BF2S Forums Syrian Reactor "not intended for peaceful purposes."

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

PF - Israel and Syria are still technically at war with each other and during a war the protagonists attempt to take out facilities they strongly believe to pose a military threat to them. It is quite evidently not a residential building and as such calling it a 'war crime' is a bit of s stretch. It's the same as Hitler bombing London docklands and the Clyde shipbuilding yards or the Norwegians sabotaging the Nazi heavy water plants.

There was substantial evidence that the shipyards were being directly used in the war, as were Nazi heavy water facilities. The Geneva convention says that people are civillians until proven otherwise, hence you don't bomb facilities that you're not sure about.

On another note, why not simply hand the evidence over to the U.N. and let them sort it out. All indications are that the site was nowhere near completion, hence not a threat. There was plenty of time to sort it out without blowing anything up. It's not going anywhere, hence if the UN fails to act on the evidence you can always blow it up tomorrow.

Well...it's all sorted now, innit?

Not really. This has set a horrible precedent that despite being signitories of the NPT and not breaking the NPT your nuclear research facilities may be destroyed if the nuclear states feel like it. This is going to force other countries that are going to develop nuclear power to keep their research secret,  as decaring legitimate facilities is like painting a bullseye on them. Why would Iran declare it's nuclear facilities even if they are for civillian use if they think that Israel will bomb them? This stops inspectors from doing their jobs and making sure that countries developing nuclear power aren't developing nuclear weapons. If the nuclear states aren't going to follow the NPT, why the hell should the non-nuclear states follow it? And mankind takes a great big step towards it's own destruction.

Well, as JahMan has said, I can totally understand why syria ( or other ME nations ) would want to get their hands on nuclear technology, and ultimately nuclear weapons, since cases like North Korea have proven that they do act as a useful deterrent against western imperialism.

I mean, is it really too much to ask to respect the sovereignity of ME nations ? From my point of view, all these nations want is to be reckognized as equals by the powers that be ( the US, UK, the EU, Russia, and others ), and as long as that doesn't happen ( and it is obviously not happening atm ), it is understandable that they would want to take action that helps them to level the playing field.

The fact of the matter is though, that Israel will not allow any of their old enemies to get their hands on nuclear weapons, or develop those.
I can understand why, but I still think it's wrong.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

There was substantial evidence that the shipyards were being directly used in the war, as were Nazi heavy water facilities. The Geneva convention says that people are civillians until proven otherwise, hence you don't bomb facilities that you're not sure about.

On another note, why not simply hand the evidence over to the U.N. and let them sort it out. All indications are that the site was nowhere near completion, hence not a threat. There was plenty of time to sort it out without blowing anything up. It's not going anywhere, hence if the UN fails to act on the evidence you can always blow it up tomorrow.

Well...it's all sorted now, innit?

Not really. This has set a horrible precedent that despite being signitories of the NPT and not breaking the NPT your nuclear research facilities may be destroyed if the nuclear states feel like it. This is going to force other countries that are going to develop nuclear power to keep their research secret,  as decaring legitimate facilities is like painting a bullseye on them. Why would Iran declare it's nuclear facilities even if they are for civillian use if they think that Israel will bomb them? This stops inspectors from doing their jobs and making sure that countries developing nuclear power aren't developing nuclear weapons. If the nuclear states aren't going to follow the NPT, why the hell should the non-nuclear states follow it? And mankind takes a great big step towards it's own destruction.

you obviously don't understand the concept behind the axis of evil.

nuclear weapons in the hands of the "good" people = OK
nuclear weapons in the hands of the "bad" people = not OK

needless to say the "good" people are the white christian ones, and the "bad" people are the arab muslims...

/irony

FEOS wrote:

No, it only sets the precedent that one country can still retain the right to act in its own best interests if it feels it is threatened.

Erm, countries don't have the right to attack other countries because they feel threatened. If that was the case then Pearl harbour is justified (the us fleet was certainly a threat to Japan). Countries have the right to attack imminent threats in the case where getting  the UN together to pass judgement is not possible, like shooting down bombers on their way to attack, but as the facility wasn't even operational, there's no possible way to claim that it was an imminent threat. As a non-imminent threat then Israel has to go to the UN and they get to decide what happens, who will turn to the IAEA to verify the Israeli evidence against Syria.

FEOS wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Not really. This has set a horrible precedent that despite being signitories of the NPT and not breaking the NPT your nuclear research facilities may be destroyed if the nuclear states feel like it. This is going to force other countries that are going to develop nuclear power to keep their research secret,  as decaring legitimate facilities is like painting a bullseye on them. Why would Iran declare it's nuclear facilities even if they are for civillian use if they think that Israel will bomb them? This stops inspectors from doing their jobs and making sure that countries developing nuclear power aren't developing nuclear weapons. If the nuclear states aren't going to follow the NPT, why the hell should the non-nuclear states follow it? And mankind takes a great big step towards it's own destruction.

you obviously don't understand the concept behind the axis of evil.

nuclear weapons in the hands of the "good" people = OK
nuclear weapons in the hands of the "bad" people = not OK

needless to say the "good" people are the white christian ones, and the "bad" people are the arab muslims...

/irony

And that's why China, Pakistan, India, and Israel were also on the Axis of Evil, right?

(yes, I know you were being sarcastic, but it was weak)

huh ? If wikipedia isn't totally off here, the "original" axis of evil list from January 2002 State of the Union address had only 3 countries on it, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
On May 6, 2002, soon-to-be-ambassador to the UN John Bolton added three more to the list, Lybia, Syria, and Cuba.

His speech was widely reported as an expansion of the original axis of evil.

From what I could draw from the interwebs, no mention was made of China, Pakistan ( ally to the US anyway ), India, or Israel.
And yes, I realize that pakistan is an islamic republic, but to me, it is part of asia, not part of the arab world. Although that is probably debatable.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, it only sets the precedent that one country can still retain the right to act in its own best interests if it feels it is threatened.

Which is exactly what Iran and Syria are doing, trying to obtain nuclear weapons because they feel threatened by the US and Israel.
See how arms races go nowhere?

Its funny, the only country to have used nuclear weapons - on non-military targets - is the one which thinks it can determine who else is responsible enough to have them.

So why didn't it try the legal route through the IAEA?

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

you obviously don't understand the concept behind the axis of evil.

nuclear weapons in the hands of the "good" people = OK
nuclear weapons in the hands of the "bad" people = not OK

needless to say the "good" people are the white christian ones, and the "bad" people are the arab muslims...

/irony

And that's why China, Pakistan, India, and Israel were also on the Axis of Evil, right?

(yes, I know you were being sarcastic, but it was weak)

huh ? If wikipedia isn't totally off here, the "original" axis of evil list from January 2002 State of the Union address had only 3 countries on it, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
On May 6, 2002, soon-to-be-ambassador to the UN John Bolton added three more to the list, Lybia, Syria, and Cuba.

His speech was widely reported as an expansion of the original axis of evil.

From what I could draw from the interwebs, no mention was made of China, Pakistan ( ally to the US anyway ), India, or Israel.
And yes, I realize that pakistan is an islamic republic, but to me, it is part of asia, not part of the arab world. Although that is probably debatable.

Check your sarcasm detector. You are the one who claimed that there is some kind of "white christian" litmus test for the US to be OK with a country having nukes and tied it to the "axis of evil". I named off four other countries that have nukes and aren't predominantly white and christian.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its funny, the only country to have used nuclear weapons - on non-military targets - is the one which thinks it can determine who else is responsible enough to have them.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained numerous Military assets.  World War II was a total war, no one was spared.  And what about the RAF's use of Incindiary devices on Dresden?

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Check your sarcasm detector. You are the one who claimed that there is some kind of "white christian" litmus test for the US to be OK with a country having nukes and tied it to the "axis of evil". I named off four other countries that have nukes and aren't predominantly white and christian.

Germans are notoriously immune to sarcasm - it's a pan-European stereotype of the Germanic tribe. Americans are also stereotyped as being oblivious to sarcasm too although I don't see much evidence of that on this forum.

oh, I did get the inherent sarcasm in FEOS's post, have no worries.

I guess I tried to mix a sufficiently ironic response with a more serious one, and got tangled up.
oh well, I guess that is bound to happen when one gets older...

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, but they do keep lobbing rockets and sending suicide bombers into purely civilian targets.

The Israelis kill a good deal more civilians than anyone else, even Hezbollah get a better ratio.
I still say, give the Palestinians the U$100bn in military equipment they are owed and we'll see a fair fight.

Can't win a war with gear and equipment alone, without training they're screwed. Besides no way you could train those guys up to the long trained standards of IDF troops. Highly likely they'd just fight over the money and blow themselves up with some more expensive explosives.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its funny, the only country to have used nuclear weapons - on non-military targets - is the one which thinks it can determine who else is responsible enough to have them.

I am pleased to present you with the Ignoramus of the week award!  Congratulations!