Israel an exception from all rules and regulations
- Thread starter The Linuxator
- Start date
I feel that Israel would be a little safer and more careful with their nuclear arsenal than Iran. But I don't see why Iran shouldn't develop its own 'nuclear power stations'.
Originally posted by: beyoku
stop being anti-semetic
ah yes, that tired ol misnomer used by any jew who thinks something bad is being said about them. I suggest you grow thicker skin, or atleast invest in sheepskin condoms
As to the OP, there is always double standards. Iran should be allowed nuclear energy, they certainly should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons though as they are state sponsors of international terrorism. One can surmise that an active nuclear program can ultimately lead to a nuclear weapon, afterall they'll have the main materials to build it, thus the current dilemma
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Who says Iran is not allowed to have a nuclear power station? That's not at issue here. The EU has even offered to help them do it if they comply with the inspections.
Or are they playing the same game of pretend that Saddam did to start something or be belligerent? If so, what's their purpose for such instigation?
IMHO the anti-semetisim card has been swiped a little too many times and it's limits are a little MAXED OUT. Why can Muslim countries be bashed by us up and down and no body calls us Islam-phobic or Anti-Islamic. move on ppl WWII was over a long time ago wake up.Originally posted by: beyoku
EDIT : it has been scientifically proven that you can't criticise jews without being called Anti-Semtic. Oh well...
Tap that sarcasm detector.Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: beyoku
ah yes, that tired ol misnomer used by any jew who thinks something bad is being said about them. I suggest you grow thicker skin, or atleast invest in sheepskin condoms
Iran wants a complete nuclear fuel cycle, that's the problem. Iran is rich in uranian ore, they could ulitmately build A LOT of bombs. They either don't want to rely on outside resources for nuclear fuel, or they want to have the spent rods to turn into bombs. Take your pick
Whats wrong with being self suffecient and not relying o the west in your countrie's matter, is it a big problem that Iran wants to be dependent on it's own and not on some western nation that wants to steer it left and right, while Israel has 200 warheads waiting for one command to get launched at every Arabic / Islamic nation on the face of the earth. ?!?!?
it's not a problem IMO as long as it never gets turned into bombs. when I said it's the problem, I meant it's the current issue that the US has with Irans nuke program. If the nuclear reactor was the problem, we'd have already taken it out.
There isn't any international law against nuclear weapons. Many states have them, so you cannot legaly prevent any country from building them. Most countries who signed the non-proliferation agreement were countries already having nuclear weapons and just agreeing to stop building more, or countries not interested in having nuclear capabilities. When a Japan politician announced that Japan could build some nuclear weapons nobody even cared. Law is equal for everybody. Iran CAN build nuclear weapons if they like to.
However, they know many countries would prefer they don't. So this whole mess is a bargaining strategy to get something in exchange of a nice we-will-never-build-nukes agreement.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
israel is a liberal democratic country. it fights only defensive wars and doesn't not proliferate or export terror.
iran is a sham democracy run by religous fundamnetalist clerics. essentially a totalitarian regiem that is known to export and train terror. it spends its time feeding and fueling the fundamentalists in its population and promoting attacks on the west and israel. they don't shout death to america for nothin.
considering the lessons of history, the world cannot responsibly stand by while irresponsible states create wmd's. sorry not all countries are equal to be trusted. just look at history. they all thought hitler wouldn't dare to pull anything after the "great war". and proliferation has to be stopped. if more and more states are allowed to get away with this then the world will become an ever more dangerous place with more and more states building nukes in rersponse to others having nukes until everyone has them. with human error alone the chances of horrible disaster will greatly be increased.
iran is a sham democracy run by religous fundamnetalist clerics. essentially a totalitarian regiem that is known to export and train terror. it spends its time feeding and fueling the fundamentalists in its population and promoting attacks on the west and israel. they don't shout death to america for nothin.
considering the lessons of history, the world cannot responsibly stand by while irresponsible states create wmd's. sorry not all countries are equal to be trusted. just look at history. they all thought hitler wouldn't dare to pull anything after the "great war". and proliferation has to be stopped. if more and more states are allowed to get away with this then the world will become an ever more dangerous place with more and more states building nukes in rersponse to others having nukes until everyone has them. with human error alone the chances of horrible disaster will greatly be increased.
Defensive wars? Then you must believe that the war in Iraq and Afganistan is a "defensive" war as well? Seeing your logic the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with Israel's numerous settlements is "defensive". What is it then, some sort of pre-emptive strike against terrorism? Rooting terrorism out by grabbing as much land as possible building and expanding? No your wrong.
Let's face it Israel shouldn't be an exception to the rule no matter how democractic, peace loving, or defensive they are.
" israel is a liberal democratic country."- funny that, nearly half of the people under the control of their govt have no say in it...
"it fights only defensive wars and doesn't not proliferate or export terror. " Yeh, right, the ongoing expropriation of palestinian land is obviously "defensive", they never worked with the Apartheid S African regime on their nuclear weapons program, and mossad teams killing palestinian leaders in Beirut isn't terrorism, nor is the practice of killing palestinian leaders in the midst of civilians using hellfire missiles from attack helicopters.... obviously not terrorism, huh-uhh...
Your constant and unequivocal defense of anything Israeli is tiresome and diseased in the face of ongoing Israeli efforts to herd palestinians into the mideast equivalent of impoverished bantustans, implementing their own slow motion version of Lebensraum...
"it fights only defensive wars and doesn't not proliferate or export terror. " Yeh, right, the ongoing expropriation of palestinian land is obviously "defensive", they never worked with the Apartheid S African regime on their nuclear weapons program, and mossad teams killing palestinian leaders in Beirut isn't terrorism, nor is the practice of killing palestinian leaders in the midst of civilians using hellfire missiles from attack helicopters.... obviously not terrorism, huh-uhh...
Your constant and unequivocal defense of anything Israeli is tiresome and diseased in the face of ongoing Israeli efforts to herd palestinians into the mideast equivalent of impoverished bantustans, implementing their own slow motion version of Lebensraum...
Well, if half of US senators and congressmen were of persian origin, iran would not have any problems to build anything it wants whatsoever.
1. Technically speaking, neither Iran nor Israel have religion separated from the state.
2. Islamic Republic of Iran had never attacked any of its neighbours (though it was attacked by Iraq), whereas Israel had attacked its neighbours in 1956, 1967 and 1980 (though it was attacked in 1948 and 1973).
3. Every jew or christian living in Iran has the same rights as muslims (except for state funding for religious ceremonies and buildings), whereas most muslims living under israeli rule have no rights at all (though 20% of muslims have israeli citizenship and the same rights as jews, again, except for religious spendings).
At the same time I would prefer Israel over Iran, simply because Israel was created by jews of european origin, so it is closer to my cultural background (I like western style of life).
1. Technically speaking, neither Iran nor Israel have religion separated from the state.
2. Islamic Republic of Iran had never attacked any of its neighbours (though it was attacked by Iraq), whereas Israel had attacked its neighbours in 1956, 1967 and 1980 (though it was attacked in 1948 and 1973).
3. Every jew or christian living in Iran has the same rights as muslims (except for state funding for religious ceremonies and buildings), whereas most muslims living under israeli rule have no rights at all (though 20% of muslims have israeli citizenship and the same rights as jews, again, except for religious spendings).
At the same time I would prefer Israel over Iran, simply because Israel was created by jews of european origin, so it is closer to my cultural background (I like western style of life).
As far as #2 is concerned, they haven't attacked any other state in the sense of a military invasion, but Iran has supported considerable amounts of terrorism. (The '96 bombing of U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia was ultimately connected to them)
Also, as a whole, Iranians really want a more western culture, but they're trying to achieving it a more democratic way. (ie: the leadership hates it, but the people want it) It's a bit of a problem though when the Guardian Council and Supreme Leader can ignore democracy when they disagree with it.
And the big debate is about two things: 1) where are they going to get their uranium from (It was originally part of the deal with Russia. Russia would build the reactors and supply the uranium, as well as dispose it.) and 2) their full compliance with the NPT - which they did sign. (Among other things, it allows inspections)
Now, Iran being Iran, it is a country of extremely nationalistic people. (Unlike the Arab countries, there is a huge amount of nationalism in Iran - which for those who don't know, are Persians) What does this mean? Well, it's the same reason we hate the idea of dependence on foreign oil - we like doing things ourselves and so do they. There is also the problem of their leadership. They are frequently belligerent and are very much against western cultures - especially us.
I was under the strong impression that 1996 and other attacks on US military and civilian targets since 1992 were the deeds of Al Qaeda.
Though, I think, Iran was sponsoring Hezbollah in Lebanon, right after Israel was sponsoring phalangists in Lebanon and USA was sponsoring Osama Bin Laden and his terrori..., sorry, freedom fighters (at the time they were killing mostly russians and afghanis, so technically they were not terrorists) in Afghanistan.
And yes, iranian leadership is against western countries, whereas western countries are mostly pro-iranian and tend to call Iran the member of an Axis of Good.
Funny.
I meant legally... to occupy Iran you would basically need to declare war on it without any reason. The UN council would emarginate the US and this would be the very first step toward a real global system change. Not even a madman would think something like this.
Remember that Iraq was already under UN inspections, so you could find something to work on to get a legitimate excuse to go in. Not so with Iran. Besides, you would then have every single shiite in the world against you. Not that wise.
Originally posted by: 486
I was under the strong impression that 1996 and other attacks on US military and civilian targets since 1992 were the deeds of Al Qaeda.
Though, I think, Iran was sponsoring Hezbollah in Lebanon, right after Israel was sponsoring phalangists in Lebanon and USA was sponsoring Osama Bin Laden and his terrori..., sorry, freedom fighters (at the time they were killing mostly russians and afghanis, so technically they were not terrorists) in Afghanistan.
And yes, iranian leadership is against western countries, whereas western countries are mostly pro-iranian and tend to call Iran the member of an Axis of Good.
Funny.
Aye, the '96 attack was eventually connected to Iran - although they still deny it, I believe. And yes, they also support Hezbollah.
Originally posted by: 486
I was under the strong impression that 1996 and other attacks on US military and civilian targets since 1992 were the deeds of Al Qaeda.
Though, I think, Iran was sponsoring Hezbollah in Lebanon, right after Israel was sponsoring phalangists in Lebanon and USA was sponsoring Osama Bin Laden and his terrori..., sorry, freedom fighters (at the time they were killing mostly russians and afghanis, so technically they were not terrorists) in Afghanistan.
And yes, iranian leadership is against western countries, whereas western countries are mostly pro-iranian and tend to call Iran the member of an Axis of Good.
Funny.
The problem here is that most people are not able to view things from other perspectives but the limited ones that you can get from your own country, no matter what this country is. International politics is not like that. Each country get a seat at the UN, and the western suspicioness against Iran has exactly the same value of Iran suspicioness over Israel. The same set of international laws apply to the US and the smallest country around.
Many people, expecially in the US, got such a small exposition to the foreign country, either by travelling or getting an international education, that usually forget that in an international court every country has the same rights.
Every country is given the right to rule within its borders, get the energy production facilities it wants and the equip its army in any way it likes. That's it. You know, nobody likes being dependent on some other country, expecially when we are talking about security, defense and energy.
If you want to avoid this (and I DO understand the reasons why) you have to prevaricate ANY international law, and basically become the quintessential rogue state. Is it worth?
1. UN council is not capable of emargination of any permanent member of the security council or its close ally.
2. It takes World War to do real global system change.
i dont want a country that is supporting current terrorism in Iraq, funding hezbollah other terrorist organizations against America and Israel and other countries to ever have nuclear weapons.
Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, if you feel good about them getting their hands on nukes, then there is nothing I can say about that.
Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, if you feel good about them getting their hands on nukes, then there is nothing I can say about that.
1. There are no international laws. Law without enforcement does not exist. Every country acts out of its own interests. Good luck trying to enforce "international law" on USA, Russia or China.
2. If you have a stick, you do not want others to have sticks, because if they do, you cannot use your stick under threat of retaliation.
From Strk-
"Aye, the '96 attack was eventually connected to Iran - although they still deny it, I believe. And yes, they also support Hezbollah."
If you're going to make such an assertion, you'll need to support it. Links?
And the same for Raildogg-
"Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism"
Terrorism against whom, and who says so?
Terrorism depends on your pov, anyway. From some points of view, the US is the biggest sponsor of terror worldwide, from Guatemala and El Salvador clear to the tip of Chile, not to mention our client state, Israel, and now the terror that 30 million Iraqis feel every time they see American troops in their neighborhood...
"Aye, the '96 attack was eventually connected to Iran - although they still deny it, I believe. And yes, they also support Hezbollah."
If you're going to make such an assertion, you'll need to support it. Links?
And the same for Raildogg-
"Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism"
Terrorism against whom, and who says so?
Terrorism depends on your pov, anyway. From some points of view, the US is the biggest sponsor of terror worldwide, from Guatemala and El Salvador clear to the tip of Chile, not to mention our client state, Israel, and now the terror that 30 million Iraqis feel every time they see American troops in their neighborhood...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter