Philip wrote:Stygian, NO, Israel does not fear a conventional invasion from Iran - that's the whole point. Nukes in Iranian hands change everything. And why are you bringing up an invasion by Iran? Plus you keep refuting your own rhetoric about how Iran's president is powerless and about how much he is hated by the public. But why would you think either mattered in the least?
Aaaaaaand, you lost me. My whole point revolved around the absence of Iranian nuclear weapons. As for the president's power idea, it was merely the initial topic of this thread, so I spoke my mind about it, and tried bringing it up several times. Ahmadinejad is NOT the person to worry about, as he has no authority in areas regarding military or the nuclear program. I fail to see how I've "refuted" my thoughts repeatedly, so I lost you there also.
Philip wrote:And you might just find some more objective websites to gather info from, than antiwar.com and Patrick J. Buchanan. That is a group that sees all wars as unnecessary and unjust. The bias absolutely screams from its headlines - so much of it anti-U.S. and anti-ANYTHING Republican - yeah, real balanced news. Buchanan (a right-wing nutjob) is a known and long-time Jew hater. I don't have time to read your many linked articles.
Antiwar is against unjust war, meaning any war not fought in the name of pure self-defense. The term is used to be applied to the opposition to those who instantly resort to it as an answer to solve problems in the world, as many would like to search for peaceful methods. Saying I shouldn't use it to defend my position regarding war is much like saying I shouldn't quote Lewis, Chesterton, or Craig to defend some of my moral beliefs regarding Christianity and the Bible. I've heard plenty of accusations against Patrick J. Buchanan regarding his apparent 'anti-semitism,' but that doesn't mean I have to disagree with every word that exits his mouth. Heck, even Obama caught my attention when he said he'd cease wars in the Mid-East (until he didn't, that is), but that's a whole other debate. Even then, I do think much of what he said makes sense. Since you haven't read what I linked obviously, you really can't say much there. In addition, I've not concluded for myself that he is indeed anti-semite. A lot of people throw that word around at people who simply don't want to give aid to Israel pretty often, so I take it with a grain of salt.
Philip wrote:This is all speculative, as ultimately we can only go with what key intelligence agencies and Israeli, Iranian and Western leaders are saying. And we DO know that Iran is developing nukes, we do know what they say are their intentions towards Israel. They've had plenty of time to backtrack on both, but they continue to pursue both. Once you know you are dealing with unstable, dangerous people that are threatening you great harm, only a fool doesn't take them seriously. And only a fool doesn't act while there is time to do so. Iran is running out of time, and IF Israel acts, it will be its leaders' fault.
As Wikipedia would say, [citation needed]. We've consistently found no evidence of nuclear weapons, or even much desire to do so, from Iran. It's not that I don't take anti-Israel groups seriously, as I'm against them. However, it matters whether they have the means to do immeasurable harm, or not. Iran, as I've pointed out before, doesn't seem to be what most would consider a nuclear or military superpower.
Philip wrote:And so let me ask: IF YOU knew with no uncertainty that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, do you not think Israel should do all it can to prevent that - INCLUDING war as a last, if necessary, option? Because it sounds as if you wouldn't have taken Hitler seriously either. Do you think a nuke-armed Iran is okay or not?
Yes, as the war would then be one of self-defense on Israel's part. And I don't see how you can compare this to not taking Hitler seriously at all, as Hitler went up in the ranks with the help of the people, brainwashed the entire populous to come to his side, and was even voted into power by those people by promising great things, as in recovering from the disaster that was the Treaty of Versailles, and in addition actively sought out a German empire to take domain over Europe. Ahmadinejad, from what I've seen, isn't that crafty, and not nearly as powerful.