Posted on 09/18/2013 7:05:53 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
The United States-Russian deal for the destruction of Syria's huge chemical weapons stocks caused Israelis to breathe an audible sigh of relief.
Many expected that a U.S. strike would push either Syria or its ally Hezbollah tio retaliate by attacking Israel. Over the past few weeks, thousands of Israelis, not known for their patience, spent hours waiting in line for government-issued gas masks.
Yet the deal also increases pressure on Israel to get rid of its chemical and, even more troubling to the Jewish state, its nuclear stockpile. If Syria must get rid of its chemical weapons, the reasoning goes, why can't Israel do the same?
... Israel has always kept a low profile when it comes to its own chemical weapons program. They signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1982 but never ratified it, which means that Israel considers itself bound by the spirit of the treaty, but not legally obligated to obesrve it.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
Obama can kiss off on this one. He and Putin set up this charade to bring up the subject of Israel’s nuclear counter fire.... America managed to get S. Africa to transfer her WMD before forcing the white government out, however there were three other nations that benefited from the same program that allowed development of nuclear weapons. Each of the four nations were kept from being full members of the UN by China and Russia, or the Arab bloc. During the cold war, it was a time when if war between super powers erupted, proxies at all levels would respond to the larger confrontation. The USSR armed it’s proxies with Chemical Weapons on their own order of battle, with the same equipment and deployment of their forces - hence the US/NATO ability to destroy these forces in the Middle East at will, given the failure of the equipment to keep pace in a technologically changing world with the USSR’s demise. US Clients or proxies were given a continuous and uninterrupted flow of weapons technology. Reviving the cold war by Russia today is a bad idea since they themselves are still rebuilding after Gorby sought peace from a point of weakness. Those other three nations have never been invaded by their neighbors since the suspected 1878-1979 explosions off S. Africa’s coast which were suspected to be nuclear. Two of the three countries today are thriving Tigers in Asia and the third has her ancient capital in Jerusalem.
LOL thats funny
Their nuclear weapons are called the “Samson Option”. If Israel is lost, Israel will take the Arabs with them when they send out their mass of nuclear bombs.
Samson couldn't get away from the bad guys, so he pulled down the building on top of them and himself. He died, but they died with him.
EXPORT!
Air delivery works.
> If Syria must get rid of its chemical weapons, the reasoning goes, why can’t Israel do the same?
Because Israel is NOT controlled by 7th century religious nutjobs who desire to force their evil religion upon everyone. The islam party would use them to terrorize and kill millions.
Only ignorant and/or leftists do not understand this fact.
If only the defenders would lay down their arms, the fighting would soon end.
(With the death or enslavement of the defenders).
Aggressors of the world - UNITE!
Israel must have nuclear weapons, based on simple logic.
Four (actually more) times, the Muslim world has tried to destroy Israel. Destroy meaning annihilation, not just conquest. By any means possible. They say it again and again. They teach it to their children in school.
By comparison, what if Russia and China openly called for exterminating all Americans, so that North America would become part of China; and *then* asked America to get rid of all its nuclear weapons? They would be willing to disarm North Korea in exchange.
Aren’t we willing to meet them halfway in their demand, to insure peace? If we just get rid of our nuclear weapons then *maybe* they will stop calling for our extermination.
Umm. Nope. I don’t think so.
Israel is in such a precarious position that it cannot limit itself to brinksmanship with any particular aggressor nation. For example, with technology being the way it is today, if one Muslim nation attacked Israel, Israel could be so damaged that after that fight it would be helpless against another Muslim nation, with conventional weapons.
And almost without saying so, if Israel was perceived as weak under any circumstance, there would be *several* Muslim nations that would immediately attack it. They just cannot control their violent impulses.
So if Israel does get a serious attack from a Muslim nation, its logical nuclear retaliation should be against any and all Muslim nations that *could* conventionally attack them.
They cannot even wait for hostilities from the second nation, because their nuclear weapons are the primary target for attack by the aggressor nations. If they wait, their nukes could be destroyed.
This was a big reason for putting nuclear cruise missiles in their submarines, so that even if their land based missiles were destroyed, they could still wipe out any Muslim army seeking to invade and destroy them.
More nukes for them, means more opportunity for peace. They need nukes. The Muslim world does not.
The US had to mightily threaten Pakistan, because as soon as it developed nuclear weapons, it wanted to use them against India, which in turn put together its own nuclear weapons at a brisk clip. But even then, knowing that they would be nuked as well, Pakistan was good to go in attacking their hated enemy. Dumbasses.
So the US had to send one of our diplomats to Pakistan, and threaten that the US would annihilate their entire nation if they threw as much as a single nuke at India. Then he went to India and gave them the same threat, though not as much, because India had no desire to nuke Pakistan, and just wanted to be left alone by them.
Click on the link below, and read this article posted here about a week ago. It is so Poetic, the land of Milk and Honey, look at the color of the Oil coming out of the ground From Israel that Mr. Vinegar is holding...
IMHO Putan must be crapping his shorts over the prospect of Israel challenging their energy dominance which drives "his" machine / country.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/should-israel-get-oil-out-of-vinegar-for-an-energy-revolution/
LOL, just have a Coke and teach the world to sing. The truth is the world isn't sick of war, neither is the prince of this world.
Fat chance Odungo and Putrid!!
Or they can give up their nukes nose first and armed, makes no difference to me at this point.
An old man once told me “If someone gives you money, they’re going to tell you how to spend it.” That’s why the US tries to tell Israel what to do.
..and Medina.
Ooops.. “12th Imam”, not “Iman”.
I was just going to say, what does David Bowie's wife have to do with it?
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
What does nukes have to do with it? Syria doesn’t have nukes. Why would any well meaning person or entity think Israel should give up its nukes?
Good people would be subjugated by bad people if they gave up their weapons.
“Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who don’t.” Benjamin Franklin
Joel 3:10- Beat your plowshares into swords And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, “I am a mighty man.”
After Jesus Christ returns to Earth, then we can peaceably disarm.
Isaiah 2:4
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.