Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UN: Asks Israel To Open Nuclear Program  
User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3942 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2930 times:

UN calls on Israel to open nuclear program for inspection, backs talks on nuke-free Mideast

All the Arab nations and Iran had planned to attend the conference in mid-December in Helsinki, Finland, but the United States announced on Nov. 23 that it wouldn't take place, citing political turmoil in the region and Iran's defiant stance on nonproliferation. Iran and some Arab nations countered that the real reason for the cancellation was Israel's refusal to attend.

The resolution, approved by a vote of 174-6 with 6 abstentions, calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty "without further delay" and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those voting "no" were Israel, the U.S., Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

Resolutions adopted by the 193-member General Assembly are not legally binding but they do reflect world opinion and carry moral and political weight.


Read more here:

http://news.yahoo.com/un-calls-israe...am-inspection-backs-054333091.html


Something tells me that we're not gonna see Israel do this anytime soon .... But the UN and world opinion is on a roll here ...

81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesanti319 From Mexico, joined Dec 2005, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

I guess in a way the world finally is waking up against Israel's unfairness.

User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2413 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
Those voting "no" were Israel, the U.S., Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

Reading these countries' names in reference to the U.S. and Israel always makes me chuckle.

If everybody is against me I might be doing something right.

If everybody is against me I might be doing something wrong, too.

Knowing the difference makes you a wise guy.   



David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10899 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
Something tells me that we're not gonna see Israel do this anytime soon ...

There is no way Israel will ever allow UN inspector in their nuclear facilities. Not Dimona or anywhere.
Iran have opened their facilities to UN inspectors. I don't expect the same will apply with Israel.

Israel: "Do as I say but don't do as I do".

 Wow!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2856 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

They have replaced Britain, France and Germany LOL! It would be something if Canada drops out too and its place taken by Guam.


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

Israel has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons in anger. Only way that will happen is if its facing destruction or as a last resort. Iran on the other hand has idiots in government who have on numerous occasions called for the destruction of Israel. Iran must not get a bomb and I hope Israel eventually destroys their programs.

Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
UN calls on Israel to open nuclear program for inspection, backs talks on nuke-free Mideast

With groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda running around chanting death to Israel, that won't happen.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10899 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2838 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):
Israel has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons in anger.

Wiping who, what, where from the map? Oh, you mean Israel Samson option...

Samson option: Israel's alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.

138 UN members voted for Palestine and now 174 votes to Israel nuclear transparency... things are changing at high speed.

     



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6669 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2832 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):
Israel has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons in anger.

Israel barely acknowledges it has nuclear weapons.

As for Iran, it has never threatened anyone with weapons it doesn't possess.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2832 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):
With groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda running around chanting death to Israel, that won't happen.

  

Surely this must be a joke...

It'll be a cold day in hell before we appease the Arab league by throwing Israel under the bus. When Iran and Co. decide to play nice, then the idea of a "nuke-free" Israel might be taken seriously. As long as there are nations, and their proxy forces, who refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, this matter is off the table completely.

Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
but they do reflect world opinion and carry moral and political weight.

  

This vote proves that the UN is just as spineless as the League of Nations was prior to WW2. It's come down to the wire with Iran, and the international community thinks it's a novel idea to achieve peace through appeasement. We all know how that worked out in the past, don't we?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3):
Iran have opened their facilities to UN inspectors.

Not all of them, just the ones they want the IAEA to see.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7417 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2822 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):
Israel has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons in anger.

Just the mere fact that they have them is clearly threatening to all the other nations in the Middle East.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2798 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):

Hardly. If that was true, there would be a huge nuclear arms race in the ME right now. The only other nation in the Middle East that currently has nukes is Pakistan, and that has nothing to do with Israel. The only members of the Arab league that "feel threatened" by it are those who don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Coincidence? I think not. The fact that this issue hasn't come up prior to Iran's nuclear development speaks volumes about how spineless the UN has become.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2413 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2756 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):
Israel has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons in anger.

This really isn't a point. Neither has Mr. Hussein threatened the world before the "Coalition of the Willing" attacked Iraq about ten years ago.

The premise of the war was IAEA inspectors not being able to check Iraq's nuclear facilities.


To restore sanity, we should use any means necessary against Israel.


Signed,

David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2749 times:

So if the Arab nations are willing to attend a non-proliferaton conference with Israel, does Israel then use such an occasion to stand with all these member state representative and declare that they now accept Israel as a nation?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 6):
Samson option: Israel's alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.

Sounds like MAD, must have gotten that from the USA and NATO who had nukes as their first line in defense of the European empire against the Red tide coming from the east.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2738 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 12):
To restore sanity, we should use any means necessary against Israel.

What about Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas?



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2413 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2733 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):
So if the Arab nations are willing to attend a non-proliferaton conference with Israel, does Israel then use such an occasion to stand with all these member state representative and declare that they now accept Israel as a nation?

No, this is an unnecessary diversion. Israel does not need be recognized as a nation by any other country.

We just want a world where everybody in possession of nuclear weapons is regularly checked by the IAEA.

An even playing field between all the countries in the middle east will make an official recognition of Israel as a state much more probable, though.

The strategy called "First you do X, then I will do a favour" has been tried time and again. It has failed.



David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 10):

Pakistan is not part of Middle East by any definition.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2413 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2723 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 14):

Easy. The 6th U.S. fleet will shell Jerusalem, and the 5th U.S. fleet will do the same against Tehran.

It's the sense of unfair treatment that stirs anger against Israel.



David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 15):
Israel does not need be recognized as a nation by any other country.

No dice.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 15):
We just want a world where everybody in possession of nuclear weapons is regularly checked by the IAEA.

Every nation in the general assembly knows the score. They all know what the real intention was behind that motion.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 15):
An even playing field between all the countries in the middle east will make an official recognition of Israel as a state much more probable, though.

Are you really that naive?



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2413 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2708 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 18):
Are you really that naive?

No. I'm just not willing to take an U.S. or an Israeli perspective. And I'm not using the Iranian too, for that matter.

Then tell me the reason why all the intellectuals and great minds of the world have not been able to solve the Middle East problem. We've had time since 1948 - and even more than that!

Something must have been gone wrong. Horribly wrong.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2874 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2692 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
But the UN and world opinion is on a roll here ...

And about time too.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3):
Iran have opened their facilities to UN inspectors. I don't expect the same will apply with Israel.

Welcome to the world of "double standards" of Ok for some, just not for others  
Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):
Israel has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons in anger.

So what ?

The problem here Powerslide, is that Israel has them. If its ok for Israel, then its ok for Iran IMHO.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):
Iran on the other hand has idiots in government

One could argue the same about Israeli Government too, rum by scheming dishonest maniacs.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):
that won't happen.

I thought we'd been through this before.....?

Never say something "wont" happen.

You were probably one of those people, who figured the world sentiment would never tire of Israel, and the games she plays, well it sure looks that way now. with ever increasing momentum.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 8):
When Iran and Co.

Takes 2 to play nice. or is Israel exempt from that rule ?

Quoting TheCol (Reply 8):
This vote proves that the UN is just as spineless as the League of Nations was prior to WW2. It's come down to the wire with Iran, and the international community thinks it's a novel idea to achieve peace through appeasement. We all know how that worked out in the past, don't we?

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not TheCol, sentiments and attitudes in how the world deals with ME problems, this are changing and changing fast. Israel will continue to come under pressure, and right so.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 8):
Not all of them, just the ones they want the IAEA to see.

Just as was the case with Israel... Right ????

Quoting TheCol (Reply 14):
What about Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas?

Lets just deal with Israel first shall we

Quoting TheCol (Reply 18):
They all know what the real intention was behind that motion.

And that is ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2692 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 6):
138 UN members voted for Palestine and now 174 votes to Israel nuclear transparency... things are changing at high speed.

Ok so then what. The UN doesn't have the capacity to do anything other than whine and complain, we have covered this. It doesn't matter what they THINK, it matters what the DO. Basically, only the US has the power to project force around the world and until that changes the UN is a useless entity for the riff raff nations to justify a meaning on the world stage. Only the countries of NATO do any meaningful force projection around the world. Whether you agree with it or not.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 14):
What about Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas?

Some members of this forum justify their existence because of Israel's policies. Spineless really.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 17):
It's the sense of unfair treatment that stirs anger against Israel.

I think the Arab nations should sort themselves and their own internal matters first before going off and complaining about Israel. They have all the money in the world to build a decent society for themselves, but in the end they are blaming their problems on the Jews. I believe its jealously.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
Then tell me the reason why all the intellectuals and great minds of the world have not been able to solve the Middle East problem.

Religion.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
Then tell me the reason why all the intellectuals and great minds of the world have not been able to solve the Middle East problem. We've had time since 1948 - and even more than that!

Because the international community, as a whole, has never been willing to sacrifice their political and economic interests for peace. Unfortunately human life and dignity isn't worth much in the Middle East. That has been a regional problem as long as anyone can remember, and the international community is more than happy to benefit from it by prolonging the status quo.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

Some are playing fast and loose with the facts in this thread. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but not their own facts.

To Reply 3: in fact, Israel did permit IAEA inspectors access to Dimona in the 80s. But they ran a game on the inspectors by constructing a phony control room and reprocessing centre to make it appear Dimona is much smaller than it actually is, hence fewer nukes.

To Reply 5: Israel doesn't need to sabre rattle w.r.t. the nuclear weapons it possesses. The mere fact of their existence poses a threat to any nation in the region.

To Reply 7: Israel does not barely mention the existence of their nuclear deterrent force, they dont mention it at all. This doctrine is callled "nuclear opacity".

To Reply 10: there is a nuclear arms race in the ME. Iran is clearly pursuing one. It is thought Turkey and SA have technology programs in place to give them that option, and Egypt under Mubarak the same. Pretty soon the world will have about forty-six nuclear powers.

To Reply 13, Israel is already recognized by Egypt and Jordan. Even Hamas has tacitly agreed to recognize the 1967 boundary.

To Reply 18, so, then, you agree with the principle that human rights can be violated, international law can be violated, with impunity, that this is a goodthing ?

Israel needs to adhere to the same standards as the great majority of nations. The sooner they do, the sooner this issue could be resolved. Ejecting Bibi would be a good start.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6669 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 21):
Only the countries of NATO do any meaningful force projection around the world.

Russia seems to be projecting fine, and China just launched its first carrier. As for nuclear weapons, there are many on board of many nation's submarines.

May I remind you that most of NATO's nations did vote for this UN resolution ?

There was a time Israeli's air force flew Mirages, Mystères, Ouragans, Vautours. There was a time France was helping Israel start its nuclear program.

Now we voted many times in a row against Israel. How times change !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 20):
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not TheCol, sentiments and attitudes in how the world deals with ME problems, this are changing and changing fast. Israel will continue to come under pressure, and right so.

Yeah, everyone saw this coming a long time ago. The international community is pretty predictable about how they handle growing threats from countries like Iran. About as predictable as they were in the 1930's.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
Israel needs to adhere to the same standards as the great majority of nations. The sooner they do, the sooner this issue could be resolved.

The real intent behind motion, and why our country voted no, isn't simply to do with IAEA inspections. There's a bigger political game being played here.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
To Reply 10: there is a nuclear arms race in the ME. Iran is clearly pursuing one. It is thought Turkey and SA have technology programs in place to give them that option, and Egypt under Mubarak the same. Pretty soon the world will have about forty-six nuclear powers.

Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 1970's, and yet we haven't seen the rest of the Middle East arm themselves to the hilt. Then all of a sudden this becomes an issue over 30 years later when Iran decides to make a power play by flexing their muscles by proxy and starting their own nuclear program. This seems to point more to Iran than it does Israel. Why don't you ask Saudi Arabia and Jordan who they are more concerned about? Last time I checked, they weren't looking in Israel's direction.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
Even Hamas has tacitly agreed to recognize the 1967 boundary.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
To Reply 18, so, then, you agree with the principle that human rights can be violated, international law can be violated, with impunity, that this is a goodthing?

I don't follow. That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 20):
Lets just deal with Israel first shall we

And maybe Iran will back off their nuclear program, and the whole world will be saved...

Yeah, that won't happen.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2413 posts, RR: 13
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2701 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 25):
And maybe Iran will back off their nuclear program, and the whole world will be saved...

Yeah, that won't happen.

Exaaaactly, that's the mindset we need. First ask the other person to do some good things, then it's my turn. Really, that's the way how you build trust in the world.  

Remembers me a bit of the warning given when posting a message here:

"This forum is as good as you make it. Never post a message in anger. Take the high road and others will follow."


David

[Edited 2012-12-04 14:37:47]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3942 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 24):
There was a time France was helping Israel start its nuclear program.

Yes and Norway provided the heavy water in the beginning and also some technical equipment ...


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6669 posts, RR: 11
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 25):
Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 1970's, and yet we haven't seen the rest of the Middle East arm themselves to the hilt. Then all of a sudden this becomes an issue over 30 years later

Actually the resolution's history dates back 30 years too, and there was already a winning vote in 2009. As for why other countries didn't arm themselves, it has a lot to do with us (the west) propping up most governments in the region... For example Iraq was also flying French planes and there was a nuclear plant being build there by us until Israel bombed it.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2874 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2700 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 21):
Some members of this forum justify their existence because of Israel's policies. Spineless really.

Powerslide, its also spineless and stupid not to recognize that Israels policies will only lead to, and cause more and more aggression towards Israel, and more anti-sentiment.

Is that where Israel really wants to go ?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 24):
Now we voted many times in a row against Israel. How times change !

        

I can see this happening more and more to. People who used to be silent on the Israeli/Palestinians issue, are now voicing there support for Palestine,and of going to the UN.

This is great to see, Finally.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 27):
Yes and Norway provided the heavy water in the beginning and also some technical equipment ...

     

Didn't know that Mortyman. Is Norway still a strong ally of Israel, or have things thawed off somewhat ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 15):
No, this is an unnecessary diversion. Israel does not need be recognized as a nation by any other country.

Ok, the Palestinians seemed to think that recognition however partial in the UN was something substantial.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
Israel needs to adhere to the same standards as the great majority of nations.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
The sooner they do, the sooner this issue could be resolved. Ejecting Bibi would be a good start.

During the cold war when many of the great nations were under the threat of a nuclear war many things were done which today we are adamantly opposed to, ones circumstances sometimes drives ones reactions, just ask Hamas, Hezbollah and yes, many Israelis.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 21):
Quoting TheCol (Reply 14):
What about Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas?

Some members of this forum justify their existence because of Israel's policies. Spineless really.

Fortunately or unfortunately, it is that way, we have to deal with the consequences on both sides straight up, no putting head in a hole like the Ostrich and saying no truck is on the way.


User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3942 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2668 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 29):
Didn't know that Mortyman. Is Norway still a strong ally of Israel, or have things thawed off somewhat ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water#Norway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_nuclear_program

Norway got about half of the heavy water back from Israel some years ago. The other half ... the Israelis could not find ...


Not as strong as we used to be. I guess you can say that Norwegians in general wants peace for Israel, but don't beleave that the way they are going about things is the way to do it. Most Norwegias dissagree with the continued occupation of land and the missuse of power over the Palestinians and see it as counterproductive. Alot of Norwegians are also seriously annoyed with the US onesided support for Israel and think the EU is irresolute in this matter. The Israeli / Palestinian matter is an often debated matter and you will find people who are strongly for Israel and others who feel strongly for the Palestinians.

[Edited 2012-12-04 15:32:20]

User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2659 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 27):
Yes and Norway provided the heavy water in the beginning and also some technical equipment ...

As usually in all things Middle East this one is as convoluted as it gets   It was the British that provided the heavy water for Dimona, Noratom (a Norwegian company) was just a front. However - the heavy water was originally produced by Norsk Hydro (so it was in fact Norwegian ). So in short Norway -> UK -> Norway -> Israel ...

D.


User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3942 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

Quoting damirc (Reply 32):
As usually in all things Middle East this one is as convoluted as it gets It was the British that provided the heavy water for Dimona, Noratom (a Norwegian company) was just a front. However - the heavy water was originally produced by Norsk Hydro (so it was in fact Norwegian ). So in short Norway -> UK -> Norway -> Israel ...

Noratom was directly involved in the supply of heavy water to Israel's nuclear program. Protocols from 1958 shows that the Norwegian Labour party under the leadership of Prime Minister Einar Gerhardsen knew that Israel would use heavy water plutonium production with respect to nuclear weapons production. Noratom would also sell reactor components and other necessary technology in this regard.


User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2641 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 33):
Noratom would also sell reactor components and other necessary technology in this regard.

I am not disputing that   Just pointing out that nothing is easy or normal in the Middle East. That sale I was refering:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4789832.stm

"Kelly discovered a charade was played out with the UK and Israeli delegations sitting in adjacent rooms while Noratom ferried separate contracts to and fro so Britain could say they hadn't signed a deal with Israel."

D.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

So wait, the jist of this whole situation is not to disarm Israel, it's just letting inspectors in? Did I get that right?

What is the outrage in that? Doesn't the US allow Russia in and vice versa?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 35):
What is the outrage in that?

First, Israel will need to admit to having nukes. Second, Israel will have to agree to do what the international community requests it to do (some so called "rogue" states have previously agreed to such requests, even partly). Fail on both cases, obviously.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 36):
First, Israel will need to admit to having nukes

Big whoop?

Quoting lewis (Reply 36):
Second, Israel will have to agree to do what the international community requests it to do

What do you think this would be? I hate the fact that more countries are trying to acquire nukes, but I do have to admit, it is a major deterrent in the invasion of Israel. I disagree with a lot of what they do, but I'm not going to pretend that nuclear weapons have definitely helped deter full out aggression.

I'm also against Iran getting nukes in principle, but I disagree with using force to stop them. I don't see why they'd use nukes (even with that quote that was mistranslated) and am sure Iran is using nukes as an anti-invasion card. I do see them getting a bit bolder when they have nukes, but don't think they'll use them. I guess that's for another thread



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):

Big whoop?

It is for Israel, apparently! Silly, considering that the world knows that Israel has nuclear weapons and they still refrain from confirming it.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):
What do you think this would be?

I would imagine inspecting the relevant facilities and estimating the nuclear capabilities of the country.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):
I hate the fact that more countries are trying to acquire nukes, but I do have to admit, it is a major deterrent in the invasion of Israel. I disagree with a lot of what they do, but I'm not going to pretend that nuclear weapons have definitely helped deter full out aggression.

I don't think it is as much of a deterrent in the case of Israel. Israel is a small country surrounded by enemy states, the fallout from the use of nuclear weapons could still affect them, if they ever have to use them. It is very different than the US vs Russia, where both countries are pretty big and not that close to each other. Same goes for Iran, using nukes against Israel would definitely affect (and piss off) a large part of the Arab world.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 38):
I don't think it is as much of a deterrent in the case of Israel. Israel is a small country surrounded by enemy states, the fallout from the use of nuclear weapons could still affect them, if they ever have to use them. It is very different than the US vs Russia, where both countries are pretty big and not that close to each other. Same goes for Iran, using nukes against Israel would definitely affect (and piss off) a large part of the Arab world.

If worse came to worse, I'm sure they would use it. A country with some radiation is better than no country at all. At the very least, I don't think anyone wants to test that theory.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2874 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2602 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):
I'm also against Iran getting nukes in principle,

I am not the biggest fan of Iran by any means, but If other countries have nukes, you can hardly say no to them can you ?

Quoting lewis (Reply 38):
It is for Israel, apparently! Silly, considering that the world knows that Israel has nuclear weapons and they still refrain from confirming it.

Unfortunately for Israel, these are the games they have decided to play...... leading to a great deal of mistrust from that nation.

Quoting lewis (Reply 38):
the fallout from the use of nuclear weapons could still affect them, if they ever have to use them.

Percisley the point. In most case it would be suicidal for Israel to use them, as they would suffer from any sort of nuke fall out, all over Israel and surrounds lands

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39):
At the very least, I don't think anyone wants to test that theory.

Lets hope Bibi is thinking along the same lines !!      



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39):
If worse came to worse, I'm sure they would use it.

I am sure all the settlers that have moved to Israel to find security will be thrilled to know that!


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 41):
I am sure all the settlers that have moved to Israel to find security will be thrilled to know that!

Why else would they have nukes?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Why else would they have nukes?

Because it makes them feel secure, even though using them would probably not be very safe for Israel either. Call me crazy, but I do not see why someone would leave the US or Europe and move to such a volatile place looking for security and a peaceful living. The way I see it, 99% of places where Jews live are much safer than Israel at the moment.


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2798 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2571 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 40):
I am not the biggest fan of Iran by any means, but If other countries have nukes, you can hardly say no to them can you ?

I would say you can absolutely say no. This isn't a group of kids bringing in cupcakes and having to share them with the class. It is a major weapon that some crazy nut could launch at any time. If a stable nation wanted to acquire a nuke I would say go for it. But the Iran government has shown little to prove they won't do something stupid with it. They hate the fact that Israel exists and if you get a leader crazy enough, who is to say he won't give the order to launch it on an unsuspecting nation. The fact that nukes even have to exist is a shame.
I say good for the UN. The fact that Israel's nuke program can remain such a secret program is beyond ridiculous. With that being said, I see little ever coming to fruition here. Even if Israel says nope, not going to happen, they aren't going to do a thing to make it happen. The only thing that will help is if the US steps in and says do it. But even then, they aren't under our control so they probably still won't do it. The only thing that might get them to open it up is some type of economic sanctions, and I don't see the US ever agreeing to that in the near future.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2874 posts, RR: 8
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2560 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 43):
If a stable nation wanted to acquire a nuke I would say go for it.

Stable for how long, and who says a nation is stable ?

What if a nation is stable today and not tomorrow ?

I can't see how we can have it both ways, realistically

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 43):
But the Iran government has shown little to prove they won't do something stupid with it.

Its only been rhetoric, and honestly speaking, which nation doesn't partake in this practice, especially in the ME

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 43):
The fact that nukes even have to exist is a shame.

You said it.
No argument there.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 43):
The only thing that might get them to open it up is some type of economic sanctions, and I don't see the US ever agreeing to that in the near future.

Maybe not the near future, but it will happen, eventually.

Americans must be sick to the back teeth that their hard earned tax dollars are going to bankroll Israel. And I imagine the fiscal restraints that the US is under at then moment is making it increasingly tricky for legislators, to continue the justification of this on going funding.

No. i'm sure the Americans will tier of it one day.

Imagine the health care system you guys could have if all the money that currently goes towards propping up Israel, was tunneled into health, you'd by the envy of the world !   



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 24):
Why don't you ask Saudi Arabia and Jordan who they are more concerned about? Last time I checked, they weren't looking in Israel's direction.

Shame on them if true.

[Edited 2012-12-04 17:55:02]

User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 44):

Stable for how long, and who says a nation is stable ?
What if a nation is stable today and not tomorrow ?

Very good questions.

However we put it - the only risk is if a suicidal regime gets the nukes. Suicidal in the sense it doesn't care/mind if they get nuked back once they deploy their nuke(s). And with that in mind, I'd concur with this:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 43):
But the Iran government has shown little to prove they won't do something stupid with it.

However - if I were to gamble I'd bet on the option that Iran is actually seeking the nuke to protect itself from outside interference (would like to see a correlation of resources invested into nuclear research in Iran with regards to the Iraq invasion in 2003).

Still - personally I'm against Iran having nukes. For no other reason that their regime in my mind is close to collapse, and once that happens they're in a far too volatile region to have nukes laying around while a revolution hapens. Easy that they end up in wrong hands.

D.

[Edited 2012-12-04 17:55:00]

User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2798 posts, RR: 4
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2541 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 44):
Stable for how long, and who says a nation is stable ?

What if a nation is stable today and not tomorrow ?

I can't see how we can have it both ways, realistically

I think it can be determined by the UN. Now I'm not the biggest fan of the UN, but if the rest of the world can determine the country is unfit the nukes should be taken for safety reason. You are right that any stable nation can be the next unstable one, but the majority of the nations that currently have them aren't going to go crazy with them. Not saying Iran would but I just don't have confidence Iran wouldn't do something stupid with them. The US, Russia, UK, China, and France have track records of stability with somewhat grounded leadership. I can't forsee them ever using nuclear weapons unless they are attacked with one. Iran, I just have a really uneasy feeling about.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 44):
Its only been rhetoric, and honestly speaking, which nation doesn't partake in this practice, especially in the ME

Nations certainly partake in rhetoric. I agree with you there. But Iran's has been a little more negative. Not trying to dig up old dirt, but you are talking about a nation that allowed US diplomats to be taken hostage and held for what, two years? I'm not trying to make this a US vs Iran battle but they certainly don't have a track record of excellence.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 44):
Americans must be sick to the back teeth that their hard earned tax dollars are going to bankroll Israel.

I think there are a few other nations that we are sick over. Israel personally, not so much. There is a lot of gray areas with Israel I don't agree with. Their hiding of their nuclear program is certainly one. They need to get their act together and this will hopefully be a positive first step.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3477 posts, RR: 17
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777way (Reply 45):
Shame on them if true.

Why, does a country looks for danger from one place only? Nope, they should keep there eyes open on all sources of danger.



I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

But seeking help from Israel is the ultimate low for Saudi.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2526 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 49):
But seeking help from Israel is the ultimate low for Saudi.

Why? Heaven forbid we start getting past this mess



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2525 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 42):
Call me crazy, but I do not see why someone would leave the US or Europe and move to such a volatile place looking for security and a peaceful living.

They have faith and believe in the nation, they had faith in Germany many years ago and see where that got them they also lived in a number of other countires in the middle east for a long time before the creation of the state of Israel, they had faith there also, unfortunately, the forced migration of Palestinians from the land of Palestine is more important as a news items. As mentioned earlier, the issue in the region is religion, look at the discourse on nukes and the effects of fallout, what is the effect of a suicide bombing on the wearer of the vest, what is their motivation and reasons? On the other side extremist say all the land should remain under Israel control, whats their motivtion?

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 44):
Americans must be sick to the back teeth that their hard earned tax dollars are going to bankroll Israel.

Why, Israel was never ruled by dictators such as the Shah of Iran, Gahdafi, Saddaam and a host of others whose country's all received monetary aid and support, what makes them better than Israel?

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 44):
Imagine the health care system you guys could have if all the money that currently goes towards propping up Israel, was tunneled into health, you'd by the envy of the world !

Yes, imagine if they also included all the billions that they give to Egypt, other countries in the middle east, throw in Pakistan and some others in Africa and they may have enough to build all new roads, balance the budget and kill off half of the deficit.
One sided I know but such is the discourse when this topic comes around.


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2874 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 51):
Why, Israel was never ruled by dictators such as the Shah of Iran, Gahdafi, Saddaam and a host of others whose country's all received monetary aid and support, what makes them better than Israel?

Because they have backed nothing but loser's, that's why.

Would you keep putting money on a horse if it keeps loosing ?

Quoting par13del (Reply 51):
Yes, imagine

I can only but ......   



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

Why? for one they hate Arabs, two they are considered worse enemies than other non-Islamic religions, three a muslim state seeing what they are doing to their fellow arab muslims should stoop so low to seek their help to defend themselves from some imaginery hyped threat from a non-arab muslim country is assinine, could it be that arabs rather trust their non-arab enemies over non-arab muslims?

its like Saudi friend is justfying using an enemy to suit his country's agenda.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 52):
Because they have backed nothing but loser's, that's why.

Would you keep putting money on a horse if it keeps loosing ?

I choose to believe they actually believe in the democracy stuff they keep pushing, when you look at Europe today and what it was after the end of WWII they are not loosers, a number of former colonies were cut loose early as a result of commitments from the war, a lot are not loosers, unless we think those backers then were different Americans.

Issue is have they had more winners than loosers and should they give up or continue.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2494 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 53):

Hopefully decent humans can look past race, religion, and historical grievances.

Quoting 777way (Reply 53):
could it be that arabs rather trust their non-arab enemies over non-arab muslims?

Um that's racism, sorry. If a country has grievances with Israel, they shouldn't be because they aren't "Arab Muslims"



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2487 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 55):
Quoting 777way (Reply 53):
Hopefully decent humans can look past race, religion, and historical grievances.

Hmmm...and use an enemy to help them in some imaginary threat from a fellow muslim country, its our religion that is attemtpting to make us decent human beings, otherwise go study history of the region pre Islam., but sorry to disappoint you it tecahes us to not trust our enemies.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 55):

Um that's racism, sorry. If a country has grievances with Israel, they shouldn't be because they aren't "Arab Muslims"

Visit the Middle East, especially the Gulf and you will know about racism, towards non-Arab muslims amongst other races, but you as a white man will be sat on a pedestal.

Back to Israel nuke issue.

[Edited 2012-12-04 19:34:21]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2479 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 56):
Soory to offend you but but its our religion that is attemtpting to make us decent human beings, otherwise go study history of the region pre Islam.

I have nothing against Islam, and I know it can be a very peaceful religion. But just as there were barbaric Christian nations in the past (luckily most have become more secular) there are a lot of barbaric Muslim governments, and the Muslim to Muslim violence very much exists. It's not just the West that has a problem with Iran, many Muslim country sees them as a threat. I can see how they would view them as a greater threat than the Israelis... while the Israelis aren't treating the Palestinians right, I don't see them invading other countries without provocation. We've seen land grabs by them in the past, but let's be honest, some of the conflicts Israel has been in wasn't fully Israel's fault

Quoting 777way (Reply 56):
Visit the Middle East, especially the Gulf and you will know about racism, towards non-Arab muslims amongst other races, but you as a white man will be sat on a pedestal.

Been to Egypt and Israel (including Palestine.) I had no problem with the way I was treated (pestered for money but I can't blame them.) I hope the inequality and racism dies down, but I won't be ignorant to the reasons why they exist. I hope to be part of the solution and to do that I need to understand everyone. That is why I'm glad I'm able to talk to many nationalities on this board...


Back on topic, I'm glad to see the EU taking leadership on this issue, it seems recently the balance of power in the world has shifted away from the US some



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 53):
its like Saudi friend is justfying using an enemy to suit his country's agenda.

SA doesn't want a nuclear Iran any more than Israel does. It changes the balance of power in the region and they don't want that. Publicly they will say Israel is the enemy and so forth but chances are their radars will 'break' if Israel launches an attack on Iran. Plus while SA might have the equipment I doubt they have the pilot skill to operate their fancy new military toys. They won't pose much of a threat to Israeli pilots who are among the best in the world. That is for another thread however.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13116 posts, RR: 12
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

The USA government probably knows plenty of the Israeli Nuclear programs, but they won't talk or allow Israel to talk. Yes, this is a good and proper vote, but until Israel faces serious penalties (economic, political, trade, travel), not much will happen from them.

User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 21):
Unfortunately human life and dignity isn't worth much in the Middle East.

Human life and dignity are relatively new concepts outside the Middle East too.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 24):
we haven't seen the rest of the Middle East arm themselves to the hilt.

By themselves GDP figures don't give a complete picture but they can hint at a pattern. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute military expenditure is quite high in the Middle East compared to other areas of the globe.

While in 2011 China spent 2.0% of GDP on arms, the UK figure was 2.6%. By comparison the US spent 4.7% and Russia spent 4.!% of GDP on arms. Now let us move to the Middle East. Figures for Syria and Lebanon were 4.0% and 4.1%.
Kuwait was also a "low" spender at 4.4%. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia was the highest in the region at 10.1%. Others include Iraq, 5.4%; Jordan, 6.1%; the UAE, 6.9%; Oman was second highest at 9.7%; and poor old Israel with a miserly 6.5%.

Quoting 777way (Reply 56):
and use an enemy to help them in some imaginary threat from a fellow muslim country,

In practical terms, Israel is not threatened by Saudi Arabia, which is more concerned with Iran. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia urged the US to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities.
Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain also "argued forcefully for taking action to terminate their [Iran's] nuclear programme, by whatever means necessary. That programme must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it." At the same time Zeid Rifai, who was the president of the Jordanian senate, said ,"Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter."

Clearly the rest of the Middle East does not see Israel as a threat or an enemy, whatever reasons they may have for pretending otherwise for internal consumption. The fact that Israel is not Muslim is irrelevent. The issue here is regional hegemony and despite Saudi Arabia and Iran being nominally Muslim, the Saudi King criticised Iran for being involved with Hamas:" When challenged by the King on Iranian meddling in Hamas affairs, Mottaki apparently protested that "these are Muslims." "No, Arabs" countered the King, "You as Persians have no business meddling in Arab matters." " And all of this is quite separate from the division between Sunni and Shi'a which has witnessed horrific outrages perpetrated.

To many outsiders the biggest threat to Islam appears to come from some of its followers. I say that as a person who was born in a Muslim country and travelled extensively in the MENA region.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 59):
but they won't talk or allow Israel to talk.

Does the US still wield that much control over Israeli politicians? I doubt it. If Israel wanted to confirm the possession of a nuclear deterrent, I am sure it would. After all, the US has been pleading with Israel to halt its settlement programme without much success, leaving Clinton to moan that Netanyahu's recent announcement was "unhelpful."

If Israel chooses not to confirm possession it will be for reasons other than what Washington may want. [joke]Perhaps they don't have any nuclear weapons. The Emperor's new clothes might be revealed.[/joke]

[Edited 2012-12-04 20:58:42]

User currently offlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3477 posts, RR: 17
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2407 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777way (Reply 49):

But seeking help from Israel is the ultimate low for Saudi.

Where did you get such stupid information? Please check your sources properly and don't believe everything you read.

Quoting 777way (Reply 53):
its like Saudi friend is justfying using an enemy to suit his country's agenda.

I do not need to justify anything as the whole concept is wrong.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 58):
Plus while SA might have the equipment I doubt they have the pilot skill to operate their fancy new military toys.

Saudi pilots have proven themselves during the first Gulf war, so did the army.

Quoting 777way (Reply 53):
fellow arab muslims should stoop so low to seek their help to defend themselves from some imaginery hyped threat from a non-arab muslim country is assinine, could it be that arabs rather trust their non-arab enemies over non-arab muslims?

Again, Prove it.



I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2874 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2398 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 60):
and poor old Israel with a miserly 6.5%.

Of US tax payer dollars.  Wow!
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 60):

Does the US still wield that much control over Israeli politicians? I doubt it.

I think that very much depends on which way the wind is blowing and on what day.....

Israel plays games, games that are not always apparent to all US politicians, at least in the short term.
After that, it doesn't matter much anyway, because Israel has generally got what it wants and its way by then.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 60):
leaving Clinton to moan that Netanyahu's recent announcement was "unhelpful."

That's exactly why Ive said, all along that H.Clinton is ineffective in this situation. Nothing !



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2360 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 62):
That's exactly why Ive said, all along that H.Clinton is ineffective in this situation. Nothing !

So in general we believe that a peace treaty was signed between Egypt and Israel because POTUS told them to, bribed them with threat of money or lack of money or because two leaders in two countries who were sworn enemies were brave enough to take a step forward for peace?
Look at what it got them personally and what it got the three nations, how is that working out?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 24):
Why don't you ask Saudi Arabia and Jordan who they are more concerned about? Last time I checked, they weren't looking in Israel's direction.

SA's principal focus strategically is Iran, always has been, and is the driver in their interest in a nuclear program. Fellow I used to work with is actually in Riyadh right now working on this. Libyan, actually.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 24):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
Even Hamas has tacitly agreed to recognize the 1967 boundary.

I'll believe it when I see it.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...-israel-top-official-says-1.361072

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=293084

Acceptance of Palestine in the 1967 border definition implicitly recognizes Israel, even though Mashaal has said this does mean recognition of Israel. But it does provide a mechanism for coexistence.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 24):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
To Reply 18, so, then, you agree with the principle that human rights can be violated, international law can be violated, with impunity, that this is a goodthing?

I don't follow. That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Was there indeed a point ?

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 44):
Stable for how long, and who says a nation is stable ?

What if a nation is stable today and not tomorrow ?

I can't see how we can have it both ways, realistically

Indeed, and can you say right now is the US stable ? No functioning government (and apparently no prospect of one with the Congressional gridlock), a basically 50/50 split politically and socially. This is not a pretty picture going forward.

Russia in the 90s was very unstable. Did we do anything about it ?


Quoting ltbewr (Reply 59):
The USA government probably knows plenty of the Israeli Nuclear programs, but they won't talk or allow Israel to talk.

And they won't, because the US was the mid-wife to the Israeli nuclear program, going back to the 50s.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3942 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2249 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 64):
And they won't, because the US was the mid-wife to the Israeli nuclear program, going back to the 50s.

I belave it was France, Norway and the UK. How was the US involved ?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2248 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 65):
I belave it was France, Norway and the UK. How was the US involved ?

Under Eisenhower, the US gave the Israelis a nod and a wink to establishing them as the regional superpower. The Israeli effort began under Ben Gurion, and in fact for a time Shimon Peres was over all in charge.

Not disputing the physical support from France et al. In fact the 1st generation Israeli weapons were more or less clones of French designs and rather crude compared to what the US was then deploying. Not so now.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 34):
So wait, the jist of this whole situation is not to disarm Israel, it's just letting inspectors in? Did I get that right?

The alleged premise behind the motion goes a bit further than that. Remember the UN's playbook, adopted from their predecessors prior to WW2, for defusing international strife (eg. Iran's nuclear program):

Plan A - Ignore the problem (ie. appoint lame-duck investigators or observers and hope the issue resolves itself)
Plan B - Issue a few strongly worded letters
Plan C - Bribery (eg. relief/development funds and free goods to self serving autocrats for good behavior)
Plan D - Useless Sanctions
Plan E - Appeasement (ie. Chamberlain Diplomacy)

Can you guess where they are at with Iran right now?

Obviously disarming Israel, or declaring a "nuke-free Middle East", isn't going to curb the ambitions of the Iranian regime.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 64):
SA's principal focus strategically is Iran, always has been, and is the driver in their interest in a nuclear program. Fellow I used to work with is actually in Riyadh right now working on this. Libyan, actually.

Then I take it the Saudi's are seriously considering going nuclear?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 64):
Russia in the 90s was very unstable. Did we do anything about it ?

Not a lot anybody could have done without making the situation worse. It was a pretty scary state of affairs, though. The movie "Lord of War" paints a good picture of the whole situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45wce6oSr0M

Wouldn't be surprised though if the Western powers had some contingency plans in place if any of the former East Bloc nations ended up with nukes from the former USSR.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 62):
Israel plays games

Most countries do. It's called politics.

Quoting par13del (Reply 29):
During the cold war when many of the great nations were under the threat of a nuclear war many things were done which today we are adamantly opposed to, ones circumstances sometimes drives ones reactions, just ask Hamas, Hezbollah and yes, many Israelis.

  

Hopefully we won't repeat the same mistakes which landed us in the mess to begin with.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 25):
Exaaaactly, that's the mindset we need. First ask the other person to do some good things, then it's my turn. Really, that's the way how you build trust in the world.

Iran isn't willing to do anything good. Giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't an option.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 27):
it has a lot to do with us (the west) propping up most governments in the region...

Which, instead, landed us in this mess.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3477 posts, RR: 17
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2161 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TheCol (Reply 67):
Then I take it the Saudi's are seriously considering going nuclear?

For civilian purposes Yes, Nukes absolutely NO



I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 67):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 64):
SA's principal focus strategically is Iran, always has been, and is the driver in their interest in a nuclear program. Fellow I used to work with is actually in Riyadh right now working on this. Libyan, actually.

Then I take it the Saudi's are seriously considering going nuclear?

Having the technical ability is the primary first goal.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 67):
Iran isn't willing to do anything good. Giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't an option.

A very short-sighted view, IMHO. I would simply note that Iran's current form of government has only been around for 30 or so years, and for that entire period the West (and Israel) have been openly hostile towards them. But, Iran has not directly attacked anyone. Rather, it has been on the receiving end of many attacks (Iraq, of course, being the principal one, but also coup d'etat fomented by Britain and the USA).

Mr A will be sent to the showers in 3-4 months. If Ayatollah Ari Lafsanjani becomes president after the elections, Iran's posture, particularly towards the West, will change fairly significantly. He has said so already.

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 68):
For civilian purposes Yes, Nukes absolutely NO

I would merely say that a weapons program right now, likely not, but familiarity with the technology, yes.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2045 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 69):
A very short-sighted view, IMHO. I would simply note that Iran's current form of government has only been around for 30 or so years, and for that entire period the West (and Israel) have been openly hostile towards them. But, Iran has not directly attacked anyone. Rather, it has been on the receiving end of many attacks (Iraq, of course, being the principal one, but also coup d'etat fomented by Britain and the USA).

The same was said of Germany in 1938, Japan before that, and every other belligerent party we've rolled over for or tried to pay off since then. North Korea being a recent example. Putting Israel in the strategic dog-house isn't going to change Iran's nuclear ambitions.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2021 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 70):
Putting Israel in the strategic dog-house isn't going to change Iran's nuclear ambitions.

I'll agree with you likely not. However, putting the financial screws to Israel will. Israel as we know it cannot exist without a lot of largesse from the West, particularly the US.

Look at the economic mess in Iran, for example. Their economy is imploding, largely due to sanctions. Some incompetence has surely helped. Which is one of the reasons Lafsanjani has said confrontation is out and pragmatism is in.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1998 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 71):
However, putting the financial screws to Israel will. Israel as we know it cannot exist without a lot of largesse from the West, particularly the US.

Coupled with the threat from its neighbours, they go hand in hand. Sanctions have not prevented Iran nor South Korea from pursuing neclear ambitions, neither country as far as the west is concerned lives under the threat of war.
In Israel's case, the west is surely looking to use this additional threat as a lever, which is probably why the US may never support any cuts that would render Israel vulnerable to military action by its neighbours.


User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 975 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1943 times:

I think the countries that attended that conference should look in the mirror and work to fix why the threat exists. Namely poor, poverty stricken citizens that don't have much of a future to look forward to, and the leaders of the extremist groups are like gang leaders, with plenty of future members that will join. Kinda like most inner cities on the planet, except on a larger scale. Look, Israel has these weapons for one primary reason. If ANYBODY told me they plan to destroy me or my family, I would be foolish to not protect myself, regardless of what my "allies" promise. It would be great if Israel did not have to spend it's resources on this, but until the problem listed above by some of the kingdoms that attended this conference man up and start taking some REAL ownership of the social-economic issues in that neck of the woods, we are just wasting our breath.


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1766 times:

I am impressed to see here the Canadian members supporting Israel in a more fanatic way than any other country. I guess the mix of brainwashing+ignorance works well in Canada. To say it short, if Israel has nuclear weapons, i don't see why Iran shouldn't have the right to possess them, especially considering they're constantly under threat of strike from nuclear-armed nations, period.

User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1754 times:

How do we know they are not Israeli's or even Americans hiding behind false flags? to make it seem to the rest of us that Canada is their new supporter after USA.

[Edited 2012-12-15 08:07:57]

User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1748 times:

They are talking that Iran shouldn't have nukes because "the regime is unstable" (the regime is quite stable in my opinion since 1979). But then, you look at North Korea, which is one of the most stable regimes in the world - it has been the same party in power for almost 60 years and likely to remain so for some time at least - but it also bothers them, why? Since the country definitely isn't unstable or irresponsible, otherwise a revolution (or something else) would have happened there long time ago. On the opposite, nukes did help them to remain stable and avert any external aggression. Or some people simply don't want Iran to be(come) stable (and safe)? Since in order to be stable you have to be safe first, am i right?

User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

Quoting bhill (Reply 73):
If ANYBODY told me they plan to destroy me or my family, I would be foolish to not protect myself, regardless of what my "allies" promise.

And Iran could argue the same, despite it being subject to a fatwa banning the production of nuclear weapons. OK, I am not all that much into fatwas either but the argument holds. If Israel feels threatened and is entitled to arm itself, then Iran which has seen its elected government toppled to install the Shah and saw the Western-backed invasion by Iraq can also say that it feels threatened. Again, I don't like the theocracy in Iran, but by your argument they too are entitled to arm themselves, not on the basis of what they may have been told but on what actually has happened.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 70):
and every other belligerent party we've rolled over

I never realised that Canada was so mighty that it could roll people over simply because they saw them as belligerent. If you mean that Canada has joined the US and other countries in imposing solutions on the basis of "might is right", I suppose you may be correct. Which at the end of the day proves that it doesn't really matter whether we are more decent, civilised or humane: if we have the bigger bombs (or suck up to those who do), watch out.

The UN may have passed a Resolution and called for Israel to join the NPT. Why is there a problem with that? The overwhelming majority of states do not have nuclear arms, including all of the Gulf Co-operation Council states. None of Israel's immediate neighbours, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon or Syria (luckily enough given what's happening there) have nuclear arms. So it isn't as if there is any double standard involved, even if there are vested interests.

In the event that Israel were to accede to the NPT what is the worst that can happen? Inspectors come in, they see a few premises, they make notes, they make recommendations. Outcome? Israel is either confirmed or proven not to have nuclear weapons. Can anyone force Israel to give them up if they have them? Yes, in exactly the same way that Britain, France, China, Russia and the US have given up theirs. In other words, no.

So what harm is there in Israel signing the NPT? None whatsoever. They can show the inspectors a milk powder factory or an empty warehouse. Will sanctions result? No. Israel has friends even amongst its enemies on the Security Council. It only takes one of them to use its veto. The suggestion in the linked article that the decision to cancel a planned meeting was based on the US's and Israel's refusal to attend shows that at this stage a veto isn't even necessary.

Edited to improve grammar

[Edited 2012-12-15 09:30:20]

User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1702 times:

If a country has nukes, why do they try to hide it or not sign the NPT?

User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 77):
I never realised that Canada was so mighty that it could roll people over simply because they saw them as belligerent.

Wow, talk about totally missing the mark. I suggest you go back, read my comments again, and give it another shot.  



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1690 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 79):
Wow, talk about totally missing the mark

You chose to place Iran in the same category as Germany in 1938. Perhaps you could be more clear as I can see very little comparison between the two. Your comment is clear: do as we say or we roll you over because you are belligerent. Iran, from their perspective, is surrounded by states that are hostile, Iran has been invaded and the threat of attack from both Israel and the US remains - you know the bit about "all options". The US and its acolytes are threatening Iran on a daily basis and that has very little to do with Isarel: perhaps not with immediate invasion but with other acts designed to harm her.

You may counter that if Iran does as is requested then...

Sure, as Iran would see it, give in to threats and bullying and become "acceptable".

[Edited 2012-12-15 14:07:05]

User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 80):
You chose to place Iran in the same category as Germany in 1938.

I used Germany, between 1938 to September 1939, as one of many examples of poor international policy.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 80):
Perhaps you could be more clear as I can see very little comparison between the two.

I made my point very clear in the numerous posts in this thread. I honestly don't know how to make it any more clear, other people seemed to get it and responded with their own points.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 80):
Your comment is clear: do as we say or we roll you over because you are belligerent.

Incorrect.

[Edited 2012-12-15 14:25:33]


No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UN Voting (Israel: To Be Or Not To Be?) posted Tue Nov 27 2001 16:43:54 by LY772
Israel To Introduce New UN Resolution posted Tue Nov 4 2003 17:14:46 by Marcus
Israel/Morocco To Open Diplomatic Ties? posted Thu Sep 4 2003 01:46:28 by Tbar220
Israel To Black Any UN Visit To Janin posted Sun Apr 28 2002 19:41:22 by Cfalk
Israel To Lift Gaza Import Ban On Civilian Goods posted Sun Jun 20 2010 11:26:07 by TheCol
DOE Removes 'how To Attack Nuclear Plant W/plane posted Tue Apr 27 2010 07:47:26 by fxramper
Time To Open A "big Can Of Worms"? posted Thu Mar 18 2010 08:31:20 by DXing
The Pope Asks Priests To Have Their Own Blogs posted Tue Jan 26 2010 13:30:34 by MadameConcorde
Israel To Build NIS 1.5b Fence Along Egypt Border posted Sun Jan 10 2010 22:43:14 by Mortyman
Do The Allies Destroy Iran's Nuclear Program? posted Mon Sep 28 2009 16:37:23 by StasisLAX