gwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) (04/01/85)
> Calling Israel "belligerent" ignores the fact that the state > has been under attack since its establishment in 1948. Also, the fact > that Israel has put some of Iraq's nuclear capacity out of commission has > been omitted. > Brian Nixon. I think your second comment undermines your statement. Isreal blew-up the Iraqi Nuclear Powerplant because they don't want anyone "else" to have the bomb in the area. I would equate this to the US waging war on the USSR in 1950 to get them before they got the bomb. larry fast (Universty of Waterloo) broadcasting from exile
gershon@utcsri.UUCP (Ron Gershon) (04/03/85)
> > Calling Israel "belligerent" ignores the fact that the state > > has been under attack since its establishment in 1948. Also, the fact > > that Israel has put some of Iraq's nuclear capacity out of commission has > > been omitted. > > Brian Nixon. > > I think your second comment undermines your statement. Isreal blew-up the > Iraqi Nuclear Powerplant because they don't want anyone "else" to have > the bomb in the area. I would equate this to the US waging war on the > USSR in 1950 to get them before they got the bomb. > > larry fast (Universty of Waterloo) > broadcasting from exile Israel's reason for blowing up the Iraqi reactor was as a result of declarationsmade by Iraq's President that one day they will use the bomb against the "Zionists". Apparently only Israel took these declarations seriously, but maybe some of the mustard gas victims hospitalized recently in Europe may prove that they are willing to use ANYTHING in their "Holy War". Israel tried for at least 3 years to persuade France (and other Western countries) to prevent them from selling nuclear technology, but apparently the French have other ideas about sales of weapons to countries involved in conflicts (eg, Exocet...) Judging by the world's reaction after the bombing, I do not think that there were too many nations crying over the loss of the reactor (including the USSR) and that takes into account the Americans' withholding of an F-16 shipment (which was in effect only a couple of months). As was mentioned over the net -- if Israel is doing well with convetional weapons, why should they use nuclear warfare? Ron Gershon -- Ron Gershon Usenet: {ubc-vision,utzoo,watmath,allegra,cornell, decvax,ihnp4,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!gershon CSNET: gershon@Toronto ARPA: gershon%Toronto@CSNet-Relay
dave@lsuc.UUCP (04/03/85)
In article <7408@watrose.UUCP> Larry Fast@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) writes: || Israel blew-up the ||Iraqi Nuclear Powerplant because they don't want anyone "else" to have ||the bomb in the area. I would equate this to the US waging war on the ||USSR in 1950 to get them before they got the bomb. Hardly. Iraq, along with several other Arab nations, is in a permanent state of war with Israel. Since it came into existence, Israel has had to fight for its life. In that context, it's quite reasonable to understand it developing a nuclear capability. Belligerent? How about basic self-defense. Israel poses no threat to Iraq nor any of the other countries in the Middle East, if they'd only leave it alone. -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
ksbszabo@wateng.UUCP (Kevin Szabo) (04/04/85)
There is a solution to the agressive tendancies of nations. As was observed elsewhere (fa-arms.d) agression is often a side effect of the male leader having a little too much testosterone in the blood stream. Well, I have a vet friend who can get us a good deal on some chem-cast, you know, the stuff that makes nice docile `its' out of raging bulls (their trade mark is `No-bull', something we need here). Reagan and Gorbachev would probably be a lot less concerned about chucking missles if their balls fell off. Kevin -- Kevin Szabo watmath!wateng!ksbszabo (U of Waterloo VLSI Group, Waterloo Ont.)