Are you Pro Palestine or Israel

[Rehansu Tir]

I'd not go as far as saying that Israel is the underdog.

In the limited scope of the israel-palestinian conflict, no, but in the scope of the larger arab-israeli conflict (of which the israeli-palestinian conflict is just a small part) israel is very much the underdog. A lucky underdog, that has managed to survive 3 major wars against an overwhelming force, but an underdog all the same.

[Roski]

And the USSR was undeniably with Cuba. And the undeniable threat to Cuba was the US, just as the undeniable threat to israel is the Arab states (including the palestinians). DOn't forget that during the cuban missile crisis, cuba already had soviet nukes in their possession.

That's what makes my analogy accurate and yours wrong.

and the arabs have no nukes, throwing the entire thing out the window.

Iran tells you to shut up, they're trying.

[Rehansu Tir]

And the USSR was undeniably with Cuba. And the undeniable threat to Cuba was the US, just as the undeniable threat to israel is the Arab states (including the palestinians). DOn't forget that during the cuban missile crisis, cuba already had soviet nukes in their possession.

That's what makes my analogy accurate and yours wrong.

and the arabs have no nukes, throwing the entire thing out the window.

No, because is the case of the arab israeli conflict the nukes don't actually matter because israel has no intention of using them except as a last resort (which you yourself acknowledged when you stated that the US sent israel aid because it was afraid they would go nuclear because they were losing badly). Israel hasn't even acknowledged having nuclear weapons publicly - only once confidentially to the US president, which the US, being a good partner, then leaked to the media.

[Alyakia]

I'd not go as far as saying that Israel is the underdog.

In the limited scope of the israel-palestinian conflict, no, but in the scope of the larger arab-israeli conflict (of which the israeli-palestinian conflict is just a small part) israel is very much the underdog. A lucky underdog, that has managed to survive 3 major wars against an overwhelming force, but an underdog all the same.

you know that moment

when you gain the ability to destroy the entire world, to wipe entire cities off the map (possibly from space, if you felt like it), to bring about the end of human civilization we know it?

that is when you stopped being the underdog

and the arabs have no nukes, throwing the entire thing out the window.

Iran tells you to shut up, they're trying.

i thought we were talking about arab states?

if that ever happens we might have this conversation, but until then israel is still pretty much uncontestably top dog in the middle east. and even then MAD would probably come into effect, so...

[Alyakia]

and the arabs have no nukes, throwing the entire thing out the window.

No, because is the case of the arab israeli conflict the nukes don't actually matter because israel has no intention of using them except as a last resort (which you yourself acknowledged when you stated that the US sent israel aid because it was afraid they would go nuclear because they were losing badly). Israel hasn't even acknowledged having nuclear weapons publicly - only once confidentially to the US president, which the US, being a good partner, then leaked to the media.

why no? they pretty clearly matter because they mean israel can never be destroyed as long as they have them. no one is going to invade them.

[Rehansu Tir]

it is quite funny to see people say that israel is the most powerful country in the region, has nuclear weapons and has won most of the wars it has been but still try and say they're the underdog because uhhh

You're obviously unaware (which doesn't surprise me) that in each of those wars (1948, 1967, 1973) israel barely survived and was not expected by anyone to survive, even the israeli government and military believed the odds were against them. Having the most advanced army doesn't make a country invulnerable to defeat by a less advanced army that drastically outnumbers them - the soviet defeat of nazi germany demonstrated that without any doubt. Or do you still think that it was the US that beat the nazis?

[Roski]

it is quite funny to see people say that israel is the most powerful country in the region, has nuclear weapons and has won most of the wars it has been but still try and say they're the underdog because uhhh

You're obviously unaware (which doesn't surprise me) that in each of those wars (1948, 1967, 1973) israel barely survived and was not expected by anyone to survive, even the israeli government and military believed the odds were against them. Having the most advanced army doesn't make a country invulnerable to defeat by a less advanced army that drastically outnumbers them - the soviet defeat of nazi germany demonstrated that without any doubt. Or do you still think that it was the US that beat the nazis?

Israel steamrolled those countries in all three of those wars. What do you mean?

[Alyakia]

it is quite funny to see people say that israel is the most powerful country in the region, has nuclear weapons and has won most of the wars it has been but still try and say they're the underdog because uhhh

You're obviously unaware (which doesn't surprise me) that in each of those wars (1948, 1967, 1973) israel barely survived and was not expected by anyone to survive, even the israeli government and military believed the odds were against them. Having the most advanced army doesn't make a country invulnerable to defeat by a less advanced army that drastically outnumbers them - the soviet defeat of nazi germany demonstrated that without any doubt. Or do you still think that it was the US that beat the nazis?

if you said that nazi germany was the underdog against the soviets you'd have been equally as silly yes.

[Rehansu Tir]

you know that moment

when you gain the ability to destroy the entire world, to wipe entire cities off the map (possibly from space, if you felt like it), to bring about the end of human civilization we know it?

that is when you stopped being the underdog

Yeah, israel with it's 60-80 low yield, medium range nuclear missiles doesn't have anywhere near that capability.

I think you're projecting US power on israel.

[Roski]

In the limited scope of the israel-palestinian conflict, no, but in the scope of the larger arab-israeli conflict (of which the israeli-palestinian conflict is just a small part) israel is very much the underdog. A lucky underdog, that has managed to survive 3 major wars against an overwhelming force, but an underdog all the same.

you know that moment

when you gain the ability to destroy the entire world, to wipe entire cities off the map (possibly from space, if you felt like it), to bring about the end of human civilization we know it?

that is when you stopped being the underdog

Iran tells you to shut up, they're trying.

i thought we were talking about arab states?

if that ever happens we might have this conversation, but until then israel is still pretty much uncontestably top dog in the middle east. and even then MAD would probably come into effect, so...

Israel doesn't have that many or that powerful nuclear weapons. An unlimited nuclear exchange with Iran would hardly end the world.

[Alyakia]

you know that moment

when you gain the ability to destroy the entire world, to wipe entire cities off the map (possibly from space, if you felt like it), to bring about the end of human civilization we know it?

that is when you stopped being the underdog

Yeah, israel with it's 60-80 low yield, medium range nuclear missiles doesn't have anywhere near that capability.

I think you're projecting US power on israel.

do go into more detail about their low yield.

[Rehansu Tir]

why no? they pretty clearly matter because they mean israel can never be destroyed as long as they have them. no one is going to invade them.

Really? Again, precedent disagrees with you. Israel has had nuclear weapons since since 1967, but was attacked by the arabs in 1973 anyway. Remember, you said that the US was afraid that israel would go nuclear? How could israel go nuclear, after being invaded by the arabs, if it didn't already have nuclear weapons?

You're stumbling over your own ignorance and ineptitude now.

[Alyakia]

why no? they pretty clearly matter because they mean israel can never be destroyed as long as they have them. no one is going to invade them.

Really? Again, precedent disagrees with you. Israel has had nuclear weapons since since the late 60s but was attacked by the arabs in 1973 anyway. Remember, you said that the US was afraid that israel would go nuclear? How could israel go nuclear, after being invaded by the arabs, if it didn't already have nuclear weapons?

You're stumbling over your own ignorance and ineptitude now.

did they know they had nuclear weapons in 73?

sounds like israels nuclear weapons saved them then, hmm.

[Rehansu Tir]

You're obviously unaware (which doesn't surprise me) that in each of those wars (1948, 1967, 1973) israel barely survived and was not expected by anyone to survive, even the israeli government and military believed the odds were against them. Having the most advanced army doesn't make a country invulnerable to defeat by a less advanced army that drastically outnumbers them - the soviet defeat of nazi germany demonstrated that without any doubt. Or do you still think that it was the US that beat the nazis?

Israel steamrolled those countries in all three of those wars. What do you mean?

No they didn't. IN 1948, israel barely survived. In both 1967 and 1973, israel lost massive amounts of land and many battles before regrouping and pushing the arab armies back. You really should read up on this a little before you comment.

[Roski]

Yeah, israel with it's 60-80 low yield, medium range nuclear missiles doesn't have anywhere near that capability.

I think you're projecting US power on israel.

do go into more detail about their low yield.

More or less hiroshima.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'd not go as far as saying that Israel is the underdog.

In the limited scope of the israel-palestinian conflict, no, but in the scope of the larger arab-israeli conflict (of which the israeli-palestinian conflict is just a small part) israel is very much the underdog. A lucky underdog, that has managed to survive 3 major wars against an overwhelming force, but an underdog all the same.

If by "overwhelming force" you mean unorganized attackers each working for their own objectives and not coordinating with each other then sure. If the Arab's had actually coordinated with each other and planned a single attack on Israel with a unified command structure they would have crushed the Israeli's, luckily for Israel this has yet to happen. They were hardly, if ever the underdog at war given the scope of the enemies they were facing.

[Alyakia]

"Although no official statistics exist, it has been estimated that Israel possesses from 75 to as many as 400 nuclear weapons, which are reported to include thermonuclear weapons in the megaton range"

by virtue of being in the megaton range they are already about 6 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on hiroshima (16 kilotons) so "b-b-but they're low yield" is kinda funny

[Rehansu Tir]

You're obviously unaware (which doesn't surprise me) that in each of those wars (1948, 1967, 1973) israel barely survived and was not expected by anyone to survive, even the israeli government and military believed the odds were against them. Having the most advanced army doesn't make a country invulnerable to defeat by a less advanced army that drastically outnumbers them - the soviet defeat of nazi germany demonstrated that without any doubt. Or do you still think that it was the US that beat the nazis?

if you said that nazi germany was the underdog against the soviets you'd have been equally as silly yes.

In the case of germany vs the USSR, the issue isn't one of an underdog, it's the lesson that was learned: a more advance, better trained and equipped army can be overwhelmed and beaten by a larger army that is poorly equipped, poorly trained and under-armed.

[Roski]

if you said that nazi germany was the underdog against the soviets you'd have been equally as silly yes.

In the case of germany vs the USSR, the issue isn't one of an underdog, it's the lesson that was learned: a more advance, better trained and equipped army can be overwhelmed and beaten by a larger army that is poorly equipped, poorly trained and under-armed.

You'd have to be significantly stronger than it. They weren't that much more advanced than the Soviets. the T-34 was a very advanced tank, as much as it doesn't look like it.

[Leritorius]

First thing you see written in the video : The New York Times.

Owner & Chairman : Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.
Vice-President : Kenneth Richieri


Your argument is invalid.

Because anyone with even a drop of jewish blood can't be impartial or run an impartial business, unlike those with arab blood, who are all unbiased and tolerant of other peoples and ideas.

Name me ONE jewish american CEO who does not support zionism. And while you're at it, ONE arabian guy who runs an american business, and who does support Palestine.

[The Rich Port]

"Although no official statistics exist, it has been estimated that Israel possesses from 75 to as many as 400 nuclear weapons, which are reported to include thermonuclear weapons in the megaton range"

by virtue of being in the megaton range they are already about 6 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on hiroshima (16 kilotons) so "b-b-but they're low yield" is kinda funny

And also because, yeah, nukes are not THAT damaging.

They only annihilate things in a 30 mile radius and poison a possibly infinite radius with radiation, causing it to become uninhabitable, and can only be removed with intensive cleaning. It'll only take a few decades for the few liveable areas in Iran and/or Israel to become habitable again.

People need to stop fucking playing Call of Warfare 17: Penis Enlarger Nukes and read a fucking book.

[Roski]

"Although no official statistics exist, it has been estimated that Israel possesses from 75 to as many as 400 nuclear weapons, which are reported to include thermonuclear weapons in the megaton range"

by virtue of being in the megaton range they are already about 6 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on hiroshima (16 kilotons) so "b-b-but they're low yield" is kinda funny

11,500 km with 1000 kg payload; probably significantly greater with smaller payload (Jericho III)[5]

[Kelinfort]

See, I think Palestine should have a state of its own, but I do think that moderate Zionists have a point in attacking Hamas. Now, a ground offensive is not such a great idea, but for as long as this has been going on, I understand at least why they're doing it.

[Roski]

See, I think Palestine should have a state of its own, but I do think that moderate Zionists have a point in attacking Hamas. Now, a ground offensive is not such a great idea, but for as long as this has been going on, I understand at least why they're doing it.

Palestine does have a state of its own. They want more though.

[Alyakia]

See, I think Palestine should have a state of its own, but I do think that moderate Zionists have a point in attacking Hamas. Now, a ground offensive is not such a great idea, but for as long as this has been going on, I understand at least why they're doing it.

Palestine does have a state of its own. They want more though.

no they dont