|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Nope, Iran is, by any reasonable estimate many many years away from having a workable bomb. I'm not worried about Iran nuking Isreal. It doesn't fit into the Iranian strategy. |
Even though the Iranian govt. has stated that it does?
IRAN THREATENS ISRAEL WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL
TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran�s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani�s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
Yes bombing other countries just isn't their style at all
Iran charged over Argentina bomb
The blast was the worst terror attack in Argentina's history
The Iranian government and Lebanese militia group Hezbollah have been formally charged over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires.
Argentine prosecutors are calling for the arrest of former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven others.
Chief prosecutor Alberto Nisman accused the Iranian authorities of directing Hezbollah to carry out the attack.
Hezbollah and Iran both deny that they were involved in the blast, which killed 85 and wounded 300.
The blast, on 18 July 1994, reduced the seven-storey Jewish-Argentine Mutual Association (AMIA) community centre in Buenos Aires to rubble.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6085768.stm
| Leon wrote: |
Isreal would use their nukes, even if they weren't attacked by nukes |
Ah. So your argument is based on an imaginative hypothesis. 
You're about the worst example of a debater so far on these anti-Israel threads. Actually hold on..there was mises. That was unsurpassable.  |
You are pretty much the worst debater I've ever encountered, was going to be polite and not mention it, but you laid your cards out so... Anyways surely you've heard of the samson option? Here's a description of it if by the very rare chance you've never heard of it.
"In 2003, Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at Israel�s Hebrew University, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[19] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (2003) as saying "I consider it all hopeless at this point. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under." He quoted General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
The lack of clarity about Israels nuclear arsenal and nuclear strategy, coupled with things like the Samson option is of course good reason to consider Israel an important country. This is all from imaginitive.
Here's a good analysis of why the threat of a nuclear Iran is overblown.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65127/frank-procida/overblown |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leon your article even admits that a nuclear armed Iran would be a very serious threat.
Is that the best you can do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Leon your article even admits that a nuclear armed Iran would be a very serious threat.
Is that the best you can do? |
Of course, any idiot knows that any state with nukes is a serious issue. In case you missed it, it also said this,
" Iran's foreign policy has been fairly risk-averse since the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Khomeini's successor as supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, peppers his speeches with the usual condemnation of the United States and Israel, but he has also stressed that "Islam condemns the massacre of defenseless people, whether Muslim or Christian or others, anywhere and by any means." It might be safe to conclude that he is less concerned with the fate of the "others," but it is, of course, a fact that a nuclear attack against Israel would kill thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Muslims."
Remember that is the man with the control of the bomb, not who ever else who says whatever else, they virtually don't count in this matter.
Also this,
" the tenor of today's debate has lost all sense of proportion. A nuclear-armed Iran would increase risk, but ironically it is Iranian civilians and the Islamic Republic's own leaders who would bear the brunt of it."
A strike against Iran, especially a unilateral Israeli one, has a greater odds of causing devastation than an Iran that is years away from even being able to use the bomb. It is even possible that it might make the region safer due to Mutually Assured Destruction. The world is probably safer because both India and Pakistan have the bomb, just like it was probably safer because the Soviet Union and the United States had it. Israel, from reliable accounts, has considered using the nuclear option during various conflicts in the past, something that would make them think even longer isn't necessarily bad. I hope Iran doesn't get the bomb, but I would say that about any and every country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| a nuclear attack against Israel would kill thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Muslims." |
Oh thats hardly a consideration to islamic leaders. The ayatollah killed multi thousands of his own Iranian citizens, as did sadman insane.
Sacrifice of the masses is entirely permitted when it comes to achieving the goals of islam. In fact martyrdom is recommended.
| Quote: |
| A strike against Iran, especially a unilateral Israeli one, has a greater odds of causing devastation than an Iran that is years away from even being able to use the bomb. |
Personally i doubt that Iran and its mad professors will achieve their evil plans. The plot has thankfully been foiled by clever use of a computer virus.
But if Iran ever does look like getting the bomb, then the point will arive whereby the risks of not acting become greater than the risk of doing so.
As I said before, Iran does not need an excuse to attack. Its not like they're waiting around for Israel to make a move.
| Quote: |
| It is even possible that it might make the region safer due to Mutually Assured Destruction. |
The possibility of a sticky end would not cause the mad mullahs to lose any sleep. Iran having nuclear weapons isn't like India having nuclear weapons. Iran's government are full of Shia Supremist wackos who aren't above hunting down jews overseas. It is folly to underestimate them. Remember the koran commands its followers to love death more than life.
| Quote: |
| "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the difference between us two." |
Osama bin Laden...
| Quote: |
| "We are going to win because they love life and we love death." |
Hasan Nasrallah..
| Quote: |
| "We love death more than the Jews love life." |
Hamas Motto...
| Quote: |
| "We love death more than you love life." |
Khomeini.
The problem is that many westerners are looking at the conflict through a one-dimensional secular political viewpoint. naive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior, I think you give entirely too much credence to political rhetoric. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Junior, I think you give entirely too much credence to political rhetoric. |
This, plus none of the people you have quoted have anything to do with control of an Iranian bomb. Unless you have any quotes from Khamenei, then it doesn't matter. Iran is much more self serving than you give them credit for. I'm more concerned with the Israeli Samson option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So if e.g. venezuela threatened to nuke america and embarked on a nuclear project, then you'd rush to recommend they be allowed the bomb?
You'd immediately argue for their right to nuclear weapons on the basis that you think they were probably all talk? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
So if e.g. venezuela threatened to nuke america and embarked on a nuclear project, then you'd rush to recommend they be allowed the bomb?
You'd immediately argue for their right to nuclear weapons on the basis that you think they were probably all talk? |
Nobody is saying that any country has the right to anything. That's not the way it works. No one reasonable would say that Iran should have the bomb, or Pakistan, or hell anybody should have the wicked things. It's a matter of real politik, which would be more disasterous an attack on Iran, or not attacking them for something they may or may not be trying to get, and may or may not be able to get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| It's a matter of real politik, which would be more disasterous an attack on Iran, or not attacking them for something they may or may not be trying to get, and may or may not be able to get. |
I don't really understand what you are arguing about, neither do you it seems.
Lets return to the facts of the matter once again.
Israel has not attacked Iran.
Israel has not said it would attack Iran.
Israel has not said it will nuke Iran, nor anybody for that matter.
Israel has proven to be a responsible nuclear power.
Israel does not threaten her neighbours.
Are we clear?
Stop getting your knickers in a twist over all kinds of hypothetical situations.
You are unable to find any spots on Israel so you have resorted to criticising it based on imaginary scenarios?
israel is not out to destroy Iran. It used to have good relations with Iran before Khomenei came to power.
Can we say the same about Iran though?
Rafsanjani says muslims should use nuclear weapon against Israel
Tehran 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran�s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani�s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
Iran has proven to be an irrational state which oppresses non-muslim minorities.
| Quote: |
Disruption of Mandaean family life: forced marriage and sexual assault
In her most recent report to Amnesty International, Professor J.J. Buckley -- an internationally recognised specialist on the Mandaean religion -- has stressed that �the attempt to destroy Mandaean families is increasing, but with a particular focus on women and young girls.� The Mandaean Human Rights Committee has also documented that the Iranian authorities attempt to break up Mandaean families with a particular focus on women and children, pressuring them to convert to Islam and pressuring women to marry Moslem men. Further reports, including those produced by ASUTA (the Journal for the Study and Research into the Mandaean Culture, Religion and Language) indicate that Mandaean parents fear that their children will be kidnapped, and forcibly circumcised, converted to Islam, raped or forcibly married. Regarding the rape of Mandaean girls and women, several reports suggest that Islamic judges would hold that a Moslem male who raped a Mandaean female would be understood to have �purified� her. Accordingly, the Sabian Mandaean Association reports that Mandaean girls have been raped with impunity by Moslem men. |
http://www.iranian.com/BTW/2005/July/Mandaean/index.html
| Quote: |
| It is even possible that it might make the region safer due to Mutually Assured Destruction. |
Yet Leon obviously thinks that Iran having nuclear weapons is a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| It's a matter of real politik, which would be more disasterous an attack on Iran, or not attacking them for something they may or may not be trying to get, and may or may not be able to get. |
I don't really understand what you are arguing about, neither do you it seems.
Lets return to the facts of the matter once again.
Israel has not attacked Iran.
Israel has not said it would attack Iran.
Israel has not said it will nuke Iran, nor anybody for that matter.
Israel has proven to be a responsible nuclear power.
Israel does not threaten her neighbours.
Are we clear?
Stop getting your knickers in a twist over all kinds of hypothetical situations.
You are unable to find any spots on Israel so you have resorted to criticising it based on imaginary scenarios? |
Well, I've mentioned plenty of other spots on Israel throughout. There was a lot of talk from Israel about a pre-emptive attack on Iran. You keep ignoring what I said about the Samson option, do you even know what it is? Israel has threatened and attacked its neighbors on several occasions, as its neighbors have done to it.
| Junior wrote: |
israel is not out to destroy Iran. It used to have good relations with Iran before Khomenei came to power.
Can we say the same about Iran though?
| Quote: |
Having good relations with the U.S. puppet regime doesn't count for much, in fact it probably counts against it.
|
Rafsanjani says muslims should use nuclear weapon against Israel
Tehran 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran�s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani�s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
Iran has proven to be an irrational state which oppresses non-muslim minorities.
| Quote: |
Disruption of Mandaean family life: forced marriage and sexual assault
In her most recent report to Amnesty International, Professor J.J. Buckley -- an internationally recognised specialist on the Mandaean religion -- has stressed that �the attempt to destroy Mandaean families is increasing, but with a particular focus on women and young girls.� The Mandaean Human Rights Committee has also documented that the Iranian authorities attempt to break up Mandaean families with a particular focus on women and children, pressuring them to convert to Islam and pressuring women to marry Moslem men. Further reports, including those produced by ASUTA (the Journal for the Study and Research into the Mandaean Culture, Religion and Language) indicate that Mandaean parents fear that their children will be kidnapped, and forcibly circumcised, converted to Islam, raped or forcibly married. Regarding the rape of Mandaean girls and women, several reports suggest that Islamic judges would hold that a Moslem male who raped a Mandaean female would be understood to have �purified� her. Accordingly, the Sabian Mandaean Association reports that Mandaean girls have been raped with impunity by Moslem men. |
http://www.iranian.com/BTW/2005/July/Mandaean/index.html
| Quote: |
| It is even possible that it might make the region safer due to Mutually Assured Destruction. |
Yet Leon obviously thinks that Iran having nuclear weapons is a good idea. |
Again, until you can find something that the Grand Leader says it's all meaningless. I never said that it was a good idea, in fact I said it was a bad idea several times. It is possible that it would make the region safer, but I'd prefer that they don't have the bomb. What I'm concerned about is Israel attacking them first, and giving them a pretext to fight back and escalate things in the rest of the region. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Again, until you can find something that the Grand Leader says it's all meaningless. |
Iran leader urges destruction of 'cancerous' Israel
(Reuters) -- Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on Friday for the destruction of Israel, describing it as a "cancerous tumor" in the Middle East.
"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/
Khamenei predicts Israel's destruction
"Definitely, the day will come when nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionist regime," Khamenei was quoted as saying. "How soon or late (Israel's demise) will happen ...
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=167037
Getting harder to keep moving the goalposts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Again, until you can find something that the Grand Leader says it's all meaningless. |
Iran leader urges destruction of 'cancerous' Israel
(Reuters) -- Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on Friday for the destruction of Israel, describing it as a "cancerous tumor" in the Middle East.
"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/
Khamenei predicts Israel's destruction
"Definitely, the day will come when nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionist regime," Khamenei was quoted as saying. "How soon or late (Israel's demise) will happen ...
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=167037
Getting harder to keep moving the goalposts? |
Actually, his solution is fairly, surprisingly reasonable, at least as far as Iran goes. From the first article,
"Khamenei offered an alternative solution which he said might be more "internationally acceptable":
"Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews."
In the second one he predicts that the Israeli regime will fall, which is a far cry from saying that he would nuke it, or even attack it. In one scenario he wants the original inhabitants to decide their own fate, which is also a far cry from saying that he would attack it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
Actually, his solution is fairly, surprisingly reasonable, at least as far as Iran goes. From the first article,
"Khamenei offered an alternative solution which he said might be more "internationally acceptable":
"Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews." |
You forgot to mention his next sentence.
| Quote: |
"No one will allow a bunch of thugs, lechers and outcasts from London, America and Moscow to rule over the Palestinians," the ayatollah said in remarks broadcast on state radio.
He praised the 11-week Palestinian uprising against Israel, in which more than 320 people have been killed, mainly Palestinians.
"The new Palestinian generation has learned that struggle is the way to victory, not negotiations," Khamenei said |
YUP All entirely reasonable and rational
I'm getting bored of whipping you here.. so unless you have something of value to offer...then I've got to go watch some paint dry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
Actually, his solution is fairly, surprisingly reasonable, at least as far as Iran goes. From the first article,
"Khamenei offered an alternative solution which he said might be more "internationally acceptable":
"Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews." |
You forgot to mention his next sentence.
| Quote: |
"No one will allow a bunch of thugs, lechers and outcasts from London, America and Moscow to rule over the Palestinians," the ayatollah said in remarks broadcast on state radio.
He praised the 11-week Palestinian uprising against Israel, in which more than 320 people have been killed, mainly Palestinians.
"The new Palestinian generation has learned that struggle is the way to victory, not negotiations," Khamenei said |
YUP All entirely reasonable and rational
I'm getting bored of whipping you here.. so unless you have something of value to offer...then I've got to go watch some paint dry. |
Yeah, as far as Iran goes, not entirely unreasonable, and a far cry from saying that he would nuke Israel. My summer vacation starts tomorrow, so no more need to kill time chatting to you. I've refreshed my memory on the conflict, and learned a bit from googling, so it wasn't a complete waste of time for me. The funny thing about these kind of debates is that I'm sure I've destroyed your points pretty easily, but I'm glad you had fun "whipping me". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
So if e.g. venezuela threatened to nuke america and embarked on a nuclear project, then you'd rush to recommend they be allowed the bomb?
You'd immediately argue for their right to nuclear weapons on the basis that you think they were probably all talk? |
I wouldn't rush to recommend they be allowed it, but I wouldn't be freaking out either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
