Benjamin Netanyahu

Status
Not open for further replies.
If America had stayed out the Russians would have rolled all the way to the Atlantic once they had turned the tide on Germany.

Yeah, thats surely in accord with history:rolleyes:

Anyway, saying Israel has nuclear weapons and is treating Palestinians disgracefully is not racist or anti-semitic. It is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. Feel free to disagree, even though you are wrong.

OK, I'll bite, ask the mods if they will allow a thread on how the Palestinians are treated, I'll debate ya.

Might as well put my history and politics degrees to work, I've been playing with guns for too long :)

WildibetyouthinkweshouldnthavebombeddresdeneitherAlaska ™
 
OK, I'll bite, ask the mods if they will allow a thread on how the Palestinians are treated, I'll debate ya.

They should, It is a political forum. The good and the bad. Or is supposed to be only pro israel political forum?
 
Here ya go, read the last paragraph carefully.

fighting words
Can Israel Survive for Another 60 Years?
Perhaps, but not necessarily as a Jewish state.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, May 12, 2008, at 12:26 PM ET

It's somehow absurd and trivial to use the word Israel and the expression 60th birthday in the same sentence or the same breath. (What is this, some candle-bedecked ceremony in Miami?) The questions before us are somewhat more antique, and also a little more pressingly and urgently modern, than that. Has Zionism made Jews more safe or less safe? Has it cured the age-old problem of anti-Semitism or not? Is it part of the tikkun olam—the mandate for the healing and repair of the human world—or is it another rent and tear in the fabric?

Jewish people are on all sides of this argument, as always. There are Hasidic rabbis who declare the Jewish state to be a blasphemy, but only because there can be no such state until the arrival of the Messiah (who may yet tarry). There are Jewish leftists who feel shame that a settler state was erected on the ruins of so many Palestinian villages. There are also Jews who collaborate with extreme-conservative Christians in an effort to bring on the day of Armageddon, when all these other questions will necessarily become moot. And, of course, there are Jews who simply continue to live in, or to support from a distance, a nerve-racked and high-tech little state that absorbs a lot of violence and cruelty and that has also shown itself very capable of inflicting the same.

I find that no other question so much reminds me of F. Scott Fitzgerald and his aphorism about the necessity of living with flat-out contradiction. Do I sometimes wish that Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann had never persuaded either the Jews or the gentiles to create a quasi-utopian farmer-and-worker state at the eastern end of the Mediterranean? Yes. Do I wish that the Israeli air force could find and destroy all the arsenals of Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Yes. Do I think it ridiculous that Viennese and Russian and German scholars and doctors should have vibrated to the mad rhythms of ancient so-called prophecies rather than helping to secularize and reform their own societies? Definitely. Do I feel horror and disgust at the thought that a whole new generation of Arab Palestinians is being born into the dispossession and/or occupation already suffered by their grandparents and even great-grandparents? Absolutely, I do.

The questions of principle and the matters of brute realism have a tendency (especially for one who does not think that heaven plays any part in the game) to converge. Without God on your side, what the hell are you doing in the greater Jerusalem area in the first place? Israel may not be the rogue state that so many people say it is—including so many people who will excuse the crimes of Syria and Iran—but what if it runs the much worse risk of being a failed state? Here I must stop asking questions and simply and honestly answer one. In many visits to the so-called Holy Land, I have never quite been able to imagine that a Jewish state in Palestine will still be in existence a hundred years from now. A state for Jews, possibly. But a Jewish state …

Israeli propaganda for a long time obscured this crucial distinction. If all that was wanted was a belt of Jewish territory on the coast and plains, such as that which was occupied by the yishuv in pre-state days, the international community could easily have agreed to place it within the defense perimeter of "the West" or the United Nations or, later, NATO. Aha, say the Zionists, the bad old days are gone when we were so naive as to rely on gentiles to defend us. Very well. But also mark the sequel. Israel is now incredibly dependent upon non-Jews for its own defense and, moreover, rules over millions of other non-Jews who loathe and detest it from the bottom of their hearts. How long do you think the first set of non-Jews will go on defending Israel from the second lot and from their very wealthy and numerous kinsmen? In other words, Zionism has only replaced and repositioned the question of anti-Semitism. For me, the Israeli family is not the alternative to the diaspora. It is part of the diaspora. To speak roughly, there are three groups of 6 million Jews. The first 6 million live in what the Zionist movement used to call Palestine. The second 6 million live in the United States. The third 6 million are distributed mainly among Russia, France, Britain, and Argentina. Only the first group lives daily in range of missiles that can be (and are) launched by people who hate Jews. Well, irony is supposed to be a Jewish specialty.

That last point, however, brings me to my own closing observation. It is a moral idiot who thinks that anti-Semitism is a threat only to Jews. The history of civilization demonstrates something rather different: Judaeophobia is an unfailing prognosis of barbarism and collapse, and the states and movements that promulgate it are doomed to suicide as well as homicide, as was demonstrated by Catholic Spain as well as Nazi Germany. Today's Iranian "Islamic republic" is a nightmare for its own citizens as well as a pestilential nuisance and menace to its neighbors. And the most depressing and wretched spectacle of the past decade, for all those who care about democracy and secularism, has been the degeneration of Palestinian Arab nationalism into the theocratic and thanatocratic hell of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, where the Web site of Gaza's ruling faction blazons an endorsement of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This obscenity is not to be explained away by glib terms like despair or occupation, as other religious fools like Jimmy Carter—who managed to meet the Hamas gangsters without mentioning their racist manifesto—would have you believe. (Is Muslim-on-Muslim massacre in Darfur or Iraq or Pakistan or Lebanon to be justified by conditions in Gaza?) Instead, this crux forces non-Zionists like me to ask whether, in spite of everything, Israel should be defended as if it were a part of the democratic West. This is a question to which Israelis themselves have not yet returned a completely convincing answer, and if they truly desire a 60th, let alone a 70th, birthday celebration, they had better lose no time in coming up with one.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.

WildsosleepynaptimeAlaska TM
 
I'll not say that Hitchens is without error, but he is a genius.

Olberman on his best day is a moron, and trying to use anything he says whether rebuttal or agreement with most anybody is gnat swatting, much less Hitchens.

This dilemma is a test of civilization and demands the leadership of the wise and the eventual capitulation of somebody.
 
Neither Israel or the USA can DEFEND themselves against an Iran with nuclear weapons. We can RETALIATE against such a nation but not DEFEND.

The fear of retaliation, from both parties, kept the Cold War cold. While we and the Soviets had different outlooks and interpretations, often widely and more than once misunderstood, generally neither side was consumed by religious fanaticism which relegates this existence as secondary to eternity in the god of your choice's heaven. Iran is consumed by religious fanaticism. If someone does not fear retribution in this world because their god has their back in the next then the concept of nuclear deterrence falls apart.

THAT is the problem with a nuclear Iran. THAT is the problem with a nuclear Pakistan should the fanatics gain power there.

The cultural problems in these nations are the same as they have been for much of history. The paradigm changes though when you introduce WMDs. One guy with a C4 vest on is bad but a limited threat. Nuclear weapons in the possession of that same fanatic though are a HUGE change in the order of magnitude of the problem.

I also seriously doubt the resolve of the USA to respond with a nuclear weapon should one be used on us in this new world. Mark my words, many politicians, especially Democrats, will look for any excuse NOT to respond in kind. You will hear it was the act of isolated terrorists, a rogue gov't or any other excuse not to kill "innocent" Iranians, Pakistanis or citizens of whatever nation the bomb came from. I seriously believe that might happen, what do you think religious fanatics from Iran who are watching the events portrayed on American television think of our resolve?
 
I also seriously doubt the resolve of the USA to respond with a nuclear weapon should one be used on us in this new world. Mark my words, many politicians, especially Democrats, will look for any excuse NOT to respond in kind. You will hear it was the act of isolated terrorists, a rogue gov't or any other excuse not to kill "innocent" Iranians, Pakistanis or citizens of whatever nation the bomb came from.

The fire bombing of Dresden as well as Tokyo, Kobe, Yokahama and Osaka...and the atomic bombings of Horishima and Nagasaki kind of point to the opposite in terms of American resolve.
 
The fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo...and the atomic bombings of Horishima and Nagasaki kind of point to the opposite in terms of American resolve.

Those were very different times and very different people. Agree or disagree on Iraq there is no doubt that there are people over their killing our troops. roll back the outlook of our population and politicians 60+ years and you would see an entirely different response than we are seeing now.

There are things and costs the American people might once have paid which they are no longer willing to. If the entire South East of the United States were to decide to secede today and use force of arms to do so do you really think the people of this nation in 2008 would be willing to kill millions to preserve the Union?
 
The fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo...and the atomic bombings of Horishima and Nagasaki kind of point to the opposite in terms of American resolve.

The United States who destroyed Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki and participated in the British raids on Dresden doesn't exist anymore. The resolve of the American people to do what must be done in terms of winning a war or assisting an ally isn't there.
 
seems like alot of politicians are worried about the threat, Well hell why don't we nuke em all. They can all be a threat. Get real.

Seems like thought crimes in world politics. Well you know I knew they were thinking about nuking U.S :rolleyes: and I know what the other countrys are thinking :eek:

Thinking and doing are 2 different things.
 
If the people are so much the same perhaps you can explain the lack of support for the current war? I am not saying I agree with its conduct but the bottom line is we as a nation are sharply divided and mostly opposed to its current conduct. There is screaming and outrage at the loss of American lives but that loss is minuscule compared to losses in WWII.

As a people we are softer and do possess less resolve. Pearl Harbor was met with a demand for Japan's total surrender, nothing less. Americans died in droves to achieve that. Osama Bin Laden masterminded the slaughter of thousands of innocent citizens going about their daily lives. Strangely I do not see the American public outraged and demanding his capture/death. Even our leadership seems content to let him live out his days as a folk hero to Jihadists everywhere.

Exactly what message is sent to fanatics who would think to use a WMD on the USA when we can't even be bothered to dig what we have called the most evil man alive out of a cave somewhere after slaughtering thousands of our countrymen? He obliterates two buildings which are a symbol of what may be our greatest city with thousands of citizens inside. He demolishes part of our NATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS, killing more. He tried to destroy another building but it only resulted in the deaths of all the citizens aboard that airplane. He does all that, our leadership makes the statement that they really aren't concerned about him or think about him that much and the American people do NOTHING on the matter.

Tell me how the mullahs in Tehran are supposed to gauge our resolve after those recent examples.
 
There is screaming and outrage at the loss of American lives but that loss is minuscule compared to losses in WWII.

Similarly, can anyone imagine protecting German fighter bases or anti-aircraft units at the cost of American lives, as was done in Korea and Vietnam?
 
Thinking and doing are 2 different things.

Capable and incapable are also two different things. Right now Iran is INCAPABLE of using a nuclear weapon on another nation. Throw out the morality garbage people use to equivocate their positions and tell me this... Is it in OUR interest to allow them to gain that capability? The answer is clearly no and the threat is significant.

They can think what they want in Iran and I really don't care SO LONG AS THEY CANNOT KILL AN ENTIRE US CITY! As soon as they attempt to gain capability when it is not in our national security interest and cannot be diplomatically dissuaded from doing so I say squash them.
 
Osama Bin Laden masterminded the slaughter of thousands of innocent citizens going about their daily lives. Strangely I do not see the American public outraged and demanding his capture/death.

Retaliation against an entire nation (Japan for Pearl Harbor) is very different than an individual man (OBL) or guerilla-type group. Even Pancho Villa was never captured by General Pershing and his 10,000-troop Expeditionary Force...

The leaders of the United States today are pygmies standing on the shoulders of giants.

This has been said by generation after generation...and will be said of the government of today three or four generations down the road. It is a meaningless statement that can not be argued one way or another.
 
Retaliation against an entire nation (Japan for Pearl Harbor) is very different than an individual man (OBL) or guerilla-type group. Even Pancho Villa was never captured by General Pershing and his 10,000-troop Expeditionary Force...

True, going after an ENTIRE NATION should be much harder than one man who we had located and pinned down but let walk away. Somehow we managed to kill Yamamoto and bring Japan to its knees but can't catch a guy hiding with a bunch of goat herders...
 
going after an ENTIRE NATION should be much harder than one man

Oh, if only that were true...history has proven that wrong many times over. And Yamamoto's death wasnt what brought Japan to it's knees. Bombing their industrial and population centers after we strangled their supply lines, sunk their navy and destroyed their air force is what did the trick .
 
Somehow we managed to kill Yamamoto and bring Japan to its knees but can't catch a guy hiding with a bunch of goat herders...

We don't want the publicity from the collateral damage of killing the goat herders in order to get him. The officer who ordered such a strike would get a court martial and an extended stay at Leavenworth.

Of course, a few generations back, we'd have wasted the entire area just to be sure and given the officer a medal and promotion.

There are plenty of people as fully capable as those who prosecuted World War II. Unfortunately, most aren't in position to make policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top