![]() |
||
|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
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. I was speaking idiomatically. |
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. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
How ya doing, buddy? |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
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.
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
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?
Most amazing jew boots |
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.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
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.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Yes, but I still don't think all of Europe necesarily wants Israel out of the picture.
I was speaking idiomatically. |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
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. Most amazing jew boots |
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. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Last edited by Adamgian; Sep 5, 2006 at 12:44 PM.
|
God forbid we judge a country by their actions instead of their words. Jam it back in, in the dark.
LlooooydGEEEOOORGE
Last edited by Cal; Sep 6, 2006 at 02:14 AM.
|
There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by Aramaethe; Sep 6, 2006 at 12:05 AM.
|
Europe may not provide as much financial aid as the US, but then, they still provide a lot of aid in other ways.
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. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Didn't he say he'd feel better if they were both disarmed?
I was speaking idiomatically.
LlooooydGEEEOOORGE
|
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. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Oh, and Iran test-fired a long-range missile off of a submarine. That missile had nuclear capabilities. It was all over the news. I'm glad you have knowledge of treaties and embargos and cease-fires and defactos and all that crap. But, when it comes right down to it that's all just signatures. Treaties are made to be broken buddy, you watch. FELIPE NO |
It is irrelevant whether Iranian missiles have nuclear capablility at the momment, because they simply don't have the warhead. Nations have a right to possess ballistic missiles as well, and frankly, almost every nation in the Middle East has them. Your delusional if you think they don't. Iran is only a threat if the US starts treating it as one. There are ample carrots that the US could begin using to disuade the country, especially the one that involves 1 on 1 negotiations. Simply put, treating a country with a bit of dignity instead of running around the world like a hapless child screaming terrorist doesn't work. I'd come at you for a statement as foolish as Iraq not keeping Iran in check being the only downfall of the invasion, although that's better saved for later. For someone to say that however means you probably do not understand the Middle East in any way save for the garbage that continually comes out of the neocons in much of the US. The Middle East is a power keg on the end of its fuse because of the arrogance and stupidity of this administration, if you bothered to learn more about what is actually happening, maybe you'd understand. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
But scorched earth fighting, concentration camps and wholesale massacre aren't as popular these days, what with media everywhere. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
2) The issue here is that some Muslims who are as much against these groups as everyone else, feel like Bush and his goverment are meaning them also in that term. A proof to that is the case of Muslims in London. Since the subway bombs, Muslims have been margined there and are being looked at the wrong way. if 0.0001% of these people is a terrorist, does that mean the 99.999 other % are also terrorists? That's what the Muslims are raging against. 3) Muslims around the world and especially in the US and GB are feeling like they are the terrorists they have been fighting to not be. That's all there is in the story. Americans and the whole world should be able to distinguish between people who want a good peaceful life in a good wrold from terrorists. How ya doing, buddy? ![]() |
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. ![]() |
I do think that the media publicizing the actions of the military makes the military a lot more self conscious about its actions. Which is good in the sense that it does sort of keep a leash on what they are willing to do to achieve victory.
In some ways, yes, the media is a negative influence, then again it also sort of acts as a body which indirectly carries out the will of the people through its influence "against" what may be field commanders' designs. However, I don't think we'll really see any benefit from that on our end, because our enemies aren't really members of the "free-world" and thus have no such thing as a free-press and aren't concerned with public opinion. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? ![]() Posting without content since 2002. |