Comments on: Nuclear bombs and the Israeli elephant http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: litvac150 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/#comment-37540 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:05:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=8672#comment-37540 If there is one nation that is entitled to have nuclear weapons-it’s Israel. Tiny territory, surrounded on all sides
by hostile populations, with genocidal intentions;
It would be shear insanity for Israel to even consider
giving up nuclear weapons.

]]>
By: DanDetroit http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/#comment-33859 Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:45:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=8672#comment-33859 Israel’s interest is purely self defense, unlike the muslims surrounding them and in Iran, who have a vision of imposing Islam on the world through jihad.

]]>
By: ngc121629 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/#comment-33836 Tue, 23 Nov 2010 08:57:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=8672#comment-33836 Factoid 1 Israel is a stated creted by war and populated intially by survivors of the holocaust
Factoid 2 Israel is despised for this victory for the same reason Mexicians dislike “Yankee imperialism”-we won the war
Factoid 3 Would any nation in the world disarm their nuclear weapons to societies that tolerate suicides bomber and treat women as”untermench”
The US and Israel are by no means perfect democracies but as Churchill stated “whats better”

]]>
By: izzyis1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/#comment-33820 Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:41:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=8672#comment-33820 First of all the expression Cohen was quoting referred to a gorilla. The only reason this has any relevance is because it establishes the value of the rest of the article.

If there exists the nuclear weaponry spoken of, then I guess they are secure in secure hands, and serve their purpose as shown by history. Can you imagine if any of it was in Iraqi or Iranian possession?

As for Vanunu, had he committed the same act of treason in any of the neighboring countries he would have been dead as he deserves. In this case the Israelis have been weak and stupid.

Mr. Cohen [?] I feel pity for your grand parents and shame for your parents.

]]>
By: pHenry http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/#comment-33807 Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:26:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=8672#comment-33807 The only aggression I’ve seen from Israel is better described as retaliation or preemptive. Each nation reserves the right of defense. MassResident,we haven’t “invaded” Pakistan yet. Or maybe we have, just by air or convenience to them. Tribal areas shouldn’t be drawn on a map in the first place. The Kurdish tribe split up didn’t help either by the way. And still I don’t see anyone offering to redraw a map nor giving them nukes for defense.

]]>
By: MassResident http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/#comment-33792 Fri, 19 Nov 2010 02:08:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=8672#comment-33792 Nuclear weapons prevented the cold war from turning into an all out hot war and they may do the same for the Middle East once Israel loses its monopoly. Even the most fanatic leaders are never suicidal. Their lives and their power are too important to them. You will notice that the US has not invaded Pakistan even though we are at war with the Taliban which was created by and is still supported by the Pakistan’s military and intelligence services. Nukes make a great defense: they scare everyone by promising certain death to the leadership of an aggressor.

]]>
By: USAalltheway http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/#comment-33782 Thu, 18 Nov 2010 02:25:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=8672#comment-33782 Iran is not a democratic country. It tortures and imprisons its citizens for questioning the elections. It also stones women to death for adultery. No barbaric country like this should ever own nukes.

]]>
By: paulos http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/#comment-33774 Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:32:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=8672#comment-33774 One huge difference between the nuclear weapons in Israel and those that may be developed elsewhere in the middle east is that the Israeli ones will only ever be used in self defence, whilst those of neighbouring countries may be used as a first strike against Israel. If other middle eastern countries lay down their arms, peace will come to the middle east. If Israel lays down it’s arms it will cease to exist.

]]>
By: Kevin5069 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/#comment-33769 Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:27:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=8672#comment-33769 It’s double standards like this that cause the USA to lose face in the international world. Only American’s can come up with this ‘our allies can have them but no one else’ policy and expect everyone in the world to agree.

Some day in the future the US will be fighting many of these nations, and some will be nuclear armed.

]]>
By: RET_SFC http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/11/15/nuclear-bombs-and-the-israeli-elephant/#comment-33766 Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:30:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=8672#comment-33766 A UN resolution is not enough to establish illegality; nations have and always have had the right to defend themselves, and, unless they agree to limitations, to arm themselves as they see fit. This places us in an uncomfortable position with regard to unstable regimes such as North Korea, which constantly trumpets its willingness, indeed, a positive lust, to use nuclear weapons they’ve shown themselves at least able to produce, and boasted they possess, at the smallest slight or pressure. It would take occupation and inspection to root them out. War, in other words, where one could confidently expect the North’s stockpile to be used on those very parties seeking to eliminate it. I suppose that would work; they can only be used once, after all. But for states who neither admit, boast or threaten, we have no grounds for such an approach, only anxiety and suspicion. And for Nuclear states already massively armed, who stand alert and ready to use them, of course, we have no ability.

And there’s this: If just a million or three people in a state scraping by, at war with neighbors many times their number, could pose a threat to the whole world, imagine what forty or a hundred million people in nations floating on oil money, what those tens of millions, already having screamed their intent to drive the Zionists into the sea, and whose most outspoken now threaten Jews everywhere, and even the friends of Jews, imagine what THEY could do. And probably are.

]]>