1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by tomcrown1, Apr 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Since your family comes from one of those countries, do you hate the U.S.?
     
  2. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Persians aren't Arabs.
    Try again.
     
  3. Opynion

    Opynion Godfather

    403
    0
    Mar 21, 2006
    Just as they blame the U.S. for the cartoons published in Europe. :cool:
     
  4. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    I didn't mention anything about Iranian nukes. I referred to the situation (i.e., Iran's blustering and world's reaction to it).

    If it's so easily dismissed, you should be able to provide rationale (lots of it). Please tell us how the U.S. would be adversely affected. Should we expect retaliation by Israel's allies?
     
  5. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Of course. Hence your anti-semitism.
     
  6. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    ??
    You really don't know how the US would be adversly affected if Israel were nuked?
    I'm sure you do and you're just trying to get to a point. So how about you just get to the point and save us a lot of time.

    Unless of course you think that there would be no adverse consequences to the US if we or anyone nuked Israel.
     
  7. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    I just couldn't help it. Had some time on my hands so I did a quick Google search.

    So I suppose that Intel would lose upwards of 6000 (or 8000) employees; which I think would hurt the US. Technology would perceivably take a hit since production facilities would be wiped out.

    But there's no return to the US investment in Israel other than Arab anger, right?

    And all this from an Irish business site.
    http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10004428.shtml

    Oh I get it, it's not fair that the US gives Israel money which allows the sort of environment to attract huge technology companies.
    Of course the lack of a dictatorial goverment has nothing to do with it.
    Interestingly enough, the article states:
    But tax rates are for a different thread.

    So can someone please explain to me why Israel seems to be doing so well in these private matters and other Middle Eastern countries aren't? And try to do it without blaming Israel or the US.
     
  8. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Despite protestations and claims to the contrary, the point Iran is making is what they are doing is entirely consistent with "the peaceful use of nuclear energy" as set forth by the IAEA or any nuclear non-proliferation treaties Iran is signatory of. And Iran has been very open and willing to allow IAEA inspectors into their facilities for inspections and has been very open and public about their activities to date. I don't believe anyone has accused Iran of violating the "rules" of the IAEA or any other treaty Iran is a party to.

    The problem is, "peaceful use of nuclear energy" as defined by the IAEA and various non-proliferation treaties allow for the production of bomb-grade enriched uranium as part of that "peaceful use". It's what countries might do with that enriched uranium, in this case particularly Iran, that is bothersome. But it is nothing that the US or Britain or France or Russia don't do on a regular basis. Or even what nations without nuclear weaponry but who utilize nuclear energy for power do all the time.

    So again, it is the fear of what Iran MIGHT do, not what they have done or even what thay have announced they would do, that is causing all this furor. And all this pressure has caused Iran to rethink being so open and above board about their activities. They are thinking of withdrawing from any non-proliferation treaties they are currently bound by(just as the USA has done when they are "inconvenient" for US)and refusing to let IAEA or any other inspectors in to check on what they are doing.

    Whatever our actual intentions, our gunboat diplomacy appears to have backfired once again! Whatever opposition to the mullahs there may have been in Iran have been forced into the uncomfortable position of either backing the mullahs in this confrontation or throwing their support to the US. What do you think their choice will be? Realistically, do they even have a choice?
     
  9. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    My point is that our alliance with Israel is a fundamental cause of our troubles with Middle Eastern nations. It sabotages our relations with the entire region and I don't sense benefits to us that offset those troubles.
     
  10. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    I'll give it a try.

    Israel's population is generally industrious, intelligent, competitive, and innovative. They use these gifts to improve their lives.

    In contrast, their neighbors seem to devote most of their time in fundamental religious activities, essentially limiting their ability to achieve the same sort of advances that Israelis do. They appear to be more devoted to the teachings of their religion than most others around the world.

    OK?


    Your prior post listed many accomplishments of the Israelis. One had to do with acquiring more venture capital than all of Europe. Great for them. But why should an American be happy that the capital was siphoned away from the U.S.? The loss of high-tech jobs is not a favorable development for us. Many believe that the companies you mentioned should be keeping those jobs here.

    And if Israel is so successful, why do we continue to subsidize them to the tune of $3 Billion/yr? Is that money the reason they're able to offer the 10% tax rate to attract companies that your quote? If so, we are subsidizing Intel et.al. to move operations there. Why should we be doing that?

    Do you believe Israel can survive without U.S. assistance?
     
  11. tomcrown1

    tomcrown1 Hall Of Fame

    1,576
    0
    Jan 16, 2006
    People in Iran call themselfs persians are you from iran??
     
  12. Opynion

    Opynion Godfather

    403
    0
    Mar 21, 2006
    Some say that companies leave the U.S. to avoid going out of business... :nono2:
    The majority of the American people want companies to stay in the U.S., specially the people who lost their jobs, thanks to those companies that want to employ others in foreign countries who are more competitive with
    1. a lower salary
    or is it
    2. with a higher salary┬┐
    it doesn't matter if you say 1 or 2
    to some people like his Highness and the Bogyman you just don't know nothing about world economics :lol:
     
  13. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    If you'd been paying attention, you'd know as little as several weeks ago Halfsek identified himself(again!) as having Persian(Iranian) ancestry.:p

    Now, misidentifying people as Arabs is nothing new. George Bush did it on his last trip to Pajistan where he called it an "Arab nation", which of course it is not.

    This is akin to going to Atlanta and calling the residents "Canadians" because they look pretty much alike to you, they speak a remotely similar dialect, and you are too stupid or don't really care to know or find out the difference.
     
  14. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    A big part of this equation is Israel is awash in a sea of US aid dollars amounting to some $5-7 Billion a year, not including military aid. Many nations that size and population would be lucky to have such an amount as their gross national product. It's little wonder then that "generally industrious, intelligent, competitive, and innovative" persons and companies would flock to Israel to take advantage of this bonanza.

    Egypt is the only nation(unless you consider Iraq and Afganistan) receiving anything remotely approaching this level of assistance and we do that mostly to buy them off for tolerating Israel.

    OTOH, it's been recently arranged to cut off all financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority(which never amounted to more than half a billion or so per year) for the crime of democratically electing the "wrong people"!
     
  15. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Look, Alli, if American companies choose to invest in Israel, India, Pakistan or where ever, it means that they see that it'll ultimately be better for business if they go there. Israel may or may not give tax breaks to every company. But, when Intel and other high tech companies go somewhere, they have to populate those buildings. Their options are moving people from the US or to hire locals.
    The fact is that the local population has to be educated and skilled for the work necessary.

    Egypt gets quite a bit of support by the US, yet we don't see the same sort of growth there.

    Neither you nor I have the numbers to prove who really profits. There is probably a net gain for Israel in one sense and a net gain for the US in another sense. It might not all be money.

    You blame the US association with Israel as causing the Arab anger. But you never actually question as to whether the anger is actually worth anything.
    How about instead of suggesting silly options like nuking Israel, you suggest that the Arab countries just quite their bitchin' and get along with their own lives.
     
  16. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    I fully understand the reasons our companies move operations there and elsewhere. Intel has research and production operations in many countries around the world. Being an interested co-owner, I pay attention.

    I continually describe the worth. I believe it was the incentive for the 9/11 attack and continues with threats to our security. It has cost the lives of many of our countrymen and horrendous amounts of money.

    You didn't answer my question about Israel surviving without our billions. Would it?
     
  17. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    And that's where your belief is wrong. To put the 9/11 attacks on our association with Israel is much too shallow. And quite insidious. I don't know what your personal feelings are towards Jews and Israel. But you are using the argument that the existence of Israel (due to US support) was one accepted reason for 9/11. Lazy.

    The only incentive there was regarding Israel and 9/11 was a convenient excuse for terrorists to kill those who don't believe as they do.

    We had a terrorist attack in Egypt yesterday. Can't blame Israel on that, can you?

    You're so eager to tell the US to butt out, but don't have that same eagerness for Arab countries who want to kill all Jews. Trust me, they don't want to kill Jews because America gives Israel money.

    Would Israel survive? I don't know. If the Arab countries would not invade instantly, then probably yes, but at a lower level.
    But we know that Arab countries would invade instantly, even though there was no US support. In fact, it would be because there was no US support.


    So the real question is- why has every administration and a majority of lawmakers supported US support for Israel over the last 60 years?
    I know you have a theory. What is it?
     
  18. Opynion

    Opynion Godfather

    403
    0
    Mar 21, 2006
    But now Israel can use nukes instantly on any arab/persian army that wants to invade, they don't have nukes for nothing, and sooner or later they will use them if they have2 :cool:
     
  19. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Yet, we continue to willingly supply them with such an obvious and lazy and convenient excuse anyway!:icon_stup :shrug:

    Well, not entirely of course. But the situation in Israel is an underlying cause. Or at the very least a "lazy and convenient excuse" for the terrorists.

    I believe, unlike some, that most Arabs and Muslims condemn thses type of attacks and believe it is not in the true spirit of Islam. Certainly the merchants and tourists in Dahab are condemning them. However, many Arabs and Muslims to a point understand what drives these attacks. We see ONLY the images and stories of dead Israelis. They see that too. But they also see images and stories of dead Palestinians. And whether you like it or not, those images and stories are in fact more numerous. You can call it propaganda if you will, but what would you call it that we only see the dead Israelis? If it wasn't for this context, many more Arabs and Muslims would find it easier to see these acts for what they are, brutal, senseless acts against innocent people.

    There will be no resolution to any of the conflicts in the middle east without some sort of accomodation for the Palestinians that at least has the appearance of being fair and equitable. And it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks of the Palestinians, their claims to territory or how they may have gone about trying to get at least some of it back. The creation of the state of Israel produced millions of Arab and Muslim refugees and they remain refugees to this day. Something must be done to give them back something resembling the lives they had before the creation of Israel.

    Will there still be those who hate Jews and want to "wipe Israel off the map"? Sure, but if a decent solution is found for the Palestinians, they will be a very small minority and they won't get very much support or "understanding" from the general Arab and Muslim populations. I will point out once again that until the last century, Muslims and Jews got along with each other at least as good or better than Christians and Jews. And probably better than Christians and Muslims too. By your own accounts, the land currently occupied by Israel and the Palestinian territories prior to 1947 was kind of a nebulous non-state where Arabs and Jews lived side by side in relatively peacful coexistence. And whether you accept Bogy's chosen timeline or not, the fact is all the current troubles didn't start with partition in 1947. It started with a radical and violent religious movement beginning in earnest in the late 19th century willing to do whatever it took to achieve their goals. This movement was called Zionism! Ironically, the murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust was one of the best things that ever happened to Zionists and one of the worst for Palestinians.

    Allie has made the suggestion, I believe with tongue firmly planted in cheek, that the quickest and most pragmatic solution, if the most immoral and unthinkable one, would be for US to "nuke" Israel and let the Arabs go back to herding goats and growing olives like they did before the Zionists arrived. Of course that's not going to happen. But unless some different path is taken, and taken soon, somebody there is going to get "nuked" eventually. And it is even your suggestion that we might start the ball rolling by nuking Iran!:eek2:
     
  20. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Just for the fun of it, does ANYONE here believe that Iran is trying to develop their nuclear technology for "peaceful" purposes. If someone actually answers yes to that question it will go a long way to explaining the differences in opinions here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page