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

Type of government doesn't have anything to do with it. All non-signatories are viewed the same - Pakistan, N. Korea, and India are not subject to the norms of the NPT either. Of course, the US is trying their darnedest to get N. Korea to sign, but the fact is, under international law, N. Korea cannot be compelled to unless they agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton ... 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.

"Fairness" is a term that is relative to all things being equal. The current Iranian State is HARDLY the equal of the Israeli State, on many levels.

So no, it is not "fair" for Iran to have nukes.

But I do agree that Israel having nukes could very well be the reason why Iran seeks them now as well (sorry, "allegedly" seeks them ).

But still, that being said, I'm all for keeping that country from ever acquiring nukes if it all possible. Who knows who they'll give them to (Terrorists) or how they'll put them to use one day. This is a nation that would go to war without preemption against Israel and her Allies, simply because they pray to a different "God". Scary.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Type of government doesn't have anything to do with it.

that's not entirely true. yes, those that have signed the NPT are held to a greater standard than other nations, but "rogue" states would be subject to fierce examination of their nuclear program moreso than a democratic, stable one whether they were signatories or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov All non-signatories are viewed the same

the US (and by virtue others) certainly put a lot more effort into nuclear discussions with korea than they did india.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that's not entirely true. yes, those that have signed the NPT are held to a greater standard than other nations, but "rogue" states would be subject to fierce examination of their nuclear program moreso than a democratic, stable one whether they were signatories or not. the US (and by virtue others) certainly put a lot more effort into nuclear discussions with korea than they did india.

I would still argue that type of government has very little to do with it. Were N. Korea democratic and still engaging in threatening behavior toward S. Korea, it would garner the same amount of attention. And Pakistan has hardly been the emblem of democratic transparency, yet they have been spared tough confrontation in large part because they have demonstrated a more moderate stance toward using nuclear weapons. Of course, Kashmir remains the atomic powder keg with the most potential to go off.

Furthermore, I would argue that "rogue" and "democratic" are not by definition mutually exclusive.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I would still argue that type of government has very little to do with it. Were N. Korea democratic and still engaging in threatening behavior toward S. Korea, it would garner the same amount of attention.

oh, of course. but i think its pretty safe to say that dictatorships (or similar) are far more likely to engage in said activities. democracies dont turn rogue nearly as often

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And Pakistan has hardly been the emblem of democratic transparency, yet they have been spared tough confrontation in large part because they have demonstrated a more moderate stance toward using nuclear weapons.

absolutely.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Of course, Kashmir remains the atomic powder keg with the most potential to go off.

again, absolutely.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Furthermore, I would argue that "rogue" and "democratic" are not by definition mutually exclusive.

hehe, well this is where my "centre" goes to the right we can argue about the difference between porn and art and where the line is too if you'd like look, you're right, but only because every single country in the world has done things they wouldnt (shouldnt) be proud of. but, between the US and iran, or israel & north korea -who would you want safeguarding nuclear technology?

with power in far more hands and levels of government, scrutiny, free press etc, these societies tend to have less ability to act however it wans, whenever it wants (domestically or globally), bush's last 8 years notwithstanding!

you'll never convince me that iran having nukes is as safe for the world as israel possessing them. you saw the chaos after the breakup of the USSR, imagine another social revolution in iran with the oppressors being driven out and nuclear material going up for sale or theft!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but, between the US and iran, or israel & north korea -who would you want safeguarding nuclear technology?

In an ideal world? None of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov In an ideal world? None of them.

right, well when we move to perfect fairy land ill be more than happy to agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN right, well when we move to perfect fairy land ill be more than happy to agree with you.

Judging by your avi, I thought you already lived there.

I see your point, I just don't really think there is an assumption that democracy means good behavior. A correlation between the two, perhaps. But maybe that's just me being cynical about Democratic Peace Theory.

Re: Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Double Standard. . .

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The Zionist regime in Israel does not want peace.

Neither does the Hamas regime in Gaza.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the case is being made all around you...and the court thing is irrelevant. it was a metaphore in response to your metaphore.

The only things I hear are...
1. They are wackos.
2. They had a program but we don't know if they have one now.

I wasn't using court room as a metaphor. The UN and diplomacy basically operate according to the laws set out in their charters. You want to shoot now, ask questions later. I and the "looney left democrats" want to settle this issue by legal means! And in a courtroom, both sides are allowed to make their case.

quote:

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

What? Is this a "how much do I know?" contest?

quote:

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.

Guess why Iran wants them? Israel smart one. . .

quote:

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

It's expected you hardline Republicans don't give a fuck about the suffering inside the failed occupied state of Palestine. Complete lack of any understanding of why Islamic militantcy is spreading.

quote:

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.

Wow. So now you say Iran is going to start World War III? DId you just make that up? I would rather Iran not have nuclear weapons, but guess what, Israel has them. Iran, as the arch-enemy of Israel must now have them. Look at the Iranian regional strategic position. Their enemy has nukes! It's will only lead to a domino effect in countries wanting nukes. You blame the wrong country.

quote:

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

Internationally recognized state sponsors of terror? That is completely subjective. Guess what? Not every country recognizes Iran to be terrorist state.

quote:

nope.

LOL @ answer...

quote:

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.

Check this out. Israel having nukes gives Iran all the incentive it needs to want nukes of its own.

quote:

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

That's fine. But they don't give a damn when the first nuclear power of the Middle East has an undeclared program of its own do they? THe Israeli nuclear program was in my opinion help by the West, which would explain the years ignoring of Israeli WMDs. Guess who else the West helped get WMDs? Saddam Hussein.

quote:

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

Did you know Ad Hominems are invalid arguments? Mr. "Im so mature I beat you"

quote:

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.

"Know your enemy." Sun Tzu

You don't know Iran. Did you forget about the US-backed puppet regime of the Shah? You think they are just going to forget about it? The US still has not apologized for the oppression of the Shah, fully supported by the US. And people like you give your country a blank check to commit atrocities and proliferate WMDs, but when it's Iran, you raise hell. Hypocrite. . .

quote:

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

Why don't you stop making the subjective argument, "Anyone who believes this point of view is smart." It is biased, contrary to the point, and logical fallacy. I really could care less who you thought was smart.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Type of government doesn't have anything to do with it. All non-signatories are viewed the same - Pakistan, N. Korea, and India are not subject to the norms of the NPT either. Of course, the US is trying their darnedest to get N. Korea to sign, but the fact is, under international law, N. Korea cannot be compelled to unless they agree.

I would disagree because of the Democratic Peace Theory. Israel does not get the scrutiny N. Korea or Iran gets because they are a liberal democracy.

quote:

Neither does the Hamas regime in Gaza.

Occupation is a bitch isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I would disagree because of the Democratic Peace Theory. Israel does not get the scrutiny N. Korea or Iran gets because they are a liberal democracy. Occupation is a bitch isn't it?

Democratic Peace Theory is just a theory crafted out of forty years of hindsight, it certainly doesn't guide policy. And in any case, it's application is merely to explain why democracies don't fight other democracies, not to suggest that they shouldn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Democratic Peace Theory is just a theory crafted out of forty years of hindsight, it certainly doesn't guide policy. And in any case, it's application is merely to explain why democracies don't fight other democracies, not to suggest that they shouldn't.

The theory makes perfect sense in trying to explain why the NATO Alliance has completely ignored Israel WMD programs because Israel is a liberal democracy. The pro-Israel crowd in this thread have continually tried to justify why Israel is entitled to build up WMDs completely outside of any oversight or accountability simply because Israel can be "trusted". I believe that so-called trust by the pro-Israel people in this thread is because they identify with Israel as a western liberal democracy. Iran is some far off country waiting to be the next Hitler. Give me a break!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The only things I hear are... 1. They are wackos...

2. They're getting the shit kicked out of them by the Neocon/Zionist war-machine United Nations.

quote:

UN Security Council tightens Iran sanctions 4 Mar 2008, 0740 hrs IST,AFP UNITED NATIONS: The Security Council tightened UN sanctions on Iran on Monday for refusing to halt nuclear fuel work as six major powers offered to resume talks with the Islamic Republic to end the standoff. Fourteen of the council's 15 members voted in favor of Resolution 1803, sponsored by Britain, France and Germany, which slapped a third set of economic and trade sanctions on Iran in 15 months. Indonesia abstained during the vote which was presided over by Russia, the council chair for March. But Libya, South Africa and Vietnam, which joined Indonesia in expressing reservations about the need for fresh sanctions at a time when Iran is cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), voted in favor in the end. After the vote, the six powers trying to scale back Iran's nuclear ambitions issued a statement calling for new talks between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's nuclear negotiator. "We have asked Javier Solana to meet with Dr Saeed Jalili, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council," British ambassador John Sawers said on behalf of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. The six reconfirmed and pledged to expand a 2006 offer of economic and trade incentives to Iran in exchange for a freeze of its uranium enrichment activities which the West fears is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. US State Department spokesman Tom Casey said his government was "pleased to see the Security Council has recognized the continuing threat posed by Iran's nuclear program through this vote on additional sanctions." Speaking ahead of the vote, Iran's UN Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee blasted what he called an "unjust and irrational decision" which he said "undermines the integrity and credibility" of the council. >LINK<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo 2. They're getting the shit kicked out of them by the Neocon/Zionist war-machine United Nations.

Great. Now where are the sanctions for Israel? It's a two-way street Q. You want to give preferential treatment to the dominant power in the Middle East.

And why are you so keen now to invoke the UN resolutions? Did you care for the UN when the USA decided to invade Iraq? Did the UN refusal to grant approval mean anything to you? Didn't think so. . .

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Great. Now where are the sanctions for Israel?

explain to me, in detail, why israel deserves sanctions (ignoring their crimes against humanity for a second).

i think you show a terribly naive understanding of global politics if you REALLY think it works the same way punishments between siblings might.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It's a two-way street Q. You want to give preferential treatment to the dominant power in the Middle East.

so what? israel isnt a signatory to the NPT, nor is it an autocratic nightmare that executes homosexuals or forbids dissent. whats your point? ive tried to explain this to you before: the global political scene is not an egalitarian system.

Re: Re: Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Double Standard. . .

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Neither does the Hamas regime in Gaza.

Can you prove that?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The theory makes perfect sense in trying to explain why the NATO Alliance has completely ignored Israel WMD programs because Israel is a liberal democracy. The pro-Israel crowd in this thread have continually tried to justify why Israel is entitled to build up WMDs completely outside of any oversight or accountability simply because Israel can be "trusted". I believe that so-called trust by the pro-Israel people in this thread is because they identify with Israel as a western liberal democracy. Iran is some far off country waiting to be the next Hitler. Give me a break!

Wow, you've read a completely different version of Democratic Peace Theory than I've ever seen. Got a source?

And I don't think it's "pro-Israel" to simply point out that the "oversight" you are demanding doesn't legally apply.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Great. Now where are the sanctions for Israel?

b/c they're not Iran and smart people are able to make clear and sober distinctions between Iran and everybody else.

quote:

It's a two-way street Q.

it obviously isn't.

quote:

You want to give preferential treatment to the dominant power in the Middle East.

if i can sleep better tonite than have to worry about Iran, then yes. that seems to be the prevailing sentiment anyways.

quote:

And why are you so keen now to invoke the UN resolutions?

to show you there are infinitely more things going on here than you seem to be willing to accept.

quote:

Did you care for the UN when the USA decided to invade Iraq?

i was very dissapointed.

quote:

Did the UN refusal to grant approval mean anything to you?

yes. it was unfortunate, but i was a firm believer in action. still am.

quote:

Didn't think so. . .

that would be cute if you were a 13 year old girl but c'mon dude, whats your point?

are you saying that the UN, now, has it all wrong. that they should bury themselves in a cloud of cognitive dissonance and willing suspension of disbelief such as what your doing here?

even if the UN did believe Israel's alleged nukes stockpile posed a threat to stability in the ME (they do think Israel is a threat b/c they hate Israel but not in a nuclear capacity. that should say something to you) legally they can't do anything because they're not subject to much in the way of statute.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo are you saying that the UN, now, has it all wrong. that they should bury themselves in a cloud of cognitive dissonance and willing suspension of disbelief such as what your doing here?

Excuse me? You invoke the UN resolutions, but yet, that didn't mean shit when it came down to unilateral invasion of a sovereign country. No consistancy whatsoever.

quote:

even if the UN did believe Israel's alleged nukes stockpile posed a threat to stability in the ME (they do think Israel is a threat b/c they hate Israel but not in a nuclear capacity. that should say something to you) legally they can't do anything because they're not subject to much in the way of statute.

Israel's nuclear stockpile is the catalyst for Iranian aspirations for their own nuclear arsenal, and possibly the domino effect after that. I could care less if Israel is not a signatory on any nuclear treaties. They don't deserve a free nuclear pass.

quote:

i think you show a terribly naive understanding of global politics if you REALLY think it works the same way punishments between siblings might.

Then the Middle East sentiment that the UN and NATO unfairly blame them for the troubles going on in the region will remain.

quote:

so what? israel isnt a signatory to the NPT, nor is it an autocratic nightmare that executes homosexuals or forbids dissent. whats your point? ive tried to explain this to you before: the global political scene is not an egalitarian system.

If I can somehow change international law to make all states equal under the law, then I'll do it, if I ever become that powerful. First thing I'de do is get rid of these sanctions. Because if anyone deserves sanctions, it's the USA and Israel, and any other occupiers of world.

quote:

Wow, you've read a completely different version of Democratic Peace Theory than I've ever seen. Got a source? And I don't think it's "pro-Israel" to simply point out that the "oversight" you are demanding doesn't legally apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace#_note-0

I am not saying it's the sole reason for such biased support. I am saying that the west identifies and relates to Israel on so many more levels than Iran because of the mutual cultural values held by Israel and the west. Many factors play a role, but I believe such a relation contributes to the wholesale support of Israel despite the illegal 40 year old Israeli occupation.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Then the Middle East sentiment that the UN and NATO unfairly blame them for the troubles going on in the region will remain.

who cares? they can make their case to the UN, just like everyone else does.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If I can somehow change international law to make all states equal under the law, then I'll do it, if I ever become that powerful.

right, so you'll repeal all existing treaties then?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton First thing I'de do is get rid of these sanctions. Because if anyone deserves sanctions, it's the USA and Israel, and any other occupiers of world.

right, so no sanctions to force countries to adhere to treaties they voluntarily signed. what would you use to enforce such treaties - bad language?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Excuse me? You invoke the UN resolutions, but yet, that didn't mean shit when it came down to unilateral invasion of a sovereign country. No consistancy whatsoever.

:HAHA: again with the nearsightedness. give this about 8 more years and another 10 UN resolutions if you want to draw LEGITIMATE parallells between Iran and Iraq, Krypton. until then at least respect the ******* process.

quote:

Israel's nuclear stockpile is the catalyst for Iranian aspirations for their own nuclear arsenal

thats a fallacy. Iran doesn't want nukes because they're jealous of Israel.

thats absurd. you don't invest as much time and money and clandestined effort in something like obtaining and weaponizing nuclear weapons for something as simple as spite.

you don't subject your country to the penalties that Iran has had to endure over 5 years for something as petty an emotion as jealousy or gamesmanship. ya just don't.

you want nuclear weapons for something much more.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace#_note-0 I am not saying it's the sole reason for such biased support. I am saying that the west identifies and relates to Israel on so many more levels than Iran because of the mutual cultural values held by Israel and the west. Many factors play a role, but I believe such a relation contributes to the wholesale support of Israel despite the illegal 40 year old Israeli occupation.

I don't think you are interpreting Democratic Peace Theory correctly. Doyle argues that Democratic Peace Theory is an explanation for why democracies, defined the way he lays out there, don't fight each other. It isn't a diagnosis of how policy-makers in democracies view each other. In other words, he argues that peace is a result of structural similarities that preclude violent conflict, and that conflict between democracies is resolved peacefully due to the structural realities of liberal democracies - not that policy-makers say "hey, that's a democracy, we should agree with everything they do."

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If I can somehow change international law to make all states equal under the law, then I'll do it, if I ever become that powerful. First thing I'de do is get rid of these sanctions. Because if anyone deserves sanctions, it's the USA and Israel, and any other occupiers of world.

In this case it isn't a matter of international law being applicable to all states. NPT is a treaty, not international law. Those states that willfully sign it are held to the terms of the treaty; those that do not sign it cannot be legally responsible for the terms included. It's just like Kyoto - the US has not signed it, so we are not legally obligated to fulfill the terms of the Treaty, whereas states that have are (theoretically).

Iran signed the NPT and is now failing to live up to its terms (in the opinion of some people) - that is a serious breach of international trust and responsibility (if true).

I don't think you are understanding the difference between international law and a multilateral treaty - a multilateral treaty's membership is voluntary. Think of it like a social contract - states give up a little bit of their freedom in order to pursue a wider-held international norm (in this case, non-proliferation).

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I don't think you are understanding the difference between international law and a multilateral treaty - a multilateral treaty's membership is voluntary. Think of it like a social contract - states give up a little bit of their freedom in order to pursue a wider-held international norm (in this case, non-proliferation).

international law only applies to countries that voluntarily join the UN or any other organization, such as the WTO. So in a sense, international law is just as voluntary.

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