#21
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial break
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear [in military terms] from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger. [/ QUOTE ] Yes. Is this even debatable ? [/ QUOTE ] If you honestly don't believe Iran is a significant and credible military threat to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do to get up to speed. <font color="white"> . </font> Do that before commenting further, and perhaps we can have an intelligent, informed discussion. [/ QUOTE ] If you honestly believe Iran is a neighbor to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do in your Geography to get up to speed. Do that before commenting further, and perhaps we can have an intelligent, informed discussion. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Commercial break
[ QUOTE ]
If you honestly believe Iran is a neighbor to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do in your Geography to get up to speed. [/ QUOTE ] Missiles expand the size of the neighborhood considerably. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
It\'s very complicated
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right? [/ QUOTE ] What part do you need explained about the difference between regime change and guaranteeing a nation's frontiers ? [/ QUOTE ] Regime change in Iraq guaranteed the frontiers of its neighbors. Just ask Kuwait. [/ QUOTE ] You are still confused. Regime changes have nothing to do with guaranteeing a nation's security. If the U.S. had guaranteed Kuwait's security, yes, it would atttack any nation that attacked Kuwait. But it would NOT change the attacking nation's regime! ...Read that again. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
hoc est verum et nihili nisi verum
Guaranteeing to take action after the fact and significant harm is done is not always a deterrent, especially to pscyopathic dictators. Preventive care is always best, same as in medicine.
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Commercial break
>>If you honestly believe Iran is a neighbor to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do in your Geography to get up to speed.<<
Perhaps your native language is not English, in which case you should avail yourself of a dictionary to inform yourself of the difference between a "bordering" country and a "neighboring" country. In any case, it is painfully obvious that you deliberately ignored the salient point of my comment, which was to contest your ludicrous assertion that Israel has no enemies that pose a significant military threat. Of course, your position is rationally indefensible, which I'm sure is why you chose to avoid further discussion of this issue. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Clouds of dandruff
[ QUOTE ]
Guaranteeing to take action after ... significant harm is done is not always a deterrent, especially to pscyopathic dictators. Preventive care is always best, same as in medicine. [/ QUOTE ] I posited the hypothetical case of a future Israel whose security would be guaranteed by the UN and America. You jumped to the conclusion that I want America to play world cop. Nothing of the sort was implied. Your subsequent "clarifications" (minus the Latin) are exercises in irrelevancy : This was not about Iraq, Kuwait or Mongolia. You have simply missed the point. And you are still missing it. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Station break
[ QUOTE ]
You should avail yourself of a dictionary to inform yourself of the difference between a "bordering" country and a "neighboring" country. [/ QUOTE ] What part of "Arab states" and "front-line states" do you find hard to understand? Ask and I shall explain -- once again. I challenge you to point out a post of mine where I mention the term "bordering nation". [ QUOTE ] You deliberately ignored the salient point of my comment, which was to contest your ludicrous assertion that Israel has no enemies that pose a significant military threat. [/ QUOTE ] Tsk tsk tsk. "Salient"; "ludicrous"! All that verbiage to refute a non-existent point! I never claimed that Israel is not threatened. One or two of countries would surely like to harm Israel, if they could. I never claimed that Israel has no enemies. You simply dreamed this. (Can you find it in yourself to acknowledge your error and apologize?) I will repeat, for the umpteenth time, what I wrote : " Israel has nothing to fear in military terms from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger." I went on to also posit that Israel is stronger militarily than at least all the front-line states combined!. And I will now submit that this has practically always been the case. ...You know, we have not yet started to discuss this, in earnest. You seem stuck in the starting line of Pedantry. Let's hope you figure out the simple point I'm making, in order for us to discuss how the lack of military threat from the outside should have shaped Israeli foreign policy and America's policy towards the Middle East. --Cyrus |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Station break
>>" Israel has nothing to fear in military terms from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger." <<
Ah. There's the relevant quote. Note you didn't say "bordering states" or "arab states" - you clearly said "neighbors". By any acceptable English usage, Iran is certainly a neighbor state. Now that that's settled, let's see if we can home in a little further. Are you seriously claiming that Israel has "nothing to fear" from Iran in "military terms"? Thanks in advance for clarifying this point. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The \'hood
[ QUOTE ]
You didn't say "bordering states" or "arab states" - you clearly said "neighbors". By any acceptable English usage, Iran is certainly a neighbor state. [/ QUOTE ] The implication should have been clear: I'm referring to the front-line states. They are called front-line states because they are the ones (allegedly) threatening and (supposedly) attacking Israel ever since its creation. Every serious text about the Middle East conflict, from both sides of the argument, uses the term "front-line states" in collective reference to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. That's it. However, if you want to expand this term to include "all countries in the general area" (i.e. the "neighborhood"), feel free to explain, please, the demarcation of the "neighborhood" of Israel. Where does it end?? Let's take the East. In Iran? India? Vietnam? [ QUOTE ] Are you seriously claiming that Israel has "nothing to fear" from Iran in "military terms"? [/ QUOTE ] Unless Iran is ever armed with nuclear weapons, no. Certainly not. I submit that Iran presents no serious military threat to Israel. And I would challenge you or anyone else to claim otherwise. Of course, if Iran gets nukes, then a lot of countries, and not just Israel, will be de facto threatened, on account of the nature of the Iranian regime itself. (In any case, it is my personal speculative opinion that Iran will not be allowed to acquire nukes. But that's beside the point.) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The \'hood
>> I submit that Iran presents no serious military threat to Israel. And I would challenge you or anyone else to claim otherwise.<<
Well, we simply have to agree to disagree here. Iran clearly is well on the way to developing nuclear weapons. Iran already has significant ballistic missile technology. Iran has a well developed military infrastructure, and is significantly developing its conventional and non-conventional military capabilities. And, the new President of Iran has publicly announced Iran's intention to "wipe Israel off the map". So, you don't believe Iran poses a significant military threat to Israel. I'm not sure how you can seriously put forth this assertion given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Simply put, we will have to evaluate all of your other assertions on this topic in the light of this one. |
|
|