Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2012, 01:28 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 12:00 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 11:36 AM)Jeff Wrote:  Where did I say this?

You said that the U.S. Policy on Palestine is rational. That policy is voting down efforts to accepting Palestine from existing as a nation in the U.N./UNESCO. While Obama has said he Palestine and Israel both have the right to exist as nations. The efforts and policies have not been in that direction. They still stand not denying the claim that a U.N. petition of Palestine would be vetoed.

So the policy is preventing Palestine from existing. I am sidetracking this topic now though.

Here is your mistake. The policy is let a Palestinian state to exist, only after negotiations and peace agreement signning. What is the point of having another Arab state establish in the region which does not recognize Israel or its right to exist? the constant situation of war won't change, it'll just be worse. The Palestinians declared they want a Jew-free Palestine (and I'm not entering to the racist subject of the mere idea...), how they intead to evacuate all the Jews from their supposed country? asking them nicely? throwing flowers? a petition? no, they will ethnicly clean the territory from Jews, or at least try to ethnicly clean it because Israel is ten times stronger and it will abolish every missery attempt to harm its people.

So, really, what the point of one-sided declaration of statehood? (ignoring the aftermath, which was a complete failure). Because it won't bring peace, not even an inch of peace.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 02:02 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 01:28 PM)shiranl Wrote:  Here is your mistake. The policy is let a Palestinian state to exist, only after negotiations and peace agreement signning. What is the point of having another Arab state establish in the region which does not recognize Israel or its right to exist? the constant situation of war won't change, it'll just be worse. The Palestinians declared they want a Jew-free Palestine (and I'm not entering to the racist subject of the mere idea...), how they intead to evacuate all the Jews from their supposed country? asking them nicely? throwing flowers? a petition? no, they will ethnicly clean the territory from Jews, or at least try to ethnicly clean it because Israel is ten times stronger and it will abolish every missery attempt to harm its people.

The most recent US position that I've seen is support for a Palestinian state, but not by instituting it through the Security Council. Rather we want a peace agreement between the parties. No state can exist successfully without that, so witholding a vote until/unless is a rational approach, both to pressuring the parties to reach a mutual position, and launching a successful state once agreed upon. Whether you like the policy or not, it is rational.

In contract, you are trying to say that Iran's policy of calling for the destruction of Israel is equivalent and rational. Whether you like the policy or not, it is irrational. That's why the world doesn't support Iran having nukes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 03:45 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
Iran is a sovereign nation. Imagine if someone put in place trade restrictions on the US for having nukes. Let them have them and let Israel defend itself. They are quite capable.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
18-08-2012, 03:50 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 03:45 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Iran is a sovereign nation. Imagine if someone put in place trade restrictions on the US for having nukes. Let them have them and let Israel defend itself. They are quite capable.

I suspect that Israel won't let it happen.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 04:08 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 03:45 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Iran is a sovereign nation. Imagine if someone put in place trade restrictions on the US for having nukes. Let them have them and let Israel defend itself. They are quite capable.

Yes, they have demonstrated that they are very sovereign, what with their presidential election rigs and such.

(18-08-2012 03:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 03:45 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Iran is a sovereign nation. Imagine if someone put in place trade restrictions on the US for having nukes. Let them have them and let Israel defend itself. They are quite capable.

I suspect that Israel won't let it happen.

Nope. My money is on the Israelis.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
18-08-2012, 04:38 PM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2012 04:44 PM by shiranl.)
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 02:02 PM)Jeff Wrote:  The most recent US position that I've seen is support for a Palestinian state, but not by instituting it through the Security Council. Rather we want a peace agreement between the parties. No state can exist successfully without that, so witholding a vote until/unless is a rational approach, both to pressuring the parties to reach a mutual position, and launching a successful state once agreed upon. Whether you like the policy or not, it is rational.

In contract, you are trying to say that Iran's policy of calling for the destruction of Israel is equivalent and rational. Whether you like the policy or not, it is irrational. That's why the world doesn't support Iran having nukes.

WHAT?! You are awere to the fact I am Israeli, are you?

Maybe my English is lacking of sense, maybe I haven't got enough knowledge to understand your English, but I'm pritty sure that I said exactley the same thing you said about US policy- that there is no point of a Palestinian statehood without negotiations and peace agreement with Israel. And maybe I didn't implay it well enough- but I fully support that policy.

P.S- there is no need to "pressure" Israel into negotiations, Israel never asked for pre-conditions in order to sit and talk with the Palestinians, while the Palestinian refused to sit and talk with Israel for 9 months after Israel completed their pre-condition to sit and talk, which is freezing the settelements. We froze them for 10 months, and after 9 months they finally went into negotiations knowing the freezing will expire in 1 month which will give them the excuse to withdraw from negotiations.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 04:47 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 04:38 PM)shiranl Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 02:02 PM)Jeff Wrote:  The most recent US position that I've seen is support for a Palestinian state, but not by instituting it through the Security Council. Rather we want a peace agreement between the parties. No state can exist successfully without that, so witholding a vote until/unless is a rational approach, both to pressuring the parties to reach a mutual position, and launching a successful state once agreed upon. Whether you like the policy or not, it is rational.

In contract, you are trying to say that Iran's policy of calling for the destruction of Israel is equivalent and rational. Whether you like the policy or not, it is irrational. That's why the world doesn't support Iran having nukes.

WHAT?! You are awere to the fact I am Israeli, are you?

Maybe my English is lacking of sense, maybe I haven't got enough knowledge to understand your English, but I'm pritty sure that I said exactley the same thing you said about US policy- that there is no point of a Palestinian statehood without negotiations and peace agreement with Israel. And maybe I didn't implay it well enough- but I fully support that policy.

P.S- there is no need to "pressure" Israel into negotiations, Israel never asked for pre-conditions in order to sit and talk with the Palestinians, while the Palestinian refused to sit and talk with Israel for 9 months after Israel completed their pre-condition to sit and talk, which is freezing the settelements. We froze them for 10 months, and after 9 months they finally went into negotiations knowing the freezing will expire in 1 month which will give them the reason to withdraw from negotiations.

Look at it from a non-Israeli viewpoint: if the modern state of Israel had not been created, these problems wouldn't exist.

In the sense that people feel that Palestinian/Arab/Muslim/whatever land was wrongfully taken to create Israel, then their intention to destroy Israel is rational. It is also rational for the people of Israel to do whatever they can to prevent that.

The idea that the land was wrongfully taken is certainly no more irrational than the idea that it is the "Promised Land" and was rightfully taken.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
18-08-2012, 05:28 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 04:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Look at it from a non-Israeli viewpoint: if the modern state of Israel had not been created, these problems wouldn't exist.

In the sense that people feel that Palestinian/Arab/Muslim/whatever land was wrongfully taken to create Israel, then their intention to destroy Israel is rational. It is also rational for the people of Israel to do whatever they can to prevent that.

The idea that the land was wrongfully taken is certainly no more irrational than the idea that it is the "Promised Land" and was rightfully taken.

Look at it from a human viewpoint: if the modern state of Israel had not been created, these problems would be very minor in comparessment to what could have happened.
Let's think together- after WW2 the UK was economicly broken, it could not maintain its mandate anymore, so the mandate still return to the UN and they still suggest the 1947 partition plan. The Jews still accept it and declare a state, the Arabs still deny it and launch a war. So the only thing that could've happen that would reverse the result of the creation of Israel, is the Arabs winning the 1948 war. In that case- they would have finished Hitler's job. I think it is much more devastating result than a nuclear Iran.

And btw- look at the so called "Arab Spring", which is a very nice and heroic term for civil war in the entire Arab world. Israel had nothing to do with it, this is the Arabs fighting against Arabs. So yeah, without Israel the Middle East would still be a headache to the rest of the world, with the only difference- the Arabs and the world won't have Israel to blame.

No, it is not rational to want blood and death. It is just like saying "In the sense that people feel that Germany was viciously taken by the Jews, then their intention to exterminate the Jewish people is rational". It is not rational to want a war, at least not when you are a sane person.
However, to protect yourself is still remain rational. Wheather you are Israeli protecting yourself from nuclear Iran in 2012 or a Jew protecting yourself from the Nazis killing machines in 1940. It is a basic survival instinct.

And you think I am here, in this website as well as in this land, because of "promised land"? God didn't do anything to protect his so called "chosen people", which is one of the reasons I do not believe in such god, so why would I take his so called "word" as the only and ultimate reason why I deserve to be here, not by mercy but by right?
Please, read about Zionism and its founder Binyamin Zeev Hertzel, they are not the religious fanaticism you seem to think they are. Actually, they are the complete opposite.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 05:44 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 04:38 PM)shiranl Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 02:02 PM)Jeff Wrote:  The most recent US position that I've seen is support for a Palestinian state, but not by instituting it through the Security Council. Rather we want a peace agreement between the parties. No state can exist successfully without that, so witholding a vote until/unless is a rational approach, both to pressuring the parties to reach a mutual position, and launching a successful state once agreed upon. Whether you like the policy or not, it is rational.

In contract, you are trying to say that Iran's policy of calling for the destruction of Israel is equivalent and rational. Whether you like the policy or not, it is irrational. That's why the world doesn't support Iran having nukes.

WHAT?! You are awere to the fact I am Israeli, are you?

Maybe my English is lacking of sense, maybe I haven't got enough knowledge to understand your English, but I'm pritty sure that I said exactley the same thing you said about US policy- that there is no point of a Palestinian statehood without negotiations and peace agreement with Israel. And maybe I didn't implay it well enough- but I fully support that policy.

P.S- there is no need to "pressure" Israel into negotiations, Israel never asked for pre-conditions in order to sit and talk with the Palestinians, while the Palestinian refused to sit and talk with Israel for 9 months after Israel completed their pre-condition to sit and talk, which is freezing the settelements. We froze them for 10 months, and after 9 months they finally went into negotiations knowing the freezing will expire in 1 month which will give them the excuse to withdraw from negotiations.

He was agreeing with you; those comments were addressed toward me.

The flaw in those again though is I'm not saying their method is rational. Iranian leaderships desire for Israel to not exist DOES NOT equal Iran's policy for destruction of Israel. Of course that wouldn't be rational. It's a matter of principal level just as the level of U.S. and their principals on the Palestinian issue.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 06:01 PM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2012 06:06 PM by Chas.)
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 05:28 PM)shiranl Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 04:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Look at it from a non-Israeli viewpoint: if the modern state of Israel had not been created, these problems wouldn't exist.

In the sense that people feel that Palestinian/Arab/Muslim/whatever land was wrongfully taken to create Israel, then their intention to destroy Israel is rational. It is also rational for the people of Israel to do whatever they can to prevent that.

The idea that the land was wrongfully taken is certainly no more irrational than the idea that it is the "Promised Land" and was rightfully taken.

Look at it from a human viewpoint: if the modern state of Israel had not been created, these problems would be very minor in comparessment to what could have happened.
Let's think together- after WW2 the UK was economicly broken, it could not maintain its mandate anymore, so the mandate still return to the UN and they still suggest the 1947 partition plan. The Jews still accept it and declare a state, the Arabs still deny it and launch a war. So the only thing that could've happen that would reverse the result of the creation of Israel, is the Arabs winning the 1948 war. In that case- they would have finished Hitler's job. I think it is much more devastating result than a nuclear Iran.

And btw- look at the so called "Arab Spring", which is a very nice and heroic term for civil war in the entire Arab world. Israel had nothing to do with it, this is the Arabs fighting against Arabs. So yeah, without Israel the Middle East would still be a headache to the rest of the world, with the only difference- the Arabs and the world won't have Israel to blame.

No, it is not rational to want blood and death. It is just like saying "In the sense that people feel that Germany was viciously taken by the Jews, then their intention to exterminate the Jewish people is rational". It is not rational to want a war, at least not when you are a sane person.
However, to protect yourself is still remain rational. Wheather you are Israeli protecting yourself from nuclear Iran in 2012 or a Jew protecting yourself from the Nazis killing machines in 1940. It is a basic survival instinct.

And you think I am here, in this website as well as in this land, because of "promised land"? God didn't do anything to protect his so called "chosen people", which is one of the reasons I do not believe in such god, so why would I take his so called "word" as the only and ultimate reason why I deserve to be here, not by mercy but by right?
Please, read about Zionism and its founder Binyamin Zeev Hertzel, they are not the religious fanaticism you seem to think they are. Actually, they are the complete opposite.

You make a good argument. Thanks.

But just one thing. Why did Jews want to set up the State of Israel there, in that place?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: