Invading Israel

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Based on the United States excuses for invading Iraq. Such as WMDs and United Nations Resolutions violations. Doesnt it stand to reason that Israel also needs to be invaded when u compare the amount of wmds they are known to have. Also lets not forget they have also violated almost three (3) times more resolutions than Iraq ever did




posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Israel has been invaded before. That tiny little country is sourounded by fanatics that have stated over and over again their desire to drive them into the ocean. They need a strong defense if they are going to survive as a country. I can't fault them for this.

I was also against the Gulf War I back 15 years ago.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
Israel has been invaded before. That tiny little country is sourounded by fanatics that have stated over and over again their desire to drive them into the ocean. They need a strong defense if they are going to survive as a country. I can't fault them for this.

I was also against the Gulf War I back 15 years ago.



Is that a defense for violating UN Resolutions? Is that a defense for obtaining WMDs and there delivery systems?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
All the UN resolutions "against" Israel that have been passed are under Chapter VI:



Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members.


The resolutions against Iraq were filed under Chapter VII:



Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security". This was the basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members.


(both quotes from Wikipedia -- UN Security Council)

Therefore you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Israel has never violated, or even been subject to a binding Chapter VII resolution.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
The United States moving into Syria is just a ploy for what is to be down played in the next few months. Iran is still calling for the complete destruction of the Jewish State. Israel needs help, not a bunch of political wrangling that shouldn't be going on. Israel will be attacked by Iran using nuclear weapons sometime within the next year. If the U.S. or the U.N. do not do anything to stop it, Israel will strike Iran first. Israel has given us an ultimatum something to be done about Iran. If nothing is done about Iran, then Israel is set to strike in or around the month of March. If this were to occur and it will happen, this would mean an all out nuclear holocaust. This would not just be involving only a few nations, but this could encircle the entire globe. This would be your battle of Armageddon.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
regardless of which chapter of which charter the resolutions are filed under, dont u think that that when the community of civilised nations passes a reccomendation to a country that is accepted by the rest of the world, it should be followed? i certainly do.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Seeing how Israel has never been a threat to her neighbors, and since she has those weapons so that she may survive while being surrounded by people who want nothing but her demise, and since she can expect no help from a "world council" (U.N.) that despises her, nit-picking everything about her and ignoring all violations of human decency by her neighbors, I'd have to say, no. We should not try and take her nukes away.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
regardless of which chapter of which charter the resolutions are filed under, dont u think that that when the community of civilised nations passes a reccomendation to a country that is accepted by the rest of the world, it should be followed? i certainly do.


Yes, but Chapter VI calls for a peaceful resolution through negotiation...it's kind of hard to negotiate with terrorists waging jihad against you.

Chapter VI is a two-way street, and Israel has cooperated, it's her enemies that have not.

[edit on 12/6/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
The United States moving into Syria is just a ploy for what is to be down played in the next few months. Iran is still calling for the complete destruction of the Jewish State. Israel needs help, not a bunch of political wrangling that shouldn't be going on. Israel will be attacked by Iran using nuclear weapons sometime within the next year. If the U.S. or the U.N. do not do anything to stop it, Israel will strike Iran first. Israel has given us an ultimatum something to be done about Iran. If nothing is done about Iran, then Israel is set to strike in or around the month of March. If this were to occur and it will happen, this would mean an all out nuclear holocaust. This would not just be involving only a few nations, but this could encircle the entire globe. This would be your battle of Armageddon.


But who is israel to be giving ultimatums to anyone. and i have a quote that comes to mind although i cant remember who said it

'everytime someone tells me israel is our only friend in the middle east i cant help but think before israel, we had no enemys'



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
regardless of which chapter of which charter the resolutions are filed under, dont u think that that when the community of civilised nations passes a reccomendation to a country that is accepted by the rest of the world, it should be followed? i certainly do.


Yes, but Chapter VI calls for a peaceful resolution through negotiation...it's kind of hard to negotiate with terrorists waging jihad against you.

Chapter VI is a two-way street, and Israel has cooperated, it's her enemies that have not.

[edit on 12/6/2005 by djohnsto77]


Its also rather hard to negotiate through a brick wall is it not.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I do think that it would be very hard if not difficult to talk through to a brick wall. One of these days, Iran is going to nuke Israel. With all this political bickering and fussing, we are going to stop this how?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400


If we do something they will complain, If we dont do something and Iran nukes someone, They will complain we didnt do anything to stop Iran, Either way they will complain..



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Based on the United States....


There is a strong relationship between U.S. and Israel.
For what reason should the U.S. invade Israel?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
I do think that it would be very hard if not difficult to talk through to a brick wall. One of these days, Iran is going to nuke Israel. With all this political bickering and fussing, we are going to stop this how?


Seems like a lot of us like to believe the hype. Even though the leadership of Iran are quite obviosly extreme, it would be political and physical suicide for iran to launch a nucleur weapon at Israel. Completely unrealistic. What is more realistic on the other hand, is the current u.s administration fabricating another "potential threat to national security" in order to keep the war machine rolling.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by kojac

Even though the leadership of Iran are quite obviosly extreme, it would be political and physical suicide for iran to launch a nucleur weapon at Israel.


That did not stop other nations to do so in the past. Iran improved the range and accuracy of the Shihab-3. This missile could travel 2000 kilometers (that would be enough to to cover all of Israel) and its accuracy was within a radius of one meter.

Rregionally, Iran has poor relations with its Arab neighbors but Iran is one of the main sponsor of terror organizations. What if those weapons can come into the hands of such organisations? Do you remember Karine-A , the PLO weapons ship from Iran? 50 tons of Iranian weapons and explosives...
Ahmadinejad openly called for the Palestinians to continue with suicide attacks.

Yesterday, a suicide bomber blew himself up at haSharon shopping mall in Netanya/Israel, killing five people and wounding more than 50 others.

In my opinion, the Iranians are seeking to use the difficulties U.S. is having in Iraq as an opportune moment to push ahead with their program. They figure that Washington will not risk opening another military front.



[edit on 6-12-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

Originally posted by Classified Info
That tiny little country is sourounded by fanatics that have stated over and over again their desire to drive them into the ocean.


Is that a defense for obtaining WMDs and there delivery systems?


It absolutely is, and I cant blame them for doing so.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
If this were to occur and it will happen, this would mean an all out nuclear holocaust. This would not just be involving only a few nations, but this could encircle the entire globe. This would be your battle of Armageddon.


I think that this would more likely be the war of gog and magog, which many would be deceived into believing is Armageddon. Armageddon is right before the literal return of Christ and He physically returns to earth.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

original by conspiracy theorist

Is that a defense for violating UN Resolutions? Is that a defense for obtaining WMDs and there delivery systems?


In the same way as terrorists reason and explain their acts as a way to retaliate against political, military and economic atrocities/oppression....

If their cause is not justified, then how to justify Israel's WMD?
Berlin Wall is in-human, Israeli Wall is justified?



original by djohnsto77


Therefore you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Israel has never violated, or even been subject to a binding Chapter VII resolution.



Good explanation of Chapters VI & VII.

Who created this difference, USA or UN?

Who decides under which chapter to keep the matter?

A srong evidence of moral impotency of international community, specially USA & UN....




original by gimmefootball400


If the U.S. or the U.N. do not do anything to stop it, Israel will strike Iran first. Israel has given us an ultimatum something to be done about Iran. If nothing is done about Iran, then Israel is set to strike in or around the month of March.



If this is a fact then where are the writers of Chapter VII?

If this is confirmed and Iran has nukes, then why should not immediately strike Israel....





original by COLe
If we do something they will complain, If we dont do something and Iran nukes someone, They will complain we didnt do anything to stop Iran, Either way they will complain..


Yours is a new-born civilization......


Had you been mature enough, you would not have meddled into the middle east afairs that are thousands of years old...there would have been more peace without your presencethere...


But you are crazy, not content with lolly pop and insist and cry for NWO & OIL.........nice play.......




original by Riwka

There is a strong relationship between U.S. and Israel.
For what reason should the U.S. invade Israel?


'Relationship'...USA and Israel.....
.........of an employee and an employer.......! To grab Middle-east resources and land.




original by kojac


...................it would be political and physical suicide for iran to launch a nucleur weapon at Israel. Completely unrealistic. What is more realistic on the other hand, is the current u.s administration fabricating another "potential threat to national security" in order to keep the war machine rolling.


Very realistic.........believe it or not!

I donot remeber who said:



Unfortunatley, our leaders are not only 'pre-emptive' strike strategists, they are also criminal killers. following my above logic, our leaders can hire any Iranian CIA operative (willing or brainwashed) using 'jihad' and they can go ahead and place a suitcase nuke in any major american city.

3 years after the ensuing war on Iran, we get to discover that the suitcase nuke was assembled and provided from america and NOT IRAN AFTER ALL. -think anthrax.




posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by chaudri

Berlin Wall is in-human, Israeli Wall is justified?


The Berlin Wall had the purpose of keeping citizens of East Berlin from defecting to the West.

Israel's security fence is just the opposite of the Berlin situation. It is intended to keep dangerous terrorist infiltrators out of Israel



Originally posted by chaudri

Good explanation of Chapters VI & VII.
Who created this difference, USA or UN?
Who decides under which chapter to keep the matter?


The U.N members.



[edit on 6-12-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by chaudri

In the same way as terrorists reason and explain their acts as a way to retaliate against political, military and economic atrocities/oppression....

If their cause is not justified, then how to justify Israel's WMD?
Berlin Wall is in-human, Israeli Wall is justified?



The right to defend one's self is a fundamental right that is hardly just Syria's, Lebanon's, or Iran's alone to enjoy. Israel also enjoys this right. Unfortunately, it seems that when there are suicide bomb attacks, Israel is not allowed to respond without appearing as the victimizers in most of the world's media. Yes, they have nukes. And when was the last time they used them? Ohhhhhhhh, yeah. They haven't. Other countries use WMDs on their own people...

Yes, Israel is a competitor in the world. They spy on us, steal secrets, operate in often blatant violation of our wishes. And I defy anyone to find another nation that doesn't do so...including the US. But after all is said and done, they are the last bastion of true democracy in the Middle East, and as the saying goes...better the foe you know...

Invading Israel is not even an option, and comparing their security fence to the Berlin Wall is an outrageous stretch. I'm not the biggest supporter of their policies, but I find that there are few nations that I do fully support.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join