You could start with this line, attacks everyone.rammunition wrote:
Israel is armed to the teeth and attacks everyone but the other country should shut up and receive this without flinching?
Which is a fact.
Where did he say they were trying to annihilate them?
Where did he say they were trying to annihilate them?
yes, viva la France!nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't everyone already know they had nuclear weapons?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No more a fact than someone saying 'Iran and Syria don't have nukes.'ZombieVampire! wrote:
Which is a fact.
Where did he say they were trying to annihilate them?
Go look up the content of posts in the recent Israel and/or anti-America threads
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-05-27 08:54:38)
Why would the US know? It's not like the two countries share secrets. That and the fact that Israel's nuke technology/program came courtesy of the UK and France.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Since those nukes have (assuming they exist) been around more than 30 years, and if anyone other than the Israelis are sure it'd be the Americans.FEOS wrote:
I'm not saying Israel doesn't have nukes...but since when does the opinion of a former US president who has been out of office nearly thirty years constitute definitive proof of Israel's arsenal?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Isreal has never stated a goal of converting the world to their religion, under threat of violence or in any other way. They also have only attacked when provoked. If not a threat to their nation, I do not recall Isreal voicing an opinion on anythingrammunition wrote:
Also Israel is the biggest proliferator in the region. Not Syria, not Iran.
Israel is armed to the teeth and attacks everyone but the other country should shut up and receive this without flinching?
Yes, they do not care if their target is hiding in another nation. They seem to put their highest priority in keeping their borders and people safe, no matter what.
I have no problem with that. I admire that kind of dedication.
Yup. So what?rammunition wrote:
its one law for the west and one law everyone else.
Not so muchJahManRed wrote:
Iran has been open about its nuclear programme.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
As someone else mentioned, it's pretty foolish to think Iran is just going to end its nuclear research just because we want them to. Even if we shut down all they have in the open, it wouldn't be too hard for them to go completely covert in their research.
Wasn't talking about the purpose...was referencing the "openness" that IAEA is saying they haven't seen.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
ZOMG! what is the gecko doing back?
As to the OP, I dont think it really changes anything, everyone already assumed the worst and acted as if Israel had them and the fact that carter said it is still far from proof, they might not even have them and he could be stirring up shit
As to the OP, I dont think it really changes anything, everyone already assumed the worst and acted as if Israel had them and the fact that carter said it is still far from proof, they might not even have them and he could be stirring up shit
Israel has nuclear weapons for it's self-defense. What do you suppose would have happened during the six day war, had Syria or Iraq possessed nukes? What would happen if any state known to supply weapons to hezbollah had nukes? In both cases Israel = glass desert.rammunition wrote:
Israel has been building nuclear plants in secret for decades, a whistle blower by the name of Mordechai Vanunu was kidnapped when caught and has spent the last 20 years in jail for exposing Israel's secret nuclear program.
The fact is that in addition to tanks, F-16s and cluster bombs, Israel has nukes
Also Israel is the biggest proliferator in the region. Not Syria, not Iran.
Israel is armed to the teeth and attacks everyone but the other country should shut up and receive this without flinching?
It is time to stop appeasing Israel.
one more thing i will add. 189 countries have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. 5 nations on the list have nukes. Only 4 countries haven't signed this treaty. Israel with being one of them who hasn't signed and the only nation in the middle east who hasn't.
its one law for the west and one law everyone else.
Israel hasn't signed the NPT, and therefore they are under no obligation to abide by it's rules. Let me remind you that three NPT signatories - North Korea, South Africa and Libya - have broken the NPT by researching and building nukes* while they were signatories of this treaty.
With respect to Iran, they are allowed to enrich their own uranium yes..but as I'm sure you're aware, they're not exactly Israel's best buddies, and are going about it in a way** which serves to encourage distrust of themselves. Think of it like this: If your neighbour hates you, has friends who hate you, often talks about how you should be shot, and after a while starts waving a rifle round in their back yard but claims its for hunting..even if they're telling the truth you, and others are still going to be worried about a shooout in the neighbourhood aren't you?
And western hypocracy? When since WW2 has a western nation used a nuke in anger? Never.
* Okay, theres not really proof of NK breaking the NPT, but they left in 2003 and had nukes in 2005. Go figure.
** I refer here to their wider "weapons-friendly" nuclear process.
Iran signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Israel didn't (As Pug pointed out). Who is in breach?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
One could have viewed the Israel rejection of the treaty as an indication of a weapons program as well.
But they didn't sign it and then break it.nukchebi0 wrote:
One could have viewed the Israel rejection of the treaty as an indication of a weapons program as well.
In a test, when you do not answer a question does it not count as a mistake? Do you earn more points if you leave it blank rather than if you tick the wrong answer?M.O.A.B wrote:
But they didn't sign it and then break it.nukchebi0 wrote:
One could have viewed the Israel rejection of the treaty as an indication of a weapons program as well.
Because if that were the case, then Iran should apologize to the world for having signed, reject the treaty and go home to making nukes like Israel. Surely though an apology for deceiving us is necessary
retarded logic ftl
ƒ³
No more retarded than saying 'Iran needs nukes to level the playing field cos its only fair.'oug wrote:
In a test, when you do not answer a question does it not count as a mistake? Do you earn more points if you leave it blank rather than if you tick the wrong answer?M.O.A.B wrote:
But they didn't sign it and then break it.nukchebi0 wrote:
One could have viewed the Israel rejection of the treaty as an indication of a weapons program as well.
Because if that were the case, then Iran should apologize to the world for having signed, reject the treaty and go home to making nukes like Israel. Surely though an apology for deceiving us is necessary
retarded logic ftl
In what way is a test like a treaty?oug wrote:
In a test, when you do not answer a question does it not count as a mistake? Do you earn more points if you leave it blank rather than if you tick the wrong answer?
Because if that were the case, then Iran should apologize to the world for having signed, reject the treaty and go home to making nukes like Israel. Surely though an apology for deceiving us is necessary
retarded logic ftl
If Israel are outside the treaty they are a 'rogue state' and liable to military intervention authorised by the UN.
Except it will never happen.
Except it will never happen.
Fuck Israel
Israel has nukes and it goes completely unchecked. No bitching.M.O.A.B wrote:
No more retarded than saying 'Iran needs nukes to level the playing field cos its only fair.'
Iran does not have nukes, and you people bitch about it supposedly trying to make them because of problems with UN checks and because it signed some treaty saying they wouldn't.
You tell me what's fair.
Again. Simply because Israel did not sign does not make them better than those who did. Quite the contrary. Yet supporters seem to play dumb quite successfully.Pubic wrote:
In what way is a test like a treaty?oug wrote:
In a test, when you do not answer a question does it not count as a mistake? Do you earn more points if you leave it blank rather than if you tick the wrong answer?
Because if that were the case, then Iran should apologize to the world for having signed, reject the treaty and go home to making nukes like Israel. Surely though an apology for deceiving us is necessary
retarded logic ftl
ƒ³
Bitching about Iran having nukes has a lot of weight behind it, mostly because they support Hezbollah, a known terrorist group that has a vendetta against Israel, don't think they'd hold back and use a nuclear device as a deterrent rather than set it off. Israel is more trustworthy with its nukes because its had them probably since the late 60's 70's and hasn't used them once despite being in large conflicts that threatened its survival. Nuff said.oug wrote:
Israel has nukes and it goes completely unchecked. No bitching.M.O.A.B wrote:
No more retarded than saying 'Iran needs nukes to level the playing field cos its only fair.'
Iran does not have nukes, and you people bitch about it supposedly trying to make them because of problems with UN checks and because it signed some treaty saying they wouldn't.
You tell me what's fair.Again. Simply because Israel did not sign does not make them better than those who did. Quite the contrary. Yet supporters seem to play dumb quite successfully.Pubic wrote:
In what way is a test like a treaty?oug wrote:
In a test, when you do not answer a question does it not count as a mistake? Do you earn more points if you leave it blank rather than if you tick the wrong answer?
Because if that were the case, then Iran should apologize to the world for having signed, reject the treaty and go home to making nukes like Israel. Surely though an apology for deceiving us is necessary
retarded logic ftl
Bitching about Iran having nukes has a lot of weight behind it mostly because of FUCKING SPECULATION. You cannot prove any of that shit. Guessing what they might do with it in the future is not "a lot of weight". Not to mention the fact that Hezbollah cannot use a nuke against Israel even if they wanted to due to the small (to non-existant) distance between them. If Israelis die, they die.M.O.A.B wrote:
Bitching about Iran having nukes has a lot of weight behind it, mostly because they support Hezbollah, a known terrorist group that has a vendetta against Israel, don't think they'd hold back and use a nuclear device as a deterrent rather than set it off. Israel is more trustworthy with its nukes because its had them probably since the late 60's 70's and hasn't used them once despite being in large conflicts that threatened its survival. Nuff said.
And btw why the fuck didn't you worry about Israel before they got them or when they first did? Your argument is null. Nuff said.
ƒ³
lol angry post.oug wrote:
Bitching about Iran having nukes has a lot of weight behind it mostly because of FUCKING SPECULATION. You cannot prove any of that shit. Guessing what they might do with it in the future is not "a lot of weight". Not to mention the fact that Hezbollah cannot use a nuke against Israel even if they wanted to due to the small (to non-existant) distance between them. If Israelis die, they die.M.O.A.B wrote:
Bitching about Iran having nukes has a lot of weight behind it, mostly because they support Hezbollah, a known terrorist group that has a vendetta against Israel, don't think they'd hold back and use a nuclear device as a deterrent rather than set it off. Israel is more trustworthy with its nukes because its had them probably since the late 60's 70's and hasn't used them once despite being in large conflicts that threatened its survival. Nuff said.
And btw why the fuck didn't you worry about Israel before they got them or when they first did? Your argument is null. Nuff said.
Ever heard of a suicide bomber? Bringing in Israeli airstirkes on positions they set up in civilian areas etc? Hezbollah couldn't give a rats ass about the general population or their followers if it meant doing severe damage to Israel.
And sorry about not worrying about Israel, I was born like 20-30 years later and they have had them for a lot longer as well and yet haven't used one.
It's also speculation that Iran doesn't have nukes, therefore your argument is 'null'.
Using evidence that Hezbollah repeatedly states its wish to destroy Israel paints a pretty clear picture of what their intentions would be if they got hold of a nuke.
Perhaps there wouldn't be speculation if they would explain themselves to the IAEA? http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gow … QLtxiUfceAoug wrote:
Bitching about Iran having nukes has a lot of weight behind it mostly because of FUCKING SPECULATION. You cannot prove any of that shit. Guessing what they might do with it in the future is not "a lot of weight". Not to mention the fact that Hezbollah cannot use a nuke against Israel even if they wanted to due to the small (to non-existant) distance between them. If Israelis die, they die.M.O.A.B wrote:
Bitching about Iran having nukes has a lot of weight behind it, mostly because they support Hezbollah, a known terrorist group that has a vendetta against Israel, don't think they'd hold back and use a nuclear device as a deterrent rather than set it off. Israel is more trustworthy with its nukes because its had them probably since the late 60's 70's and hasn't used them once despite being in large conflicts that threatened its survival. Nuff said.
And btw why the fuck didn't you worry about Israel before they got them or when they first did? Your argument is null. Nuff said.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Correct. Same as there would be no speculation if Israel had gone to the trouble - in the past fourty fucking years - of confirming or disconfirming the rumors about their own nuclear arsenal instead of illegally imprisoning those who dared to talk about it.
edit: although I was referring to the speculation about Hezbollah dropping nukes on Israel, but whatever. The latter is a ridiculous assupmtion anyways. Might as well talk about something feasible.
edit: although I was referring to the speculation about Hezbollah dropping nukes on Israel, but whatever. The latter is a ridiculous assupmtion anyways. Might as well talk about something feasible.
Last edited by oug (2008-05-30 10:31:25)
ƒ³