A UN General Assembly resolution calling for a nuclear-weapons free Middle East passed last week on - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;46671529]You take away those nukes and pull support, what's going to protect Israel? The entire population would be killed by the surrounding countries. Those nukes are what keeps them from being slaughtered. If giving a country nukes keeps 8 million people alive, I'd say that's not so bad.[/QUOTE] No you pull the nukes but continue giving support, that's the whole idea. [editline]9th December 2014[/editline] No one said pull support and nukes it was one or the other

[QUOTE=Flapadar;46671183]You're exaggerating. A few extremists shooting rockets won't kill the whole population of Israel. Palestine isn't sending their army in to massacre Israel civilians. Its Israel that's doing that to Palestine - for fucks sake they've been using [url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israel-using-flechette-shells-in-gaza]anti personnel weaponry [/URL][b]banned by the Geneva convention [/b] in residential areas of Palestine.[/QUOTE] i think he's refering to their neighbors who only really stopped picking on israel after we got involved, after all, how many times has egypt invaded israel since the camp david accord: 0

[QUOTE=doom1337;46671606]No you pull the nukes but continue giving support, that's the whole idea.[/QUOTE] Except he seems to be saying do both, which would be the end for Israel.

If Israel were to get rid of their nuclear weapons I have no doubt in my mind a neighboring country we declare war on them within the next decade. Ever wonder why mad actually works? If United States or Soviet Union didn't have nuclear weapons we would've had World War III. It may seem far-fetched but nuclear weapons actually have made the world a safer place. They are practically the sole reason we haven't had any major conventional warfare since World War II, Oh and for the record, I think is Israel is a piece of shit country but I'm a realist and I know they wouldn't stand a chance without US support or nuclear weapons

[QUOTE=SlyManx;46671804]If Israel were to get rid of their nuclear weapons I have no doubt in my mind a neighboring country we declare war on them within the next decade. Ever wonder why mad actually works? If United States or Soviet Union didn't have nuclear weapons we would've had World War III. It may seem far-fetched but nuclear weapons actually have made the world a safer place. They are practically the sole reason we haven't had any major conventional warfare since World War II, Oh and for the record, I think is Israel is a piece of shit country but I'm a realist and I know they wouldn't stand a chance without US support or nuclear weapons[/QUOTE] If you seriously think that nuclear weapons are the sole reason we have seen a decline in war, then you need to take a class on international relations. We've seen a widescale reduction in violence, and not juts in nuclear weapon and nuclear capable states. [URL]http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180[/URL]

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;46671302]No, he's not. Every country around Israel hates them, and if not for the US would declare war and attempt to obliterate them in a massive genocide. They tried it in the '60s, and because of the US' help, Israel kicked all their asses. However, without the US' help, Israel would have its entire population slaughtered by various Arab nations after invading. It would also lead to Israel nuking several countries as they began losing the war, like Iran and Egypt.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you trying to insinuate? That the Arab countries are all sitting with massive stockpiles of weapons just waiting for the moment that Israel shows a single sign of weakness? Yes, they hate Israel, and for good reason, but to say that Israel will be destroyed, and it's people exterminated, the moment they remove their WMDs, is just so wrong on so many levels. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;46671529]You take away those nukes and pull support, what's going to protect Israel? The entire population would be killed by the surrounding countries. Those nukes are what keeps them from being slaughtered. If giving a country nukes keeps 8 million people alive, I'd say that's not so bad.[/QUOTE] You honestly think that Israel, using the most expensive and advanced weaponry in the world, will have it's entire population destroyed by the shitty armies of Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt? Israel has prevented it's neighbors from receiving any advanced weapons.

[QUOTE=SlyManx;46671804]If Israel were to get rid of their nuclear weapons I have no doubt in my mind a neighboring country we declare war on them within the next decade. Ever wonder why mad actually works? If United States or Soviet Union didn't have nuclear weapons we would've had World War III. It may seem far-fetched but nuclear weapons actually have made the world a safer place. They are practically the sole reason we haven't had any major conventional warfare since World War II, Oh and for the record, I think is Israel is a piece of shit country but I'm a realist and I know they wouldn't stand a chance without US support or nuclear weapons[/QUOTE] You don't get how the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine works. You see, currently, only Israel has nuclear weapons in the Middle East, everyone else has none whatsoever. That's not a nuclear deterrent, that's "you fuck with me, and I'll nuke you". This allows Israel to bully and undermine any other country around them, knowing that they don't have nukes and therefore can't ever retaliate as strongly as Israel can. These other countries also can't get any nukes because the countries that do have nukes won't allow it. Mutually Assured Destruction works like this, the two belligerent parties have equally powerful weapons, and they mutually agree to not ever shoot them, because otherwise it would assure destruction of both of their nations. If nobody has nukes, then bilateral diplomacy can occur far more easily as any potential war between Israel and the rest of the Middle East would merely be a conventional war. On the other hand if everyone else (Or actually just Iran) has nukes, then there isn't a chance in hell Israel would try to fuck with anybody else, thus, peace.

[QUOTE=Fayez;46671987]What the fuck are you trying to insinuate? That the Arab countries are all sitting with massive stockpiles of weapons just waiting for the moment that Israel shows a single sign of weakness? Yes, they hate Israel, and for good reason, but to say that Israel will be destroyed, and it's people exterminated, the moment they remove their WMDs, is just so wrong on so many levels.[/QUOTE] Well they certainly say they would love to do such all the time. And if you like I could probably bring up a dozen quotes supporting that. Is Israel just supposed to assume they're bluffing or pandering?

not all of the "big bad muslims" aren't out to get israel. Yes, hardcore places like Iran and Sudan would, but you guys are acting like we live in 1975

[QUOTE=Big Bang;46672004]You don't get how the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine works. You see, currently, only Israel has nuclear weapons in the Middle East, everyone else has none whatsoever. That's not a nuclear deterrent, that's "you fuck with me, and I'll nuke you". This allows Israel to bully and undermine any other country around them, knowing that they don't have nukes and therefore can't ever retaliate as strongly as Israel can. These other countries also can't get any nukes because the countries that do have nukes won't allow it. Mutually Assured Destruction works like this, the two belligerent parties have equally powerful weapons, and they mutually agree to not ever shoot them, because otherwise it would assure destruction of both of their nations. If nobody has nukes, then bilateral diplomacy can occur far more easily as any potential war between Israel and the rest of the Middle East would merely be a conventional war. On the other hand if everyone else (Or actually just Iran) has nukes, then there isn't a chance in hell Israel would try to fuck with anybody else, thus, peace.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, I did miss use the term but my point still stands. Many have said that if Ukraine never gave up its nuclear weapons they never would've had an issue with Russia. I feel as though the same applies here. Do you really think Israel would use their Nuclear weapons for anything other than a last defense? I agree that Isreal is a pretty messed up government and what they've done to the palastinians is unexcusable, but I wouldn't be suprised if nuclear disarmament led to greater instability in the region. As for the comments that nuclear weapons did not prevent World War III I have to disagree. And I would say the sole reason we didn't have a Third World war is because of the fear of nuclear warfare. Both sides were itching for excuses to start the war, and the only thing that prevented them was the fact that a War would mean annihilation for everuone

[QUOTE=Flapadar;46671183]You're exaggerating. A few extremists shooting rockets won't kill the whole population of Israel. Palestine isn't sending their army in to massacre Israel civilians. Its Israel that's doing that to Palestine - for fucks sake they've been using [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israel-using-flechette-shells-in-gaza"]anti personnel weaponry [/URL][B]banned by the Geneva convention[/B] in residential areas of Palestine.[/QUOTE] Please tell me you're trolling. I mean, aside from various countries in the Middle East trying to arm Hamas as well as possible through massive missile shipments, we are also dealing with the fact that Israel has not used nuclear weaponry and likely [I]won't [/I]unless it's worth it-- which is the case that the Middle East situation becomes [I]such [/I]a level of fucked that Israel finds it worth losing nearly, if not all allies over. Stripping Israel of nuclear firepower is only going to encourage other countries to take advantage of the newfound weakness, as well as likely encourage further violence in the area. Given a war actually comes along, the chances that any country bothers getting involved (other than the United States, and that's entirely dependent on who's POTUS at the time) is minimal. Israel is on its own, and it needs the utilities necessary to intimidate some of their more barbaric neighbors out of starting violence and bloodshed between the two countries. [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1440032"]Rather than go on for paragraphs about why the removal of nuclear weapons is a terrible idea, I'll just pull some quotes from the last thread about this.[/URL] [QUOTE=Laserbeams]No one should be forced to lose their nuclear arms. Nukes can protect a country, the UN cannot.[/QUOTE] [quote=Thlis]Why exactly should Israel get rid of it's nuclear weapons when the nuclear weapons weren't the issue?[/quote]

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;46671387]No, because those nukes are what keeps those Arab nations from attacking them regardless of US involvement. If we took away those nukes now, even with American aide, they'd declare war on Israel. They'd just be more likely to take their chances with a nuclear armed country without the idea of having to face one of the largest and most well-equipped military forces in the world as well.[/QUOTE] You realize Israel is insanely well equipped and has probably the most powerful military in the region, and that wouldn't go away even with the removal of US support. Whop will invade them? Syria is in civil war, Egypt is in the midst of anarchy and a military takeover, Iraq is also fighting the spillover from the Syrian Civil War, and even without all that stuff none of those nations are powerful enough to take on Israel and win. Their normal ground forces make a good enough deterrent. Bringing nukes into the equation [I]anywhere[/I] in the Middle East is a terrible decision, since all the countries are run by yahoos anyways. All it would cause is the very genocide you want to prevent.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46672557]Because they're fucking useful. Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the region, and the region is one of the MOST IMPORTANT REGIONS ON THE PLANET. It makes PERFECT sense to support Israel. Boo hoo, we don't like what they do to Palestine. Well you know what, the world doesn't run on hopes and dreams, in all reality they're incredibly useful, and are a stable country in a sea of bullshit radicalism.[/QUOTE] lol what do you mean boohoo Palestinians? you're defending Israel committing war crimes...

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46672654]lol what do you mean boohoo Palestinians? you're defending Israel committing war crimes...[/QUOTE]You talk as if Palestine is in any way even remotely comparable to Israel in terms of ethics.

[QUOTE=Monkah;46672725]You talk as if Palestine is in any way even remotely comparable to Israel in terms of ethics.[/QUOTE] it's still a place full of innocent people. i don't understand why letting israel kill thousands of people, most of which are civilians, is remotely justified everytime there is an escalation. [editline]8th December 2014[/editline] are you going to tell me that every Palestinian is a terrorist and deserves to die?

Canada is anti-nuclear weapons and we've got the best medical radioisotopes in the world, why tell israel to keep their bombs?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46672760]It's not. But maintaining warm relations with Israel is more beneficial to us than screaming at them every time they fuck Palestine. They're going to fuck Palestine every time Palestine attempts to fuck with them, it's a fact, and asking them "hey don't go fuck Palestine" after they get attacked is asinine. Name one country that would let itself get attacked and then say "oh well, it's fine, just don't do it again".[/QUOTE] there's a difference between a response to a threat and flatout killing thousands of civilians. i think you're missing the point. "damn a few suicide bombs went off, better respond by killing 500 children"

[QUOTE=01271;46672807]Canada is anti-nuclear weapons and we've got the best medical radioisotopes in the world, why tell israel to keep their bombs?[/QUOTE] Because Harper, that's why.

[QUOTE=RockmanYoshi;46672021]not all of the "big bad muslims" aren't out to get israel. Yes, hardcore places like Iran and Sudan would, but you guys are acting like we live in 1975[/QUOTE] It's not Muslims, we're not talking about Muslims, nobody said anything about Muslims, stop trying to turn everybody who supports Israel into an Islamophobe. The governments, mostly dictatorships, that neighbor Jerusalem and wish to see their destruction do not represent all Muslims.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46672850]I think you're missing the point. Palestine happens to be one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, There are going to be civilian casualties. They're going to do what they deem needed to defend their country, and they wouldn't be actively fucking Palestine if dickheads who think "oh man Israel needs to be wiped from the planet" would stop attempting to attack them.[/QUOTE] why do these people exist? it's amazing how people fail to see how terrorism is completely cyclical. if israel continues to act aggressively towards the Palestinians, carelessly killing civilians, bombing international aid facilities, destroying houses, imposing restrictions, then they should expect some amount of backlash.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46672881]why do these people exist? it's amazing how people fail to see how terrorism is completely cyclical. if israel continues to act aggressively towards the Palestinians, carelessly killing civilians, bombing international aid facilities, destroying houses, imposing restrictions, then they should expect some amount of backlash.[/QUOTE] Hamas doesn't exist because Israel is evil, Hamas exists because Israel is. They have made it explicitly clear that they want nothing more than the destruction of the Israeli state and the death of its citizenry, and most Israeli actions have been in reaction to Hamas.

[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46672899]Hamas doesn't exist because Israel is evil, Hamas exists because Israel is. They have made it explicitly clear that they want nothing more than the destruction of the Israeli state and the death of its citizenry, and most Israeli actions have been in reaction to Hamas.[/QUOTE] why does hamas continue to get voted into power?

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46672881]why do these people exist? it's amazing how people fail to see how terrorism is completely cyclical. if israel continues to act aggressively towards the Palestinians, carelessly killing civilians, bombing international aid facilities, destroying houses, imposing restrictions, then they should expect some amount of backlash.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza"]Tried that. Didn't work.[/URL] Palestine has to stop first, it's certainly more difficult, but they're the source of the problem. [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46672903]why does hamas continue to get voted into power?[/QUOTE] Because Palestine isn't an actual democracy, despite what they might claim. Go try to be anti-Hamas in Palestine and see what happens.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46672903]why does hamas continue to get voted into power?[/QUOTE] You think those elections are at all democratic?

[QUOTE=TestECull;46670851]I lol'd. What, exactly, do supporters of this pipe dream think will happen with the thousands of armageddons' worth of nuclear weapons just lounging around? They don't magically go 'poof' just because a treaty got signed.[/QUOTE] There will be a giant 10 day nuclear fireworks show on novaya zemlya and the entire world will get invited

[QUOTE=Monkah;46672919] Because Palestine isn't an actual democracy, despite what they might claim. Go try to be anti-Hamas in Palestine and see what happens.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46672926]You think those elections are at all democratic?[/QUOTE] You guys realize that today, hamas is beating fatah in popular opinion polls, right? it doesn't really matter if they actually won the 2006 election, they are still popular. and they got a surge in popularity after the offensive this summer. [URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/02/poll-hamas-popularity-surges-after-war-with-israel/[/URL] [editline]8th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46672930]Everything Israel has done has been reactionary. That blockade people love to bitch about? Set up after a bunch of suicide bombings. The attacks that everyone loves to bitch about? Happen after splinter groups within Palestine get a wild hair up their ass and decide to shoot rockets into Israel. If Palestine wants to be taken seriously then maybe they should actively attempt to police their citizens and arrest those who are causing Israel to come and wreck their shit. But they wouldn't. Because they're split in two. The west bank is controlled by a group so corrupt that they can't see their dick for all the cash their embezzling, and the Gaza strip is controlled by a group that says "oh man we don't totally hate Israel" "But hey, look over here, there are some groups that do hate Israel and they totally aren't sheltered and funded by us, we promise". Palestine is a failed state, nothing more, nothing less. Palestine is as much of a state as "cascadia" or "jefferson". The fact that the world is humoring them is hilarious.[/QUOTE] uhh as far as i know the blockade was enforced directly after hamas took power. israel realized that hamas was dangerous and sealed the border. either way, all the blockade has done is effectively crush the palestinian economy. it doesn't really matter if it was in response to palestinian attacks on isreal, all it's effectively done is make the situation worse for the civilians living there. [URL]http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/suffocating-gaza-israeli-blockades-effects-palestinians-2010-06-01[/URL] also, yeah palestine is a failed state, what do you suppose we do? there are a lot of ways to fix a broken state, all of which generally involve stimulating the economy and creating jobs. guess what israel isn't doing?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46673091]Since when is it Israel's job to promote the wealthfare of Palestine? [/QUOTE] it's not, but the blockade is effectively crushing the economy. also, destroying things like gaza's only power plant certainly doesn't help.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46671009]No Israel having nuclear weapons keeps them untouchable. What are you going to do about it? Invade Israel? Nuke Jerusalem?[/QUOTE] Give Iran nuclear cruise missiles and subs. Lets see how they treat palestine after that hehehe.

[QUOTE=Flapadar;46671277]Simple solution. Keep the border nice and big instead of expanding towards them and expecting them to move. Kill anyone who comes close enough with a rocket launcher. [/QUOTE] This is what Israel's border looks like minus the occupied territories: [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--XqExvYmCm0/T1KrTflvYRI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/eB1Cz5eFjdU/s1600/Green+Line.gif[/IMG] The entire reason for Israel occupying the West Banks was to have an easier to defend eastern border, without a big chunk of enemy territory effectively cutting the country in half right down the middle. [editline]9th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46672824]Because it's unenforceable and is a level playing field. If we're banning Israel from having nukes then we should be banning Russia, the US, and China from having nukes too. It's not like they're using them, and they make a much better deterrent to using WMD's against them then "don't use WMD's against us, or we'll come fite you".[/QUOTE] I should point out India and Pakistan aren't signatories to the NPT either.

[QUOTE=Monkah;46672449]Please tell me you're trolling. I mean, aside from various countries in the Middle East trying to arm Hamas as well as possible through massive missile shipments, we are also dealing with the fact that Israel has not used nuclear weaponry and likely [I]won't [/I]unless it's worth it-- which is the case that the Middle East situation becomes [I]such [/I]a level of fucked that Israel finds it worth losing nearly, if not all allies over.[/QUOTE] I really don't like the idea of all out nuclear war just because some greedy people in the middle East took land that wasn't theirs to begin with. If the US wants to prevent people attacking them, not an issue. The US isn't going to use its nukes in a first strike. Israel would. That's what worries me. [IMG]http://www.juancole.com/images-ext/2010/03/map-story-of-palestinian-nationhood.jpg[/img] You guys keep saying nukes are the only thing stopping them being attacked and then say that if they do get attacked theyll start nuking everyone. Why are you all acting like that is a good thing? Nukes should only exist as a response to a nuclear strike. "You nuke me ill nuke you -- so dont". Having someone crazy enough to use nukes first is a terribly bad idea.