At the very beginning already in the "war on terror" Syria , although not being part of the "axis of evil" , remained isolated in a negative political context . As the war on Iraq started Syria's rhetorical machine started working once again , opposing the invasion openly desiring for the invaders defeat .

As Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara put it :

Syria's interest is to see the invaders defeated in Iraq

His spokesman emphasized Syria's position :

Syria has chosen to align itself with the brotherly Iraqi people who are facing an illegal and unjustified invasion and against whom are being committed all sorts of crimes against humanity

Ofcourse elements that have caused such reaction could as well be founded purely on the political-diplomatic route rather than the humanitarian , as not only the UN's irrelevance became clear , but as well Syria's relevance within the UN security council .

Syria Says It Supports Iraqi People Against Invaders (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-03/31/article10.shtml)

During the war incidents emerged , of which one was the "goggles-issue" , Rumsfeld explained :

we have information of shipments of military supplies crossing the border from Syria into Iraq

We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable

Ofcourse Powell was nice enough to assure us of the context in which Syria and the middle east crisis would play part , as he in respect to AIPAC affirmed that all the actions of the U.S. administration in the region serve Israeli interests .

Powell , then within the guidelines of his mission payed a visit to Syria and dealt with delicat issues on a diplomatic level . Following that visit Syria has de-militarized the education system by abolishing military uniforms and military training (which Powell regarded as "terrorist" activism) and by bringing down the required period for military service from 2.5 years to 1.5 year .

This "reform" falls within Syria's context of economical and political reform , as Syria has also allowed international private banking conform reform policy , while on the political part it has experienced the resignation of the PM and the fall of the Cabinet last week .

On the new Syrian government (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030911/2003091106.html)

All these changes within the reform-policy of Bashar Al-Assad , who is drwing the initiative toward himself as the developments are tried to be presented as actual democratization rather than following the demands of the Amerikan blackmail .

The decree, lauded in the state press ahead of publication last week, was the latest in a string of gestures widely read to mean Syria has taken to heart US rhetoric about forcing change in the region, one way or another.

Iraq war forces Syria to change (http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7822&TagID=2)

But what can Bashar do other than take the shame and obey the invaders , when Yossi Kupperwasser stands around the corner waiting to yell out how Iraq might have moved missiles and weapons of mass destruction into Syria.

He can at the very least show honesty and defeat toward the Syrian peoples , rather than try to manuevre himself as the hero of democracy in order to remain in power . Afterall , in Syria it is not big secret that in november last year Syria talked for the first time about reform in Syria at the political and economic levels .

At the time it was allso evident how so far there is still more rhetoric than action , somehow Powell has managed to change that into an active policy of complete Social de-militarization .

On reforms in Syria (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021119/2002111903.html)

Yet somehow all of this is not enough for the invading enslavers :

With new intelligence showing involvement by key members of the Syrian government in weapons sales to Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration is on the verge of imposing potentially devastating economic sanctions against Syria, administration officials say

Syria is being forced to cut itself loose from the allies that are considered hostile toward the zionist state :

Powell is said to be furious that Syrian President Bashar Assad allegedly reneged on a promise to Powell in May that he would close down the Damascus offices of Hamas and Hezbollah, both listed by the U.S. as terrorist organizations. The offices are officially closed but still active, according to government sources and Middle East experts.

As if there would ever be a situation of acknowledging measurements have been made to please the zionists , for as long as there is any linkage whatsoever . The question is weither the zionistys aspire a new friendly Syrian neighbour , or an economically and politically isolated state ready to be included within the "axis of evil" and denounced as terrorist due to the bizar blackmail Syria is receiving .

Supporters and opponents of sanctions will be paying close attention Tuesday when Undersecretary of State John Bolton, an administration hawk on Syria, testifies before the House International Relations Committee. In July the administration blocked Bolton from testifying about Syria's alleged stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

The committee will be holding a hearing on the Syria Accountability Act, cosponsored by Rep. Eliot Engel (D-Bronx). The act, already supported by majorities of both the House and the Senate, would give the president wide latitude to impose a range of sanctions against Syria, including a total block on trade and any kind of financial transactions. The administration is also considering separate sanctions under the Patriot Act, also involving prohibition of financial transactions.

This can have devestating effects for an economy as Syria has today , what reform-purposes can USA desire when complete isolation that rather push Syria into militarism than draws from it are being enforced ?

And as we are wondering how one can demand reform and enforce isolation , our zionist friend Feith pops to create a logical context for Syria's role it is pushed into :

Douglas Feith, now the No. 3 official at the Pentagon, coauthored a report in the 1990s saying the U.S. should invade Iraq as a first step toward toppling the Assad regime in Syria.

U.S. Considers Syria Sanctions (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-wosyri123451495sep12,0,1032578.story?coll=ny-nationworld-headlines)

The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, a reheated and amended legislative proposal proffered and then refrigerated in 2002, vows additional US sanctions to “hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it has caused in the Middle East.”

Holding Syria accountable (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/13_09_03_c.asp)

The form and shape of project Syria is unknow , it will surely depend on how Iraq develops and the situation in Israel especially regarding Hamas , perhaps even including Hizbullah and Syria's military presence in Lebanon .

Regardless of the form and shape , that what Syria will face economically politically and perhaps even military wll be within zionist interest , it seems that Bashar is very well aware of this and swings between anti-zionist and appeasement of US-desires and demands .

Sooner or later he will have to choose weither he wants to play the great political reformer or the great zionist opposer , before he looses controll over the situation .

Perhaps he should also consider how much relevance either one of his paths will have on the behaviour against his countries , his lack of power cannot be denied by any rhetorical shoutings as even Fm Faruq seems to have changed his mind ....... although it is not perfectly clear into what it is changed :

Syria's Foreign Minister Farouk al – Shara said Tuesday Damascus would not officially recognize the new Iraqi cabinet announced on Monday by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, but it was ready to cooperate with it.

Damascus ready to cooperate with new Iraqi cabinet (http://www.al-bawaba.com/headlines/TheNews.php3?action=story&sid=257643&lang=e&dir=)

Israel is a country that occupies our territories, and Syria is required to take Israeli interests into consideration; what kind of logic is this?

Bashar Al Assad

Then Syria is next on the list to invade and try to remove the terrorists ruling it also.

First of all , I posted this thread at -.24 , you at -.26 . This means you have taken at the very most 2 minutes of time to read it , in order to create your vomit-inducing reply on it .

Caveman behaviour as such is not desired on my thread , so you do understand that as far as a rational discussion goes you have ended it before it started .

Secondly , was that a threat ? Do wish to receive a promis to go with that in return ?

I think the entire Middle East is going into a war sometime soon...but that's on Israel to keep cool for now...

Syria has really been impressing me lately. Assad, if he wasn't Israel's enemy would be one of my fav. leaders in the middle east.

the economical reforms he introduced has increased the avg. salary in Syria by 50% compared to 2 years ago (while the currency value stayed the same. that's pretty impressive).

he also started a huge move of reforms towards democratization. all i can say is Kudos.
this should not be veiwed as a "loss to US pressure" but as a win for the Syrian people which benifit most out of these reforms.

as for saying that US puts pressure on Israel's enemies, don't look at it as "US taking care of bizness for Israel" but as "US helping a friendly, ally nation. that's what friends do for each other, they help eachother. Israel has blindly supported the US in the UN, the US supports Israel considerably less... the least it can do is help secure Israel's safety (which it does reluctantly, cautiously, FAR from whole-heartedly...and with tons of conditions attached)

as for "Israel is a country that occupies our territories, and Syria is required to take Israeli interests into consideration; what kind of logic is this? ",
this logic means "you can't be hostile towards Israel"

This may be a little off topic Ghassan but guess who the British government invited to their latest arms fair? (the same arms fair that the prevention of terrorism act was used to arrest and detain peaceful protesters incidently)
Well we invited (among others) India, Pakistan (well why sell to only one side in a conflict?) and you guessed it, that founder member of the axis of evil, Syria!
I think cosmic should be told that the British will never invade a country that owes us money.

Keep up the good work.
Dee Cee

The invasion of Syria will not happen IMO becuase:

1) the Bush can't do it at this juncture without suffering a huge loss at the polls in '04.

2) I don't believe there is enough political will too actually invade her.

3) The ME would quickly dissolve into a Al Qaeda bath, truly counter-productive to whatever the US is try to do.

4) Syria's chem. weapons are not un-common at all, anywhere in the world. Especially in the ME, why not Egypt, or Algeria?

5) Syria is not a significant threat to anyone in the ME anymore, especially not Israel.

6) Unlike the Iraqi's, Syria has volenterred to make a "WMD free zone" that been largely ignored.

7) There seems to be neo-liberal, and democratic reforms taking place in Syria. Why destroy something real, to replace it with faux democrapcy like in the case of Iraq?

points 5 & 6.

Syria has about a 100 chemical war-head missiles pointed at israel at this moment.

Israel has btwn 100-300 nukes pointed at every ME capital. Do u honesty believe Syria would give up those weapons with NO israeli reciprocity? Let's be real here, that's why Syria asked for a WMD free zone.

Syria has about a 100 chemical war-head missiles pointed at israel at this moment.
and how many Israeli missiles pointed at Syria?
Oh and links for both figures (if poss)

Thanx
Dee Cee

the syrian threat of 100 chem war heads, i read it in a mainstream israeli newspaper

as for israel pointing nukes at entire mid-east.. pure speculation (altho a realistic one.. and a reasonable one)
at least at nations that want to destroy her.

Oth everyone knows Israel has a nuke capability so don't even try to pull of that one. Secondly Israel with her Jericho missiles have sufficent range to Tehran. Even if it were not armed with Nukes it could be with chem. , possibly even bio. I am sure Egypt on her scuds could put chem. weapons too. So again Syria has every right to threaten Israel with WMD as much as Israel has against her. :D

So again Syria has every right to threaten Israel with WMD as much as Israel has against her.

Nico, out of curiosity why?

Ahh spyke curiosity killed the cat! ;)

Well simple why should Syria live in nuclear fear of Israel, nevermind Israel has nuke mines on Syrian land in the Golan. Now the Israeli's got their nukes ohh in the early 60's through French co-op. Syria got her stockpiles:

Syria, not a signatory to either the CWC or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and has not ratified BWC began developing chemical weapons in 1973 prior to the Yom Kipper war when the Egyptian government reportedly gave Syria artillery shells capable of delivering chemical weapons.

So Syria is really just a reaction to the cause. So Syria is allowed to threaten with WMD as much as Israel is.

number of times syria attacked israel: 2 wars + active fund feeding to terrorists

number of times israel attacked syria: zero

who is more likely to attack who?
who has a better reason to believe they're under threat?

come on Nico.. you're letting your age show with this kind of reasoning

Ahh spyke curiosity killed the cat!

I think I dodged that bullet, but anyway I would still have 8 more lives.:D

But otheap gave the oh so obvious answer so no point in repeating him.;)

Well done brother Ghassan.

As Syrians, we are looking forward toward better future under the our current president, he is moderate highly educated and open-minded.

we still have some problems to tackle at home but our main problem is this nazi terrorist state which occupies our land in AL-GOLAN HIGHTS...and as our president said, if Israel does not exist, the middle east would have been so peaceful...So, I hope he will carry on like that and maintaining our support for the freedom fighters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah, those are national resistance movements which fight israeli brutal occupation of the arab land and they enjoys the support of ALL arabs and muslims...I hope he wont bow to the american pressue initiated by their jewish masters.....

ALLAH BLESS MY BEAUTIFUL HOMELAND.

http://www.ramijarjour.8m.com/sflag.gif

Originally posted by otheadp
number of times syria attacked israel: 2 wars + active fund feeding to terrorists

number of times israel attacked syria: zero

who is more likely to attack who?
who has a better reason to believe they're under threat?

come on Nico.. you're letting your age show with this kind of reasoning

It so amusing to see dumbs and ignorants getting involved in the middle east affairs.

number of times the nazi terrorist state of Israhell attacked Syria and other arab countries is 3 : 1956, 1967 and the brutal invasion of Lebanon in 1982 which killed 17,000 innocent lebanese civilians.

Get your fact rights dumbo.

Originally posted by otheadp
the economical reforms he introduced has increased the avg. salary in Syria by 50% compared to 2 years ago (while the currency value stayed the same. that's pretty impressive).

1) Within Syria's economical system there is no achievement in maintaining currency value as it is decided upon and not market-formed .

2) Percentage increasements mean little when we talk of salary's between 50 and 75 $ a month .

3) It is not the average that has been increased but minimum wage .

These reforms have achieved little yet , rhetorical value to convince peoples like yourself is what lies behind such "reforms" . And if that would not be enough , the proces of economical reform has been put to halt in opposite of the political reform program .

We can see where Bashar has his preferance , be it under immense pressure .

Nabil Sukkar said that the economy should be either "socialist" like the old traditional way or a modern "market economy." He explained that Syria has not boycotted the old system ( socialism).

Minister of Economy and Foreign Trade Ghassan Rifaee had recently announced that he wants to accelerate steps of economic reforms but added that Syria does not intend to push forward towards privatization.

So not only can we conclude that no true achievements have been made , but that there is no plan to dismiss of the system itself for actual reform either .

this should not be veiwed as a "loss to US pressure" but as a win for the Syrian people which benifit most out of these reforms.

And how is that ?

1) Military they will become only weaker , still facing the threat of the zionist aggressor .

2) Politically true democracy cannot develop without the current administration in power to be included within a position comparable to today . In effect little changes .

3) Economically it is a mess and true reform wont accur . They ow so many peoples (citizens) money that they cannot afford to hand out . What exactly do people benefit ?

as for saying that US puts pressure on Israel's enemies, don't look at it as "US taking care of bizness for Israel" but as "US helping a friendly, ally nation. that's what friends do for each other, they help eachother. Israel has blindly supported the US in the UN, the US supports Israel considerably less... the least it can do is help secure Israel's safety (which it does reluctantly, cautiously, FAR from whole-heartedly...and with tons of conditions attached)

* The relations between the US and Israel that result in effective development of the zionist state does not lie within governmental assistance but economical . Private US-isntitutions dealing with private Israeli-institutions . This relation is so interwoven and deep it goes passed all the already immense governmental aid .

* Politically USA is Israel's slave , there is absolutely no dispute over this issue :

Until the Nixon administration, the United States had never employed its veto power in the UN Security Council. The first U. S veto was cast on March 17, 1970, over Southern Rhodesia. The second veto came two years later when Washington sought to protect Israel from a resolution condemning Israel for one of its attacks on its neighbors. Since then, the United has cast its veto a total of 38 times to shield Israel from Council draft resolutions that condemned, deplored, denounced, affirmed, endorsed, called upon and urged Israel to obey the world body.

The zionist participation WITHIN todays administration as well as other administrations in relevant history is immense and its outcome cannot but be translated as effords fot the zionist cause .

This is more than being an ally , Saudi Arabia is an ally as well but you dont see ideological supporters of the Saudi philosophy in swarms within the USA administration and bureacracy or within the USA economical system or within the USA media system .

An ally ofcourse ...............

No such thing as Amerikan Zionism no ..........

as for "Israel is a country that occupies our territories, and Syria is required to take Israeli interests into consideration; what kind of logic is this? ", this logic means "you can't be hostile towards Israel"

So you cant be hostile to Israel because Israel is hostile to you ?

Or didnt you take the Golan in histility but in peace like you took Palestine right :rolleyes:

You cant blackmail a person into peace , the blackmail becomes only an additional reason for war .

Dont you understand this ?

number of times israel attacked syria: zero

Yes ofcourse thats how a coountry increases territory , by defending itself .

who is more likely to attack who?

Thats the funniest thing ever , what is left of Syria ? What is left of anyone who has hostility toward Israel ?

Yea thats right Syria who has only become smaller and has no military significance whatsoever is much more likely to attack the country that has only expanded and is by far the strongest military state in the entire region and is active in actual colonization (settlements) and military occupation (territories) , yes clearly Israel should fear Syria invading her today or tomorrow .................... :rolleyes:

come on Nico.. you're letting your age show with this kind of reasoning

Hey whats with you man are you actually copying every single one of my ways ? Baboon , the age thing , I know you worship me but this is getting pathetic Oth :D

Obviously ignorant surely, and I wouldn't repeat myself either. How can one honestly say that Israel is more trusted with nukes then anyone else. Bar none, I put Israel in the same league as NK, even the US military has issued a report about Israel's nuke blackmail:

http://www.rense.com/general35/isrnuk.htm

(Spare me source refutation)

Israel has in the past put her forces on "nuke alert" the best example os 1973 in the Yom Kippur/ Ramadan war. The Soviets warned both Egypt and Syria of Israel's status, and in Alexadria there were Tu-95 "Bear" bombers to counter that threat, possibly carrying a nuke. So no I do not entrust Israel nor Iran, nor Iraq, nor S.A, nor Egypt with a nuke. But deterrance was needed in Syria's case, and chem's are all she can afford. So Spyke I agree I wouldn't want to repeat that myself. ;)

come on Nico.. you're letting your age show with this kind of reasoning

Oth:

Nico:
hey man, my point was that age is irrelevant here, and you're a good example... while dear ghass farted an ad hom insult for someone who's just a tad younger than yourself

So who is showing there age here man, at least I don't contradict myself. LMFAO! :D

nico, my dear, you have to learn to differentiate when ppl are serious and where they're teasing.
i was just teasing... as for ghasshole (that's not my invention but sounds so cool i'm gonna use it from now on :D ) grilling that new guy/girl? that was whole hearted.

as for your "spare me your refutation" comments,
obviously you know that rense.com is "one of those sites"
don't expect ppl to take you seriously (or the info you present) if you're using THAT place as the source.

I know you worship me but this is getting pathetic Oth
:D
i love you ghassan
truly
madly
deeply
lol:rolleyes:

Syrian's will soil their pants should the US come gunning for them in any serious way.

Wishful, anecdotal bravado aside.

Syrian's will soil their pants should the US come gunning for them in any serious way.
What? You mean like the Iraqis have?:p
Dee Cee

The reason I said that was because ppl like you would just say "source refutation" I think it is a credible source, I realize yes the UFO things but again I have never refuted a source, of course unless it contradicted itself. But you ppl don't read the article I assume out of fear for the TRUTH! But it's of no concern so read and then comment on it and point out what you think is wrong, b/c I am personally sick of source refutation. :D

Funniest thing really is that it isnt even the source , since Jeff didnt actually write that article .

:rolleyes:

Yes... funny isn't it! :m:

Nico, while I don't completely discount rense.com as a source, you have to be very cautious when you refer to articles from the site. I'm not so sure about this one. The author makes his own interpretations of a lot.

"Israel went on full-scale nuclear alert again on the first day of Desert Storm, 18 January 1991...This alert lasted for the duration of the war, 43 days...Threats of retaliation by the Shamir government if the Iraqis used chemical warheads were interpreted to mean that Israel intended to launch a nuclear strike if gas attacks occurred.

He apparently so interpreted this because of a quote by an Israeli news commentator, not a member of the Israeli government:

"One Israeli commentator recommended that Israel should signal Iraq that "any Iraqi action against Israeli civilian populations, with or without gas, may leave Iraq without Baghdad."" and because "Shortly before the end of the war the Israelis tested a "nuclear capable" missile which prompted the United States into intensifying its SCUD hunting in western Iraq to prevent any Israeli response."

And then the author goes on to imply that the Israelis had JFK assassinated:

"JFK demanded Israel allow inspectors to see Dimona, three months later he was assassinated and pro-Israel Johnson is President:"

"Not only were the Israelis interested in American nuclear weapons development data, they were interested in targeting data from U.S. intelligence. Israel discovered that they were on the Soviet target list. American-born Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard obtained satellite-imaging data of the Soviet Union, allowing Israel to target accurately Soviet cities. This showed Israel's intention to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent political lever, or retaliatory capability against the Soviet Union itself."

What's his point? Israel found out the Soviet Union was targeting it and wanted to target the Soviet Union back. I fail to see how that shows Israel might act roguish with nukes.

Another speculative area concerns Israeli nuclear security and possible misuse. What is the chain of decision and control of Israel's weapons? How susceptible are they to misuse or theft? With no open, frank, public debate on nuclear issues, there has accordingly been no debate or information on existing safeguards. This has led to accusations of "monolithic views and sinister intentions."[1360] Would a right wing military government decide to employ nuclear weapons recklessly? Ariel Sharon, an outspoken proponent of "Greater Israel" was quoted as saying, "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."[137] Could the Gush Emunim, a right wing religious organization, or others, hijack a nuclear device to "liberate" the Temple Mount for the building of the third temple? Chances are small but could increase as radicals decry the peace process.[138] A 1997 article reviewing the Israeli Defense Force repeatedly stressed the possibilities of, and the need to guard against, a religious, right wing military coup, especially as the proportion of religious in the military increases.[139 ]

Again, mere speculation, but he does at least agree the odds are small. Just like the odds are small that a 747 is going to drop out of the sky and land on me. I just don't see anything in the article that verifies that Israel is a serious threat to use nukes on its neighbors in an offensive fashion. Do I wish Isreal didn't have nukes? Sure. Do I see Israel haivng nukes as justification for Syria and Iran having them. No.

What's his point? Israel found out the Soviet Union was targeting it and wanted to target the Soviet Union back. I fail to see how that shows Israel might act roguish with nukes.


That wasn't the point at all of what u pointed out, what was the point was the fact that Israel was spying on sensitive US documents for her own cause and for her nuke ambitions. So what if the USSR was targeted I mean who didn't target her? But it shows that Israel has gone on the brink of nuke conflict twice in 1973, and even 1991.

And then the author goes on to imply that the Israelis had JFK assassinated:

Which he has a perfect right to do in lou of the fact no one knows,I am certain that he is not the only one to believe this.

I just don't see anything in the article that verifies that Israel is a serious threat to use nukes on its neighbors in an offensive fashion.

That article was not for her neighbours it was for Israel's use of Nukes against major powers especially the US.

Do I see Israel haivng nukes as justification for Syria and Iran having them. No.

Which is illogical of course, Israel is allowed to threaten nuke holocaust on these states. In stark opposition to the fact that Israel herself is the most belliegerant state in the ME? I trust none with nukes, but to deny others for no good reason is illogical spyke. Let me guess is it because... Israel is a democrapcy? LMFAO if so that;s sad. :(

That wasn't the point at all of what u pointed out, what was the point was the fact that Israel was spying on sensitive US documents for her own cause and for her nuke ambitions.

Every nation spies for its own gains. That in itself doesn't mean a nation is likely to escalate to nuclear on a whim.

So what if the USSR was targeted I mean who didn't target her? But it shows that Israel has gone on the brink of nuke conflict twice in 1973, and even 1991.

And didn't go nuclear either time. That's the point. They've thus far exhibited self-control. But how does Israel allegedly getting Soviet coordinates from the US show that Israel was on the brink twice? All it showed was that Israel wanted to be able to target the Soviets since the Soviets were targeting them.

Which he has a perfect right to do in lou of the fact no one knows,I am certain that he is not the only one to believe this.

Yes he does. And I have the perfect right to think he's in left field since he doesn't offer anything that might back his claim other than JFK wanted Israel to allow inspections at Dimona.

That article was not for her neighbours it was for Israel's use of Nukes against major powers especially the US.

Which has zilch to do with our debate, which was over whether or not Syria and Iran should have nukes as deterrents to Israel's nukes. To quote you from earlier:

Well simple why should Syria live in nuclear fear of Israel, nevermind Israel has nuke mines on Syrian land in the Golan.

So what has Israel targeting the Soviet Union to do with Syria and Iran needing nukes to protect themsleves? And I think you misread the article if you think he claimed Israel was threatening the US with nukes. I believe he claimed that Israel was attempting to hold the US hostage by threatening to use nukes in the Mideast, thus the US would continue supplying Israel with enough conventional weapons to protect herself.

I said:
"Do I see Israel having nukes as justification for Syria and Iran having them. No."

You responded:
Which is illogical of course, Israel is allowed to threaten nuke holocaust on these states.

What's illogical about not wanting to see more nuclear states in an extremely volatile region? From where I sit, wanting those nations to become nuclear is illogical.

I trust none with nukes, but to deny others for no good reason is illogical spyke.

To deny them for no good reason? Nico, are you kidding me? Not wanting to see the number of nuclear states increased is no good reason to you? :bugeye:

Let me guess is it because... Israel is a democrapcy? LMFAO if so that;s sad.

You think I want to deny Syria and Iran nukes because Israel is a democracy? How I feel about Syria and Iran not having nukes has nothing to do with Israel. If Israel didn't exist I still wouldn't want to see the addition of nuclear states.

That wasn't the point, Israel is wiling to use American co-ordinates to her own advantage, it is like saying ... well the USSR spied for a reason so what's wrong with that?

And didn't go nuclear either time. That's the point. They've thus far exhibited self-control

In essence Israel do go nuke by placing Nuke mines on foreign territory, thus nukes have now been used in anger. They are violating the sovernignty of Syria and are posing a very dangerous obstacle to any assembalance to peace.

All it showed was that Israel wanted to be able to target the Soviets since the Soviets were targeting them.


Are you missing the point of what? I mean jesus murphy! Israel got those co-ordinates by threatening American YOUR security. And this isn't the first time that has happened.

So what has Israel targeting the Soviet Union to do with Syria and Iran needing nukes to protect themsleves?

That if the Israeli's are wiling to target a superpower, whose capital is thousands of miles away. It seems deadly obvious to me that the outcome in the middle east is the same. Israel presents a threat to all ME states. I could use your logic with NK, so what if NK was targeting the US? Dosen't mean that Japan or SK is in danger see how illogical it is.

What's illogical about not wanting to see more nuclear states in an extremely volatile region? From where I sit, wanting those nations to become nuclear is illogical.


The region would be more peaceful then not! In essence what we are talking about here is a region that has MAD over it's head. Israel is going to evenutally face the reality:

i) Terrorist groups will eventually get a dirty
ii) Iran might get a nuke, she already has the Shalab 3 being able to attack Israel. Wanting those nations to become nuclear is logical for a assembalance or some type of egalitarian order so that we don't see Israel attacking anystate willie nillie (lol) like she did in 1967. DO you honestly believe Israel accpets for borders? I sure don't.

To deny them for no good reason? Nico, are you kidding me? Not wanting to see the number of nuclear states increased is no good reason to you?

Yet using your logic we are seeing the status quo and look at Israel today will you? Yes I see Iran's nuclear pursuit as a threat, but I also see it as being a deterant to a cause. Every cause has a reaction and this is one of them .What you are adovacting is a superpower Israel and weak defenceless neighbours.

You think I want to deny Syria and Iran nukes because Israel is a democracy? How I feel about Syria and Iran not having nukes has nothing to do with Israel. If Israel didn't exist I still wouldn't want to see the addition of nuclear states.

I agree,, but Israel does exist so discuss in that context.

:)

*nico, i think if you read some anti-Israel story in the National Enquirer you'd believe it too.

*somebody said here about a religious military coup in israel?
it's not just highly unlikely, it's simply impossible.
there are 20% religious people in israel, and most don't even serve in the army.

*israel targeting USSR with her nukes? nico, did you read that in rense.com by any chance? whether this ridiculous claim is true or not, USA and Russia have thousands of nukes pointed at eachother and other nations. how is israel pointing a nuke at someone so outrageous? also, with your logic, if all the fanatical regimes in the ME had nukes pointed at eachother we'd all be safe? haven't you heard? crack is bad for you!:rolleyes:

*israel killed JFK because of demands to see Dimona...your assumption that this is even realistic shows your bias against israel. if you think they're morally capable of doing thAt you must think israel is controlled by fanatics worse than the Ayatollah and the religious police in SA

*syria and iran..... they're actively engaged in war of attrition against israel. israel isn't doing anything against either (because of the US :mad: )
what would happen, do you think, if england was engaged in war of attrition against france? wouldn't france deploy troops in england?

israel isn't even doing THAT, and you're talking about a nuclear holocaust
damn man... looks like you've thrown your logic right out of the window

n essence Israel do go nuke by placing Nuke mines on foreign territory, thus nukes have now been used in anger. They are violating the sovernignty of Syria and are posing a very dangerous obstacle to any assembalance to peace.

It's not for certain that Israel ever laid those mines, or if she did, they have been armed. But regardless, they were not placed on foreign territory and did not violate Syria's sovereignty. Israel occupied the Golan Heights. The London Sunday Times first reported it in 2000 and stated that Israel would sow the mines if she left the Golan, insuring that Syria did not attack across them. Israel denied it, but who knows, they may have indeed done it, although that doesn't mean she ever armed them. If she did so, I think it's a bad idea, but again, using them as a deterrent against attack is not being an offensive threat.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/icblmedia/message/311

Are you missing the point of what? I mean jesus murphy! Israel got those co-ordinates by threatening American YOUR security. And this isn't the first time that has happened.

Jesus Murphy? LOL! I like that one. But I think you're missing the point. Israel did NOT directly threaten US security. According to the article, and again, the author even admits he speculates, Israel allegedly threatens that she will use nukes as retaliation against strikes by her neighbor, thus forcing the US to continue supplying her with conventional weaponry. The article never mentioned anything about Israel obtaining coordinates to targets in the US. And as you told me, how about sticking to the argument. Your grasping. This has diddly to do with Syria or Iraq getting nukes.

That if the Israeli's are wiling to target a superpower, whose capital is thousands of miles away. It seems deadly obvious to me that the outcome in the middle east is the same.

And that means that Iran and Syria should have the same capability? Please, Nico. OK, Israel can target Moscow, Tehran and Damascus. But it hasn't exactly been doing a lot of saber-rattling, threatening it's neighbors with vaporization. If Israel was presenting itself as a security risk to the region I might say you had somewhat of an argument, but it's not.

I could use your logic with NK, so what if NK was targeting the US? Dosen't mean that Japan or SK is in danger see how illogical it is.

That has zero application to the debate. Have you seen me insisting that Japan and SK should have nukes? No. Of course you haven't. Because I don't want them going nuclear.

The region would be more peaceful then not! In essence what we are talking about here is a region that has MAD over it's head. Israel is going to evenutally face the reality:

I disagree. Arming a Shiite nation among Sunni nations is not going to promote peace. And arming Syria and Iran will just make Egypt, Turkey, and who knows how many other nations in the region want to become nuclear to be balanced. That is not what I call promoting stability in an unstable region.

Wanting those nations to become nuclear is logical for a assembalance or some type of egalitarian order so that we don't see Israel attacking anystate willie nillie (lol) like she did in 1967. DO you honestly believe Israel accpets for borders? I sure don't.

Willie nillie? Hardly. In 1967 Nassar announced that the Strait of Tiran was closed to Israeli shipping, something the Israelis had said since 1956 would be tantamount to a declaration of war. Syria had been conducting air strikes during the early part of the year on Israeli towns along the border. After Nassar's move, Egpyt, Iraq, Syria and Jordan formed an alliance and Israel pre-empted by taking out Arab air power before launching an attack into the Sinai. Not exactly willie-nillie.

I said:
"You think I want to deny Syria and Iran nukes because Israel is a democracy? How I feel about Syria and Iran not having nukes has nothing to do with Israel. If Israel didn't exist I still wouldn't want to see the addition of nuclear states."

You said:
I agree,, but Israel does exist so discuss in that context.

OK, I will, if you will quit referring to your article, which also is not within the context of the debate. I think my point about Japan and SK should be sufficient for my position though. Both are democracies and I don't want either to go nuclear to create a MAD scenario with NK. By the same token, I don't want to see Syria and Iran go nuclear to create a nuclear balance with Israel for the reasons I mentioned above. It will not stabilize the region, IMO, and at the same time will just open the door for more nations in the region to insist on going nuclear.

*nico, i think if you read some anti-Israel story in the National Enquirer you'd believe it too.

Please don't ad hom, attack the issues not me.

israel targeting USSR with her nukes?

Given the very long range of the Jericho-2 missile, some analysts have speculated that this system was developed to deter Soviet intervention in the region. The USSR has always been one of the primary targets of Israel's nuclear force, as Israeli assumptions hold that no Arab nation would attack Israel without Soviet support. The purchase of fifty F-4 fighters from the US in 1968 provided Israel with a platform capable of delivering a nuclear payload as far as Moscow, and it has actively pursued imagery and other information necessary for targeting weapons against the USSR.

?Source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/doctrine.htm)

Did that answer your question?

israel killed JFK because of demands to see Dimona...your assumption that this is even realistic shows your bias against israel.

I didn;t say that, nor do I support nor dismiss it. Do you know who killed JFK oth?

israel isn't even doing THAT, and you're talking about a nuclear holocaust
damn man... looks like you've thrown your logic right out of the window

No, I haven't I have seen no evidence to say that Iran or Syria would be irrational with Nukes have you. Syria has Chems. I do not see them using them, Iran used them in retaliation for Iraqi use. Israel is using them in stark violation to the UN SC which said that the Golan was not part Israel thus nukes being used in anger against a soverign nation.

But regardless, they were not placed on foreign territory and did not violate Syria's sovereignty. Israel occupied the Golan Heights.

Ohh please, you know as well as I do (at least i hope) that the Golan is still reguarded as Syrian not Israeli territory. The UN SC told the Israeli's to leave the conquered territories in return for a peace treaty, but this means that Israeli controlled lands are not israeli at all. Thus yes it is very much foriegn teritory.

Here about Nuke mines:

Following the 1973 war, Israel fielded at least three batteries of atomic-capable self-propelled 175mm cannons equipped with a total of no less than 108 warheads, and placed atomic land mines in the Golan Heights during the early 1980s.


Even if there is no mines, the shells are most likely targeted Damascus. So yes Israel is being belligerant as much as syria with WMD.

Israel did NOT directly threaten US security

Your honestly telling me that the Israeli's have no threatened American security? Some of the US' most top secret documents stolen, who knows where it could have gone. Let's take a for instance, the Israeli's were going to sell very sensitive radars to the Chinese for their AWACS the US had to tell Israel to stop the transfers. Putting Americans at risk seems to be common.

The article never mentioned anything about Israel obtaining coordinates to targets in the US.

Neither I nor the article said anything about targeting US cities.

And that means that Iran and Syria should have the same capability? Please, Nico.

Let's face reality here for one minute Syria dosen;t even have a active nuke program so the real issue is not so much Syria it is Iran who most likely has a active nuke program and as I said has a proven design in the No Dong (Shalab-3). Iran and Syria don't need to strike Moscow or Tashkent do they? No they need to able to project power over Israel as Israel over them. I really don't see the problem, Israel has proven to be belligerant as has the Syrians. I cannot think of a belliergant Iranian action.

But it hasn't exactly been doing a lot of saber-rattling, threatening it's neighbors with vaporization.

Having 175 mm nuke cannons facing your capital city seems pretty obvious dosen;t it. :rolleyes:

That has zero application to the debate. Have you seen me insisting that Japan and SK should have nukes? No. Of course you haven't. Because I don't want them going nuclear.


Well that has applications of course it does, the Parelles are simple and obvious.

NK= Israel
Japan , SK = Syria, Iran.

I support a nuke Japan if push comes to shove, I am certain that NK would be a little more hard pressed to avoid any conflict. Same with this situation, you may not support more nukes. But in certain circumstances I do. I mean if there is a legit. reason why should others interferre? I mean how is it logical for the US to bitch about them not having WMD, when they cannot provide these nations the security they need to make sure that a nuke would never happen. So Iran's and Syria position is tottally understandable.

Arming a Shiite nation among Sunni nations is not going to promote peace. And arming Syria and Iran will just make Egypt, Turkey, and who knows how many other nations in the region want to become nuclear to be balanced. That is not what I call promoting stability in an unstable region.


I think it could have a larger peaceful effect then you give it. Pakistan has the bomb why not Iran to protect herself from a sunni nation? Iran faces three nuke threats one from Israel, Pakistan, and India. So your Sunni-Shi'a thing is already happening. Of course Turkey and maybe even Egypt maybe under the US nuke umbrella.

1967

Israel attacked first, it was a offencive action. Sure it may have been defence. But it was truly a offensive action. Israel destroyed her neighbours air capability, one of the greatest victories ever. But Israel went too far, annexing lands that were not hers and resolutions at the UN support that. Golan, Sinai, W.Bank, Gaza, E.Jerusalem were imperialistic moves. And re-enforced the idea of greater Israel. So do I trust Israel... no. Do you trust SHARON!

Ohh please, you know as well as I do (at least i hope) that the Golan is still reguarded as Syrian not Israeli territory. The UN SC told the Israeli's to leave the conquered territories in return for a peace treaty, but this means that Israeli controlled lands are not israeli at all. Thus yes it is very much foriegn teritory.
Yes, I'm aware that the General Assembly voted that the Golan Heights was Syrian territory.

Even if there is no mines, the shells are most likely targeted Damascus. So yes Israel is being belligerant as much as syria with WMD.
Yes, and the British targeted the Soviet Union with ballistic missiles during the Cold War and probably still have sites in Russia targeted, and the French, well who the hell knows who the French have theirs pointed at, but the point is targeting a nation doesn't make you a belligerent. I imagine the Russians still have Israel targeted; do you consider them belligerent?

Your honestly telling me that the Israeli's have no threatened American security?
Yes. What would be their point? The minute the Israelis lose US friendship their position in the world becomes tenuous.

Some of the US' most top secret documents stolen, who knows where it could have gone. Let's take a for instance, the Israeli's were going to sell very sensitive radars to the Chinese for their AWACS the US had to tell Israel to stop the transfers.
Even if plausible, that would be evidence of an INdirect threat, not a direct threat. But again, not going to happen. Israel is not going to sell the Golden Goose down the river. Very little to gain and everything to lose.

Neither I nor the article said anything about targeting US cities.
I know the article didn't, that's what I've been trying to tell you. But now you're backtracking by saying you never made the claim, so let me refresh your memory from a couple of posts back:

Nico said:
That article was not for her neighbours it was for Israel's use of Nukes against major powers especially the US.
Looks like a pretty clear claim that Israel was [b[especially[/b] threatening the use of nukes against the US. ;)

Iran and Syria don't need to strike Moscow or Tashkent do they?
No they don't. But the reason I mentioned Moscow is because you kept mentioning the Israelis targeting the Soviets, as if that was relevant to our debate. I have no idea what Tashkent has to do with anything.

No they need to able to project power over Israel as Israel over them. I really don't see the problem, Israel has proven to be belligerant as has the Syrians. I cannot think of a belliergant Iranian action.
Israel has not been belligerent towards Iran. So why give the Iranians nukes and give both them and Israel a reason to become belligerent towards each other? It just creates the potential for further problems.

Having 175 mm nuke cannons facing your capital city seems pretty obvious dosen;t it.[/quote

he US has had nukes aimed at China for years; most of those years China had no retaliatory capabilities, but the US never used its advantage. Israel has had a similar nuclear advantage over its neighbors for years as well, and has refrained from taking advantage of its situation. No reason to assume she is suddenly going to do so. Israel is not a dictatorship. Her people do have a voice. It was the voice of the Israeli people and the opposition that pushed for the withdrawal from Lebanon.

[quote]Well that has applications of course it does, the Parelles are simple and obvious.

NK= Israel
Japan , SK = Syria, Iran.

No, it doesn't. It would have only been applicable to our particular debate if I had been advocating arming SK or Japan with nukes. Simply comparing the two regional situations means nothing since I wasn't applying your argument of establishing a nuclear balance of power in the Mideast to Northern Asia.

I support a nuke Japan if push comes to shove, I am certain that NK would be a little more hard pressed to avoid any conflict.
Why would you think that? The US can vaporize NK. What would a few more Japanese nukes mean to Pyonyang? But how do you think the US, China and Russia would react to a Japanese decision to go nuclear?

I mean if there is a legit. reason why should others interferre? I mean how is it logical for the US to bitch about them not having WMD, when they cannot provide these nations the security they need to make sure that a nuke would never happen.
This is not a just a US thing. The overwhelming majority within the UNSC are not in favor of Iran going nuclear.

I think it could have a larger peaceful effect then you give it. Pakistan has the bomb why not Iran to protect herself from a sunni nation? Iran faces three nuke threats one from Israel, Pakistan, and India. So your Sunni-Shi'a thing is already happening.
Pakistan and India are not concerned with Iran, although I doubt seriously either want to see it get nukes. But their attention, and their nukes, are focused on each other. Neither have shown any inclination towards threatening Iran. A nuclear Iran is another subject; with a common border with Iraq, her tradional enemy, Iraq, whatever form of government that emerges, will want to be nuclear as well. Turkey also shares a border with Iran and Syria. Yes, it's true, Turkey is under the US umbrella, not so sure about Egypt. But regardless, Egypt will demand to go nuclear if other Mideast nations do so. Turkey is likely to want to as well.

Israel attacked first, it was a offencive action. Sure it may have been defence. But it was truly a offensive action.
:eek: Say what? It was offensive, no it was defensive, not it was offensive? That made my eyes cross. :D I believe it was offensive, but obviously because Israel believed it was about to be attacked by the alliance of Arab nations. Regardless, my point was it was not exactly a willie-nilly action out of the blue. Israel was provoked.

But Israel went too far, annexing lands that were not hers and resolutions at the UN support that. Golan, Sinai, W.Bank, Gaza, E.Jerusalem were imperialistic moves.
It could be argued that Israel decided to protect herself from continued attacks. While I do agree that Israel might help the peace process by giving the land back, if Israel was as imperialistic as you assert, she really hasn't shown any indication of it in years.

Do you trust SHARON!
Depends on what you mean. I don't like Sharon. I don't think the peace process has any chance as long as either Sharon or Arafat is in place. Do I think Sharon is likely to suddenly go nuclear on a neighbor? No.

Yet you said Sypke:

But regardless, they were not placed on foreign territory and did not violate Syria's sovereignty. Israel occupied the Golan Heights.

Dare I say.. contradiction? And it was Security concil resoultion.



do you consider them belligerent?


Yes, the cold war was cold because of what spyke? Not because of good will and love it was because of the massive nuke arsenals both the USSR and the US had. France... lol please them what could they do in all seriousness?

Yes. What would be their point? The minute the Israelis lose US friendship their position in the world becomes tenuous.


*Shedding crock tears*

Even if plausible, that would be evidence of an INdirect threat, not a direct threat. But again, not going to happen. Israel is not going to sell the Golden Goose down the river. Very little to gain and everything to lose.


They have done it China... and FOX NEWS not rense but FOX NEWS the most pro-Israel news outlet did a investigation:

[URL=http://www.rense.com/general31/fnews.htm]Israeli spying (]http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElementSecurity concil resolution 242 (1967)[/URL)

I know the article didn't, that's what I've been trying to tell you. But now you're backtracking by saying you never made the claim, so let me refresh your memory from a couple of posts back:

Looks like a pretty clear claim that Israel was [b[especially threatening the use of nukes against the US.

[/b]

My semantic arguement you pointed out could be interpreted in two ways, your way and my way. Used against could mean in terms of blackmail.

No they don't. But the reason I mentioned Moscow is because you kept mentioning the Israelis targeting the Soviets, as if that was relevant to our debate. I have no idea what Tashkent has to do with anything.


Tashkent was... I know u won't believe me but she was part of the USSR too! *scandalous! And it would only have been logical for Iran to attack the nearest soviet city which is... you guessed it TASHKENT.. what's the prize bob! It is relevant to our debate, if Israel was ready and wiling to attack the USSR what would make you think that she wouldn't not attack any ME state? It shows Israel's lengths of projection and power.

Israel has not been belligerent towards Iran. So why give the Iranians nukes and give both them and Israel a reason to become belligerent towards each other? It just creates the potential for further problems.


Israel has threatening attacks on Iran's nuke infrastructure? That is not being a tad bit belligerant, and Israel has a record of doing what she says. So again Iran has a right to defend herself. The further problems btwn the two is Israel's very existance as a zionist state. Nukes or not tensions will always be there. Unless Spyke you can solve that problem every weapons on earth can be given or taken away... but they would fight with sticks and stones.


No, it doesn't. It would have only been applicable to our particular debate if I had been advocating arming SK or Japan with nukes. Simply comparing the two regional situations means nothing since I wasn't applying your argument of establishing a nuclear balance of power in the Mideast to Northern Asia.


Spyke seriously I don't care about your rules on debates. I am comparing two VERY similar situations. Two pariahs Israel and NK. NK doing and threatening the same as Israel yet we have one on the verge of war and the other recieving $12 billion in aid? And as I said I do support a nuke Japan or SK. But i don't believe the Japanese ppl would agree.. you know Hiroshima thing.

Why would you think that? The US can vaporize NK. What would a few more Japanese nukes mean to Pyonyang? But how do you think the US, China and Russia would react to a Japanese decision to go nuclear?


That's another thread.

This is not a just a US thing. The overwhelming majority within the UNSC are not in favor of Iran going nuclear.


True but look at the UN SC record of keeping up to ger "promises"

Pakistan and India are not concerned with Iran, although I doubt seriously either want to see it get nukes.

Iran is scared about India especially with her nukes. Also Iran is worried about a viotile Pakistan that could very easily fall into the hands of the Taliban, and create a hostile Sunni state against a Shi'a one. So yes Iran has another reason to add on the nuke threat.

Say what? It was offensive, no it was defensive, not it was offensive? That made my eyes cross.

Welcome to Israeli politics.

I believe it was offensive, but obviously because Israel believed it was about to be attacked by the alliance of Arab nations. Regardless, my point was it was not exactly a willie-nilly action out of the blue. Israel was provoked.


Provoked is a strong term here, the question is whether or not the Arabs attacked or skimmed Isreali air space or what not. If so why did Israel imperialisticly seize lands that were not hers. And no E.Jerusalem is not a valid military target.

It could be argued that Israel decided to protect herself from continued attacks.

Oh yes Gaza, W.Bank and E.Jerusalem are really going to protect Israel. You do realize those seizures create the politcal maliase of today's situation so really Israel has made her security situation worse, not better. So really that argument is moot.

if Israel was as imperialistic as you assert, she really hasn't shown any indication of it in years.


What do u call settlements? And the explusions of 130,000 Golani inhabitants? And changing the Green line of 1967 for some stupid wall.

Do I think Sharon is likely to suddenly go nuclear on a neighbor? No.

Neither do I but it is his Prime ministership that is leading to extremists getting into power. Alas Raygun. :p

Yet you said Sypke:

But regardless, they were not placed on foreign territory and did not violate Syria's sovereignty. Israel occupied the Golan Heights.

Dare I say.. contradiction? And it was Security concil resoultion.
Yes, but it's one thing to claim it's your sovereign territory and get the UN to agree with you and another for it to be reality when you had lost it in a previous war.

I asked:
do you consider them belligerent?
Yes, the cold war was cold because of what spyke? Not because of good will and love it was because of the massive nuke arsenals both the USSR and the US had.
I asked if you considered Russia belligerent, not the Soviet Union. I asked that if the Russians still had Israel targeted if you considered them belligerent. The Cold War has nothing to do with the question. Stay focused.

France... lol please them what could they do in all seriousness?
They're a nuclear power. You tell me.

*Shedding crock tears*
Since that was in lieu of an actual answer, I'll take that as you accepted my point.

They have done it China... and FOX NEWS not rense but FOX NEWS the most pro-Israel news outlet did a investigation:

There was nothing in that article about Israel giving or selling stolen intelligence to China. There was nothing about China in the article...period. What the article did say was:

"U.S. intelligence does not believe the Israeli government is involved in a misuse of information, and Amdocs insists that its data is secure. What U.S. government officials are worried about, however, is the possibility that Amdocs data could get into the wrong hands, particularly organized crime."

My semantic arguement you pointed out could be interpreted in two ways, your way and my way. Used against could mean in terms of blackmail.
Could be, but wasn't. I know it; you know it. Read back. I tried to say earlier that the article indicated Israel might threaten the use of nukes on her neighbors in order to continue to get conventional weaponry from the US, but you continued to say use against the US. You misread the article. It's not the end of the world. Admit it and move on.

Tashkent was... I know u won't believe me but she was part of the USSR too! *scandalous! And it would only have been logical for Iran to attack the nearest soviet city which is... you guessed it TASHKENT.. what's the prize bob!
I feel like I'm stuck in an Abbott and Costello routine. I realize where Tashkent is. The capital of Uzbekistan, which was a former republic in the USSR. What I'm trying to understand though is what "...it would have only been logical for Iran to attack the nearest soviet city" has to do with what I said before? I asked what did it matter if Israel could target Moscow, Damascus and Tehran if she was not saber-rattling against them? And out of nowhere came Tashkent. I didn't see the relevance. Still don't.

It is relevant to our debate, if Israel was ready and wiling to attack the USSR what would make you think that she wouldn't not attack any ME state? It shows Israel's lengths of projection and power.
So? Your argument is getting extremely circular. We keep going over this. The fact that Israel can hit the USSR or any ME state doesn't mean she will do so unprovoked. That's the point. She has had nuclear capability for some time now and has yet to 'project' that nuclear 'power' on her neighbors.

Israel has threatening attacks on Iran's nuke infrastructure? That is not being a tad bit belligerant, and Israel has a record of doing what she says. So again Iran has a right to defend herself.
Sure, but Iran is giving Israel a reason to be concerned by considering going nuclear. If Israel was an out of control nation she would have taken the reactor out already instead of waiting to see what the international community and Iran do first.

Nukes or not tensions will always be there.
I agree. So why compound the problem by allowing yet another country go nuclear?

Unless Spyke you can solve that problem every weapons on earth can be given or taken away...
It's not as easy to take a nuke away when someone already has it.

but they would fight with sticks and stones.

Yeah, well, that would be better.

Spyke seriously I don't care about your rules on debates. I am comparing two VERY similar situations. Two pariahs Israel and NK. NK doing and threatening the same as Israel yet we have one on the verge of war and the other recieving $12 billion in aid?

My rules on debate? What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with rules. This one just keeps flying over your head it seems. Using Northeast Asia as an analogy had nothing to do with the argument. Plain and simple. I originally asked:

"So what has Israel targeting the Soviet Union to do with Syria and Iran needing nukes to protect themselves?"

To which you responded:

"That if the Israeli's are wiling to target a superpower, whose capital is thousands of miles away. It seems deadly obvious to me that the outcome in the middle east is the same. Israel presents a threat to all ME states. I could use your logic with NK, so what if NK was targeting the US? Dosen't mean that Japan or SK is in danger see how illogical it is."

It's not that hard to understand. If I had been arguing that SK and Japan should have nukes simply because NK had them, then you could say I was being hypocritical for denying Syria and Iran nukes to balance Israel's nukes, and the analogy would apply. I didn't, and it doesn't.

True but look at the UN SC record of keeping up to ger "promises"
But we're not talking about a UN promise here, only that most of the UNSC don't want a nuclear Iran. So again, it's not just the US and Israel not wanting Iran going nuclear.

Iran is scared about India especially with her nukes. Also Iran is worried about a viotile Pakistan that could very easily fall into the hands of the Taliban, and create a hostile Sunni state against a Shi'a one. So yes Iran has another reason to add on the nuke threat.
Iran has expressed no concern that either of those nations has posed a direct threat to her. Her concerns are the same as everyone else's in the region. An escalation of an arms race between Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Again, so why add even more nuclear countries into the cauldron?

Welcome to Israeli politics.
Nice two-step.:D

Provoked is a strong term here, the question is whether or not the Arabs attacked or skimmed Isreali air space or what not. If so why did Israel imperialisticly seize lands that were not hers. And no E.Jerusalem is not a valid military target.
Skimmed Israeli airspace? Syrian jets bombed Israeli towns along the border. Nassar closed off the strait to Israeli shipping, which would cripple Israel's economy. Israel had warned Egypt since 1956 that to do so would be an act of war. 4 Arab states formed a military alliance as soon as the strait was shut off. Be honest. What would have been your thoughts if you were Israel?

Oh yes Gaza, W.Bank and E.Jerusalem are really going to protect Israel.

If organized terorist attacks are coming out of the area it might.

You do realize those seizures create the politcal maliase of today's situation so really Israel has made her security situation worse, not better. So really that argument is moot.
Yes, I agree. It has worsened Israel's situation. But of couse, that has nothing to do with showing that Israel is likely to strike Iran with a nuke or that Iran deserves to get a nuke.

What do u call settlements? And the explusions of 130,000 Golani inhabitants? And changing the Green line of 1967 for some stupid wall.
I call it stubbornness, but I haven't seen Israel grabbing territory form her neighbors.

I am comparing two VERY similar situations. Two pariahs Israel and NK. NK doing and threatening the same as Israel yet we have one on the verge of war and the other recieving $12 billion in aid?

difference:
NK is a nutcase state surrounded by good states
Israel is a good state surrounded by fanatical regimes that hate her, and would launch a full scale war on her in an instant if the US were not protecting her

http://www.masada2000.org/isr-world.gif

Originally posted by Spyke
You think I want to deny Syria and Iran nukes because Israel is a democracy? How I feel about Syria and Iran not having nukes has nothing to do with Israel. If Israel didn't exist I still wouldn't want to see the addition of nuclear states.

Would you deny Israel nukes on the same grounds ?
Can you understand that from Islamic perspective there has to be defence against this , regardless of the overal mal nature of increasing nuclear capability ?

were not placed on foreign territory and did not violate Syria's sovereignty. Israel occupied the Golan Heights.

Immediately after the 1967-aggression, the Israeli Forces started to expel the 130,000 Golan inhabitants from the occupied areas of the Golan, destroyed 133 out of 139 villages, many towns and 61 farms, only 5 inhabited villages survived in the north-west of the Golan; and only 6,000 inhabitants remained there, besides about 25 people in Al-Qunaitra.

Ofcourse you are aware that Golan is Syrian territory or would you disagree ?

Israel was presenting itself as a security risk to the region

Excuse me ? It is a colony that has ethnic cleansed that has expansionist policy , that relies on apartheid and that occupies peoples untill this very day not to mention is guilty of thousands of their deaths .

They are in development of biological weapons that can be genetically applied , they are filled with nukes in directed at every major city in Arabia .

No security risk ?

While I do agree that Israel might help the peace process by giving the land back, if Israel was as imperialistic as you assert, she really hasn't shown any indication of it in years.


Expansion would be the indication . The establishment itself would create a nice pretext for such indication .

What would have been your thoughts if you were Israel?


I think the big point is that one should not be Israel .

I haven't seen Israel grabbing territory form her neighbors.

Then how did she got it , it was a gift from the Arabs ?

Otheadp : good states

Good states ? What u think this is a cartoon ?

Israel is a good state

:eek:

Your post could have been that of a 4 year old israeli

OMG man your situation is worse than I thought

if you read some anti-Israel story in the National Enquirer you'd believe it too

When will you learn that validity depends on content not on where its published or whos telling the story

somebody said here about a religious military coup in israel? it's not just highly unlikely, it's simply impossible.
there are 20% religious people in israel,

They are breeding almost at Palestinian rate , also it becomes a strong movement within Sephardim which can add some nice racial flavor to the already unstable Hebrew identity .

They are already a huge fraction in the knesset , some 10-15 years from now they will be indisputably #1 .

most don't even serve in the army

So ?

if england was engaged in war of attrition against france?

Thats the problem this isnt like england and france , there are no 2 native forces in conflict .

NK and Israel's position is the same overall, the NK's are getting nukes b/c they fell that they are in danger of invasion from the US. Israel has nukes in lieu of the fact that she might be invaded from a Arab state. The situation is the same, both Israel and NK have large solid allies, USA, China. Both have exceptional militaries, both have pariah status on the world scene. Good states don't exist oth, all are out themselves not for each other.

Israel is a good state surrounded by fanatical regimes that hate her, and would launch a full scale war on her in an instant if the US were not protecting her


Yet Israel still advocates apolicy of belligerance against her neighbours? Settling lands based on "religious fanatism". Israel has it's freako's too so please.

Yes, but it's one thing to claim it's your sovereign territory and get the UN to agree with you and another for it to be reality when you had lost it in a previous war.


Please don't backtrack you said it was Israeli territory which it is not. It is Syrian territory as long as Israel stays in that territory it is commiting a act of belliegerance. Reality is in the eye of the beholder, and UN and the US even say that Golan is Syrian not Israeli.

I asked if you considered Russia belligerent, not the Soviet Union. I asked that if the Russians still had Israel targeted if you considered them belligerent. The Cold War has nothing to do with the question. Stay focused

I doubt that Russia has Israel targeted, Russians hey Russians were used for Soviets too so u can understand. But modern Russia if Russia, if the US if anyone was targeting anyone with destruction it's nothing short of belligerance.

Since that was in lieu of an actual answer, I'll take that as you accepted my point

Israel is a big boy, ok. Her injustices in the past warrant some reciporcity.

What you didn't hi-light

What U.S. government officials are worried about, however, is the possibility that Amdocs data could get into the wrong hands, particularly organized crime

Need I say more? There is obviously a fear of Israeli slippy fingers here.

Could be, but wasn't. I know it; you know it.

Spyke, speak for yourself ok. I know what I meant and too bad if you thought otherwise. I mean you must really think I am stupid, b/c how can Israel attack the US with a Jericho missile?
:bugeye: Let's make some logical deductions here.

but you continued to say use against the US.

Don't be so simplistic with your semantics please. Yes Israel is using it against the US, the Israeli's are using it as a blackmail. If that is not a action that is not criminal then what is?

I asked what did it matter if Israel could target Moscow, Damascus and Tehran if she was not saber-rattling against them?

You said :

That if the Israeli's are wiling to target a superpower, whose capital is thousands of miles away. It seems deadly obvious to me that the outcome in the middle east is the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And that means that Iran and Syria should have the same capability?

Same capability to attack the USSR, so I decucted it from that.

The fact that Israel can hit the USSR or any ME state doesn't mean she will do so unprovoked.

Can you or anyone really say this with any certainty? No of course not and unless you can prove to me that ISrael is not wiling to use nukes ever in offence anger (like she almost did in 1973) your point is moot.

Sure, but Iran is giving Israel a reason to be concerned by considering going nuclear.

Visa versa... point?

If Israel was an out of control nation she would have taken the reactor out already instead of waiting to see what the international community and Iran do first.


Which of course the Israeli's actions in the past prove this point:

1956
1967
1981

all offensive actions which prove Israel could care less about"international community".

So why compound the problem by allowing yet another country go nuclear?


So that those very tensions would not be acted on.

But we're not talking about a UN promise here, only that most of the UNSC don't want a nuclear Iran. So again, it's not just the US and Israel not wanting Iran going nuclear.


I realize this fact, I am not ignorant to this. But if those nations cannot protect Iran from a ISraeli attack they should shut up.

Iran has expressed no concern that either of those nations has posed a direct threat to her.

I am certain she has I just have to find a link give me a day or so.

Again, so why add even more nuclear countries into the cauldron?


It's deterance man, ok it's like the USSR not getting a nuke while her biggest enemy can. In this case the USSR is Iran, and the US is Israel. It's only logical.

Syrian jets bombed Israeli towns along the border. Nassar closed off the strait to Israeli shipping, which would cripple Israel's economy. Israel had warned Egypt since 1956 that to do so would be an act of war. 4 Arab states formed a military alliance as soon as the strait was shut off. Be honest. What would have been your thoughts if you were Israel?


I don't so many problems with the war itself, it is the imperialistic actions post war that bother me. 1967 could have been just a normal war like no other, but Israel decided to expand her territory. So really here we are talking about the actions Israel took that went too far.

If organized terorist attacks are coming out of the area it might.


Oh please man give me a break, terrorism in that region didn't start until the late 80's after 20 years of Israeli rule. So no that argument is based on today's situations put on those of40 years ago.

Yes, I agree. It has worsened Israel's situation. But of couse, that has nothing to do with showing that Israel is likely to strike Iran with a nuke or that Iran deserves to get a nuke.


Of course it does, it shows that Israel is ready wiling and able to imperialize her borders all the way to Iran herself. Israel is belliegerant and that's the point, Iran hasn't.

I call it stubbornness, but I haven't seen Israel grabbing territory form her neighbors.

Israel itself is seized territory.

nico your naiveness is that of a 3 year old.
you're so worried about iran and syria's safety.
both are terrorist regimes who fund and arm one terrorist organization or another. let's forget terrorism against israel for a second cause we know you don't consider that REAL terrorism.... they fund other groups. and they refuse to take care of their extremists or hand over terrorists to the US.

they're also not really worried about israel. if they were they wouldn't be engaged in this one-sided decades-old war of attrition they're currently in. one sided is because israel is being hit but is not responding. sure, they hit Hezbollah and hamas and jihad islami but they're not hitting the source problem....which is the terrorist regimes in syria and iran (and saudi arabia....who funds 60-70% of the terrorist groups...but tha'ts another discussion)
and you're worried about iran and syria so much that they're indanger from the greatest evil on earh? (israel) you wanna give them nukes to protect themselves? from WHAT for christs sake!!???

as for israel and NK being on the same level in world politics..... i DONT tink so buddy.
NK is diplomatically cut off from everyone except china..and that's only because china's communist.
israel has relations with the entire world, even with some ME states... . pariah my jewish ass.

the NK is getting nukes because "the dear leader" has a policy of "army 1st"... before economic prosperity, before ppl have food on the table, before deceases or draught are taken care of... army 1st. because with a strong army he can blackmail the world.

israel on the other hand has a pretty strong army. 1/3 of its budget is spent on military. it would GLADLY reduce the # if it wasn't under constant threat from terrorists and their supporters in the ME (you know all this.... and conveniently ignore these facts. i feel like i'm repeating myself with these statements)

NK also keeps sabre rattling any chance it gets. it considers TRADE SANCTIONS as an act of war for christs sake. the 'dear leader' also promissed the world a show of force (detonation of a nuclear device) to scare the shit out of everyone. have you ever heard of israel in its 56 yr existence acting like that? (spare me the rense.com unconfirmed reports and conspiracy theories. i want quotes from real ppl in the israeli gov't)

i am just apalled that you put israel on the same level as NK, and Japan & SK on the same level as Iran, Syria.
what the hell is wrong with you???

your theory of arming everyone for deterance.. i've been thinking about it, and i think arming "good" countries (like japan) would be a good idea.
but "nutcase" countries like iran/syria....very, very stupid.
but, you hold these 3 on the same level. i guess you fail to see the danger of the latter 2.

it's ok, you'll learn (i hope)
you're still young:D ;)

i want quotes from real ppl in the israeli gov't

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif

you're too funny Oth

as for israel and NK being on the same level in world politics..... i DONT tink so buddy.

Voluntary indoctrination through democracy/mass-media sometimes can even get better results than the indoctrination imposed in NK on peoples .

Origins:

Both states were created in the aftermath of WWII, both states largeest supports were the USSR. Both states existed under colonial rule by a imperialistic foriegn power. Japan and the UK, both states depended very much on the communist bloc for it's survival. The wars of 1948 and 1950 were not dis-similar. Both sides were established states, in Israel's case she was invaded. In NK's case she invaded others. But in the end both states at essentially the same time had went through a expansion spree. Both states NK and Israel could have achieved their goals of national unification. If it wasn't for UN intervention. Israel was created under the premise of the "holocaust" and NK derieves much of her support from the fact she suffered tremendously under the Japanese. But both states were based on falisies, of communist utopia, and torahic law.

Militarism:

Both states are by far the most militarized states on earth. Both easily capable of destroying the capital cities across her borders, principly Damascus(Syria) and Seoul (SK). Both have over 1/3 of their budgets allocated to the military industrial complex. Both states have achieved a limited amount of defence independance from major powers. So in essence both Israel and NK have achieved Juche in this respect. Both have proven to be imperialistic and ruthless with these militaries. Both internally and internationally. Both are aiming for a "Great X" state, under the guises of Zionism and Juche ideology.


nico your naiveness is that of a 3 year old.

What did I tell u about Ad homs, please man. Don't fucking be a baby. I am tallking to you in utmost respect and this is what I get.

the NK is getting nukes because "the dear leader" has a policy of "army 1st"... before economic prosperity, before ppl have food on the table, before deceases or draught are taken care of... army 1st. because with a strong army he can blackmail the world.


Don't u mean the homeless in Tel Aviv or the non yid Jews in Israel?

one sided is because israel is being hit but is not responding.

1956,1967,1981,1982,2002. Would of course prove that a false statement.

as for israel and NK being on the same level in world politics..... i DONT tink so buddy.
NK is diplomatically cut off from everyone except china..and that's only because china's communist.
israel has relations with the entire world, even with some ME states... . pariah my jewish ass.


Israel is recognized by Egypt last I checked the only Arab state to do so. NK is indeed cut off, so is Israel if you at her comparison to most "real" states in the world. NK as well as Israel are recognized by the UN so that's all I need. If Israel wasn't a pariah how can u explain these actions?

Israeli- Apartheid (South Africa) alliance
Israel- Iran
Israel- Taiwan

All of these are pariahs as well, so why?





:rolleyes:

Both states were created in the aftermath of WWII so?
both states largeest supports were the USSR do u mean USSR was its biggest supporter? um NO. well, of NK yes cause of the communism... but israel? a big fat no.
Both states existed under colonial rule by a imperialistic foriegn power. Japan and the UK
the nature of these occupations was COMPLETELY different. man, you know this. why are you ignoring this? regardless, this isn't even relevant.
both states depended very much on the communist bloc for it's survival:bugeye: the communist block has been traditionally against israel. what are you saying man???
The wars of 1948 and 1950 were not dis-similar. Both sides were established states, in Israel's case she was invaded. In NK's case she invaded others. But in the end both states at essentially the same time had went through a expansion spree. big difference: israel was invaded (as usual) and NK did the invading. and expansion spree?? wtf u talking about. the borders were established, and after the war the same borders remained.
Both states NK and Israel could have achieved their goals of national unification. unification? NK would've invaded SK. u'd have 1 big communist rogue korea. and israel? there would be no need for "reunification" if the 1948 war wasn't launched by the arabs.
But both states were based on falisies, of communist utopia, and torahic law.
you're comparing "communist utopia" to "torahic law"? and then you call torahic law a falacy?
it's really hard to take you seriously when you come up with stuff like that.

Both have proven to be imperialistic and ruthless with these militaries. Both internally and internationally. internally: NK yes, israel...:confused: right. it represses its own citizens with the freakin military, yes? arabs used to live in israel under military rule but that ended 36+ years ago. as for externally, NK wants the entire south, and probably Japan. israel just wants its current territory including Gaza, Judea and Samaria (which are theirs anyway)

Don't u mean the homeless in Tel Aviv or the non yid Jews in Israel?
you can't be THAT ignorant, can you? you're comparing the poverty levels in NK to the ones in israel? fuck man, there's so many homeless in toronto. and you know how much canada spends on its military ..

1956,1967,1981,1982,2002
56 i donno what happend. 67, an aggressive arab alliance has commited numerous acts of war against israel, publically declared thru the years and at that time that it wanted the complete destructin of israel, invaded israel from all sides (only after israel destroyed egypt's air force but that came after the acts of war and mini raids by the former). 81, you STILL can't forgive israel for saving the world of a nuclear saddam, can't you. 1982, the only argument that's maybe half valid. but at that time the PLO has practically taken over lebanon and the attacks were getting to be too much so...
and as for 2002 (u mean sept/2001 onward) let's see. syria, lebanon, iran, iraq, saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar(if im not mistaken) all support monetarily, morally, troop-wise (iran), weapon-wise (iran, syria) attacks on israel.
has israel attacked any of those states? me think not. only the dirty ass terrorists in the territories.

Israel is recognized by Egypt last I checked the only Arab state to do so
egypt, jordan, mauritania, morocco...lebanon (there was a peace treaty signed but syria annulled it) also after Oslo a bunch of arab states other than the ones above quietly started trading with israel.

Israeli- Apartheid (South Africa) alliance
Israel- Iran
Israel- Taiwan

All of these are pariahs as well, so why?
:bugeye:
how is that of any relevance???
is US pariah as well because it's in alliance with "pariah" israel?
maybe i didn't get your point clearly

That is almost ur entire arguement, my argument is that both NK and Israel were created by a victim of circumstance. Both are existant because of a war, not because of any moralistic, or democratic reasons. Both were imposed on the ppl's of the country. Zionism and "Communism", both have ravaged the lands they own today.

do u mean USSR was its biggest supporter? um NO. well, of NK yes cause of the communism... but israel? a big fat no.


Who do u think was giving Israel arms? Czech republic was a conduit from the USSR! You know why the Soviets supported Israel? To get rid of her jews.

the nature of these occupations was COMPLETELY different. man, you know this. why are you ignoring this? regardless, this isn't even relevant

They were, I agree. But both are used as propaganda by both sides for the brutality suffered under their watch. Of course it's relevant because both had the same imperialistic origins. It is just similarities.

the communist block has been traditionally against israel. what are you saying man???

After 1952 with Nasser, and the Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 yes. But before bossom buddies.

big difference: israel was invaded (as usual) and NK did the invading. and expansion spree?? wtf u talking about. the borders were established, and after the war the same borders remained.


The borders of Korea changed little true, but Israel's did not they were expanded into 70% I believe of the Levant. NKorea did on a expansion spree she failed, Israel did as well she succeded.

unification? NK would've invaded SK. u'd have 1 big communist rogue korea. and israel? there would be no need for "reunification" if the 1948 war wasn't launched by the arabs.


Please do NOT abuse the word communist for your simplistic mind please. Why would Korea be rogue, because of a totally different situation of today compared to a successful NK invasion of Korea. NK is pariah a step beyond rogue, as is Israel . Then if there was no need for unification then why did Israel gain lands that were not hers? Obviously there was a pusch within Israel politics for more land.

you're comparing "communist utopia" to "torahic law"? and then you call torahic law a falacy?
it's really hard to take you seriously when you come up with stuff like that.


What is wrong with "communist utopia" and "torahic law" is their use both have been abused and have been taken WAY out of context, that is why the states are falcies. They are both based on lies.

NK wants the entire south, and probably Japan. israel just wants its current territory including Gaza, Judea and Samaria (which are theirs anyway)

Gaza, W.Bank, Golan are not Israeli lands. No one in the world recongizes that as such. So that is obviously a imperialist, expansionist statement on your part.

you can't be THAT ignorant, can you? you're comparing the poverty levels in NK to the ones in israel? fuck man, there's so many homeless in toronto. and you know how much canada spends on its military ..

Is it ignorant? Think.. the NK are vilianized because most of her expenditures are going to the military not social programs. What is the difference with Israel? In Israel those who are not zionist are not reguarded as the same as a zionist, same in NK non-juched, your dead. Just in Israel ur in jail (for refusing service) or like the new racist laws against Arabs. I think my comparison with South Africa would be good for this one.

67, an aggressive arab alliance has commited numerous acts of war against israel, publically declared thru the years and at that time that it wanted the complete destructin of israel, invaded israel from all sides (only after israel destroyed egypt's air force but that came after the acts of war and mini raids by the former).

Oth, I understand the reasons why Israel attacked the Arab states. What moots that argument is Israel did what the Arabs were going to do to her invade their lands and essentially making 1967 one of the greatest mistakes in Israeli history.

81, you STILL can't forgive israel for saving the world of a nuclear saddam, can't you.

I personally couldn't care less, but I think the attack on Osirak was a belligerant action and this u cannot deny. I am not really in the biz of forgiving.

1982, the only argument that's maybe half valid. but at that time the PLO has practically taken over lebanon and the attacks were getting to be too much so...


Q&A did Israel invade Lebanon?

Yes = belligerence.

and as for 2002 (u mean sept/2001 onward) let's see. syria, lebanon, iran, iraq, saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar(if im not mistaken) all support monetarily, morally, troop-wise (iran), weapon-wise (iran, syria) attacks on israel.
has israel attacked any of those states? me think not. only the dirty ass terrorists in the territories.


Who is the biggest pusher for the invasion of Iraq, and who is pushing for Saudi as well? But since 1967 to this very minute Israel is still in a state of belligerence as long as annexed lands are still in her hands.

egypt, jordan, mauritania, morocco...lebanon (there was a peace treaty signed but syria annulled it) also after Oslo a bunch of arab states other than the ones above quietly started trading with israel.


Thanks for that, give me more!

how is that of any relevance???


Only a Pariah would ally with a Pariah get it?

is US pariah as well because it's in alliance with "pariah" israel?


The US cannot be pariah she is too powerful and too important, but the US is rogue. But not because of Israel.

Originally posted by Mr. G
Syrian's will soil their pants should the US come gunning for them in any serious way.

Wishful, anecdotal bravado aside.

oh yeah, 13 AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED IN IRAQ 18 hours between yesterday and today ( 19-9-2003 ) and counting...

dare and come to syria and see how we will hang your heads on the ancient walls of our cities....and hey, AL JAZEERA CANT WAIT TO HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE PICTURES.

:D

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
oh yeah, 13 AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED IN IRAQ 18 hours between yesterday and today ( 19-9-2003 ) and counting...

dare and come to syria and see how we will hang your heads on the ancient walls of our cities

LMAO, I love how you guys word your sentences.

Just curious as to where you got 13 soldiers killed? I've only read 3 on CNN...then again...that's CNN....

Please don't backtrack you said it was Israeli territory which it is not.

I believe it is the territory of whoever occupies it. Mexico cntnued to claim sovereignty over the Southwest US, and I'm sure if there had been a UN then it would have likely have supported Mexico's claim. It's US territory. But for the last 35-odd years Israel has occupied the Golan. It's hard to miss the fact, however, than you use the UN when it suits you and dis the UN when it doesn't, in the case of the UN not supporting Iran to become nuclear.

I doubt that Russia has Israel targeted

Why would you think that? What new nuclear enemy would the Soviets have now that would cause them to switch from its Israel targets?

Russians hey Russians were used for Soviets too so u can understand. But modern Russia if Russia, if the US if anyone was targeting anyone with destruction it's nothing short of belligerance.

I have to be honest here and say I have no idea what you just said. Can you clarify?

What you didn't hi-light

What U.S. government officials are worried about, however, is the possibility that Amdocs data could get into the wrong hands, particularly organized crime

Need I say more? There is obviously a fear of Israeli slippy fingers here.

Riiiight. I would imagine if there was a concern of state secrets falling into the hands of enemies of the US, it would have read more like this...
"...the possibility that Amdocs data could get into the wrong hands, particularly China or NK."

Since it didn't say that, we should assume the worst case scenario is that information might fall into the hands of organized crime, not potential enemies of the US.

Spyke, speak for yourself ok. I know what I meant and too bad if you thought otherwise. I mean you must really think I am stupid,

Hey, you said it, not me.:D I don't think you're stupid. I merely think you misread the article and can't bring yourself to admit it.

Don't be so simplistic with your semantics please. Yes Israel is using it against the US, the Israeli's are using it as a blackmail. If that is not a action that is not criminal then what is?

Criminal? Let's not get carried away. For openers, it was specualtion in the article you posted that Israel was using nuclear blackmail against the US. Secondly, if Israel is actually doing it, that doesn't make it 'criminal'. It means that Israel is saying "we would rather get help in the form of conventional weaponry, but if not we will protect ourselves with whatever means [nukes] we deem necessary." Do I like the US giving Israel $3-$5 billion annually? No? I don't like it one damn bit. Do I think playing diplomatic hardball is criminal? No again.


I asked:
"what did it matter if Israel could target Moscow, Damascus and Tehran if she was not saber-rattling against them?"

Nico said:
That if the Israeli's are wiling to target a superpower, whose capital is thousands of miles away. It seems deadly obvious to me that the outcome in the middle east is the same.

I said:
"And that means that Iran and Syria should have the same capability?"

Nico said:
Same capability to attack the USSR, so I decucted it from that.

So what you apparently deducted from that is that since Israel targeted Russian targets it is "deadly obvious" the outcome in the ME is the same. And again, what does that mean? Israel targeted the Russians after finding out the Russians were targeting them, becaue they had the capability to do so. That doesn't mean we need to give the rest of the ME countries the same capability. Think about it this way. Think about guns in America. The fact that anybody might be armed is not a deterrent to criminals. It just means that irrational people are going to use them anyway, no matter that the rational people might be armed as well. It also means in disputes, when everyone is armed, the odds increase that someone will use a gun. Same thing in the international community. It was one thing to have two nuclear superpowers; the world was divided under their nuclear umbrellas. It is quite another to have a bunch of small players armed and expect MAD to work in the same way. Too many chances for the irrational actor to not follow the accepted rules of MAD.

I realize this fact, I am not ignorant to this. But if those nations cannot protect Iran from a ISraeli attack they should shut up.

Should they shut up about the Golan Heights as well?

I said:
"The fact that Israel can hit the USSR or any ME state doesn't mean she will do so unprovoked."

You said:
Can you or anyone really say this with any certainty? No of course not and unless you can prove to me that ISrael is not wiling to use nukes ever in offence anger (like she almost did in 1973) your point is moot.

Almost used nukes in offensive anger? Where are you getting your history from? Israel went to nuclear alert after Syria and Egypt launched surprise attacks, but appealed to US help at the same time. A massive US airlift helped prevent Israel from having to use them. Again, rather than acting irrationally and using them on first impulse, Israel asked for help first. That doesn't seem very trigger-happy to me.

But no, I can't say for certainty that Israel would never use her nukes unprovoked. I can't say that about any country, including Syria or Iran. So why add them to the list?

"Again, so why add even more nuclear countries into the cauldron?"

It's deterance man, ok it's like the USSR not getting a nuke while her biggest enemy can. In this case the USSR is Iran, and the US is Israel. It's only logical.

Yes, in the situation where the US was the only nation to have nukes it was logical to have a balance of nuclear power, the two big kids on the block having MAD. It makes no sense, however, for every kid on the block to be armed. Much more likely for someone to do something stupid when they lose their cool.

"Sure, but Iran is giving Israel a reason to be concerned by considering going nuclear."

Visa versa... point?

Do I really have to explain this? You said that Israel was now threatening Iran. I said that Israel was threatening Iran because of her concern of Iran going nuclear. The bottom line is that Israel has not threatened Iran with nuclear attack,only doesn't want Iran to be nuclear. I don't blame Israel. Most of the world doesn't either. Well of course, excepting you. I actually haven't seen Israel make a direct threat yet anyway; I have only seen others speculate that she might take out the reactor with an air attack. But you can't say that Israel has threatened to use nukes on Iran.

"If Israel was an out of control nation she would have taken the reactor out already instead of waiting to see what the international community and Iran do first."

Which of course the Israeli's actions in the past prove this point:

1956
1967
1981

all offensive actions which prove Israel could care less about"international community".

So tell me why Israel hasn't already attempted to take out Iran's nuclear reactor?

"So why compound the problem by allowing yet another country go nuclear?"

So that those very tensions would not be acted on.

Israel hasn't acted on those tensions with nukes. If you give Iran or Syria nuclear capability I think you increase the chances of nuclear escalation in the region, not deter it. MAD workede with the US and the USSR because of distance. The two nations DEW systems meant that each nation was aware of a nuclear launch by the other within moments, and because of distance and several minutes to launch a counterstrike, thus ensuring that both nations risked destruction. In the case of a region like the ME, one nation feeling pressured could launch a surprise strike and there is no certainty the enemy could get off a counterstrike in time. If you allow either Syria or Iran to get nukes you only increase the likelihood of Israel going nuclear , not decrease it.

I don't so many problems with the war itself, it is the imperialistic actions post war that bother me. 1967 could have been just a normal war like no other, but Israel decided to expand her territory. So really here we are talking about the actions Israel took that went too far.

OK, but the fact that Israel might have gone too far after the war has nothing to do with whether or not she might use her nukes offensively in the future.

Oh please man give me a break, terrorism in that region didn't start until the late 80's after 20 years of Israeli rule. So no that argument is based on today's situations put on those of40 years ago.

Uh huh. You've apparently never heard of the Popular Front For The Liberation of Palestine? Formed in 1967 and operated in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It evolved into the Palestinian Front For The Liberation Of Palestine.
http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/pflp.htm

"Yes, I agree. It has worsened Israel's situation. But of couse, that has nothing to do with showing that Israel is likely to strike Iran with a nuke or that Iran deserves to get a nuke."

Of course it does, it shows that Israel is ready wiling and able to imperialize her borders all the way to Iran herself. Israel is belliegerant and that's the point, Iran hasn't.

You're just wildly speculating now. Israel has done nothing to indicate she is ready and willing to "imperialise her borders all the way to Iran." But you could always write a novel about it.;)

Israel itself is seized territory.

Protest to the UN.

Now can you tell why US had the Iraq war? WMD? Freedom? Not at all. It's for the security of Israel. Where the big enemy of Israel, Saddam Hussain was defeated. To secure Iraq not fall into hands of Islam fanatics, Bush is still pouring more money into that hole without bottom.

But the road map of Israel is not finished yet. There is still Syria, Iran.... So that's why there is article "Who is next" in internet, a propaganda preparation for the next war.

Syria is Israel's enemy, and you can expect "terrorist", "WMD" all label you can think will put on Syria. Just like what Bush did to Iraq before he started the war.

Look we are going in circles here and I hate refuting non-sensical things over, and over again. So here i will post what I think is right.

Why Iran needs nukes(I am arguing Iran's position not really my own):

*Iran at this current juncture in time is in a state of geo-politcal flux.
*Being labelled part of the Axis of Evil club she has a right to develop nukes. (look at NK, developed nukes, No war/ compare Iraq, no nukes invasion)
*Being threatened with attack, or possiblity of such by the US and Israel proves Iran's vulnerability.
* Iran is surrounded by hostile neighbours, Israel most obviously, Sunni Pakistan which has a est. 80 nukes and could deliver them to All of Iran. India which has 100+ est. nukes and could also hit Iran with her Agni II missile.
* Iran has a growing and friendly relationship with NK.
* Iran with NK is developing the long ranged TP1 and Iran has the No Dong missile known as the Shahab-3.
* Iran thus has the missiles nessecary to attack Israel.
* Israel has her Jericho II missiles pointed at Iranian territory.
* Israel still is allowed to have nukes un-feathered by the international community (double-standard).
* Israel has a "SLBM" (lack of better term) with her Dolphin class subs and Popeye missiles. Thus being able to attack Iran at a moments notice, and even if Israel is destroyed.
* Iran needs a deterance against Israeli, and American belligerence which have been exemplified by the "Axis of Evil", the invasion of Iraq, and Israel's track record.
* There is no "WMD free zone" in the ME thus Iran has every right to pursue her nukes.

Now if you notice I am not really in favour of Iran getting the nukes. I realize there are inheirant dangers here. But I cannot stand double standards, espeically when one state is threatened with MAD while the other get's to live on. Now if there were safe guards for Iran then this would not be nessecary. Now it seems that S.A also wants nukes. Yes it is a spiral you are right, but i think everyone is rational enough to realize that nuke war is no war.

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
oh yeah, 13 AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED IN IRAQ 18 hours between yesterday and today ( 19-9-2003 ) and counting...

dare and come to syria and see how we will hang your heads on the ancient walls of our cities....and hey, AL JAZEERA CANT WAIT TO HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE PICTURES.

:D Just like how Saddam was going to turn the streets of Baghdad into a bloodbath, and his vaunted Republican Guard was actually going to fight instead of shitting their pants inside their rusting tanks and running, right? Yup, that was some fight they put up there.

Syria's military is even more laughable than Iraq's was, or North Korea's or Iran's is. Christ, not even any first-world military can approach the preeminence of the US's. But if you want to subscribe to the same protocol of reality evasion, go right ahead.

Syria's military is even more laughable than Iraq's was, or North Korea's or Iran's is. Christ, not even any first-world military can approach the preeminence of the US's. But if you want to subscribe to the same protocol of reality evasion, go right ahead. [/B]

More laughable than Iraq? I think you better look again. They posess a lot more anti-aircraft SAM launchers than Iraq did, not to mention a better trained army.

"Christ, not even any first-world military can approach the preeminence of the US's"

ahh, typical American ignorance. Why don't you invade China and see what happens? We'll see about your "preeminence".

Originally posted by 10-10-220
More laughable than Iraq? I think you better look again. They posess a lot more anti-aircraft SAM launchers than Iraq did, not to mention a better trained army.OH NOS! More craptacular antiquated Soviet-bloc technology to blow to smithereens! Please. You can't objectively juxtapose two militaries by making a bunch of trading cards and seeing who has more what. There's something called force multipliers, an integral component of US tactics, which toss quantification out the window. Google up network-centric warfare and cooperative engagement capability if you want a good example.
ahh, typical American ignorance. Why don't you invade China and see what happens? We'll see about your "preeminence". Let's take the reciprocal of your straw man and say: "Let's see anybody try to invade the US." Doesn't work, right? Didn't think so. For that matter, let's see China project their power beyond a few hundred nautical miles, out of the littorals and into the blue water. They can't.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Let's take the reciprocal of your straw man and say: "Let's see anybody try to invade the US." Doesn't work, right? Didn't think so. For that matter, let's see China project their power beyond a few hundred nautical miles, out of the littorals and into the blue water. They can't.

Actually, it probably would. The American public would simply be awestruck, and our military wouldn't operate the same as it would in say, a third world country. We just can't take casualties, we're not used to it. Just look at Iraq, we've lost about 300 soldiers, and morale is at an all-time low. Troops are ready to come back.

Anyway, back to reality, my point is that Syria would put up a better fight than Iraq would, and our so-called "spectacular" military is not as "spectacular" as most people think.

About your comment that the Chinese can't project their power beyond a few hundred miles, this may be true, but only to an extent. I assume you are saying this because of the massive size of China's military. Just recently, China purchased war ships from Russia. Russia couldn't pay for them anymore. Anyhow, here are the numbers:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/plan/index.html

It doesn't matter anyway, if there were a war between the U.S. and China, it would probably mean the end for both.

Back on topic...

I hate refuting non-sensical things over, and over again.

That's one way to put it. A better way to put it is you had nothing with which to back your argument apparently other than to say now you don't like double standards. I understand that. I don't like double standards either. However, when weighing my dislike of double standards against the threat of nuclear war, I can live with the former. And allowing Iran to arm itself with nukes increases the likelihood of nuclear war, IMO. As it stands, the only real threat of a nuclear exchange in that region has occurred when Pakistan and India have heated up. Allowing Iran to arm only increases the chance of two enemies threatening each other with nukes, whcih also increases the odds that one is likely to try and get off a quick strike. It just doesn't make sense t