Iran calls for UN to stop being hypocrites regarding Israel's nukes

[Navaros]

Iran seeks condemnation of Israeli nukes By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer


UNITED NATIONS - Iran demanded Tuesday that the U.N. Security Council condemn what it said was Israel's clandestine development of nuclear weapons and "compel" it to place all its nuclear facilities under U.N. inspection.

If Israel refuses to comply, Iran said the council must take "resolute action" under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which authorizes a range of measures from diplomatic and economic sanctions to military action.

Iran insists its own nuclear program is a purely peaceful effort to develop energy, but the United States and many European nations believe Tehran's real aim in enriching uranium is to produce nuclear weapons. The Security Council is currently debating a resolution that would impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend its enrichment program.

Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif said in identical letters to the council and the secretary-general that the council's actions would show whether it was acting under the U.N. Charter or as "a tool" for a few permanent members who have encouraged Israel "to persist in its lawless behavior with impunity."

The reference appeared aimed at the United States, Israel's closest ally, which would almost certainly veto any council resolution on Israel's nuclear program.

Zarif said that Israel was the only obstacle to establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

Israel has a longstanding policy of ambiguity on nuclear weapons, refusing to confirm or deny whether it has them. But in the German TV interview broadcast Dec. 12, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert listed Israel among countries that possess nuclear weapons.

Olmert's comments — which his office said were misinterpreted — came days after Robert Gates, who took over Monday as U.S. defense secretary, said in testimony to a Senate committee that Israel was a member of the club of nuclear-armed nations.

Israel's U.N. Mission had no immediate comment on Zarif's letters.

The Iranian ambassador insisted in the letters, obtained by the Associated Press, that Olmert's comments were a clear admission that Israel possessed nuclear weapons in violation of international law, the U.N. Charter and numerous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.


I support Iran's motion on this. If Iran can't have nukes, then why should Israel be allowed to? :furious3:

[drone]

I support Iran's motion on this. If Iran can't have nukes, then why should Israel be allowed to? :furious3:
Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Isreal has not.

[Papewaio]

Israel is a very irresponsible country by western standards.

However on comparison with Iran it looks positively benign.

[Ronin]

wow....something I agree with the Iranian government on...:inquisitive:

can someone check if hell as frozen over?.....it´s a very clear possibility

[Scurvy]

Irans right on this...

[English assassin]

Irans right on this...

Only in the sense of "logically consistent" or "in line with international law".

If I had to choose between being "right" or having great big armed forces with nuclear weapons, the lessons of history all seem to be in favour of having great big armed forces etc. A point not lost on Isreal, Iran, or anyone else.

Still its a surprise no one has pulled this stunt before.

[Fragony]

'whipe of the map' and 'hypocrisy about nukes' at the same time huh :juggle2:

[Keba]

Still its a surprise no one has pulled this stunt before.

That's because everyone knows what will happen, a veto by the US, and nobody is interested in pissing off the biggest power on the planet.

Something which Iran is in a habit of doing a lot.

Still, Israel being Israel will, naturally, refuse to cooperate, and the US, being traditional allies of Israel will veto any proposal. Nothing will come out of this, except maybe the image of the US taking a slight nose dive (not that I believe there's a lot to lose, these days).

[Reenk Roink]

Just shows the complete inefficacy of this "international law" and why it needs to be scrapped so countries can save their money. Like Dave Chappelle said about the UN: "Go sell some medicine *******!" :laugh4: But seriously, the UN tries to do too much and it becomes a joke...

By the way, Iran should never be allowed Nukes and Israel should be stripped of its...

[Don Corleone]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I had no idea that a nation's right to sovereignty and self-defense was a votable issue at the UN. If it is, we should remove ourselves, immediately, as after Israel, we are number 2 on countries that will be voted out of existence.

[Fragony]

we are number 2 on countries that will be voted out of existence.

And what exactly is the UN gonna do if it wants to, have a few therapeutic sessions? We secretly dread a reluctant america that takes his hands of a whole lot more then the america we have now. Oh, and not everybody hates the US, you guys are our muca's. In Holland we say that the largest trees get most of the wind, that's the US, don't worry.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not worried about the Netherlands, or any other Western European nations for that matter. Well, maybe France (sorry Louis, couldn't resist). But there are a lot of countries out there, and those votes start adding up quickly. I don't think the Netherlands believes Libya has a better record on Human Rights than we do, yet somehow, we were booted off of the UN Human Rights commission in favor of Libya.

And my point isn't that I envision Kofi Annan gleefully announcing "Today, the enemy is dead", no matter how much he might fantasize about it at home every night. My point is that self-defense and sovereignty are intricately entwined. As much as I think Iran sponsors terrorism, they have a right to self-defense. So, we are in the unfortunate position of actually waiting until Ajay decides to give Hizbollah a bomb to go let off in London or New York before we actually deny them their basic rights to sovereignty.

[Spino]

Yes, Israel has nukes. Call me crazy but the fact that Israel has nukes really doesn't elevate my blood pressure or keep me up at night.

Sure, Israel is no angel in the region but I don't recall it's elected leaders routinely blaming Persians for all the problems in the world, let alone those involving local geopolitics (International Persian Conspiracy?!?). I don't recall Israel actively training insurgents and sponsoring terrorism in Iran and other Muslim countries. I don't recall Israel's leaders questioning the validity of say, the bloody Mongol conquest and occupation of Persia. Last but not least I don't recall reading or hearing about any Israeli leader, rabbi or fanatic calling for the outright destruction of Persia and other Muslim lands! In light of all that I mentioned Israel has a bonafide reason... or two... or three... or four, to possess nuclear weapons to defend itself.

[Ice]

"Israel needs to be wiped of the map"
"Death to the Infidel, Death to America"

That's why don't want them to have a nuclear weapons. It really isn't that hard to understand.

[Pannonian]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I had no idea that a nation's right to sovereignty and self-defense was a votable issue at the UN. If it is, we should remove ourselves, immediately, as after Israel, we are number 2 on countries that will be voted out of existence.
I've read somewhere that the US Congress is obliged to apply sanctions to any state that possesses nuclear weapons without their support. While Israel kept quiet about its status, people could umm and err about prospective actions. Has the US government reacted to Olmert's "revelation"?

[Don Corleone]

Well, according to this article, whether Iran will achieve nuclear technology or not is now a moot point: Iran now nuclear capable (http://www.irna.com/en/news/view/line-203/0612204702132142.htm)

In the 'what do we intend to do it about it' category, we have this: US to increase size of Army, Marine Corps, increases presence in Persian Gulf (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237739,00.html).

Merry Christmas, Ajay. We've got some presents we want to come stick under your tree...

[Pannonian]

Well, I think I've stated my position on this a few times. I don't really care what anyone in the region does, as long as they keep us out of it and keep selling us oil. If they fulfill these two critieria, I can't say I care what they do to each other.

[Don Corleone]

I've read somewhere that the US Congress is obliged to apply sanctions to any state that possesses nuclear weapons without their support. While Israel kept quiet about its status, people could umm and err about prospective actions. Has the US government reacted to Olmert's "revelation"?

Israel never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so they're technically not in violation of it. That is the criteria for punitive action on our part. But it doesn't matter anyway.... we're technically supposed to have a boycott in place on Pakistan AND India... don't see that happening any time soon.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Isreal is a largely internally stable, democratic and predictable country. Iran is unstable, theocratic and unpredictable. Both countries are in-tractable and unreasonable and both are expansionist.

In the end it is a matter of perception. Who do you percieve as a threat?

[Pannonian]

Isreal is a largely internally stable, democratic and predictable country. Iran is unstable, theocratic and unpredictable. Both countries are in-tractable and unreasonable and both are expansionist.

In the end it is a matter of perception. Who do you percieve as a threat?
I thought they were both stable? My main worry is that the US might decide to destabilise Iran for whatever evangelical purpose they've dreamed up. Without that, I don't see either of them as a threat, with or without nukes.

[yesdachi]

This is such a dead horse to me. Iran wants us and our allies dead, why, oh why would I want them to have nuclear weapons. Israel already has them (probably) and has chosen to be responsible with them; Iran doesn’t show that they are responsible in their words or their deeds. Maybe if Iran went a year month without saying how they would like to see our demise we could start talking about the future of their peaceful energy related nuclear program.

In order to be hypocritical don’t the 2 being compared need to be equal? One can’t expect to be treated equal when they act completely opposite. If one country is friendly to you and another wants to separate your head from the rest of your body who would treat them the same or want them to have the same offensive capabilities?

[Tribesman]

I don't think the Netherlands believes Libya has a better record on Human Rights than we do, yet somehow, we were booted off of the UN Human Rights commission in favor of Libya.

Just wondering Don .
Has Libya been moved to a different continent or region ?
If not then how did putting Libya on in one of the African allocation of positions effect Americas removal from the Western european & others allocation ?

[Papewaio]

Israel never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so they're technically not in violation of it. That is the criteria for punitive action on our part. But it doesn't matter anyway.... we're technically supposed to have a boycott in place on Pakistan AND India... don't see that happening any time soon.

Worse then that, the US is trying to use leverage on Australia to sell Uranium to India. Not only turning a blind eye to nuclear non-proliferation but actively engaging in ignoring it or circumventing it only strengthens Iran's claim.

[Don Corleone]

Just wondering Don .
Has Libya been moved to a different continent or region ?
If not then how did putting Libya on in one of the African allocation of positions effect Americas removal from the Western european & others allocation ?

Technically speaking, your'e right of course. The 3 countries that were elected from the West were France, Sweden and Austria. I'm just still stung about it. It was all a charade. France talked everyone into voting against the US because they were pissed we didn't sign on to Kyoto. So countries like Lybia, Syria and the Sudan... you know, those great guaranteers of human rights that they are, were on the panel and the US got booted off for the first time since the panel was founded in 1947.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I support Iran's motion on this. If Iran can't have nukes, then why should Israel be allowed to? :furious3:



Um,Because If Iran gets Nukes and Isreal doesn't have any.....


Really, Because Isreal isn't a Nation full of Radcial Mulisms,that's why.


"Israel is a very irresponsible country by western standards.

However on comparison with Iran it looks positively benign."


explain..

[drone]

IIRC, India and Pakistan also are not signatories of the NPT.

This says nothing about the "rightness" of Israel, India, and Pakistan having nukes. However, in signing the NPT, Iran has declared that it will not pursue nuclear weapons, and therefore should get grief from the international community if it tries. If Iran wants nukes, they should withdraw from the treaty, then start developing them. Israel probably had nukes before the NPT opened for signatures, so I'm don't see what the fuss is about.

[Papewaio]

Simple compare how the US rebuilt Germany and Japan post WWII and how Israel treated the Palestinians.

Israel should after gaining Gaza and the West Bank set about improving the infrastructure for everyone. Once a nation has (nominal) control of a region even as a buffer zone it has an obligation to all its people within its country and its territories. Imagine the outrage if France didn't supply basic facilities to Tahiti or New Caledonia, and stopped the locals getting easy access to work, health care and other parts of lifestyle.

As far as I'm concerned Israel can keep Gaza and the West Bank, but they should have been building up the infrastructure the entire time not bull dozing it.

So by Western Standards they have not been very responsible compared with USA or France for starters. It falls even further behind when compared to the (British) Commonwealth. However if the yardstick is Indonesia or Burma or Iran then by all means Israel has performed a stirling job.

[Papewaio]

IIRC, India and Pakistan also are not signatories of the NPT.

This says nothing about the "rightness" of Israel, India, and Pakistan having nukes. However, in signing the NPT, Iran has declared that it will not pursue nuclear weapons, and therefore should get grief from the international community if it tries. If Iran wants nukes, they should withdraw from the treaty, then start developing them. Israel probably had nukes before the NPT opened for signatures, so I'm don't see what the fuss is about.

There is a flip side to the NPT where signatories will not help states to acquire nuclear weapons. The US by quite publically pushing for Australia to supply Uranium to India is breaching that commitment and trying to make others break the treaty to. So how can the US then turn around and with a straight face try and enforce the treaty on Iran?

And its not like that part of the NPT is hidden down in the small print... it is the first Article. :dizzy2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Um,Because If Iran gets Nukes and Isreal doesn't have any.....


Really, Because Isreal isn't a Nation full of Radcial Mulisms,that's why.


"Israel is a very irresponsible country by western standards.

However on comparison with Iran it looks positively benign."


explain..

Funny you should mention the radical Muslims. I live with a Muslim Atheist from Iran when in Halls. While she may be arrogant, unco-operative and uninterested in my country she abandonded Islam because, well, I don't know actually. Why do people give up religion?

In any case the current president was elected on a lower tax and better public-service platform, irrc.

[drone]

There is a flip side to the NPT where signatories will not help states to acquire nuclear weapons. The US by quite publically pushing for Australia to supply Uranium to India is breaching that commitment and trying to make others break the treaty to. So how can the US then turn around and with a straight face try and enforce the treaty on Iran?

And its not like that part of the NPT is hidden down in the small print... it is the first Article. :dizzy2:
India already has nuclear weapons, so the first article restriction doesn't really apply (aside from possibly aiding in producing more). I thought the main beef was with the third article, where the US is helping India with civilian nuclear tech, but is denying Iran the same peaceful use. If Iran's intentions are for weapons, this is a non-issue.

Iran is either trying to disarm Israel because it feels Israel is breaking international law, or is trying to disarm Israel to make it easier to wipe it off the map. Opinions vary on this, I believe in the latter. Regardless, Iran has signed the treaty, and should withdraw before starting a weapons program. Until then, they are subject to inspections. If Israel had weapons before the NPT (and are currently not part of the treaty), I don't really see what sanctions can be imposed. Would Israel signing onto the NPT as a Nuclear Weapon State (not possible, unless they secretly tested one sometime before 1967 :inquisitive: ) satisfy Iran?

[Navaros]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I had no idea that a nation's right to sovereignty and self-defense was a votable issue at the UN. If it is, we should remove ourselves, immediately, as after Israel, we are number 2 on countries that will be voted out of existence.


In that case the only fair thing to do is to let Iran make nukes so they can defend themselves.

[Papewaio]

Very hard to impose sanctions on Iran when the US is circumventing the NPT and applying pressure on Australia to change its domestic and international laws to supply India with Uranium. Australia will not supply uranium to countries that are not signatories to the NPT. While the US should not be enabling a country that is guilty of proliferation as part of the NPT states that as a weapon enabled state they are not to help others gain access to weapons...

It is not a very good way to enforce policy when there is a clear double standard in place.

[BigTex]

It may seem like a double standard. But it is very good farsighted planing on our part. It's quite a good thing to have an ally next to China with a large stockpile of nukes. Not to mention India's had them for a couple decades.

It is also far from a double standard. When was the last time you heard isreal or india screaming for a genocide? What do you expect us to say when a country who has created terrorist groups that have attacked us, seeks to create nukes? If they stopped funding terrorist organizations, stop creating terrorist organizations, stop screaming for the genocide of all jews to begin. Then maybe they could be allowed to have nukes.

:rtwno:

[drone]

Very hard to impose sanctions on Iran when the US is circumventing the NPT and applying pressure on Australia to change its domestic and international laws to supply India with Uranium. Australia will not supply uranium to countries that are not signatories to the NPT. While the US should not be enabling a country that is guilty of proliferation as part of the NPT states that as a weapon enabled state they are not to help others gain access to weapons...

It is not a very good way to enforce policy when there is a clear double standard in place.
Like I said, India already has access to weapons. Should the US be pressuring Oz to supply the uranium? No. But that's a different thread.

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article.It's my understanding that the US/India deal is covered by the IAEA safeguards mentioned. India (as a non-signatory, a "non-nuclear-weapon State" for the purposes of the treaty, I believe) will open some reactors to international inspection as "civilian use", the material will be used at these facilities. Granted, by importing material from Oz, it would free up local material from energy production for weapons use, but, hey, no one's perfect. ~;)


In that case the only fair thing to do is to let Iran make nukes so they can defend themselves.Iran can make nukes whenever it wants, by withdrawing from the NPT. Until then, it is subject to IAEA inspections.

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

[Reenk Roink]

When was the last time you heard isreal or india screaming for a genocide? ...stop screaming for the genocide of all jews to begin. Then maybe they could be allowed to have nukes.


I agree that nuclear Israel is a lesser evil than nuclear Iran, but Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the middle east (outside of Israel). This is false.

[Pannonian]

I agree that nuclear Israel is a lesser evil than nuclear Iran, but Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the middle east (outside of Israel). This is false.
Their businesses are apparently quite popular, as they're not subject to the restrictions that Muslim businesses have to observe.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have two main points, and a third backing point.

1) I agree with Iran. Israel has shown just how responsible they are in Lebanon. They do not deserve the right to nuclear weapons. Neither does Iran, though. However, the thing that I find amusing is that Iran builds nuclear facilities that could possibly be used for a nuclear bomb, whereas Israel has already produced or aquired nuclear bombs, and the airpower to carry them over long distances, and yet Iran is still condemned instead of Israel.

2) The UN will prove useless in this issue, thanks to the single-member veto policy. I believe at least two members of the Council should have to vote against a bill for it to be turned down. This way, only petty resolutions with no real effect are passed. In this case, it's obvious that America would veto a resolution on Israel. They've used the veto more then anyone else in history, and I would not be suprised if it was done here.

3) Israel must be disciplined. I don't mean that a war should be fought, and I certainly don't mean they should be "wiped off the map", but hard-hitting economic sanctions should be put in place to show Israel that they cannot get away with what they do. They have the right to self-defense. No more.

[BigTex]

I agree that nuclear Israel is a lesser evil than nuclear Iran, but Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the middle east (outside of Israel). This is false.

Last I checked, when your screaming to a worldwide audience that you want to rid the middle east of the jew's. Correct, they have been screaming for a genocide of the jews.

As for having the largest jewish population outside of isreal. Of course they are one of the largest countries in the region. Still that population is incredibly small.


3) Israel must be disciplined. I don't mean that a war should be fought, and I certainly don't mean they should be "wiped off the map", but hard-hitting economic sanctions should be put in place to show Israel that they cannot get away with what they do. They have the right to self-defense. No more.

Lebanon, rather affiliates of Lebonese officials, invaded isreal, fought and captured Isreali soldiers. Then went onto attack Isreal with a rocket bombardment. What in the world do you expect? For a sorveriegn country to simply allow itself to be invaded by a foreign power and not expect a war? The Isreali's carried the war into lebanon to ensure they wouldnt be invaded again. Lebanon started the war, if they werent prepared for the consequences they shouldnt have attacked.

[Reenk Roink]

Last I checked, when your screaming to a worldwide audience that you want to rid the middle east of the jew's. Correct, they have been screaming for a genocide of the jews.

As for having the largest jewish population outside of isreal. Of course they are one of the largest countries in the region. Still that population is incredibly small.

Check again then.

Don't bring up "wipe Israel off the map" which was a quote of Khomeini, who also said other things about Jews (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm). Show me the screaming of genocide of the Jews.

Wouldn't Iran start with the ones at home? :rolleyes:

More stretched rhetoric. Reminds me of Dave Chappelle again: "Do I need to tell you, what the **** you can do with Aluminum tubes?" :laugh4:

[BigTex]

Last I checked Iran created and funds Hezbollah. Actions speak louder then words.


More stretched rhetoric

Your correct more stretched rhetoric. To claim they don't want to rid the middle eastern world of the jews is the stretch though.:coffeenews:

[Reenk Roink]

Your correct more stretched rhetoric. To claim they don't want to rid the middle eastern world of the jews is the stretch though.:coffeenews:

Ok, so why not start at home? What of the article? :rolleyes:

[BigTex]

Ok, so why not start at home? What of the article? :rolleyes:

Currently they have the worlds supper power breathing down their necks.....

Why have they killed isreali jews? Why did they kill US marines? Why have they called for the exterminations of the jews? Why do they oppenly deny that the holocaust occured? Why do they mock the holocausts existence in national comic competitions? Why do they refuse to recognize Isreal as a country?:coffeenews:

Iran doesnt need nukes. Calling it unfair when you are screaming for a country to be wiped off the map is looney.

[Papewaio]

It's quite a good thing to have an ally next to China with a large stockpile of nukes. Not to mention India's had them for a couple decades.


It's not a good thing to have an ally who is going to go down one of two paths:

The lesser, it becomes a trigger point and you are now in a war that makes Korea look like child's play.

The more likely, as the economies of India and China grow they stop playing hard to get, eyes start smouldering and suddenly they can't stop the thrill of a unilateral trade agreement of the worlds two largest populations. Threes a crowd and you are left outside the new relationship because you have been the bitchy best friend trying to stop them get together. :oops:

:laugh4:

[Reenk Roink]

Currently they have the worlds supper power breathing down their necks.....

Why have they killed isreali jews? Why did they kill US marines? Why have they called for the exterminations of the jews? Why do they oppenly deny that the holocaust occured? Why do they mock the holocausts existence in national comic competitions? Why do they refuse to recognize Isreal as a country?:coffeenews:

Iran doesnt need nukes. Calling it unfair when you are screaming for a country to be wiped off the map is looney.

So you are basically conceding that there is no cry for genocide, but rather a disturbing anti-Semitic trend in the country? Good, we are getting somewhere as I agree with that. Of course Iran doesn't need nukes, and it shouldn't have nukes.

[Pannonian]

There's a Martin Van Creveld interview dating from 2003, where he quoted Moshe Dayan's defence policy as ensuring that “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”. More disturbingly, he elaborates on this point.

The War Game (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030923-israel1.htm)

In this situation, he went on, more and more Israelis were coming to regard the “transfer” of the Palestinians as the only salvation; resort to it was growing “more probable” with each passing day. Sharon “wants to escalate the conflict and knows that nothing else will succeed”.

But would the world permit such ethnic cleansing?

“That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote Gen. Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”

I'm wondering about two things. Firstly, what was the context of Dayan's original quote? Secondly, is there any truth to what Creveld claimed as Israel's ultimate defence mechanism, the nuking of Europe?

[BigTex]

So you are basically conceding that there is no cry for genocide, but rather a disturbing anti-Semitic trend in the country?

How do you get that from my post?

No currently they are not cleansing the small jewish population becuase they have the US breathing down their necks. If they did it would be immediatly used as a reason for more sanctions and stiffer regulations on even nuclear power, let alone an atomic weapon. They are, they have stated, seeking the removal of the jews from the holy lands, by any means neccessary.



The more likely, as the economies of India and China grow they stop playing hard to get, eyes start smouldering and suddenly they can't stop the thrill of a unilateral trade agreement of the worlds two largest populations. Threes a crowd and you are left outside the new relationship because you have been the bitchy best friend trying to stop them get together.

Considering the long hatred that exists between India and China. That alone would prevent it. They also cannot feed their massive populations by themselves. China atm is striping away its land trying to feed it's population now, though that is causing much of it to quickly become unfarmable. The fact that the worlds 2 largest populous nations are right next to each other, is fact enough that they wont be colaborating anytime soon. Also I doubt Australia would like such a power so close to home.

[Papewaio]

We play cricket with India and have a trade surplus with China (we supply the materials they do the manufacturing).

A review of the trade agreements and partnerships that Australia has with China clearly indicates that Australian business and politicians are more keen in the market then any potential threats real or imagined.

Consider that we export natural gas, iron ore and starting 2010 we will ship up to 20,000 tonnes or uranium to china...

[Soulforged]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I had no idea that a nation's right to sovereignty and self-defense was a votable issue at the UN. If it is, we should remove ourselves, immediately, as after Israel, we are number 2 on countries that will be voted out of existence.
It's not a votable issue in the strict sense that a majority of votes decides it, not at all. The express ratification of the adherence to a rule from the country in question is needed. If the country in question is giving away its right to rule on some matter he's not loosing sovereignty, that only happens when there's a positive power above the one in question of that country in control of the same territory and when this country recognizes it as superior. It's a very strange vision on a convention of equals I must say...

On the matter, if Iran gave its ratification to the Treaty of Non-proliferation they can retract that adherence at any time, the only thing that stops them is the fear of the world's reaction to such action. So, provided they first denounce the treaty, they've every right to possess nuclear military power. It won't be good though, but then again, to me it isn't good that any country at all has military nuclear weaponry.


In that case the only fair thing to do is to let Iran make nukes so they can defend themselves.As far as I know nukes are weapons of mass destruction, that is, attack weapons, not defense weapons. Unless you mean that they could use it to deter...

[lars573]

Last I checked, when your screaming to a worldwide audience that you want to rid the middle east of the jew's. Correct, they have been screaming for a genocide of the jews.

As for having the largest jewish population outside of isreal. Of course they are one of the largest countries in the region. Still that population is incredibly small.
Actually Iran makes a distinction between Jews and Zionists. Jews in Iran have it fairly good (they aren't singled out for special harasment I mean). Being a fellow people of the book and all. But for the Iranian theocrats Zionists must DIE!! :furious3: A while all Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists sort of thing.

[Tribesman]

How do you get that from my post?

Well I think he may have got it from your post since you have been unable to demonstrate anything to back up your earlier calls for genocide claim .
Unfortunately he was wrong since despite not being able to back it up you won't back down .


No currently they are not cleansing the small jewish population becuase they have the US breathing down their necks. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Yes they have not done something they are not going to do because the overstretched , near breaking point mighty military got sent on a wild goose chase and ended up holding a tiger by the tail and Iran feels really really threatened by the impotence of the world superpower :dizzy2:


Last I checked Iran created and funds Hezbollah. Actions speak louder then words.

Last time I checked hezb'alloh was created as a result of an invasion by Israel who happened to be backing a Christian fascist group who were determined to stop democratic reform by force and maintain minority rule .
Would you like to check again Tex ? Lots of loud actions from that particular episode , and they still reverberate today .


Actually Iran makes a distinction between Jews and Zionists.
So do most people Lars , but obviously as we can see here , some cannot work out such a simple thing .

[Reenk Roink]

Well, Tribesman just pretty much said what needed to be said, but you can understand the skepticism of your theory of "American pressure is the only thing preventing an Iranian genocide" when you take into account that American (and international pressure) doesn't seem to be doing anything against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

[Mooks]

Put it into this form.

If a person said to you in public that he was going to kill you, would you trust him trying to buy a gun?

Or better yet. If a dictator said he was going to wipe you and your country "off the map" would you trust him with nuclear warheads?

Hell no, you would stop him at every possible chance.

[KrooK]

Israel didn't sign war treaties -does that mean that we can kill Jewish prisoners during war? Israel demand respecting international law from others but never respect it alone.

I think that Iran can have nuclear weapon - as for now Iran did not attack their neighours, like Israel. Furthermore Israel has nuclear weapon and it's ok. Why not Iran?

[Mooks]

Israel didn't sign war treaties -does that mean that we can kill Jewish prisoners during war? Israel demand respecting international law from others but never respect it alone.

I think that Iran can have nuclear weapon - as for now Iran did not attack their neighours, like Israel. Furthermore Israel has nuclear weapon and it's ok. Why not Iran?

Iran has a unstable goverment and is very very radical in its religion. They hate isreal with a passion and will do whatever it takes to get them out of the holy land. Isreal, on the other hand, has a stable democracy with reasonable goals and does not seek the genocide of an entire race.

[Pannonian]

Iran has a unstable goverment and is very very radical in its religion. They hate isreal with a passion and will do whatever it takes to get them out of the holy land. Isreal, on the other hand, has a stable democracy with reasonable goals and does not seek the genocide of an entire race.
Hasn't Israel been pushing for the US to foist regime change in Iraq, Iran and Syria, among others? Certainly some people who were advising incoming Likud leader Netanyahu on this directional change later ended up in the US defence department of the regime that did indeed carry out one of these advocated invasions. Surely you can't get much more radical than invading a sovereign country and threatening to invade some more? Wasn't this adjudged to be the greatest crime Germany had committed in WW2?

BTW, where do you get this "genocide of an entire race" comparison from? If you're talking about Iran and Jews, why are there less restrictions on everyday life for Jews than for Muslims? Some might remember the badges for Jews story last year, which turned out to be a fabrication by a recognised neo-con writer, based on a law which prescribed dress codes, not for Jews, but for Muslims. After the Iraq debacle, I wonder if all this rhetoric is the lead-up to the next stage, to prepare us psychologically for an attack on Iran. If so, I hope Britain stays out of it this time, we can pursue our interests in the region more effectively by non-violent means.

[KukriKhan]

"Information wants to be free!". Thus spake Stewart Brand in 1984.

If true, nuclear proliferation worldwide is inevitable; it's just a matter of time.

Given the mass-destruction stakes (a single trigger-pull equalling hundreds of thousands of instant deaths) , it seems right to me that everyone and anyone who can, should do everything in their power to delay that inevitable day when the entire world has gone nuke - including threats, lies, duplicity, unfairness - whatever underhanded tactic works.

Because someday, a generation or 2 from now, or tomorrow, some idiot is gonna pull that trigger, feeling all righteous in his cause, and incinerate a few hundred thousand people. And his enemies will retaliate, and their enemies, and their enemies...

Everyone here knows that scenario (sorry for referring to it) - it just seemed time to remind us all of the stakes, in amongst all the talk about national rights.

[Tribesman]

Israel didn't sign war treaties -does that mean that we can kill Jewish prisoners during war? Israel demand respecting international law from others but never respect it alone.

Israel does sign treaties , though it is easily established that it doesn't always honour them or even follow its own laws .
But Krook you have made another mistake there . Isreal doesn't mean Jew and Jew doesn't mean Israel .

[IRONxMortlock]

One thing everyone is missing here - Iran doesn't have, and by all credible sources is decades away from being able to produce, nuclear weapons.

They want nuclear power plants. They signed the NPT are going about this process as is appropriate under international law.

The countries currently roaring about the huge threat possed by Iran are the same countries you might remember from wars such as "Iraq - Sadam has weapons of mass destruction" and "Iraq - They can attack us with WMD's in 45 minutes from NOW".

After the monumental #$%#up that has occured in Iraq how can anyone in their right mind continue to have faith in and allow the same leaders who created that mess to dictate anything other than a serving suggestion for more fries in a drive thru window?

[KrooK]

Actually government into Iran is much more stable than into Israel.
Iran has its own constitution , which is mayor source of law.
Muslims priests can cancel new laws made by parliament but now because they are muslim priests only because that is being written into constitution.
Iran don't fight with every neighbour and it was fighting with Saddan Hussejn when USA and Israel supported him.

On the other hand Israel is military dictature - have you noticed that most of politicians are former generals? Some political leaders of Israel demand talmud law (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) and they want get rid of every non-jew into Palestine. According to their words get rid means kill.
Into 70ties Golda Meyer - Israeli Prime Minister kept telling that "Palestinian nation does not exist." - its very hard to find more nazist statement.

So in my opinion Israel is bigger enemy than Iran. Iran want calm existence into their country - Israel want chaos into all East.

[yesdachi]

Hasn't Israel been pushing for the US to foist regime change in Iraq, Iran and Syria, among others?
If you were in Israel’s position, wouldn’t you encourage a regime change in countries lead by people that openly dislike you?

[Pannonian]

If you were in Israel’s position, wouldn’t you encourage a regime change in countries lead by people that openly dislike you?
Erm, even some Israeli analysts are questioning the wisdom of regime change for Iran and Syria, given what they've seen of Iraq. Better to have countries led by people who dislike you than to have countries whose people dislike you, but who have no leadership whom you can talk to. They're even saying that about the Palestinians, that it's better to have a coherent Hamas government who openly dislikes Israel than to have an anarchy where there are myriads of little groups all wanting their piece of the action, where an agreement with one group means there are dozens remaining, many of whom you don't even know the existence of.

To point once again to the example of Northern Ireland, the British put quite a bit of effort in to make sure the Provos didn't effectively fragment, that they could keep firm control of all the disparate factions. The result was that, once we had an agreement with the main group, we were confident it would be kept to. That's clever counter-insurgency. Unfortunately the Israelis and their American friends seem to think that muscle is a better option than brains in this kind of conflict.

Still, as I've said before, as long as we keep out of the action this time I won't care too much what they do, Israelis or Iranians. Or Americans, for that matter. Perhaps you can launch an invasion of Iran with the IDF in tow? Since I doubt if anyone else would be interested in joining you for this venture. After all, why should it matter to us what Israel and Iran do to each other, as long as our energy supplies come through at a reasonable price? If Iran goes kaboom, we'll just have to rely more on Saudi, Venezuela, or Russia, and change our foreign policies to match.

[Tribesman]

Hey Tex , you have gone very quiet .
So i was just wondering , with one of your other assertions.......

Why do they refuse to recognize Isreal as a country?
OK apart from the typo , could you explain why your government refuses to recognise certain countries , even to the extent that if you have a certain countries stamp in your passport you wil be refused entry since the non existant State visitor stamp makes your passport invalid for entry.

Out of curiosity could you name states that your country does not recognise or wannabe states that your country doesn't recognise .
Does that , by your logic(or lack of) , mean that the US is a genocidal state for refusing to recognise those things ?

[Conqueror]

On the other hand Israel is military dictature - have you noticed that most of politicians are former generals?
~:rolleyes: Oh come on. They may be former generals, but that's just because the Israelites are willing to vote former generals. That doesn't make it a dictature.


Iran want calm existence into their country - Israel want chaos into all East.
Iran (or rather, the radical politicians) are rather loud about wanting the destruction of Israel. And Israel naturally wants chaos where chaos suits it's interests and calm where calm suits it's interests. 'All East' would hardly be in the former category.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually government into Iran is much more stable than into Israel. Iran has its own constitution , which is mayor source of law.
Muslims priests can cancel new laws made by parliament but now because they are muslim priests only because that is being written into constitution.
Iran don't fight with every neighbour and it was fighting with Saddan Hussejn when USA and Israel supported him.

If by "stability" you mean consistency of governmental form, than Israel edges out Iran by having a Govt./Constitution in place for nearly 60 years vis-a-vis Irans 25+. If by "stability" you mean constancy in foreign policy and governmental directives, then you could argue for Iran as more stable as the mullahs have been fairly consistent in their goals/efforts and Israel has been forming new coalition governments with every election -- sometimes with significant policy shifts.

Actually, while the USA did support -- at least tangentially -- S. Hussein's war against Iran, we also let/aqueisced to the Israeli's selling spare parts to Iran to keep their F-14s flight worthy. So to some extent we were playing off both sides against one another to bleed off two threats at the same time.


On the other hand Israel is military dictature - have you noticed that most of politicians are former generals? Some political leaders of Israel demand talmud law (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) and they want get rid of every non-jew into Palestine. According to their words get rid means kill.
Into 70ties Golda Meyer - Israeli Prime Minister kept telling that "Palestinian nation does not exist." - its very hard to find more nazist statement.

Poppycock. Most of their key leaders have been former Generals, true, but they've adopted political policies all across the political spectrum. The Knesset has changed direction many times and a series of coalition governments has run the country democratically -- more or less -- since shortly after its inception. A perfect Western-style democracy with a strong track record on individual rights? By no means. A military dictatorship? By no means.

Have aggressive and sometimes militaristic policies been their preference? Yes, and with more frequency than for most other countries. However, most other countries have not faced direct invasions at least 3 times during the current lifetimes of most of their leaders. Some good arguers on this forum have suggested that Israeli hard-line reactions to Arab/Palestinian provocation have actually worked against them -- with a fair bit of evidence in support -- but the reactions are "natural" enough from the Israeli perspective.

Meyer was arguing that their was no Palestinian nation because she believed the individuals involved to be Arabs hailing from a particular area with no distince ethnicity or tradition. While certainly not a "welcoming" utterance, labeling it as "Nazist" is a bit over the top. As I understand it, most Israelis no longer share that view, either (though a significant minority probably do).


So in my opinion Israel is bigger enemy than Iran. Iran want calm existence into their country - Israel want chaos into all East.

Both want the same thing: calm, stability, and economic success for their own people and -- as the old toast goes -- confusion to their enemies. This does, of course, create a situation where Israel profits from internicine conflict among Arab nations while Iran profits from those same nations focusing their hatreds/angst on Israel. Neither country is likely to achieve both portions of this objective.

[Tribesman]

Actually, while the USA did support -- at least tangentially -- S. Hussein's war against Iran, we also let/aqueisced to the Israeli's selling spare parts to Iran to keep their F-14s flight worthy. So to some extent we were playing off both sides against one another to bleed off two threats at the same time.

Seamus , don't forget getting Israel to step in and ship the 5,000 missiles to Iran in exchange for the US hostages once the checks and balances kicked in and stopped the direct shipment .:shrug:

[Watchman]

If by "stability" you mean consistency of governmental form, than Israel edges out Iran by having a Govt./Constitution in place for nearly 60 years vis-a-vis Irans 25+.Well the Iranians did have to get rid of one earnestly disliked, in due form US-backed, autocrat first you know... Nevermind now that I seem to recall hearing something about Persia having had a reasonably working republic-democracy sort of thing going for a while before the Shah was reinstated as the de facto dictator with the due US backing...

Being a little forgetful here, are we ?

[Goofball]

Amazing.

Just amazing.

There is enough hatred for Israel to cause otherwise reasonable individuals to start singing the praises of the Iranian government.

Yep, they're nothing but a bunch of peace-loving hippies who preach brotherly love and want to buy the world a Coke. Why shouldn't they have nukes? They've given every indication that they are a responsible nation and a good solid citizen of the international community.

Not.

Give your collective heads a shake please, people.

We're talking about Iran here, not Sweden.

There is no way in the world they should be permitted to have nuclear weapons.

And while I have never supported the Iraq invasion, I would be eternally grateful to the Americans if they toppled the pisspot Iranian dictatorship at the first real indication that they had produced a viable nuke; the UN and Europe be damned with all their idiotic Iranian apologists.

[Reenk Roink]

There is no way in the world they should be permitted to have nuclear weapons.

Everyone on this thread has affirmed this point. What they are calling into question is should Israel be allowed nuclear weapons?

Pointing to how evil Iran is sidesteps the question completely. Making the point of how evil Iran is with falsities like "genocide" (not directed at you but others) is just bad argument and also unnecessary. :wink:

[yesdachi]

Everyone on this thread has affirmed this point. What they are calling into question is should Israel be allowed nuclear weapons?
Israel IS allowed nuclear weapons.

[Goofball]

There is no way in the world they should be permitted to have nuclear weapons.Everyone on this thread has affirmed this point.

Not true. Some have affirmed it. Others have spouted off with one version or another of "It's only fair that Iran should have nukes if Israel has them."

Insanity.


What they are calling into question is should Israel be allowed nuclear weapons?

Nobody should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. But the reality is that once a nation has them, it's too late to take them away. But it really doesn't keep me awake sweating at night knowing that Israel has them. They have shown remarkable restraint, and I am confident that they will continue toshow that same restraint with respect to nukes.


Pointing to how evil Iran is sidesteps the question completely. Making the point of how evil Iran is with falsities like "genocide" (not directed at you but others) is just bad argument and also unnecessary. :wink:

Falsities?

Look, my friend.

If calling for an entire country to be "wiped off the map" is not a call for genocide, then please explain to me what would be?

I'm sick if the disingenuous equivocation the left has been using to apologize for those comments.

They were a call for genocide. Very simple.

[Reenk Roink]

Nobody should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. But the reality is that once a nation has them, it's too late to take them away. But it really doesn't keep me awake sweating at night knowing that Israel has them. They have shown remarkable restraint, and I am confident that they will continue toshow that same restraint with respect to nukes.

:laugh4:

We saw that "restraint" in the recent war...


Falsities?

Look, my friend.

If calling for an entire country to be "wiped off the map" is not a call for genocide, then please explain to me what would be?

I'm sick if the disingenuous equivocation the left has been using to apologize for those comments.

They were a call for genocide. Very simple.

Calling for a political entity to be wiped off the map maybe?

Israel does not equal Jews. Israel has a small Muslim and Christian minority as well. If Iran is really after genocide, why not start at home? Why did the guy that Ahmadinejad quoted for the "wipe of the map" statement also make positive statements about Jews and make a distinction between Jews and Zionists? All questions left unanswered...

People continue to stick to false beliefs to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing one can do besides make clear the facts and convince the ones who do not come into a situation with minds already made up.

[Prince of the Poodles]

Israel does not equal Jews. Israel has a small Muslim and Christian minority as well. If Iran is really after genocide, why not start at home? Why did the guy that Ahmadinejad quoted for the "wipe of the map" statement also make positive statements about Jews and make a distinction between Jews and Zionists? All questions left unanswered...

You answered your own question.

How is calling for a genocide of all Israelis somehow better than calling for a genocide of all jews?

[yesdachi]

You laugh but I think Israel has shown considerably more restraint than others in the neighborhood.

There is nothing one can do besides make clear the facts and convince the ones who do not come into a situation with minds already made up.
Seems like someone’s minds are already made up.
"Israel needs to be wiped of the map"
"Death to the Infidel, Death to America"

[Reenk Roink]

You answered your own question.

How is calling for a genocide of all Israelis somehow better than calling for a genocide of all jews?

No, this is misinterpretation/misattribution on your part.

Read the statement above that. The one to the tune of: "Calling for a political entity to be wiped off the map maybe? "

[Goofball]

No, this is misinterpretation/misattribution on your part.

Read the statement above that. The one to the tune of: "Calling for a political entity to be wiped off the map maybe? "

No, that statement is just mental gymnastics on your part to try to defend your position.

He didn't call for a political entity (i.e. the Likud Party, or the Israeli Ministry of Defence) to be wiped off the face of the map.

He called for Israel, a nation, to be wiped off the face of the map.

My mind boggles that you are trying to defend this.


:laugh4:

We saw that "restraint" in the recent war...

Sorry, did I miss something?

Was Israel lobbing nukes into Lebanon?

They were remarkably restrained.

Do you think that any other country in the middle east would have been so restrained if they had been subject to attacks and invasions by foreign powers since the day they became a nation if they also had a nuclear arsenal in their back pocket?

[BigTex]

You answered your own question.

How is calling for a genocide of all Israelis somehow better than calling for a genocide of all jews?

Quoted for the truth. They support the killing of all "zionists". But what is their definition of a zionists.~:pimp:

[Prince of the Poodles]

No, this is misinterpretation/misattribution on your part.

Read the statement above that. The one to the tune of: "Calling for a political entity to be wiped off the map maybe? "


I guess I dont get it.

You pointed out that Iran is not trying to destroy its Jews, and that Israel is not comprised soley of jews.

So his statements were directed not so much at jews(although his antisemitism cannot be denied), but at Israelis.

However, the call for genocide is still there, just against a nation not an ethnic group. I dont know how "wiped off the map" and his other statements could be construed any other way.

[Watchman]

If he's indeed talking of Israel as a political entity, then that would really be the state of Israel. You know, the one with borders, army, national hymn... and quite different from its populace. The former could as such disappear overnight right well with no further ado; ask the former citizens of DDR if you want eyewitness statements of such occurrences.

[Prince of the Poodles]

I dont understand why people are going to such lengths to try and explain this away.

The man has made his opinions very clear in regards to Israelis and what he thinks should happen to them.

Israel is a strong, very independent state. So how else other than annialation would they be wiped off the map? This is not a DDR type situation.

Whether he wants the deaths of all jews or all israelis is really just a technicality, is it not?

[Goofball]

If he's indeed talking of Israel as a political entity, then that would really be the state of Israel. You know, the one with borders, army, national hymn... and quite different from its populace. The former could as such disappear overnight right well with no further ado; ask the former citizens of DDR if you want eyewitness statements of such occurrences.

More:

http://www.asama.org/images/artists/barnes/Gymnastics.jpg

[Reenk Roink]

No, that statement is just mental gymnastics on your part to try to defend your position.

He didn't call for a political entity (i.e. the Likud Party, or the Israeli Ministry of Defence) to be wiped off the face of the map.

He called for Israel, a nation, to be wiped off the face of the map.

My mind boggles that you are trying to defend this.

My reasoning is simple, and my reasoning is the reason for my position:

If Iran wanted a genocide of all Jews, and that was indeed what that statement meant, why does Iran have Jews in its land? Why does not Iran start with the Jews at home? After all, their known to persecute Sunnis and Bahais, so why not the Jews?

How do you respond to that. What is your justification for extrapolating that statement as a call for genocide?


Sorry, did I miss something?

Was Israel lobbing nukes into Lebanon?

They were remarkably restrained.

Do you think that any other country in the middle east would have been so restrained if they had been subject to attacks and invasions by foreign powers since the day they became a nation if they also had a nuclear arsenal in their back pocket?

So not lobbing nukes is "restraint". I suppose one could proceed with that line of argument, but it would be difficult to hold.

Israel killed 1000 civilians in its war with Lebanon. Their attacks were decried by the world. They weren't much more restrained than Hezbollah who just fired blindly...

[Goofball]

No, that statement is just mental gymnastics on your part to try to defend your position.

He didn't call for a political entity (i.e. the Likud Party, or the Israeli Ministry of Defence) to be wiped off the face of the map.

He called for Israel, a nation, to be wiped off the face of the map.

My mind boggles that you are trying to defend this.My reasoning is simple, and my reasoning is the reason for my position:

If Iran wanted a genocide of all Jews, and that was indeed what that statement meant, why does Iran have Jews in its land? Why does not Iran start with the Jews at home? After all, their known to persecute Sunnis and Bahais, so why not the Jews?

How do you respond to that. What is your justification for extrapolating that statement as a call for genocide?

I never said anything about Jews.

"Canada should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

"England should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

"Iran should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

"Israel should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

Are you starting to get this? Anytime you call for an entire country to be "wiped off the map" (regardless of that country's ethnic makeup) you are calling for genocide.



Sorry, did I miss something?

Was Israel lobbing nukes into Lebanon?

They were remarkably restrained.

Do you think that any other country in the middle east would have been so restrained if they had been subject to attacks and invasions by foreign powers since the day they became a nation if they also had a nuclear arsenal in their back pocket?So not lobbing nukes is "restraint". I suppose one could proceed with that line of argument, but it would be difficult to hold.

Israel killed 1000 civilians in its war with Lebanon. Their attacks were decried by the world. They weren't much more restrained than Hezbollah who just fired blindly...

Yes, it was restraint.

Terrorists have been launching attacks at will at Israeli citizens from Lebanese territory for a long time, and the Lebanese have done nothing to stop it. I think it showed amazing restrain that the Israelis waited as long as they did, did as little as they did, and left so quickly after they were finished.

And the action was not decried by the world. It was decried by European nations, for whom the standard practice is to condemn any Israeli action while ignoring the antagonistic actions of the muslim factions that typically precipitate them.

Big surprise.

At least my own country (previously among the worst of the terrorist apologists) finally grew a set of stones and supported Israel's right to defend herself.

[Watchman]

The man has made his opinions very clear in regards to Israelis and what he thinks should happen to them.
Oh, never said he didn't. "Death to Zionists" is pretty clear-cut, although I personally wouldn't declare all Israelis to be ones anyway. I'm mostly pointing out that wanting the extinction of a state is quite different from wanting the physical extinction of its citizens, no ?


Israel is a strong, very independent state. So how else other than annialation would they be wiped off the map?And Iran would proceed on realising this supposed annihilation exactly how without turning into a collection of radioactive rubble piles itself ? Neither is exactly a feasible solution, but that of course never mattered in political rhetoric.


Whether he wants the deaths of all jews or all israelis is really just a technicality, is it not?Not really. The former would after all include the Jews in for example Finland or Uruguay. Or Iran. The latter only includes all citizens of Israel (those living abroad probably being exempt), per definition this would be regardless of exact ethnicity and/or confessional allegiance.

[Pannonian]

No, that statement is just mental gymnastics on your part to try to defend your position.

He didn't call for a political entity (i.e. the Likud Party, or the Israeli Ministry of Defence) to be wiped off the face of the map.

He called for Israel, a nation, to be wiped off the face of the map.

My mind boggles that you are trying to defend this.

Before belabouring that point, you might want to find another translation of that speech.

Here's the MEMRI translation (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP101305). MEMRI has been accused of collecting all the worst quotes from the Arab press and presenting them as the norm, so they can hardly be accused of being pro-Muslim.

"'Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it.

"'Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country...

"'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.

"'Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world.

[Dâriûsh]

Either way.

Ahmadinejad (or Ajay among friends) may not want nuclear weapons. Some of the mullahs may not want nuclear weapons. But the Revolutionary Guard, they very much want nuclear weapons.

I am all for Iran being allowed nuclear energy. But the thought of the Guard with a nuclear arsenal is worrying indeed.

[Reenk Roink]

I never said anything about Jews.

"Canada should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

"England should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

"Iran should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

"Israel should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

None of these 4 follows. You are stretching a syllogism. I hold that they do not follow.


Are you starting to get this? Anytime you call for an entire country to be "wiped off the map" (regardless of that country's ethnic makeup) you are calling for genocide.

I'm afraid not. If I was living in the Cold War, and wanted the USSR wiped off the map, I would be talking of the Soviet Bloc, not all the people.


Yes, it was restraint.

Bombing Beirut is restraint? Did the English go and bomb Dublin's airport while fighting the IRA? Israel really looked like they made no effort to minimize civilian casualties at all. That is why countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, who decried Hezbollah's actions at the start, pushed against Israel after several hundred civilians perished under their bombs.


Terrorists have been launching attacks at will at Israeli citizens from Lebanese territory for a long time, and the Lebanese have done nothing to stop it. I think it showed amazing restrain that the Israelis waited as long as they did, did as little as they did, and left so quickly after they were finished.

Tribesman had shown previously, that the question of "who started it" was chicken-egg type, giving information of the long history of skirmishes between the border.


And the action was not decried by the world. It was decried by European nations, for whom the standard practice is to condemn any Israeli action while ignoring the antagonistic actions of the muslim factions that typically precipitate them.

Please look at some European condemnation of Hezbollah. Give me a break.

[Navaros]

Everyone on this thread has affirmed this point.



This is incorrect. The creator of this thread strongly disagrees with that, and believes that Iran should be allowed to have nukes so that it is on an even playing field with Israel.

[KrooK]

To sum up - my point of view on Iran, Israel, USA and jewish behavior.

Israel has nuclear weapon and no one question it.

If Israel has nuclear weapon, Iran should have nuclear weapon too - just for ballancement. Notice situation beetwen India and Pakistan. Since these 2 countries received nuclear weapon, there is no border conflicts there.
Calm and silence.

Israel might be wiped out from the map, but if someone do it, Jews will definitely use their nuclear weapon. So I don't think anyone will be realy trying to wipe out Israel from the map.
Iran want be safe from wiping out too :) If Iran will be having nuclear weapon, Jews won't be attacking him like they did with Egypt into 1956.

If USA attack Iran, USA definitely loose. They will face big, pround, united nation, fanatical army and much worse terrain than into Iraq (where they are not winning :P ) - so they will loose.

If Jews want be liked they shouldn't behave like Poland beetwen 1918 and 1939 - they really don't have to fight with every neighour.
To improve polish-jewish relationship Jews should extradite Salomon Morel who is nothing more than ww2 criminal - otherwise I see no reason for punishing people who murdered Jews during ww2.

[Tribesman]

Canada should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

"England should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

"Iran should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

"Israel should be wiped off the map." = a call for genocide

Bollox
Northern Cyprus should be wiped off the map , is that a call for genocide ?


Bombing Beirut is restraint? Did the English go and bomb Dublin's airport while fighting the IRA?
Reenk , I think perhaps you might want to use a different example , since the bombing of Dublin airport is still rather a hot issue that only this month was attacked again by the Irish government and judiciary .:oops:

Though as an example , would the pre peace agreement costitution of this country calling for the 6 counties to be wiped off the map be a call for genocide , or would that same constitution calling for the 26 county republic to be wiped off the map be a call to genocide ?


To improve polish-jewish relationship Jews should extradite Salomon Morel who is nothing more than ww2 criminal - otherwise I see no reason for punishing people who murdered Jews during ww2.
Now Krook , that is rather a disturbing statement .
In fact it is not just disturbing , it is very bloody offensive .:yes:

[Prince of the Poodles]

If USA attack Iran, USA definitely loose. They will face big, pround, united nation, fanatical army and much worse terrain than into Iraq (where they are not winning :P ) - so they will loose.

Come on now. Was the glee-filled emoticon really neccessary?

Why is it so awesome to so many that America is not doing well in Iraq?

Sure it was brash. Sure we were headstrong. Ulterior motives? Definately.

However, the intentions were good, too. Take out a brutal dictator. Allow the people to vote. Give them freedom and rights. Most americans that supported the war supported those ideals. (And we have done our best to impliment them.)

So now its everybody and their brother's chance to kick us while we're down.

But you know what? All you are doing is saying to the average american "This is what you get for supporting the spreading of freedom and liberty abroad", as you see most americans who supported the war did have good intentions, as do most of the troops.

PS. YOu are from Poland right? Doesnt that mean you are losing the war too? :shame:

[KrooK]

Yes - it means that I'm loosing war. Luckily they prefer killing Americans than killing Poles and we have only about 20 deaths. I wish my country finally seen what is happening and withdrawed from Iraq.

Maybe some people don't want your "democracy" and "human rights"?
Maybe not everyone want have "american" society into his country with aborcy, broken families and lack of respect for olders. For many people it is something bad.

Have you ever think why you attacked Irak now, not 10 yearas ago.?
When Saddam Hussejn killed Kurds with chemical weapon, Americans helped him avoid consequences into UN. Into 1991/1992 you could easy win war and change government. But they didn't do that - Saddam Hussejn was necessary to flank Iran - country who didn't seel oil to USA, which is worst crime :D
Into 2001 when price of oil was big, Americans wanted cheap, good oil -Irak was ideal target. So you cheat other countries and attacked Iraq. I will never forget robbing Bagdad Museum - people were stealing 7000-years-old things when American soldiers were guarding Ministry of Oil opposite of the Museum.

Now you are having consequences. And you don't know why Iran want nuclear weapon - because they didn't want be 2nd Irak :)

[Spetulhu]

And you don't know why Iran want nuclear weapon - because they didn't want be 2nd Irak :)

Where's the proof that the Iranians are going for nuclear weapons? Oh, that's right, there isn't any. Interesting how some want to forbid them from developing perfectly legal technology just because it could be misused.:inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

Sure it was brash. Sure we were headstrong. Ulterior motives? Definately.

However, the intentions were good, too. Take out a brutal dictator. Allow the people to vote. Give them freedom and rights. Most americans that supported the war supported those ideals. (And we have done our best to impliment them.)

Well I wonder sometimes how oftn I can write "bollox" without a warning yet other words get clamped down on , so instead of insulting the quoted text and questioning the whole post I might just ask if poodle knows what the road to hell is apparently paved with .
:yes:

But nahhhhhhhh what the hell

(And we have done our best to impliment them.
Now that is bollox of the highest order , it is also of the cattle excrement variety , unless of course you happen to have had your head shoved up your own posterior for the past couple of years .
Invasion lite ain't doing your best
occupation lite ain't doing your best
going to war over a pile of lies ain't doing your best
not having a frigging clue what the hell they are playing at ain't doing your best .
So Poodle what the hell is this "done our best" rubbish ?