[jtfanclub]

Quote

In the U.S, everything Israel does is supported - yet nothing in this region of the world is so simple as good guys/bad guys, us-versus-them mentality.

Well, that's not actually true, cf. the last invasion of Lebanon and what they're doing to Gaza right now (which horrifies most Israelis).

Quote

I'm trying to make is that if Israel is indeed planning some type of limited nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear sites, it can't be as simple as saying "way to go, Israel.  They had it coming."

This seems silly to me. Israel is perfectly capable of taking out nuclear facilities without using nukes. It's like asking what we're going to do if Canada nukes China. Israel will use nukes if attacked with WMDs, and I don't mean mustard gas. To attack Iran's nuclear facilities with nukes would devalue Israel's nuclear weapons.

For example, Iraq attacked Israel with hundreds of Scuds. Scuds are WMD capable. Iraq had lots of WMDs, although not terribly effective ones. But not one Scud had WMDs on it. Why?

Because Israel would have responded with nukes. If Israel started using nukes for every little thing, then why not use WMDs agianst them?

Israel and the Middle East have mastered the limited war. If you attack with A but not B, I will retaliate with C but not D. From Lebanon to Gaza to bombing the Syrian nuclear facility, all sides have been very careful to keep the war from blowing up into a Middle East wide Holocaust. The idea that either side is going to suddenly break out of their "civilized war" mentality is just fear-mongering.

Quote

How can allowing an act of war by one country but disallowing the defensive capabilities of another country be considered sponsoring regional peace?

I thought we were proomoting Democracy in the Middle East?

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Nov 16 2007, 07:34 AM, said:

My opinion on this is very simple. Any country or movement that uses a nuclear weapon is so criminal it does not deserve to exist. End of story.

I don't care if they are the "good guys" or the "bad guys", whoever defined that. In my definition, whoever throws the bomb is a BAD guy in ways of "genocide" kind of bad.

In this case I am also against the "an eye for an eye" approach. Suppose country X attacks country Y with a nuclear bomb. Then one should not return the favour!

Ok you made it clear the USA does not deserve to exist...fair enough.

End of story.

[Winstonm]

JT,

The nuclear claims are not mine but from the Times article - they claimed Israel is planning to use nuclear weapons - supposedly a scaled down mini-nuke to use against underground sites.

As for what we are doing in the middle east, it is unclear. First, we attacked Afghanistan for harboring Osama bin Laden, then later claimed bin Laden was unimportant. We then attacked Iraq because there was clear proof that they had chemical weapons, were trying to reconstitute their nuclear ambitions, and were sponsors of al-Qaeda - none of which turned out to be true. So then the story changed the reason, and now, after about the fourth or fifth change of reasoning, we are in Iraq to bring about democracy.

You vill have democracy und you vill like it! - Official White House Source