NOTE: I fleshed this post out a little bit since the original was written on my iPhone, and I hate writing stuff on my iPhone.
QuoteIsrael has some demographic problems, sure (and you're going to find out and out racists in every nation on Earth, with the difference being whether their private individuals or making up domestic policy), but I feel comparing it to Apartheid is inaccurate and, at best, in poor taste. Especially compared to the kind of stuff going on under the governmental hell of HAMAS, just over over the border.
It's a pretty fair comparison because that's what's going on over there - Apartheid light sanctioned by the West. HAMAS is just one if many symptoms of what's been going on there for way too long. Not everyone can be a Mandela you know.
QuoteNo, they're showing restraint because they're constantly getting accused of all manner of things and have to watch their everystep. Many of which turn out to be false, but by the time they're proven as such, many months have passed and the rebuttals don't capture new headlines.
Doing things like telephoning up the personnel inside a target, specifically so that they can get out (along with any equipment and munitions inside there), has nothing to do with the US being an ally. While unintended casualties are a sad fact of any conflict, Israel often goes to extremes to avoid them which even our militaries would see as highly impractical.
Wow, and you call my near-Apartheid comparison bad taste...
QuoteAnd there we'll have to agree to disagree. HAMAS doesn't care. It was firing rockets in the order of hundreds per day to try and kill Jews. That was its objective. Nothing noble. Simple racist genocide.
But, again, you haven't provided an alternative for military action in that case (which was ultimately what it took to stop the bombardments).
Like I said - stop the occupying, settling and the inhumane sick discrimination and abuse of Palestinians and their rights as human beings. The people will abandon HAMAS sooner than you think, because just like you said most Palestinians don't like HAMAS, they're just sticking with them because they're all they got.
Racist genocide? There are plenty of Israeli and US war hawks who love nothing more than to nuke the entire Arab world.
QuoteBut I do feel compassion for them. That's why I lament they've got such incredibly hateful an corrupt people in charge of them. Fatah isn't exactly miles better than HAMAS. Both are equally appalling choices and pump out tons of kill-the-Jews 'documentaries' on TV. Many of them aimed at children. Personally, I find that horrifying. They could have much more constructive lives, but those in charge of them are fixated on endlessly maintaining what's effectively become a death cult (much of it with millions of dollars' worth of funds from places like the UN, meant for construction, education and improving health).
Many places in Palestine & the Westbank have been bombed to smithereens, they have no hope for the future and are daily treated like subhumans, where's Israelis live in luxury on land taken from the Palestinian Arabs. Not that surprising that many of them are bristling with hate.
QuoteAs I say, if you think that's the reason for why hundreds of rockets were getting fired at Israel (perhaps we should examine how they could have improved the lives of their people of the same price as all those missiles cost), then you're sorely mistaken.
Same could be said about Israel's crazy grudge raids.
QuoteFirst, that's an utterly impractical idea. Second, if atomic weapons hadn't been used, a much higher number of people would have ultimately been killed. Third, the fire-bombings of Tokyo killed more people than the two famous bombs did.
Fourth, it's an irony, but the US couldn't get enough nuclear material to make their bombs... Where did they ultimately get it from? A shipment heading from Nazi Germany to Imperial Japan, via U-boat. Why? Because the Japanese were trying to make their own... They were already on the brink of using plague against San Francisco, as it was.
Has the US used them since? No. It's proven itself to be a responsible user.
Now we're getting into another heated topic - Nuking Japan was the right thing to do etc?
Short answer: NO!
Fire bombings or not, nukes are on another level of devaluation of human life. There are no excuses for it.
I love it hove people try to excuse our use of nuclear weapons, usually referring to conspiracy theories and "what-if?" scenarios.
QuoteIt's nice to think they wouldn't nuke Israel, but that's not what they say in endlessly repeated statements. Everything spoken in rallies about Israel, America and allies is about wanting death and destruction for them.
It's called rhetorics and propaganda. We do it too (even though we hold back more).
QuoteAnd exactly why would they care? They have every motivation to do so if they think they can get away with it. If they think it would result in turning Tel Aviv into glass, they'd consider any consequences to be worth it (in the same way as their glorified suicide bombers give up their lives in return for blowing up a school bus). They may even be gauging that the Obama administration would avoid a retaliatory strike and opt for something conventional, instead. Groups like HAMAS have thrived on declaring 'victory', just because they haven't been 100% exterminated after each engagement with Israel, even though, by every serious measure, they clearly lost. Iran wouldn't only be banking on the same, but would also be assuming it would give them instantaneous, massive support across the entire Middle East (which it probably would) and kick-start their beloved holy war against the 'infidels'.
I really doubt that Iran getting nukes would unify all the "baddies" in the Middle East. It's so fractioned and they all have different ideas on what to do. Iran, like I said, is not a rabidly crazy and unstable nation, even though the US-Isreali lobbied Western media usually present Iran that way. You can reason with them etc., but they will play hard and are just as proud as us and the Israelis.
QuoteRemember, Bin Laden was betting on America not having the stomach to retaliate after September the 11th. His musings had him regard America as a 'weak horse', based on what he'd noted of Clinton's unwillingness to do more than fire a few hundred cruise missiles at enemies. He assumed Bush would behave in exactly the same way.
Are you telling me that Bush's Iraq War was the right thing to do??? I really hope not...
And Afghanistan? You liked it? Thought it was necessary?
QuoteAnd even if it didn't strike? Even if it didn't palm them off to terrorists? All it needs is the realistic threat of doing so. That's all it would require for any future diplomatic negotiations to get incredibly messy. Just look at North Korea.
North Korea is a completely different situation and country (talk about bat-shit crazy).
QuoteSame principle as why you don't have to actually mine an enemy's harbour. All you do is release a statement which infers you have. The enemy then has to expend massive resources on trying to locate even the smallest mine anywhere near it and shut down any and all commercial shipping while it does.
Now imagine how much more complicated that gets when issues like nuclear blackmail enter the picture.
"Yes, yes... But, you see, if our conditions are not met, certain, shall we say... Elements within our military... They may find themselves temptation to pass on such terrible weapons to third parties. Our economy is in a truly terrible state, largely due to sanctions and, thus, we cannot be blamed for being unable to fund the appropriate security precautions."
It's the diplomatic equivalent of going, "Hey, nice car... Be a shame if anything happened to it."
Like I said, the nukes will be tracked right back to Iran, and Iran will be in BIG trouble. They can't afford that. They're not crazy enough to do that. Iran is still a functioning country despite it being seriously f****d-up.
Now, if the country starts going down the drain, the people starts revolting while the West is picking at it etc., they might get desperate, and if pushed hard enough they might get desperate. And if they know everything will go to hell anyways they might start considering the possibility to hand out nuclear weapons to terrorists as a last spiteful "f**k you!" before going down.
QuoteAnd even after that headache, if we somehow avoid any and all of the above, the very best outcome to a nuclear-armed Iran is that it will cause a nuclear arms race across the region. Nations like Saudi Arabia and all the rest who feel threatened by Iran - they'll all want their own. Which, in itself, then multiplies the problems of nuclear proliferations to a ridiculous level.
I know. Like I said - nukes suck - no one should have them. And as long as some nations are allowed to have them and tell other nations that they can't have them, things won't change.
QuoteExcept that the thug's perception doesn't change the basic situation. 
I'm putting you in Israel's shoes. Iran is the thug. All of your diplomatic attempts haven't done anything to stop them getting the dynamite they're claiming is for 'construction purposes' (even though it's clearly not). They've been paying off gangs to assault your friends and family for decades and calling for your house to get blown up. What are you going to do?
Obvious answer is that you, at first, feel justifiably concerned and try to get the police involved. If the police aren't doing anything, however, then you'll start to think in terms of home defence and doing what you can to prevent them getting that dynamite.
I'd bet you that Iran feels the same way when it comes to Israel. See the problem?
QuoteThe horse has bolted. Some genies can't be put back in the bottle. Complete global disarmament is not going to happen.
Brave new world.
QuoteThere are varying degrees of 'change', though. If the change is small and fleeting, then it has no impact (which reminds me of a certain basketball star's recent trip to North Korea and the bizarre statements he made).
It's also coming to light now that the new guy may have had a big part to do with crushing the student rebellions of 1999, in which case I can't see him being a big fan of fundamental human rights, either.
Like I said, Iran and North Korea are not in the same ballpark - can't compare the two.
Are you surprised that the new guy has a shady past? It's Iran after all. 'Moderate' over there is way different than being 'moderate' over here. Nonetheless, change is change, no matter how small.
