Pakistan Next?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Disagree. I disagree with US foreign and economy policy, but the US and western would not be the most likely to use nuclear weapons. Too much to lose from doing this and there aren't any circumstances that make their use likely unless there was possibly some horrendous war of the largest military powers with which the very survival of particular countries was at stake.

Besides, use of nuclear weapons against other countries that aren't at war with the US and threaten the existence of the State would be counter to US interests.

If you think the US would lob a nuclear weapon in any other situation then I think that's deluded.

[Lxxx]

Disagree. I disagree with US foreign and economy policy, but the US and western would not be the most likely to use nuclear weapons. Too much to lose from doing this and there aren't any circumstances that make their use likely unless there was possibly some horrendous war of the largest military powers with which the very survival of particular countries was at stake.

Besides, use of nuclear weapons against other countries that aren't at war with the US and threaten the existence of the State would be counter to US interests.

If you think the US would lob a nuclear weapon in any other situation then I think that's deluded.

 

I'm not that deluded, hence my closing statement of 'overt or covert'. The US has a satellite 'state' in the middle east that wouldn't hesitate to use one, if they had one of course, as they won't declare to the world whether they have or haven't, a pathetic double standard state of affairs when you look at all the flack Iran is getting at the moment on the subject.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm not that deluded, hence my closing statement of 'overt or covert'. The US has a satellite 'state' in the middle east that wouldn't hesitate to use one, if they had one of course, as they won't declare to the world whether they have or haven't, a pathetic double standard state of affairs when you look at all the flack Iran is getting at the moment on the subject.

 

Israel is not a satellite state exactly, but one that has interests that require dependence on US military support and the US finds its advantageous to support Israel and it dependent on Israel for a significant degree of influence in the region. There is a mutual dependence on each other.

Nor are nuclear weapons needed from the US when Israel has them.

And Israel would hesitate to use a nuclear weapon! I find it quite baffling at how you seem to imply that the Israeli governmet would consider using a nuke against another Middle East country. It would be quite obvious were Israel to use a nuke and wouldn't be acceptable.

Were Israel to not seek approval for its use, which would never be granted anyway, all support for Israel would be removed completely and Israel would lose all its friends. Even the US wouldn't want to touch Israel.

 

Anyway, it wouldn't be in Israel's interest to use a nuke unless its survival was directly threatened by attack. That isn't going to happen. Not in the short- to medium- term anyway. The nukes are just a deterrence tool and an uncertain one at that.

 

Unless you are talking about a war situation, use of nukes by nation states is just fantasy in the current set-up.

[Lxxx]

I'm not that deluded, hence my closing statement of 'overt or covert'. The US has a satellite 'state' in the middle east that wouldn't hesitate to use one, if they had one of course, as they won't declare to the world whether they have or haven't, a pathetic double standard state of affairs when you look at all the flack Iran is getting at the moment on the subject.

 

Israel is not a satellite state, but one that has interests that require dependence on US support and the US finds its advantageous to support Israel. Nor are nuclear weapons needed from the US when Israel has them.

And Israel would hesitate to use a nuclear weapon! I find it quite baffling at how you seem to imply that the Israeli governmet would consider using a nuke against another Middle East country. It would be quite obvious were Israel to use a nuke and wouldn't be acceptable.

Were Israel to not seek approval for its use, which would never be granted anyway, all support for Israel would be removed completely and Israel would lose all its friends. Even the US wouldn't want to touch Israel.

 

Anyway, it wouldn't be in Israel's interest to use a nuke unless its survival was directly threatened by attack. That isn't going to happen. Not in the short- to medium- term anyway. The nukes are just a deterrence tool and an uncertain one at that.

 

Unless you are talking about a war situation, use of nukes by nation states is just fantasy in the current set-up.

 

In the current global setup the country most likely to officially use a nuke would be Israel. I'm not saying they will do as I believe the official use of nuclear weapons is a catalyst to global destruction, however with the zionist lunatics in charge of the asylum there anything is possible. In my opinion what is more likely is that we'll see a false flag use of tactical nuclear weapons i.e suitcase nuke, before we ever see another Hiroshima.

[Lxxx]

I'm not that deluded, hence my closing statement of 'overt or covert'. The US has a satellite 'state' in the middle east that wouldn't hesitate to use one, if they had one of course, as they won't declare to the world whether they have or haven't, a pathetic double standard state of affairs when you look at all the flack Iran is getting at the moment on the subject.

 

Israel is not a satellite state exactly, but one that has interests that require dependence on US military support and the US finds its advantageous to support Israel and it dependent on Israel for a significant degree of influence in the region. There is a mutual dependence on each other.

 

I would disagree;

 

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

The radio said Peres and other cabinet ministers warned Sharon against saying what he said in public, because "it would cause us a public relations disaster."

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So you think the USA is the satellite state?

 

In a limited sense, he is correct, Israel does have SOME control over US behaviour in Middle East given how important Israel is to the States. But the relationship is being tested more than it ever has. But this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

[Lxxx]

So you think the USA is the satellite state?

 

In a limited sense, he is correct, Israel does have SOME control over US behaviour in Middle East given how important Israel is to the States. But the relationship is being tested more than it ever has. But this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

 

No, I think that the same powers behind the US are behind the state of Israel. They are one and the same, following the same agenda, two sides of the same coin. Israel is a very young country, and the US and the UK were instrumental in the birth of the state of Israel. All three follow the same game plan, albeit in different forms due to the relative strengths and weaknesses of each country and their standing and influence in the world....

 

...and of course it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. My comment was merely that the only country to have used one in the past was the US, therefore based on track record they are the ones most likely, or most stupid, to do so again. Whether by proxy or not.

[wheels]

With respect

 

(And also bearing in mind the suffering caused which no-one would want to ignore)

 

The two bombs on Japan brought the war to an end far quicker than otherwise might have been

 

Also I think it is reasonable to assume that this resulted in far less casualties than a conventional invasion might have produced - to both sides

 

I don't feel that there is an overwhelming threat from established nuclear powers

 

IMPO the concern is minor and or extreme players/fanatics aquiring a small capability and not considering the consequences of using it

 

Of course there is then the issue of either sides backers getting involved and escalation

[Lxxx]

With respect

 

(And also bearing in mind the suffering caused which no-one would want to ignore)

 

The two bombs on Japan brought the war to an end far quicker than otherwise might have been

 

Also I think it is reasonable to assume that this resulted in far less casualties than a conventional invasion might have produced - to both sides

 

I don't feel that there is an overwhelming threat from established nuclear powers

 

IMPO the concern is minor and or extreme players/fanatics aquiring a small capability and not considering the consequences of using it

 

Of course there is then the issue of either sides backers getting involved and escalation

 

As I've said above, I don't think it is likely at all. I think the days of nuclear weapons, I hope, are long gone and they are used more as a deterrent than anything else. Weapons have moved on since then, we have evolved from the days of dropping huge bombs to defeat countries, we can do that quite easily now via weapons of mass financial destruction, currency wars and if they then fail then we have chemical and biologiocal weapons which can be far more devastating and a lot more targetted. Still, the largest terrorist nation on earth is the US, so therefore it stands to reason that if anyone would be crazy enough to take things to the next level, it's this imperialist warmongerer.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think you make the wrong conclusions from the facts. Yes, the USA is one of the worst terrorist nations in the world. BUT in being one of the worst or the worst do make them more likely than any other nation to use such weapons.

They are far more likely to be used by desperate and those who have little to lose.

[Lxxx]

I think you make the wrong conclusions from the facts. Yes, the USA is one of the worst terrorist nations in the world. BUT in being one of the worst or the worst do make them more likely than any other nation to use such weapons.

They are far more likely to be used by desperate and those who have little to lose.

 

I was being facetious by pushing the point, I don't expect the US to drop a megaton on Papua New Guinea. However the US has armed smaller nations before via it's vile military-industrial complex and the CIA, and will continue to let other countries do it's dirty work for it behind the scenes, therefore if such a desperate nation with little to lose decides to go loco with it's new toys, chances are the largest rogue nation on earth will be behind it somewhere along the line.

[The Bastard]

I would disagree;

 

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

The radio said Peres and other cabinet ministers warned Sharon against saying what he said in public, because "it would cause us a public relations disaster."

 

If you're going to quote, at least check the veracity of your source. The "I.A.P" is the "Islamic Association for Palestine", hardly a great source of accurate reporting on quotes from Israeli politicians. It's a faked piece of propaganda.

 

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=34&x_context=2

 

I'm surprised that anyone would believe a piece of cardboard melodrama like that unless they were living in a little anti-semitic bubble of their own and willing to believe the sort of stuff from "Der Giftpilz".

[Lxxx]

I would disagree;

 

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

The radio said Peres and other cabinet ministers warned Sharon against saying what he said in public, because "it would cause us a public relations disaster."

 

If you're going to quote, at least check the veracity of your source. The "I.A.P" is the "Islamic Association for Palestine", hardly a great source of accurate reporting on quotes from Israeli politicians. It's a faked piece of propaganda.

 

http://www.camera.or...=34&x_context=2

 

I'm surprised that anyone would believe a piece of cardboard melodrama like that unless they were living in a little anti-semitic bubble of their own and willing to believe the sort of stuff from "Der Giftpilz".

 

Wahey!! Congratulations to the first man who utters the words 'anti-semitic'. I wondered how long it would take for that brigade to show up. To be against zionism is not to be against Judaism. Go back to your bubble.

[The Bastard]

Wahey!! Congratulations to the first man who utters the words 'anti-semitic'. I wondered how long it would take for that brigade to show up. To be against zionism is not to be against Judaism. Go back to your bubble.

 

Potato, Po-tah-to.

 

I was waiting for you to hide behind that very argument, pondering if you'd use the familiar old evasion about zionism/anti-semitism if I used the term - it's a strategy pretty commonly-used on fascist forums too.

 

As I typed the words "anti-semitism" I wondered if you'd take the bait, and you have, hook, line and sinker.

 

Anti-Zionism/Fascism doesn't justify the use of faked propaganda, either way.

[Lxxx]

Wahey!! Congratulations to the first man who utters the words 'anti-semitic'. I wondered how long it would take for that brigade to show up. To be against zionism is not to be against Judaism. Go back to your bubble.

 

Potato, Po-tah-to.

 

I was waiting for you to hide behind that very argument, pondering if you'd use the familiar old argument about zionism/anti-semitism if I used the term - its a strategy pretty commonly-used on fascist forums too.

 

As I typed the words "anti-semitism" I wondered if you'd take the bait, and you have, hook, line and sinker.

 

Anti-Zionism/Fascism doesn't justify the use of faked propaganda, either way.

 

Backpedal backpedal....haha...sorry sunshine, you've just lost that one. Come back when you don't have to rely on the old 'double bluff' chestnut, as you've just made yourself look rather silly.