What Isael can do to save itself -?

[Hossfly]

What? No replies? (and JStoned, fuck off, you don't count)

Islam exists for one single purpose and that is to exterminate every Jew on Earth and to kill or convert everybody else who doesn't adhere to Islam. Period. There are no other qualified explanations. Period.

What's YOUR problem, O Uninformed One?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Islam exists for one single purpose and that is to exterminate every Jew on Earth and to kill or convert everybody else who doesn't adhere to Islam. Period. There are no other qualified explanations. Period.

What's YOUR problem, O Uninformed One?

Jews spending the day in Gaza

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2eLFtfeowY]Codepink built a playground at beach camp in Gaza - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JStone]

Former Gazan Nonie Darwish, Human Rights Activist, Founder, Arabs For Israel
An Arab-Made Misery - WSJ.com

International donors pledged almost $4.5 billion in aid for Gaza earlier this month. It has been very painful for me to witness over the past few years the deteriorating humanitarian situation in that narrow strip where I lived as a child in the 1950s.

It is Hamas, an Islamist terror organization supported by Iran, which is using and abusing Palestinians... While Hamas leaders hid in the well-stocked bunkers and tunnels they prepared before they provoked Israel into attacking them, Palestinian civilians were exposed and caught in the deadly crossfire between Hamas and Israeli soldiers.

Both Israel and Egypt are fearful of terrorist infiltration from Gaza -- all the more so since Hamas took over -- and have always maintained tight controls over their borders with Gaza. The Palestinians continue to endure hardships because Gaza continues to serve as the launching pad for terror attacks against Israeli citizens. Those attacks come in the form of Hamas missiles that indiscriminately target Israeli kindergartens, homes and businesses.

And Hamas continued these attacks more than two years after Israel withdrew from Gaza in the hope that this step would begin the process of building a Palestinian state, eventually leading to a peaceful, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There was no "cycle of violence" then, no justification for anything other than peace and prosperity. But instead, Hamas chose Islamic jihad. Gazans' and Israelis' hopes have been met with misery for Palestinians and missiles for Israelis.

Hamas, an Iran proxy, has become a danger not only to Israel, but also to Palestinians as well as to neighboring Arab states, who fear the spread of radical Islam could destabilize their countries.

Arabs claim they love the Palestinian people, but they seem more interested in sacrificing them. If they really loved their Palestinian brethren, they'd pressure Hamas to stop firing missiles at Israel. In the longer term, the Arab world must end the Palestinians' refugee status and thereby their desire to harm Israel. It's time for the 22 Arab countries to open their borders and absorb the Palestinians of Gaza who wish to start a new life. It is time for the Arab world to truly help the Palestinians, not use them.

 

[ima]

Islam exists for one single purpose and that is to exterminate every Jew on Earth and to kill or convert everybody else who doesn't adhere to Islam. Period. There are no other qualified explanations. Period.

What's YOUR problem, O Uninformed One?

For sure the Muslims want all the infidels killed, not just the Jews. It says so in the Koran, we all know that.

 

[Artevelde]

No, and I explained why in my previous post. The purpose of the reatliation would not be revenge but to weaken Iran's ability to do further harm to us, and the US can do that just as well with conventional weapons as with nukes and cause far fewer civilian casualties and without weakening our campaign against nuclear proliferation. The future is more important than the past, and with that in mind, it makes more sense to retaliate with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons.

That's just plain dumb, a nuclear war breaks out and you don't use yours. What if they're hiding more launchers and nukes in places you hadn't seen? Your brilliance as a tactician will get us all killed. But then again, there's always lots of scotch to drink and a lot of cigars to chew on, and you can still be considered a great leader at this board, hehe.

To try to be absolutely sure they didn't have anymore launchers or warheads hidden somewhere we'd have to turn the whole country into a nuclear wasteland, killing all 80,000,000 people in Iran and depending on weather conditions, perhaps killing millions more in the surrounding countries from radioactive drift. Even then, could we be certain they didn't have launchers and warheads buried deep within some mountain? We could be safer from attack with conventional weapons by destroying their military and destroying their oil refineries and enough of their fuel storage tanks so that they would only have enough fuel to provide the most basic services to keep the country going and not enough to rebuild.

I am confident that the US would look to the future and realize our safety would be better secured by limiting the proliferation of WMD's than by wreaking vengeance on a whole people for the actions of a few of their leaders as you suggest we should.

You really don't grasp the concept of nuclear deterrence do you?

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's just plain dumb, a nuclear war breaks out and you don't use yours. What if they're hiding more launchers and nukes in places you hadn't seen? Your brilliance as a tactician will get us all killed. But then again, there's always lots of scotch to drink and a lot of cigars to chew on, and you can still be considered a great leader at this board, hehe.

To try to be absolutely sure they didn't have anymore launchers or warheads hidden somewhere we'd have to turn the whole country into a nuclear wasteland, killing all 80,000,000 people in Iran and depending on weather conditions, perhaps killing millions more in the surrounding countries from radioactive drift. Even then, could we be certain they didn't have launchers and warheads buried deep within some mountain? We could be safer from attack with conventional weapons by destroying their military and destroying their oil refineries and enough of their fuel storage tanks so that they would only have enough fuel to provide the most basic services to keep the country going and not enough to rebuild.

I am confident that the US would look to the future and realize our safety would be better secured by limiting the proliferation of WMD's than by wreaking vengeance on a whole people for the actions of a few of their leaders as you suggest we should.

You really don't grasp the concept of nuclear deterrence do you?

I do, but this discussion is about how the US would likely act after Iran had nuked us, that is, after our nukes had failed to deter a nuclear attack from Iran.

 

[Artevelde]

To try to be absolutely sure they didn't have anymore launchers or warheads hidden somewhere we'd have to turn the whole country into a nuclear wasteland, killing all 80,000,000 people in Iran and depending on weather conditions, perhaps killing millions more in the surrounding countries from radioactive drift. Even then, could we be certain they didn't have launchers and warheads buried deep within some mountain? We could be safer from attack with conventional weapons by destroying their military and destroying their oil refineries and enough of their fuel storage tanks so that they would only have enough fuel to provide the most basic services to keep the country going and not enough to rebuild.

I am confident that the US would look to the future and realize our safety would be better secured by limiting the proliferation of WMD's than by wreaking vengeance on a whole people for the actions of a few of their leaders as you suggest we should.

You really don't grasp the concept of nuclear deterrence do you?

I do, but this discussion is about how the US would likely act after Iran had nuked us, that is, after our nukes had failed to deter a nuclear attack from Iran.

Clearly, if the US - after suffering a nuclear attack by Iran - did not retaliate by wiping Iran off the face of the earth by a series of nuclear strikes it would fatally undermine the whole concept of deterrence.

 

[Ropey]

You really don't grasp the concept of nuclear deterrence do you?

I do, but this discussion is about how the US would likely act after Iran had nuked us, that is, after our nukes had failed to deter a nuclear attack from Iran.

Clearly, if the US - after suffering a nuclear attack by Iran - did not retaliate by wiping Iran off the face of the earth by a series of nuclear strikes it would fatally undermine the whole concept of deterrence.

Preemption beats deterrence when dealing with those who believe that killing themselves in martyrdom is the best they can achieve in this life.

Preemption can be considered heroism in such cases imo.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You really don't grasp the concept of nuclear deterrence do you?

I do, but this discussion is about how the US would likely act after Iran had nuked us, that is, after our nukes had failed to deter a nuclear attack from Iran.

Clearly, if the US - after suffering a nuclear attack by Iran - did not retaliate by wiping Iran off the face of the earth by a series of nuclear strikes it would fatally undermine the whole concept of deterrence.

Not at all, the US' conventional forces are sufficient to deter attacks from any country that could not wipe out our conventional forces by a first strike, only Russia, or that had conventional forces capable of repelling a US conventional attack, possibly China. "Wiping Iran off the face of the Earth," killing twice the number that died in WWII, would not strengthen US deterrence to attack beyond destroying Iran's military and crippling its economy with conventional forces.

 

[Wolverine1984]

What's YOUR problem, O Uninformed One?

For sure the Muslims want all the infidels killed, not just the Jews. It says so in the Koran, we all know that.

I think they would prefer if everyone would "see the light" meaning convert to Islam.
However , yeah when this won't 'human rights' won't stop them from killing everyone who doesn't convert.

 

[ima]

I do, but this discussion is about how the US would likely act after Iran had nuked us, that is, after our nukes had failed to deter a nuclear attack from Iran.

Clearly, if the US - after suffering a nuclear attack by Iran - did not retaliate by wiping Iran off the face of the earth by a series of nuclear strikes it would fatally undermine the whole concept of deterrence.

Not at all, the US' conventional forces are sufficient to deter attacks from any country that could not wipe out our conventional forces by a first strike, only Russia, or that had conventional forces capable of repelling a US conventional attack, possibly China. "Wiping Iran off the face of the Earth," killing twice the number that died in WWII, would not strengthen US deterrence to attack beyond destroying Iran's military and crippling its economy with conventional forces.

So what if they managed to nuke you a second time? What then?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Clearly, if the US - after suffering a nuclear attack by Iran - did not retaliate by wiping Iran off the face of the earth by a series of nuclear strikes it would fatally undermine the whole concept of deterrence.

Not at all, the US' conventional forces are sufficient to deter attacks from any country that could not wipe out our conventional forces by a first strike, only Russia, or that had conventional forces capable of repelling a US conventional attack, possibly China. "Wiping Iran off the face of the Earth," killing twice the number that died in WWII, would not strengthen US deterrence to attack beyond destroying Iran's military and crippling its economy with conventional forces.

So what if they managed to nuke you a second time? What then?

We're talking about Iran, not about Russia, and it would be at least several years in the future before Iran would have that capability, but if it would be able to preserve a second strike capability after a devastating conventional attack, there is every reason to think they would be able to after a nuclear attack.

 

[Wolverine1984]

Clearly, if the US - after suffering a nuclear attack by Iran - did not retaliate by wiping Iran off the face of the earth by a series of nuclear strikes it would fatally undermine the whole concept of deterrence.

Not at all, the US' conventional forces are sufficient to deter attacks from any country that could not wipe out our conventional forces by a first strike, only Russia, or that had conventional forces capable of repelling a US conventional attack, possibly China. "Wiping Iran off the face of the Earth," killing twice the number that died in WWII, would not strengthen US deterrence to attack beyond destroying Iran's military and crippling its economy with conventional forces.

So what if they managed to nuke you a second time? What then?

nuclear war is bad , that is why no one wants Iran to have nukes.

 

[pbel]

What's YOUR problem, O Uninformed One?

For sure the Muslims want all the infidels killed, not just the Jews. It says so in the Koran, we all know that.

I think they would prefer if everyone would "see the light" meaning convert to Islam.
However , yeah when this won't 'human rights' won't stop them from killing everyone who doesn't convert.

I'm no historian, but conversions by the sword no longer or recently provided converts...They are by far the Fastest growing Religion on Earth.

Can you please provide a link to your Convert or kill'em Theory?

 

[ima]

Not at all, the US' conventional forces are sufficient to deter attacks from any country that could not wipe out our conventional forces by a first strike, only Russia, or that had conventional forces capable of repelling a US conventional attack, possibly China. "Wiping Iran off the face of the Earth," killing twice the number that died in WWII, would not strengthen US deterrence to attack beyond destroying Iran's military and crippling its economy with conventional forces.

So what if they managed to nuke you a second time? What then?

We're talking about Iran, not about Russia, and it would be at least several years in the future before Iran would have that capability, but if it would be able to preserve a second strike capability after a devastating conventional attack, there is every reason to think they would be able to after a nuclear attack.

The US might as well not even have any nukes, according to you, they're just a waste of money.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So what if they managed to nuke you a second time? What then?

We're talking about Iran, not about Russia, and it would be at least several years in the future before Iran would have that capability, but if it would be able to preserve a second strike capability after a devastating conventional attack, there is every reason to think they would be able to after a nuclear attack.

The US might as well not even have any nukes, according to you, they're just a waste of money.

So you'd want to use them because we already paid for them? Because it's a shame to let them go to waste. As always, dumb as a rock. Our conventional forces are so powerful that in almost all cases they provide all the deterrence we need and in nearly all conflicts our nukes would cause enormously more collateral damage without advancing mission objectives beyond what could be accomplished by conventional forces.

There are only two situations in which our nuclear weapons are necessary. First, if we had to fight a land war against a much larger conventional force, as was the potential case when NATO were confronting Soviet forces in Europe or if we had to fight a land war in Asia against China. Second, our second strike nuclear capability serves as a deterrent against a Russian first nuclear strike against us. Our second strike capability is necessary against Russia but not against Iran because a Russian first nuclear strike would so devastate our ability to support our conventional forces that we could not retaliate effectively with conventional forces, whereas while the few much smaller nukes Iran could fire at us could cause us much pain, they would not limit the effectiveness with which our conventional forces could retaliate.

 

[ima]

We're talking about Iran, not about Russia, and it would be at least several years in the future before Iran would have that capability, but if it would be able to preserve a second strike capability after a devastating conventional attack, there is every reason to think they would be able to after a nuclear attack.

The US might as well not even have any nukes, according to you, they're just a waste of money.

So you'd want to use them because we already paid for them? Because it's a shame to let them go to waste. As always, dumb as a rock. Our conventional forces are so powerful that in almost all cases they provide all the deterrence we need and in nearly all conflicts our nukes would cause enormously more collateral damage without advancing mission objectives beyond what could be accomplished by conventional forces.

There are only two situations in which our nuclear weapons are necessary. First, if we had to fight a land war against a much larger conventional force, as was the potential case when NATO were confronting Soviet forces in Europe or if we had to fight a land war in Asia against China. Second, our second strike nuclear capability serves as a deterrent against a Russian first nuclear strike against us. Our second strike capability is necessary against Russia but not against Iran because a Russian first nuclear strike would so devastate our ability to support our conventional forces that we could not retaliate effectively with conventional forces, whereas while the few much smaller nukes Iran could fire at us could cause us much pain, they would not limit the effectiveness with which our conventional forces could retaliate.

lol, I'd want to use them because we've paid for them, are you making EVERYTHING up as you go along?

ANYONE who nukes us gets nuked. We won't split hairs over who or why, we've already split the atom. End of story.

If we get nuked before an election and the Prez doesn't nuke back? They might as well not hold an election, he'd get 2% of the vote, only the crazies like you.

 

[docmauser1]

They are by far the Fastest growing Religion on Earth.

Jailhouse religion.

 

[docmauser1]

[lol, I'd want to use them because we've paid for them, are you making EVERYTHING up as you go along?ANYONE who nukes us gets nuked. We won't split hairs over who or why, we've already split the atom. End of story. If we get nuked before an election and the Prez doesn't nuke back? They might as well not hold an election, he'd get 2% of the vote, only the crazies like you.

Some baiting crap, indeed.

 

[Wolverine1984]

For sure the Muslims want all the infidels killed, not just the Jews. It says so in the Koran, we all know that.

I think they would prefer if everyone would "see the light" meaning convert to Islam.
However , yeah when this won't 'human rights' won't stop them from killing everyone who doesn't convert.

I'm no historian, but conversions by the sword no longer or recently provided converts...They are by far the Fastest growing Religion on Earth.

Can you please provide a link to your Convert or kill'em Theory?

They are by far the Fastest growing Religion on Earth.

Well at first I have to say that if something is growing fast , it does not mean it is a good thing.
If Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth ,(I don't know if that is true as you didn't provide a link for your theory.) it's defiantly not a good thing.
One of the factors of the rapidly growing numbers of Muslims is the birth rate in Muslims countries which is quite high.
In addition in Muslims countries most of the population is Muslim , and if you are born to Muslim parents in a Muslim country , it's very hard for you to convert to other religions (or become an atheist) because the punishment for apostasy in many Muslim countries is death.
So basically 99% of people who are born in Muslim countries have to be Muslims (they don't have a choice), while people who are born in western countries can be whatever they like.

This is why the numbers of Muslims are so vast , not because Islam is some benevolent and holy way of live , but because if you were born in a Muslim country to a Muslim family (Or converted to Islam) you can never go back (Unless you want to die.)