28-11-2004 04:13									#31
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov Iran won't fear attack, because of the nukes, and won't fear sanctions, because they have oil, and those hardly work anyways. I'm not sure, but I also think they will have little effect on Iran, as it is not very west reliant.

So, what do you suggest we do about Iran getting nukes?

	28-11-2004 04:13									#32
	Increase the size of your Attachments

They said the opposite of that too. Any country attacking Israel with chem weapons is putting its existence at risk.

	28-11-2004 04:14									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Not really, considering Israel has attacked its neighbors more often then not.

That's still a matter of interpretation. And tell me, how often has Israel attacked with the expressed intent of eliminating other nations, which is where nukes as a deterrent come in handy, as has been the Israeli experience, contrary to the time before they had them.

Also please answer from the post you quoted, if Iran doesn't decide to attack Israel, what do they have to fear from Israel's nukes (allegedly the reason why they have a "right" to acquire nukes of their own).

	28-11-2004 04:16									#34
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"They said the opposite of that too. Any country attacking Israel with chem weapons is putting its existence at risk."

No, it was not in general. It was during some operation by the US in ME. MIght be this latest war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

	28-11-2004 04:20									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

They'll get nukes. And there's isn't a damn thing we can do about it. It doesn't matter much anyhow, Khamenei has acted relatively rationally (unlike, say, Kim Jung Il).

Anyways, disaster #389390390390390390390 of the Bush Presidency.

	28-11-2004 04:21									#36
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Winston That's still a matter of interpretation. And tell me, how often has Israel attacked with the expressed intent of eliminating other nations, which is where nukes as a deterrent come in handy, as has been the Israeli experience, contrary to the time before they had them.

They've attacked Palestine with the intent of destroying it. They attacked Egypt with the intent of overthrowing it's government. They attacked Syria with the intent of destroying it by fracturing into multiple states. So at least three times.

quote: Also please answer from the post you quoted, if Iran doesn't decide to attack Israel, what do they have to fear from Israel's nukes (allegedly the reason why they have a "right" to acquire nukes of their own).

Because Israel is an historically aggressive state and has attacked its neighbors unprovoked on several occassions.

	28-11-2004 04:22									#37
	Suffering from ads?

I think Pekka hit the nail on the head there.

1) We don't want any more nations to have nukes than those who already have them. No more.

2) Iran is not a friendly state no matter how you look at it outside of Islamic fundamentalism, and so arguing that they have a right to acquire nukes is just... well, 'unwise'...

	28-11-2004 04:26									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Winston arguing that they have a right to acquire nukes is just... well, 'unwise'...

Who's arguing they should have them?

	28-11-2004 04:36									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: They've attacked Palestine with the intent of destroying it. They attacked Egypt with the intent of overthrowing it's government. They attacked Syria with the intent of destroying it by fracturing into multiple states. So at least three times.

That was the expressed intent of Israel? Or just something you dreamt up on occasions where Israel took military action to ensure its continued security in the face of hostile neighbours?

quote: Because Israel is an historically aggressive state and has attacked its neighbors unprovoked on several occassions.

That is where we differ. I don't consider the military and political climate and actions of the neighbouring countries, with which Israel has been faced for the past half century to be "unprovocative". They want to and have always wanted to eliminate Israel as a state and as a nation, therein lies the inherent provocation. Which again gives Israel the casus belli to take preemptive military action if they feel their national security is being undermined.

	28-11-2004 04:45									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara LIES!!!! Israel has never said any such thing. You want to know why? Because Israel maintains that they do not have any nukes, despite the fact the world knows better.

They have stated repeatedly that they "will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons in the region.". The meaning of which is percisely what Pekka stated.

quote: Well you're wrong. If they admitted it, the U.S. would automatically slap sanctions on them. Because Israel doesn't admit it, the U.S. can officially pretend Israel doesn't have them, and is thus not obligated by law to impose sanctions.

sanctions go out the window if the US has reason not to impose them. eg, the US waiving sanctions against Pakistan in order to get assisstance in Afghanistan.

	28-11-2004 04:48									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Also, if Syria would follow Egypt's example and sign a peace agreement with Israel, I think everybody could sleep a little more safely. It wouldn't solve all problems of course, but it'd serve to promote a relaxation of tensions in the entire region.

	28-11-2004 05:12									#42
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If I were in Iran's shoes, I'd want nukes. So I can't really fault them for seeking them.

Now, I happen not to be in said shoes, and would rather prefer if they did not get them. Since they conveniently signed a li'l treaty obliging them to not get them, I can even pretend to be moral about. But it's highly unclear to me what - excluding military attack - can really be done to stop them, except convincing them they don't want any. (Good thing I'm not on the diplomatic team - I'd be trying to make them accept a position I don't agree with!) And rhetorics nonewithstanding, it's somewhat reassuring that Iran hasn't started any wars for ages.

I suppose the real question is whether the risks involved in stopping them by violence would be worth it. I think not; Tehran doesn't seem to be any more suicidal in practice than Beijing (whose rhetorics a few decades ago were as fiery as anyone could ask for).

	28-11-2004 05:25									#43
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist I suppose the real question is whether the risks involved in stopping them by violence would be worth it. I think not; Tehran doesn't seem to be any more suicidal in practice than Beijing (whose rhetorics a few decades ago were as fiery as anyone could ask for).

Who has the means of stopping them? Don't forget that our military might is tied down next door fighting "insurgents" in bloody street battles. We don't have the military capability for a military solution to Iran at this point.

Besides, we shredded our "political capital" on the issue of foreign interventions with the Iraq war. Given the alienation of our traditional allies and the debacle that has ensued, nobody else is going to want to go near Iran.

All this despite the fact that Iran has always and obviously been the real threat in the ME. Now it's a threat that is emboldened.

	28-11-2004 06:13									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Not really, considering Israel has attacked its neighbors more often then not.

Yes, lets count the amount of times we did that.
1982.
1956 (because france and britain stupidly dragged us into this)

	28-11-2004 06:19									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov quote: Not really, considering Israel has attacked its neighbors more often then not. Yes, lets count the amount of times we did that. 1982. 1956 (because france and britain stupidly dragged us into this)

1967

	28-11-2004 06:20									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Israel has never said any such thing. You want to know why? Because Israel maintains that they do not have any nukes, despite the fact the world knows better. /q] nice try but learn your facts. Israel has numerously said that they won't be the first to 'introduce nuclear weapons to the middle east conflicts'. [q]They've attacked Palestine with the intent of destroying it. They attacked Egypt with the intent of overthrowing it's government. They attacked Syria with the intent of destroying it by fracturing into multiple states. So at least three times.

There is no Palestine you stupid socialist. And there never was.
There might be, if Israel will be convinced by Abu Mazen / pushed by GW. But there never was.

Did you know what "palestinians" did in 1947? Ran away.

Did you know what the rest of the arab countries did? Began invading.

quote: Because Israel is an historically aggressive state and has attacked its neighbors unprovoked on several occassions.

Only in 1956 and that was due to brittish and french planning...

The rest of the times Israel was provoked and had acted in self defense.

You have to stop reading comissar-rewritten history, and open a real book.

	28-11-2004 06:26									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov quote: They've attacked Palestine with the intent of destroying it. They attacked Egypt with the intent of overthrowing it's government. They attacked Syria with the intent of destroying it by fracturing into multiple states. So at least three times. There is no Palestine you stupid socialist. And there never was.

There was, and you attacked and destroyed it, along with the Arab states, in 1948.

quote: quote: Because Israel is an historically aggressive state and has attacked its neighbors unprovoked on several occassions. Only in 1956 and that was due to brittish and french planning... The rest of the times Israel was provoked and had acted in self defense.

You attacked Lebanon after the PLO had observed an 18-month cease fire that only Israel and the US says they violated.

You attacked Egypt in 1967 without justification.

Maybe you need to read something besides your little Israeli fascist histories.

	28-11-2004 06:40									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Wasn't this about Iran's nukes - before chegitz guevara got his customary hardon attacking Israel and everyone and everything associated with it?

	28-11-2004 06:48									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara quote: There is no Palestine you stupid socialist. And there never was.[/q] There was, and you attacked and destroyed it, along with the Arab states, in 1948.

No, there was no state of Palestine in 1948.

quote: You attacked Egypt in 1967 without justification.

No justification apart from the:

• Blockade of the Straits of Tiran, widely acknowledged as an act of war.
  
• Egypt kicked out the UN troops from the area.
  
• Egyptian leadership threatened Israel.
  
• Egypt had put forces on Israel's borders.
  
• Israel had discovered Egypt's "Operation Dawn", a plan for attacking Israel which was halted at the last minute by pressure from the Societ Union.
  

	28-11-2004 07:01									#50
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Winston Wasn't this about Iran's nukes - before chegitz guevara got his customary hardon attacking Israel and everyone and everything associated with it?

You asked me what Iran had to fear from Israel. Typical Winston. He asks a question, gets an answer, then goes off on a personal attack.

	28-11-2004 07:08									#51
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Edan quote: There was, and you attacked and destroyed it, along with the Arab states, in 1948. No, there was no state of Palestine in 1948.

There would have been had Israel and the Arab states not pre-empted it by invading and annexing it.

quote: No justification apart from the: Blockade of the Straits of Tiran, widely acknowledged as an act of war. Egypt kicked out the UN troops from the area. Egyptian leadership threatened Israel. Egypt had put forces on Israel's borders. Israel had discovered Egypt's "Operation Dawn", a plan for attacking Israel which was halted at the last minute by pressure from the Societ Union.

The Straights of Tiran are completely within Egyptian territory, and thus it was not an act of war to blockade them. The only reason Israel had any right to use them at all was as part of an agreement forced on Egypt when Israel attacked without provacation in '56.

Israel never allowed UN troops on to its territory in the first place. Egypt got tired of having only its territory being used to house the UN.

Egypt was countering the Israeli moves against its ally Syria.

See above.

The U.S. has plans to invade Canada. The existence of plans doesn't mean there will be war. Furthermore, an invasion that doesn't happen cannot be causi belli.

Furthermore, Egypt had just finished losing a war in Yemen. It wasn't ready to fight another war, with a country that everyone knew would kick its ass, including Egypt.

	28-11-2004 07:11									#52
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

You consider that a personal attack? Then I'd say you're slightly more light skinned than when you're dealing them out yourself.

I asked you what Iran had to fear from Israel if they didn't attack Israel. This because you had previously stated that Iran has a nuclear capable enemy, which I took to mean Israel.

Now, would it be terribly painful for you to cease with the threadjack?

	28-11-2004 07:15									#53
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Winston You consider that a personal attack? Then I'd say you're slightly more light skinned than when you're dealing them out yourself.

It is a personal attack. It's not up to you to determine how the object of your insult should feel. And uh, where did I insult you, since, as you say, I'm "dealing them out" myself?

quote: Now, would it be terribly painful for you to cease with the threadjack?

Piss off. You asked a question, I answered it. Don't act like this is my doing. If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.

	28-11-2004 07:19									#54
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Oh that's rich. You insult any poster you don't agree with on a regular basis. It's part of your personality.

I asked a question in response to a point you made earlier. If you don't want the points that you make debated, then you're the one who should've pissed off a long time ago.

Now get back on the topic, or I shall taunt you a second time.

	28-11-2004 07:23									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Winston Oh that's rich. You insult any poster you don't agree with on a regular basis.

Only rarely, actually, and only when they really deserve it. You might notice that despite both you and Siro insulting me in this thread, I have insulted neither of you in return.

quote: I asked a question in response to a point you made earlier.

'Nuff said. I'm not the one complaining about the direction the thread took. Don't ask me to defend my point and then complain that I'm doing so.

	28-11-2004 07:25									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara There would have been had Israel and the Arab states not pre-empted it by invading and annexing it. [/qb]

But there wasn't one, and they weren't interested in declaring statehood.

quote: The Straights of Tiran are completely within Egyptian territory,

The straits of Tiran are an international waterway and the blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone

quote: Egypt got tired of having only its territory being used to house the UN.

How convenient.

quote: Egypt was countering the Israeli moves against its ally Syria.

What moves? The ersatz reports that Egypt had that Israel was building up troops on Syria's borders, which both Syrian and Egyptian leadership knew was falsified?

quote: The U.S. has plans to invade Canada. The existence of plans doesn't mean there will be war.

The existence of plans and the intelligence that suggests that they would be implemented soon, certainly suggests that.

	28-11-2004 07:28									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Sorry, Edan, Winston doesn't want me discussing it anymore. I therefore concede to you.

	28-11-2004 07:30									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

BTW, anyone know what the current estimates for when Iran will achieve nukes?

	28-11-2004 07:32									#59
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I did not insult you. I just stated the facts about your hatred of Israel.

And I suppose you didn't call Siro a fascist either, hm?

As to your continued beating of that dead horse of yours, maybe I could ask you to keep your rabid anti-Israeli ramblings out of a thread on Iran's nukes altogether?

You do realise that's my complaint wrt. to the threadjack, not a short exchange several hours ago on whether Israel could be considered an enemy of Iran or not.

EDIT: This was X-posted with the two previous posts. This sub-debate is now over for me also.

	28-11-2004 07:34									#60
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Winston I thought we weren't talking about Iran's "logic", by which, granted, they might perceive Israel as having aggressive intentions - but rather whether we, as onlookers, agree with Iran's desire to acquire nukes. Whether it's their "right" so to speak. If you look at the situation objectively, what are the scenarios where Israel's nukes could pose a threat to Iran - except in the case of an Iranian attack? As long as they don't touch Israel, they'll be safe. Which was the whole point of Israel acquiring nukes in the first place. I say it's worked pretty well...

Nuclear-armed nations who ask that other nations disarm whatever nukes they have, or to ask other nations to stop nuclear weapons development are truly being hypocritical, don't you think?

The world would be a lot better off with nations like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and India not having nukes. But until countries like United States and others walk the talk, how can we expect any real progress in convincing nations to give up on nuclear weapons?