07 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasOnce they have a delivery system in place they are in. Nulclear non proliferation treaty is a mechanism of exclusion to the club. The fact they may not get treated fairly does not mean they are not in the club. It just means they are a wild card for the NWO.
Is North Korea in the nuke club? Really?
I thought only those who signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was considered members of that club.
Israel has not signed, North Korea hasn't either. That make the two countries equally good.
07 Oct 09
The fact that the United States has nuclear weapons and is in good standing with the UN does not mean that the world is safer if we have them and Iran or Korea does not. Look up operation northwoods. This is a great country that needs to get government back under control.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by joe beyserMy bottom line is that the world would be much safer if there were no nuclear mass destructive wapons at all anywhere on the planet.
Once they have a delivery system in place they are in. Nulclear non proliferation treaty is a mechanism of exclusion to the club. The fact they may not get treated fairly does not mean they are not in the club. It just means they are a wild card for the NWO.
My next to bottom line is that in any war prone region in the world should be disarmed, including Israel. Israel cannot be trusted, because they doesn't follow the recommendations from the security council of UN regarding with the occupation of Palestinian territory.
If Israel is without nuclear weapons, it is much simpler to persuade Iran to abandon their nuclear program. The Israel possession of nukes hinders the discussion with Iran.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by shavixmir===Do you really?
Do you really?
Do you really, really, really, think that Ahmadinejad actually believes there are 72 virgins in heaven waiting for him?
Do you really think the Mullah's have much say in the matter?
Considerin the Supreme leader, the council of gardens and the assembly of experts keep each other in balance, do you really think that Ahmed Jusef from subu ...[text shortened]... st" translations. And that, especially in the Arab world, doesn't make matters any clearer.
Do you really, really, really, think that Ahmadinejad actually believes there are 72 virgins in heaven waiting for him?===
I don't know. I honestly and sincerely don't know. I am afraid that the answer might be yes, but I don't know.
For example, I DO think that Osama Bin Laden and/or many of his henchmen probably believe there are 72 virgins in heaven waiting for them. I DO think that many of the suicide bombers think that they're getting their 72 virgins as soon as they blow themselves up. Why else would one blow himself up? (Kmax and Granny, you KNOW what I mean... although I admit that does leave me wide open...)
===Do you really think the Mullah's have much say in the matter?===
It sure seems like they do. The supreme leader seems to have (or assert) the final say in determining the election controversy.Do they have no say in foreign policy?
====And something else you should do is look at Persian / Arabian / Farsi mannerisms.
The use of language is more flamboyant and less to the point that what we're used to in the West. And some of the translations we receive are very much direct translations, rather than "jist" translations. And that, especially in the Arab world, doesn't make matters any clearer.====
Perhaps I should but I don't have the time to start learning middle eastern languages right now. If MA doesn't really mean that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, then all the better.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThen why not look at it from the opposite perspective?
If Israel is without nuclear weapons, it is much simpler to persuade Iran to abandon their nuclear program. The Israel possession of nukes hinders the discussion with Iran.
You're saying: First force Israel to get rid of it's nukes and then we'll be in a better position to TALK TO Iran.
I think that first you should guarantee Israel that none of its blood enemies will be allowed to attain nukes and THEN you'll be in a better position to TALK TO Israel about getting rid of its nukes.
On a related note:
Given that Israel has not used or threatened to use nukes in 25+ years they had them, is it not clear that Israel maintains nukes only for last ditch emergency self-defense. Has Israel threatened to use them? No. Have they used their existence to bully any other country into making diplomatic concessions? Heck, of course not. They won't even publicly admit that they exist.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76I think both Iran and Israel is excellent objects for studies in stubbornness. Both are defying the UN security council.
Then why not look at it from the opposite perspective?
You're saying: First force Israel to get rid of it's nukes and then we'll be in a better position to TALK TO Iran.
I think that first you should guarantee Israel that none of its blood enemies will be allowed to attain nukes and THEN you'll be in a better position to TALK TO Israel about getting rid o ...[text shortened]... iplomatic concessions? Heck, of course not. They won't even publicly admit that they exist.
About what to do first - force Israel to get rid of their existant nukes, or force Iran to abandon their nuclear program - is an open question. I think a treaty where the both sign to agree on a nuclear free zone in the region would be the best diplomatic solution.
If you have nukes, you are also prepared to use them. That goes for Israel *and* Iran. (And all other nuclear states in the world.)
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasWould Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, etc., sign too? Come to think of it, I'm sure Pakistan is not Israel's #1 admirer. Maybe they should disarm as part of this agreement as well. Obviously, they'd do so only if India does the same, which would balk unless China does the same, which would balk unless the US does the same, which would balk unless Russia does the same, which would balk unless England and France do the same.
I think a treaty where the both sign to agree on a nuclear free zone in the region would be the best diplomatic solution.
When you can arrange all that, come back to Israel with your idea.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by Sleepyguyso what? is the US israel's babysitter?
No. Iran should be stopped from getting nuclear weapons because Iran might use them against Israel, or provide them to terrorists to use against Israel, the U.S., or other Western countries. Or do you think these scenarios are impossible?
I agree with fabianfnas, if Iran isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons then they same goes for Israel.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI agree.
My bottom line is that the world would be much safer if there were no nuclear mass destructive wapons at all anywhere on the planet.
My next to bottom line is that in any war prone region in the world should be disarmed, including Israel. Israel cannot be trusted, because they doesn't follow the recommendations from the security council of UN regarding ...[text shortened]... abandon their nuclear program. The Israel possession of nukes hinders the discussion with Iran.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76Probably they shouldn't, and in an ideal world they wouldn't. But France currently having nuclear weapons is not manifestly exacerbating an exceptionally dangerous situation; the fact that France has nuclear weapons is not, in effect, encouraging Germany also to develop them.
Why is France allowed to have nuclear weapons?
We know France has nuclear weapons, recognising that being up front about that is a de-escalatory measure (with the opposite also true), and we know that France is involved in a long-term programme of de-escalation and a reduction of the amount of nuclear weapons in existence.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by DrKFBut Israel having nukes being "manifestly exacerbating an exceptionally dangerous situation" is only because Iran and others choose to make it that way by threatening Israel's existence. If, all of a sudden, say, Monaco, starts a nuclear program because it suddenly views France as a threat, would you demand that France disarm to diffuse the situation?
Probably they shouldn't, and in an ideal world they wouldn't. But France currently having nuclear weapons is not manifestly exacerbating an exceptionally dangerous situation; the fact that France has nuclear weapons is not, in effect, encouraging Germany also to develop them.
08 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76Hyphotetical question.
But Israel having nukes being "manifestly exacerbating an exceptionally dangerous situation" is only because Iran and others choose to make it that way by threatening Israel's existence. If, all of a sudden, say, Monaco, starts a nuclear program because it suddenly views France as a threat, would you demand that France disarm to diffuse the situation?
The question of Iran feeling threatened is actual.
If Israel feels threatened and therefore gets nukes, then Iran has the same right.
And this is only the beginning of a chain: If Israel, why not Iran. Why Iran and not Syria? Why Syria and not...?
Cut the chain at it's roots: Israel is the only nuke state in the region, let's start there.
08 Oct 09
1 edit
In what countries' hands is nuclear weapons evidently the most dangerous? Anyone?
I agree with FF. But I think the treaty should involve all nations in the world. In fact, I think military
as such should be thrown away all together as the obsolete obstacle to peace it is, once and for all.
What was it George Carlin said about military solutions for peace again? "Fighting for peace is like
screwing for virginity." He had it right, that man.