government isn't much popular at all... You'll have to forgive me when I say that I believe that your attitude towards a subject as grave as nuclear proliferation is more than a tad bit flippant. You may as well face it Q; in reality all the worlds Nuclear weapons should just be in mine and mur'p's possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da_Man_2423 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Did we read the same article? That strike couldn't have been more successful. No kidding . "Outcome: Success". Can't get much more successful than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html i always thought of outkast's "bombs over baghdad" as the iraq war's theme song, who has a suggestion for the iran war's theme song? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Well, uh, since Israel already has nukes, and has had them for decades without using them I might add, I guess that would probably mean that I'm referring to Iran. Just makin' sure. R7: Both Hmmm :| http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html Good ol' American media. I wonder if the Iranians could read this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.