Just thinking out loud...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Part of Israel's hesitation to go into Iran has been because of Russia backing Iran. What if Israel seizes the moment with Russia distracted with Georgia and takes out Iran's nuke facilities...

[clambake]

so...if israel bombs iran......russia will bomb israel? because russia always planned to back iran against israel?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

i dont think russia will attack israel if israel attacks iran which i don't think israel will do. russia wants iran to do their dirty work in attacking israel. i know this always sets of a wildfire, but it's in The Bible.

[Nbadan]

What if Israel seizes the moment with Russia distracted with Georgia

Russia could sneeze and Georgia would be wiped off the map...seriously dude...

[Oh, Gee!!]

were you typing out loud too?

[Tully365]

And what do you propose other countries do about Israel's nuclear capability, called by many European and Middle Eastern politicians "the worst kept secret in the world?" Do you advocate preemptive strikes for allies, but then war when others use the same philosophy?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Part of Israel's hesitation to go into Iran has been because of Russia backing Iran. What if Israel seizes the moment with Russia distracted with Georgia and takes out Iran's nuke facilities...

To avert another war? I think I agree.

That's two times in 2 weeks that I have agreed with AHF

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

To avert another war? I think I agree.

That's two times in 2 weeks that I have agreed with AHF

Scary, isn't it?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

And what do you propose other countries do about Israel's nuclear capability, called by many European and Middle Eastern politicians "the worst kept secret in the world?" Do you advocate preemptive strikes for allies, but then war when others use the same philosophy?

If Israel didn't have nukes the Arabs would have already wiped it off the face of the earth.

Who gives a if it's the worst kept secret in the world, it's keeping 7 million people from being driven into the sea and another repeat of the Holocaust.

[whottt]

If Israel didn't have nukes the Arabs would have already wiped it off the face of the earth.

Who gives a if it's the worst kept secret in the world, it's keeping 7 million people from being driven into the sea and another repeat of the Holocaust.

The people that hate jews care!

[whottt]

Anyone notice how quickly Nbadan and boutons dropped to their knees and started sucking Russian without a word of protest?


See....they aren't really antiwar. They're just cowards..they attack the dog they know won't bite them. They run like es from the one that they think will...



As was obvious the entire time....



Remember that the next time they are talking about the evils of war...



These are stupid, backwards, ed in the head people...they aren't Americans...they support any and everyone and thing against America.

[Tully365]

Who gives a

It seems in every argument you raise, it comes at some point to this: " you...Who gives a ." The people who "give a " are the ones whose self-interest in staying alive and well is just as strong as yours is, and who don't want to be at a disadvantage in their situations, just as you don't. Your approach to diplomacy is just like Bush's-- basically you I don't care if you have a reasonable objection to raise. It's a fundamental lack of respect for other people's history and views of the world that make the diplomacy of Reagan and Nixon look infinitely sophisticated by comparison.

[clambake]

It seems in every argument you raise, it comes at some point to this: " you...Who gives a ." The people who "give a " are the ones whose self-interest in staying alive and well is just as strong as yours is, and who don't want to be at a disadvantage in their situations, just as you don't. Your approach to diplomacy is just like Bush's-- basically you I don't care if you have a reasonable objection to raise. It's a fundamental lack of respect for other people's history and views of the world that make the diplomacy of Reagan and Nixon look infinitely sophisticated by comparison.

WWII.......

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It seems in every argument you raise, it comes at some point to this: " you...Who gives a ." The people who "give a " are the ones whose self-interest in staying alive and well is just as strong as yours is, and who don't want to be at a disadvantage in their situations, just as you don't. Your approach to diplomacy is just like Bush's-- basically you I don't care if you have a reasonable objection to raise. It's a fundamental lack of respect for other people's history and views of the world that make the diplomacy of Reagan and Nixon look infinitely sophisticated by comparison.

Um, you missed the point completely, but that doesn't appear to be that surprising given your other takes.

Is Israel picking a different Arab country to nuke every month and I missed it?

Like I said, there's a reason Israel has nukes. It's called mutually assured destruction. Syria, Iran, Egypt, none of them will with Israel because the last person alive in Israel would push the little red button to wipe them all out.

The only people who get ' you, I don't give a what you think from me' are the same ones who do it to me, so deal with it.

Howabout you answer me this. Quit attacking me as a poster and explain to me why it's bad Israel has nukes. Like I said, if it ever comes to the point that they'll actually use them on anyone in the Middle East that will mean that a significant portion of Israel will have already been destroyed, its population decimated, and in all likelihood WWIII would be in full effect at that point.

You seem to want to overlook the fact that their possession of nukes serves as one of a deterrent that is keeping them alive in favor of trying to have a pissing match with me about calling you out on your take.

So explain to me why nukes for Israel are a bad idea, and quit ing about how I said it wasn't.

[clambake]

hey aggie, i love your WWII and WWIII takes. tell me.......what would be the fundamental difference between the two?

[Tully365]

Um, you missed the point completely, but that doesn't appear to be that surprising given your other takes.

Is Israel picking a different Arab country to nuke every month and I missed it?

Like I said, there's a reason Israel has nukes. It's called mutually assured destruction. Syria, Iran, Egypt, none of them will with Israel because the last person alive in Israel would push the little red button to wipe them all out.

The only people who get ' you, I don't give a what you think from me' are the same ones who do it to me, so deal with it.

Howabout you answer me this. Quit attacking me as a poster and explain to me why it's bad Israel has nukes. Like I said, if it ever comes to the point that they'll actually use them on anyone in the Middle East that will mean that a significant portion of Israel will have already been destroyed, its population decimated, and in all likelihood WWIII would be in full effect at that point.

You seem to want to overlook the fact that their possession of nukes serves as one of a deterrent that is keeping them alive in favor of trying to have a pissing match with me about calling you out on your take.

So explain to me why nukes for Israel are a bad idea, and quit ing about how I said it wasn't.

I never said it was bad for Israel to have nukes. I said the problem was that Bush (and you) have a habit of disregarding the fair questions that some countries (and fellow Americans) have with respect to their own survival and their own self-interests. When politicians in Iran ask why it's OK for Israel to have nukes but not Iran, the official line from Bush is that he is unaware that there are nukes in Israel. Everybody in the world knows this is untrue, so it makes the US look disingenuous. Then when Bush supports Musharraf, a military dictator with WMDs who overthrew a democratically elected president, it makes the supposed search for WMDs in Iraq and the desire for democracy in the middle east look, again, disingenuous. Remember, it was the US who looked the other way when Saddam--our ally for that short moment-- used poison gas against the Iranians in their border war. And when Bush's extremely close ties to Saudi Arabia-- a country with more civil rights violations than China, a country where women can not only not vote but aren't even allowed to drive a car, a country that is nowhere close to being a democracy-- are seen by other middle eastern countries, it once again makes us look completely disingenuous. You respond to almost every question you disagree with by basically saying Aw quit yer in in ya little in pussy and feel like you've done a perfectly fair and good job of discussing an extremely complex issue. You essentially have the same temperament as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Bill O'Reilly, and Ralph Nader, i.e., the self-interested pitbull mentality that refuses to allow for the possibility that anyone with a brain could ever disagree with your conclusions...

[ElNono]

Like I said, there's a reason Israel has nukes. It's called mutually assured destruction. Syria, Iran, Egypt, none of them will with Israel because the last person alive in Israel would push the little red button to wipe them all out.

Respectfully, I think you're severely wrong about this. While you're right those countries don't have nukes, Pakistan does, and you can bet that both Russia and China will help them out, even if covertly (just like we helped the Afghans when Russia invaded).

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

When politicians in Iran ask why it's OK for Israel to have nukes but not Iran, the official line from Bush is that he is unaware that there are nukes in Israel.

Probably because Israel hasn't vowed to wipe Iran off the map with a nuke. Can you say the same about Iran and Ahmedinadumbass? No. But that answer isn't good enough for liberals and people like you, so why should Bush dignify any of you with a response?

Everybody in the world knows this is untrue, so it makes the US look disingenuous.

The only people who have a problem with Israel having nukes are the people who want and have publically announced their desire to wipe Israel off the map. You pick good company.

Then when Bush supports Musharraf, a military dictator with WMDs who overthrew a democratically elected president, it makes the supposed search for WMDs in Iraq and the desire for democracy in the middle east look, again, disingenuous.

I'm sorry, but there was nothing democratic about Musharraf's predecessors. Sharif's election is contested to this day, the results were about like that you saw in Iraq for Saddam.

Remember, it was the US who looked the other way when Saddam--our ally for that short moment-- used poison gas against the Iranians in their border war. And when Bush's extremely close ties to Saudi Arabia-- a country with more civil rights violations than China, a country where women can not only not vote but aren't even allowed to drive a car, a country that is nowhere close to being a democracy-- are seen by other middle eastern countries, it once again makes us look completely disingenuous.

The Middle East hates us because their religious leaders call us infidels and non-Muslims. All this political bull is just that - bull . YOU can hold up whatever Bush hating crap you want, the religion of Islam is founded on the idea that all of us Christian folk are infidels, and if there's one thing Muslims hate more than infidels it's infidels in power.

You respond to almost every question you disagree with by basically say Aw quit yer in in ya little in pussy and feel like you've done a perfectly fair and good job of discussing an extremely complex issue.

Maybe if you didn't respond with stupid , I wouldn't respond in kind. Like worrying about some futuristic weapon being a threat to our nuclear security in the future, or Muslims somehow having a problem with Bush pretending Israel doesn't have nukes and acting like that plays any role in them hating us.

You essentially have the same temperament as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Bill O'Reilly, and Ralph Nader, i.e., the self-interested pitbull mentality that refuses to allow for the possibility that anyone with a brain could ever disagree with your conclusions...

Um, you've resorted to name calling yourself, and brought many of the same condescending comments you're ing about me throwing at you. And this is why I will talk down to your ass. Because if you're not talking , it's only been because you're talking it about Bush, or Israel, or other . Bring some respect to the discussion, and you'll get it.

Until then, get over yourself and your problem with me. It's cute that here we are and you're still ing about me. I guess you deserve a tiny smidge of credit for attempting to bring some facts into the discussion, granted your 'facts' and observations are pretty weak.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Respectfully, I think you're severely wrong about this. While you're right those countries don't have nukes, Pakistan does, and you can bet that both Russia and China will help them out, even if covertly (just like we helped the Afghans when Russia invaded).

Actually the point remains the same. Pakistan won't even think about attacking Israel because doing so means they'd also be wiped off the face of the earth by Israel's retaliation.

It's the same concept as during the Cold War - yeah the USSR could have wiped the US off the map and vice versa, but both knew doing so would mean they would also cease to exist.

[Tully365]

Again, it's impossible to have a discussion with you because you aren't debating me, you're debating "the vast liberal conspiracy" out there that you hate so much. I never said one word against Israel, I'm not anti-Israel-- so stop putting words in my mouth and debate honestly. I haven't "chosen" any "company" as you implied-- I'm simply pointing out that if you look at the USA's very convoluted policies in the middle east, it's easy to see why some people don't like us... and you turn that into me wanting to bomb Israel and practically joining the Iranian army. My main objection to dependence on oil is the necessary buddying up to oil-rich countries, regardless of their worldview and morals. It's easy to criticize solar power, wind power, hydrogen etc., as naive just as it was for naysayers in the 1930s to laugh smugly at the idea of man ever walking on the moon. I'd recommend as a starting point this website by T. Boone Pickens, the lifelong oilman: http://www.pickensplan.com

[ElNono]

Actually the point remains the same. Pakistan won't even think about attacking Israel because doing so means they'd also be wiped off the face of the earth by Israel's retaliation.

It's the same concept as during the Cold War - yeah the USSR could have wiped the US off the map and vice versa, but both knew doing so would mean they would also cease to exist.

I think that's exactly why Israel won't do what you suggest they should do. Once you crossed the line, it's fair game. The Cold War is a good example. What do you think Russia would have done if the US would have bombed one of their bases?

That's why Israel will stay put for now.

[Hook Dem]

Anyone notice how quickly Nbadan and boutons dropped to their knees and started sucking Russian without a word of protest?


See....they aren't really antiwar. They're just cowards..they attack the dog they know won't bite them. They run like es from the one that they think will...



As was obvious the entire time....



Remember that the next time they are talking about the evils of war...



These are stupid, backwards, ed in the head people...they aren't Americans...they support any and everyone and thing against America.

Best post of the political forum. Boutons & NBA Dan are Satan's illegitement sons.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I think that's exactly why Israel won't do what you suggest they should do. Once you crossed the line, it's fair game. The Cold War is a good example. What do you think Russia would have done if the US would have bombed one of their bases?

That's why Israel will stay put for now.

There's no reason for Israel to do anything other than stay put. They don't want to wipe all the Arabs off the face of the earth, just live in their country in peace.

I think you're missing my point. It is that should it come to the brink of Israel being wiped off the face of the earth, they will take as many folks in that region with them as they can.

Israel knows it can hang in a conventional battle, see the beatdowns it put on everyone back in 48 and 67. I'm talking about an extinction type event for them where Arab forces mount a full scale invasion that won't stop until every last Israeli is dead, or they are attacked with large scale chem/bio or nukes.

In that scenario, Israel will make half the Middle East glow in the dark.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Again, it's impossible to have a discussion with you because you aren't debating me, you're debating "the vast liberal conspiracy" out there that you hate so much. I never said one word against Israel, I'm not anti-Israel-- so stop putting words in my mouth and debate honestly. I haven't "chosen" any "company" as you implied--. My main objection to dependence on oil is the necessary buddying up to oil-rich countries, regardless of their worldview and morals.

Gimme a break. You're still attacking me without addressing anything.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why it's bad for Israel to have nukes.

I'm simply pointing out that if you look at the USA's very convoluted policies in the middle east, it's easy to see why some people don't like us... and you turn that into me wanting to bomb Israel and practically joining the Iranian army

Ugh. Again, people in the Middle East don't hate us because of Israel. Israel's just an excuse that the press loves to talk about.

Arabs hate us because we are inferior as human beings in their eyes, always will be, and yet we are obviously the world superpower. This clashes with their religion first and foremost, and the more warped religious leaders over there have been saying for almost 40 years that the only way they can 'fix' the world is to get rid of the west.

It's easy to criticize solar power, wind power, hydrogen etc., as naive just as it was for naysayers in the 1930s to laugh smugly at the idea of man ever walking on the moon. I'd recommend as a starting point this website by T. Boone Pickens, the lifelong oilman: http://www.pickensplan.com

Where do you see me criticizing solar, wind, etc.? Talk about coming out of left field... I am for any and all alternative energies that will allow our society to thrive and continue its way of life.

At the same time, I'm also a realist, which tells me you're talking decades for those alternatives to come to fruition in the economies of scale necessary to support over 300 million Americans (and counting), not to mention the overhaul of our national transportation infrastructure.

People talk about high speed rail. That's nice, but the population density doesn't exist for it in the majority of America (obvious exceptions being LA, NY, etc., where they do have such rail systems).

People talk about wind, perfect example is TBoone. He's got all this land bought up in west and north Texas, that's great. But it's going to take years to put the windmills up, and he's still faced with the reality that he doesn't have transmission methods to get the majority of it to our big cities. You can't just put up transmission lines necessary to go from Fritch, Texas to Dallas overnight...

It's going to take a broadbased, diversified set of solutions to address the future needs of our country. Oil is one of them. Nuclear is another. So are solar, wind, etc.

Frankly, I'm not even sure why you are going there on this thread as it's about Israel's opportunity to deal with Iran, but whatever.

[ElNono]

There's no reason for Israel to do anything other than stay put. They don't want to wipe all the Arabs off the face of the earth, just live in their country in peace.

I think you're missing my point. It is that should it come to the brink of Israel being wiped off the face of the earth, they will take as many folks in that region with them as they can.

Israel knows it can hang in a conventional battle, see the beatdowns it put on everyone back in 48 and 67. I'm talking about an extinction type event for them where Arab forces mount a full scale invasion that won't stop until every last Israeli is dead, or they are attacked with large scale chem/bio or nukes.

In that scenario, Israel will make half the Middle East glow in the dark.

This is the thread starter:
Part of Israel's hesitation to go into Iran has been because of Russia backing Iran. What if Israel seizes the moment with Russia distracted with Georgia and takes out Iran's nuke facilities...

That's what I was referring to. Now, in the event of facing complete extinction, sure. But I can't think of even a single country that faced with complete extinction wouldn't do the same.