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

[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.

[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. Show me the screaming of genocide of the Jews.

Wouldn't Iran start with the ones at home?

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

[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.

[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.

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

[BigTex]

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

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?

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.

[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?

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

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!! 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.

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

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?