Gaza Thread Discussion Part IV

Discussion in 'International News' started by Ismitje, Jan 15, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Will maybe those who do worry about Israel's nukes are "nobody" to you, but they are somebody still.

    It seems to be me your western centric bias is not one that can be challenged that easily!

    Incidentally, those who do worry about Israel's nukes know that Israel is the most likely candidate to use nuclear weapons. It has already brandished the nuclear card in the past, during the 1973 war for instance, and has been implicitly brandishing it around more recently as well. (The next top candidate to use nukes is the US, which is the only country to have used them in the past, and which has refused to rule out using nuclear weapons again, including against Iran specifically).

    Iran's nuclear program, on the other hand, is only a threat to those who want to threaten Iran with nukes. Otherwise, Iran's nuclear policy (even if it isn't solely focused on nuclear energy) is meant to give Iran surge capacity, i.e. the ability to build nuclear weapons if required and threatened. There is absolutely no other utility for Iran using nukes, when the other side (both Israel and the US) have plenty of them and have shown no compulsion to threaten its use in various scenarios publicly discussed, without Iran having officially built any nukes yet.

    At the end, I don't care what you think. You can imagine your worries are shared by the "world". And imagine that "nobody" cares about Israel's nukes. That just speaks to how fundamentally imperialistic are western notions of who is somebody and not, and whose worries matter and not.
     
  2. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643727602&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
    I hope they do rush to help Gaza. I seriously hope they do, but I have my doubts that they will.

    Regardless, glad that Iran being around has added urgency to what is a humanitarian crisis that should not be ignored regardless of the politics of it all.
     
  3. FNU

    FNU BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Mar 6, 2007
    Monte Vesuvio
    Club:
    SSC Napoli
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
  4. FNU

    FNU BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Mar 6, 2007
    Monte Vesuvio
    Club:
    SSC Napoli
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
  5. Drippingmilk

    Drippingmilk Member

    Jul 30, 2008
    So much wrong with that map, not even going to get into the stupid cartoon. The 1947 map is factually incorrect as it does not include Jordan, which was fully half of the Palestinian mandate and became the Kingdom of Jordan. The partition plan never came into being, so I have no idea why it's included. The map doesn't include the Sinai, which doubled Israel's landmass(as well as including oil fields) and was given to Egpyt for a peace treaty.

    The map is simply propaganda, and has no factual accuracy in regard to portraying the narrative ofland change between jews and rabs.
     
  6. scotch17

    scotch17 Member

    Jun 15, 2008
    Entebbe
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    I see the point is still going way over your head... Israel doesn't need nukes to fck up their enemies.

    Furthermore they've had them for quite some time... with plenty of opportunity and (as you can see in this thread) virtual carte blanche support from the West (especially USA.)

    For those reasons, Israel having a nuke doesn't change much of anything. It doesn't affect the situation like you think it does because a) they're highly unlikely to use it because b) they don't need it.

    Irans' nuclear program is a threat to the entire region and world. I've traveled the world... even Uzbeks are terrified of Iran having nukes because Iran is one hell of a fked up country and nobody knows where the hell Iran will be 20 years from now. It's not only a state with psychotics at the top making decisions, but it's also unstable and unpredictable.

    Psychotic + unstable + unpredictable + nukes = Disaster waiting to happen.
    People across the entire world are disturbed with the idea of Iran as a nuclear power.
     
  7. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Besides the fact that your entire message is full of drivel, you really missed the point. It doesn't matter how convinced you are about your arguments; the fact is that there are a lot of people who are worried about Israel's nukes. And a lot of states that have demanded that Israel be disarmed of them for that reason.

    And it doesn't matter that you imagine you have "traveled" the world, and no matter what some Uzbek you met told you, not everyone in the world is worried about Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, approxiamtely 100 countries are on record as supporting it.
     
  8. scotch17

    scotch17 Member

    Jun 15, 2008
    Entebbe
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    Give Palestinians the option of... which do you think they would chose?
    A. disbanding Israels' entire military and anything even remotely resembling paramilitary
    B. neutralizing Israels' nuclear weapons

    The nukes aren't the problem, and if you chose B you are really a fool.

    I don't have to imagine it. I have been.
    If you're going to pull facts out of your rear and not source them -- don't bother mentioning it.

    I noticed you also completely dodged the accusation on Irans' insecurity. That is central to the issue.
     
  9. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    What I wanted you to revisit was the statement: "nobody worries about Israel's nukes". That is a false statement. There are plenty of people who do worry about Israel's nukes. In Iran. In the region. Elsewhere. That doesn't mean that is all they worry about, nor that it is their most urgent worry right now. And if you haven't met those who worry about Israel's nukes, maybe it because you have chosen to shut your eyes. Some of them can be found even on bigsoccer!

    As for the attitude of the "world", here are some of the many resolutions and statements issued by a body that represents plenty of people and many countries in the world:

    In 2006:
    http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1068762.html
    Less than a year ago:
    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/30/africa/ME-Iran-Nuclear.php
     
  10. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Iran is the most secure and stable country in the Middle East. What is "central" in your mind is of no relevance to me.
     
  11. scotch17

    scotch17 Member

    Jun 15, 2008
    Entebbe
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    heheheh, as I thought.
    Neither of those states support is for nuclear weapons, but an energy program.
    Please try again... this time make sure your sources actually support your claims.

    And there goes your credibility.
     
  12. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_...hamas_makes_revenge_bid_against_fatah_me.html
    "the rival Fatah party said dozens of their men were executed by Hamas, allegedly for helping Israel target Hamas, and several were being tortured. Three Fatah men had their eyes put out during "interrogation" by Hamas thugs and as many as 80 Fatah members were either shot in the legs or had their hands broken for defying Hamas' house-arrest orders. ... "They were afraid to confront the Israeli Army and many Hamas militiamen even ran away during the fighting," he said. "Hamas is now venting its anger and frustration against our Fatah members there." Gaza residents said Hamas had commandeered schools and other public buildings as temporary detention centers, where prisoners were being systematically tortured. At the start of the Israeli bombing campaign, several Fatah prisoners taken to the Shifa Hospital in Gaza were executed as they lay in their beds."
     
  13. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    This is what I wrote:
    These countries support the program Iran actually has, including its enrichment program. Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, not even according to the US national intelligence estimate on the issue.;)

    :rolleyes:

    But of course!

    The most obnoxious thing to me is when people who don't know zilch about Iran, try to pretend that they do.

    I can cite hundreds of sources, even professional indexes designed for those who want to invest in various countries, rating Iran as "stable". Even despite all the US attempts to destablize it; even in the arenas where it is under the most severe sanctions and pressures, namely in its financial institutions. (The Iran Country Risk Report by the EU rates even Iran's currency and banking system, which is the target of concerted efforts to undermine it, as being "Stable").

    But I like Robert Baer's assessment best. As a former CIA analyst whose task was to figure some of these things out, he has the following to share with those who suffer from your misconceptions:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95285396
     
  14. scotch17

    scotch17 Member

    Jun 15, 2008
    Entebbe
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    Then why did you bother responding to me in the first place? I've explicitly been talking about nukes.

    Please, at least make an attempt to stay on topic.
     
  15. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Because Iran's nuclear program, as is, is akin to someone having a bottle of ethonol ostensibly for industrial or medicinal use, and correctly stating that it is does not have any alcoholic beverages. If that person wants to, he/she can easily mix some water or fruit juice into the ethonol and have an alcoholic beverage. If he/she doesn't want to, there is no alcoholic beverage in his possession.

    The NPT protects the right of each state to produce and have the equivalent of the "ethonol", namely to produce nuclear fuel and enriched uranium, but prohibits using that fuel to build a bomb. The US and its allies maintain that Iran cannot be "trusted" to have an enrichment program and have enriched uranium; Iran insists that it has that right. And that is the real debate about Iran's "nuclear program", not whether Iran is bulding nuclear weapons or not.

    For all practical purposes, once a country has what Iran has, it doesn't take any length of time to have nukes. The latter is just a question of whether Iran is pushed to actually build nukes, or is allowed to have the capacity without crossing the threshold.
     
  16. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    Perhaps Part IV has run its course. On to Part V.
     
  17. scotch17

    scotch17 Member

    Jun 15, 2008
    Entebbe
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    You're getting way off topic. I specifically said "nukes."

    Obviously. Which is where US and part of Euro comes in demanding Iran not use Plutonium and all the compromises regarding IAEA.
    But I haven't been talking about nuclear energy... and to insinuate that I have been is rather devious. I said the world is afraid of Iran having nukes.
    Not only have you yet to offer anything substantial why that wouldn't be the case, but apparently you've been relying on the fact that the world isn't scared of Iran having nuclear energy.

    There's quite a fine line between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. I shouldn't have to explain it to you.
     
  18. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    You assume the "world" is worried about Iran having nukes. That is just your assumption. Most people in the world are not worried about it as far as I can tell. Which is why they are quite content with the "fine line" between Iran's "nuclear energy program" and actual nuclear weapons.

    Incidentally, you don't understand Iran's nuclear program as evidenced by your emphasis on "plutonium", whereas the most immediate issue with Iran is its "uranium enrichment program".
     
  19. scotch17

    scotch17 Member

    Jun 15, 2008
    Entebbe
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    Many Americans are even fine with the energy program. So actually, no... they are 2 entirely separate issues.
    Furthermore, I do know people all around the world are unsettled by the idea of Iran having nukes because... I've been around. Japan, Thailand, England, Germany, Korea, India, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Qatar, and probably a few I'm forgetting.
    Your imagination isn't of much concern to me.

    Apparently you don't know much about nuclear weapons. Plutonium > Uranium.
     
  20. sahbekham_pactwinner

    Jun 12, 2005

    If only the Israelis agrees to it.
     
  21. sahbekham_pactwinner

    Jun 12, 2005
    Sinai land always belonged to Egypt. :rolleyes:

    Winning in wars doesn't make it your land.
     
  22. odessit19

    odessit19 Member

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    Yes it does, even according to international law, specifically in a defensive war.
     
  23. Umar

    Umar Member+

    Sep 13, 2005
    One step ahead
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Palestine
    Again, link. Link it to the relevant international legal document, not an opinion piece.
     
  24. yasik19

    yasik19 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Oct 21, 2004
    Daly City
    And once again, I will try to move this thread into the "right" direction. Or mods could just close it.

    Looks like all political leaders in Israel benefited from this 22-day operation.

    But Likud is still slightly ahead.

    Also, life is going back to "normal" in Gaza.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123...alestinians;_ylt=AvVbFl.2tts4pHDycs__echvaA8F
     
  25. sahbekham_pactwinner

    Jun 12, 2005
    Majority of the time they won't post the link and just blab what the zionist had fed them.
     

Share This Page