Quote from: SM on Jun 18, 2013, 11:30:29 PM
Like when they went to the moon.
lol "trivial".
Compared to the need to set up colonies, yeah, it is.
At least with the moon, there were definitive plans of trying to get a base going. The Challenger disaster ground
everything to a screeching halt.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jun 19, 2013, 01:04:18 AM
And what would you like to call it if I may ask? *really curious about this one*
Israel 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.
QuoteLike I said, they're showing restraint because Israel knows that our (the US) reputation is at stake as well. If Israel goes to war then so do we. If Israel goes truly rogue we'll have to support them or ditch them, either way our world will be heavily affected. Kind of has WWIII written all over it.
No, they're showing restraint because they're constantly getting accused of all manner of things and have to watch their every step. 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.
QuoteAnd maybe if Israel would stop acting like South Africa back in the day HAMAS would get less support...
And 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).
QuoteNo, I want you to feel SOMETHING for Palestine for Israel continuing tearing down the already bombed to bedrock infrastructure and society at the other side of the wall built by Israel. Palestine is fighting back the best they can. A desperate war they can't win.
But 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).
QuoteQuoteAll they were asking was for the other side to stop firing hundreds of rockets at them. How does this equate to 'our way or the highway'? Surely, it's a pretty common sense request?
And all Palestinians want is to be treated like humans again - as equals. Stop being pushed down and out of their OWN country. Stop having walls built around them, stop cutting them off from the outside world. Stop being denied human rights and dignity.
As 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.
QuoteQuoteAnd when they did that, Israel stopped returning fire, just as they said they would.
Palestinians have done the same. So what? They're both aggressors filled with grudge.
And so, you see the benefits of a truce and
not firing hundreds of rockets at Israel, yes?
QuoteQuoteYes, the US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war. When you put that in its historical context, however, then it doesn't comes across as ominous as you intended.
It sure does! The U.S. nuked Japan which was the advent of us turning into the World Police nation we all know today. Remember the cold war? Us and the ruskies were circling the button for way too long. If any country should be denied access to nuclear weapons judged by its past it would sure be the USA.
First, 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.
QuoteLike I said. Iran is not a crazy bananas country. They would never nuke any of its neighbors frivolously.
It'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.
QuoteThey would however enter a cold war if needed to.
They already have been for a long time. You don't need nuclear weapons for that.
QuoteHanding nukes to terrorists is way too dangerous because it could literary backfire. Also, if Iran would indeed peddle nukes to terrorists Iran would lose all its newfound credibility - it would be an open invitation for us to invade them. They wouldn't stand a chance. Israel would nuke the country out of existence.
And 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'.
Remember, 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.
And 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.
Same 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."
And 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.
QuoteQuoteIf a thug down the bottom of your road is supplying local criminals in your area with guns and has been holding town hall meetings, where it calls for your house to be blown up and your family killed, for many decades, is it not common sense for the authorities to be suspicious of their motives when they start talking about importing dynamite for 'construction purposes'?
What if the thug down the bottom of your road perceive you the exact same way but also thinks that you are a laughable hypocrite and the biggest bully terrorizing the block for several decades?
Except 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.
QuotePersonally I think it should be illegal with nuclear weapons, and no nation should be exempt from that rule, not even us. You either ban nukes all-together or accept the fact there will be more cold wars or even a nuclear holocaust. Anything else is hypocrite.
The horse has bolted. Some genies can't be put back in the bottle. Complete global disarmament is not going to happen.
Not
yet, anyway... If missile defence gets efficient and cheap enough, we'll
finally have an alternative. So long as enough money is spent on it, I'd be all in favour of getting rid of nuclear weapons then. Until such a time, a deterrence is required.
QuoteIt's not worthless to the people of Iran. To them that is CHANGE and they could care less if it's wholehearted change or just a way for the council to save their backs - the result is the same in the end. To them it is the beginning of something that hopefully will turn Iran to better place to live in.
There 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.
