If Libya can do it, why not Israel?

[DuctapeFatwa]

..If weapons of mass destruction are a menace in unstable regions such as the Middle East, if their availability must be reduced, then logic begins to move us closer to the confrontation we never seek with the nuclear power we - let alone Messrs Bush and Blair - seldom mention: Israel...Ariel Sharon probably has more than 200 nuclear warheads this morning...

That makes Israel the world's fifth largest nuclear power, boasting more bangs from Washington's bucks than Blair's Britain. And over in the other WMD basket, nobody much dissents when a report by the office of technology assessment for the US Congress concludes that Israel has "undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities" and is "generally reported as having an undeclared offensive biological warfare programme". Bombs, missiles, delivery systems, gases, germs? Tel Aviv has the lot. We only forget to remember because it's not a suitable subject for polite diplomatic conversation......

reality check...Iraq is a wrecked rat trap. The weapons of mass destruction Gadafy sought are no more, no threat. Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt? Nothing to say, nothing to show. You can, if you wish, be concerned about Syria's chemical weapons facilities - and you can reasonably worry about a nuclear Iran, even though Tehran took a decisive step back towards international acceptability..Moscow is out of the action, and the whole dynamic of Middle East danger has changed. Logic comes knocking at Sharon's door.


An Israel bristling with nuclear hardware it cannot talk about and chemical horrors it could negotiate away does not make itself, or the world, any safer. On the contrary, it makes a hypocritical farce of too much Washington bargaining, buries too many initiatives deep down Hypocrisy Gulch and gives rogue groupings in ex-rogue states every reason to carry on developing, stealing or buying the devices that keep Mr Blair awake at night. Does Tel Aviv see that connection? Does it want to bring a whole region in from the cold? Such things are becoming possible. But first we need the honesty to follow where logic leads; and begin to talk about them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1111567,00.html

[kalian]

1. As Jim Sagle stated this morning...

"because Israel would be destroyed"... :eyes:

[aquart]

2. That's the reason.

Jim is so smart.

[Jim Sagle]

3. It's really rocket science, isn't it?

;-)

[dfong63]

10. that doesn't make sense

if Israel were threatened with destruction, the US's nuclear arsenal would defend Israel just as securely as its own.

and even without nukes, Israel has the strongest military in the region.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Kathy in Cambridge]

5. You don't like the AYE-Rabs either, huh?

:eyes:

Keep spouting those Rush talking points, Dhurrie. The countdown begins!

[Darranar]

6. What's your point?

What do suicide bombings have to do with any of this?

Last time I checked, nuclear weaponry do not protect against suicide bombing, especially when the source is not very far from the target...

[Aidoneus]

7. That's right, sort of

They use airplanes & bury mines when doing that sort of thing. A big difference..

[Resistance]

8. maybe because

Israel is America's main offshore military base in the Middle East?

[meti57b]

9. If Libya can do it, why not the US, China, Russia, India and Pakistan?

[Resistance]

11. just to clarify, if you would

you want everyone except Israel to disarm their nukes?

Personally, I'm all for everyone doing it, no exceptions.