What are we getting from Israel?

[Letum]

In the one context and situation I would welcome overthrowing the status quoit, in the other situational conext I would not.

Exactly my point.

If you where genuinely concerned about changes in Iserail causing civil
strife and loss of innocent life than you would not be so quick to promote civil
strife in other less pressing matters.

You show concern for innocent life only when it happens to back up the
point you making.

Dreidels.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Letum

Exactly my point.

If you where genuinely concerned about changes in Iserail causing civil
strife and loss of innocent life than you would not be so quick to promote civil strife in other less pressing matters.

You show concern for innocent life only when it happens to back up the
point you making.

There is nothing inconsistent about the idea of weighing benefits and costs, and making a decision based on the ratios.

Regarding Israel, I think I'm like Skybird (as he shows here at least) in that it was a huge mistake and the main reason for not reversing that decision is the strife it'll call.

But as for Israeli nukes, quite frankly the US can't exactly shout very loud about Iranians or NKs or whatever while they are quietly backing Israel nukes. Israel is not exactly under a deadly conventional threat right now. If anything the Arabs have or could reasonably get that are likely to change those odds it'll be nukes, so there's no need to strengthen their reasons for getting some.

If I were the US, I'll at least be making noises (though perhaps DOING very little) to press Israel to give up those nukes everyone knows it has. It might give them a little more moral backbone the next time they push on someone...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Exactly my point.

If you where genuinely concerned about changes in Iserail causing civil
strife and loss of innocent life than you would not be so quick to promote civil
strife in other less pressing matters.

You show concern for innocent life only when it happens to back up the
point you making.

Quatsch. You contradict yourself in your criticism of me.

Both situations I referred to - Germany and the West in the old thread, and Israel in this one - are different. I probably also prioritise their internal determinants different than you would. And so I treat both situations different, and come to different needs of how to handle them.

What you complain about in the above is that I do not adress both examples with the the same conclusions, and that my conclusions on both situation are two different ones instead of leading to the same treatement for both situations. You complain about that I judge these two examples differently, and do not see them as being comparable. But the internal demographic pressure from Arabs in Israel, and the party dictatorships in Germany and other Western countries and their unholy integration with private business lobbies, are two different things, like it or not. The latter I want to see getting overthrown as a necessary precondition for cutting through the knots that block our chances for having a future. In the first I look for pragmatically avoiding the demographic pressure in Israel's social structure to explode and rip the nation apart. and everybody being a bit familiar with the matter knows that that risk is a real threat, both in times of peace and future wars.

What really irks you is that I am not in full and uncritical support for the established politicial system of tyrannic political party-oligarchies and ruling lobbies, and call for people to refuse giving their legitimation to this rotten system. That's your real aim at me here, making your replies here a direct sequel to you replies in the thread on the German elections.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

There might be a time when the world is nuclear weapon free.

Right after WWIII.

Anti matter bomb and ICBMs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon

Mankind strongly believe that in order that he could sleep in security is by making his enemies couldn't. And vice versa.

Quote Wikipedia

An antimatter weapon is a hypothetical device using antimatter as a power source, a propellant, or an explosive for a weapon. Antimatter weapons do not currently exist due to the cost of production and the limited technology available to produce enough antimatter in sufficient quantities for it to be an acceptable weapon.
The United States Air Force, however, has been interested in military uses—including destructive applications—of antimatter since the Cold War, when it began funding antimatter-related physics research. The primary theoretical advantage of such a weapon is that antimatter and matter collisions, though significantly limited by neutrino losses, still <<<convert a larger fraction of the weapon's mass into explosive energy than a fusion reaction in a hydrogen bomb>>>, which is on the order of only 0.7%

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

There is nothing inconsistent about the idea of weighing benefits and costs, and making a decision based on the ratios.

Yes, but unless SB seriously thinks that the benefits of a nuclear free
middle East does not outweigh the cost of human life, but the benefits of
overthrowing democracy does out weigh the cost of human life, my point
stands.

[Skybird]

SB neither said that a true democracy is to be overthrown by public disobedience, nor did he say that a nuclear arms-free ME justifies civilian casualties.

What SB indeed said in a completely different thread was that a de facto tyranny of lobbies and political parties that

- put their own interest over that of state reason, and over the interest of the nation and the people,
- and that illegitimately claim to be a democracy, but is anything but that,
- and that makes policies no longer in fulfillment of the voter's demands but - if opportune for party interests - in explicit violation of voter's demand:

that such a tyranny cannot be changed by voting, since it does not obey the vote, and thus can only be get rid of by civil disobedience and riots against this corrupt very system.

And what SB also said in this actual thread now was that loosing it's nuclear shield for Israel is as threatening to its very existence as if one would call for Israel's "deconstruction", with Israel having a very pressing (and growing) problem with the Arabian population inside Israel that always must be considered in any form of conflict Israel needs to fight to the outside, and that is putting Israel under growing internal demographic pressure (the declared intention of the Palestinians, btw.). Evcery military planners needs to take into account the chance of a growing Arab community rioting and uprising and threatening Israel from within, and as a matter of fact Israeli stretegists and defence analysts constantly do take that into account and reserve forces for that case indeed.

----

You do not damage me by your intentional misquoting of what I said in the past, Letum, nor do you devalue what I really said and meant when you try tactics like this. By choice of and accepting such methods you only damage your own reputation.

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I wonder what, if anything, the United States is getting from Israel

Screwed, is what the US is getting.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

Screwed, is what the US is getting.

Absolutely!

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Castout

Anti matter bomb and ICBMs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon

Mankind strongly believe that in order that he could sleep in security is by making his enemies couldn't. And vice versa.

Quote Wikipedia

An antimatter weapon is a hypothetical device using antimatter as a power source, a propellant, or an explosive for a weapon. Antimatter weapons do not currently exist due to the cost of production and the limited technology available to produce enough antimatter in sufficient quantities for it to be an acceptable weapon.
The United States Air Force, however, has been interested in military uses—including destructive applications—of antimatter since the Cold War, when it began funding antimatter-related physics research. The primary theoretical advantage of such a weapon is that antimatter and matter collisions, though significantly limited by neutrino losses, still <<<convert a larger fraction of the weapon's mass into explosive energy than a fusion reaction in a hydrogen bomb>>>, which is on the order of only 0.7%

Not already having it could be another big secret.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

Screwed, is what the US is getting.

I fear that you are correct in this.