You act as if it was Israel's intention to kill civillians - it wasn't. They used the cluster bombs because they thought they were the best option available to destroy the target. As in all wars, there will always be unintended casualties.

Israel doesn't need nuclear weapons if it intends to use them as a last ditch effort, as that would not help in its defense. For that matter, Israel simply doesn't need nuclear weapons. It has support from the US and enough European countries to guarantee its existence without its own nuclear program.

Israeli use of cluster bombs was a atrocity, especially considering everyone knows their failure rate and the fact that most were used in the last few days of the war, not the early portion. Their use seems like nothing more than intentional savage murder of innocent Lebanese following the end of hostilities. If you intend to hit an actual target, a JDAM or equivalent weapon is far better than a cluster bomb.

Secondly, theres a difference between an actual war and a false pretense for a war. Hezbollah's actions can't be justified as an act of war since they are not a state, and Israel thus has no right to destroy a country. Also, even if for a minute we assume that the attack was in some perverse way justified, hardly any Hezbollah fighters were killed, and a thousand innocents were murdered. Unintended casualties are a given, but it is not a justifiable excuse when so many civilians were killed with very few Hezbollah fighters killed.

Wait, what?

How can you say that Israel's nuclear arsenal wouldn't help in its defense? Israel hasn't faced a serious threat from regular Arab forces since 1973 precisely because of those nuclear weapons.

Whether they should have a nuclear arsenal as large as they do is another question entirely.

Except that Lebannon is either unable to or refuses to reign in Hezbollah, which resides in its borders, which means they are their responsibility. Because Hezbollah was launching attacks against Israel and the Lebanese government did nothing (or was unable) to stop them, Israel was completely justified in taking the actions they did.

Night Phoenix and Styphon make great points. I couldn't tell you when was the last time Israel attacked a country without getting attacked first. It sure hasn't been recently. But look at what is happening. Saying that ahmedinejad does not have an intent to destroy Israel would be crazy, whether that's right or wrong. If you try to think the way he does it doesn't work because he IS a crazy bastard, I don't care how smart he is or how much he loves his people. He's not a threat to Iran he's a threat to everyone else. Ahmedinejad or the president of Korea would be the first to discharge nukes if they had them so we can't let them have them.

Agreed, they may not be aiding them... but by refusing to help be ird of them, they are housing them. Lebannon is responsible for what occurs within its borders.

Because simply put, if you have defense packs with the States as well as most of Western Europe, who have come to your defense in the past and continue to do so when necessary, there is no reason to have them.

And yet you fail to understand Middle Eastern politics. It's not that the Lebanese government didn't want to disarm Hezbollah, it's that it can't, and there is no way to force it to do so, as attempting such a feat would trigger a civil war again, a far worse option than an armed Hezbollah. The need for Hezbollah was becoming a frequently debated issue, with the opinion becoming that it was unnecessary and should disarm. However, thanks to the actions of out of control warmongers, that is no longer the case and they have justification to exist for the next twenty years. There was actually a potential for calm in Lebanon, but Israel with its common idiotic bravado, just fucked it all up again.

No country has declared war on Israel since 1973, and yet it has certainly been in a fair share of unilateral attacks against soverign countries:

Osirak 1983
PLO Tunis Raid
Lebanon 1982
Palestinian territories, going on for decades
and of course the recent conflict


Secondly, Ahmadinejad is not crazy in the way everyone thinks he is. He isn't stupid enough to discharge nukes on Israel knowing fully well Iran would be a nuclear wasteland two hours later.

I have no love for Ahmadinejad and the Iranian establishment, although frankly, Israel is a far greater threat to regional stability and is far more aggressive in undertaking unilateral acts of aggression than any other nation in the region.

Judging by the results, Israel's nuclear arsenal has stopped more Arab-Israeli wars than Israel's defense pacts with the United States and Western Europe. Furthermore, from 1973 onward, Arab armies have improved their qualitative edge against the IDF. Those nukes keep the peace, and secure Israel's existance, which is a very good reason to have them.

Again, whether it needs an arsenal larger than those of every other nuclear power short of the United States and Russia is another question entirely, but there is most definately a reason for Israel to have one.

Also, by your logic, the United Kingdom and France have no need of their own nuclear arsenals, being allied to the United States.

Numerous UN resolutions show that the Europeans cannot be trusted in anyway to assist Israel. And while the United States is a major ally of Israel, unless the United States is willing to use its own nuclear arsenal to defend Israel or station a sizable contingent of its own forces in Israel dedicated to the defense of that nation, nothing is a suitable alternative to Israel's own nuclear deterrent.

All the more reason for Israel to attempt to destroy it. Thanks for reaffirming my point.

Wait, what? Why would that be?

Europe can always be counted on to act against the best interests of Israel, as they always condemn it for defending itself. There have literally hundreds of resolutions that European governments have been all too eager to jump on regarding condemning Israel in some way, shape, or form. If the Europeans had their way, Israel would've been destroyed by now.

Do you actually know anything about politics in Europe or are you basing your entire argument that Europeans are always condemning Israel on rumors, hearsay and your local gossip?

Yeah i've got to disagree with you on that night phoenix. I don't think Europe actually WANTS Israel to be destroyed. That's kind of crossing the line don't you think? Although, I do agree that they haven't aided Israel very much.

I'm basing my argument on the inumerable UN resolutions condeming Israel for merely defending myself that almost all European countries save for Britain sign onto.

Yes, but I still don't think all of Europe necesarily wants Israel out of the picture.

They both need them less than Israel, whether or not they have the right, under NATO, they are guaranteed the defense of the US nowdays. So yes, I'd say they don't need them either.

Israel's conventional forces were perfectly capable of defending Israel when it was attacked, and considering the ineptitude of most Arab armies, they always will. The Syrian and Egyptian armies are political tools, not capable fighting forces, it's foolish for a country like Israel to fear them. Besides, Egypt can't act nowdays anyways or the government would collapse without the enormous amount of aid from the US it recieves.

What are you talking about? Germany is committed to the defense of Israel, and the UK takes the same stance as the US. Europe is simply less aggresive in seeing the justification for the use of force. I wasn't aware that requesting the reason Israel massacred thousands and condeming atrocities deems them anti-Israeli. If anything it deems them more humane.

What, so every Western country is now obliged to give Israel two billion dollars a year just so people will say that they don't want it wiped off the map? Europe is the reason Israel exists in the first place, it supplies it with weapons, and some of the powers that be are committed to its defense. If that isn't aid, then I sure as hell don't know what you possibly would classify as aid.

If you were Israel, would you count on this remaining the case? Particularly after 1973, when those same inept Arab were able to bring them close to defeat?

Egypt's army, at least, is more capable than you give it credit for, particularly after it shifted away from the Soviet model that didn't work well for it. There are other Arab powers with significant qualitative edge to match Israel's, and quantitative edge to shift the balance in their favor. Saudi Arabia, for instance.

You say it's foolish for Israel to fear Arab armies. At the same time, it could be said it's equally foolish for Arab countries to fear Israel's army. The fact of the matter is, Israel's army is overrated, and if it doesn't fight on its own terms, it can find itself in a very difficult position very quickly, as in 1973.

Furthermore, in 1973, and twice now in Lebanon, Israel's aura of invincibility has been shattered. Sure, they beat Egypt and Syria in the end, but they had to work for it after a string of early defeats; it is quite possible for Israel to be defeated on the battlefield. Israel barely survived against a much-improved Egyptian army in the Yom Kippur War. If it had had to fight it again, when it had taken that improvement and what it had learned from its mistakes in 1973, it might not have survived at all. The only guarantee Israel had at that point was being able to turn Cairo and Damascus into radioactive ash.

Which is why Israel found it a good idea to make peace with Egypt (the largest Arab state) soon afterwards, and why Egypt can call the 1973 war a victory.

Saudi Arabia would never fight a war against Israel since they both depend heavily on the US, and frankly, shrouded in the rhetoric, they have some of the same regional interests. It's army is probably the only one in the Middle East capable of waging an offensive war and doing so effectively also, meaning such a situation is unlikely.

Egypt recieves $1.3 billion nowdays in aid from the US, the country cannot survive without it, and that would be the first thing the US would cut should they go to war.

And Israel won 1973 not because of the guarantee of the obliteration of Cairo and Damascus, but because of an enormous US airlift as well. Without that, Israel would have been defeated, and if the US is willing to step in like that, and risk such an oil embargo (it was known such an act would occur, it happened in '67 as well), there is little reason to possess the weapons. Nuclear weapons exist as a security guarantee, but in Israel's case, they are already asisted and taken care of without them.

Styphon, you know how dependent almost the entire region is now on the US for weaponry or support. Jordan and Egypt are staunch US allies now, and they were two of the three that fought Israel. The entire set of Persian Gulf countries have better things to take seriously than the prospect of destroying or fighting a war with Israel, and Iraq is under US occupation. Syria, the only country actually independent enough to do anything, would collapse extremely quickly. It's army, while large, is even less capable than Egypt's. Since Israel controls the Golan Heights, it wouldn't take long for them to seize Damascus and bring the country to its knees. Iran as well is simply full of hot air, and has no means to fight Israel, especially in the short term.

The security threat to Israel is completely overblown.

When there's a hundred-fold more collateral than destruction of the intended target, it's not collateral anymore, NP. It's the Monty Python fly hunting skit.

God forbid we judge a country by their actions instead of their words.

You misunderstand, I never said Europe had to do anything, and personally I don't give a damn. All I said is that I don't think they do very much. Arms dealing is not necesarily a big help because Hezbollah can get weapons just as easily(i.e. IRAN). I don't really know what else would help except for additional personnel and long-range support from other countries... so... what where you getting at? Hmmm?
How the hell do you know? Did you have lunch with Ahmedinejad or something and talk to him about his plans? Iran could be the BIGGEST threat to Iran because you have nothing to base that statement on... or do you have tarot cards or something?

And now I'm questioning whether you know how significant a defense pack with two of the worlds biggest economies, and defacto defense agreements is. That is serious help, and these countries also continue to turn a blind eye to Israel's numerous other violations of international law.

Europe may not provide as much financial aid as the US, but then, they still provide a lot of aid in other ways.

Do you want to show me where Iran keeps its nuclear missiles? Or how about a naval fleet capable of ferrying 50-100 thousand troops? Airlift capability and paratroopers that can land enough troops to mount an invasion, and not a puppet force?

No, I'm basing my statement on military capabilities, which Iran simply doesn't have. Israel on the other hand, could pulverise Iran into radioactive ash in a single day. Reread what I said, maybe you'll understand it now.

All the more reason for Israel to maintain that capability. Why would anyone go from a policy of self-reliance to dependence on foreign military power willingly just to make people like you feel better?

Didn't he say he'd feel better if they were both disarmed?

Because A) It's in violation of multiple international treaties, and B) It is far better for Israel's security. An Israel that starts to behave more cordially with its neighbors, and discussing concerns with them and vice versa has a far greater chance of surviving in peace than an Israel that massacres its neighbors and keeps the threat of wiping them off the map.

And yes, I also happen to strongly object to the concept of an Iranian bomb as Cal mentioned. The last thing the Middle East needs is a powerful Iran that behaves like it rules the region, which it is already starting to do.