Do You Consider the Destruction of Israel a "Personal Tragedy?"

[toomuchtime_]

Toomuch, I still say that's a maybe, the Israelis could have been pretending to have nukes by "assembling" them in the open, that's the type of thing you do when you ain't got squat, lol.

The point is that by 1973 everyone, including the US, USSR and Egypt, believed Israel had nuclear weapons and it did not deter the Arabs from attacking, and just a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the North Koreans were not deterred from attacking US forces in the south and similarly the North Vietnamese were not deterred from attacking French or US forces. All of the evidence indicates that possessing even as awesome a nuclear arsenal as the US has provides no deterrence from attack by conventional forces.

Korea isn't a nuclear power, neither is Viet Nam. I said COUNTRIES with nukes don't get attacked, therefore it's wise for the Iranians to develop nukes.

You appear to be especially slow witted today. The US is a nuclear power but the North Koreans attacked US forces anyway, despite the fact the US had recently nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and similarly the North Vietnamese attacked US and French forces despite the fact that both the US and France were nuclear powers. I get it that you would like to see a nuclear armed Iran, but claiming nukes would protect Iran from attacks with conventional weapons is clearly nonsense. Of the world's nine nuclear powers, four, the US, France, Russia by Chechnya, and Israel, have been attacked.

 

[ima]

The point is that by 1973 everyone, including the US, USSR and Egypt, believed Israel had nuclear weapons and it did not deter the Arabs from attacking, and just a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the North Koreans were not deterred from attacking US forces in the south and similarly the North Vietnamese were not deterred from attacking French or US forces. All of the evidence indicates that possessing even as awesome a nuclear arsenal as the US has provides no deterrence from attack by conventional forces.

Korea isn't a nuclear power, neither is Viet Nam. I said COUNTRIES with nukes don't get attacked, therefore it's wise for the Iranians to develop nukes.

You appear to be especially slow witted today. The US is a nuclear power but the North Koreans attacked US forces anyway, despite the fact the US had recently nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and similarly the North Vietnamese attacked US and French forces despite the fact that both the US and France were nuclear powers. I get it that you would like to see a nuclear armed Iran, but claiming nukes would protect Iran from attacks with conventional weapons is clearly nonsense. Of the world's nine nuclear powers, four, the US, France, Russia by Chechnya, and Israel, have been attacked.

Only if you're counting 9/11 as an act of war. Like I said, attacking US troops in a foreign land doesn't qualify. Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, then eventually got nuked. That was the only time.

And France, who attacked them?

Chechnya isn't going to get nuked, that would be like the US nuking Texas because they want to separate.

And Israel MIGHT have had nukes back in 1967, we still don't know, they never set one off in a test, or did they?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Korea isn't a nuclear power, neither is Viet Nam. I said COUNTRIES with nukes don't get attacked, therefore it's wise for the Iranians to develop nukes.

You appear to be especially slow witted today. The US is a nuclear power but the North Koreans attacked US forces anyway, despite the fact the US had recently nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and similarly the North Vietnamese attacked US and French forces despite the fact that both the US and France were nuclear powers. I get it that you would like to see a nuclear armed Iran, but claiming nukes would protect Iran from attacks with conventional weapons is clearly nonsense. Of the world's nine nuclear powers, four, the US, France, Russia by Chechnya, and Israel, have been attacked.

Only if you're counting 9/11 as an act of war. Like I said, attacking US troops in a foreign land doesn't qualify. Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, then eventually got nuked. That was the only time.

And France, who attacked them?

Chechnya isn't going to get nuked, that would be like the US nuking Texas because they want to separate.

And Israel MIGHT have had nukes back in 1967, we still don't know, they never set one off in a test, or did they?

Despite your tit for tat musings about when nukes should be used, there is no evidence any country was ever deterred from attacking a nuclear power because of their nukes and all the evidence shows that several nuclear powers were attacked despite their possession of nukes. All of the evidence indicates that Iran will be no safer from conventional attack if it has nukes, and the pursuit of nuclear weapons has put it in imminent danger of attack.

 

[Wolverine1984]

Toomuch, I still say that's a maybe, the Israelis could have been pretending to have nukes by "assembling" them in the open, that's the type of thing you do when you ain't got squat, lol.

The point is that by 1973 everyone, including the US, USSR and Egypt, believed Israel had nuclear weapons and it did not deter the Arabs from attacking, and just a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the North Koreans were not deterred from attacking US forces in the south and similarly the North Vietnamese were not deterred from attacking French or US forces. All of the evidence indicates that possessing even as awesome a nuclear arsenal as the US has provides no deterrence from attack by conventional forces.

Korea isn't a nuclear power, neither is Viet Nam. I said COUNTRIES with nukes don't get attacked, therefore it's wise for the Iranians to develop nukes.

The irony in this is that no one wanted to attack Iran before they declared their nuclear program.

I for one totally agree with you , If a country has a nuclear weapon other countries would think twice before attacking them.

For example if Germany had a nuke during WWII it is most likely that the US and other countries would not have joined the Allies , and maybe it would have led to the victory of the Nazis.

That's precisely the reason why Iran having nukes is a bad thing for everyone who is not Iran. If they would have nuclear weapons the could do whatever they want , and nobody would be able to stop them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The point is that by 1973 everyone, including the US, USSR and Egypt, believed Israel had nuclear weapons and it did not deter the Arabs from attacking, and just a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the North Koreans were not deterred from attacking US forces in the south and similarly the North Vietnamese were not deterred from attacking French or US forces. All of the evidence indicates that possessing even as awesome a nuclear arsenal as the US has provides no deterrence from attack by conventional forces.

Korea isn't a nuclear power, neither is Viet Nam. I said COUNTRIES with nukes don't get attacked, therefore it's wise for the Iranians to develop nukes.

The irony in this is that no one wanted to attack Iran before they declared their nuclear program.

I for one totally agree with you , If a country has a nuclear weapon other countries would think twice before attacking them.

For example if Germany had a nuke during WWII it is most likely that the US and other countries would not have joined the Allies , and maybe it would have led to the victory of the Nazis.

That's precisely the reason why Iran having nukes is a bad thing for everyone who is not Iran. If they would have nuclear weapons the could do whatever they want , and nobody would be able to stop them.

I for one totally agree with you , If a country has a nuclear weapon other countries would think twice before attacking them.

That would explain why the Yom Kippur War never happened.

 

[ima]

You appear to be especially slow witted today. The US is a nuclear power but the North Koreans attacked US forces anyway, despite the fact the US had recently nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and similarly the North Vietnamese attacked US and French forces despite the fact that both the US and France were nuclear powers. I get it that you would like to see a nuclear armed Iran, but claiming nukes would protect Iran from attacks with conventional weapons is clearly nonsense. Of the world's nine nuclear powers, four, the US, France, Russia by Chechnya, and Israel, have been attacked.

Only if you're counting 9/11 as an act of war. Like I said, attacking US troops in a foreign land doesn't qualify. Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, then eventually got nuked. That was the only time.

And France, who attacked them?

Chechnya isn't going to get nuked, that would be like the US nuking Texas because they want to separate.

And Israel MIGHT have had nukes back in 1967, we still don't know, they never set one off in a test, or did they?

Despite your tit for tat musings about when nukes should be used, there is no evidence any country was ever deterred from attacking a nuclear power because of their nukes and all the evidence shows that several nuclear powers were attacked despite their possession of nukes. All of the evidence indicates that Iran will be no safer from conventional attack if it has nukes, and the pursuit of nuclear weapons has put it in imminent danger of attack.

Like who? Everyone says that Osama was a terrorist. France wasn't attacked. Chechnya is an independence thing, and no one knows for sure what israel had when.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Only if you're counting 9/11 as an act of war. Like I said, attacking US troops in a foreign land doesn't qualify. Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, then eventually got nuked. That was the only time.

And France, who attacked them?

Chechnya isn't going to get nuked, that would be like the US nuking Texas because they want to separate.

And Israel MIGHT have had nukes back in 1967, we still don't know, they never set one off in a test, or did they?

Despite your tit for tat musings about when nukes should be used, there is no evidence any country was ever deterred from attacking a nuclear power because of their nukes and all the evidence shows that several nuclear powers were attacked despite their possession of nukes. All of the evidence indicates that Iran will be no safer from conventional attack if it has nukes, and the pursuit of nuclear weapons has put it in imminent danger of attack.

Like who? Everyone says that Osama was a terrorist. France wasn't attacked. Chechnya is an independence thing, and no one knows for sure what israel had when.

Again, regardless of what you may personally believe about Israel's nukes or what rules you make up about when nukes should be used, Israel (Yom Kippur War), the US (Korea and Vietnam), France (Algeria and Vietnam) and Russia (Chechnya) were all attacked after they had nukes. There is no evidence that any country was ever deterred from launching a conventional attack on a nuclear power because of its nuclear weapons.

There is absolutely no basis in fact or logic for believing that the possession of nuclear weapons provides any deterrence against attacks with conventional weapons.

 

[ima]

Despite your tit for tat musings about when nukes should be used, there is no evidence any country was ever deterred from attacking a nuclear power because of their nukes and all the evidence shows that several nuclear powers were attacked despite their possession of nukes. All of the evidence indicates that Iran will be no safer from conventional attack if it has nukes, and the pursuit of nuclear weapons has put it in imminent danger of attack.

Like who? Everyone says that Osama was a terrorist. France wasn't attacked. Chechnya is an independence thing, and no one knows for sure what israel had when.

Again, regardless of what you may personally believe about Israel's nukes or what rules you make up about when nukes should be used, Israel (Yom Kippur War), the US (Korea and Vietnam), France (Algeria and Vietnam) and Russia (Chechnya) were all attacked after they had nukes. There is no evidence that any country was ever deterred from launching a conventional attack on a nuclear power because of its nuclear weapons.

There is absolutely no basis in fact or logic for believing that the possession of nuclear weapons provides any deterrence against attacks with conventional weapons.

You're an idiot, Algeria and Nam aren't France, so France was never attacked...

 

[Billo_Really]

For example if Germany had a nuke during WWII it is most likely that the US and other countries would not have joined the Allies , and maybe it would have led to the victory of the Nazis.

That's precisely the reason why Iran having nukes is a bad thing for everyone who is not Iran. If they would have nuclear weapons the could do whatever they want , and nobody would be able to stop them.

You can't compare Nazi Germany to Iran. On the one hand, you have one country systematically launching un-provoked wars of aggression against sovereign nations and on the other, you have a country that hasn't attacked anyone in over 200 years.

Any country that is smart enough to build a nuclear weapon, is also smart enough to know that if they use that weapon as a first strike, their country will glow in the dark.

Why doesn't anyone want to talk about Israel's nuclear weapons? Or why they've refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Iran has signed)?

Quite frankly, all this talk about the destruction of Israel is a big joke. Israel is the biggest military power in the ME, there isn't any country in that area that is capable of destroying them. And the last time anyone tried, they got their ass kicked in 8 days.

 

[docmauser1]

Any country that is smart enough to build a nuclear weapon, is also smart enough to know that if they use that weapon as a first strike, their country will glow in the dark.

Provided that country also realises that glowing in the dark doesn't attract virgins, of course.

Why doesn't anyone want to talk about Israel's nuclear weapons?

They don't exist, do they?

Or why they've refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Aside from the fact that entering a treaty is a voluntary business, what alleged nukes do those "evil jews" allegedly "proliferate"?

(which Iran has signed)?

Most sure they regret it bitterly.

Quite frankly, all this talk about the destruction of Israel is a big joke. Israel is the biggest military power in the ME, there isn't any country in that area that is capable of destroying them. And the last time anyone tried, they got their ass kicked in 8 days.

Besides, all that "nuke Israel" bullshitt will hurt our protected palisimian habitat, won't it? Which brings us to the original - arabs-muslims don't love their children more, than they hate jews.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Like who? Everyone says that Osama was a terrorist. France wasn't attacked. Chechnya is an independence thing, and no one knows for sure what israel had when.

Again, regardless of what you may personally believe about Israel's nukes or what rules you make up about when nukes should be used, Israel (Yom Kippur War), the US (Korea and Vietnam), France (Algeria and Vietnam) and Russia (Chechnya) were all attacked after they had nukes. There is no evidence that any country was ever deterred from launching a conventional attack on a nuclear power because of its nuclear weapons.

There is absolutely no basis in fact or logic for believing that the possession of nuclear weapons provides any deterrence against attacks with conventional weapons.

You're an idiot, Algeria and Nam aren't France, so France was never attacked...

Again, your ignorance is vast and profound. Algeria was a part of France and Vietnam was a French territory, just as Hawaii was a US territory when when the military base at Pearl Harbor was bombed. Of course, if you weren't dumb as a rock, you'd realize that none of this matters. The fact is that France's nukes did not deter attacks on French forces and French civilians in Vietnam and Algeria, just as US nukes did not deter attacks on US forces in Korea or Vietnam and Israeli nukes did not deter attacks by Egypt and Syria in 1973 and Russian nukes did not deter attacks on Russian forces and Russian civilians from Chechnya. Four out of the world's nine nuclear powers have suffered attacks by conventional forces, clearly showing that the possession of nukes provides no deterrence from conventional attacks, and there is no evidence that any country was ever deterred from an attack because the target country possessed nukes.

 

[Billo_Really]

Besides, all that "nuke Israel" bullshitt will hurt our protected palisimian habitat, won't it? Which brings us to the original - arabs-muslims don't love their children more, than they hate jews.

I used to work with an Iranian architect who had Jewish friends that hated Israeli's.

Go figure that one out.

 

[ima]

Again, regardless of what you may personally believe about Israel's nukes or what rules you make up about when nukes should be used, Israel (Yom Kippur War), the US (Korea and Vietnam), France (Algeria and Vietnam) and Russia (Chechnya) were all attacked after they had nukes. There is no evidence that any country was ever deterred from launching a conventional attack on a nuclear power because of its nuclear weapons.

There is absolutely no basis in fact or logic for believing that the possession of nuclear weapons provides any deterrence against attacks with conventional weapons.

You're an idiot, Algeria and Nam aren't France, so France was never attacked...

Again, your ignorance is vast and profound. Algeria was a part of France and Vietnam was a French territory, just as Hawaii was a US territory when when the military base at Pearl Harbor was bombed. Of course, if you weren't dumb as a rock, you'd realize that none of this matters. The fact is that France's nukes did not deter attacks on French forces and French civilians in Vietnam and Algeria, just as US nukes did not deter attacks on US forces in Korea or Vietnam and Israeli nukes did not deter attacks by Egypt and Syria in 1973 and Russian nukes did not deter attacks on Russian forces and Russian civilians from Chechnya. Four out of the world's nine nuclear powers have suffered attacks by conventional forces, clearly showing that the possession of nukes provides no deterrence from conventional attacks, and there is no evidence that any country was ever deterred from an attack because the target country possessed nukes.

The were colonies, ok, but that's STILL not attacking France itself. And you're forgetting one important thing: FRANCE DIDN"T HAVE NUKES BACK THEN!

Those dirty bastard Nips nailed us in a sneak attack and are just lucky we only had the 2 bombs, lol. Plus, as has been mentioned several times, if you don't ever use your nukes, you have no deterrent. Just like you can't deter crime if you never convict anyone, but only threaten to.

 

[Wolverine1984]

Plus, as has been mentioned several times, if you don't ever use your nukes, you have no deterrent. Just like you can't deter crime if you never convict anyone, but only threaten to.

I'm sorry,thats a dumb claim. It's like saying that a person holding a gun to your head is not threatening because he never used a gun to kill someone before.

 

[Sunni Man]

The rogue state of Israel is nothing but a terrorist base camp.

That is used by the ruling Zionist cabal to stock pile weapons.

As they continue to create chaos and war all over the world in order to enrich themselves.

And strive for their ultimate goal of complete political and financial domination of all non-Jewish people.

 

[Wolverine1984]

The rogue state of Israel is nothing but a terrorist base camp.

That is used by the ruling Zionist cabal to stock pile weapons.

As they continue to create chaos and war all over the world in order to enrich themselves.

And strive for their ultimate goal of complete political and financial domination of all non-Jewish people.

Thank you for that totally unrelated and non-antisemitic comment!

On the up side I'm sure Osama Bin Laden would have been really proud of you. As it is more or less his diluted point of view as well.

 

[Sunni Man]

The rogue state of Israel is nothing but a terrorist base camp.

That is used by the ruling Zionist cabal to stock pile weapons.

As they continue to create chaos and war all over the world in order to enrich themselves.

And strive for their ultimate goal of complete political and financial domination of all non-Jewish people.

Thank you for that totally unrelated and non-antisemitic comment!

On the up side I'm sure Osama Bin Laden would have been really proud of you. As it is more or less his diluted point of view as well.

I commend you for acknowledging that criticism of Zionism or Israel is not anti-semitic.

But your reference to OBL is over the top.

 

[Wolverine1984]

The rogue state of Israel is nothing but a terrorist base camp.

That is used by the ruling Zionist cabal to stock pile weapons.

As they continue to create chaos and war all over the world in order to enrich themselves.

And strive for their ultimate goal of complete political and financial domination of all non-Jewish people.

Thank you for that totally unrelated and non-antisemitic comment!

On the up side I'm sure Osama Bin Laden would have been really proud of you. As it is more or less his diluted point of view as well.

I commend you for acknowledging that criticism of Zionism or Israel is not anti-semitic.

But your reference to OBL is over the top.

Why? He believed that Israel wants to dominate the whole Arabian Peninsula while you believe Israel tires to dominate the whole world.

It would seem that he was less extreme then you.

 

[Sunni Man]

Why? He believed that Israel wants to dominate the whole Arabian Peninsula while you believe Israel tires to dominate the whole world.

It would seem that he was less extreme then you.

To a Zionist, the "Truth" is extreme; no matter who says it.

 

[docmauser1]

The rogue state of Israel is nothing but a terrorist base camp. That is used by the ruling Zionist cabal to stock pile weapons. As they continue to create chaos and war all over the world in order to enrich themselves. And strive for their ultimate goal of complete political and financial domination of all non-Jewish people.

The Maccabi beer conspiracy!