Should we support Israel ?

[Reverend Rick]

I also believe that removing the Israel nuclear threat with air strikes would be justified on Iran's part.

If Israel has a real need for nuclear weapon and did not threaten the neighbouring Arab nations, I would not have any feeling about this at all.

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Israel has only defended themselves, they have never been the aggressor. If you mess with them they give it back ten fold. If you leave them alone, they behave quite well.

They have had the ability to remove their enemies and have not for more years than you have been on the planet. They have threatened no one.

Air strike on Israel? You would go up against the best pilots in the world bar none.

Ever heard of the 7 day war?

To compare a peaceful nation to Iran shows your immaturity and ignorance on the subject and is akin to playground antics like, "takes one to know one". Great mentality Calgarian!

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you think that war is so grand, join the Marines.

I am a veteran.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't know about the people on this forum, but you know **** well they would nuke em off the planet if they could.



A preemptive strike sounds like a good defense to me.



Serve em' some lemonade and send them on there way, is what I say!



No, we don't, they show more constraint, I feel, than they should sometimes.

Frubals on the way!

 

[Flappycat]

I am a veteran.

I'm dutiful in thoroughly researching issues before weighing in on them.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm dutiful in thoroughly researching issues before weighing in on them.

I've been to Israel, you going to Iran any time soon?

That sounds flippant, but seriously, you defend them, do you think you would be welcome?

By the same token, If we embraced Iran, do you think that would change much?

When the first portable nuclear device is detonated in the U.S.A. and levels a medium sized city, will you still feel the same way? Perhaps the democrats will be in power when this happens and have changed the way our country deals with world problems. If we embraced the whole world the way you want us to, and Israel was wiped off the map and we were under attack, would you still feel enamored to Iran?

 

[Flappycat]

I've been to Israel, you going to Iran any time soon?

My boyfriend's been to Israel, too! He's Jewish. He says it's very nice there.

That sounds flippant, but seriously, you defend them, do you think you would be welcome?

Some of the most sensible things I've said have been flippant. No, I don't think they'd get along with me terribly well. I say nasty things about religion, I'm a ***, and I think their president is a putz.

By the same token, If we embraced Iran, do you think that would change much?

I don't know. I'm not Roma, and my crystal ball is up in the attic.

When the first portable nuclear device is detonated in the U.S.A. and levels a medium sized city, will you still feel the same way?

I'd blame the Republicans and call for them to be charged with high treason. None of this is going to happen, though, because there is no evidence that Iran has any such intention.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'd blame the Republicans and call for them to be charged with high treason. None of this is going to happen, though, because there is no evidence that Iran has any such intention.

What evidence did we have of anyone intending on leveling the world trade towers?

Well there was a previous attack during the Clinton years. I wonder what Bill did to deserve that? For that matter, GWB just took office and had done nothing to provoke an attack either for that matter, but it still happened.

 

[Flappycat]

What evidence did we have of anyone intending on leveling the world trade towers?

Fine. Let's go to war against France. They've been getting a little spunky lately.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Fine. Let's go to war against France. They've been getting a little spunky lately.

The French and the U.S.A. disagree quite a lot, both have nuclear weapons, no one ever even considers a possibility of a conflict between our countries. Why cannot Israel and Iran not understand this? Because Iran's leader is a mad man bent on Israel's destruction.

 

[Flappycat]

The French and the U.S.A. disagree quite a lot, both have nuclear weapons, no one ever even considers a possibility of a conflict between our countries. Why cannot Israel and Iran not understand this? Because Iran's leader is a mad man bent on Israel's destruction.

He's not a mad man. He's just an idiot, and now his whole country is taking crap because he chose to be a stupid boor at a highly publicized event on the last day of Ramadan. As boorish and aggressive as he may be, however, he's not a lunatic or a savage. He's probably quite convinced that he's a decent man, and, if he were taught certain wisdoms and the value of tact, he might very well be. I think that, with the right diplomatic approach, he could be taught to have some compassion for the private citizens of Israel. I also think that his cheeky attitude toward international inquiries and requests is predominantly due to misdirected patriotism. He's not the wisest of leaders, but he is not beyond the reach of reason.

 

[Yerda]

Anyone who believes that their nuclear programs are for peaceful purposes are just plain ignorant and have no grounding in the real world.

It's hardly good form to say everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. So far you don't appear to have supported your assertions with evidence.

As for Iran and it's nuclear program, I don't believe it's a good idea. I don't think the world needs nuclear power, and it certainly doesn't need another state -especially one lead by irresponsible people- acquiring nuclear weaponry (or any other indiscriminate means of killing civilians).

 

[lilithu]

How the Israeli govt treats the Palestinians living under their control and how Israel responds to the nuclear program of a neighboring country that it perceives as a threat are two separate issues and should not be lumped together.

I do not feel that the U.S. has any right to tell Iran that it shouldn't have nukes given that we remain the only country in history that has ever used them on another country. To say that we can be trusted while they can't is laughably hypocritical.

Otoh, if Israel wants to oppose Iran's nuclear development in the way that it deems most effective, for the purposes of self-defense, I don't think the U.S. has any right to tell Israel that it can't.

 

[greatcalgarian]

It's hardly good form to say everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. So far you don't appear to have supported your assertions with evidence.

As for Iran and it's nuclear program, I don't believe it's a good idea. I don't think the world needs nuclear power, and it certainly doesn't need another state -especially one lead by irresponsible people- acquiring nuclear weaponry (or any other indiscriminate means of killing civilians).

So your opinion is that current Nations having nuclear weapon are all lead by very responsible people?

If nuclear energy is not the alternative to oil, what is your opinion regarding energy for man kind in future when the oil runs out?

 

[greatcalgarian]

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Israel has only defended themselves, they have never been the aggressor. If you mess with them they give it back ten fold. If you leave them alone, they behave quite well.

They have had the ability to remove their enemies and have not for more years than you have been on the planet. They have threatened no one.

Air strike on Israel? You would go up against the best pilots in the world bar none.

Ever heard of the 7 day war?

To compare a peaceful nation to Iran shows your immaturity and ignorance on the subject and is akin to playground antics like, "takes one to know one". Great mentality Calgarian!

I yet have to hear more people on this forum to agree with you that Israel is a peaceful nation.

Not sure which part is the most ignorant. Perhaps I am very ignorant and very immature on this subject, waiting to receive eye-opening education.

 

[Yerda]

So your opinion is that current Nations having nuclear weapon are all lead by very responsible people?

God, no.

If nuclear energy is not the alternative to oil, what is your opinion regarding energy for man kind in future when the oil runs out?

Wind, wave and solar are three very good ones to start with.

 

[greatcalgarian]

God, no.

Wind, wave and solar are three very good ones to start with.

If so, isn't it more urgent to get current Nuclear Weapon possessing nation to get rid of theirs first?

Solar is the only option viable to the Iranian. Do you think solar energy can really replace nuclear energy?

 

[Yerda]

If so, isn't it more urgent to get current Nuclear Weapon possessing nation to get rid of theirs first?

Not sure. I don't trust any government with nuclear weapons, but I certainly trust Israel more with them than I would Iran.

Solar is the only option viable to the Iranian. Do you think solar energy can really replace nuclear energy?

They don't get waves in the Persian gulf? I'm sure there are windy areas in Iran's territory. But aye, solar power can replace nuclear.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Not sure. I don't trust any government with nuclear weapons, but I certainly trust Israel more with them than I would Iran.

I would highly recommend for you not to trust any one of those two. There is no difference between the two.

 

[greatcalgarian]

They don't get waves in the Persian gulf? I'm sure there are windy areas in Iran's territory. But aye, solar power can replace nuclear.

Not enough waves in the Persian gulf. Anyway waves and wind can only be a partial substitute for current energy source, and is geographically constrained. Most country will not want to depend on these two source, as they are not predictable source. For example, a sunami may wipe off all your hard work and investment in your wave energy alternate.

Nuclear energy provides one-fifth of the United States electricity supply. The other major sources of electricity come from oil, coal, and natural gas. The use of each of these power sources have its drawbacks as well as its advantages. This paper will present the facts associated with the use of nuclear energy and give detailed explanations on why the prime source of electricity for the future should be come from the nuclear industry.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ncabreza/sources.html

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Not enough waves in the Persian gulf. Anyway waves and wind can only be a partial substitute for current energy source, and is geographically constrained. Most country will not want to depend on these two source, as they are not predictable source. For example, a sunami may wipe off all your hard work and investment in your wave energy alternate.

Or your reactor may melt down and directly or indirectly kill thousands of people. Admittedly, it's hard to place a value on human life, so the possibility of a tsunami wrecking some stuff that can be fixed is a far more worrysome outcome.