Israel destroyed a partly constructed Syrian nuclear reactor.

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: Perry404
Why can Israel seem to take care of business so efficiently? If the U.S. does it we must make a mess and and a war of something like this. If the U.S. could do something like this so quickly, cheaply and with such a small loss of life there would be no reason for all this talk on Iran. We could just do it and get it over with.

Pfft, like the way Israel took care of business in the Summer of 06, right? No thank you.

Thousands of bad guys were killed in that War. Casualties were unfortunately high for Israel though.

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: Perry404
Why can Israel seem to take care of business so efficiently? If the U.S. does it we must make a mess and and a war of something like this. If the U.S. could do something like this so quickly, cheaply and with such a small loss of life there would be no reason for all this talk on Iran. We could just do it and get it over with.

Pfft, like the way Israel took care of business in the Summer of 06, right? No thank you.

Thousands of bad guys were killed in that War. Casualties were unfortunately high for Israel though.

Oh my, look it's Nebor again with another stupid provocative statement! I am so shocked that he would deliberately state that near 1000 civilians deserved to die , but hey who is going to do something about it, I guess we are SOL, Nebor is going to be our dark lord for eternity...

Dude you are lucky that the moderators think you are way too stupid to be banned for your statements.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: Genx87
Ahh didn the UN already do that? They partitioned Israel and Palastine and the Arabs wanted it all and lost. Reality is they dont get a do over. Life sucks, get a helmet.

What? You are pretending as if their was this UN acknowledged country Israel then the Arabs wanted a piece then they weren't given a good enough one and all hell broke loose! That's not what happened and you know it.
What happened is <----really? hardly!
that Arabs were promised unity by the West, Palestine is an Arabic country that wasn't yet acknowledged by the UN, it had some Jewish minorities like many other Arabic countries, they were living at peace, but then they decided that they wanted it all, started lobbying, took land by force (and some by money), formed gangs started killing people, declared their own country, Arabs got super-pissed and then hell broke loose, newly born poorly equipped Arab countries lost the war vs the better trained and equipped world war European veterans of the western backed Jewish armies and the rest is history. That would be a more fit of a way of putting it.

--- that is just so wrong in everyway!!

"After Israel became an independent country in 1948, the United States joined an embargo on weapons sales to Israel, the 1949 Tripartite Agreement on weapons. Although the US sold hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry to Arab states during the 1950s and early 1960s, there were no sales to Israel until 1962 when the US agreed to sell to Israel its first significant American system, the HAWK anti-aircraft missile.

American military involvement with Israel remained sporadic until the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Following an Egyptian refusal to accept a cease-fire and a Soviet military airlift to the Arab states, the Nixon Administration sent a United States airlift of weapons and supplies to Israel enabling her to recover from earlier setbacks. Starting on October 14, 1973 US Air Force "Operation Nickel Grass" flew resupply missions to Israel for a full month.

As a direct result of the Yom Kippur War, the United States quadrupled its foreign aid to Israel, and replaced France as Israel's largest arms supplier. The doctrine of maintaining Israel's "qualitative edge" over its neighbors was born in the war's aftermath. This was based both on US appreciation of Israel's role as a defender of Western values in a generally hostile region, and also on the Cold War calculus of opposing the Arab client states of the Soviet Union. "

http://www.palestinefacts.org/..._israel_us_support.php
and other sources


DarkThinker--please provide sources--thx

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why shouldn't Syria work towards the goal of nuclear weapons?

They would be used on us or our allies. We do not believe religious fanatics who train their children for suicide bombings from birth are capable of upholding peace through MAD.

But isn't the basis for claiming that they are "religious fanatics" based on our belief that the Jewish and Christian religions are NOT fanatical and are not training their children to be aggressors?

Why do you put so much faith in countries that are run by people that claim to be men of god and have shown a propensity for attacking others as being capable of upholding peace?

The irony and hypocrisy of your (and the majority of supporters for the U.S. and Israeli policies) mindset regarding this issue astounds me.

I assume you're not one of us, at the very least you?re not ideologically. If what you said was true of our aggression, you and the Islamists would already be dead. The western world has proven itself the world leader in human rights and since our creation of the nuclear weapon have proven our ability to restrain ourselves.

We have, for the last century, been the superior power in the world. I believe we have mostly used this power benevolently, with only a few blemishes on our record.

Now you advocate the entire rest of the world should catch up and be equal in power. I cannot agree that this would be acceptable in the midst of a global campaign to convert or kill infidels. Instinct tells me it would be used for such purposes. If the Middle East wants the respect required to be allowed to equal our power, they need to control their radicals or they will likely share their fate.

Why is it not acceptable? We do not want a nuclear war. Is everyone in the world fit to hold a gun? No. Neither is everyone fit to hold a nuclear weapon. All hell would break lose if we were struck. Be weary of what you ask for ? you might get it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Well since Syria isn't bitching I guess it means Israel did't do anything Syria could actually complain about on the world stage without admitting to doing something wrong.

So, in the wonderful world of politics we all just look away and Syria realizes that oops - next time we must do better at being sneaky.

Syria didn't bitch either when Israel obliterated a radar location for them in Lebanon, I remember very well what I saw on TV, Bashar Al-Assad got on the national news station, and I thought he was going to raise hell! Then when asked about the radar attack he said : "We will respond when the time is appropriate." that's all he said and he left. Didn't mean they weren't planning a response under the table. Syria has it's own proxies, they do it's bidding Shivetya.

And Syria also can reap the result of its Proxies when Israel chooses.

Syria has chosen to not make peace with Israel and instead directly support/assist those that attack Israel.

You know very well I am not pro-Syrian not even one bit. I am not trying to make a point for Syria, I am just trying to state that Syria almost never takes action directly, they use proxies in Palestine Iraq and Lebanon to get the job done. The radar incident is an example of what Syria did when they got attacked by Israel directly look it up.

I do not think that Israel attacked Syria at all.

They buzzed the Syrian capital AFTER Hamas captured the Israeli soldier on the Israel side of the border.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why shouldn't Syria work towards the goal of nuclear weapons?

They would be used on us or our allies. We do not believe religious fanatics who train their children for suicide bombings from birth are capable of upholding peace through MAD.

But isn't the basis for claiming that they are "religious fanatics" based on our belief that the Jewish and Christian religions are NOT fanatical and are not training their children to be aggressors?

Why do you put so much faith in countries that are run by people that claim to be men of god and have shown a propensity for attacking others as being capable of upholding peace?

The irony and hypocrisy of your (and the majority of supporters for the U.S. and Israeli policies) mindset regarding this issue astounds me.

I assume you're not one of us, at the very least you?re not ideologically. If what you said was true of our aggression, you and the Islamists would already be dead. The western world has proven itself the world leader in human rights and since our creation of the nuclear weapon have proven our ability to restrain ourselves.

We have, for the last century, been the superior power in the world. I believe we have mostly used this power benevolently, with only a few blemishes on our record.

Now you advocate the entire rest of the world should catch up and be equal in power. I cannot agree that this would be acceptable in the midst of a global campaign to convert or kill infidels. Instinct tells me it would be used for such purposes. If the Middle East wants the respect required to be allowed to equal our power, they need to control their radicals or they will likely share their fate.

Why is it not acceptable? We do not want a nuclear war. Is everyone in the world fit to hold a gun? No. Neither is everyone fit to hold a nuclear weapon. All hell would break lose if we were struck. Be weary of what you ask for ? you might get it.

First things first, very nice reply. You took what I said without the typical knee jerk reaction to lambaste me as an anti-semitic, un-American or (insert other derogatory term here). I appreciate it because I didn't mean to come across as any of those things. I merely tried to state what I see as the reality of the situation.

Now, onto my rebuttal.

Over the last decade, which nations have been the most aggressive around the globe in terms of attacks on other sovereign nations?

I'm not sure that I came across clear enough. I was trying to make the point about governments and not about rogue groups. I am not stupid enough to claim that Syria or other Middle Eastern countries have not sponsored groups which others would classify as terroristic organizations (just as I hope that you aren't stupid enough to make the same declaration about the U.S. and Israel). However, these countries have had the ability to offer more than small arms and munitions to these groups but have restrained. There have been no jets running sorties over Israel nor have there been any missiles being fired into it.

That fact has not stopped people on here and other places calling for the ME to be "turned to glass" or to have precision nukes used against those countries.

What should happen is an open dialog between the leaders in the ME, Israel, the U.S. and any other country that is truly dedicated to achieving global peace. Instead, what we have are dog and pony shows where the leaders go from the negotiating table to the war room to continue this asinine roller coaster ride.

In closing, we should all hope that I get what I asked for, a world with no WMD and peace amongst all nations.

As John Lennon said...

"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one"

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why shouldn't Syria work towards the goal of nuclear weapons?

They would be used on us or our allies. We do not believe religious fanatics who train their children for suicide bombings from birth are capable of upholding peace through MAD.

But isn't the basis for claiming that they are "religious fanatics" based on our belief that the Jewish and Christian religions are NOT fanatical and are not training their children to be aggressors?

Why do you put so much faith in countries that are run by people that claim to be men of god and have shown a propensity for attacking others as being capable of upholding peace?

The irony and hypocrisy of your (and the majority of supporters for the U.S. and Israeli policies) mindset regarding this issue astounds me.

I assume you're not one of us, at the very least you?re not ideologically. If what you said was true of our aggression, you and the Islamists would already be dead. The western world has proven itself the world leader in human rights and since our creation of the nuclear weapon have proven our ability to restrain ourselves.

We have, for the last century, been the superior power in the world. I believe we have mostly used this power benevolently, with only a few blemishes on our record.

Now you advocate the entire rest of the world should catch up and be equal in power. I cannot agree that this would be acceptable in the midst of a global campaign to convert or kill infidels. Instinct tells me it would be used for such purposes. If the Middle East wants the respect required to be allowed to equal our power, they need to control their radicals or they will likely share their fate.

Why is it not acceptable? We do not want a nuclear war. Is everyone in the world fit to hold a gun? No. Neither is everyone fit to hold a nuclear weapon. All hell would break lose if we were struck. Be weary of what you ask for ? you might get it.

First things first, very nice reply. You took what I said without the typical knee jerk reaction to lambaste me as an anti-semitic, un-American or (insert other derogatory term here). I appreciate it because I didn't mean to come across as any of those things. I merely tried to state what I see as the reality of the situation.

Now, onto my rebuttal.

Over the last decade, which nations have been the most aggressive around the globe in terms of attacks on other sovereign nations?

I'm not sure that I came across clear enough. I was trying to make the point about governments and not about rogue groups. I am not stupid enough to claim that Syria or other Middle Eastern countries have not sponsored groups which others would classify as terroristic organizations (just as I hope that you aren't stupid enough to make the same declaration about the U.S. and Israel). However, these countries have had the ability to offer more than small arms and munitions to these groups but have restrained. There have been no jets running sorties over Israel nor have there been any missiles being fired into it.

That fact has not stopped people on here and other places calling for the ME to be "turned to glass" or to have precision nukes used against those countries.

What should happen is an open dialog between the leaders in the ME, Israel, the U.S. and any other country that is truly dedicated to achieving global peace. Instead, what we have are dog and pony shows where the leaders go from the negotiating table to the war room to continue this asinine roller coaster ride.

In closing, we should all hope that I get what I asked for, a world with no WMD and peace amongst all nations.

As John Lennon said...

"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one"

:thumbsup:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
In closing, we should all hope that I get what I asked for, a world with no WMD and peace amongst all nations.

You argue for the exact opposite of that.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why shouldn't Syria work towards the goal of nuclear weapons?

Unless you expect dead people will be peaceful after the weapons are detonated.

 

[eits]

you know what's funny? the same people who are afraid that middle eastern countries will make nukes and bomb other countries are mostly the same people who are for no gun regulation or are for everyone owning a gun, citing that if everyone had a gun, that'd be like a checks and balances in society. the same cannot be said for nukes?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eits
you know what's funny? the same people who are afraid that middle eastern countries will make nukes and bomb other countries are mostly the same people who are for no gun regulation or are for everyone owning a gun, citing that if everyone had a gun, that'd be like a checks and balances in society. the same cannot be said for nukes?

Sorry, but that is the worst attempt at an analogy that I have ever seen.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits
you know what's funny? the same people who are afraid that middle eastern countries will make nukes and bomb other countries are mostly the same people who are for no gun regulation or are for everyone owning a gun, citing that if everyone had a gun, that'd be like a checks and balances in society. the same cannot be said for nukes?

Sorry, but that is the worst attempt at an analogy that I have ever seen.

it's not an analogy... it's a look at your paradoxical philosophies. for example, pro-life, yet pro-war and pro-capital punishment.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits
you know what's funny? the same people who are afraid that middle eastern countries will make nukes and bomb other countries are mostly the same people who are for no gun regulation or are for everyone owning a gun, citing that if everyone had a gun, that'd be like a checks and balances in society. the same cannot be said for nukes?

Sorry, but that is the worst attempt at an analogy that I have ever seen.

it's not an analogy... it's a look at your paradoxical philosophies. for example, pro-life, yet pro-war and pro-capital punishment.

It is a bad analogy. With a gun, it may take one madman to kill 30 students, but in the hands of a madman, it only takes one nuclear weapon to destroy the human race.

Even with sane people, we have already come to the brink of nuclear war (Cuban missle crises); throw in a religious zealot, the situation gets worse... there is a saying, I think it goes something like this: the 3rd world war maybe fought with nuclear weapons, however it can be certain the 4th, will be fought with sticks and stones... .that is if man kind is still alive.. nuclear weapons have become so much more powerful...

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits
you know what's funny? the same people who are afraid that middle eastern countries will make nukes and bomb other countries are mostly the same people who are for no gun regulation or are for everyone owning a gun, citing that if everyone had a gun, that'd be like a checks and balances in society. the same cannot be said for nukes?

Sorry, but that is the worst attempt at an analogy that I have ever seen.

it's not an analogy... it's a look at your paradoxical philosophies. for example, pro-life, yet pro-war and pro-capital punishment.

It is a bad analogy. With a gun, it may take one madman to kill 30 students, but in the hands of a madman, it only takes one nuclear weapon to destroy the human race.

Even with sane people, we have already come to the brink of nuclear war (Cuban missle crises); throw in a religious zealot, the situation gets worse... there is a saying, I think it goes something like this: the 3rd world war maybe fought with nuclear weapons, however it can be certain the 4th, will be fought with sticks and stones... .that is if man kind is still alive.. nuclear weapons have become so much more powerful...

Give all the examples that you want, as long as Israel has access to nuclear weapons, everyone else has the right to get their own too. Until Israel is disarmed of such weapons, no one will be ending their pursuit of balancing the situation anytime soon.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits
you know what's funny? the same people who are afraid that middle eastern countries will make nukes and bomb other countries are mostly the same people who are for no gun regulation or are for everyone owning a gun, citing that if everyone had a gun, that'd be like a checks and balances in society. the same cannot be said for nukes?

Sorry, but that is the worst attempt at an analogy that I have ever seen.

it's not an analogy... it's a look at your paradoxical philosophies. for example, pro-life, yet pro-war and pro-capital punishment.

It is a bad analogy. With a gun, it may take one madman to kill 30 students, but in the hands of a madman, it only takes one nuclear weapon to destroy the human race.

Even with sane people, we have already come to the brink of nuclear war (Cuban missle crises); throw in a religious zealot, the situation gets worse... there is a saying, I think it goes something like this: the 3rd world war maybe fought with nuclear weapons, however it can be certain the 4th, will be fought with sticks and stones... .that is if man kind is still alive.. nuclear weapons have become so much more powerful...

Give all the examples that you want, as long as Israel has access to nuclear weapons, everyone else has the right to get their own too. Until Israel is disarmed of such weapons, no one will be ending their pursuit of balancing the situation anytime soon.

exactly.

people get guns to arm themselves against madmen. well, the leaders in the middle east view olmert as the madman.

also, yes, there are crazy people who have taken office throughout history. however, with the threat of nuclear annihilation, they don't actually play that game. madmen like holding power and not dying... playing the game and actually nuking someone will end in nuclear retaliation and their death and loss of power. although they will have the power and bragging rights of saying they have a nuke, they won't actually use it against another nation.

honestly, i think syria and iran are more than likely trying to go nuclear for economic and energy needs. i doubt it's for nuclear weapons. seriously, they'd have to actually test their nuclear weapons... don't you think we'd know about it by the time they actually get their first test run in like 8 years? until that point, you can't really say they're trying to get nukes and treat them like they are.

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits
you know what's funny? the same people who are afraid that middle eastern countries will make nukes and bomb other countries are mostly the same people who are for no gun regulation or are for everyone owning a gun, citing that if everyone had a gun, that'd be like a checks and balances in society. the same cannot be said for nukes?

Sorry, but that is the worst attempt at an analogy that I have ever seen.

it's not an analogy... it's a look at your paradoxical philosophies. for example, pro-life, yet pro-war and pro-capital punishment.

It is a bad analogy. With a gun, it may take one madman to kill 30 students, but in the hands of a madman, it only takes one nuclear weapon to destroy the human race.

Even with sane people, we have already come to the brink of nuclear war (Cuban missle crises); throw in a religious zealot, the situation gets worse... there is a saying, I think it goes something like this: the 3rd world war maybe fought with nuclear weapons, however it can be certain the 4th, will be fought with sticks and stones... .that is if man kind is still alive.. nuclear weapons have become so much more powerful...

Give all the examples that you want, as long as Israel has access to nuclear weapons, everyone else has the right to get their own too. Until Israel is disarmed of such weapons, no one will be ending their pursuit of balancing the situation anytime soon.

exactly.

people get guns to arm themselves against madmen. well, the leaders in the middle east view olmert as the madman.

also, yes, there are crazy people who have taken office throughout history. however, with the threat of nuclear annihilation, they don't actually play that game. madmen like holding power and not dying... playing the game and actually nuking someone will end in nuclear retaliation and their death and loss of power. although they will have the power and bragging rights of saying they have a nuke, they won't actually use it against another nation.

honestly, i think syria and iran are more than likely trying to go nuclear for economic and energy needs. i doubt it's for nuclear weapons. seriously, they'd have to actually test their nuclear weapons... don't you think we'd know about it by the time they actually get their first test run in like 8 years? until that point, you can't really say they're trying to get nukes and treat them like they are.

No country in he middle-east is crazy enough to attack Israel or any other country for that matter with anything even remotely related to nuclear weapons, Saddam didn't even have the WMDs and look what happened to him just because it was speculated! What if Iraq and Saddam did have them and were really planning on using them? There wouldn't have been two stones on top of each other in Iraq. If Israel is to ever be attacked by a nuclear weapon, I would bet it would be more than anything a rogue effort through a party like Al-Qaeeda or whatever is crazy enough to do it to sneak a dirty bomb (purchased on the black market) into Israel. No country in the middle-east is willing to get involved in a direct confrontation with Israeli militarily let alone a nuclear one.

However I don't think it would be irrational for any country that would have fears of Israeli military invasion at some point in time to wield it's nukes to make them think twice about it. I think all Arabic countries should have the capability to let Israel know in one way or the other that should it think of expanding into any other country even one more inch that it would be facing a barrage of tactical Nukes from all it's neighbors. Why should Israel be the only one with the anti-invasion 500 warhead deterrent? They have the freedom of attacking / invading an country they please. The way I see it, they should kiss those days goodbye and live with the status quo if they know what's good for them, as it's only getting worse from here and on, you can suppress that many humans for only so long.

If they keep preventing other countries from obtaining nuclear technology through these dirty bully ways even for energy needs, then you can count on someone getting pissed enough to do something to really stick it to them and that you can count on.

 

[Lemon law]

Herein lies the Dark Thinker Rub--------No country in he middle-east is crazy enough to attack Israel or any other country for that matter with anything even remotely related to nuclear weapons,

But terrorists will use anything they can get a hold of. In our case a Tim McVeigh used a truck bomb to avenge our government's ATF in Ruby Ridge and Waco. So who do you punish for terrorist actions? The truth is that it was ATF stupidity that started both Ruby Ridge and Waco, in the ensuing hysteria, we all missed examining that other question. Namely would the Oklahoma City bombing have even occurred if we better policed our ATF?

Now we have exactly that kind of ATF thinking running around that may destabilize Pakistan and allow Terrorists to get a hold of a loose nuke. While GWB's war on terror creates far more terrorists than it kills.

And what point do we start to get smarter and get away from after the fact punishment to prevention. Dark Thinker is probably correct, no mid-east country dares to attack Israel because of the fear of resultant punishment, but that thinking does not apply to terrorists.

Yes we killed McVeigh and Nichols is in supermax for life. But do any think their fate will deter others?

 

[EagleKeeper]

UN allowed to inspect site

9 months after this happened - plenty of time to cleanup.

U.S. nuclear analysts say satellite images since the Israeli strike show the bombed site had been razed and a new building erected there, perhaps to cleanse traces of nuclear activity

Also, Syria will NOT allow inspection at three other sites that would support a nuke facility

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
UN allowed to inspect site

9 months after this happened - plenty of time to cleanup.

U.S. nuclear analysts say satellite images since the Israeli strike show the bombed site had been razed and a new building erected there, perhaps to cleanse traces of nuclear activity

Also, Syria will NOT allow inspection at three other sites that would support a nuke facility

They didn't have to allow the UN in until the site was/is nearing completion per the NON-PA treaty they signed. Syria under the NON-PA treaty is allowed to develop amd construct nuclear power plants as long as it does not use them for weaponization purposes and as I stated are only obligated to allow inspectors in once they near the final stage of construction. Then again I am sure you'll completely ignore this fact and gloss over it.

 

[jamesall]

Originally posted by: Lemon law


Yes we killed McVeigh and Nichols is in supermax for life. But do any think their fate will deter others?

If McVeigh and Nichols wasn't punished for their action , it will certainly encourage others.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Facts pulled from the NYTimes article. The point is that

1.) Syria already has a small reactor in use for research purposes.

2.) They are allowed to build a nuclear reactor for energy needs if they want too as defined in the treaty they signed.

3.) They do not have to disclose the building of a nuclear reactor in it's early stages as defined again in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The White House is in a bind because Syria has done nothing to violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Many in fact in the White House feel Israel reacted without merit or without any factual basis in which to strike Syria based on any meaningful known malicious intent. All we have here are the assumptions from people who have no clue about the nature of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Syria signed. It's basically people thinking "ZOMG T3HY HAVE THE B0MB !!!" and of course Israel's trigger happy responses and policies.

Even though it has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Syria would not have been obligated to declare the existence of a reactor during the early phases of construction. It would have also had the legal right to complete construction of the reactor, as long as its purpose was to generate electricity.

Syria is known to have only one nuclear reactor, a small one built for research purposes. But in the past decade, Syria has several times sought unsuccessfully to buy one, first from Argentina, then from Russia. On those occasions, Israel reacted strongly but did not threaten military action. Earlier this year, Mr. Assad spoke publicly in general terms about Syria?s desire to develop nuclear power, but his government did not announce a plan to build a new reactor.

You are an idiot. I could see you being the same stupid English morons going "Ah Hitler won't invade he signed a treaty! sure he has troops on the border with Poland, but bloody hell, he signed a treaty!" Or the Russian going "ah, were safe from the Nazi's, we signed a treaty!" Or the south Vietnamese going "ah, the North won't hurt us...we signed a treaty!"

ect ect ect

My point is, treaties are not worth the paper they are written on to even use to clean up my feces after a good taco bell meal. If you think otherwise, look at the number of current "treaties" that the US is in violation of at the moment because its "convenient". As much as you seem to think trigger happy Arabs who would love nothing better than to kill ever Israeli Jew in Israel are sitting there going "ah yes, peaceful energy that is all, yes that is all" until they actually show some signs of modernization and civility as a society should not be allowed to join the nuclear club. Nuclear Power is not a "right".

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits
you know what's funny? the same people who are afraid that middle eastern countries will make nukes and bomb other countries are mostly the same people who are for no gun regulation or are for everyone owning a gun, citing that if everyone had a gun, that'd be like a checks and balances in society. the same cannot be said for nukes?

Sorry, but that is the worst attempt at an analogy that I have ever seen.

it's not an analogy... it's a look at your paradoxical philosophies. for example, pro-life, yet pro-war and pro-capital punishment.

It is a bad analogy. With a gun, it may take one madman to kill 30 students, but in the hands of a madman, it only takes one nuclear weapon to destroy the human race.

Even with sane people, we have already come to the brink of nuclear war (Cuban missle crises); throw in a religious zealot, the situation gets worse... there is a saying, I think it goes something like this: the 3rd world war maybe fought with nuclear weapons, however it can be certain the 4th, will be fought with sticks and stones... .that is if man kind is still alive.. nuclear weapons have become so much more powerful...

Give all the examples that you want, as long as Israel has access to nuclear weapons, everyone else has the right to get their own too. Until Israel is disarmed of such weapons, no one will be ending their pursuit of balancing the situation anytime soon.

Why is that? So you think Cuba and Venezuela should have nuclear warheads because the US does? I mean that fits into your logical line of thinking there. I am sure Russia would love to have Chechnya have nuclear warheads, and we can give some to Thailand and I am sure China won't mind. Sorry but you are a idiotic moron if you cannot distinguish between different types of governments and what they should and should not be allowed to have.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
UN allowed to inspect site

9 months after this happened - plenty of time to cleanup.

U.S. nuclear analysts say satellite images since the Israeli strike show the bombed site had been razed and a new building erected there, perhaps to cleanse traces of nuclear activity

Also, Syria will NOT allow inspection at three other sites that would support a nuke facility

They didn't have to allow the UN in until the site was/is nearing completion per the NON-PA treaty they signed. Syria under the NON-PA treaty is allowed to develop amd construct nuclear power plants as long as it does not use them for weaponization purposes and as I stated are only obligated to allow inspectors in once they near the final stage of construction. Then again I am sure you'll completely ignore this fact and gloss over it.

This issue is that after the original attack, they waited 9 months before allowing anyone from the outside world to look at what happened. Leads one to think that they needed that time to cleanup and put up innocent buildings" Yet the buildings that were thought to support the main site (and could be evidence as to the original) are being blocked.

One would wonder what Syria is attempting to hide.

 

[Ozoned]

Good question. If Syria's action were legal under the treaty, one would expect them to complain loudly.

Why is everyone so quiet? Curious?

Fern

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3806237,00.html

IAEA wants to know why they found uranium traces at bombed out site. Also read (I can't remeber where) They found it at 3 different sites in Syria

 

[Freshgeardude]

necroed..... why do you even try


Please explain why a new thread should be created when the updates posted is directly related to the original information?

Or are you attempting to just troll without paying attention to what you have attempted to troll?


Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[shira]

necroed..... why do you even try

Actually, this is a case where a zombie thread makes sense. Adding the new post to the old thread provides continuity.