Peres says that Iran 'can also be wiped off the map'

[ECH1969]

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday in an interview to Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," Army Radio reported.

According to Peres, "Teheran is making a mockery of the international community's efforts to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program."

"Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us," Peres added.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961301962&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

[MessiahRp]

1. Yep that will work

You be peaceful or else we'll nuke you.

Idiots.

Rp

[Burning Water]

7. When Iran

launches the nukes at Israel, how should they respond? Or, conversely, what should they do to prevent the initial launch by the Iranians?

[Tempest]

9. What nukes?

Iran doesn't have nukes, nor is there any evidence they have a nuclear weapons program.

So your question should have been prefaced with "If" not "When".

[Burning Water]

14. And your point is?

[Tempest]

18. I have to explain my point?

That's just sad.

But since you insist.

You implied Iran already had nuclear weapons by using the word "when".

I correctly indicated Iran did not have nuclear weapons and the correct word usage should have been "if".

It's junior high school level really.

[Burning Water]

31. If it's junior high level, how come

you managed to screw it up?

No, Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, although it is pretty evident that they are trying to develop them. And if they get them, they have said they want to destroy Israel with them. So I said, "When". True, lot's of things might happen to prevent this. Israel or the US might bomb them. A revolt of the Iranian citizens might occur. The nut cases that are driving this might get bird flu and die. Still, you are right, it is hypothetical what will happen until it happens. However, "when" does not imply that they already have them. It implies only a time in the future when they have them and choose to use them. So really the only difference between my usage of "when" and your usage of "if" is that I have more confidence that they will use them when they get them. Junior high, indeed.

Where you are really wrong is simple: You'd rather screw around with semantics than face the problem. At least that is the impression that I am getting. And that really is sad.

[denverbill]

13. So if I own a gun,

and you don't own a gun, and you've threatened to kill me, and you tell me you are going to go buy a gun, am I justified in shooting you right then and there, before you can get the gun?

Mutually assured destruction worked for 50 years with the US/USSR, I think it will work for Iran/Israel. Besides, Iran's justification for hating Israel is they believe it should be returned to the Palestinians. What the hell are the Palestinians going to do with a homeland that is uninhabitable for the next 100 years? Jerusalem is a Holy City of Islam too. Would the Pope nuke Bethlehem?

[Burning Water]

17. If I have a gun

and you threaten me, I will take you at your word and do whatever it takes to protect myself and my family. Naturally, I would call the police, but if they were as laughable as the UN in protecting the peace, it wouldn't do any good.

I would keep an eye on you, and when I no longer had a choice, I would have to eliminate the danger. Yes.

The US and the USSR were run by rational individuals not fundie nut jobs. And what does the Pope have to do with it?

But fundamentally, you are making an error. What an individual, under the rule of law, would do in such a situation and what a nation, whose leaders have a responsibility to their own citizens but not to their enemy's citizens, would do are not morally, nor practically, comparable.

[Tempest]

19. You're missing one major point

If someone threatens you and they don't have the means to carry out the threat, then the threat is not credible. That is exactly the case with Iran.

If someone threatens to shoot you and they don't own or have possession of a gun, if you shoot them you're going to be tried in court on a murder charge. Simple as that.

[Burning Water]

22. If someone threatens you

you are not under an obligation to ensure that they can actually harm you before taking action to protect yourself. How am I supposed to know if you have a gun, or not? You said you were going to shoot me. I cannot afford not to believe you.

That doesn't mean I have to shoot you first thing, but it means that I'd better be prepared to, and better let you know that I am, so you don't make a mistake we would both regret.

[Tempest]

25. You're wrong

The law specifically states you can take reasonable forceful measures.

Shooting an unarmed person goes beyond the reasonable force guideline and there's a mountain of cases backing it up.

[Burning Water]

27. Well, first of all

what we're talking about is that I have reasonable cause to believe you intend to harm me. I have no reason to suspect it's just your puckish sense of humor.

Second, in case you haven't noticed, the law is being changed.

Third, what applies to individuals does not necessarily apply to nations. I think I've mentioned this before, but you've chosen, for your own reasons, to ignore it. You are creating a false analogy.

Fourth, Iran is not "unarmed", whether or not they currently have, or develop in the future, or don't, any nuclear arms. Iran is a major regional military power intent on destroying Israel, and run by Muslim fundie nut jobs. You may not have noticed that.

[eyl]

46. Especially since Iran

has been attacking ISrael by proxy for years

[daleo]

26. So Stalin was a rational individual?

That's not something you would have heard at the height of the cold war.

[MessiahRp]

20. Easy...

Or, conversely, what should they do to prevent the initial launch by the Iranians?

How about diplomacy? Sure worked for Kennedy in the one instance when nukes were actually close to being used... not to mention Iran doesn't have nukes currently.

Rp

[Burning Water]

24. Ah, damn

and there I was thinking the show of force had something to do with it.


On October 22, 1962, after reviewing newly acquired intelligence, President John F. Kennedy informed the world that the Soviet Union was building secret missile bases in Cuba, a mere 90 miles off the shores of Florida. After weighing such options as an armed invasion of Cuba and air strikes against the missiles, Kennedy decided on a less dangerous response. In addition to demanding that Russian Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev remove all the missile bases and their deadly contents, Kennedy ordered a naval quarantine (blockade) of Cuba in order to prevent Russian ships from bringing additional missiles and construction materials to the island. In response to the American naval blockade, Premier Khrushchev authorized his Soviet field commanders in Cuba to launch their tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by U.S. forces. Deadlocked in this manner, the two leaders of the world's greatest nuclear superpowers stared each other down for seven days - until Khrushchev blinked. On October 28, thinking better of prolonging his challenge to the United States, the Russian Premier conceded to President Kennedy's demands by ordering all Soviet supply ships away from Cuban waters and agreeing to remove the missiles from Cuba's mainland. After several days of teetering on the brink of nuclear holocaust, the world breathed a sigh of relief.

http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/

Still, diplomacy is good. What will they talk about? What is the incentive for one side or the other to make a concession. Details. I'd like some details, please. Meaningless generalities never accomplished anything.

[MessiahRp]

28. The incentive is a no brainer...

Incentive to speak: saving your entire country from obliteration

It doesn't matter who blusters about doing what, when nothing is done it will be each leader going back to their people and grandstanding about how they were the hero who saved their people and how they forced the enemy to back down.

Watch The Fog of War. Having nukes isn't about using them it's about getting enemies to respect you as someone they have to deal with and getting your people to believe that you are strong against those other countries. It's about posturing not nuclear war.

Nuking someone who can nuke you in return does nothing to save your people or give you a chance to spout about bravado. In the end that's all countries want with nukes. Respect from the larger countries and political capital with their own people.

Rp

[MessiahRp]

29. Also it wasn't a show of force...

It was a show of empathy. Ambassador to the Soviets, Tommy Thompson knew Kruschev wanted to look strong with his people and didn't want an attack. He got Kennedy to back down and communicate and they were willing to use diplomacy to reach an agreement where both countries backed off and saved face.

The more force that was used, the more the situation escalated. Diplomacy saved us all.

Rp

[Javaman]

30. Ahhh, but you neglect to mention Kennedy's agreement to

remove the nukes from Turkey. That was the real deal that was struck.

All sorts of bluster is used to puff up the U.S. by saying we were strong and forced their hand, but the reality is: we gave up something, they gave up something. Diplomacy is an amazing thing when properly used.

The background story to this is: Russia purposely moved the nukes into Cuba to give us a taste of our own medicine. What, in fact, it's like to have nukes positioned at your backdoor. It's not a wonderful feeling. Kennedy understood this move.

Never ever once was Khrushchev so stupid as to launch a nuke attack on us. He knew exactly what he was doing.

this in chess is called "check", certainly not check-mate. Checkmate = Death. No one certainly wanted that.

However, the problem with this was the CIA. They saw a chance to get rid of the commies from Cuba and failed to see the larger picture. Hence, this is why the bay of pigs invasion never happened. That was the CIA going off half cocked with support from some nut job generals out to get some war time ribbons. They were playing a game of bluff in poker, but Kennedy saw the real implications.

[Bonhomme Richard]

2. Where are the adults? n/t

[habitual]

3. Exactly n/t

[Robeson]

16. I share those thoughts, too.

[The Stranger]

23. This used to be one of the "adults".

Or so I thought.

[genieroze]

4. Here we go

:nuke:

[Bob3]

5. Second Verse same as the first

They said this before about Iraq - they were lying then - why should we believe them now?

[Coastie for Truth]

43. "They" didn't say it

Cheney's Big Oil buddies said it. If you take the time to read you will see that it is all about projecting military power to assert hegemony of oil lands - just like F. William Engdahl (A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order) described and predicted.

[bullimiami]

6. its a load of bullshit for 2 very militant nuclear governments to be

crying how a country with NO nuclear capability is a danger to the world.

[cantstandbush]

10. Especially since Israel has already proved in 1967 and 1986 that

it will attack its neighbors unprovoked. Even set up "false flag" operations, commit incidents and blame them on others AND has nukes and refuses to allow ANYONE to inspect their nuke programs.
Iran needs weapons to protect itself against the likes of Israel and the US, the only nation to ever use nukes against civilians.

[Andromeda]

36. What a load.

:eyes:

[Coastie for Truth]

41. The closing of the Straits of Tiran was a Causus Belli

and constituted belligerence by Egypt, justifying defensive action actions by Israel.

References:

1. Lesnick, Cases and Materials on International Law
2. Britton, International Law for Seagoing Officers
3.

[Jim Sagle]

42. What a load.

[number6]

33. ding ding,... we have a winner

"its a load of bullshit for 2 very militant nuclear governments to be
crying how a country with NO nuclear capability is a danger to the world."

...precisely

[MrPrax]

8. Keeper!!

Thank You Shimon -- a first step to treatment is ADMITTING your addictions.

So Mr Peres, just curious, will you be borrowing US nukes to 'wipe Iran off the map' or are you taking the first step to announce to the world Isreal's nuclear program that is NOT inspected; NOT inventories; NOT controlled by the NPT; NOT legal?

[CheChe]

44. Huh?

Is Peres starting a WWIII? Can we be wiped off the map too?

[xultar]

11. Well I was begining to think someone could be intelligent. Guess not.

[Weaksauce]

12. Fair Enough, I like it

Glad to see Iran isn't the only state that can use insane rhetoric.

After all it was only rhetoric when Iran said it, correct? I just don't get it why people get so bent out of shape here about this. Seems appropriate response, no missles outbound, just a little press quip. Seems fair.

[bpj1962]

15. Saber Rattling

Always remember this when it comes to Israel. Six Million Jews were murdered during WWII. The state of Israel will never let that happen again. If they truly feel threatened they will take matters into thier own hands. I am not condoning it but you have to understand the mentality that they operate under.

[Tempest]

21. 7 million other people were murdered during WWII as well

So if the gypsies, Liberals, Socialists and homosexuals truly feel threatened then they too have the mentality to take matters into their own hands by Israel's logic.

And for the record, 6 million Jews were murdered, not 6 million Israelis.

There's a whole lot more Jews living outside of Israel than in Israel. And Israeli society is made up of more than just Jews.

[bpj1962]

32. Nation States

None of the other minorities that you mentioned became nation states, nor have they developed nuclear capabilities. I don't need a history lesson on how many Europeans were killed by Hitler. My point was simply that the State of Israel and its current leadership will not allow any other country to threaten its existence.

[ShalachEtAmi]

34. Not that many more its about Half and Half...

Israel also got the bulk of the Holocaust survivors...

AND...

Israel IS The Jewish State....

[Andromeda]

35. That's not a very good argument.

There was no Israel as we know it now when 6 million Jews were murdered in Nazi concentration camps.

There were around 850,000 Jews living throughout Europe before the war, I believe, and now there are only around 8,000 or less. That's because the Jews were driven out of nearly every country they lived in.

The other minorities exterminated by Hitler did include the groups you mentioned but not in large numbers enough form a state.

This doesn't minimize the magnitude of the crimes committed by Hitler and his henchmen. Six million is a lot and the Jews that did escape the camps didn't have anyplace to go until Israel became a state.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. What a vile post!

Not only is it vile, it is wrong. There are more Jews living in Israel than any other country, including the US!

Do tell...where is the "Gypsy" nation? What about the "liberal" nation? "Queer nation?" That's right, they don't exist!

The massacre of ALL people at the hands of the Nazis (and their enablers) is just as horrific at the murder of the Jews. However, every time I see a post like this it reeks of "there weren't just African slaves!"

The only group that even came close to being wiped out, other then Jews, were the Roma! To this day, the Jewish population is still less than it was before the Holocaust!

[TomClash]

39. Wrong again

U.S. Jewish Population 6,155,000 (est)
Israeli Jewish population 5,200.000 (est)

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Jew#Footnotes

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/demography/demtables.html#8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population

According to JAFI, there are more jews now than just after the holocuast ended:

World Jewish Population 1945 - 11,000,000
World Jewish Population 2002 - 13,296,100

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/demography/demtables.html#2

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Actually...you're wrong again!

U.S. Jewish Population 6,155,000 (est)
Israeli Jewish population 5,200.000 (est)

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Jew#Footnotes
3 Data based on a study by Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI). See Jewish people near zero growth

(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1088046787193&p=1008596975996) by Tovah Lazaroff, Jerusalem Post, June 24, 2004.
4 Data based on a study by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. See Israel’s population is 6.8 million (http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=836883&fid=942) by Zeev Klein, Globes online September 13, 2004. Includes (about 370,000) Israeli citizens living in the West Bank and Gaza.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/u...

Resident population, April 1, 2001 (Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census).

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/demograph...

Table 8. Countries With Largest Jewish Populations, 1/1/2002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population

According to the World Jewish Population Survey of 2002, "The size of world Jewry at the beginning of 2002 is assessed at 13,296,100.

So, let us now enter the present...2006!

TEL AVIV, Israel - May 1, 2006 (UPI) -- For the first time in almost 2,000 years, Israel has the largest Jewish population of any country in the world. Israeli Jewish Population Now Biggest

Also, had you continued to read the link you provided, just a tad down from the chart you posted, is this....

The countries with the largest estimated Jewish population are, in order:

Israel (as of 2006)
United States of America
Russia
France
Canada
United Kingdom
Argentina
Ukraine
Germany
Australia
South Africa

Jewish population

Now, onto part two...

According to JAFI, there are more jews now than just after the holocuast ended:

World Jewish Population 1945 - 11,000,000
World Jewish Population 2002 - 13,296,100

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/demograph...

Why, yes, that is true, but has nothing to do with what I said! I said:

To this day, the Jewish population is still less than it was before the Holocaust!

I added the underline this time.

In 1939, there were 17 million Jews in the world, and by 1945 only 11 million. source

Notice anything? In 1939 (i.e. "before the Holocaust"), the world population of Jews was set at around 17 million. The current population is around 13 million, worldwide. Therefore, my statement: "To this day, the Jewish population is still less than it was before the Holocaust!" is absolutely CORRECT, as 17 million is HIGHER than 13 million!

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Wait, wait....it was just a mistranslation by the vile MSM.

:eyes: