Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35210)	7/29/2002 2:10:37 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

" Therefore, if you ask what Israel has nuclear weapons for, the answer is clear. " Clear as Mud Nadine,to those looking down the long barrel of extinction. While the Zionists sit on their lofty perch of " we are right and we are not aggressive and we only want peace " , the people who those weapons of mass destruction are pointed at likely don't feel as at ease with that doctrine as those who profess to adhere by it. Who is to say, during an attempt by the West ( whatever makeup that may be ) to topple Saddam ,Israel decides that it is under a security threat and intentionally or otherwise launches a nuclear device that takes out measurable casualties? Israel's weapons of mass destruction may be considered as much a threat to ME stability as those that may be in the possession of the " axis of evil " by some accounts. The Zionists must think the entire world trusts them not to launch a nuclear attack, yet they have proven with their recent actions that they can and will launch an attack of any order against any enemy of any order to further their position. The fact that Israel has 400+++ nukes and has never yet fired one in anger is commendable .Yet under a scenario where Israel finds itself without conventional superiority, can anyone here say for certain that Israel will not launch weapons of mass destruction? There lies the uneven weight in the balance of power scenario that the West and the East did not have to consider. The West went on the premise that it would never launch a first strike against its enemies, however, it never fully put itself in a position where this was a reasonable option anyway. The ME today presents an entirely different set of circumstances in which there is no true direction in which to set a compass. During Gulf War I, the enemy was clearly defined by the world at large.There was little to consider as to who was Ag'in us and who was the enemy.Those lines are blurred in the ME right now,with support in the West not as cohesive as it was then. Bottom line ? Very very little is clear to those who care to contemplate the possibilities.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35210)	7/29/2002 11:27:13 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re meaning of "arrogance". The dictionary provides a meaning: The state or quality of being arrogant; overbearing pride. dictionary.com The implication is that Israel is proud because it has nuclear weapons while the Moslems don't. After the Moslems have nukes, Israel's pride will be reduced. Got it? If you want to interpret it differently you're surely welcome to it, but since Pakistan is a fundamentalist Islamic Republic, has had nukes for years, has lousy relations with Israel, and hasn't nuked Tel Aviv, I'd say you're stretching the point a bit. But hey, if you can reinterpret language from the other in such a way as to justify your belligerence, go for it, it's the traditional human behavior. Re: "A threat which Israel has never made, since it has never openly declared its possesion of nuclear arms ..." Openly declaring its possession of nukes would damage Israel's relations with the US, I guess. But the open declaration isn't needed. Everyone knows what the "Samson Option" is. There's no need to declare it. Israel's targeting their neighbors with nukes. This is a simple fact, and I doubt that you deny it. Re: "... nor has it used them to conquer, say, Damascus." As I've pointed out before, Israel is completely incapable of conquering Damascus, conventionally or using nukes. Israel could capture Damascus, at least temporarily, but capturing and conquering are two different things. Hitler could capture Europe, and most of Russia, but he never truly conquered it. This gets back to the fundamental military weakness of Israel. They have no ability to control foreign civilians. Re: "Therefore, if you ask what Israel has nuclear weapons for, the answer is clear -- self defence." That's what they all say. Re: "... a nation that has been threatened by destruction three times in its brief history." Every war that Israel fought had another side. You either have to admit one of the following: (1) The other sides (i.e. Damascus) were also threatened with destruction or (2) Israel is too weak to destroy her enemies. If Israel is strong enough to threaten her enemies with destruction, then her enemies have the responsibility to develop nuclear weapons (or something else) so that they can defend themselves from Israel. On the other hand, if Israel is too weak to threaten her enemies with destruction, then you've admitted what I've been pointing out for some time, that Israel is too weak to survive over the long term. -- Carl