Ok, one last time.
Informed conjecture is not outside the scope of this message board. You said that Israel has a record of never using nukes despite having them forever. That's spin
It's true, isn't it? Does Israel have nukes, yes or no? Has Israel used nukes, yes or no? It's true whether you
like that or not. That's how truth works. It's supposed to be a value, isn't it? Respecting the truth?
Do you like Mike Tyson? He's good with pigeons. That's a true fact. He's also a rapist. That's a true fact. You might not care that he's good with pigeons, or think it's of any consequence at all compared to being a rapist. But it's dishonest to deny that he's good with pigeons simply because you don't want him to have any good points.
, because Bibi's recent reckless (mis)adventurism makes very plausible to ...conjecture, with a great deal of confidence, that should the war had gone completely differently (for instance, with the US not ponying up every time, and also Iran proving to be more than just a blustering fool of a country as far as its tactical moves in recent years), and should in conventional warfare terms Israel found itself in the same position as it put Iran: then Bibi might well have unleashed Israel's covert-but-everyone-knows nukes. (And it is quibbling with semantics to go to town with my admittedly technically incorrect use of "fact", albeit I did qualify it with an "almost" --- my meaning cannot have been unclear basis that wording.)
Plausible, confidence, should, might well....hypothetical, speculation, fiction. Which is fine as creative writing but you shouldn't expect other people to agree it makes powerful points in favor of your arguments about reality.
Giving to Israel the leeway, in terms of having allowed it to develop nukes,
"Having allowed it"? Did anyone know about it at the time, and could they have stopped them? I thought it was done in secret and a
fait accompli. If they didn't have them now and were pursuing them then yes, other nations --including my own-- might well find it to their own advantage to stop them. But that's true of every nation with nukes, isn't it? Each nation's ideal situation would be for it alone to have nukes. Obviously that's not how it worked out.
that Iran was not given, is without a shadow of a doubt tribal. Should Iran also have had nukes, then Bibi would not have dared to unleash his murderous attacks on Iran --- that also is almost-fact, take how you will that phrasing.
I wonder why it's not working the other way? Israel does have nukes, yet Iran dares to unleash its own murderous attacks on Israel. It's almost as if Iran knows Israel won't use its nukes.
Why was Iran not also given that same leeway.
Obviously it is "given that same leeway" since it's attacking a nuke-holding nation, and isn't being nuked.
(By the way, just to clearly spell out my position, for what that is worth: If I were made king of the world, or Prez, and had to decide whether to let Iran keep nukes or not, then, well certainly I'd have reined in Israel first and foremost, but leaving that aside, and focusing only and solely on the Iran nukes question: I too would have done what I could to contain their nukes, and if truly given evidence of imminent bombs --- which was not the case here, incidentally --- then I too may well have chosen to remove them. But that would have been a completely tribal-morality-based decision.
Not necessarily: you could hold a moral position that such deadly weapons are abhorrent and should be restricted to the utmost minimum number of holders as possible. In which case you'd oppose absolutely anybody getting nukes who doesn't already have them, and regret that anybody already has them. That wouldn't be "tribal morality", it would be an idealistic opposition to a class of weapons-- hindered by the unfortunate fact that some already have those weapons and you can't take them away now.
You asked what kind of a message board this is. Surely, if anything, it is one where fig leaves to hide behind are torn away. Tribalism is a thing, particularly in international affairs (as opposed to personal affairs, where one has greater leeway to do what one thinks morally right). Let us not dress us this purely tribal-morality inspired decision, which is morally no different at all than what Russia has done and is doing, behind fig leaves.)
You seem wedded to your theory that these two conflicts are "tribal", and everything mentioned about either must necessarily also be "tribal" and taking a side. I disagree. It's not "purely tribal-morality" to object to one nation seizing territory from another by force -- that's a principle. Which you can see if the person holding it doesn't excuse the activity if favored parties do it. Which I don't, actually: if Israel seizes territory from Iran and tries to hold it that would be, in my opinion, a bad thing. And vice versa for Iran. Russia has done that in Ukraine and thus I condemn them for it. Should Ukraine reaquire its territory and then go further, seizing Russian territory that was never Ukrainian I'd condemn that, too.
Indeed. Like I said, even as tribalism goes, this is a pretty weird kind of tribalism, this unconditional support of most everything the crazy psychopath helming Israel thinks of doing. Again like I said, extended tribalism kind of covers it.
Right, as long as you own that --- as you have clearly done just now --- there is nothing to argue about. Tribal morality, and pragmatism based in tribalism. Fine, it is what it is.
How is pointing out that Israel hasn't nuked anybody "unconditional support of most everything the crazy psychopath helming Israel thinks of doing"? Put down your partisanship for a moment and really, really think about that. All I said was Israel has nukes and hasn't used them.
You're the one being "tribal" by assuming anything said about Israel that isn't to its detriment must necessarily be partisan support for it. Mike Tyson is good with pigeons...OMG I must support rape!
I'm afraid you are. Not to make a laundry list of I-said-you-said's, but just to take one clear instance, your invoking Israel's non-use of nukes over these decades
Heh. You can't "make a laundry list" because that's actually the only thing I've said about the conflict.
--- given that Israel has never been pushed close to the edge in these years
Has it? I think Israel's had worse crises with its neighbors since 1967 than what's going on now.
, and given Bibi's desperate (mis)adventurism in recent months surely makes it far more likely than not that he'd use those nukes if Iran were able to do to Israel what Israel actually did to Iran. That's spin, plain and simple. And I note that you still don't acknowledge this.
(Apologies, don't mean to make this rude. But I don't know how else to say this.)
...you want me to "acknowledge" your interpretation is correct of what might happen in a speculative scenario you've created? And not doing so is "spin"? What value would drawing judgments on creative fiction hold? I don't really see the point in that. Which is why I've confined my remarks to actual reality. Which is: Israel has nukes, Israel hasn't used nukes. Ditto France, if you don't count testing. And China, and Russia, and even Pakistan.
You're uncomfortable with the actual true fact in actual reality that Israel has nukes and hasn't used them. Why? Because it's a point in favor of Israel not being as madly evil and evilly mad as you believe it to be. Ah, but in a creative writing exercise you can easily imagine a scenario in which Israel does use nukes! How wicked of them! My not condemning them for that is clearly "spin"!
Not what I meant. I meant I was surprised at your spinning this, and keeping on spinning this, and the ...well, the not fully completely straight attitude in discussing this that that implies. I was surprised at your resorting to doing this, as I was not, given past experience, at some others doing this.
What does anyone else reading this think? Am I engaging in pro-Israeli "spin" with my posts in this thread?
I'm sorry, but I kind of think I do.
Yeah, I can see that you think you do. While I think you're so far gone in siding against Israel that you have lost the required detachment to see clearly.
But again, not to make this unnecessarily contentious. We're just repeating ourselves at this point. Won't revisit this again --- respectfully, exit. Cheers
When has that ever worked? The only way you're getting the last word is to flounce. I don't care much about Iran or Israel, but I'm not going to let anyone accuse me falsely of distorting truth by pointing out true facts: Israel has nukes. Israel hasn't used nukes.
Hell, I actively hate Russia, there's a conflict I actually do care about, and I have zero problems acknowledging the exact same facts: Russia has nukes, Russia hasn't used nukes. That's a point in their favor, even though they suck horribly and are awful, and are enemies of my own country. Which itself has nukes, and
has used them. Which is a point
against my own "tribe".
I'm not being tribal. (Although I do have a kick-ass "tribal" tattoo, which was the style of the time.)
