Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
A Slip of the Tongue: Israeli Nukes?

By 1419 in News
Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:37:32 AM EST
Tags: MLP, news (all tags)
News

In a press conference Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister, identified Israel as having nuclear weapons. This slip contrasted with their policy of neither denying nor affirming having nuclear weapons.


The New York Times and other news sites are carrying news of the apparent 'slip' in which he says:

"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

This may be a move in the direction of an explicit affirmation of Israel's possession of a nuclear arsenal in the face of escalating tensions in the region over Iran's nuclear program and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 's recent statement about wiping out Israel.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Israel has nukes
o Yay 79%
o Nay 2%
o Can't Say 17%

Votes: 39
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Ehud Olmert
o Israel
o New York Times
o other news sites
o nuclear program
o wiping out Israel
o Also by 1419


Display: Sort:
A Slip of the Tongue: Israeli Nukes? | 144 comments (127 topical, 17 editorial, 1 hidden)
I think.. (2.00 / 7) (#1)
by mybostinks on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:00:36 AM EST

this is upping the ante by letting this slip. However, I think the next war will be the U.S. and China. China wants to be alpha dog.

I don't think Iran wants to be toast and certainly Israel doesn't either.

I wonder however, if it is a slip or a planned statement that seems like a slip of the tongue. Wish I had a voice analyzer and a recording of his words.

How could the U.S. ever be so foolish (3.00 / 3) (#2)
by Kasreyn on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:14:12 AM EST

as to go to war with the next superpower?

I mean, come on. Bush only has two years left. He may have performed miracles of creative dumbassery so far, but he's only human.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
i didnt say or mean to imply (2.20 / 5) (#3)
by mybostinks on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:31:52 AM EST

that Bush would be the one go to war with China. I don't think he will whatsoever. It will be sometime in the future i.e. within the next 10 years possibly the next presidency, whoever it may be.


[ Parent ]
foolish would be the PRC invading Taiwan (2.60 / 5) (#14)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:19:03 AM EST

...whereas teh US defending the latter against China would be valiant. There was a great article in the Atlantic Monthly recently that more or less predicted that, on the eve of the 08 Beijing Olympics, Taiwan would declare independence before Prez. Chen leaves office (also in 08). China says it will invade/conquer if Taiwan declares indep. and, according to the US's past behavior/thinking, this is not acceptable and America is "committed to the preservation of Taiwan's existence" (to paraphrase the Taiwan Relations Act), war with China in the near future is not as unlikely as you may think.

I don't think this is something the commander of the 7th Fleet wants to have to deal with, and god knows it's not something I want to see (since I live in TW), but make sure you know and understand the situation b4 u write it off as a ridiculous.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
Er, yeah, see, I'm not so sure (3.00 / 2) (#44)
by cburke on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:29:59 PM EST

China has plenty of reason not to want a conflict with the U.S., but frankly I'm starting to think that if they invaded Taiwan, the U.S. would just leave them to their own devices.

Imagine the situation in 2008:  Iraq is still going on, maybe troop levels have been decreased some maybe not, either way we are still spending billions every month in that quagmire.  China has continued to buy up our debt, and is basically helping to bankroll the Iraq war for us.  We've also continued to outsource basic industry, like steel production, to China.

Then China takes Taiwan.  

Now in order to respond we have to drop everything in Iraq and rush over to China.  The American people, who are today tired of war and in 2008 will only be more so, who are still desperately holding out hope that Iraq will be worth it in any sense of the word, are told we have to abandon that project and start a new, much larger war.  One that nobody can even pretend will be a cakewalk.  From a place the size of one of our most populated states to one that is five times larger than our entire country.  With modern military hardware.  Oh, and they just happen to own all our debt and are also the ones shipping us all the steel we use to make war machines.

I just don't see the will to do it.  The best chance we have is to make it too rough on China economically.  While this is largely working, the problem is as China grows their economy they are also diversifying.  Our dependence on China is only growing, but their dependence on us is lessening.  I don't like this trend.

[ Parent ]

Two Things (none / 0) (#56)
by virg on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:01:53 PM EST

> Oh, and they just happen to own all our debt and are also the ones shipping us all the steel we use to make war machines.

The first item is meaningless. Should we decide to go to war with China, why would we bother to acknowledge or repay debt that they own? The war itself would be quite disruptive to the global economy, so the added impact of all that stranded debt wouldn't likely be an issue for the U.S. Woe betide those foreigners (to China) invested in that debt, but I have difficulty believing that the U.S. will avoid a war over Taiwan just because of them.

The second item is only a problem in the short term. China does a lot of the steel manufacturing, but they get a good chunk of the raw material from us. It's just cheaper for us to send it there to be made into steel. In case of a war, we'd just restart local steel production. Sure, it'd be expensive and there'd be big shortages early on, but that's how war goes. It wouldn't be lethal to the U.S. war effort if push truly came to shove.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Wars cost money (none / 0) (#75)
by cburke on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:28:31 PM EST

Money that, assuming we continue with the deficit spending, we won't have.  The only reason other countries are willing to loan us money is because we have, so far, an absolutely perfect record on paying off our debts.  Failing to pay any of them would tarnish our reputation, even to our "enemy" as that would simply send the message that our reliability depends on the political winds, and hinder our ability to raise money for another huge war.

Restarting our steel production would be difficult since we've closed the plants and in many cases sold off the equipment.  We can't just turn them back on.  Those would be damaging shortages.

Neither of things are intended to be lethal to the U.S. war effort.  They are intended to be factors that would lead to the U.S. deciding it wasn't in their interest to protect Taiwain and simply let the takeover occur.  If the U.S. went to war they could surely overcome these obstacles, though after facing them they'd still face the prospect of war with China, which is hardly appealing if everything else was perfect.  I'm saying I'm not convinced it'd try.

[ Parent ]

I think that's finessable. (none / 0) (#84)
by dark on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:08:28 AM EST

The key would be to not declare the debt to China void, but only announce a stop on payments until "the current situation" is resolved. This could even be rolled into a general embargo on fund transfers to China. From an investor's point of view, suspended debt is much better than defaulted debt.

That also gives the U.S. a carrot to dangle along with the stick. China would be able to get a lot of money simply by withdrawing from the conflict, and that money wouldn't involve the loss of face (on either side) of "reparations".

[ Parent ]

Steel production (none / 0) (#131)
by cdguru on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:07:55 AM EST

My guess it that it would take 15-20 years to "restart" steel production in the US.  Steel mills are big, expensive and smelly factories.  Nobody wants one in their neighborhood.  Steel mills are uncomfortable and dangerous places to work, when compared to a McDonalds.

Based on this, the US would have to functionally have no steel coming in from foreign sources before there could be a reasonable PR effort to build a steel mill anywhere in the US.  It might be possible to build one in Mexico because at least that wouldn't be subject to endless litigation and there would be workers would would be willing to work there.

In the US?  In the litigous, OHSA NIMBY environment we have today?  I don't think so.

[ Parent ]

Underestimation (none / 0) (#134)
by virg on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 09:56:53 AM EST

This isn't a problem in today's world. All it would take is the president saying that our steel production is in China, and now we're at war with China, and there'd be places lining up to "do their patriotic duty" and coincidentally get a bunch of local jobs (which now have the sheen of "supporting the war effort") and government money coming in.

In the post-9/11 world, it wouldn't be hard to drum up that level of nationalism.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
There's different ways to fight a war (none / 0) (#79)
by godix on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:28:33 PM EST

and not all of them would require dropping everything else and rushing to China. The US most likely has the capabilities to fight China to a stalemate with just the 7th fleet and the Okinawa base. If we wanted to win we'd need to pull out of everywhere else and redeploy but if we were willing to drag things out we could stall the war for quite a long time while we gracefully withdrew from Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. and handed those missions to our European allies.

Economically we'd be hurt but then again, we've been economically devastated by previous wars and we choose to fight WWII, the cold war, civil war, etc. anyway. Our allies would suffer far greater than the US though. South Korea would almost certainly be lost. Taiwan might, depends on how the early days played out. Japan would take some hits. If China used it's nuclear weapons it'd be far worse but I doubt China is stupid enough to provoke a nuclear war with a country that has literally thousands of times the number of nukes China does.

Anyway, my point is that war with China does not mean instantly pulling out of everywhere else. Our military used to be designed to fight two full scale wars on different fronts simultaneously. While that isn't our policy anymore enough forces remain that we could do it provided we were willing to accept the pain it'd cause our allies.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

thousands of times the number of nukes? (none / 1) (#106)
by shinshin on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:54:39 PM EST

Probably not, at least according to the Economist, which estimates that China currently has between 200-400 nukes, and the US has 5,235. Not that it matters, though: the difference is large enough that China would still suffer more from a nuclear exchange.

Personally, I don't see how a war with China could ever do anything except turn nuclear eventually.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

I think the preferential aborting of females (1.33 / 3) (#101)
by oilmoat on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:51:55 AM EST

in China could have interesting consequences. I'd post the stats but it's not new information & I'm sure you can find them if you want to.
I have IBPND. (I believe in people, not disorders.)
[ Parent ]
Cart before the horse (none / 0) (#118)
by Kasreyn on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 06:15:40 PM EST

The preferential aborting of females (as well as preferential female infanticide) is itself a consequence of overpopulation and attendant aggressive-male complexes. Ref. Marvin Harris.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
no war with china is possible, not now (2.40 / 5) (#6)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:45:52 AM EST

maybe 15 years ago. but now the economies are too tightly wound

china won't even go to war with japan. the suffering the chinese economy would take is too prohibitive

all hail sony, all hail walmart, bringers of world peace


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Will china attack and try to claim (none / 0) (#9)
by jangledjitters on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:19:31 AM EST

taiwan? If so, what will happen?

hi
[ Parent ]
it's all risk versus benefit (2.33 / 3) (#12)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:41:45 AM EST

the technocrats in beijing are pretty level headed. right now, attacking taiwan is more risk than benefit

however, if there is political unrest in china, and the old guard in beijing is swept aside, anyone who gains power might try the classic domestic unrest diversion: attack anothe country

what that doe sis focus people's patriotism and takes their mind off of troubles at home

if such a china ever came to pass, it's fuckloads of misery for all of their neighbors: japan, russia, philippines, etc.

hopefully we'll see a peaceful transition to democracy, and not a bumpy one


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

risk and benefit? (none / 1) (#15)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:22:47 AM EST

You think like a lobbyist, and that's the surest proof that youre wrong. This is not Washington you;re talking about, but the ideologically motivated central committee of the Communist Party. Remember them, the ones that ordered the massacre of thousands of students in Tiananmen Sq ca. 1989? (When the "reforms" were already in full swing, I might add). Obviously no benefit in that, and all risk too...Well, they did it anyway didn't they?

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
What was the cost? (3.00 / 2) (#22)
by svampa on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:22:02 AM EST

Did USA or Europe or Japan or Russia declared the war to China because of Tiananmen? Perhaps, did they asked for an embargo? did they even break diplomatic relations with China?

It was for free, so benefit-cost was clearly positive. It wasn't a idelogic crazy movement, it was an effective cold action of repression to continue ruling the country as they like it. They succedeed.



[ Parent ]

good point (2.00 / 2) (#74)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:05:42 PM EST

because of the media, the cost was both positive and negative--people like u and I (outsiders?) know that the PRC is a repressive regime, as do the students and possible future victims. (It was a warning to them). After Tiananmen, no one can feasibly dispute that the PRC is not a repressive, brutal regime...the problem is that (because of $$) not enough people want to make the argument that it is.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
Risk versus benefit for USA (none / 1) (#23)
by svampa on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:41:12 AM EST

How risky would be for USA to attack China?

It's easier to defend than to attack. China should have to face an attack, but USA should move troops etc.

China is not Iraq that was unarmed against air attacks. I don't know the real level of China technology, forces and defence, but I am sure it could stand and air attack from USA for much longer time that Iraq did. At least, enough to damage seriously USA economy.

China will thing twice before attacking Taiwan, and USA would think ten times before attacking China, it is a strong foe to clash against because of Taiwan. Probably, the future of Taiwan would be similar to Tibet.



[ Parent ]
yeah taiwan belongs in china (none / 1) (#37)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:41:21 AM EST

and beijing is doing it the right way: rather than flailing about weakly and spastically about the issue every few years, inviting all sorts of foreign invasions and condemnation, the chinese are just quietly becoming a 500, 600, 800, 1000 pound gorilla

pretty soon, china will be so powerful, it pretty much gets whatever the fuck it wants, and ain't nobody, even the usa, can say a damn thing about it


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

YFI (none / 1) (#13)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:06:09 AM EST

you forgot to add..."unless Taiwan declares independence." The Chinese themselves say this means war, and the Taiwan Relations Act will all but compel the US to defend TW.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
Perhaps I'm cynical... (2.66 / 3) (#18)
by Psycho Dave on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:02:32 AM EST

But I think that if it came down to "support Taiwanese independence and thus war with China" vs. letting China reclaim their rogue province and keeping our Wal-Marts filled with cheap goods, the US would probably sell out Taiwan in a heartbeat.

Which is sad, because I wholeheartedly support military action to keep Taiwan independent. The US should do everything in it's power to support existing democracies around the world.

[ Parent ]

that's what I worry about (none / 0) (#83)
by nostalgiphile on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:29:00 AM EST

but I hope it turns out that we are both wrong and the US would rise to the occasion to defend a country it's quite badly wronged in the past...The best solution is probably just to ask TW if it wants to be annexed or made a permanent protectorate of the US, but that probably isn't happening in my lifetime.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
Probably not (none / 1) (#21)
by starX on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:59:00 AM EST

The problem with a war between the US and China is that it would be very bad for business, and both countries seem to be run by quasi-sane people who are more interested in profit and luxury than in propagating nutcase ideology. There is a symbiosis between the two economies that would be left completely in tatters by anything approaching a war. It's one of the reasons why the US doesn't ask too many questions about apparent human rights abuses in China.

The Iranians getting nukes scares me because they're still basically run by a nutcase religious sect. On the other hand, I have a feeling that Israel won't let it happen, no matter what the US does or doesn't do, and the US will always support Israel in the end.

"I like you starX, you disagree without sounding like a fanatic from a rock-solid point of view. Highfive." --WonderJoust
[ Parent ]

I would agree with you, but (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by Metamorphorical Rock on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:39:06 AM EST

given that I don't think even the US has the capability to really force Iran to stop, I don't think Israel is capable of it either. The reputation of the Mossad notwithstanding, it's not at all clear to me that Israel knows where most of Iran's nuclear facilities are located any more than the US does, and airstrikes would be difficult even if they did. It's not a case of them only having one reactor like it was in Iraq.

[ processed instant god ]
[ Parent ]
Israel isn't that subtle (none / 0) (#47)
by starX on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:53:05 PM EST

I have this funky feeling that, faced with the prospect of a nuclear Iran, Israel would strike first. They'll try assassinations and sabotage first, but without an ocean between them and their mortal enemies, I don't think they'll have so many reservations about making Iran glow in the dark.

Then again, Olmert isn't as brazen as Sharon, so history may prove me wrong.

"I like you starX, you disagree without sounding like a fanatic from a rock-solid point of view. Highfive." --WonderJoust
[ Parent ]

Maybe IHBT, but they aren't that stupid. (none / 1) (#68)
by Metamorphorical Rock on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:29:24 PM EST

If they nuked Iran before Iran even got the bomb they would have to nuke the entire Arab world and then survive inside the virtual prison camp that their country would become. I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to nuke first if they felt that Iran was actually about to pull the trigger, but they are perfectly aware that doing it any earlier would end the Israeli state just as surely as waiting too long would.

[ processed instant god ]
[ Parent ]
That's what I'm saying... (none / 1) (#71)
by starX on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:44:45 PM EST

If Iran makes a nuke, and Israel can't manage to stop it via the Mossad or some other tactical strike, they will use a nuke. I don't think they want to, I don't think they would like the repercussions, but they have survived onslaught form the rest of the Arab world before. Iran has officially declared that they want to wipe Israel off the map. I don't think the Israelis would even take the chance on Iran having a nuclear weapon within striking distance.

There would be a lot of nasty consequences, and not just from the Arab world, to be sure, but they have to be playing the odds here. Israel has given the rest of the Arab world a sound thwumpin' before. A nuclear weapon is a whole new animal. I think they're very smart, and that a long line of assassination attempts, covert ops, and other military action would come first, but when push comes to shove, they're simply not going to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Hell, Iran's finger is on the button, and they haven't even loaded the silo yet.

"I like you starX, you disagree without sounding like a fanatic from a rock-solid point of view. Highfive." --WonderJoust
[ Parent ]

There would certainly be a strike (none / 1) (#70)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:55:15 PM EST

But not a nuclear one. It would be an air strike, like the one that put an end to the Iraqi nuclear program.

But it will fail. The Iranian nuclear program is not just one shitty reactor (or whatever that was). It will only hasten the upcoming war.

I'm not just making shit up. I just read the papers. Every time an IDF general is asked about the issue, that's what he says.

There might be a nuclear strike at some point. But only after a bloody war with Iran, and only if Israel will be on the brink of destruction.

Or if Iran already has nukes, and it will launch one at Israel.

[ Parent ]

who cares (2.25 / 4) (#4)
by GrubbyBeardedHermit on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:47:30 AM EST

bring on the hard rain already, I am prepared

GBH

hard rain: (none / 1) (#99)
by oilmoat on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:31:21 AM EST

http://www.amazon.com/Hard-Rain-Barry-Eisler/dp/B00030KOP8/
I have IBPND. (I believe in people, not disorders.)
[ Parent ]
I've never seen the point in denying it. (2.87 / 8) (#5)
by the spins on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:44:10 AM EST

It's like that bit in Dr. Strangelove: "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"

 _
( )
 X
/ \ SUPPORT THE DEL GRIFFITH MODBOMBING CAMPAIGN

The only point to denying their existence... (3.00 / 2) (#16)
by Psycho Dave on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 04:45:10 AM EST

Would be to discourage other Middle Eastern states from pursuing nuclear weapons. If Israel officially has the bomb, it becomes more palatable to the international community for their enemies to possess them.

[ Parent ]
A brilliant and funny dark comedy /nt (none / 0) (#25)
by 1419 on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:15:19 AM EST



[ Parent ]
i'm pessimistic (2.20 / 10) (#7)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:52:20 AM EST

on some problems, a person can be reasoned with

but on other problems, a person can't be reasoned with, they are too emotional. then only a slap in the face will work

what i am saying is, the middle east is too emotional about its problems. therefore, only violence will actually bring about a solution to the problems

of course, violence in the middle east is a daily occurence. such that not just any violent event will do... only something truly catalclysmic will finally put the conflicts to rest

look at europe: wwi and wwii were required to exhaust the imperialistic appetites of the europeans. now the europeans are all hardcore peaceniks. but it required a great shedding of european blood to make euros look into their souls and disavow their bloodlust. if wwi and wwii didn't happen, europeans would still be imperialistic bastards

likewise, it will require millions of deaths in the middle east before the same happens there, mark my words

my heart doesn't like what i just wrote, but my brain tells me this is so :-(


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

same goes for USians. (2.66 / 6) (#20)
by vivelame on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:39:00 AM EST

you'll have to die by the millions to stop trying to fuck the world over.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
that's assuming something (2.50 / 4) (#36)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:38:47 AM EST

that we were busy invading canada, cuba and mexico (our neighbors), or busy slaughtering each other by the thousands

that would be the proper parallel to the middle east/ pre wwii europe

we did go through those bouts of madness: in the 1840s/ 1860s

meanwhile, force projection: sending thousands to vietnam, thousands to korea, thousands to iraq, thousands to europe, thousands against japan, philippines, is something the usa will never be cured of, because it's a totally different thing

rather, the reverse is true: other countries start acting like the usa that way

hint: it's called the un (albeit a un with a backbone)

the world should be invading darfur as of yesterday

the only we reason we are not is the un is weak, and so thousands needlessly suffer because the world community does not yet have any moral backbone

the reason iraq happened is not so much that the usa was willing to act unilaterally, but because the world at large doesn't have the backbone yet to act multilaterally, on just about anything, even obvious cases like rwanda, iraq under saddam, darfur, zimbabwe, myanmar, norht korea, etc.

until the un develops a real backbone, expect nothing but more unilateral action in the world, from the usa, as well as china, india, etc.

the problem is not that the usa acts unilaterally. the usa wouldn't have to act at all. if the international community actually had some fucking clout. clout it gets by actually DOING SOMETHING ABOUT REAL PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD

why aren't we in darfur? we should have been there years ago

the un has no backbone, it is mired in bureacratic bullshit and conflicting agendas

multilateralism is a mirage. that the world can't even get it's fucking act together on something as fucking obvious as the need to intervene in darfur is the reason that the usa acted unilaterally, and will act unilaterally again

the usa doesn't need to stop slow down and stop acting unilaterally, the fucking internaitonal community needs to speed up and get with the program: the obvious fucking areas of madness int he world that need an international miliary presence

if they won't do it, big old bad usa will

and that's not the usa's fualt, that's the world's fault for not stepping up to the plate when they need to

because you have failed, the usa acts the way it does

get with the program: intervene miliarily in darfur, or shut the fuck up


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

For all the ranting... (none / 1) (#91)
by dissonant on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:55:48 PM EST

...and frequently nonsensical or naive and facile approaches I've often heard you take, this post is absolutely, dead on, 100% right.

Thank you CTS.  I knew there had to be something we agreed on.

[ Parent ]

actually, shinshin's answer is better. (nt) (none / 0) (#127)
by vivelame on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 02:52:57 PM EST



--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
You act as if the UN were some sort of (2.50 / 2) (#107)
by shinshin on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:51:06 PM EST

autonomous body. It's not. Especially in regards to security affairs, saying "the UN refuses to act" is equivalent to saying "the US, UK, France, Russia, and China refuse to act" (since they are the 5 veto-wielding members of the Security Council).

It's not that the body itself is flawed in this regard (although many other aspects of it are flawed), it's that the member states are indifferent. The UN does make a good scapegoat for their inaction, though. It's just disappointing to hear so many people parroting the right-wing "blame anyone else first" propaganda.

You want to intervene in Darfur? Quit whining about international organizations and start lobbying your government.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

european are powerless wimps (1.66 / 3) (#24)
by V on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:07:40 AM EST

nothing to do with bloodlust.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]

Don't you ever get tired (none / 1) (#126)
by PrinceSausage on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 08:36:34 AM EST

of talking out your ass?

look at europe: wwi and wwii were required to exhaust the imperialistic appetites of the europeans. now the europeans are all hardcore peaceniks. but it required a great shedding of european blood to make euros look into their souls and disavow their bloodlust. if wwi and wwii didn't happen, europeans would still be imperialistic bastards

Yeah, I am sure that seems perfectly logical to everyone who died in the wars for liberation that took place AFTER WWII. The french army certainly were a bunch of peace loving hippies in the fifties. Oh yes.

Seriously.

[ Parent ]

Do you think Israel will test? (2.50 / 4) (#8)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:14:05 AM EST

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Israel tested a bomb sometime soon.

They are estimated to possess hundreds of bombs, possibly even hydrogen bombs, but they've never tested any. They can't be completely sure they will work.

And it would send quite a statement.

Israel also has submarines.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


Interesting question... (3.00 / 4) (#26)
by claes on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:27:15 AM EST

Insane as it is, nuclear arms makes for some interesting puzzles. Is Israel better off lighting one off, or will this just goad the Iranians on to light their own off? What happens after that?

Also, I thought Israel and South Africa DID test-fire a nuke about 15 years back. At least that's one explanation for The Vela Incident

-- claes

[ Parent ]

Pretty sure Israel's nukes work (none / 0) (#61)
by LilDebbie on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:50:53 PM EST

Consider how many Russian Jews emigrated to Israel after the fall of the Soviet Union. Wouldn't be terribly surprised if one or two of them worked on Russia's arsenal.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
I would (none / 1) (#69)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:39:42 PM EST

Jews were not allowed to hold "sensitive" jobs.

And since in the USSR, more or less everything important was "sensitive"... Let's just say that being a Jew in Soviet Russia wasn't the greatest thing in the world.

[ Parent ]

yea but (none / 0) (#73)
by khallow on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:00:02 PM EST

Yes, but were they considered Jews at the time? As I feebly grok it, the USSR definition counted only thosse who openly practiced Judaism.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

USSR's definition was according to nationality (3.00 / 2) (#85)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:28:53 AM EST

There was a "nationality" section in the internal passport. If it said "Jewish", you're screwed.

Practicing Judaism was dangerous as well, but for slightly different reasons (afaik, practicing any kind of religion was somewhat risky).

[ Parent ]

There is the one on 1979... (2.50 / 2) (#82)
by hamingja on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:28:08 AM EST

detected by satellite in Africa, that it is believed to have involved Israel...
--
p(3)=0.3405373296... => even in an infinite universe, not everything is possible...
[ Parent ]
Why test? (none / 0) (#112)
by mindstrm on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:19:03 PM EST

You test when you are manufacturing your own weapons.

When you are buying tried and true tested neutron bombs from the US, you don't really need to test anything, your American friends have already tested for you.

[ Parent ]

No... (none / 0) (#141)
by mrt on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 04:20:52 AM EST

When you are buying tried and true tested neutron bombs from the US, you don't really need to test anything, your American friends have already tested for you.

That almost certainly isn't true. Conventional weapons yes, nukes no.
-

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
[ Parent ]

Yanks were against Israel's nukes (none / 0) (#144)
by it certainly is on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 03:43:08 PM EST

The US has never supplied Israel with nuclear technology. They supply shit-tons of conventional weapons, but that's because the US gives Israel money and then Israel immediately spends it on US weapons, being the go-between for blatant US corporate welfare.

The US have provided biological and chemical warfare samples to Israel, but they also supplied these things to Iraq. I guess they're not fussy about that.

Israel has nukes independently of America - France supplied the technology and knowledge (as it also did for Iraq), Norway/UK supplied the heavy water, UK supplied a few grams of uranium/plutonium samples. Israel hid the technology from the Americans when they demanded inspections, Israel has then since been independently creating her own nukes in Dimona "desalination plant".

I can't remember the exact details, but experts suggested that based on the number of centrifuges and how long they've been going for, Israel could have produced about 700 small nukes by now.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Oh come on (3.00 / 10) (#10)
by cburke on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:21:36 AM EST

Is there anybody in a relevent part of the planet earth -- as in, not a traditional lifestyle native of the Amazon basin -- who was not already aware that Israel had nukes, regardless of how coy they were about it?

As if Tehran was sitting there thinking maybe they could get the bomb and drop it on Israel without any sort of retaliation in kind.  Oh wait, turns out Israel has the bomb too!  Scrap Operation Shiny Glass Jerusalem!

I would almost believe that it was a slip, as one might forget that you weren't supposed to tell anyone you had two functioning legs despite the entire room having seen you walking around.

My thoughts exactly... (none / 1) (#28)
by claes on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:29:44 AM EST

but I guess political-speak is a bit different. I don't think it was a calculated move, but then I'm just an engineer.

[ Parent ]
Oh come on, indeed (3.00 / 3) (#31)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:16:28 AM EST

Everybody does "know" that Israel has nukes. But the point of such a "slip-up" - which I'm sure it wasn't - is purely political posturing, increasing the stakes and a tacit warning. It's called "politics."

--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


[ Parent ]
I think you are right /nt (none / 0) (#34)
by 1419 on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:48:17 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Not interesting (2.00 / 2) (#11)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:37:00 AM EST

More or less every Israeli politician mentioned it in some way or another. That's why it's called "the vagueness policy" and not "the great secret".

Who's Next? (2.57 / 7) (#17)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 04:54:15 AM EST

by Tom Lehrer,
That Was The Year That Was
1965

First we got the bomb and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's O.K.,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way!
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears;
They can't wipe us out for at least five years!
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white!
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one, too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb!
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb!
Who's next, who's next, who's next?
Who's next?


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


Or my personal favorite... (3.00 / 4) (#29)
by claes on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:34:35 AM EST

Political Science by Randy Newman

No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Now Asia's crowded
And Europe's too old.
Africa's far too hot,
And Canada's too cold.
And South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us.

Bridge:
We'll save Australia;
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We'll build an all-American amusement park there;
They've got surfing, too.

Well, boom goes London,
And boom Paris.
More room for you
And more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.
Oh, how peaceful it'll be;
We'll set everybody free;
You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby,
There'll be Italian shoes for me.
They all hate us anyhow,
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now.

[ Parent ]

gotta nuke sumthin' (none / 1) (#42)
by tetsuwan on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:33:15 AM EST

right?

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

Given comments like these (1.66 / 6) (#35)
by ksandstr on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:06:39 AM EST

From a neighbouring country with a long history of not only xenophobia but also of de facto genocide and very very well demonstrated expansionist policies, I think Iran is very much in the right in pursuing nuclear technology. It's the ultimate deterrent, really. They've got a right to protect their people, just as any sovereign nation does.

On the other hand, I'm kind of thinking that Israel's politicos sound like they're planning to attack Iran in the next ten years or so. If they weren't, why would they have opposition towards a kinda-large neighbour of theirs getting the nuke, when belligerents such as India and Pakistan, both of whom being nuke-enabled, haven't as much as pointed them at one another? Sounds to me like Iran getting nuclear weapon capability would be a recipe for peace, rather than war, as far as Old Man History has any precedent.

Or maybe it's just that Israel wouldn't be able to proceed with the whole Apartheid, oppress the arabs, salt their fields with mines and/or unexploded cluster munitions, kind of thing if Iran was breathing down their neck with vague threats of deterioration of diplomatic relations (such as they'd be between two nuke-enabled nations). Sucks to be a zionist, eh.

Fin.

let me ask you something (1.40 / 5) (#39)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:52:20 AM EST

what would you have israel do? allow itself to be pushed into the sea?

you're very keen to see all of the viciousness of the israelis, which i don't deny

but you have a colossal blindness about the viciousness of those who oppose the israelis

this is what i say: i don't support israel. fuck israel

but saying that doens't mean i somehow think iran is some sort of glowing beacon of peace and goodness

no: iran is just as much of an insane threat as israel

why do we have to love either israel or iran?

can't we hate both?

why do retards like you think that hating israel means you have to embrace a censoring nuke pursuing theocracy like iran?

can't you hate both?

did that ever occur to you retard?

i thought life was about pricniples. i didn't know it was retarded teamsports like you think it is

silly me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Request for information (none / 0) (#142)
by mrt on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 04:23:56 AM EST

How o how do I filter your comments out?

While there are many different kinds of trolls and assholes on K5, you are simply unbearable.
-

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
[ Parent ]

Learn the history of Israel (2.42 / 7) (#40)
by minerboy on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:06:50 AM EST

In 1967 they were blockaded (which led to the '67 war), and in 1972 they were directly attacked by neighboring Arab countries. At other times, they have been subject to a barrage of terrorist style attacks against civilian populations - a few of which have goaded the Israelis into wider conflicts.

To claim Israel is expansionist is laughable, given their population size, who will settle all this new land ? In fact, During the '67 war, Israel could have easily rolled on to Damascus, and Aman, slaughtering everything in their path. It is true they took the Golan Heights, and Shebaa Farms, which are important strategic locations, but this was for tactical advantage, not the empire expansion idea you throw out there.

To think that Iran is interested in Nukes only for defensive purposes is also laughable, when you consider the degree to which Iran supports violent palistinian groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. It is almost a certainty that they provided the missles fired indiscriminantly at the Israeli population, and that were hidden within the lebanese population, it becomes clear the amount of innocent death and destruction brought to the world by Iran.



[ Parent ]
Take a look at a map: (2.20 / 5) (#62)
by Joe Sixpack on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 04:39:58 PM EST

From a neighbouring country

Iran and Israel are not neighbouring countries.

You have to go through all of Iraq and then all of Jordan (or Iraq-->Syria-->Lebanon) in order to get to Israel. In that region that counts as far away.

with a long history of not only xenophobia but also of de facto genocide

Ignoring that a country who only exists since 1948 can't have a long history of anything, calling the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict a genocide is ignorant at best. The fact that there are significantly more Palestinians today that there were in 1967 is one of many proofs it isn't.

The fact that even in the worst years of the conflict there were no more then a couple thousands Palestinien casualties (and usually not more then a few hundreds) for a population of millions is another.

It's a war, but it's not a genocide.

---
[ MONKEY STEALS THE PEACH ]
[ Parent ]

lol @ conspiracy theories (none / 1) (#81)
by Delirium on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:56:03 PM EST

TEH JEWS GONNA COLONIZE PERSIA

[ Parent ]
"Wiped off map" -> "This ... (2.83 / 6) (#41)
by A Bore on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:29:14 AM EST

...regime must be removed from the page of history"

Not as visceral or aggressive, but a fairer translation of the Persian idiom. In fact, I'm surprised this debunked talking point is still doing the rounds, but then, hey, it's the latest official enemy, isn't it?

Please cite your source... (none / 0) (#77)
by gr3y on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:37:13 PM EST

persian-farsi only, no translation.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

From (none / 0) (#108)
by shinshin on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:00:56 PM EST

Juan Cole: Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

I translate it a little differently... (none / 1) (#114)
by gr3y on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:03:31 PM EST

"een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad":

"this regime occupying [this sacred place] must be obliterated from the page[s] of history."

No, it's not an idiomatic expression. The use of "qods" for "Jerusalem" might be, however. It means "holy" or "sacred," and when used to describe a place means "sacred place."

"ishghalgar-e" means "having occupation of," and it's been translated as occupying, but the connotation is "invading."

"ruzgar" means "having days," and has a connotation of "for the ages," "for all time," or "for eternity," so I've translated it into a more fitting English expression: "pages of history," although "safheh" is singular.

And "mahv shodan" definitely means to be wiped out, obliterated, or eliminated. It can't be translated as "vanish." "Vanish" doesn't have the same connotation. To wipe something out is an aggressive act, but "mahv shodan" is passive, describing someone wiping out something, not something "disappearing." Americans joke about "disappearing" someone, but it's not proper English because "disappear" isn't properly a "do to" verb - its intransitive.

Yes, I speak Farsi.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

Well, I don't speak Farsi (none / 0) (#116)
by shinshin on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:58:24 PM EST

so all I know is what I read elsewhere. Anyway, they seem to agree with what you are saying, but in any case, the important distinction remains: "Israel must be wiped off the face of the map" suggests that Iran will nuke Israel as the first possible moment, whereas "the occupation regime over Jerusalem must [vanish from/be eliminated from] the page of time" suggests a less overt aggressiveness.

Which isn't to say that Iran isn't hostile to Israel: of course it is. But when people blatantly make up false translations as part of a broader set of agitations for another war in the Middle East, the record needs to be corrected, which is something that wasn't done enough in the run up to the Iraq war.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

From what gr3y said (none / 0) (#125)
by nidarus on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:17:28 AM EST

The only substantial difference in that translation was that he called Israel "The Regime Occupying Jerusalem". Which is obvious, since calling it "Israel" would imply that he recognizes Israel as a political entity (it sounds like I'm making this up, but this kind of bizarre shit is actually pretty common).

"Wiping of the map" and "Wiping from the pages of history" are more or less equivalent, since both are idiomatic expressions, and we don't know if "wiping from the pages of history" is better or worse than "wiping of the map" (maybe gr3y can help here too?)

[ Parent ]

first -1 (1.40 / 5) (#50)
by cDiss on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:14:42 PM EST

for reasons stated below

True to your word /nt (none / 0) (#51)
by 1419 on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:15:37 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Hilarious (1.00 / 6) (#52)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:33:07 PM EST

StarX voted +1FP so that 1419 would +1FP him back. LOL

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.

Hey Egil (none / 0) (#53)
by 1419 on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:52:34 PM EST

I can feel your pain and confusion. It's hard being you sometimes and that's ok.

We all have feelings and I know that sometimes things like this can be hard to understand.

[ Parent ]

Wow, that stings. (none / 1) (#54)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:55:25 PM EST

This bee just stung me.

What were you saying?

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Don't make me (none / 0) (#57)
by 1419 on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:21:58 PM EST


angry!

[ Parent ]
+1FP Jewrabs with bombs (1.00 / 4) (#64)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:01:22 PM EST

But serially, all of my Jew mates that have lived or visited Israel in the last 10-15 years KNOW that their Jewrab buddies have nukes. It's been common knowledge for a long time. After all, you need to have military personell guarding that shit and everyone in Israel is in the military so it's not like you're going to be able to keep that a secret for long...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
"Jewrabs"? Huh? (3.00 / 2) (#66)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:10:02 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Huh yeah! (3.00 / 3) (#67)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:16:48 PM EST

Jewrabs are Jews that live in the Middle East... What are you, racist?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
So, living in the Middle East = being an Arab? (none / 0) (#86)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:31:24 AM EST

To me it looked like an unintentional jab at oriental jews.

In any case it's pretty lame.

[ Parent ]

What's lame... (3.00 / 3) (#95)
by D Jade on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:33:28 PM EST

... is your response to it.

Firstly, I didn't call them Arabs, I called them Jewrabs.

Secondly, it's a distinction between a Jew from anywhere else and a Jew from the Middle East (which is an aRAB region). This is much like Indian Australians are referred to as Australindians and so on.

Thirdly, if you take such a comment as a jab at the Jews (which you call oriental? Please!) then it's more a reflection on your feelings towards Arabs than it is a reflection of my racism. The Arab nations are the cornerstone of modern civilisation. They developed primitive agriculture, trade, bronze working, and the concept of zero. The modern numeracy and mathematics were all based on the Arab decimal system which introduced the concept of zero. Prior to that there was no way to measure nothing and therefore no way to make the complex calculations that we rely on today. Aside from these contributions, the Arab nations have had a vast and rich culture that has existed throughout the ages and has made many cultural contributions beyond their scientific discoveries.

If you think that a wordplay associating a group of people with the Arab nation is an insult then you must really hate Arabs or you're just a racist. The Arabs have certainly contributed more good to this world than the Jewish nation (indisputable fact).

Throughout history it's been well-documented that the Jews have been poorly treated by other, much greater nations - Egyptians, Persians, Romans et cetera - nations who have contributed far more to the greater good both in a cultural and scientific sense. Now that I think about it, I can see how the word Jewrab would be offensive. If I was an Arab I definitely would not want my heritage associated with a group of people who have only ever complained about their shortcomings instead of beign proactive and contributing something to society.

But hey, you're a racist, so the facts don't mean a thing to you. Do they?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Troll rating 7/10 (3.00 / 2) (#96)
by Spendocrat on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:04:17 PM EST

This is pretty good. You start off sounding kind of reasonable, like you're a minor dick trying to get a rise out of someone or just a regular K5 reader out looking for an Internet Fight. Then bam, you hit us with the crazy anti-Jew propaganda at the end. I might be slow today, but I wasn't expecting it.

Good job.

Also, in case you're serious: You are stupid if you think Jews haven't contributed to science and culture. Major portions of physics and math for the past couple hundred years at least (maybe more, I don't know about farther back) have come from Jewish researchers.

[ Parent ]

Thanks matey... (2.00 / 2) (#98)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:25:15 AM EST

... I just took umbrage to the fact that it's apparently racist to call a Jewish person living in the Middle East a Jewrab. I just don't like it when people slur the good name of Allah's people. I was complementing the Jewish people of the region.

As for their cultural/scientific contribution: well they sure have made a lot of movies that I like :-P

BTW - I was taking the piss... bored at work and got a biter...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

what the jews contributed to the world: (2.00 / 2) (#102)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:28:39 AM EST

monotheism

which gave birth to larger monotheisms: christianity, islam

what monotheism is: the uniting of religion and fascism

so, for introducing monotheism into the world, jews should be severely punished


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

don't forget communism n/t (2.00 / 2) (#103)
by crazy canuck on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:58:29 AM EST



[ Parent ]
So then it wasn't really monotheism was it? (none / 1) (#110)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:57:18 PM EST

Did they kill all of the other gods? No.

Last time I checked Vishnu and Ganesha were still alive matey.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

you shall have no false idols before you (none / 1) (#115)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:04:11 PM EST

yes, the pantheon of gods in india still are worshipped

but the pantheon of gods in rome and greece have been murdered

give the monotheists time my friend, they're working on those pesky hindus. it takes time to murder a robust pantheon

just think how hard it would have been for the christians to murder the roman pantheon if constantine didn't have that vision of the cross after that meal of refried beans?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yeah damn! (none / 0) (#121)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 07:54:29 PM EST

He sure edited that Bible well... It's a shame that the Christians who left the Catholic church were still too blind to accept the lost books and all... ah well...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
They invented it (none / 0) (#124)
by nidarus on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:10:05 AM EST

But it was the Christians that decided that everybody on the planet should follow it, whether they want it or not.

In my opinion, that's the most troubling aspect of modern monotheism.

[ Parent ]

I can't believe your nerve... (none / 0) (#129)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 05:50:33 PM EST

... Sure, you hate everyone that's not Jewish.
But it was the Christians that decided that everybody on the planet should follow it, whether they want it or not.

Ah no, I think it was the Jewish community that set that precedent when they killed Jesus for not following their religion. . . or are you going to blame that one the Arabs as well?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Fuck off moron (none / 1) (#132)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 04:54:26 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Oh now you hate Mormons as well? (none / 0) (#136)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 05:24:11 PM EST

Ooh lordy is there any ethnic/religious group you do tolerate outside of the Jewish nation?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
6/10 - kinda funny instead of just tedious (none / 0) (#137)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 08:02:27 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Oh so now you're trying to be nice to me... (none / 0) (#138)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 08:08:38 PM EST

... look I don't think people around here are really going to care about your ethnic and racial intolerance man.

But this hot/cold routine you've got going on is rather unsettling. It seems like you're now trying to turn things around and make it look like I'm the racist bigot... That shit don't fly with me matey...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

... and back to tedious (none / 1) (#139)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 11:05:16 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I can't handle this hot and cold treatment... (none / 0) (#140)
by D Jade on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 07:03:43 PM EST

... You seem mentally disturbed matey.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
If you can't take the heat (and the cold)... (none / 0) (#143)
by nidarus on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 05:55:43 AM EST



[ Parent ]
First of all, Oriental Jews (none / 1) (#120)
by nidarus on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 03:55:20 PM EST

..are Jews from the Arab countries, compared to Ashkenazi Jews, that come from Europe.

Second, I took it as a jab at the Arabs, because you seemed to mock the Jews by comparing them to Arabs (kinda like using "gay" to mean "lame").

And third, you're a moron and a sub-standard troll.

[ Parent ]

So what's with the reply? (none / 0) (#122)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 11:20:16 PM EST

Are you that stupid as well?

I believe the correct term for Jews from the Middle East is something like Mizrahi actually. It would seem, by your logic, that calling them Oriental Jews (thus associating them with Asians) is just as inappropriate as calling them Jewrabs.

However, that doesn't deal with the fact that many of those populating Israel are descended from Ashkenazi Jews who emigrated there over the 20th Century. Actually, wasn't it the Ashkenazi contingent that established the Israel as a nation? In fact, isn't it still an ongoing issue that there is an overwhelming Ashkenazi contingent in the Israeli establishment? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that there's a vast socioeconomic gap between the Ashkenazi and the Mizrahi living in Israel.

Fortunately, those Mizrahi can step up by marrying into an Ashkenazi family.

But taking the term Jewrab (which is far more accurate than the term Oriental) really just shows that you have a low, albeit racist, opinion of people of Arab descent.

"gay" to mean "lame"

I fail to see how using the word gay is anything like the term Jewrab. Firstly, if I had a gay day time in the park as described in classic English literature, well that's what I'd call lame. It's only appropriate that I would use the same word for other events that conjure the same feeling as that gay day we had in Hyde park last summer, sipping tea.

And third, you're a moron and a sub-standard troll.

Yet you're the one trying to point out the errors of my ways with further slurs against both the Jews and the Arabs of the region... Nice logic...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Mizrachi means "Oriental" in Hebrew (none / 1) (#123)
by nidarus on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:08:09 AM EST

Mizrach means "East". And "stepping up" by marrying Ashkenazim? Are you writing this from the 1960s?

OK, so you don't know Hebrew, or, say, anything about Israeli society. That's fine. But why do you argue with me? As an Israeli I know about these things a little more than you.

As for the "gay"="lame" - it's disturbing to see that such a simple analogy went right over your head. What I meant is that by making a mocking statement about the Jews by comparing them to the Arabs, you're being racist towards the Arabs, just like using "gay" as a general pejorative is homophobic.

But I'm not saying that it's overtly racist. I'm just saying that it's not witty, and has (probably unintentional) racist overtones, and as such, is a lame expression.

And I called you a moron and sub-standard troll because you did make an overtly racist statement at the end of your comment.

[ Parent ]

So you think Arabs are gay? (none / 0) (#128)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 05:25:26 PM EST

Man, you're a racist and a bigot. I made a simple comparison (quite complementary to Israelis) and you're attacking me because you hate Arabs. I haven't been arguing with you either. I just find myself shocked at your vicious attack of the Arab people. I think it's disgraceful.

You're right, compared to you I probably know nothing about Israeli society. I'm not arguing with you. You've taken your biases towards the Arabs and turned a simple off-hand comment into a racial slur. All this does is highlight your hatred towards Arab people (and you're the one telling me I'm stuck in the past).

What I think is lame is the racial hatred you keep spouting here. It's really disturbing and if your attitude is the norm round your way then I can clearly see why everything's so fucked up. You need to stop calling other people racist for making an innocent comment. I think need to realise that your racist attitudes towards Arabs has caused you to see a racial message where there is none.

So Jewrab isn't witty? Well I tell you matey, it's much more witty than your comment that Arabs are gay... Gee, that was really witty coming from a racist gay-hater like yourself...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I made my point. Feel free to fuck off. (none / 1) (#133)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 05:19:35 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Dude I've been trying to for a week... (none / 0) (#135)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 05:23:16 PM EST

... but you keep coming back at me with your racist and homophobic beliefs. I really wish you would fuck off because I find all of the hate you're bringing to this site to be quite disturbing.

Maybe if you stopped judging everyone outside of your own little group of people you, as a group, wouldn't be in the shit you're in today. But I'm guessing you're from a family of haters and when the hate you display is so deeply rooted in your psyche and I don't have much hope that you'll ever be a tolerant human being...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

It wasn't a secret really (none / 1) (#113)
by mindstrm on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:20:38 PM EST

They never pretended NOT to have them, they were just purposely vague when speaking publicly about it.

[ Parent ]
Which is as good as... (none / 0) (#130)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 05:52:51 PM EST

... neither confirming nor denying is neither saying yes or no, thus obscuring the truth and keeping it secret...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Media, politics, and the telephone game (2.00 / 2) (#65)
by levesque on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:24:56 PM EST

Fighting Words

Does Iran's President...

Has the same kind of thing that happened to the Pope's Mohammed comment once it had reached the Middle East also happened to Ahmadinejad's comments once they reached the West.

I don't really see a huge difference in (2.50 / 2) (#72)
by 1419 on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:56:49 PM EST

"remove from the page of time" and "wipe off the map". It's not like it was supposed to mean "we love Israel and want to be friends" and it was translated as "kill them bastards!"

TRADUTTORE, TRADITORE!

[ Parent ]

It's neither (none / 1) (#76)
by levesque on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:30:21 PM EST

It's not like it was supposed to mean "we love Israel and want to be friends" and it was translated as "kill them bastards!"

extreme

"remove from the page of time" and "wipe off the map"

sub sets

"Like the Soviet communist regime was remouve from east germany", the idea of regime not the physical or populus

[ Parent ]

well it wasn't an (none / 1) (#80)
by 1419 on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:42:52 PM EST

affirmation of Israel's right to exist...

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0) (#89)
by levesque on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:23:36 PM EST

and it wasn't a recipe for apple pie

:)

[ Parent ]

Excerpts from the second link (none / 0) (#92)
by levesque on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:02:56 PM EST

Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?

"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."

"Imam [Khomeini] said: This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

literally translated: from the arena of times

The formulation 'wipe off the map' used by the 'New York Times' is a very free and aggravating interpretation which is equivalent to 'razing something to the ground' or 'annihilating something'. The downwelling translation, first into English ('wipe off the map'), then from English to German - and all literally ('von der Landkarte löschen') - makes us stride away from the original more and more.

Does Iran's President deny the Holocaust?

CNN (2005-12-15) renders as follows: "If you have burned the Jews why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"



[ Parent ]
this is why I think all translations should (none / 1) (#100)
by oilmoat on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:49:19 AM EST

have special translation quotation marks rather than the standard quotation marks. I've seen small double angled brackets in fiction, previously.
I have IBPND. (I believe in people, not disorders.)
[ Parent ]
Holocaust denial (none / 0) (#105)
by Delirium on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:11:01 AM EST

He does also say what you quoted: that "even if" the Holocaust happened, that doesn't justify Israel's existence. But he also considers whether the Holocaust actually happened to be in serious question, to the extent that he's called an international conference to "review" the evidence for it, with talks given by renowned scholars like David Duke.

[ Parent ]
ohun ? (none / 0) (#109)
by levesque on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:43:00 PM EST

renowned scholars like David Duke ?

I've seen Ahmadinejad doubting something about the holocaust, but I haven't seen anything on wether he believes in another number than 6 million.

About Duke, I also could not find a link of how many Jews he believes died in WW2

Does he or other "deniers" actually believe Jews were not killed ? That seems impossible. I haven't ever seen or heard any numbers mentionned all I've seen in the press, or coming out of "denial trials", is they are guilty of "Holocaust denial". I did hear a historian, about twenty years ago, say that whether 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 million Jews were killed is not something that may be studied at this point in time.

[ Parent ]

And the use of the term Israel (none / 0) (#93)
by levesque on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:25:08 PM EST

can be confounding, "Israel's right to exist"

If Iran does not want to deal with the Israeli goverment -as the Israeli goverment does not want to deal with Hamas- how would the sentiment "I don't want to deal with (recognize) the Israeli goverment" get translated in the Western press.

[ Parent ]

Why wouldn't they admit it? (none / 1) (#90)
by ginnyJenny on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:55:20 PM EST

Everyone knows anyway, and it's not like Israel cares too much about the international community's feelings about what they do/don't do.

maybe it would make the US nuclear anti (none / 1) (#94)
by 1419 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:35:40 PM EST

proliferation efforts appear to be selective?

Maybe their ambiguity was to hide something they didn't have (bluff)?

I am sure there's a dissertation out there or five explaining it.

[ Parent ]

I noticed that too on Democracy Now, of all places (none / 0) (#104)
by nictamer on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:43:23 AM EST

... not usually a parangon of ardent zionism, to say the least.

Amy Goodman announces that the Iranian president wants "Israel wiped off the map", cue in footage of the speech, and the translator clearly says "zionist regime", not Israël.

I don't know what he actually said in farsi, but why the discrepancy between the comment and the translation?

--
Religion is for sheep.

A slip maybe (none / 0) (#111)
by mindstrm on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:15:57 PM EST

but was there ever any true ambiguity that Israel had purchased nuclear weapons?

Maybe I'm clueless, but I thought this was pretty much a known fact for the last 10 years or so.

Smoking hole in ground (none / 0) (#117)
by Kurosawa Nagaya on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 01:37:40 AM EST

lol, what was thaT?

The reason for this is simple: we're all full of shit ~ circletimessquare

perhaps he (none / 1) (#119)
by wampswillion on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 03:04:21 PM EST

just thought it was finally time for iran to realize that israel does indeed have nuclear capacities of it's own.  and doesn't need the us?  

the only problem with this stance is to me a pretty fundemental one in the middle east situation.  while most people in the world actually value human life.   and will do what they can to protect their own lives or the lives of their "countryman"-  the nutjob factions of the islamic religion in iraq, iran, etc.   have no such sanctity for human life.   so israel maybe just upped the ante here.  

buti guess in the long run- i think it's good for iran and the rest of the world to hear that israel is not necessarily going to need us support.  


Medium (none / 0) (#145)
by marius on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:07:05 AM EST

i1 i2 i3 i4 i5 i6 i7 i8 i9 i10 i11 i12 i13 i14 i15 i16 i17 i18 i19 i20 i21 i22 i23 i24 i25 i26 i27 i28 i29 i30 i31 i32 i33 i34 i35 i36 i37 i38 i39 i40 i41 i42 i43 i44 i45 i46 i47 i48 i49 i50 i51 i52 i53 i54 i55 i56 i57 i58 i59 i60 i61 i62 i63 i64 i65 i66 i67 i68 i69 i70 i71 i72 i73 i74 i75 i76 i77 i78 i79 i80 i81 i82 i83 i84 i85 i86 i87 i88 i89 i90 i91 i92 i93 i94 i95 i96 i97 i98 i99 i100 i101 i102 i103 i104 i105 i106 i107 i108 i109 i110 i111 i112 i113 i114 i115 i116 i117 i118 i119 i120 i121 i122 i123 i124 i125 i126 i127 i128 i129 i130 i131 i132 i133 i134 i135 i136 i137 i138 i139 i140 i141 i142 i143 i144 i145 i146 i147 i148 i149 i150 i151 i152 i153 i154 i155 i156 i157 i158 i159 i160 i161 i162 i163 i164

A Slip of the Tongue: Israeli Nukes? | 144 comments (127 topical, 17 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!