Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'

marcsignal

According to "Jimmy Carter" (The Big Anti-Semite) Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7420573.stm

So why is everyone so worried about Iran and North Korea ??

wes

I think its well known at this point that Israel has nuclear weapons. Its the worlds worst kept secret.

Of course poor Jimmy Carter, is going to catch hell for saying this. The guy talks a lot of sense and seems to want peace for everyone in the region. The criticism he gets tends to be, because he isn't 150% pro-Israel, but rather pro-peace and justice for everyone in the region.

While, I can understand why Israel wants nuclear weapons. Still having them gives every single one of there neighbors a good reason to build there own and quite frankly no one in the ME should have nuclear weapons. Too many crazy people running nations.

Basically this could be creating an arms race, that would make the one between India and Pakistan look like 2 pals having a friendly game of Cricket.

mike65

*shruggs*

Mike.

Manic Moran

Well, they've had them for about 30 years and not blown anybody up with them yet, so it's pretty fair to say they're not an unknown quantity. They're also not noted for 'offensive' (as opposed to defensive) rhetoric, and being an elected government (And don't try to tell me Iran's elections are worth much) are considered to be more rational.

NTM

Gobán Saor

Does anyone in Ireland feel threatened by Israel's nuclear weapons? Can you conceive of any scenario whereby Israel might target its nukes on Dublin? No, didn't think so?

Could you say the same if Iran had nuclear weapons? Might, say, London be a target of a hardline Islamic government?

Nuclear weapons are more dangerous in the hands of a regime that glorifies the cult of martyrdom and the suicide bomber. Israel has a healthy determination to survive and hence is not likely to use its nukes in a first strike.

GuanYin

The OP didn't see fit to actually express and opinion, or indeed, read the forum rules (apparently) so I'm closing the thread. If the OP wants to PM me so that they can put actual input, I may reopen it.

Just in case anyone thinks otherwise, this is a discussion forum, not a blogging service.

wes

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Does anyone in Ireland feel threatened by Israel's nuclear weapons? Can you conceive of any scenario whereby Israel might target its nukes on Dublin? No, didn't think so?

A nuclear war in the ME is bad for everyone. We would get hit by environmental effects even if no one tried to nuke us.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Could you say the same if Iran had nuclear weapons? Might, say, London be a target of a hardline Islamic government?

Oddly the hardliner Islamic government hasn't launched a single war of aggression in its history (its been on the receiving end of a western back war of aggression).

Israel on the other hand has engaged in war of aggression, for example the 1956 war against Egypt.

As bad as the Iranian regime are, there far more peaceful than the rest of the countries in the region.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Nuclear weapons are more dangerous in the hands of a regime that glorifies the cult of martyrdom and the suicide bomber. Israel has a healthy determination to survive and hence is not likely to use its nukes in a first strike.

If Israel thinks its under threat from conventional weapons, they damn well would use them.

Also, the vast majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are Sunni and not Shia. Al Queda and other groups who advocate suicide bombings are generally Sunni.

Also, Iran has nuclear weapons and there is no evidence to suggest they are making any. While, there are still questioned to be answered about the nuclear program, this doesn't amount to anything at the moment.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, they've had them for about 30 years and not blown anybody up with them yet, so it's pretty fair to say they're not an unknown quantity. They're also not noted for 'offensive' (as opposed to defensive) rhetoric, and being an elected government (And don't try to tell me Iran's elections are worth much) are considered to be more rational.

Threatening the Palestinians with a Holocaust (or another Nakba as per the other translation) by the Deputy defense minister, sounds pretty offensive to me.

From Guardian.co.uk

If the two-state solution collapsed, he said, Israel would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished". Israel's supporters abroad would quickly turn against such a state, he said.

Also, Israel is an apartheid state, even the Prime Minister of Israel made the comparison (albeit in the future tense). Personally I believe apartheid states are dangerous things.

Also, the only country to actually use a nuclear weapon in war, had an elected government, against another country that didn't have nuclear weapons of there own.

marcsignal

PSI wrote: »

The OP didn't see fit to actually express and opinion, or indeed, read the forum rules (apparently) so I'm closing the thread. If the OP wants to PM me so that they can put actual input, I may reopen it.

Just in case anyone thinks otherwise, this is a discussion forum, not a blogging service.

Just for my own opinion I think the region would be safer without any nuclear weapons

wes

wes wrote: »

Threatening the Palestinians with a Holocaust (or another Nakba as per the other translation) by the Deputy defense minister, sounds pretty offensive to me.

So they're gnna nuke their neighbour? That'd be like us (dublin) nuking westmeath...

Also, Israel is an apartheid state, even the Prime Minister of Israel made the comparison (albeit in the future tense). Personally I believe apartheid states are dangerous things.

Israel is a democratic country full of educated people. Theres no internet restriction, no crushing of protests...Their situation is the equivalent of the UK not allowing northern people to enter in the 70's/80's, only they couldn't do that because that would defeat the purpose of having the place as a colony in the first place..Would you allow people to enter your house that would be more likely to destroy it? (I'm in no way pro-israel, I'd like to make that clear)

Also, the only country to actually use a nuclear weapon in war, had an elected government, against another country that didn't have nuclear weapons of there own.

So you'd rather a nuclear war fought on equal footing? Lets destroy the world while we're at it.. One thing I'll say about America using the bomb against Japan is it'll never be used again. Tbh more people would probably have died in the long run if they didn't use the bomb, imo. What would you do against an enemy who had no other motivation besides 'no-surrender'?

marcsignal

marcsignal wrote: »

Just for my own opinion I think the region would be safer without any nuclear weapons

like it was prior to Israel getting nuclear weapons? They havn't used them offensively, and never will. Because then they're pretty much on their own. And they don't want that.

Compare the number of wars in the ME prior to Israel getting nukes, and after...

wes

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

So they're gnna nuke their neighbour? That'd be like us (dublin) nuking westmeath...

I never said they were going to do that. However, they could easily kill a lot of them via conventional weapons.

Having said that, I think it was an idle threat more than anything. I really doubt they would do anything since the world is watching.

Also, all the Palestinian living in Israel and occupied Palestine, make it unlikely they would be nuked by there neighbors as well btw.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Israel is a democratic country full of educated people. Theres no internet restriction, no crushing of protests...Their situation is the equivalent of the UK not allowing northern people to enter in the 70's/80's, only they couldn't do that because that would defeat the purpose of having the place as a colony in the first place..Would you allow people to enter your house that would be more likely to destroy it? (I'm in no way pro-israel, I'd like to make that clear)

You do realize what you said applies to Israel about entering someones house, thats what Israel did, they went to someone else house and kicked out the people living there. Now there is conflict, with the original occupants.

Israel is not democratic at all. Colonists in the West Bank can vote for the government of the state, but Palestinians can't. Then there are Jewish only roads among other things. Israel is a democracy for one ethnic group, hence why they insist on being called a Jewish state, not a state for all it citizens like a proper democracy.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

So you'd rather a nuclear war fought on equal footing? Lets destroy the world while we're at it.. One thing I'll say about America using the bomb against Japan is it'll never be used again. Tbh more people would probably have died in the long run if they didn't use the bomb, imo. What would you do against an enemy who had no other motivation besides 'no-surrender'?

Thanks for proving my point, if Israel takes the same attitude they could nuke one of there non-nuclear armed enemies. Now why wouldn't other nations want nuclear weapons? Having them ensures MAD, and make them a less likely target.

See you misread what I said. No one in the ME (or anyone else btw) should have nuclear weapons, but Israel having them gives there neighbors every reason in the world to get some. One nation in the ME having nuclear weapons. make it more likely others will want them and more likely for a nuclear conflict.

wes

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

like it was prior to Israel getting nuclear weapons? They havn't used them offensively, and never will. Because then they're pretty much on their own. And they don't want that.

Compare the number of wars in the ME prior to Israel getting nukes, and after...

Plenty of them actually. The war with Hizbollah, the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. Thats just recently.

Dr_Teeth

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, they've had them for about 30 years and not blown anybody up with them yet, so it's pretty fair to say they're not an unknown quantity. They're also not noted for 'offensive' (as opposed to defensive) rhetoric, and being an elected government (And don't try to tell me Iran's elections are worth much) are considered to be more rational.

NTM

In fairness they haven't even come close to losing a war during that time, until that happens we won't know whether they're rational or not. They gave the technology to South Africa of all places, in the middle of the apartheid era! That doesn't speak well of their attitude towards nuclear weapons - let's give them to another nation surrounded by evil darkies!

FX Meister

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

no crushing of protests...

You're talking about Irsrael when you say this right?

Liam Byrne

The U.S. has nuclear weapons too, last time I looked! How come we're ONLY worried when we hear that "those nasty other people in other countries" have them ?

marco murphy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The U.S. has nuclear weapons too, last time I looked! How come we're ONLY worried when we hear that "those nasty other people in other countries" have them ?

As far as I am concerned the US falls into the latter category.
Someone above made a great point that ''Israel hasn't actually lost a war.'' And till it is losing a war, then we would see the weapons being used I believe.

CtrlSource

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, they've had them for about 30 years and not blown anybody up with them yet, so it's pretty fair to say they're not an unknown quantity. They're also not noted for 'offensive' (as opposed to defensive) rhetoric...

i don't entirely agree. They have had numerous government changes over the years and have rattled many sabres with their rhetoric. While they don't sound as crackpot as the Iranians or Syrians (and formerly Iraqis), they still operate a pretty unpleasant domestic & foreign military policy

marcsignal

Poblachtach wrote: »

As far as I am concerned the US falls into the latter category.
Someone above made a great point that ''Israel hasn't actually lost a war.'' And till it is losing a war, then we would see the weapons being used I believe.

My sentiments exactly. In fact I read an interesting piece about how Israel covered up their uranium enrichment programme in the 'Dimona' Nuclear Power station by covering over/disguising entrances to the entire section, and fooling UN inspectors.
I could be wrong, but didn't the U.S. and U.K. invade Iraq, because they claimed they doing the same thing ?

Don't UN resolutions apply to all countries ?

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

One thing I'll say about America using the bomb against Japan is it'll never be used againTbh more people would probably have died in the long run if they didn't use the bomb, imo. .

Japan was on the brink of capitulation, the Americans saw the Japenese as ‘Sub-Human’, and Truman was determined to use the Bomb to impress Stalin, against the advice of Genral(s) Eisenhower, MacArthur, Arnold and Curtis Le May, and Admiral(s) Lehea and King, who were all against first use.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What would you do against an enemy who had no other motivation besides 'no-surrender'?

Stop herding them into a Ghetto, behind an illegal wall, and start talking with them ??

Kev_ps3

Isreal is an illigal terrorist state with WMD, we should isolate and put sanctions on it asap. Failing that, the west should invade and destroy their country..
..no wait, they are jew not asian

humberklog

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

we

What's this 'WE' business paleface?

I like the naivety of the OP. It's almost cute. Of course Israel has such weapons. It has the brains to create them, the enemies to licence them, the fortitude to withhold them and the history to reason them.

As for the OP...Seriously,N.korea? I don't believe in pasting a load of notes from wiki or where-ever but go have a look at that dude.
Iran...hmmm. They can espose a lotta nasty rhetoric. (Look it up).Sure that can be the style of the language of the region but still would leave the reciever of such sabre rattling very, very wary. Wary enough to keep a pretty big bomb under your bed.

wes

humberklog wrote: »

It has the brains to create them, the enemies to licence them, the fortitude to withhold them and the history to reason them.

You sentence there make no sense at all. What are you even trying to say? What enemies licensed nuclear weapons to Israel?

humberklog wrote: »

Iran...hmmm. They can espose a lotta nasty rhetoric. (Look it up).Sure that can be the style of the language of the region but still would leave the reciever of such sabre rattling very, very wary. Wary enough to keep a pretty big bomb under your bed.

Israel had the bomb long before Iran's rhetoric. Still I will point to Iran's actions, they have not engaged in a war of aggression for something like a 100 years. Israel has engaged in such wars, numerous times.

As for rhetoric, plenty of that comes out of Israel as well.

Then there is the very simple fact, that due to Israel arsenal others in the region will want there own. This make things far more dangerous for the entire region.

humberklog

wes wrote: »

You sentence there make no sense at all. What are you even trying to say? What enemies licensed nuclear weapons to Israel?



Israel had the bomb long before Iran's rhetoric. Still I will point to Iran's actions, they have not engaged in a war of aggression for something like a 100 years. Israel has engaged in such wars, numerous times.

As for rhetoric, plenty of that comes out of Israel as well.

Then there is the very simple fact, that due to Israel arsenal others in the region will want there own. This make things far more dangerous for the entire region.

Wes...ain't gonna help you out on 1st part of your post. If you don't get it I don't care.
2nd part indeed they did...so what?
3rd part...yes indeed plenty of rhetoric from Israel.
4th...I don't agree. Simple as that. (30plus years they haven't)

My post was a direct response to the OPs opener and the the post that I quoted. End of story.

wes

humberklog wrote: »

Wes...ain't gonna help you out on 1st part of your post. If you don't get it I don't care.

Fair enough. The bit of your post made no sense what so ever. All I was asking was for clarification and even pointed out what I didn't get. However, if you can't be bothered to clarify thats you business.

humberklog wrote: »

2nd part indeed they did...so what?

You referred to Israel needing a big bomb due to what there President has said. I was just pointing out that big bomb was there long before that. The reason for Israel arsenal has nothing to do with Iran. It was already there.

humberklog wrote: »

3rd part...yes indeed plenty of rhetoric from Israel.

Great, so the other nations in the ME should build bombs then!

humberklog wrote: »

4th...I don't agree. Simple as that. (30plus years they haven't)

Actually, Iraq tried, but Israel bombed there reactors. So thats untrue.

Also, the only reason they haven't done so is due to the USA's puppets rulers preventing this. Its only a matter of time before they get a bomb.

humberklog wrote: »

My post was a direct response to the OPs opener and the the post that I quoted. End of story.

Erm, its a message board. I can reply to any post, its how things work.

I posted, as I didn't understand a portion of your post and disagreed with some of what your were saying.

humberklog

wes wrote: »

1. Fair enough. The bit of your post made no sense what so ever. All I was asking was for clarification and even pointed out what I didn't get. However, if you can't be bothered to clarify thats you business.



2. You referred to Israel needing a big bomb due to what there President has said. I was just pointing out that big bomb was there long before that. The reason for Israel arsenal has nothing to do with Iran. It was already there.



3. Great, so the other nations in the ME should build bombs then!



4. Actually, Iraq tried, but Israel bombed there reactors. So thats untrue.

Also, the only reason they haven't done so is due to the USA's puppets rulers preventing this. Its only a matter of time before they get a bomb.



5. Erm, its a message board. I can reply to any post, its how things work.

I posted, as I didn't understand a portion of your post and disagreed with some of what your were saying.

1. Yep.
2. You've mis-read my post. My original response was far more ambigious than you make it.
3. Whatever you think yourself.
4. Trying is not doing. Therefore true.
5. Absolutely. Doesn't mean you'll be entertained with a response you want each time though(but that doesn't leave it up to you to spin that response into the arguement your looking for).

wes

humberklog wrote: »

2. You've mis-read my post. My original response was far more ambigious than you make it.

Fair enough. My mistake.

humberklog wrote: »

3. Whatever you think yourself.

Well, I wouldn't blame them if they did, but rather no one had them.

humberklog wrote: »

4. Trying is not doing. Therefore true.

The intent is still there. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, its really only a matter of time.

humberklog wrote: »

5. Absolutely. Doesn't mean you'll be entertained with a response you want each time though(but that doesn't leave it up to you to spin that response into the arguement your looking for).

I am not looking for any particular response. Also, I don't need to spin anything. My arguement is simple, anyone who has nuclear weapons, should not be surprised that others want them too.

humberklog

wes wrote: »

1. The intent is still there. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, its really only a matter of time.



2. My arguement is simple, anyone who has nuclear weapons, should not be surprised that others want them too.

1. Janeymac Wes I don't know about that. There are very obvious signs when one is constructing a bomb and would doubt it being allowed to reach a level of even near completion in the middle east. At present at least.

2. Surely that arguement can be reduced to aid understanding. Take 45year man of sound intellect buying a gun in the USA, buys his gun and ammo and leaves the counter. Later he is followed in by a 45year old with obvious signs of Downs Syndrome. There is a difference. (this isn't to open the arguement into an american guns thingy me bob. I use the U.S as they have licencing laws which allow you to buy guns). I'm also using this more to pronounce N.Koreas attempts. Or as the OP puts it 'our fears'.

wes

humberklog wrote: »

1. Janeymac Wes I don't know about that. There are very obvious signs when one is constructing a bomb and would doubt it being allowed to reach a level of even near completion in the middle east. At present at least.

Just, because it was stopped before, doesn't mean someone won't eventually make one. Hell, they may just buy them at some point.

humberklog wrote: »

2. Surely that arguement can be reduced to aid understanding. Take 45year man of sound intellect buying a gun in the USA, buys his gun and ammo and leaves the counter. Later he is followed in by a 45year old with obvious signs of Downs Syndrome. There is a difference. (this isn't to open the arguement into an american guns thingy me bob. I use the U.S as they have licencing laws which allow you to buy guns). I'm also using this more to pronounce N.Koreas attempts. Or as the OP puts it 'our fears'.

North Korea is very much an exception. Still proves my point about the genie being out of the bottle, if a country that is in such a mess a North Korea can have a nuclear program.

Also, in the US people with mental problems, have no issue getting guns legally.

humberklog

wes wrote: »

Just, because it was stopped before, doesn't mean someone won't eventually make one. Hell, they may just buy them at some point.



North Korea is very much an exception. Still proves my point about the genie being out of the bottle, if a country that is in such a mess a North Korea can have a nuclear program.

Also, in the US people with mental problems, have no issue getting guns legally.

Yeah but even buying them is far fetched (being 'donated' them more likely but that still brings it back to the creating them problem). The Bond movies do over simplify the technical nous and equipment required to even accommodate a land based launch. Then again it's always the far fetched that surprise the most. But it would be a BIG surprise!

Yeah sure N.K have a nuclear programme it is still not nuclear capabilities. Exception it certainly is, which is kinda what I'm saying. There is reason to fear a country if it had nuclear capabilities and some dude with one hand on the controls of his arsenal and the other on the controls of his giant scaletrix all the whilst watching the box set of Nightmare on Elms st.
I think it was unfortunate the OP to put Iran and N.K together.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Also, in the US people with mental problems, have no issue getting guns legally.

Not the best analogy for the argument, I don't think. Federal law has prohibited the transfer of firearms to mentally ailed persons since 1968. The problem is that sometimes some sneak through the cracks, much as some countries have snuck through the nuclear weapons cracks such as Israel or Pakistan. This does not mean that efforts should not be made to restrict the acquisitions by others or that those knowingly attempting to circumvent the limitation should not suffer reprecussions if found out.

NTM

humberklog

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not the best analogy for the argument, I don't think. Federal law has prohibited the transfer of firearms to mentally ailed persons since 1968. The problem is that sometimes some sneak through the cracks, much as some countries have snuck through the nuclear weapons cracks such as Israel or Pakistan. This does not mean that efforts should not be made to restrict the acquisitions by others or that those knowingly attempting to circumvent the limitation should not suffer reprecussions if found out.

NTM

In fairness to Wes MM I'd made the initial analogy about guns to make a point.
Not realy with on the 2nd part of your post. Are you saying that countries should be allowed to develop nuclear arsenal or they should stopped?
Forget that. Had a cuppa and a re-read. Gotcha now.

Gobán Saor

wes wrote: »

I will point to Iran's actions, they have not engaged in a war of aggression for something like a 100 years.

Ha ha!:D Technically correct, perhaps. But they do fight by proxy. Hizbollah, for instance, is armed and financed by Iran. Its self-admitted policy is to establish Islamic rule in the entire territory of Israel/Palestine, "eliminating" anyone who might resist. Sounds pretty aggressive to me:rolleyes:.

wes wrote: »

Israel has engaged in such wars, numerous times.

That's a matter of opinion, not of fact. It could be argued that most if not all of Israel's wars were defensive. Pre-emptive strikes, at worst. Israel has never gone to war against any country that acknowledged its right to exist. (Unless, of course, that country allowed armed forces that don't acknowledge its right to exist to operate from its territory.)

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not the best analogy for the argument, I don't think. Federal law has prohibited the transfer of firearms to mentally ailed persons since 1968. The problem is that sometimes some sneak through the cracks, much as some countries have snuck through the nuclear weapons cracks such as Israel or Pakistan. This does not mean that efforts should not be made to restrict the acquisitions by others or that those knowingly attempting to circumvent the limitation should not suffer reprecussions if found out.

NTM

Well, thats my point, they can slip through the cracks.

Still the more countries that have them and the more that will want them. Eventually more and more people will get them.

wes

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Ha ha!:D Technically correct, perhaps. But they do fight by proxy. Hizbollah, for instance, is armed and financed by Iran. Its self-admitted policy is to establish Islamic rule in the entire territory of Israel/Palestine, "eliminating" anyone who might resist. Sounds pretty aggressive to me:rolleyes:.

Hizbollah, were created in response to Israel invasion of Lebanon. Israel is currently occupying part of Lebanon. Iran may be backing them, but they consider it a defensive action since Israel is still occupying parts of Lebanon as well as Palestine. So what I am saying is not technically correct. It is correct.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion, not of fact. It could be argued that most if not all of Israel's wars were defensive. Pre-emptive strikes, at worst. Israel has never gone to war against any country that acknowledged its right to exist. (Unless, of course, that country allowed armed forces that don't acknowledge its right to exist to operate from its territory.)

The 1956 war, was a war of aggression. That is a statement of fact. The French, British and Israel, wanted control of the Suez. The entire plot has been laid bare at this point. To call what those countries as anything other than a war of aggression is ridiculous.

Then there is the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which kicked off the 1948 war (Deir Yassin taking place before it started).

Those are 2 examples. Hardly opinion, as Israel intentions have always been very clear. We need look no further than the colonies being built in the West Bank as I type.

Sesshoumaru

Only 150? Well I suppose its enough to lay waste to all of the middle east. Not sure why any Irish person should care? Its not like Israel is a threat to our survival.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Well, thats my point, they can slip through the cracks.

Still the more countries that have them and the more that will want them. Eventually more and more people will get them.

Are you suggesting that there should not still be attempts to limit their prolification?

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there should not still be attempts to limit their prolification?

NTM

Nope, just that they will fail as long as other people have nuclear weapons.

Look at it this way, India started a nuclear program, then Pakistan had to have one. They both eventually got them.

Now we have Israel with weapons, its only a matter of time until someone else in the region gets them. Sure non proliferation will work for a while, but will eventually fail.

I don't want anyone to have them, but its inevitable that the best efforts will fail. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but I am being realistic, it will fail eventually.

Basically, if we want non-proliferation to work, everyone would have to give them up. I don't see even India or Pakistan giving up there weapons let alone the US, China etc.

Kev_ps3

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Only 150? Well I suppose its enough to lay waste to all of the middle east. Not sure why any Irish person should care? Its not like Israel is a threat to our survival.

Either are Iran or North Korea btw

marcsignal

humberklog wrote: »

I like the naivety of the OP. It's almost cute..

charming.......would you be more comfortable, if the peasants remain fickle ??

humberklog wrote: »

I don't believe in pasting a load of notes from wiki or where-ever but go have a look at that dude.
.

'Hitler's Scientists' John Cornwell, Viking 2003, p 430

interesting read

djpbarry

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Only 150? Well I suppose its enough to lay waste to all of the middle east. Not sure why any Irish person should care?

:rolleyes: Right...

Why should we care about anything, eh? People die all the time, but "I don't know them so I don't care", right?

Sesshoumaru

djpbarry wrote: »

:rolleyes: Right...

Why should we care about anything, eh? People die all the time, but "I don't know them so I don't care", right?

I'm not a man with a mission. I'm just being realistic, I have day to day stuff like looking after my family that consume a lot of my energy. I can't go on a crusade for every international issue. It would be nice if the middle east was a nuclear free zone. But if I had to reluctantly pick a country that should have them, then Israel would be my top choice. I'll sleep ok at night unless the Arab regimes decide to attack Israel again.

humberklog

marcsignal wrote: »

1.(a) charming.......1.(b) would you be more comfortable, if the peasants remain fickle ??



2.'Hitler's Scientists' John Cornwell, Viking 2003, p 430

interesting read

1.(a) Sorry if that read as a snooty statement marcsignal. It wasn't intended. I was genuinely surprised that the core of this news item would appear surprising though.
1.(b) No.
2. Never heard of it and probably wouldn't go outta my way to look it up as there's more reading material bandied about here than at a Scientologist convention. But am curious to the jist if you could be of any help. I'll have to refer you to part 1.B of your post.

djpbarry

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I'm not a man with a mission. I'm just being realistic, I have day to day stuff like looking after my family that consume a lot of my energy. I can't go on a crusade for every international issue.

Who said you should? You asked why anyone in Ireland should care about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East; well, given the obvious destructive power of said weapons, along with the unstable nature of certain Middle Eastern countries, I would have thought the situation would be of concern to everyone in the world, not just the residents of Ireland.

Liam Byrne

Poblachtach wrote: »

As far as I am concerned the US falls into the latter category.
Someone above made a great point that ''Israel hasn't actually lost a war.'' And till it is losing a war, then we would see the weapons being used I believe.

Hence my quotes around "those nasty other people in other countries"....most people, for some reason, don't seem to realise that the U.S. falls into that category (or at least didn't realise it until they were caught lying through their teeth about the reasons for invading Iraq).

Lemming

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

It would be nice if the middle east was a nuclear free zone. But if I had to reluctantly pick a country that should have them, then Israel would be my top choice. I'll sleep ok at night unless the Arab regimes decide to attack Israel again.

To be perfectly honest, I don't trust a single country in the ME - Israel included - with nukes. Israel has demonstrated time and again that it is perfectly willing (and active) in carrying out murders, kidnappings, espionage etc. in other countries including Ireland (like the two Mossad agents that were found out but managed to skip the country a few years ago).

WooPeeA

marcsignal wrote: »

According to "Jimmy Carter" (The Big Anti-Semite) Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7420573.stm

So why is everyone so worried about Iran and North Korea ??

Because Israel is a friend of most of the countries. Iran wants to destroy Israel, and it's the official president's option. North Korea is the most brutal and worst regime in today's world.. That's why.

speedboatchase

Good for Israel

wes

WooPeeA wrote: »

Because Israel is a friend of most of the countries. Iran wants to destroy Israel, and it's the official president's option.

There President is a figure head. The Supreme Leader is the guy who calls the shots.

I will also remind you that Israel has also had political figures threaten people in the region, most recently the deputy defense minister threaten Palestinians in a similar manner.

Then there are any number of politicians in Israel who refer the Palestinians as a demographic threat for merely existing. Israel is hardly a country that the West should be friend with, its is a apartheid state and should be treated the same as apartheid South Africa was.

I personally see a lot to be worried about with Israel having WMD's.

As for Iran there is no evidence that they even have WMD's, where as Israel actually does have them. There is a world of difference between worrying about a nation that has no WMD's and one that does.

WooPeeA wrote: »

North Korea is the most brutal and worst regime in today's world.. That's why.

That is certainly true, and while Israel is no where near as bad as that. There still pretty brutal in there own right towards the Palestinians.

So why not worry about both?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

wes wrote: »

Then there are any number of politicians in Israel who refer the Palestinians as a demographic threat for merely existing. Israel is hardly a country that the West should be friend with, its is a apartheid state and should be treated the same as apartheid South Africa was.

well they are.. the united states was great friends with apartheid south africa weren't they?

wes

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

well they are..

Whether the Palestinian are one or aren't doesn't really matter. My point was that Israel referring to them in that way, shows there hardly in a position to complain about Iran, when there politicians engage in such rhetoric.

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

the united states was great friends with apartheid south africa weren't they?

They were, but they eventually wised up. I think the same needs to happen again.

humberklog

[quote=wes;



I think the same needs to happen again.[/quote]



Not gonna for a while! (and rightly too imo) What with Obama pinning his colours to the flag.

I am confused with your previous posts Wes. What connection are you making regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians and your perceived threat that Israelis nuclear arsenal pose?