Better nuke Israel before it is too late

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik wrote:

IMO,bioweapons have the greatest possibility of being a 'doomsday'
weapon,as the bugs or virii

You mean "viruses". There is no such word "virii" in either English
or Latin.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:
The US -did- use TWO nuclear weapons;on Japan.I believe that use was
justified.

I wish I had your certainty on this. Horrible though their use was, I
know that in the long run, it probably saved lives. I even think that,
at the time, it was the correct decision. At the same time, I firmly
believe the nuclear genie should never have been let out of the
bottle. The world needs a better answer, and I deeply regret that in
1945 no better answer was deemed to be available.


It is not necessarily a 'doomsday' weapon,either.No more than bio or
chemical WMD.

Not necessarily, but use on any scale has far reaching consequences.
The Tall Boy and Fat Man were firecrackers compared to what's around
today. I overstated the case a bit, but not much. Bio is probably more
dangerous, chemical is probably the lesser of these evils.


IMO,bioweapons have the greatest possibility of being a 'doomsday'
weapon,as the bugs or virii could potentially mutate past any vaccine or
antibiotic protection,and could self-sustain themselves,spreading well past
the target area,perhaps 'round the world'.

Bio weapons are indeed dangerously unpredictably. They literally have
a life of their own, and do not care about any human agenda.

Rob

Rob van Riel wrote:

(Kenneth Williams) wrote in message

Israel would only use nuclear weapons to protect itself in the event
that the nation was about to fall- as a last resort. But Israel's
neighbors only want to build a bomb to be used against Israel.

The US only wanted the bomb to kick the **** out of the Japanese, and
to intimidate the Russians. In the eyes of many in the region, Israel
has been a constant and violently active military threat since it was
created. I don't approve of the use of nuclear weapons, but it does
seem like the only way to be rid of Israel, and thus to the Arabs, a
last resort. The alternative is to live under the threat of Israeli
agression for all eternity.

Aw c'mon. How about actually addressing the points he made here.
Frinstance

Israel would only use nuclear weapons to protect itself in
the event that the nation was about to fall- as a last
resort.

If you do not agree with that statement, or do agreee with it, then say
so. Don't waffle on with irrelevancy about the US flattening Japan

And,

But Israel's neighbors
only want to build a bomb to be used against Israel.

If you do not agree with that statement, or do agreee with it, then say
so. Don't weasel out with "the alternative blah blah blah". Is there not
enough evidence for you that some Arabs have stated the intention of
eliminating Israel?

ronh
--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

On 13 Oct 2003 23:43:55 -0700, (Kenneth
Williams) wrote:

My priorities are just fine, than you.

Israel is a theocracy, anyone that says otherwise is either a fool or
a liar. There is no nuke warhead for the Harpoon, but any thinking
person would refuse to sell it 9if it existed) to *anyone* in the
Middle East.

Al Minyard

Mr. Minyard,

Do you hate Jews or what?

I do not "hate" any particular group of people. I do recognize that,
as a group, theocracies tend to perpetuate evil, be they Moslem, Jew,
or any other religion.

The reason I ask is that I've been to Israel many times in my life and
do not get the impression that you have that they are a bunch of
religious fanatics bent on world destruction.

I too have been to Israel, and actions speak louder than words when it
comes to international relations.

Israel is a pretty small island of freedom in a vast region of brutal
regimes with oppressive Islamic laws. I would be more worried if
Israel's neighbors got the bomb than Israel possessing a few hundred.

Either worries me, equally.

Israel would only use nuclear weapons to protect itself in the event
that the nation was about to fall- as a last resort. But Israel's
neighbors only want to build a bomb to be used against Israel.

So you say, but a country that routinely bulldozes home in a fit of
mass punishment should not have nukes.

I can't believe you would not be against this. You seem to side with
the enemies of peace.

All of the countries in the region are enemies of peace.

Thank God President Bush is for Israel.

I think you should take a trip to Israel yourself Mr. Minyard and see
what life is like. Talk to an average Israeli family or person in the
street. They don't want war, they want peace. But not at any cost.
Israel is proud of their IDF because most citizens have served in it
for most of their lives. Israel is free largely due to the IDF and the
security of the bomb.

They want the elimination of the Palestinians, who want the
elimination of Israel, it is a no-win situation.

The US and Former Soviet Union never went to war due to MAD, but that
strategy doesn't work in the Middle East. Had Saddam had a bomb he
would have used it against Israel in 1991 even if it meant the
annihilation of Iraq. Such is the hatred of the Jews in the region.

Israel isn't a theocracy but they are justified morally in having the
bomb.

Kenneth Williams

Israel is most definitely a theocracy, one only needs to look at the
role that Rabbis play in the government to see this.

Al Minyard