Debate Now Is Israel our ally or not?

[theDoctorisIn]

Incorrect.

We are allies with both India and Pakistan, for example. It's pretty hard to find any two countries that hate each other as much as they do.

That is also incorrect. The conflicts between India and Pakistan have been taking place since 1947 with only four wars between the two. That front has been relatively quiet since 1999 with a few skirmishes in the following decade. There have been more wars and conflicts between Israel and Arab countries between 1947 to present, than during any point between Pakistan and India in that time frame. I note, as far as your example is concerned, that we are engaging in conflicts of interest with India and Pakistan. Pakistan harbored a terrorist mastermind who slaughtered thousands of people on American soil. I can't find a comprehensive list on who all of our exact allies are, and the ones I do find state India as a neutral one. Pakistan instigated the Kargil War and was pressured by the US to get out of Indian Territory and back on their side of the LoC (Line of Control, a neutral zone, so to speak). That doesn't sound like the behavior of an ally.

The question here is: How can you support two allies who are enemies of each other? Is this an attempt to appear neutral? Would it not make you appear as a sympathizer to one or the other? Would it also not promote peace between the two?

One other thing, Iran is not (I repeat: IS NOT) our ally, but Israel is. India and Pakistan have little to do in comparison with this, their last major war with one another being 16 years ago. In Israel's case, you are dealing with an ally being directly threatened by an enemy in Iran, who has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984.

I am sitting here watching the US negotiate a flimsy nuclear deal with (from what I have read and heard) no substance whatsoever, which represents an existential threat to the Jewish State. It basically says "Don't build any more centrifuges for a decade, we won't watch you, and when your 10 years are up, you're free to do whatever you want with your nuclear ambitions" that basically means, "we won't look while you secretly develop a nuclear weapon in your quest to destroy Israel."

We are dealing with a singular ally here, not two.

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Israel has second-strike capability, and Iran knows it. Even if they didn't, Iran using a nuke would guarantee a US nuclear response.

The leaders of Iran aren't cartoon villains. They are the politically intelligent elite of a world power that's got a pretty good understanding of the dynamics necessary to remain in power. Nuking Israel would guarantee that they wouldn't remain alive, let alone in power.

But one nuke is all it takes. Martyrdom is deemed to be an great thing in Islam. It wouldn't matter to them what happened after that, they would have fulfilled the hopes and dreams of all radical Islam.

Who is this "they" that you're talking about?

Radical Islam? Iran, et alia? You insofar have been the only one to refer to anyone as "they."

See bolded underlined.

The "they" that I was referring to was the leaders of Iran, which should have been made pretty clear by the previous clause in the sentence.

See the bold in your post for the "they" that I'm asking about.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That is also incorrect. The conflicts between India and Pakistan have been taking place since 1947 with only four wars between the two. That front has been relatively quiet since 1999 with a few skirmishes in the following decade. There have been more wars and conflicts between Israel and Arab countries between 1947 to present, than during any point between Pakistan and India in that time frame. I note, as far as your example is concerned, that we are engaging in conflicts of interest with India and Pakistan. Pakistan harbored a terrorist mastermind who slaughtered thousands of people on American soil. I can't find a comprehensive list on who all of our exact allies are, and the ones I do find state India as a neutral one. Pakistan instigated the Kargil War and was pressured by the US to get out of Indian Territory and back on their side of the LoC (Line of Control, a neutral zone, so to speak). That doesn't sound like the behavior of an ally.

The question here is: How can you support two allies who are enemies of each other? Is this an attempt to appear neutral? Would it not make you appear as a sympathizer to one or the other? Would it also not promote peace between the two?

One other thing, Iran is not (I repeat: IS NOT) our ally, but Israel is. India and Pakistan have little to do in comparison with this, their last major war with one another being 16 years ago. In Israel's case, you are dealing with an ally being directly threatened by an enemy in Iran, who has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984.

I am sitting here watching the US negotiate a flimsy nuclear deal with (from what I have read and heard) no substance whatsoever, which represents an existential threat to the Jewish State. It basically says "Don't build any more centrifuges for a decade, we won't watch you, and when your 10 years are up, you're free to do whatever you want with your nuclear ambitions" that basically means, "we won't look while you secretly develop a nuclear weapon in your quest to destroy Israel."

We are dealing with a singular ally here, not two.

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Israel has second-strike capability, and Iran knows it. Even if they didn't, Iran using a nuke would guarantee a US nuclear response.

The leaders of Iran aren't cartoon villains. They are the politically intelligent elite of a world power that's got a pretty good understanding of the dynamics necessary to remain in power. Nuking Israel would guarantee that they wouldn't remain alive, let alone in power.

But one nuke is all it takes. Martyrdom is deemed to be an great thing in Islam. It wouldn't matter to them what happened after that, they would have fulfilled the hopes and dreams of all radical Islam.

Who is this "they" that you're talking about?

Radical Islam? Iran, et alia? You insofar have been the only one to refer to anyone as "they."

See bolded underlined.

The "they" that I was referring to was the leaders of Iran, which should have been made pretty clear by the previous clause in the sentence.

See the bold in your post for the "they" that I'm asking about.

Which I specifically referred to as Islam. See bolded in red. And additionally I was referring to Iran.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Can you prove otherwise?

No, I can't "prove" a negative.

Can you explain what Iran would gain in this "quest" to destroy Israel?

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

 

[Nutz]

Israel is much more than an ally, friend or partner. She is a representation of American values, freedom of religion in the Middle East, freedom from world war in a brewing kettle. Israel is a cornerstone in the Christian belief system...America being a nation of mostly Christian believers. Israel is a stronghold in the never ending battle with Islam The preservation and protection of Israel goes far beyond any political ideology.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Can you prove otherwise?

No, I can't "prove" a negative.

Can you explain what Iran would gain in this "quest" to destroy Israel?

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

So what other way should I think in?

The destruction of Israel would achieve the goals of all radical Islam, Iran being one of many "benefactors" of such an atrocity.

 

[Nutz]

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Can you prove otherwise?

No, I can't "prove" a negative.

Can you explain what Iran would gain in this "quest" to destroy Israel?

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

Regional dominance.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But one nuke is all it takes. Martyrdom is deemed to be an great thing in Islam. It wouldn't matter to them what happened after that, they would have fulfilled the hopes and dreams of all radical Islam.

Who is this "they" that you're talking about?

Radical Islam? Iran, et alia? You insofar have been the only one to refer to anyone as "they."

See bolded underlined.

The "they" that I was referring to was the leaders of Iran, which should have been made pretty clear by the previous clause in the sentence.

See the bold in your post for the "they" that I'm asking about.

Which I specifically referred to as Islam. See bolded in red.

"Islam" is not a "they", any more than "Christianity" is.

Then what is it I might ask? It is a religion, which consists of roughly a billion people, they are members of Islam. So why are we debating grammar again?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Can you prove otherwise?

No, I can't "prove" a negative.

Can you explain what Iran would gain in this "quest" to destroy Israel?

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

So what other way should I think in?

The destruction of Israel would achieve the goals of all radical Islam, Iran being one of many "benefactors" of such an atrocity.

You should think about it from the political perspective, rather that the rhetorical "holy war" perspective.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Who is this "they" that you're talking about?

Radical Islam? Iran, et alia? You insofar have been the only one to refer to anyone as "they."

See bolded underlined.

The "they" that I was referring to was the leaders of Iran, which should have been made pretty clear by the previous clause in the sentence.

See the bold in your post for the "they" that I'm asking about.

Which I specifically referred to as Islam. See bolded in red.

"Islam" is not a "they", any more than "Christianity" is.

Then what is it I might ask? It is a religion, which consists of roughly a billion people, they are members of Islam. So why are we debating grammar again?

So when you said "they would have fulfilled the hopes and dreams of all radical Islam", you were referring to my next-door neighbors?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Can you prove otherwise?

No, I can't "prove" a negative.

Can you explain what Iran would gain in this "quest" to destroy Israel?

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

Regional dominance.

What kind of "regional dominance" will Iran have when Israel's second-strike capabilities turn Tehran into a glass parking lot?

 

[Nutz]

Can you prove otherwise?

No, I can't "prove" a negative.

Can you explain what Iran would gain in this "quest" to destroy Israel?

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

Regional dominance.

What kind of "regional dominance" will Iran have when Israel's second-strike capabilities turn Tehran into a glass parking lot?

I wasn't talking nuclear attack...but in the end...Iran having a nuclear weapon would deter Israel from using her arsenal in a conventional war setting. Just Iran having a nuclear bomb gives them regional dominance...don't you think? It makes them a powerhouse in the region by default.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, I can't "prove" a negative.

Can you explain what Iran would gain in this "quest" to destroy Israel?

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

Regional dominance.

What kind of "regional dominance" will Iran have when Israel's second-strike capabilities turn Tehran into a glass parking lot?

I wasn't talking nuclear attack...but in the end...Iran having a nuclear weapon would deter Israel from using her arsenal in a conventional war setting. Just Iran having a nuclear bomb gives them regional dominance...don't you think? It makes them a powerhouse in the region by default.

Of course having a nuke would put Iran in a more powerful position. Using it, on the other hand, would utterly destroy Iran.

But what "region" would they have dominance over? There's already 3 nuclear powers in the area around Iran.

 

[Nutz]

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

Regional dominance.

What kind of "regional dominance" will Iran have when Israel's second-strike capabilities turn Tehran into a glass parking lot?

I wasn't talking nuclear attack...but in the end...Iran having a nuclear weapon would deter Israel from using her arsenal in a conventional war setting. Just Iran having a nuclear bomb gives them regional dominance...don't you think? It makes them a powerhouse in the region by default.

Of course having a nuke would put Iran in a more powerful position. Using it, on the other hand, would utterly destroy Iran.

But what "region" would they have dominance over? There's already 3 nuclear powers in the area around Iran.

Which are?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

Regional dominance.

What kind of "regional dominance" will Iran have when Israel's second-strike capabilities turn Tehran into a glass parking lot?

I wasn't talking nuclear attack...but in the end...Iran having a nuclear weapon would deter Israel from using her arsenal in a conventional war setting. Just Iran having a nuclear bomb gives them regional dominance...don't you think? It makes them a powerhouse in the region by default.

Of course having a nuke would put Iran in a more powerful position. Using it, on the other hand, would utterly destroy Iran.

But what "region" would they have dominance over? There's already 3 nuclear powers in the area around Iran.

Which are?

Russia, Pakistan, India

 

[Foxfyre]

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

Regional dominance.

What kind of "regional dominance" will Iran have when Israel's second-strike capabilities turn Tehran into a glass parking lot?

I wasn't talking nuclear attack...but in the end...Iran having a nuclear weapon would deter Israel from using her arsenal in a conventional war setting. Just Iran having a nuclear bomb gives them regional dominance...don't you think? It makes them a powerhouse in the region by default.

Of course having a nuke would put Iran in a more powerful position. Using it, on the other hand, would utterly destroy Iran.

But what "region" would they have dominance over? There's already 3 nuclear powers in the area around Iran.

I think we have to be careful not to overlook the fanaticism and commitment of some in the Middle East determined to destroy Israel and drive out the Jews from their midst. And Iran has typically led the charge to do that. Even now they are courting their old nemesis Iraq lest it side with the west and not be united in the common goal of an Israel that is no more. Iran doesn't have to fire a nuclear missile at Israel. All it has to do is put a few strategic nuclear dirty bombs in the hands of al Qaida or ISIS or some other fanatical group and assist them in getting into Israel. And voila, the deed is done. And who do we retaliate against? How can we be sure from whence the terrorists came?

It is a fair question to ask what we have to lose by allowing Israel to be destroyed. But even taking away Israel's vote on the U.N., the strategic advantage of having access to Israeli bases should we need them, and the fact that if we abandoned Israel, we would never be trusted by any of our other allies ever again, I think there is also a symbiotic and emotional connection between the USA and Israel. We would somehow lose a piece of our collective soul if we turned our backs on them and allowed the Arab militants have their way.

 

[Nutz]

Regional dominance.

What kind of "regional dominance" will Iran have when Israel's second-strike capabilities turn Tehran into a glass parking lot?

I wasn't talking nuclear attack...but in the end...Iran having a nuclear weapon would deter Israel from using her arsenal in a conventional war setting. Just Iran having a nuclear bomb gives them regional dominance...don't you think? It makes them a powerhouse in the region by default.

Of course having a nuke would put Iran in a more powerful position. Using it, on the other hand, would utterly destroy Iran.

But what "region" would they have dominance over? There's already 3 nuclear powers in the area around Iran.

Which are?

Russia, Pakistan, India

Not regional players with an active beef with Israel. Iran gets nukes...what will Saudi Arabia do?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can you prove otherwise?

No, I can't "prove" a negative.

Can you explain what Iran would gain in this "quest" to destroy Israel?

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

So what other way should I think in?

The destruction of Israel would achieve the goals of all radical Islam, Iran being one of many "benefactors" of such an atrocity.

You should think about it from the political perspective, rather that the rhetorical "holy war" perspective.

Why? Iran is a theocratic government, their decisions are motivated by its interpretation of Islamic scripture; meaning they would feel justified to act, if they indeed did so.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You should think about it from the political perspective, rather that the rhetorical "holy war" perspective.

and you should try learning a little bit about the world instead of just offering dismissive one-liners in an attempt to fool others into thinking you have an actual point.

The Mullahs have been saying for years that they want to destroy Israel, have laid out their rationale for doing so, and if you knew something instead of nothing, you would realize they are driven by ideology, not some rational geopolitical outlook that exists only in your head. Since you know nothing about them, you think they are just like us. They aren't. They are driven by the same religious fervor that motivates people to strap bombs on themselves in order to murder others.

"Well, goodness, I cannot imagine Muslims detonating themselves in order to commit acts of terrorism -- that just isn't rational". "Well, goodness, I cannot imagine the Mullahs Nuking Israel because Israel could retaliate. It just isn't rational".

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I'm not asking for rhetoric, I'm asking what would Iran gain from the destruction of Israel?

You're not thinking about it the right way.

and you are not thinking at all.

What Iran gains from the destruction of Israel is the knowledge that they served the Ummah. They have come right out and said that any retaliation would cause only "damages" to the Ummah, as they do not see themselves serving the interests of a nation-state, but of Islam.

You need to lean a little bit about the world instead of offering so much conjecture based upon abject ignorance while telling others that THEY are the ones not thinking the "right" way.

If there is any "right" way to think about the situation, it should be one based upon knowledge instead of nothing whatsoever.