Israel: Murdering scientists?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Its not Israel's nukes Iran and co are worried about, its the US's

The USA has used nuclear bombs in anger what, twice? When they were first developed, and arguably out of complete necessity. It sat through one of the most delicate situations in history without ever firing. It is a functioning democracy, not a fundamentalist regime. I would trust the USA with nuclear bombs more than any other country in the world - it is unfeasible that America would fire at anyone, whereas I can understand Israel being very scared of Iran.

[Scurvy]

I realise its hypothetical, but if Israel was to be wiped out, the US would surely retaliate.

I actually meant it is the US Iran fears far more than Israel, and as such, its nuclear efforts and foreign policy are far more aimed towards the US. Israel would have very little influence in the area without US support (and weapons + funding), furthermore many of Iran's natural allies are completely reliant on US aid, and Iranain influence suffers as a result - its therefore the US that holds all the strings in any conflict in the area, and the fact it has nukes, and could use them (not that they would) is enough. If Iran was really bent of wiping Israel off the map, im not sure Israeli nukes would stop them, especially if they are fanatical as they are portrayed - its the impact to the area that the US would have afterwards that stops them.

[CrossLOPER]

In foreign policy, Realism and Pragmatism > Idealism.

America has the right because of precisely what Scurvy said.

Don't confuse realism and pragmatism with convenience. Also, Scurvy's post does not really apply to our two friends.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Then you disagree with slick willie? I agree with you, I'm just saying.

Completely. It was vital to Pres. Clinton to characterize the action as "terrorism" so that it could be pursued/addressed as a criminal action by individuals and not as an act of war. I disagree completely with that attitude. Regrettably, it only takes one side to "declare" a war. Refusing to deal with military aggression as such is inaccurate at best.

Which was why I first posted here. So if Iran killed Israeli scientist who were working on say tanks you would have no problem with it? What if Iran gave a DOW?

I never said I wouldn't have a problem with it. I said it wasn't terrorism. I actually dislike a lot of the stuff that gets done. I'm an old-fashioned enough type to wish they'd declare war and deal with it on the up-and-up, though I am well aware that it won't happen. Nobody declares war anymore, they just shoot and spin it in the media after shooting.

I do find Hobbes interesting, "Might makes right" is the historical truth isn't it?

All too often. I prefer Locke's approach to the Social Contract, though anyone who dismisses Hobbes outright is missing the boat.


Hax:

Who in this thread has been arguing about the USA having the right to dictate policy to other nations? I thought this was about Israel?

[lenin96]

I did not say i know, i said i am convinced.

So people are being killed because they are suspected but not proven of doing something "wrong".

i repeat:
you cannot leave something like this up to chance. fanaticism can make you do nonsensical things.

By that logic I can't leave America's foreign policy to chance.

The USA has used nuclear bombs in anger what, twice? When they were first developed, and arguably out of complete necessity. It sat through one of the most delicate situations in history without ever firing.

So it was necessary for all of those thousands of inoccent people had to die () for America?

It is a functioning democracy, not a fundamentalist regime. I would trust the USA with nuclear bombs more than any other country in the world - it is unfeasible that America would fire at anyone, whereas I can understand Israel being very scared of Iran.

Under Bush America seemed like a fudamentalist regime, and I would certainly not trust the one of the biggest inoccent killers in the world to have nuclear weopns.

It is a functioning democracy

And I assume America doesn't have a big difference between the upper and lower class.

[Furunculus]

Also, what the hell makes you think Iran is so stupid that they would risk to send a nuke towards Israel. It's really nonsensical. I remember president Chirac saying; "where would this missile go to? Before it'd reached 100 metres into the sky Tehran would be a big pile of rubble". What's this fear coming from? Does the US have a right to control everything every nation is doing?

As stated previously, they hold public military parades where ballistic missiles are daubed with phrases like "death to israel", at a time when they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That alone is all i need to know that iran cannot be trusted with nukes and to cheer on anyone who goes about halting that ambition.

[Furunculus]

lets look at the two countries here, Israel, a country founded on religion heavily influenced by Religion, home to some religious fanatics although not be it like their suicide bombing neighbours but on top of this a country with a stockpile of 150 nuclear weapons.

Now, lets look at Iran. A country deeply dominated by religion after the Islamic revolution, a country heavily influenced by religion and a country full of religious fanatics but, unlike Israel, it isn't capable of nuclear warfare.

What I am saying however is how can you be comfortable with a nuclear Israel? I know I'm not. For a country that believes it has the right to a land area because their people are "chosen by God" I find it worrying that so many people support them and their stockpiles.

Double standards isn't it.

odd, i see a country that has had to defend itself repeatedly from neighbours that have repeatedly attacked it. a defensive attitude is acceptable to me with nukes.

and that same country is essentially a representative parliamentary democracy, stable and non-repressive to its citizens. again, not an unacceptable state of affairs in a nuke weilding country.

i find it entirely understandable that a fly-speck country surrounded by massive neighbours, with greatly larger populations, with a history of conflict with said fly-speck nation should want an ultimate deterrent.

so no, i see no double standards.

[Furunculus]

Fair points, and I understand that Iran have said they want to wipe Israel of the map. The point is though that even if they did have the capability to do that by launching nukes at Israel they would ultimately secure their own downfall.

the problem with iran holding nukes is that it is grossly repressive and unrepresentative with an unstable history, which means it is both prone to revolutionary change, and prone to extreme political ideology from its uprising masses.

not the kind of people i want holding nukes.

for much the same reason i am happy about india's nukes but worried by those held by pakistan.

[Furunculus]

So people are being killed because they are suspected but not proven of doing something "wrong".

yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad.

[Scurvy]

i find it entirely understandable that a fly-speck country surrounded by massive neighbours, with greatly larger populations, with a history of conflict with said fly-speck nation should want an ultimate deterrent.

I agree with most of it, but you don't think having nukes for 'defensive purposes' is actually an aggressive act?

[lenin96]

yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad.

What a great reason for killing someone.

[LittleGrizzly]

the problem with iran holding nukes is that it is grossly repressive and unrepresentative with an unstable history, which means it is both prone to revolutionary change, and prone to extreme political ideology from its uprising masses.

Maybe they have had a bit of a problem with revolution and uprisings because we couldn't keep our noses out!

The moment Iran is left in peace it will be alot less extreme, part of me just thinks we keep the pressure on them as a few country's find it useful to have Iran as some scary enemy to scare domestic population with and excuse our constant twisted foriegn policy..

Don't see why Israel should be considered a safer bet to own nukes than Iran, Israel is an aggressive country surronded by enemies, Iran is relatively calm despite the best attempts of Israel and the west to rile them up, the furthest they have gone is some mistranslated quote (which is somehow proof israel shouldn't have to give away any palestinian land) and some slogans on missles. Grow up, it is fairly obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of politics that Iran is not about to start a missle war and definetly not a nuclear one. Even though people like to talk of the 'fanaticism' of Iran is not that extreme, and TBH the only thing keeping its current level of extremity is us!

Remove our constant goading of Iran and there is no reason to fear Iranian nuclear weapons, I for one cheer the concept of Iranian nuclear weapons! It should provide an effective deterrent against Israel and the west...

yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad.

The nazis were also very upset, they claimed to not have the facilities to process so many terrorists... but its ok i guess... right ?

[Furunculus]

I agree with most of it, but you don't think having nukes for 'defensive purposes' is actually an aggressive act?

MAD is a defensive strategy.

[Furunculus]

"yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad."

What a great reason for killing someone.

ok, airstrikes it is then...................

[Furunculus]

Maybe they have had a bit of a problem with revolution and uprisings because we couldn't keep our noses out!

The moment Iran is left in peace it will be alot less extreme, part of me just thinks we keep the pressure on them as a few country's find it useful to have Iran as some scary enemy to scare domestic population with and excuse our constant twisted foriegn policy..

Don't see why Israel should be considered a safer bet to own nukes than Iran, Israel is an aggressive country surronded by enemies, Iran is relatively calm despite the best attempts of Israel and the west to rile them up, the furthest they have gone is some mistranslated quote (which is somehow proof israel shouldn't have to give away any palestinian land) and some slogans on missles. Grow up, it is fairly obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of politics that Iran is not about to start a missle war and definetly not a nuclear one. Even though people like to talk of the 'fanaticism' of Iran is not that extreme, and TBH the only thing keeping its current level of extremity is us!

Remove our constant goading of Iran and there is no reason to fear Iranian nuclear weapons, I for one cheer the concept of Iranian nuclear weapons! It should provide an effective deterrent against Israel and the west...

The nazis were also very upset, they claimed to not have the facilities to process so many terrorists... but its ok i guess... right ?

irrelevant, nobody should want excitable revolutionaries anywhere near big red buttons.

the moment iran stops funding hamas/hezbollah/others we are very likely to take the pressure off.

because it is a representative parliamentary democracy. grow up? grow up! you say this to me in response to the iranian military conducting public parades of ballistic missiles daubed with slogans such as "death to israel" at a time when they pursue nuclear weapons!?!?!?!?! WTF?

that is a very misguided view.

as said above, ok lets launch a military strike against irans nuclear facilities in the absence of their willingness to close them down voluntarily. rather pointless nazi analogy don't you think?

[tibilicus]

In my opinion, pragmatism involves proper planning. Realistic and practical goals work.



So you are troubled by a country possessing nuclear bombs in a defensive manner, a country that has been repeatedly attacked by surrounding nations which happen to hate it, and yet you are either not troubled by Iran and/or don't mind if they expand their arsenal?

No, I'm not troubled by Iran yet hence I see the killing of scientists pointless. Your simply wrong if you buy in to the belief that Iran posses some kind of major military threat. Just like everyone else in the region its military is pretty much a joke when compared to Israel or any other western country.

I mean seriously its air force consists of old 50's and 70's knock off's, the same can probably said for their armour and their foot soldiers consist of millions of loonies armed with AK's.


I know I wouldn't be scared if I had my modern multi role fighters and mechanized military.

[Furunculus]

No, I'm not troubled by Iran yet hence I see the killing of scientists pointless.

Your simply wrong if you buy in to the belief that Iran posses some kind of major military threat. Just like everyone else in the region its military is pretty much a joke when compared to Israel or any other western country.

you don't live in israel, so no, i imagine you don't feel terribly threatened by iran. quelle surprise!

i don't take seriously the possibility of a conventional war between iran and israel, what i do take very seriously is an unstable and despotic regime against israel holding nuclear weapons.

[LittleGrizzly]

irrelevant, nobody should want excitable revolutionaries anywhere near big red buttons.

Thier recent revolution was getting rid of the puppet we installed, no more excitable revolutionaries than the founding fathers...

What I am basically saying is they were well within thier right to get rid of our puppet and decide thier own direction, which isn't really an arguable point...

the moment iran stops funding hamas/hezbollah/others we are very likely to take the pressure off.

Why should they whilst we still fund Israel, or is it only ok for us to fund proxys ?

because it is a representative parliamentary democracy.

errm, i never said that.. ohh you mean Israel, I don't see why representative parlimentary democracy should affect it, considering some of the democracys (israel palestine) there are probably less aggressive warlike dictatorships about that i would trust more with nukes, besides Iran has a kind of democracy going, the mullahs have to approve the candidates but they are not exactly extremists, they have fairly liberal candidates able to compete, the only real difference from somewhere like US or UK would seem to be the mullahs have to vet the candidate as well as the political party, whereas over here its just the political party...

Damn got to go... ill finish the rest of the points later...

[Yoyoma1910]

Dans la nuit, tous les chats sont gris.


Does anyone here live in a nation without a military or intelligence agency? Congratulations.

[Hooahguy]

No, I'm not troubled by Iran yet hence I see the killing of scientists pointless. Your simply wrong if you buy in to the belief that Iran posses some kind of major military threat. Just like everyone else in the region its military is pretty much a joke when compared to Israel or any other western country.

I mean seriously its air force consists of old 50's and 70's knock off's, the same can probably said for their armour and their foot soldiers consist of millions of loonies armed with AK's.


I know I wouldn't be scared if I had my modern multi role fighters and mechanized military.

i repeat: the most dangerous thing in the world to do is to underestimate your enemies.

btw, AFAIK russia sold iran some very advanced AA technology, among other things, a few years ago.

btw, what about the fact that iran has EMP capability?
EMPs are much worse...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

How dare they arm themselves after being demonized for 20 years!

[tibilicus]

i repeat: the most dangerous thing in the world to do is to underestimate your enemies.

btw, AFAIK russia sold iran some very advanced AA technology, among other things, a few years ago.

btw, what about the fact that iran has EMP capability?
EMPs are much worse...

Well if I'm reading what I am about EMP's they seem very advanced and other than a few sources there is no major evidence to suggest Iran has them.

Also if I'm understanding what an EMP does on a bit of a side not couldn't some one like Russia use an EMP to disable the US anti nuke shield? Does it work in a sense like that?

[Hax]

what i do take very seriously is an unstable and despotic regime against israel holding nuclear weapons.

Iran has democratically elected presidents. Or was Khatami a joke?

[Hooahguy]

How dare they arm themselves after being demonized for 20 years!

people said that about Nazi Germany too....

[Hooahguy]

Well if I'm reading what I am about EMP's they seem very advanced and other than a few sources there is no major evidence to suggest Iran has them.

Also if I'm understanding what an EMP does on a bit of a side not couldn't some one like Russia use an EMP to disable the US anti nuke shield? Does it work in a sense like that?

EMPs shuts down communications and other such things, AFAIK.
with that, they could shit down israels nuclear capability, then launch a nuke.
and IIRC, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=44017

[Furunculus]

Iran has democratically elected presidents. Or was Khatami a joke?

what a nice soundbite............... but does it have any substance. lets see:

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/D...ex_2007_v3.pdf

Iran = 139th out of 167 and filed under authoritarian regimes.

Israel = 47th and filed under flawed democracy just underneath Poland.

no, your statement has zero worthwhile content.

[Furunculus]

errm, i never said that.. ohh you mean Israel, I don't see why representative parlimentary democracy should affect it, considering some of the democracys (israel palestine) there are probably less aggressive warlike dictatorships about that i would trust more with nukes, besides Iran has a kind of democracy going, the mullahs have to approve the candidates but they are not exactly extremists, they have fairly liberal candidates able to compete, the only real difference from somewhere like US or UK would seem to be the mullahs have to vet the candidate as well as the political party, whereas over here its just the political party...

see above.

[Ser Clegane]

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/D...ex_2007_v3.pdf

Very interesting - something worth to take a closer look at

[Hooahguy]

ignore- dang this lousy internet connection...

[CrossLOPER]

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/D...ex_2007_v3.pdf

That looks somewhat flawed. Looking at one of the category scores, II Functioning of government, a country becomes more democratic if people "feel like" they're a democracy. The questions also appear to be either somewhat subjective or really technical. I think it could be much better if factors such as stability and well defined social conditions were added in.