Israel needs to eliminate its nuclear...

Israel needs to eliminate its nuclear program

Posted in the New York Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Jan 12

Flushing, NY

#1 Jun 21, 2012
Basically Israel has created an arms race - through its own paranoia - in the Middle East. It's time we were honest about this and demanded that Israel dismantle its program before Iran dismantles its program.
OBAMAJobs4Illega ls

Manchester, NH

#2 Jun 22, 2012
djg51qu wrote:
Basically Israel has created an arms race - through its own paranoia - in the Middle East. It's time we were honest about this and demanded that Israel dismantle its program before Iran dismantles its program.
Gee you are dumb,,,,

Since: Jan 12

New York, NY

#3 Jun 22, 2012
OBAMAJobs4Illegals wrote:
<quoted text>Gee you are dumb,,,,
Why? It's "dumber" to call someone "dumb" without any counter-argument. If Israel wants to live in peace, it has to have the courage to dismantle its nukes and treat its neighbors fairly.

We should be more concerned about Israeli nukes than North Korean nukes.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4 Jun 22, 2012
djg51qu wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? It's "dumber" to call someone "dumb" without any counter-argument. If Israel wants to live in peace, it has to have the courage to dismantle its nukes and treat its neighbors fairly.
We should be more concerned about Israeli nukes than North Korean nukes.
Agreed on the name calling. But isnt isreal rather pally with the u.s? And im pretty sure north koreans dont like ye:)
liner

Brooklyn, NY

#5 Jun 22, 2012
djg51qu wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? It's "dumber" to call someone "dumb" without any counter-argument. If Israel wants to live in peace, it has to have the courage to dismantle its nukes and treat its neighbors fairly.
We should be more concerned about Israeli nukes than North Korean nukes.
Trust me, I'll take my chances with Israel.
OBAMAJobs4Illega ls

Manchester, NH

#6 Jun 22, 2012
djg51qu wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? It's "dumber" to call someone "dumb" without any counter-argument. If Israel wants to live in peace, it has to have the courage to dismantle its nukes and treat its neighbors fairly.
We should be more concerned about Israeli nukes than North Korean nukes.
Youare dumb for many reasons. Israel is surrounded by non friendly neighbor states. Israel would never give up her nukes for a oolish gesture.

Arabs launch rocket/mortar attacks on Israel on a regular basis. Israelis live in a tough neighborhood.

Since: May 12

Flushing, NY

#7 Jun 22, 2012
OBAMAJobs4Illegals wrote:
<quoted text>Youare dumb for many reasons. Israel is surrounded by non friendly neighbor states. Israel would never give up her nukes for a oolish gesture.
Arabs launch rocket/mortar attacks on Israel on a regular basis. Israelis live in a tough neighborhood.
Talk about "DUMB!!!" "Arabs" launch ockets attacks? All Arabs? Some Arabs? Any Arabs? Sheer stupidity.

As for taking your chances with Israel, yeah, we are taking the chance they will start World War 3 - N. Korea just wants some rice.

As for Israel being surrounded by unfriendly neighbors - wrong again - Israel was deliberately placed in the middle of peaceful people who had fought for their independence against the Ottoman Empire. It was insane to grant a new country in this manner.
OBAMAJobs4Illega ls

Manchester, NH

#8 Jun 23, 2012
anticorrupt wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about "DUMB!!!" "Arabs" launch ockets attacks? All Arabs? Some Arabs? Any Arabs? Sheer stupidity.
As for taking your chances with Israel, yeah, we are taking the chance they will start World War 3 - N. Korea just wants some rice.
As for Israel being surrounded by unfriendly neighbors - wrong again - Israel was deliberately placed in the middle of peaceful people who had fought for their independence against the Ottoman Empire. It was insane to grant a new country in this manner.
Arabs are a peaceful people???? Are you on drugs,,, thiers is a tribal society and they have been killing eachother for centuries,,,, what is your news source ,... Al Jazeera?

You are incredibly dumb,,,,

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#9 Jun 23, 2012
Trivia question (very trivial):

Which country is the only country to ever use atomic bombs on innocent civilians (seniors, females, and kids)??

Answer that question, and then I'll give you another.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10 Jun 23, 2012
Tory II wrote:
Trivia question (very trivial):
Which country is the only country to ever use atomic bombs on innocent civilians (seniors, females, and kids)??
Answer that question, and then I'll give you another.
Well....
Im gonna have to say am-
*looks around*
.... America on that one..
OBAMAJobs4Illega ls

Manchester, NH

#11 Jun 23, 2012
Tory II wrote:
Trivia question (very trivial):
Which country is the only country to ever use atomic bombs on innocent civilians (seniors, females, and kids)??
Answer that question, and then I'll give you another.
Japan was anything but innocent,,... Japan started bombing cities with innocent civilians in the 1930's,,,, Japan also conducted inhuman medical experiements on Chinese civilians and POWS,,... you are a brainwashed lemming

your argument only works on the uninformed

O[erations OLYMPIC and CORONET were plans for the invasion of Japan with 100 of thousands of estimated casualties on the Allied side and even more on the Japanese side,... after the war ended the Allies discivered that thye had vastly underestimated Jaapnese defenses and that the cost of invasion would have been higher.... you are an ignorant fool

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#12 Jun 23, 2012
OBAMAJobs4Illegals wrote:
<quoted text>Japan was anything but innocent,,... Japan started bombing cities with innocent civilians in the 1930's,,,, Japan also conducted inhuman medical experiements on Chinese civilians and POWS,,... you are a brainwashed lemming
your argument only works on the uninformed
O[erations OLYMPIC and CORONET were plans for the invasion of Japan with 100 of thousands of estimated casualties on the Allied side and even more on the Japanese side,... after the war ended the Allies discivered that thye had vastly underestimated Jaapnese defenses and that the cost of invasion would have been higher.... you are an ignorant fool
There you go. See how it is when people de-humanize others to make it moral to kill them.

YOU have been brainwashed by a giant out-of-control Govt that routinely kills women and kids in the Middle East.

The murdering U.S. Govt did not have to drop the Atomic bomb (twice) on women and kids, those two groups had nothing to do with the Japan Govt and its murder spree.

Govt is always our worst enemy (Japanese Govt, Nazi Germany Govt, and the U.S. Govt). Make Govt your servant, not your master.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#13 Jun 23, 2012
Which Govt is the ONLY Govt to drop nukes on innocent civilians ?
Renegade_22 wrote:
....I'm gonna have to say am-*looks around*.... America on that one..
Correct !

Now which Govts bombed civilians in Germany during WWII ?

Hint: the bombs were firebombs designed to burn wood homes and buildings.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#14 Jun 23, 2012
Tory II wrote:
Which Govt is the ONLY Govt to drop nukes on innocent civilians ?
<quoted text>Correct !
Now which Govts bombed civilians in Germany during WWII ?
Hint: the bombs were firebombs designed to burn wood homes and buildings.
The United States and England though, for England, Dresden was retaliation for the Blitz against London. We can probably include the Soviet Union in that list too; they took a positive glee in avenging themselves against Berliners.

However, and I know we're doing a sort of "balancing act" here, Nazi Germany bombed civilians in every single country they attacked during WWII. Judging by how they'd treated the civilian populations in the countries they'd conquered, it ought to be fairly obvious that defeating the Third Reich was absolutely necessary.
It would seem to be a truism that whenever a country is engaged in a war it's practically impossible for that country's hands to be free from shedding innocent blood.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#15 Jun 23, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The United States and England though, for England, Dresden was retaliation for the Blitz against London. We can probably include the Soviet Union in that list too; they took a positive glee in avenging themselves against Berliners.
However, and I know we're doing a sort of "balancing act" here, Nazi Germany bombed civilians in every single country they attacked during WWII. Judging by how they'd treated the civilian populations in the countries they'd conquered, it ought to be fairly obvious that defeating the Third Reich was absolutely necessary.
It would seem to be a truism that whenever a country is engaged in a war it's practically impossible for that country's hands to be free from shedding innocent blood.
It's a good argument, but did the bombing of civilians at Dresden accomplish anything ? Was it acceptable to you that toddlers were incinerated by the bombing ?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#16 Jun 23, 2012
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>It's a good argument, but did the bombing of civilians at Dresden accomplish anything ? Was it acceptable to you that toddlers were incinerated by the bombing ?
Was it acceptable to me that toddlers were incinerated at Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki or London, or Warsaw?
Of course not.
How could it be?
Yet we tend to "rationalize" these casualties as "acceptable losses," or "unintended consequences." Ironically, there's something all of the bombing raids I've listed share; a need to "break the enemy psychologically." To destroy their "will to fight."
Did it happen in any of the events listed above?
Well, I suppose we can argue that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced the Japanese government that the war was not going to be won by them.
Was it worth it with regard to the loss of innocent lives...?
Good question.
In hindsight the answer would seem to be a resounding "yes."
Truthfully, I don't know...
OBAMAJobs4Illega ls

Manchester, NH

#18 Jun 23, 2012
John-Kliksdiks wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it acceptable to me that toddlers were incinerated at Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki or London, or Warsaw?
Of course not.
How could it be?
Yet we tend to "rationalize" these casualties as "acceptable losses," or "unintended consequences." Ironically, there's something all of the bombing raids I've listed share; a need to "break the enemy psychologically." To destroy their "will to fight."
Did it happen in any of the events listed above?
Well, I suppose we can argue that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced the Japanese government that the war was not going to be won by them.
Was it worth it with regard to the loss of innocent lives...?
Good question.
In hindsight the answer would seem to be a resounding "yes."
Truthfully, I don't know...
yawn,,,,, read a history book you dope
OBAMAJobs4Illega ls

Manchester, NH

#19 Jun 23, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it acceptable to me that toddlers were incinerated at Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki or London, or Warsaw?
Of course not.
How could it be?
Yet we tend to "rationalize" these casualties as "acceptable losses," or "unintended consequences." Ironically, there's something all of the bombing raids I've listed share; a need to "break the enemy psychologically." To destroy their "will to fight."
Did it happen in any of the events listed above?
Well, I suppose we can argue that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced the Japanese government that the war was not going to be won by them.
Was it worth it with regard to the loss of innocent lives...?
Good question.
In hindsight the answer would seem to be a resounding "yes."
Truthfully, I don't know...
with regard to the Japanese, it took 2 atomic bombs AND the Russian attack on Manchuria before they even considered surrender,.... you are an idiot

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#21 Jun 23, 2012
OBAMAJobs4Illegals wrote:
<quoted text>yawn,,,,, read a history book you dope
Nice adolescent jab at my screen-name there, and what a wonderfully vapid response you'd constructed.
I've read quite a few history books regarding WWII thank you very much, and your post here has done little more than to convince me that you're a "troll."

Come up with a worthwhile argument and perhaps I'll consider giving you a detailed answer in the future...

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#22 Jun 24, 2012
Japanese were honourable too, killing u.s soldiers aside, those experiments on chinese reffered to earlier were small scale chemical weapons. They were also scaled up and tried on unsuspecting chinese villages. Again, not very honourable.. But they made three ir four massive disease bombs (what it was exactly escapes me but those effected developed football sized sores on the outside and hemorrhaged to death inside. And not very quickly either..) but top command fought each other for some time, one half trying to convince the other of just how inhumane the result would be. That half won and the plan was scrapped. The submarines that had been developed to carry planes with smaller versions of these bombs while bombers carried the big ones, simply carried the planes armed with normal ammo instead. They would surface off the coastline and launch these planes, much to the confusion of radar operators and interceptors alike. Either they would have fuel to fly back to japan or they would launch kamikaze attacks on important targets.

Bottom line for me, i dont think there are any particularly "good" sides in war. However necessary it may be.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Older Younger Dating 16 min datingyoungerwomen 4
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 20 min jimi-yank 332,064
"Walking Dead" Starts Feb 9th (Jan '14) 24 min jimi-yank 736
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Not Documented 61,059
Gay Teens NYC (Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn) 2 hr empty_sockets 19
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 3 hr FORREST 15,175
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 4 hr SirLiesAlot 11,949
Giants talk back (Dec '06) 5 hr jimi-yank 5,105
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 9 hr ChiefFan1 13,371
Topix Human Sexuality Forum Discontinued Aug 26 rainmaker2016 54

New York Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages