Funny you mention M.A.D., Mr. Right,
America sets new trends in backing out of internationally significant treaties_of course the Russians will follow. I think we are in a new Cold War. Russia could care less about The Jewish State's thievery and will vaporize it, within minutes, should Sharon be so stupid as to actually sign his own death certificate by launching one of their " nuclear hand-outs from the US" on their neighbors.
But religious zealots, fanatics, might not care about M.A.D. or the devastating, 3 minute, consequences. They could be the ones to trigger destruction. Which, in turn would trigger their own destruction from a mysterious ghost " shipsky"
America is being stroked into thinking THEY are the big bad geo- super power. Pooty Putin isn't stupid and has secured Russia's natural resources (OIL-they are #2)
Atlast Russia/ China are standing up to America's out of control power and riding shotgun through the waters of the Eastern Hemisphere_on the coattails of Uncle Sam. Keeping them in check_because after all, The US is not the World Dominator, it just thinks this.
Nuclear arms send clear signals in all directions_China to Taiwan_Israel to Syria or Iran. America to the invisible soldiers of Terror.
Uncle Sam needs to realize it isn't really the World dominator as the Zionist Media would have us believe...don't. Countries are kept in check thanks to Nuclear capabilities. I don't think N. Korea, China or Russia will hand over their insurance cards just to please the Zionist ( US) Paki. maybe...but Musharoff is bought and paid for anyway by the West.
These weapons and the balls to posture and use them should the " need" arise are the ultimate system of checks and balances... and it works_both ways, Mr. Right.
C'est la vie.

Good in some ways at prevention, but in the end, they could quite easily kill us all.

It makes me think about a great film staring Peter Sellers... "Dr Strangelove (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb)."

For those who haven’t seen it, the story goes that an insane American general shuts off all communications from his base, and tells all his soldiers that the Russians have attacked. He orders his aircraft, circling near Russia, to switch off all further communications in case of soviet interference, and then orders a nuclear strike on Russia. Obviously the Russians prepare for retaliation, and unfortunately, they had recently developed the "dooms day device" which upon being attacked would destroy the entire world. The problem was, they were going to tell the world about it in a few days time.

As Dr. Strangelove points out, that: "Deterrence is the art of producing, in the mind of the enemy, the fear to attack!"

Totally true I’m sure, but there are probably some people out there, with fingers on buttons, who may see things differently.

The problem is, the people most likely to use a nuclear weapon, i.e. terrorists, aren't going to stop and think about how using that weapon will effect the world.

Cheers

When I read that you thought the world was better off with nuclear weapons, I thought you were crazy. But the way you expalined it makes a lot of sense. But I agree with Jetblackstar that in the hands of the wrong people.... they will destroy us all.
I agree with that as things are now yes it is better that we have them. ONLY because it is impossible to to rid the world of them completly.

Civilized nations will definitely use restraint, but as jeblackstar said, terrorists aren't going to care what the ramifications are. Let's just hope that should they ever use nuclear weapons, that the world will be united against them and not take sides.

As I did mention, I never advocated their use or possession by so called terrorists, rogue nations, etc. But even rogue nations have their larger nation allies understanding the complexity of their decisions.

As far as E.Macy is concerned, well I suppose I'm not quite sure what you were going on about. You mixed in some anti-zionists (aka anti-semitic) feelings and the rise of a Russia/China balance of power. I will be the first to agree that Russia will not be "down" forever, a country that size will eventually rise up again. They too, along with China will realize and understand the theory of M.A.D.

-Mr. Right

The problem that I have with the whole MAD argument is that someone CAN win. The first person to pull the trigger is the victor--if they use their weapons to their fullest potential.

I also have a problem with the idea that *certain* nations can and will decide who can have WMD--if anyone can have them, everyone should be able to have them...why is it that the US, having actually used WMD in WWII has the right to dictate that other countries aren't trustworthy enough to have them and not use them?

You mixed in some anti-zionists (aka anti-semitic) feelings

Anti-zionism and anti-semitism are not the same thing. According to Dictionary.com Zionism is a Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel. To be anti-Zionist then simply means that you do not support the State of Israel in Occupied Palestine. It does not make you anti-semitic.

And while I am at it...the word "semite" references a language group--nothing more. Included in the semitic languages are Hebrew and Arabic. Thus, Arabs are semitic people...therefore the argument that people who are against the occupation of Palestine (and therefore, by definition, anti-zionist) are anti-semitic is ridiculous. Palestinians are semites! That's not to say there aren't anti-semites--but not everyone who criticizes the state of Israel is anti-semitic.

Shadesofgrey, I do believe we are being a little picky. I suppose I thought it was general belief that to be anti-semitic was to be anti-judaism.

I am well aware of the definitions of both, and do realize the differences. I still maintain to the average person they are interchangeable in their affect and meaning.

Why oppose a Jewish state in the middle east?

What right do the Palestines and Arabs (or rest of the world) have to complain about Israel's occupation of the area when Middle Eastern Powers started a series of wars nearly immediately after the establishment of Israel in 1947-48.

Why is there such rising anger towards Jews not only in the U.S., but Europe especially?

Why?

you missed my point, Mr Right, Russia and China are looking out for themselves and don't give a shit about US or M.A.D.treaties of Old and Broken.
Sharon sends missiles to Damascus, Russia turns Tel Aviv into heat and light_while denying everything. Simple. The Jewish State has more enemies than friends.

and answer your own questions about " WHY?"

Shadesofgrey_thanks for clearing that up, I will be forever branded the kike hater here_but it's not true, anti Zion_not Anti Jewish peoples. vive la difference.

Are you ashamed of your answer to the question of "why" e.macy? Be honest with yourself and the community.

And just like the Cuban Missle Crisis, nuclear missles cannot just "show up" is Syria, it would not be that difficult to track that sort of thing down, and all nations would know the consequence of launching such a strike on Israel. Plus M.A.D. is not your S.A.L.T. treaties or anything like that, more of a philosophy, the only thing it takes to understand is not wanting to see hundreds of millions of people dead in the matter of hours.

Screw China, move on with Star Wars.

Why can't we be friends? (Yes I get the irony, funny isnt it)

Mr. Right

Who gave those "evil Zionist Jews" their own state in the first place? It's funny how these people so against Israel never criticize those that gave Israel to those "evil Zionists Jews" in the first place. I guess it's more of an "I hate Jews" kind of things.

you missed my point, Mr Right, Russia and China are looking out for themselves and don't give a shit about US or M.A.D.treaties of Old and Broken.

Just like the U.S. can't not give a shit about Russia and China, Russia and China can't just not give a shit about the U.S., especially when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Sharon sends missiles to Damascus, Russia turns Tel Aviv into heat and light_while denying everything. Simple. The Jewish State has more enemies than friends.

Let's say that did happen? What would you think of Russia's response?
Also, when one thinks about it, Israel's friends are as powerful as all of its enemies and if it's enemies strike, its friends could strike its enemies, and nobody wins, and meanwhile, the UN is still not seen as the real bad guy by those who hate the Jewish State even though they were responsible for its creation in the first place (and ironically, believe that if a decision is not approved by the UN, is wrong).

Mr. Right:

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I can't seem to log into my account.

First, the fact that everyone interchanges the two words is precisely my point. The excuse that everyone else does it so it is ok is not valid. The only way to peaceful resolve the conflict is if the two sides understand each other. Throwing around inflamatory words like anti-Semitic doesn't do anything to help the situation. The two words have completely different meanings and should be used correctly.

As for why oppose a Jewish state--I am again, going to be picky--as that is the nature of this debate--its all about the details and how you can spin the truth on the ground. Anti-Zionist oppose a Jewish State on the Palestinian Homeland--they do not, simply oppose a Jewish State. There is a difference. My opposition to the Occupation of Palestine is not anti-Israel, it is anti-Israel in the West Bank and Gaza. Subtle but important--and that's the nature of this conflict.

I'm not even sure I want to answer your next question, but I will give it a try. For every, what right to the Palestinians have, I can throw back a what right do the Israelis have. For starters, the Arab nations surrounding the Palestinians declared that war, not the Palestinians. Since the Arab nations have turned their backs on the Palestinians, why should the Palestinians be punished for something they didn't do. Also, as Benny Morris (Israeli scholar) has written, there was radio propoganda occuring that lead to the fear causing the Palestinians to flee. The massacre at Deir Yasin did little to ease their minds.

But this is not the point. History is not the point. Anymore. The point is that you have two "peoples" who both believe that they have a historic and moral right to the land that they are living on. Are they both right? Are they both wrong? It doesn't really matter who side history is on. Looking to the past will not help to establish a peace tomorrow in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian territories.

As for your final question--Again, this phrasing of this quesiton is purposely inflamatory. To be against the policies of Israel as a nation is not to be "angry with the Jews"--it is to be angry with Israel. There is an important difference.

It sounds as if the surrounding Arab nations are the real villains. Anti-Zionists, rather than declaring Israel the enemy, should probably focus their attention on the surrounding nations that are provoking the fire. After all, Israel is there to stay, and Palestinian ownership of it is history.

You say there is resentment for Jews, particularly in Europe... I'm from the UK, and I think you are wrong in what you say. People here rarely talk about "Jews". We do talk about Israel.

There is definitley some resentment for the Israeli government, but not for the Jews. I would like to think that the actions of the Israeli government are not condoned by all of its citizens. There is a BIG difference.

However bad the actions of some Palestinians, while they are acts of "terror", they must be viewed from a different perspective to the acts of a group such as Al Qaeda. They are finding it very hard to be heard and Israel is practically undefeatable should it come to a full scale war. As I understand it, Israel is taking land, which was considered by most to owned (and populated) by Palestine. That is just not something a country should be doing in this era. Why do they feel the need for this, as it is surely oppression - and aren't "we" against all that?

To All:

Let us say assume that both have valid claims on the land, and that therefore history is rather inconsequential. Then what shall we do? Neither is going to give up the land and leave, of course not. So what is the answer?

As for Europe's rising anti-seminism goes, perhaps not the UK, but France especially has had rising levels of violence and anger.

I also agree that to simply be against Israel does not inherently mean to be anti-Jew. You can be against the policies of the state without being against the religion as a whole. However, there are many nations partitioned out of land younger than Israel. Why is there such concentrated anger towards Israel? And I understand Egypt was the main antagonist in the series of wars, but Palestine did not oppose them, they participated.

Who's right? Who's wrong? I agree not so simple an answer.

Which goes back to my original post in my Israel vs. Palestine article.

They are doomed for destruction. Sad as that may be.

Mr. Right