Post by: Desertdog on September 01, 2008, 11:49:55 AM
Mr Biden has probably just written off about 3/4 of the Jewish vote with this remark.Biden Told Israel: Get Used to Iran Nuclear Weapons
http://us.mc527.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?fid=%2540B%2540Bulk&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&.rand=302240502&da=0&midIndex=7&mid=1_5174_263465_AOgwvs4AAGLDSLw8PAHiC0VM1x8&prevMid=1_8780_263471_AOYwvs4AABwRSLxB8wE2nXJu3G4&nextMid=1_3014_263462_AOgwvs4AARJESLwq5QSE0zzmM7Q&m=1_6631_263468_AOkwvs4AAOeHSLxLnQqK4QTolAs,1_3706_263463_AOswvs4AAFOMSLw0RQju%2Fk7IQXE,1_8133_263470_AOEwvs4AARgQSLxRbg0saxGwaeE,1_5861_263467_AOIwvs4AAKp5SLxJeAw6tSB%2BjoM,1_8780_263471_AOYwvs4AABwRSLxB8wE2nXJu3G4,1_5174_263465_AOgwvs4AAGLDSLw8PAHiC0VM1x8,1_3014_263462_AOgwvs4AARJESLwq5QSE0zzmM7Q,1_2362_263461_AOswvs4AAKHoSLwaNgZ%2F3lk0gAQ,1_792_263456_AOYwvs4AADFMSLwDOg0%2BLHgPd3Q,1_22_263451_AOowvs4AAFFFSLvn0QLuvBvZIz4,1_1451_263457_AOEwvs4AAGeFSLwD5gN%2FoWvCoa8,
Barack Obama's presidential running-mate Joseph Biden told Israeli officials that they need to accept the idea Iran will acquire nuclear weapons.
Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visiting Israel several years ago, told Israeli officials diplomacy and sanctions would be futile against Iran.
On Monday Israel's Army Radio reported details of the comments Biden made when he met with "senior Israeli officials behind closed doors."
Reportedly Biden told the officials he opposed "opening a additional military and diplomatic front" against Iran.
"Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran," Army Radio quoted Biden as telling the Israelis.
Army Radio said that at that time Israeli officials were shocked by Biden's comments.
Within Israel, a consensus across the political spectrum has developed on the Iran matter. Iran's president Ahmadinejad has stated that he will wipe Israel off the map, making clear his use weapons of mass destruction against the Jewish state.
Biden has been an ardent supporter of the state of Israel in the Senate. His selection by Barack Obama was seen as an effort to shore up support with the U.S. Jewish community.
Obama has given mixed signals on the Iran threat. During the Democratic primary he argued for direct negotiations with Iran. He has avoided making any suggestion the U.S. should take military action against Iran.
Last Monday Obama said he would continue to use diplomatic means to stop Iran's nuclear program.
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 01:00:32 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 01, 2008, 01:22:19 PM
How dare Biden declare reasonably apparent facts to be true, and warn the most impacted party to prepare.
ditto
Also, this is an "unnamed source" kind of story, of which I'm leery.
Post by: lupinus on September 01, 2008, 01:26:25 PM
How dare Biden declare reasonably apparent facts to be true, and warn the most impacted party to prepare.
Not yet anyway.
Post by: Scout26 on September 01, 2008, 01:30:30 PM
Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visiting Israel several years ago,
told Israeli officials diplomacy and sanctions would be futile against Iran.
told Israeli officials diplomacy and sanctions would be futile against Iran.
Hasn't his new, bestest, friend in whole world been advocating diplomacy and sanctions to stop
Iran from developing nuclear Weapons ??
Post by: longeyes on September 01, 2008, 02:57:00 PM
He is just another mediocrity capitalizing on incumbency.
Joe Biden: the best living example for term limits (after Ted Kennedy).
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 01, 2008, 06:22:41 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 01, 2008, 06:27:19 PM
Nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 01, 2008, 06:27:56 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 01, 2008, 06:34:43 PM
Iran is developing an ICBM.
Nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable.
Nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable.
Having my home spammed with chemical weapons as the IDF tries to prevent a nuclear threat from Iran that may or may not exist.
That's what's unacceptable.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 01, 2008, 06:36:31 PM
Iran is developing an ICBM.
Nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable.
Nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable.
Having my home spammed with chemical weapons as the IDF tries to prevent a nuclear threat from Iran that may or may not exist.
That's what's unacceptable.
I'm not sure why you're defending Iran here.
But if they have a nuclear weapon and an ICBM, it's not your problem anymore, it's ours. And the US will deal with it.
Or do you really think they're rushing orbital boosters into testing for "communications satellites", considering they don't have any domestic development of communications satellites, and it's cheaper to just pay the Russians to launch stuff?
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 01, 2008, 06:43:21 PM
Iran is developing an ICBM.
Nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable.
Nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable.
Having my home spammed with chemical weapons as the IDF tries to prevent a nuclear threat from Iran that may or may not exist.
That's what's unacceptable.
I'm not sure why you're defending Iran here.
But if they have a nuclear weapon and an ICBM, it's not your problem anymore, it's ours. And the US will deal with it.
Or do you really think they're rushing orbital boosters into testing for "communications satellites", considering they don't have any satellites?
I am sorry, where was I defending Iran?
My points are specific:
1. Nobody knows if Iran has, or plans to have a nuclear weapon.
2. There is zero proof, if the Iranians plan to have a nuke, that they plan to use it in a suicidal fashion.
4. There is serious contention whether or not Iran's ostensible ballistic missiles work. Considering they had to fake the launch of much inferior devices, I'd say it's dubious.
Conversely, it is not clear if the IAF is capable of destroying Iran's nuclear program. A lot of it is secret, or spread across hundreds of locations, or underground. What is however clear is that striking Iran will lead Hezbullah to spam Israel with it's new missile arsenal (after we, you know, so succesfully disarmed them last time around), which will reach to all major cities in this country, and may or may not carry chemical weapons. Further, Syria will likely get on it and so will Hamas.
Israel, will, of course, crush Syria like a bug - we outnumber their ground forces at 2-1 - but thousands, if not more, of people will die, and it's not even clear for what.
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 06:51:30 PM
Quote
Israel, will, of course, crush Syria like a bug - we outnumber their ground forces at 2-1 - but thousands, if not more, of people will die, and it's not even clear for what.
And it makes the long term prospects of the state even more unpredictable-it's a ridiculously bad idea, any way you cut it.
When speaking the plain facts and trying to make the smart move is dubbed "defending Iran", it's time to rethink who is on which side here.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 01, 2008, 07:20:27 PM
Is citing the respected Israeli newspaper Ha'artez. They are also running the story of Biden speaking to unnamed officials. Maybe they are using the same imagination process that the MSM uses to slander conservative candidates and officials......
Jim
Post by: Antibubba on September 01, 2008, 07:42:43 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 08:39:36 PM
Considering the response that Israel would make if Tel Aviv were destroyed or poisoned (I can't believe anywould remotely Islamic would risk the destruction of the Dome of the Rock), I can't imagine the Saudis not pressuring Iran. If ANY Israeli city is destroyed, the only arab cities left might be Beirut and Amman. Backed to the wall (or Wall), Mecca and Medina will be obliterated too.
This fantasy of destroying all the Arabs in response to an attack is just as unrealistic as the Arab fantasy that Israel will just vanish overnight under a wave of Arab attacks.
Post by: Desertdog on September 01, 2008, 09:15:39 PM
Quote
1. Nobody knows if Iran has, or plans to have a nuclear weapon.
2. There is zero proof, if the Iranians plan to have a nuke, that they plan to use it in a suicidal fashion. Then why do they have 6000 centrifuges for extracting bomb grade uranium.
2. There is zero proof, if the Iranians plan to have a nuke, that they plan to use it in a suicidal fashion. Then why do they have 6000 centrifuges for extracting bomb grade uranium.
It has been reported many times, by many news sources, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told Israel that they, would nuke Israel off the map.
W
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 09:18:54 PM
Quote
1. Nobody knows if Iran has, or plans to have a nuclear weapon.
2. There is zero proof, if the Iranians plan to have a nuke, that they plan to use it in a suicidal fashion. Then why do they have 6000 centrifuges for extracting bomb grade uranium.
2. There is zero proof, if the Iranians plan to have a nuke, that they plan to use it in a suicidal fashion. Then why do they have 6000 centrifuges for extracting bomb grade uranium.
It has been reported many times, by many news sources, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told Israel that they, would nuke Israel off the map.
W
So what? He doesn't control the army, and the army doesn't have any nukes. Who cares what Ahmadinejad has to say about this, seriously?
The man doesn't run the military, and the military that he doesn't run...doesn't have nuclear weapons, or a delivery system.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 01, 2008, 09:42:23 PM
The man doesn't run the military, and the military that he doesn't run...doesn't have nuclear weapons, or a delivery system.
THERE ARE NO AMERICANS IN BAGHDAD.
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 09:51:26 PM
Or what? Not sure what you're implying there...
Post by: Antibubba on September 02, 2008, 01:03:41 AM
Quote
This fantasy of destroying all the Arabs in response to an attack is just as unrealistic as the Arab fantasy that Israel will just vanish overnight under a wave of Arab attacks.
Agreed. But both are very alluring fantasies, to many on both sides. But MAD is not a workable deterrence plan in the Middle East.
Post by: freedom lover on September 02, 2008, 02:35:51 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 02, 2008, 02:36:53 AM
Quote
1. Nobody knows if Iran has, or plans to have a nuclear weapon.
2. There is zero proof, if the Iranians plan to have a nuke, that they plan to use it in a suicidal fashion. Then why do they have 6000 centrifuges for extracting bomb grade uranium.
2. There is zero proof, if the Iranians plan to have a nuke, that they plan to use it in a suicidal fashion. Then why do they have 6000 centrifuges for extracting bomb grade uranium.
It has been reported many times, by many news sources, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told Israel that they, would nuke Israel off the map.
And Khrushev has said similar things to the United States. America is still around.
Also, Manedwolf:
Ahmadinejad is not in charge of the Iranian military in any true sense, nor does the Iranian military trust him.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 02, 2008, 08:49:38 AM
This is true. The President of Iran is not in direct command authority. Think of it more as a Parlimentarian situation. You've got the elected legislature and Pres. and the religious council wth varying degrees of authority. Along with a younger, more educated and more globally aware populace that is not as amenable to just going along with what they're told as they might have been decades ago.
One nutbar, even if he weren't speaking mostly for effect, can't initiate hostilities. Iran is very aware of the possible consequences of overt military action against Israel or the US and they are not, however we'd like to paint them, utterly irrational religious psychos.
Post by: lupinus on September 02, 2008, 12:28:06 PM
Quote
Having my home spammed with chemical weapons as the IDF tries to prevent a nuclear threat from Iran that may or may not exist.
You'd rather it be a nuke in a few years when Iran has it's very own little red button?Strange...though I guess it's a bit quicker then a lot of chemical weapons.
Post by: El Tejon on September 02, 2008, 12:38:31 PM
Quote
Joe Biden: the best living example for term limits (after Ted Kennedy).
This would be incorrect--Richard Lugar is the best example living evidence for term limits.
Post by: Waitone on September 02, 2008, 01:10:58 PM
Quote
But MAD is not a workable deterrence plan in the Middle East.
Maybe so, maybe not. One (a big one) reason for peace breaking out between Israel and Eqypt is based in a conversation Israel has with Egypt pointing out that the next time Egypt gets rough, Israel would simply destroy the Aswan dam and flood the entire country. The devastation would be complete. So I guess you are right MAD may not work in the middle east. It appears massive retaliation has, at least in the case of Egypt. There are rumors floating about that Israel and / or the US has made the same offer as to the status of certain Saudi Arabian cities of high religious import.
Post by: seeker_two on September 02, 2008, 01:20:17 PM
Quote
Joe Biden: the best living example for term limits (after Ted Kennedy).
This would be incorrect--Richard Lugar is the best example living evidence for term limits.
Nope....Teddy K is still the poster child.....but I'd put Feinstein (aka Fine-swine) as a close second....
Post by: De Selby on September 02, 2008, 05:16:04 PM
Quote
But MAD is not a workable deterrence plan in the Middle East.
Maybe so, maybe not. One (a big one) reason for peace breaking out between Israel and Eqypt is based in a conversation Israel has with Egypt pointing out that the next time Egypt gets rough, Israel would simply destroy the Aswan dam and flood the entire country. The devastation would be complete. So I guess you are right MAD may not work in the middle east. It appears massive retaliation has, at least in the case of Egypt. There are rumors floating about that Israel and / or the US has made the same offer as to the status of certain Saudi Arabian cities of high religious import.That would be a really slick way to antagonize the nuclear Muslim state, so that it has a vested interest in responding to a nuclear attack on a region that it's otherwise uninterested in. I'm going to say those are probably flat out "rumor", given the pains the Israelis have gone to in order to mollify the Pakistanis.
Post by: De Selby on September 02, 2008, 05:17:32 PM
Quote
This fantasy of destroying all the Arabs in response to an attack is just as unrealistic as the Arab fantasy that Israel will just vanish overnight under a wave of Arab attacks.
Agreed. But both are very alluring fantasies, to many on both sides. But MAD is not a workable deterrence plan in the Middle East.
True-the risks are too high, and the desires too much.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 02, 2008, 06:17:11 PM
Biden telling Israel to get used to a nuclear Iran, is akin to me saying, "get used to your neighbor having unlimited access to 7.62x39 ammunition and semi-automatic weapons in which to fire it." (Because it's a free country and all, but not a free world?)
With the idea being, that we do not TRUST Iran to handle it's "weapons" in a valid manner. (Hey, I don't trust my loser neighbors.)
So, the USA is elitist, if you think that anyone who supports the tiniest portion of gun control is.
No surprises, here.
That would be because we are: unless everyone who has multiple guns in the USA is merely a goon waiting for his neighbors to go all Red Dawn...
Depending upon the size of their phallic armory, that wouldn't be hard to believe.
Post by: lupinus on September 03, 2008, 12:17:18 AM
The difference is that this neighbor is on house arrest and will begin shooting his neighbor as soon as he get finished acquiring said weapons and ammo, without a care of coming out of it alive.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 03, 2008, 12:42:11 AM
If your neighbor is seeking arms AND has a history of actually supporting those who would cause you harm AND has stated the desire to do you harm themselves (at least a member of the neighbor's immediate family with at least a bit of influence); then it is perfectly reasonable to be a bit more concerned than if a neighbor who just ges about their business seeks the same arms.
The difference is in actual stated willingness to hurt you versus the mere theoretical capability to do so.
As you well know, but apparently refuse to acknowledge.
Me having a semi-auto 7.62 is completely different than, say, Charlie Manson having one.
My theat to you is purely theoretical, if not nonexistent; Charlies is both real and present.
If you refuse to acknowledge the very real practical difference there, you are ignoring both reason and logic in favor of pedantry.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 03, 2008, 03:05:06 AM
Quote
Having my home spammed with chemical weapons as the IDF tries to prevent a nuclear threat from Iran that may or may not exist.
You'd rather it be a nuke in a few years when Iran has it's very own little red button?Strange...though I guess it's a bit quicker then a lot of chemical weapons.
IF Iran is seeking the button and IF Iran is suicidal enough to use it.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 03, 2008, 10:05:36 AM
Quote
Having my home spammed with chemical weapons as the IDF tries to prevent a nuclear threat from Iran that may or may not exist.
You'd rather it be a nuke in a few years when Iran has it's very own little red button?Strange...though I guess it's a bit quicker then a lot of chemical weapons.
IF Iran is seeking the button and IF Iran is suicidal enough to use it.
There were a couple of most excellent responses to my neighbor/Iran analogy: good damned stuff.
But the If/Then statement offered above still gives me pause.
We didn't know Charles Manson was Manson until he BECAME such. I believe that Iran neither has the button or is suicidal enough to use it.
Willy-nilly, radical, terrorism does not a shroom cloud make. Are we willing to invade in order too prevent them from doing what we are uncertain they were going to do in the first place?
That's like storming my neighbor's house because I disagree with his politics.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 03, 2008, 10:10:59 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 03, 2008, 07:29:13 PM
Quote
Having my home spammed with chemical weapons as the IDF tries to prevent a nuclear threat from Iran that may or may not exist.
You'd rather it be a nuke in a few years when Iran has it's very own little red button?Strange...though I guess it's a bit quicker then a lot of chemical weapons.
IF Iran is seeking the button and IF Iran is suicidal enough to use it.
If the cost of being wrong were less severe, then I'd be more inclined to risk it. But the costs of being wrong about a nuclear Iran are about as severe as they come. I'm not sure there's any wisdom in taking chances on that.
Post by: De Selby on September 03, 2008, 07:42:01 PM
Quote
Having my home spammed with chemical weapons as the IDF tries to prevent a nuclear threat from Iran that may or may not exist.
You'd rather it be a nuke in a few years when Iran has it's very own little red button?Strange...though I guess it's a bit quicker then a lot of chemical weapons.
IF Iran is seeking the button and IF Iran is suicidal enough to use it.
If the cost of being wrong were less severe, then I'd be more inclined to risk it. But the costs of being wrong about a nuclear Iran are about as severe as they come. I'm not sure there's any wisdom in taking chances on that.
Bolded the important part-a war with Iran is not a "minor war" in a middle east that is already in flames.
The costs of a war are severe-that's why it makes no sense to "risk it."
I think one of the greatest disservices done to Israel by US supporters is the fantasy that Israel will just smack its enemies around like they don't exist. No such smacking has happened since 1967...yet the fantasy persists, and it is a dangerous one.
So properly considered, the maybes are like this:
Maybe Iran has a weapons program.
Maybe Israel is capable of taking it out (this is by no means certain-indeed, the evidence tends to suggest the opposite.)
Certainly the consequences will be severe for Israel of an attack on Iran at this juncture.
What you're proposing is an operation that has a high chance of failure, all to stop a program that may or may not exist, and which even if it does exist, is not an imminent threat (no delivery system, no present capability to manufacture, no expression of willingness on the part of the military to use it-to the extent that nuclear weapons have been banned by the Ayatollahs as unIslamic)...
And you'd trade a certainly severe price to pay (in the form of retaliation by enemies that Israel has already proved incapable of stopping) for the attack why?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 03, 2008, 08:05:19 PM
Now, I've not suggested that Israel can magically erase Iran's nuclear capability, nor have I said that they should. Your argument is a giant straw man. I'm simply commenting on the consequences of being wrong in one's assessment of Iran's nuclear intentions.
Let me try to rephrase it:
The question of Iran's nuclear intentions is uncertain, at best. On this we all agree, right? Nobody outside of Tehran knows for sure. Mayne even no one inside Tehran knows, either.
So, if Israel guesses that Iran will not use nuclear weapons on Israel, then the consequences of being wrong are infinite. Nuked into oblivion. Wiped from the pages of history, as Mahmoud likes to put it.
If Israel guesses that Iran is developing nukes and intends to use them, then the worst case consequences for being wrong are sparking a conventional war. Israel has handily won similar wars in the past, and even if they'd lose this time, at least their population would still be alive. They can pick up the pieces and move on.
The best outcome for everyone would be for Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions and move towards peaceable relations with all of their neighbors. That way the rest of the world wouldn't be forced to guess, and there wouldn't be any possibility of getting it wrong. I just don't see that happening any time soon.
Post by: De Selby on September 03, 2008, 09:06:45 PM
Quote
The question of Iran's nuclear intentions is uncertain, at best. On this we all agree, right? Nobody outside of Tehran knows for sure. Mayne even no one inside Tehran knows, either.
No, I would not agree on this: At best, the U.S. intelligence community is accurate in its assessment that Iran abandoned a nuclear weapons program, and Iran is adhering to the religious decrees of the Ayatollahs forbidding the possession or use of nuclear weapons.
The worst case scenario, on the other hand, is Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon.
The options and the odds of any result in between are not "at best, maybe"-at best, we do have evidence purporting to prove that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons, and we do have the statements of Iran's highest authorities that such a project is illegal in Iran.
Quote
So, if Israel guesses that Iran will not use nuclear weapons on Israel, then the consequences of being wrong are infinite. Nuked into oblivion. Wiped from the pages of history, as Mahmoud likes to put it.
Again, not true: the consequences of being wrong are not being nuked. The worst realistic consequence is that Iran will possess some nuclear weapons. The idea that Iran is going to automatically nuke Israel is outlandish-and, again, even that outlandish risk has to be weighed against other risks.
There are no risk free options-and at this point, the risk of Iran using nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike is significantly smaller than the risk that nuclear weapons will be eventually used on Israel as a product of an Israeli war on Iran. The most realistic scenario for Israel being nuked isn't Iran acquiring them-it's Iran or another state acquiring them from Pakistan and using them in retaliation for an Israeli attack.
You are too quick to weigh the risk of a mistake on Iran's intentions, and because of that, you aren't properly considering the risk that retaliation poses. There are already nukes out there in the world very near Iran, with countries whose populations are far more sympathetic to Iran than Israel...so you need to weigh that in factoring the risk of attacking versus not attacking.
Quote
The best outcome for everyone would be for Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions and move towards peaceable relations with all of their neighbors. That way the rest of the world wouldn't be forced to guess, and there wouldn't be any possibility of getting it wrong. I just don't see that happening any time soon.
The problem is that many will never stop "guessing"-Iran claims it does not seek nuclear weapons, and the USA amongst other intelligence agencies has concluded that it does not seek nuclear weapons. To date there has not been one shred of evidence to suggest that Iran actually has a weapons program-so it's hard to imagine what would constitute abandoning nukes as opposed from now.
The best outcome would be for Israel and Iran both to make peace with their neighbors. As long as Israel is at odds with Lebanon and Syria and the Palestinians, what Iran chooses to do will be largely irrelevant in terms of the big picture.
The state cannot survive on military strength forever, regardless of what happens in Iran in the next decade. I think this scenario is much more likely to occur if both Israel and Iran stop oppressing their own citizens, and promote American style personal freedoms in both countries.
Maybe if the Israeli government were accountable for protecting the individual rights of Israelis, instead of being preoccupied with maintaining a dense, mainly dysfunctional military bureaucracy that raids the public's funds and censors any dissenting views, the Israeli people themselves could also have an honest voice in this.
Post by: Scout26 on September 04, 2008, 10:03:20 AM
The best outcome would be for Israel and Iran both to make peace with their neighbors. As long as Israel is at odds with Lebanon and Syria and the Palestinians, what Iran chooses to do will be largely irrelevant in terms of the big picture.
Yep, and that will happen just a soon as Syria, the Palestinians acknowlege Israel's right to exist. That seems to be the major sticking point.
The state cannot survive on military strength forever, regardless of what happens in Iran in the next decade. I think this scenario is much more likely to occur if both Israel and Iran stop oppressing their own citizens, and promote American style personal freedoms in both countries.
Maybe if the Israeli government were accountable for protecting the individual rights of Israelis, instead of being preoccupied with maintaining a dense, mainly dysfunctional military bureaucracy that raids the public's funds and censors any dissenting views, the Israeli people themselves could also have an honest voice in this.
Maybe if the Israeli government were accountable for protecting the individual rights of Israelis, instead of being preoccupied with maintaining a dense, mainly dysfunctional military bureaucracy that raids the public's funds and censors any dissenting views, the Israeli people themselves could also have an honest voice in this.
While Israel is may not be the equal of the US in terms of Civil Rights, both are light years ahead of any Islamic country in that regard.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 10:40:46 AM
Quote
Yep, and that will happen just a soon as Syria, the Palestinians acknowlege Israel's right to exist. That seems to be the major sticking point.
Syria does not deny Israel's right to exist.
Quote
rolleyes While Israel is may not be the equal of the US in terms of Civil Rights, both are light years ahead of any Islamic country in that regard.
"B-b-but the Arabs are worse!" is not an argument for anything.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 04, 2008, 10:53:03 AM
Quote
rolleyes While Israel is may not be the equal of the US in terms of Civil Rights, both are light years ahead of any Islamic country in that regard.
"B-b-but the Arabs are worse!" is not an argument for anything.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 10:57:37 AM
Quote
rolleyes While Israel is may not be the equal of the US in terms of Civil Rights, both are light years ahead of any Islamic country in that regard.
"B-b-but the Arabs are worse!" is not an argument for anything.
Shootinstudent was not arguing that. He said:
Quote
Maybe if the Israeli government were accountable for protecting the individual rights of Israelis, instead of being preoccupied with maintaining a dense, mainly dysfunctional military bureaucracy that raids the public's funds and censors any dissenting views, the Israeli people themselves could also have an honest voice in this.
The Israeli government being insufficiently accountable fo protecting individual rights: CHECK.
Dense, dysfunctional military bureaucracy: CHECK.
Raiding the public funds: CHECK.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 04, 2008, 11:04:03 AM
The state cannot survive on military strength forever, regardless of what happens in Iran in the next decade. I think this scenario is much more likely to occur if both Israel and Iran stop oppressing their own citizens, and promote American style personal freedoms in both countries.
Maybe if the Israeli government were accountable for protecting the individual rights of Israelis, instead of being preoccupied with maintaining a dense, mainly dysfunctional military bureaucracy that raids the public's funds and censors any dissenting views, the Israeli people themselves could also have an honest voice in this.
Maybe if the Israeli government were accountable for protecting the individual rights of Israelis, instead of being preoccupied with maintaining a dense, mainly dysfunctional military bureaucracy that raids the public's funds and censors any dissenting views, the Israeli people themselves could also have an honest voice in this.
He present Israel and Iran as if they're equally complicit in oppression, and equally far removed from American style freedoms. Then he goes on to blame Israel for the problems because they have a military and don't allow their citizens a voice in government, as if Iran somehow doesn't have a military and does allow their people a say in government.
It's twisted logic, fundamentally untrue, and scout was right to point it out.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 11:06:47 AM
'having a military'.
Having an overreaching military bureauracy that kidnaps autist children from their homes and puts them in uniform is generally known as 'oppression'.
More importantly, nowhere did SS state that both of these countries are equal in their oppression.
He said, essentially, 'The world would be a better place if everybody adopted some variation of American constitutional republicanism and respect for individual rights.'
I fail to see how this is untrue.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 04, 2008, 11:19:43 AM
Scout was right to point out the fallacies.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 11:33:50 AM
Israel will never be safe in the long term until it accomplishes lasting peace with its neighbors.
Furthermore, the current policies of the Israeli government towards its own citizens are oppressive.
Israel's prosperity in the long term cannot be secured outside the context of individual liberty, free markets, and peace.
And this leads us to an interesting moment:
While the Arabs currently are dangerous to Israel, the danger they pose does not justify a surveillance society, nor does it justify the continuation of the military draft - if only because a draftee military is not useful in combating that threat. And it cannot be REMOVED militarily.
Thus, violating the rights of Israelis has not made this country safer. Eroding the ability of individuals to remain secure from searches (to the point that in Israel police do not need a warrant if they suspect you have guns or drugs in the house), to defend themselves (to the point that today less than 4% of the country own guns), to maintain private property (under Israeli law, you do not have to be compensated if less than 40% of your land was seized by the government), to be free from involuntary servitude (hint, the draft is NOT free labor), to remain secure against unreasonable imprisonment (GSS has, in the past, grabbed people in courtroom after they were ruled not guilty and imprisoned them) has not made Israelis safer.
These laws need to be repealed, stat.
Further, Israel must continue peace negotiations with the Palestinians, and be ready to cede most, if not all, of the West Bank. This is not, you understand, some outlandish position. This is part of the platform of the Labor party (the guys who, you know, founded Israel), the Kadima party (ruling party), the Likud (most likely next ruling party), and Israel Beytenu (right of Likud).
The only difference between the major parties in Israel on this issue is that Likud wants to negotiate before they cede land, and Kadima and Labor want to cede land before negotiation. Israel Beytenu, which is to the right of Likud, wants to cede to the Palestinians large parts of Israel itself, whether the Palestinians want them or not.
Then there are actually left-wing parties.
Post by: De Selby on September 04, 2008, 04:53:56 PM
It's a lie of omission and of twisted, false logic. He obscures and downplays the significant differences between the human rights in Iran vs Israel. He blames Israel over Iran for the problems, and as justification for his blame, he condemns Israel for something that Iran is far, far more guilty of.
Scout was right to point out the fallacies.
Scout was right to point out the fallacies.
I believe Micro got the point quite clearly.
To further what I was saying: While Iran is clearly less free than Israel, it does not matter what Iran does. A more free Israel will have better policies and smarter management with respect to Iran and all of its neighbors period, because the priorities of the government will be directed towards the freedoms of its citizens.
Currently, the priority seems to be maintaining a mismanaged and sometimes comically incompetent military bureaucracy. Antagonizing Iran and hyping the threat of warfare helps to justify stealing the public's money to do that. Hence, Israel would be more likely to make the smart moves with respect to its neighbors if its leadership were not so preoccupied with taxing to spend on a mostly ineffective "security" apparatus, arresting and/or brutalizing people who protest it, and heavily censoring the media under the pretense of a "state of emergency" that never ends.
It goes without saying that the same is true for Iran-but regardless of what Iran does, an Israel whose priority is American style freedoms is going to handle these problems with much better results. It is immaterial that Iran is far worse off (it is) and that it's unlikely to approach Israeli levels any time soon (it probably won't.)
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 04, 2008, 05:54:14 PM
Surely I misunderstand you.
Post by: De Selby on September 04, 2008, 06:07:24 PM
It does not matter what Iran does? It doesn't matter that they're building nuclear weapons while threatening to wipe out Israel? It's all just a matter of Israel's military misbehaving? It's all just a ruse to dupe the Israeli population?
Surely I misunderstand you.
Surely I misunderstand you.
With respect to its own lack of freedoms, and yes, also with respect to its program.
An Israel whose priority is the liberty of its citizens will deal better with a bad, nuclear driven, Iran, too. The reason being that the aim of its projects dealing with both threats and negotiations will be to ensure that the liberty of its citizens is protected, rather than the paychecks of its bureaucrats.
And again, Iran does not claim that it is developing nuclear weapons, and no proof has arisen of any kind to suggest that the Iranians are lying when they say that they are not developing nuclear weapons. You keep repeating the claim as if it's established, but it's important to qualify all of your claims about Iran's nuclear program with the caveat that Iran denies it, and the only hard evidence and reports to surface so far have confirmed that the Iranians are telling the truth.
Maybe we're all wrong anyway-but certainly the evidence does not show that, or even that it's likely. An Iranian nuclear weapons program is strictly a "maybe the evidence available is wrong" proposition.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 05, 2008, 02:53:21 AM
It does not matter what Iran does? It doesn't matter that they're building nuclear weapons while threatening to wipe out Israel? It's all just a matter of Israel's military misbehaving? It's all just a ruse to dupe the Israeli population?
Surely I misunderstand you.
Surely I misunderstand you.
How does the fact Iran may be developing nuclear weapons which it may then develop the delivery capacity for, with which it then may strike Israel, bear in any way, shape or form, on the fact that Israel is a corrupt, oppressive, hole?
Look.
In today's paper I read about a government initiative to track the children of 'at-risk families', ensure monthly inspection visits to the homes of these families by government agents (no warrant is required), and expanding compulsory education to age 0.
Would you put up with this in your own country?