UN Watchdog says Israel greatest threat to Mid East

The reasoning? They are believed to have had nukes for the last 30 years.

So let me get this straight. A country that is presumed to have had nukes for 30 years, and has never used, or threatened to use, them is the greatest threat to the Mid-East? This in spite of Iran, who's president routinely speaks of wiping Jews out, pursuing nukes?

Wow...just...wow.

Actually, Israel's nukes have probably been the greatest CAUSE of peace in the Middle East over the last 30 years.

The Arabs and Israelis used to go to war fairly regularly (1949, 1956, 1967, 1973). Once Israel got nukes, and once it became known that they would have used them had things gone badly in 1973, the Arabs suddenly lost interest in going to war with them.

This was a different form of MAD, not mutually assured destruction, but my assured destruction if I attack them.

(10-05-2009 02:15 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  UN Watchdog says Israel greatest threat to Mid East

The reasoning? They are believed to have had nukes for the last 30 years.

So let me get this straight. A country that is presumed to have had nukes for 30 years, and has never used, or threatened to use, them is the greatest threat to the Mid-East? This in spite of Iran, who's president routinely speaks of wiping Jews out, pursuing nukes?

Wow...just...wow.

Well sure. See it's like this, since Israel has these nuclear weapons, they might use them if attacked by an arab or islamic nation.

Therefore, Israel is very dangerous, b/c there's a high probability of another nation attacking them.

See? All perfectly logical.

(10-05-2009 02:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, Israel's nukes have probably been the greatest CAUSE of peace in the Middle East over the last 30 years.

The Arabs and Israelis used to go to war fairly regularly (1949, 1956, 1967, 1973). Once Israel got nukes, and once it became known that they would have used them had things gone badly in 1973, the Arabs suddenly lost interest in going to war with them.

This was a different form of MAD, not mutually assured destruction, but my assured destruction if I attack them.

Peace through Strength, generally works so long as its the good guys with the strength.


Rougue, uniformless outfits like AQ and Hezzbollah have thrown a wrench into that though.

(10-05-2009 02:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-05-2009 02:15 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  UN Watchdog says Israel greatest threat to Mid East

The reasoning? They are believed to have had nukes for the last 30 years.

So let me get this straight. A country that is presumed to have had nukes for 30 years, and has never used, or threatened to use, them is the greatest threat to the Mid-East? This in spite of Iran, who's president routinely speaks of wiping Jews out, pursuing nukes?

Wow...just...wow.

Well sure. See it's like this, since Israel has these nuclear weapons, they might use them if attacked by an arab or islamic nation.

Therefore, Israel is very dangerous, b/c there's a high probability of another nation attacking them.

See? All perfectly logical.

El Baridaie is done at the end of this year. He's been an apologist for Iran his entire time at the IEA. Not that they will get someone who's any less worthless.

Quote:ElBaradei as Metaphor [Victor Davis Hanson]


Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei is a living metaphor for all that is wrong with post-Western society. He now proclaims that Israel — democratic and constitutional — is the "number one threat" to the Middle East. That he made this comment from Tehran — after his hosts have serially promised to wipe Israel off the map, and after his own agency missed an entire weapons facility run by an autocratic theocracy — says it all.

ElBaradei, who was educated in the West, and much of whose family lives in the safety and prosperity of the West, has made a career of appeasing Iran, lecturing Westerners about their assorted sins, and saying nothing about the dictatorship in Egypt (for which he once worked). Indeed, beyond Egypt, he has said nothing about the Middle East's self-induced pathologies — from tribalism, gender apartheid, and statism to dictatorship and religious intolerance — which are a far more significant cause of the region's economic stagnation than is Western colonialism.

That ElBaradei has been showered with awards from Western governments and universities — among them the Nobel Prize — reveals how well he understands the West's timidity and lack of principle. He knows that he and his family are safer and freer outside Egypt than they are inside Egypt, and he knows that Israel is not going to nuke its neighbors or announce that it would like to wipe Syria or Egypt off the map. He also knows that elites in the West like to be chided by Westernized non-Westernizers about their assorted sins — it allows those Western elites to alleviate their guilt at very little cost.

In short, if ElBaradei didn't exist, he would have to be invented.

indeed

ElBaradei is one of the most aggrevating international politicians alive today.

When was the last time the UN said anything good about Israel or the USA? Phuck 'em.

(10-05-2009 03:26 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  ElBaradei is one of the most aggrevating international politicians alive today.

Hans Blix is a close #2.

Kofi Annan, IIRC used the UN as his own private piggy bank. And got away with it. Oil for Food wasn't it?

Of course Israel is the threat to Middle East. As long as there's a big ass Jewish Democracy located smack dab in the middle of the Holy Land, how else is there ever going to be a single, unified Caliphate under Sharia law? Is very obvious isn't it?

(10-05-2009 02:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, Israel's nukes have probably been the greatest CAUSE of peace in the Middle East over the last 30 years.

The Arabs and Israelis used to go to war fairly regularly (1949, 1956, 1967, 1973). Once Israel got nukes, and once it became known that they would have used them had things gone badly in 1973, the Arabs suddenly lost interest in going to war with them.

This was a different form of MAD, not mutually assured destruction, but my assured destruction if I attack them.

I don't think that your disagreement with ElBaradei is over facts or history. The disagreement is over what "peace" means to ElBaradei and other partisans in the region.

Besides, the actual statement was:

Quote:"Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses," ElBaradei was quoted as saying.

Uh, yeah. They are the biggest threat to barbaric regimes in the region. What does ElBaradei have at stake in that? In the article, ElBaradei doesn't express any opinion on "peace" as a virtue or anything else.