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

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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.

Israel is a very irresponsible country by western standards.

However on comparison with Iran it looks positively benign.

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

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

Irans right on this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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).

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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"?

Well, according to this article, whether Iran will achieve nuclear technology or not is now a moot point: Iran now nuclear capable

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

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.

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?

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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..

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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?