TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Double Standard. . .
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's the truth. some very honest, smart and non-religious people take it very seriously Iran having nuclear strike capability. deal with it however you want but the fact remains that on an Inter-nation cooperative level Iran and only Iran remains untrustworthy for anything less than complete and total transpancy.

Listen Q, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. They should have as much transparency as any other country should have, but my dissent comes from the reality of the situation which is that there is a double standard going on here, and it's not fair. This unfairness will always result in pissed off people who are more than glad to join militant movements to fight against this "oppression" as they understand it.

quote:

They should, and in this case they are. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; Iran is.

Hmm, didn't know that Lebez...

Well so, Israel operates completely outside of international law. How much better !?!?

Israel possessing nuclear weapons will only encourage more Middle Easterns regime to try to acquire weapons of their own. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 51/41 also calls for a nuclear free Middle East. Now Israel has stated they would bomb Iranian nuclear facilties if the US doesn't. How compliant do you think the Israeli's would be to ANY international agreement? And we here are expecting Iran to be fully compliant 100%, while giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. Hypocrisy.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton EXACTLY PKC. I believe these guys are heretics.

i think you'll find most US christians are heretics.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Evidence? Are you serious? There OBVIOUSLY is a faction inside the government which protects Israel from all scrutiny. This is not a wacko conspiracy theory. This is reality. Have you ever examined the US voting record on the Security Council regarding Israel? For decades, the US has vetoed vote after vote denouncing Israeli crimes.

and this "faction" "inside" the government has been able to maintain that influence all through the decades. its not that the US is a close strategic ally of israel do you think? can't remember the US voting against britain very often either.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Has it worked?

who cares? this has fucking nothing to do with what we're talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton WTF are you talking about!? You never heard the administration state, "We're going to liberate the Iraqi's and bring them democracy."?? You can't be serious. . .

Christ, of course I have. But it was certainly much more used after WMDs werent found. Ie just because the administration says it doesn�t make it true. In any case, I felt the liberation of afghanistan was the right thing to do so you wont find me criticising them for that.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I also don't recall Reagan or Clinton or Nixon occupying Baghdad. It was the Bush admin, so to try to say I'm just another Bush bashing fanatic really means nothing because the action was perpetrated by that regime!!

but your thread is about the historical support of israel, by ALL admins. so stop using examples exclusively from bush to make your argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Who cares? If we are to have any semblance of international law and order, don't you think ALL countries should be scrutinized EQUALLY under the law? Wow, dude, that's really scary...

and one day you'll graduate from uni and start to live in the real world where things don�t work that way, despite how much we'd like to see it that way. And its existed like that for the last 100 years so I don�t see why youre running around crying about the sky suddenly falling.

and no, i dont think they should be "equally" scrutinised. those nations that are developing nuclear power, have autocratic regimes, suppress free speech and dissent, sponsor terrorist groups, should come under closer inspection than those that dont.

I hate to burst your idealistic bubble, but not all nations are equal. The thought that australia, for example, should be under the same scrutiny as a country like iran, syria or north korea in regards to nuclear technology is laughable.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You don;t even know that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, so your point is baseless.

You are the one saying that it would be ok for them to do so, I'm saying that it would go against our best interests.

EOM

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton According to the NIE report, Iran shut down it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. The Bush admin's case against Iran wouldn't hold up for 5 minutes in a courtroom.

wow man you are on a shallow tear tonight aren't ya?

here, get educated >link<

if it held up in a "UN court" would it matter to you then?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Well so, Israel operates completely outside of international law. How much better !?!?

In this case, they aren't operating outside of international law at all. In order to be held by the terms of the treaty, they have to have signed it first. Treaties have to be entered into willingly - that is a state sovereignty issue, yes? The US can't simply force Israel into signing it. That said, this was a source of a huge diplomatic struggle between Israel and the US. I suggest going here to read some of the documents testifying to that fact:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel...ttle/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo here, get educated >link<

wow, that's pretty scary stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wow, that's pretty scary stuff.

Indeed,it is time to bomb them!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Listen Q, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

up until this point you did.

quote:

They should have as much transparency as any other country should have,

agreed. they should also stop sponsoring terror and calling for the destruction of Israel.

quote:

but my dissent comes from the reality of the situation which is that there is a double standard going on here, and it's not fair. This unfairness will always result in pissed off people who are more than glad to join militant movements to fight against this "oppression" as they understand it.

there's your problem. in the haste to cry "double standard" and invoking needless fear you've ignored decades of nuclear good faith and stewardship on the part of the Israelis in favor of a myopic, head-in-the-sand view of nuclear proliferation by an internationaly recognized State sponsor of terror.

be honest though. you really don't know what you expect from Iran do you? your too busy worrying about double standards and wordplay or some other esoteric bullshit to be bothered with what Iran does, right? well listen, there are literally thousands of people all over the world. smart people. good people that don't give a damn what Bushitler says or does in the next 8 months that are determined to prevent Iran from proliferation. so forgive the rest of us who aren't going to buy into your shallow, prophetic, double standard fear mongering and let the international community worry about the important stuff.

quote:

And we here are expecting Iran to be fully compliant 100%, while giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. Hypocrisy.

it's only hypocricy if you believe Iran is not a threat to anyone or you want "Israel wiped off the map". smart people though, can make a distinction.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Indeed,it is time to bomb them!!!!

i never said that violence is the last resort. but its not cool to see evidence of ANY regime making/researching weapons of this kind.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov In this case, they aren't operating outside of international law at all. In order to be held by the terms of the treaty, they have to have signed it first. Treaties have to be entered into willingly - that is a state sovereignty issue, yes? The US can't simply force Israel into signing it. That said, this was a source of a huge diplomatic struggle between Israel and the US. I suggest going here to read some of the documents testifying to that fact: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel...ttle/index.html

damn you're good.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i never said that violence is the last resort. but its not cool to see evidence of ANY regime making/researching weapons of this kind.

yes violence should be the last resort but with this administration voilence seems to be the first options for all the conflicts.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer yes violence should be the last resort but with this administration voilence seems to be the first options for all the conflicts.

well you wont have them much longer so chill.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo damn you're good.

I'm just starting to take an interest in international law and conventions and how they are applied. But the fundamental difference between a treaty and a law is that a treaty requires parties to willfully abrogate sovereignty in favor of an international norm. Only four states refused to do so in the case of the NPT - Israel, India, Pakistan, and N. Korea. That's why it is tricky bringing any legal argument to bear against those states, and why diplomacy with N. Korea has been so vital.

That said, the NPT does allow for development of nuclear technology for civilian purposes, which has made monitoring developments in Iran rather tricky.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer yes violence should be the last resort but with this administration voilence seems to be the first options for all the conflicts.

really? what about North Korea? what about the Iranians? what about Venezuela? what about Kenya, Sudan ect. ect. ect.


deeper thinking, hardcore trancer. i know you're capable of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov a treaty requires parties to willfully abrogate sovereignty in favor of an international norm.

up to a point in our case then we have the Constitution, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo up to a point in our case then we have the Constitution, right?

If we sign a treaty we are bound by the terms of it under international law no matter what our own internal laws may be - that is why it is important for politicians not to enter into international agreements if they are not compatible with domestic law.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov If we sign a treaty we are bound by the terms of it under international law no matter what our own internal laws may be - that is why it is important for politicians not to enter into international agreements if they are not compatible with domestic law.

i didn't know that. thanx.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You are the one saying that it would be ok for them to do so, I'm saying that it would go against our best interests. EOM

Are you going to quote me on that, or slap on an argument I never made?

quote:

wow man you are on a shallow tear tonight aren't ya? here, get educated >link< if it held up in a "UN court" would it matter to you then?

In a courtcase, you need to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty. That case remains to be made.

quote:

In this case, they aren't operating outside of international law at all. In order to be held by the terms of the treaty, they have to have signed it first. Treaties have to be entered into willingly - that is a state sovereignty issue, yes? The US can't simply force Israel into signing it. That said, this was a source of a huge diplomatic struggle between Israel and the US. I suggest going here to read some of the documents testifying to that fact: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel...ttle/index.html

I'm alarmed that Israel is not brought to any accountability at all simply because they are a western democracy..

quote:

up until this point you did.

What, and give Israel a monopoly on nuclear weapons? Don't you see that the very fact that Israel has nukes basically guarentees that other MIddle Eastern countries just might want nukes of their own!?

quote:

agreed. they should also stop sponsoring terror and calling for the destruction of Israel.

Oh, and let's forget about the Palestinian occupation. . .

quote:

there's your problem. in the haste to cry "double standard" and invoking needless fear you've ignored decades of nuclear good faith and stewardship on the part of the Israelis in favor of a myopic, head-in-the-sand view of nuclear proliferation by an internationaly recognized State sponsor of terror.

Invoking fear? Stewardship of the Israelis? Are you crazy? It's Bush who is invoking World War III prophecies! And this "internationally recognized state sponsor of terror" line is completely subjective. What list are you using for this "international recognized" bit? You also assume that Hezbollah is viewed by the entire world as terrorists, when in fact many nations, including several European nation consider them a resistance group.

quote:

be honest though. you really don't know what you expect from Iran do you? your too busy worrying about double standards and wordplay or some other esoteric bullshit to be bothered with what Iran does, right? well listen, there are literally thousands of people all over the world. smart people. good people that don't give a damn what Bushitler says or does in the next 8 months that are determined to prevent Iran from proliferation. so forgive the rest of us who aren't going to buy into your shallow, prophetic, double standard fear mongering and let the international community worry about the important stuff.

Important stuff? Like maintaining Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East right?

What I expect from Iran is for them to continue to respond to US-Israeli saber rattling with saber rattling of its own. Do you honestly think that you can force the Iranians to bow down to your own agenda? Proliferation should be discouraged, but when you have a double standard of Israel's own nuclear program, how are you EVER going to expect the Iranians to just bow to pressure. You fail to realize the unfairness incentive of resistance. That unfairness breeds hostility and rebellion against the status quo.

quote:

it's only hypocricy if you believe Iran is not a threat to anyone or you want "Israel wiped off the map". smart people though, can make a distinction.

First of all, the president of Iran did not say, "Israel should be wiped off the map." This was a mistranslation. He said, "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad). Cole, Juan (May 03, 2006). "

Secondly, "smart" people is subjective also.

P.S. Lively debate today. . .

Does anyone have any comments on the documentary?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Are you going to quote me on that, or slap on an argument I never made?

From your first post on page 1;

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton ...My prejudice is against the Zionist hypocrits who says no other country except us are allowed to have WMDs.

That sounds like someone who wants to see Iran have nuclear capabilities to me, simply because Israel has it.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco From your first post on page 1; That sounds like someone who wants to see Iran have nuclear capabilities to me, simply because Israel has it.

Well, I would not say I want Iran to have nuclear weapons capabilities. I do believe they entitled to civilian nuclear power.

But here is where things get ugly. Israel today is the only country in the Middle East with nukes. Such a status is surely going to encourage other nations in the region to feel they must acquire their own nuclear arsenals. Think about it. If your enemy has nukes, wouldn't you be scard into thinking, "We need our own nukes?" I'm not justifying Iran's alleged program. But what I am saying is, as long as their is this perception of unfairness, essentially of hypocrisy, then no, you won't have Iran lying flat. As long as we saber rattle, they will answer in kind. Like American patriotism, they've got a strong Persian pride. They won't be forced to do anything they don't agree to.

Did you know that the previous Iranian administration offered to agree to a peace treaty with the US which meant cessation of all Iranian aspirations for nuclear weapons as long as the US promised never to attack them? Guess what happened? Bush called them part of the "Axis of Evil". Guess what happened to the proposal? Got ripped to shreds. . .

All I can say is my ultimate point is, I think our policy is completely wrong right now and we need to change it. Thank god for term limits..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton In a courtcase, you need to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty. That case remains to be made.

the case is being made all around you...and the court thing is irrelevant. it was a metaphore in response to your metaphore.

quote:

I'm alarmed that Israel is not brought to any accountability at all simply because they are a western democracy.

youre only alarmed b/c you obviously don't know about treaties and international law as well as Lebez. nothing more.

quote:

What, and give Israel a monopoly on nuclear weapons? Don't you see that the very fact that Israel has nukes basically guarentees that other MIddle Eastern countries just might want nukes of their own!?

teh Saudis don't want them. the Jordanians don't want them. the Egyptians don't want them. if you look a little closer, Sunni dominated ME countries would only want them if IRAN had them! so your logic again is myopic, shallow and wrong.

quote:

Oh, and let's forget about the Palestinian occupation. . .

what does that have to do with Iranian nukes? best not answer that.

quote:

It's Bush who is invoking World War III prophecies!

and youre not?

see the key difference is Bush would like to avoid a WW3 situation as would most other sober thinkers and leaders including the EU and the Russians. you on the otherhand are more concerned with some sort of nuclear equality based on the here and now, ignoring everything that has ever been said or done in the past regarding nuclear weapons and ownership.

quote:

And this "internationally recognized state sponsor of terror" line is completely subjective. What list are you using for this "international recognized" bit? You also assume that Hezbollah is viewed by the entire world as terrorists, when in fact many nations, including several European nation consider them a resistance group.

we're down to subjective interpretations now? you think i just make this shit up?

quote:

Like maintaining Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East right?

nope.

quote:

What I expect from Iran is for them to continue to respond to US-Israeli saber rattling with saber rattling of its own.

honestly, it doesn't matter what anyone expects. it's a matter of whether or not it's tolerable for a country like Iran to have nuclear strike capability.

quote:

Do you honestly think that you can force the Iranians to bow down to your own agenda?

the UN, IAEA, UK, France and Germany do.

quote:

Proliferation should be discouraged, but when you have a double standard of Israel's own nuclear program, how are you EVER going to expect the Iranians to just bow to pressure. You fail to realize the unfairness incentive of resistance. That unfairness breeds hostility and rebellion against the status quo.

it's unfair. thats your argument basically. ok. it's an adolecent child argument but ok.

quote:

First of all, the president of Iran did not say, "Israel should be wiped off the map." This was a mistranslation. He said, "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad). Cole, Juan (May 03, 2006). "

whatever he said it was soundly rejected by the international community and condemned. doesn't matter though really. the State of Iran, not just the President, repeats the constant meme almost on a daily basis. with or without provocation. hardly conducive to a peaceful and well intentioned potential nuclear power. but keep appologizing for them i don't give a shit. youre wrong on so many levels it's not funny.

quote:

Secondly, "smart" people is subjective also.

more subjective interpretation argument. great. why don't you just invoke the Nazi's while youre at it?

Iran going after nukes has always been an assumption,no actual proof of them going after nuclear weapons,only accusations and labeling them as terrorist supporters.Acting like children really.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Iran going after nukes has always been an assumption,no actual proof of them going after nuclear weapons,only accusations and labeling them as terrorist supporters.Acting like children really.

well there has been a large amount of proof, look at the article from reuters Q5 posted.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.