Skip to main content

View Diary: Here's the deal. Israel gives up real nukes if Iran gives up imaginary nukes? (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hezbollah poses no existential threat to (11+ / 0-)

    Israel.

    You seriously think 25 thousand guerrillas can destroy a baby super power?

    How horribly Irans rulers treat their people is irrelevant to what degree of threat Iran poses to Israel.  These are entirely separate issues.  Obviously, we don't pretend that Israels ongoing campaign of murder and apartheid against Palestinian civilians makes it a threat to Iran.

    Israel has attacked its neighbors, in wars of naked choice, at least four times since 1957.  Iran has only acted in defense when attacked.

    The same bloodthirsty idiocy masquarading as "Non-Proliferation efforts" cannot be allowed to lead us to slaughter another quarter million people in an effort to complete the unfinished Bush agenda.    

    income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

    by JesseCW on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 01:07:51 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No-one here said it does. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      livosh1, AuntieRa, Hey338Too

      No-one here is justifying Israel's 'settlements' policies, nor its treatment of Palestinians, etc.

      We agree that however Israel treats Arab Sunni Palestinians is irrelevant to Shiite Persians.

      We both oppose military strikes on Iran.

      Are you accusing me of "bloodthirsty idiocy masquerading as 'non-proliferation efforts'"? Are you suggesting I support "the slaughter of another quarter million people"? Are you accusing me of "an effort to complete the unfinished Bush agenda"? If not, then please apologize for these insinuations.

      Iran does not recognize Israel as a country. Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist. Iran does not recognize the State of Israel. If you talk to an Iranian government-supporter, you will quickly learn that they refuse to even use the word 'Israel,' instead saying "the Jews" (seriously) -- and their anti-semitism is deep and disgusting. (Have you ever met even one Iranian official, let alone gotten into political debate with them?)

      Nuclear weapons are not just a bigger bomb. Their acquisition fundamentally changes the nature of countries' international relations. Any country armed with nuclear weapons and the capability to 'deliver' them poses an existential threat to any other government. Period. Yes, the UK poses an existential threat to France, and vice versa. It's not a threat we lose sleep over -- because of the friendly ties between them, because of their values, the way they treat their people, etc.

      Your erroneous caricature of the wars since 1957 is one-sided, and oddly omits the 1948-49 and 1956 wars. So much has been written on the Mideast wars that it seems odd to lob such a one-sided rhetorical grenade into a comment. (E.g., just on the lead-up to 1967: http://en.wikipedia.org/...)

      For how many years have you lived in the region that you have such strong opinions about? Just curious.

      How horribly Iran treats its own people does affect its foreign relations and our concern about its nuclear abilities: despotic regimes are much more likely to find foreign enemies, to justify their repression at home and to unite citizens through xenophobia and nationalism. (E.g., we wouldn't be happy if South Korea somehow got nuclear weapons, but North Korea having them is a bigger concern.)

      Iran's Pasdaran-e Inqilab has provided military training to over 10,000 members of violent destabilizing groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria, Kurdistan, India, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Chechnya. Iran is behind bombings (or attempts) in countries around the world, ranging from Lebanon (Hezbollah's 1983 bombings that killed 53 people, the second 1983 bombing that killed 241 Americans, and most-likely Hezbollah was also behind Hariri's 2005 assassination), to Buenos Aires (1992, 21 dead), Buenos Aires again (1994, 85 dead), New Delhi (2012, 4 wounded), etc. It plotted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the US. Iran's Qods Force provides training, funding and and arms to select Taliban in Kandahar, Afghanistan. It supports the Assad regime in Syria. It provides weapons, training, and hundreds of millions of dollars to Hezbollah, the Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. Iran refuses to hand over senior Al Qaeda members, and allows Al Qaeda to use Iranian territory to move funds and operatives throughout the region. Iran refuses to comply with the Financial Action Task Force on anti-terrorist money-laundering practices. Etc.

      Those 'small' details matter, in diplomacy.

      I'm not the least bit worried that Israel or France has nuclear capabilities, but I hope we do everything short of war to ensure that Iran does not get them. To answer the diaries' question: Yes, countries with nukes do have a moral option to demand that despotic regimes do not acquire them.

      •  What the fuck? (7+ / 0-)
        We agree that however Israel treats Arab Sunni Palestinians is irrelevant to Shiite Persians.
        It damn well shouldn't be irrelevant to anyone.  It just hasn't got anything to do with whatever risk Israel does or does not pose to Irans security.
        We both oppose military strikes on Iran.
        One of us does.  The others claims to, then invents fictitious threats of nuclear annihilation.

        "Oh noez, Iran doesn't recognize Israel!" Who cares?  What's that got to do with any threat to Israels survival?  Do you think really negative thoughts can somehow bring down a Nation State?

        Are you seriously going to try to pretend that the assault on Egypt over the pretext of the Suez was anything other than a naked land grab that went bad when Ike would not be bullied?

        Are you really going to cite a Wiki article as if it proved that the theft of the homes of millions of people in 1967 was NOT an act of aggression?   Are you going to ignore the bit when Israel tried to pretend for the first 24 hours that Egypt struck first?

        The only nation ever to use a nuclear weapon against anyone is the United States.   Are you saying that this is a despotic regime?  Or are you saying that Apartheid States like Israel can be trusted with such weapons, since half the people living under Israeli control get to vote?

        Are you pretending that military strikes against French and American combatants in Lebanon by elements of Islamic Amal which went on to later found Hezbollah are evidence that Iran is seeking to obtain nuclear weapons and use them?  Does this conclusion really seem to follow?

        Are you so far gone that you're calling Shia forces in Afghanistan supported by Iran Taliban because they oppose the US occupation?

        Are you really going to try to pretend that the "plot to kill the ambasador" bullshit was taken seriously by anyone not working for Fox News or the Israeli Foreign Ministry?

        Your posts read like they've been written by Daniel Pipes, with a "I'm not for war" tacked on so as to gain a shred of credibility with the audience here.

        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

        by JesseCW on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 04:45:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hope someone washes your mouth with soap. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too, livosh1, JNEREBEL

          Meanwhile, to answer your questions:
          1) Most Americans care a great deal, and most countries in the world care. (160 countries do, including the vast majority of democracies; 31 countries don't, mostly non-democracies; and yes, democracy also matters to most of us on DailyKos.)
          2) Not recognizing a state, supporting terrorist groups who oppose it through violence, making incendiary statements about it, seeking to acquire nuclear weapons -- many people think these do matter.
          3) No; do you really think that asking inane rhetorical questions is an effective and productive form of discourse?
          4) Some of your 'questions' are loaded and contain false assertions (sorta like "Have you stopped beating your wife?", or "When will you stop sounding like an ignorant, obnoxious, arrogant, dick?"), so they can't be answered.
          5) Ditto. Do you think that asking plurium interrogationum and loaded-questions adequately demonstrates your ignorance?
          6) I'm not going to debate the 1967 war with you in a comment thread; on balance, most serious scholars would reject your caricature that in 1967 Israel "attacked its neighbors, in [a] war of naked choice." That Wikipedia article isn't bad on this topic. I used to teach a PhD field seminar that covered it, two of the texts I recall were Mohamed Abdel Ghani El-Gamasy's The October War (AUC Press 1993) and Michael Oren's Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Oxford University Press 2002). If there are peer-reviewed books that refute these, let's hear them. If you're looking for a single causus belli (which would be a mistake, imho): Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, blocking Israel's southern access to the Red Sea (from Eilat, through the Gulf of Aqaba), leaving it naval access only on its northern border on the Mediterranean.  Such "laying siege to a port" has been recognized as an act of war since the concepts of 'law' and 'war' have been written down. What any of the belligerents pretended in the first 24 hours may interest military strategists, but doesn't seem germane to Iran's nuclear ambitions, so yes I will ignore it.
          7) No.
          8) See "loaded questions," above.
          9) No. I don't find long-winded questions useful, do you?
          10) No, nor did I suggest it does. Thank you for the straw-man, but I've read enough of those in student papers to last me a lifetime.
          11) Inserting an ad hominem into a question (see other examples above) isn't very adult; I won't address them further.
          12) Let's see, I'm trying to guess which news source you wouldn't label as part of some vast Israeli-Fox-NYT-CNN conspiracy. How about The Guardian? http://www.guardian.co.uk/...  NPR? http://www.npr.org/...  ThinkProgress? http://thinkprogress.org/...   Yes, I'm well aware of his mental issues, and when it first arose I was suspicious. Now, even Gary Sick is convinced.

          Your comments remind me of my undergrad days some 30+ years ago, back when it was cool to side against Israel and be in solidarity with the PLO, and before students started learning Arabic and actually living and studying for years in Arab countries. All full of righteous indignation, hubris, and invectives. The students I see today are much wiser (even at a young age), much more nuanced, balanced, less prone to divide things up into 'sides', let alone take just one such 'side'. (E.g., live in Jordan or the Gulf for a few years and you'll quickly learn how much Jordanians and Khaleejis look down on Palestinians, public brotherly rhetoric aside.)

          One amusing irony for me is that, apart from the nuclear-weapon question, I think we'd agree on a lot of things about the dismal state of US-Iranian relations, including many of the incredibly stupid and self-destructive policies the US has engaged in against Iran over the past 60 years. But your belligerent and offensive rhetoric here precludes that discussion.

          •  I hope you grow the fuck up and get past (0+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:
            JNEREBEL

            striving to build support for both apartheid and wars or aggression.

            1) Most Americans fully support the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.  As sad as it may be, it's true.  Meanwhile, The US and several other democracies friendly to it have voted to deny the fundamental right of Palestinians to self determination, an action indistinguishable from Irans refusal to recognize Israel.

            2) Not recognizing a state, supporting terrorist groups who oppose it through violence, making incendiary statements about it, seeking to acquire nuclear weapons -- many people think these do matter.
            2)  You just described the US position regarding Palestine.

            3-5 consist of pissing and moaning that you've gotten a fraction of the heat you give.

            6) That you managed to spread justifications for wars of naked aggression at the university level does not surprise or impress me.  There were American academics who devoted their careers to support of South African apartheid, too.  The Port of Eilat was almost completely undeveloped in 1967, and of no importance to Israel economically.  While it's blockage served as a fig leaf for the naked land grab Israel wished to engage in, Israel routinely engages in far more provocative acts against her neighbors then claims to have been "attacked" when
            confronted with armed defense.
            That Israel has a history of pretending to have been attacked in order to justify wars of aggression should make any reasonable person suspect that they may well repeat such actions.

            7) Got it.  How a nation treats its own people only matters when you try to build a case for a pre-war siege while hiding behind a supposed opposition to war.

            8) Keep using the same dodge.

            9)Oh, look, a new one.

            10) Feeble attempts at argument by authority sure are impressive.

            11) Please stop doing that to irony.  It never did anything to you.

            12) Many networks have reported the claims the US State Department made in it's effort to build a case for sanctions and eventual war.  That isn't source material.  For instance, if I report your claims that Israel has an innate right to attack another nation with no regard to proportionality, that doesn't mean I agree with them.

            In the end, all you have left is "Others also share my anti-Palestinians bigotries and my belief that Israel is always right".  

            It's not much to hang your hat on.

            I even agree with Dick Cheney about a lot of things - the world is round, LGBT people have a right to marry, ect.  That does not mean I would treat him as if he were worthy of respect if he tried to claim his war mongering and bigotry were the result of education, rather than ignorance.

            income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

            by JesseCW on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 12:53:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, your mouth needs washing with soap. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too

              You've amply demonstrated your offensiveness, belligerence, one-sided viewpoints, and antagonism to genuine discourse.

              You've also demonstrated how far away your positions are from the average DailyKos reader, the Obama Administration, and the Democrats we seek to elect, with this logical tour-de-force:

              The US and several other democracies friendly to it have voted to deny the fundamental right of Palestinians to self determination, an action indistinguishable from Irans refusal to recognize Israel.
              Riiiiight.... *laf*

              I do hope you will live and work for several consecutive years in the MENA region. Please report back, when you have. Until then, I wish you the best in your educational progress.

              •  Again, you revel in ad hom while sniffling your (0+ / 0-)

                opposition to it.

                It's possible you're not aware of this, but I doubt it.

                income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                by JesseCW on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 01:27:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  interesting thing is so many are concerned (8+ / 0-)

      about Iranian repression of its own people but the Saudis support of repressive regimes among its neighbors is largely ignored by the media

      •  You're right about that. (0+ / 0-)

        Both regimes are repellent and their leaders should be killed by their own people.  I'm not averse to the US lending a hand.

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 05:57:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So that we can, as per usual, (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          S F Hippie, entlord, Diane Gee, JesseCW

          install someone just as bad, or even worse?

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 07:25:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yep US sucks at nation rescue nt (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Diane Gee, corvo
            •  Well, that's because it's almost never (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              entlord, JesseCW

              our purpose when we intervene.  Funny how that works out.

              Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

              by corvo on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 09:13:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site