OK, let's see Little Hawk, on the one hand you applaud, and find commendable and extremely reasonable, Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons as a means of deterring an imaginary US attack - please note Little Hawk at no time has the US ever threatened to attack Iran. The next minute you are in print on this thread clearly stating your belief that the Iranians have no intention of developing nuclear weapons. Which one is it Little Hawk - can't be both.

Your post of 08 Dec 06 - 02:25 PM, is entirely supposition on your part, you cannot prove a single word of it to be true or factual. As such it cannot logically be used as a basis for discussion.

In your post of 08 Dec 06 - 03:08 PM you fervently state:

"There isn't a "good guy" on one side of this dispute and a "bad guy" on the other...there are two lots of people who have no respect or goodwill toward one another, and no hesitation to murder and destroy...at any moment they think they can get away with it."

On a number of occasions in the past when threatened with annihilation from its neighbours Israel has acted to defend itself. They have done so very successfully and on each occasion they have had ample opportunity to murder and completely destroy their enemies - OK, Little Hawk with all this pent up murderous fury at the Muslin world (which exists only as your rather ridiculous contention) can you explain to me why they never availed themselves of such opportunities and were always ready to accept UN intervention and mediation.

In a number of your posts in this thread I see that the goalposts have changed and that in your mind the Israeli's must now withdraw to their 1948 borders, the Arabs themselves would actually settle for the 1967 borders. Now being a keen student of history Little Hawk, you go and find out then come back and tell us who, at the time, was prepared to accept the borders defined by the UN in 1948 and who rejected the UN's proposal and opted for war instead.

Your post of 08 Dec 06 - 06:46 PM

"It is quietly accepted by all nations, including the USA, that Israel has a large number of nuclear weapons, Slag, but Israel's policy has been to neither say "yes" or "no" as to whether that is so. And USA policy has been not to ask."

It is quietly accepted is it Little Hawk? The evaluation that Israel has 100 to 200 nuclear weapons having been made by the same intelligence agencies that the left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Blair camp so disparaged over their evaluation of intelligence information provided by the UNSCOM Inspectors regarding Iraq. What all of a sudden they are completely right about Israel just because it happens to suit your case? Let's have a bit of consistancy Little Hawk, again you cannot have it both ways.

You then go on to say:

"There's a reason for that. The USA would be legally required by it's own rules to withhold military aid to Israel if Israel admitted to having nuclear weapons, because they are not allowed to by the non-proliferation treaties."

As a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Israel is not bound by the terms of that Treaty. The US, a country that has signed the NPT is not required to withold aid military or otherwise, it is however not allowed to provide assistance in the field of nuclear technology or material.