No Spelca, i meant everyone in possession of a kalashnikov. Someone who's not carrying firearms has nothing to fear from Israeli soldiers. Of course, sometimes innocents are cought in the crossfire, but it's a warzone, and accidents WILL happen, it's sad but true.

But i also meant the youngsters with the slings, those things can be deadly as well. If an Israeli soldier shoots one of those boys, it's his own fault.

I read your reply to MagiK. But the truth is it is assumed Israel has Nuclear weapons, Israel has never confirmed or deined any existance our nuclear weapons on their soil. In fact if asked the Israelis will not answer the question, they won't even say "No Comment", because "no comment" is a comment. I don't believe Israel has never even tested a nuclear weapon, and given the world proof that they have nuclear weapons. Personnaly I believe they have Nuclear weapons and will use them if they feel they have too.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, they don't have to *test* the missiles, they're American-made. I'm sure if you go in an Israeli MX siloh, you'll find the remaining square "shadow" discoloration on the side of the missile where the USA flag was once pasted and above that "shadow" you will see a nice big blue Star of David. :D

You know, Israel having WoMDs just doesn't concern me. It doesn't worry me in the least. It makes me quite happy in fact, for 3 reasons:

(1) it's nice that the USA's only true thick-and-thin friend in the region has the best weapons and

(2) it's nice that a small nation of free peoples facing enemies on all sides has them and

(3) if you draw a line from the Southern tip of Africa to Egypt to Turkey to Iraq to India to Iran to Pakistan, the ONLY nation that line will pass over that I feel *certain* has a stable government and the responsibility to never use such a weapon is.... you guessed it, Israel.

Besides, the main thing everyone on this forum keeps forgetting is that normally nations are allowed to proliferate weapons except where they have agreed otherwise. It is every nation's right to make what weapons it wants. Iraq lost that right, just like a criminal looses the right to roam freely. Iraq AGREED it lost that right, AGREED to get rid of certain classes of weapons and of all WoMD's.

So, bitching about the proliferation of weapons by other countries is silly.

As for NK, it signed the non-proliferation treaty, then agreed to certain limitations, and in exchange got a light nuke reactor from Clinton (which is a decision Bush said was well-thought-out) for POWER. Well, it kept the reactor, renigged on the treaty, and is now using the reactor to make weapons-grade plutonium.

Since Israel has never been a WoMD schmuck (I had to use some Yiddish), it has not been among these "bad actors." Israel should be accorded the same respect when discussing these matters as any first world nation - France, Russia, UK, USA. Dumping it in the bin marked "tin-pot despots and tyrants go here" is an insult.

Comparing Israel/Palestine to WoMD proliferation concerns is comparing an nation's internal crisis among its people with international weapons relations. Apples and oranges don't begin to describe the differences you're juxtaposing.</font>[/QUOTE]Wait a minute I thunked they were French made ;)
I'd bet they are Israeli made they have this terible habit of buying weapons fron around the world then making great improvements to them. ;)
Great post through ( for a displaced southerner, purt'near a Yankee ;) )

What's this supposed to mean? Every friend of the US is allowed to have "the best weapons" (who are, of course, USA made) so they can strike at every enemy they want? Personally I think this is the lamest excuse you can possibly think of, when saying it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons.



What should I say to this? Start a story about where it all comes down to: France and the UK, quarreling about what to do about the Middle East? Agree with you? IMHO again you come with an argument that makes no sense; why is it nice to see that a little band of free (why free??) people facing enemies on all sides (agree on that part) has WoMD? I can't see the benefit of having WoMD AT ALL, and certainly not when we're talking about 'a small nation of free people facing enemies at all sides'. Bear in mind that Israel does have the major part of the country in its hands, so the term: small nation does not aquire that well.



Yeah. And if you draw a line from Amsterdam to Paris you should eventually come through Belgium. I can't say I see your point in this matter, Timber Loftis. Why is it so admirable that one country in many has a stable government. A stable government is NOT AT ALL a green light to own WoMD. We have a stable government. I think we are not likely to use WoMD. But we have none.



So basically countries should be allowed to produce whetever weapons they want? Sounds kinda illogical to me, TL. Why would you want that to happen? Are you trying to risk a full-scale war, by disagreeing with the non-proliferation treaty? By approving weapons manufacturing? Because THAT is basically what you're saying.

Bitching on proliferation is absolutely not silly. A treaty is a treaty, and you stick to a treaty. It is as just as justifyable to say that signing the non-proliferation treaty is obligatory, as it is unjustifyable to say that "everyone who is not with us, is against us".



Why give them a nuclear reactor in the first place? That's the main question I want answered. For power, you say, but there are other ways of getting power/electricity.
America signed the non-proliferation treaty as well. They didn't get rid of all THEIR WoMD. Now what to do?

You're completely twisting my words here. I merely said that Israel owning WoMD wasn't as justifyable as everyone thinks it is. I NEVER stated that Israel should belong in your "dictator and other ugly people" bin.

And your last point.. It isn't about whether or not they are going to USE WoMD, it's the fact that HAVE them! How many times do I have to make myself clear on that point. The non-proliferation treaty originated because people felt insecure in a world where weapons and weapons of mass destruction were piled upon each other, just to prove "we are better". To avoid any situation where a conflict could escalate into worldwide war, weapons of mass destruction were pronounced illegal (sort of). THAT is what we're talking about. Not the chance of usage.

[ 03-07-2003, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Link ]

[quote]Originally posted by Link:
[QB] No, not every friend, just the absolute best of friends who are so inextricably tied to you they won't ever betray you. There are few of those. Israel is certainly one of them. Sorry, MHO on this. I think there are countries who have the responsibility to have these weapons and should have them. The only way I would see it otherwise is if we could undo the invention of them.

Yeah, you could agree with me - it'd be nice. :D But, what I meant is that there is little that has ever stood between Israel and its neighbors. I think the ability to reach out and destroy an entire city or two in retaliation for acts against Israel is a deterrent Israel needs. Just like I think it is one the USA is lucky to have.

I think this is fairly addressed by other comments herein. I see some nations as being capable of handling the responsibility - you don't.


A treaty only applies to the countries which signed it. The non-proliferation treaty has many signatories, but you'll note it only contemplates 5 nuclear nations - a bit outdated. Israel never signed it. International Law being contract law, Israel is bound by nothing. Sorry. Lobby for Israel to sign - that's fine and you are doing that. But, until it signs it has no obligations.


[edit]NK got the reactor as inducement to enter the non-proliferation treaty. It didn't need the reactor to continue its nuclear program. It's not as if this gave NK an ability it didn't have. NK *was already* capable of developing the nukes, given time. This "bribe" got it agree to quit trying. [end edit]

Read today's news - wherein Russia and the US are agreeing to destroy yet more Nuclear weapons. Even amidst everything else this is occurring. But, I hope the USA never gets rid of all of them. As I said, once the weapon has been invented, not having it is a failing in judgment on your part. I take some comfort knowing that, as a hypothetical example, no matter how estranged relations get between France and the USA, the countries will never make war on each other because each has the power to execute the ultimate decision. A World War in Europe will not happen again - at least not with nuclear nations on opposing sides - because it will be final.

As for the last part of your post, I apologize if I twisted your words too much.

[edit] Final note: the non-proliferation treat, AFAIK, addresses nukes, not all WoMDs. There are either other treaties (e.g. Vienna Conventions) or no treaties addressing other weapons that are considered WoMD, including chemical and biological.

[ 03-07-2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I WILL reply to this, I promise you TL. Just haven't got the proper time to make a decent one. Be patient though, because I really like our discussion. AND of course the fact that it is a very fair and neat-going debate; no flaming and stuff. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And secretly I like debating a lawyer ;)

Is it just me or is there anyone else who haven´t seen the proof of the supposed link between bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

BTW Great song, it can probably be translated to arabic and sung by the Iraqis after the US attack.

[ 03-09-2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

Why does there have to be a link between those two ? That's not what this is all about.

But since you're asking.... i can see at least one link between the two. They're both rotten to the bone. :D

One small point:

USA has not signed the nuclear non-prolifiration treaty.

Correction number two:

United States of America did sign the non-proliferation treaty.

Check below:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/docs/nptstatus.htm

Why does there have to be a link between those two ? That's not what this is all about.

But since you're asking.... i can see at least one link between the two. They're both rotten to the bone. :D </font>[/QUOTE]My point was that I don´t see the direct connection between Saddam and bin Ladin, aside from your point. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Since this is a forum on war with Iraq I reacted a bit that Nachtrafe´s song refered to 9/11.

But perhaps I got it all wrong. :confused:

[ 03-10-2003, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]