Use your historical sense, Yuyutsu, if you have any common sense.

Of course, there is also the scientific sense of reason, which is the most important because it is the one that teaches us all about balance of power.

That is exactly what Kissinger based his premise on when as Minister of State as well as a Doctor of science, he urged Richard Nixon to use his power to prevent Israel from going militarily nuclear.

Furthermore, as regards Iran, it could be said, that because Iran has not attacked another country since its Persian days, it is believed she only wants to turn Nuko, because she believes she is actually threatened not only by Israel, but also the US.

If you know your history, my friend, you should know all about America backing Iraq in its attack on Iran way back< both America and Iraq turning out very shameful losers>

Cheers< BB< WA>

Dear "one under god", you seem to be living in the past:

While there are some extremes like the ones you concentrate on, the majority of Israelis (including even some who call themselves "religious') don't give a damn about Jewish law OR about zionism in the sense that you are using.

This a classic example of misunderstanding: Israelis say they are "zionist", meaning they are good-and-caring-citizens, and you are incensed about it because you interpret the word by its old meaning. Great!

Most Israelis don't care whether one is Jewish or not according to Jewish law, but whether s/he is loyal to the state. They don't think in such archaic terms as "goy" as you do. The Druze, for example, are not Jewish, but are most respected and occupy top positions in the Israeli army and police - because they are very loyal to the state of Israel.

Bushbred,

I understand about balance of power, but with a nuclear Iran the balance would tip against Israel. The combined enemies of Israel are much stronger in conventional and chemical weapons. In that scenario, perhaps no-one will use nukes, but Israel will be gradually attacked and conquered by Arab and Iranian-backed conventional/chemical forces, knowing there will be no nuclear response. Currently it is well known that anyone using chemical weapons against Israel will find out in 5 minutes how many virgins are waiting for them in heaven. It is only Israel's nuclear detterance that keeps Israel alive. When gone, Israel is gone too. Israel simply cannot afford a nuclear Iran, especially in the hands of irrational leaders who are not afraid of dying.

Nixon did not listen to Kissinger - perhaps he should: obviously he would not succeed parting Israel from its nukes, but by trying to do so he would severe the umbilical cord tying Israel to the USA, and while tough at first, in the longer term that would have been great for Israel, who is now often beaten-down not for its own faults, but for being the punching-bag for those who want, but don't dare, to hit America directly.

Yuyutsu, yes, certainly your argument suits what was previously a little undefensive Israel.

But that was what Immanuel Kant's democratic Federation of Nations was all about - to protect small nations being taken over by larger ones, in fact, Kant's idea also included tyrants such as Napoleon and the later Hitler.

Both the League of Nations and the newer UN are sometimes known as based on Kantian philosophics.

But both times greed has set in with Nazism and Fascism with the League, and US\Con Futurism with the UN - which certainly has been a breakdown in global democracy.

Thus the real truth is, that what Kissinger was on about with Nixon, was that tiny Israel should have become immediately under protection from a true Kantian United Nations.

Sorry about the historicus, matey, but to be decent, reckon we could do with a lot more of it.

Yes, Bushbred there are some excellent theories around, for example:

"A dog that barks does not bite"

The question is whether the dog in front (which unfortunately had no opportunity to attend school) knows this theory.

SOME dogs bark at nothing ,some dogs sneak up behind people and bight them , others slink away in the darkness[all dogs arnt alike] they have many personality traits

even the one god[WHO'S own believers treat like him a dog]has so many oppisite'sides',we have israel[meaning wars with god , or fights angels] or wrestles with god]who begged twice? to be gods people [abraham? mosus? issiah ,BUT WHO IS NOT GODS 'PEOPLE'

who did god NOT GIVE THEIR{OUR}LIVES to live

[god sustaines EVERY life,what land did god NOT emerge from the deep[what land IS NOT GODS holy[wholy] land?]

this absurd arguement about'the judgmental god'is all in error[god dont judge
LIVE WITH IT[its not worth dying over]

what DEATH can be pleasing to god['i ABHORE sacrifice'[get it?]

if the jews are gods people BEGIN by serving LIFE as god serves life[till the zionists do it is clear they are SERVING satan[foresworn to kill all dust god alone can give to life]

jesus says by their deeds are they revealed
so lets think on; BY THEIR fruits

jesus said even a beast KNOWS his masters voice
by our fruits we do reveal WHO WE ARE SERVING
[lord satan or god creator]not oppisites FOR GOD HAS NO OPPISITE[he alone is all living all loving[light sustaining life;that life reveal the glory of the life GIVER]

satan rightfully refused to bow to adam

for he was created from fire[passion]true love of god, men but made from the dirt[but by our deeds we reveal if we honour the dirt or the life giver[or the fire]

obama seems a dirt and fire dude

Yuyutsu, must say I am again disappointed in your historical knowledge know-how.

Kantianism is not a theory but an established scientific law, as proven when the idea of a democratic Federation of Nations
was made law as proven by first the League of Nations and later the United Nations, as I have already pointed out.

Also as proven by Kissinger's protest, Israel was actually breaking the Kantian Law when she illegally went Nuko, very much multiplying the outbreaks of Islamic terrorism affecting us right now.

I don't want to make enemies, Yuyutsu, so I ony wish more of our group would take interest in peace-keeping theories such as the one of Immanuel Kant - which incidently was - scientifically - discussed before the advent of the UN.