Iran defiant after Israeli missile test

[Nono]

Quote by: Whatssnew Israel is our ally.

Nonsense. In what sense is Israel an ally of the US? (Yes, Bush keeps saying it, but is it true?)

Canada, Denmark, Turkey, etc. are mutual-defence allies of the US by virtue of NATO. Apart from NATO and a few other scraps here and there, I'm afraid that's it. Certainly not Israel.

Israel has precisely zero obligations toward the US. Y'all better get that through yore heads.

[Nono]

Quote by: Reuters Iran (vowed) retaliation if the Jewish state carried out recent veiled threats to launch strikes, possibly atomic, against Tehran's nuclear facilities.

There are a hundred different ways the Iranians can retaliate, against the US as well if Boy George is enough of a numbskull to try anything.

It would be nice if people would, for a change, think of these things before, rather than after.

[shrike]

Quote by: nono Nonsense. In what sense is Israel an ally of the US? (Yes, Bush keeps saying it, but is it true?)

No it was declared by US congress in 1989 Major non-NATO ally - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Nono]

Quote by: Wikipedia MNNA status does not automatically include a mutual defense pact with the United States.

Thank you for demonstrating my point, shrike ol' buddy. You never let me down.

How a declaration of the US congress could impose a defence obligation on a foreign country beats me.

[shrike]

Quote by: nono Thank you for demonstrating my point, shrike ol' buddy. You never let me down. How a declaration of the US congress could impose a defence obligation on a foreign country beats me

Ally is not automacticly means muttual defence pact there is many other aspects that countries can be allies like Ghook showed in first post.Anyway it would be not policticly wise for US to have muttul defence pact with Israel.I hope you understand why...

[Nono]

What rot! If an ally isn't bound to aid you in the event of attack, it isn't an ally.

Anyway it would be not policticly wise for US to have muttul defence pact with Israel.I hope you understand why...

Oh, yeah shrike. I'm sure the US wouldn't dream of going out on a limb and revealing any, uhh, bias in its dealings with different countries.

[shrike]

What rot! If an ally isn't bound to aid you in the event of attack, it isn't an ally.

True ally doesn’t need any papers to constitute that.I am su
re that Israel will give it forces to US if it will need it.But like I said US will not ask for that.

[xyzer]

Israel got in the nuclear warhead business early on after WW2..along with certain other nations including Pakistan? In the case of Israel, hated by most of its neighbors, it was a necessity to arm itself. It was attacked often after the Partition of Palestine in the late 1940s. That it has a nuclear retaliative arsenel is probably the only thing that keeps the Jewish state from being overrun.

When world leaders finally wised up the west particularly sought non proliferation agreements to lessen the chances of rogue nations..like Iran and North Korea,,acquiring such WMD to nuke innocent neighbors.. It makes one shudder to think what 'Ahwannajihad' and the little napolean in North Korea would do or demand if the achieved nuclear warheads and long rang missiles? The Palestinian Muslim radicals shell Israel with conventional weapons mot every day?

[grandpa]

Quote by: shrike You really don't see any difference between all those countries?

I see some differences, as anyone can. But I also see obvious similarities, and many ugly ones. I'd have to be an idiot not to.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer Israel got in the nuclear warhead business early on after WW2.. along with certain other nations including Pakistan?

And September 11 (and the existence of any other militant state) can be cited by both countries as an excuse to militarize further. The attempts to make this solely into a "Jewish issue" have been rather successful, as Palestinian suffering supposedly does not occur (or Iranian suffering, or Afghan, or any other choesn target), unless it's their own fault. If it's coming from the Taliban, Saddm Hussein or Iran, it exists, but if it comes from Israel, the United States or a close ally such as Turkey, it's negligible. Those who feel otherwise must be raving lunatics of some kind, or maybe space aliens.

This just in:
Iraq seeing rise in Iran-linked bomb blasts - US

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military in Iraq is seeing an upswing in the number of roadside bomb attacks using deadly armor-piercing munitions linked to Iran, top defense officials said Friday. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the number of attacks involving explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, in the first two weeks of January was about equal to EFP attacks during all of December.

Grandpa h.

[Nono]

Quote by: xyzer Israel got in the nuclear warhead business early on after WW2..along with certain other nations including Pakistan?

Wise of you to insert the question mark, since about 35 years separate the two.
"Along with"? The US turned a blind eye while its friends in Pakistan sold the goods to all comers, including North Korea and Iran.

In the case of Israel, hated by most of its neighbors, it was a necessity to arm itself.

I don't disagree.

It was attacked often after the Partition of Palestine in the late 1940s.

Well it could hardly have been attacked before, right?

That it has a nuclear retaliative arsenel is probably the only thing that keeps the Jewish state from being overrun.

Well bullshit. Israel has by far the strongest conventional military in the region?

You can't be serious (and you aren't, of course). No way Israel's going to be overrun tomorrow minus nukes. (By whom, for example?) So give us a break.

[shrike]

Quote by: grandpa I see some differences, as anyone can. But I also see obvious similarities, and many ugly ones. I'd have to be an idiot not to. Grandpa h.

You can not equate democracy and theocracy.I say democracies are allowed to have nukes and doing everything it can to prevent non democracies to have it.

[thx1138]

You can not equate democracy and theocracy.I say democracies are allowed to have nukes and doing everything it can to prevent non democracies to have it.

Well there you go, it doesn't work like that, the cat was let out of the bag a longtime ago.

[Nemiroff]

So now a strike becomes legitimate just because there is a prior warning?

the strike was actually a counter attack to a strike against isreali civilians. and it doesn't make it ok just because they gave a warning, but unlike the people they hit, they did as much as they could (without sittng there and doing nothing). to avoid civilian casualities, even those of the ones who struck them first.

By the way, you're begging the question with your "anti-semite" ad hom remark. What is your premise when you say that?

the premise is clearly stated in my post. that isreal has had the capability to bomb and nuke all of its enemies, which really aren't that far from it, for decades.

as someone already stated, the vagueness of the article as far as intent and what kind of bomb/missle is being tested, allows anti semites to speculate on evil intentions and blast isreal on grounds it could have already accomplished long ago.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Nemiroff the strike was actually a counter attack to a strike against isreali civilians. and it doesn't make it ok just because they gave a warning, but unlike the people they hit, they did as much as they could (without sittng there and doing nothing). to avoid civilian casualities, even those of the ones who struck them first. the premise is clearly stated in my post. that isreal has had the capability to bomb and nuke all of its enemies, which really aren't that far from it, for decades. as someone already stated, the vagueness of the article as far as intent and what kind of bomb/missle is being tested, allows anti semites to speculate on evil intentions and blast isreal on grounds it could have already accomplished long ago.

anti semites and anti america are thrown around a lot by people who think questions should not be asked of the state, well their full of it.

[shrike]

Quote by: thx1138 Well there you go, it doesn't work like that, the cat was let out of the bag a longtime ago.

Why?I tell you why becouse democracies are too weak.

[Nemiroff]

anti semites and anti america are thrown around a lot by people who think questions should not be asked of the state, well their full of it.

no, i think questions should be asked, like more details of the test, which were convinently left out of the article. the assumptions taken from the article are that because isreal is testing a new missle, something that the US and other countries do all the time, it must be aiming it at one of the arab nations next. Which is absurd since it could have done that at any point prior to this testing as they have had the technology and weapons for years now.

The only reason everyones scared when north korea or another country is testing missiles is when their testing something they dont already have that can threaten us, isreal had the capabilities to strike any country in the world way before this test, much less the border countries it's currently fighting with.

[Nemiroff]

anti semites and anti america are thrown around a lot by people who think questions should not be asked of the state, well their full of it.

or is it instead that my questioning of this article scaring you. i did not in any way avoid questions. i'm mearly stating that the view point put forth from this article by some people, is antisemitic. please show me where i avoided a question, otherwise i'm just stating what i believe.

[grandpa]

Quote by: shrike You can not equate democracy and theocracy. I say democracies are allowed to have nukes and doing everything it can to prevent non democracies to have it.

When both kind sof states employ violence, I can sensibly point out similarities. I would have to be deluded to cite some inherent distinction between "theocratic" violence and "democratic" violence. Much the same can be said regarding nuclear weapons. It only adds to the fallacy when considering, as I've said numerous times, that the US is the only country to have attacked another with nukes. Did it do so in a "democratic" manner?

Doe steh following article illustrate something "democratic" about nuclear weapons, or about US allies?

Russia leaves door open for pre-emptive nukes - USATODAY.com

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's military chief of staff said Saturday that Moscow could use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes in case of a major threat, the latest aggressive remarks from increasingly assertive Russian authorities. "We have no plans to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons," Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky said.

"Sovereignty" and "territorial integrity" are common expressions to mask state tyranny.

Another interesting point: You've previously exposed Israel as a Jewish state. In what way is that not at all akin to an ethnic state, or a theocratic one?

As much as I dislike saying it, you have neither facts nor logic to rely on here.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Nemiroff the strike was actually a counter attack to a strike against isreali civilians. and it doesn't make it ok just because they gave a warning, but unlike the people they hit, they did as much as they could (without sittng there and doing nothing).

So Israel has not initiated attacks in places in which civilians are likely to be located, either in Palestinian territory or in Lebanon? Only Palestinians are capable of initiating attacks?

Grandpa h.