Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections

anonymous_joe

dlofnep wrote: »

Israel is ruled by Zionist fanatics. What's the difference? Israel already has 150 nuclear weapons. There is no evidence to suggest that Iran has any nuclear weapons. Why no public outcry for Israel's undisclosed nuclear weaponry? The same Israel which has recently committed war crimes in Palestine.

Israel's a democracy. That's a pretty big difference. Moreover, in the last decade, not all of Israel's rulers have been Zionist loopers. I dislike those aspects of Israeli culture as much as anyone, but at least they're not always ruled by religious fúcktards.

dlofnep

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Israel's a democracy. That's a pretty big difference. Moreover, in the last decade, not all of Israel's rulers have been Zionist loopers. I dislike those aspects of Israeli culture as much as anyone, but at least they're not always ruled by religious fúcktards.

Israel's a democracy? Where is the democracy in their illegal occupation of Palestinian land? Democracy doesn't mean much in the broad scheme of things when the said democratic nation has committed war crimes and has undisclosed nuclear weapons.

anonymous_joe

dlofnep wrote: »

Israel's a democracy? Where is the democracy in their illegal occupation of Palestinian land? Democracy doesn't mean much in the broad scheme of things when the said democratic nation has committed war crimes and has undisclosed nuclear weapons.

It's much more democratic than Iran.

Besides, democracy is an internal political system, not a guide to external national behaviour.

I deplore Israel for the settlements, but I'd still say the Iranians are worse than they are. Which doesn't mean the Israelis are great either.

I dislike both sides basically.

dlofnep

anonymous_joe wrote: »

It's much more democratic than Iran.

Besides, democracy is an internal political system, not a guide to external national behaviour.

So, your original point about democracy has no bearing on the topic at hand.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I deplore Israel for the settlements, but I'd still say the Iranians are worse than they are.

Worse at what? In terms of combat and international policies, Israel have a much worse record compared to Iran. I'm not exactly sure what Iran is worse at that has any bearing on the topic at hand.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Amazing how quick America were to attack Iraq on the premise of non-disclosure of WMD's, but they have a completely different set of rules for Israel.

When did Israel use WMD on anyone? Saddam used them on both other countries and his own.

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

Israel has received the go ahead from Saudi Arabia to use it's airspace to attack Iran. Disturbing times for the area. The question is, will they receive military support from the US or anyone else?

Can't imagine why they'd need it, frankly.

They've never needed it in the past, and done some pretty interesting ops.

NTM

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

When did Israel use WMD on anyone? Saddam used them on both other countries and his own.

It's not about use - Israel HAS WMD's, nuclear weapons in particular - which are undisclosed and has not signed the NPT. It has committed war-crimes, and thus should be subject to the same treatment that Iran is receiving right now. Israel has never been touched for their secret nuclear program.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Can't imagine why they'd need it, frankly.

Not the point - the point is they are seeking to launch an attack on the sovereign nation of Iran. And they will need assistance in tackling Iran, unless then plan on nuking Iran. Iran's military power is sufficient to repel an attack from Israel unless nukes are brought into play.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not about use - Israel HAS WMD's, nuclear weapons in particular - which are undisclosed and has not signed the NPT.

When you start comparing the differing treatments of Iraq and Israel, then it is about use tbh.

dlofnep wrote: »

It has committed war-crimes, and thus should be subject to the same treatment that Iran is receiving right now. Israel has never been touched for their secret nuclear program.

Yes it should be subject to the NPT etc, no argument from me.

As for Iran being militarily capability of repelling an attack from Israel. Highly doubtful. Israel specialises in lightning undetected air strikes and has demonstrated this numerous times before in the region. Unless Iran plans an overland groundforces attack on Israel, only one of them will need to resort to using a nuclear weapon, and it isn't Israel.

anonymous_joe

dlofnep wrote: »

So, your original point about democracy has no bearing on the topic at hand.



Worse at what? In terms of combat and international policies, Israel have a much worse record compared to Iran. I'm not exactly sure what Iran is worse at that has any bearing on the topic at hand.

Yes it does. I'd much rather a democratic Israel had nukes than fundamentalist, moronic insane Iranians do. Not a slur on the Persians, merely the ruling council. I wouldn't let a cabal of priests rule Ireland. Iran is ruled by people who aren't exactly going to win any words for kindess or sanity any time soon.

They are far more likely to use nukes aggressively than Israel. Israel has been attacked by its neighbours more times than it's attacked.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

When you start comparing the differing treatments of Iraq and Israel, then it is about use tbh.

It's not just that one issue - different standards are always in place for Israel. Israel refuses to co-operate on nuclear inspections and the US doesn't say anything - Iran AGREES to co-operate on nuclear inspections, but it is still chastised and threatened with sanctions. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

prinz wrote: »

Yes it should be subject to the NPT etc, no argument from me.

So would you agree with heavy sanctions being issued for Israel?

prinz wrote: »

As for Iran being militarily capability of repelling an attack from Israel. Highly doubtful.

Israel specialises in lightning undetected air strikes and has demonstrated this numerous times before in the region. Unless Iran plans an overland groundforces attack on Israel,

Iran is no Palestine, that's for sure. Israel will have their hands full.

prinz wrote: »

only one of them will need to resort to using a nuclear weapon, and it isn't Israel.

It will have to be given that Israel is the only one with nuclear weapons.

dlofnep

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Yes it does. I'd much rather a democratic Israel had nukes than fundamentalist, moronic insane Iranians do.

So you'd prefer that a country which has committed war crimes, that illegally occupies land, that has a history of nuclear secrecy have nukes? Nice logic.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not just that one issue - different standards are always in place for Israel. Israel refuses to co-operate on nuclear inspections and the US doesn't say anything - Iran AGREES to co-operate on nuclear inspections, but it is still chastised and threatened with sanctions. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

Iran isn't cooperating much either though. The news in the last few days proves that. IMO it was a valid defensive measure taken by Israel as a deterrant.

dlofnep wrote: »

So would you agree with heavy sanctions being issued for Israel?

Yes and no. I believe they should be signed up to the NPT and have their facilities and stockpiles etc examined, even largely decommission if they have any. It's a fairly well known secret but the truth should be made public exactly what Israel has. I can also understand the reason Israel believes they need them in the first place.

dlofnep wrote: »

Iran is no Palestine, that's for sure. Israel will have their hands full.

You're missing the point. Israel has the capabilities to strike Iran with an air raid and destroy any and all suspected nuclear sites etc, similar to the "shock and awe" raids early in the war in Iraq. Iran would be unable to prevent that. The Israeli air force has frequently shown their neighbours they have that ability apparently. Iran has formidable ground forces but given the distance by land or sea, Iran's only real threat is by air, with conventional forces or using missiles. The former is really a non runner IMO in the area. I don't think any of the countries in between will be comfortable allowing Iran use their airspace.

dlofnep wrote: »

It will have to be given that Israel is the only one with nuclear weapons.

That we suspect of, yet. The simple matter of the thing is, Israel doesn't need to use them. Iran would.

anonymous_joe

dlofnep wrote: »

So you'd prefer that a country which has committed war crimes, that illegally occupies land, that has a history of nuclear secrecy have nukes? Nice logic.

Yes, I would.

Because logic's not a philosophy, it's merely a tool.

Let's play this game another way;

You'd rather have a murderous dictatorship, that seized power in a bloody coup and has spent 30 or so years oppressing it's citizens, most recently murdering innocent people who protested in favour of a travesty of justice this year?

See what I did there?

Israel does not present anyone a nuclear threat, because they're nukes are merely a deterrent, it's a basic insurance policy. They almost lost Yom Kippur, were the Syrians, Egyptians and Jordanians to attack a small weak state again in an unprovoked attack (well... it wasn't the Israelis who took Palestine from the Palestinians, that was the British and Americans) and defeat Israel through weight of numbers then they would know Israel would nuke them. Thus Israel is safe.

They're not big enough a nation to use nukes as anything other than a defence.

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

Iran's military power is sufficient to repel an attack from Israel unless nukes are brought into play.

I really don't think so. As long as the Israeli military doesn't plan on staying anywhere in Iran for any particular length of time, I don't see the Iranians stopping them. About the only exception I could think of would be if the Iranian nuclear facilities were co-located with a sizeable military base and sufficiently underground that a mere airstrike wouldn't do the job.

Iran is no Palestine, that's for sure. Israel will have their hands full.

Iraq was no Palestine in 1984, and a mere four Israeli jets made quite a difference.

NTM

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Iran isn't cooperating much either though. The news in the last few days proves that. IMO it was a valid defensive measure taken by Israel as a deterrant.

Yes they are, they are co-operating 100%. They have already stated that they will allow inspectors into the site which is more than Israel are doing.

prinz wrote: »

Yes and no. I believe they should be signed up to the NPT and have their facilities and stockpiles etc examined, even largely decommission if they have any. It's a fairly well known secret but the truth should be made public exactly what Israel has. I can also understand the reason Israel believes they need them in the first place.

How is that truth to be made when Israel refuses to co-operate with the UN? This is just hypocrisy at it's finest. Israel is allowed to get away scot-free from sanctions, no matter what the crime. Iran doesn't do anything wrong, and they are immediately threatened with sanctions.

prinz wrote: »

That we suspect of, yet. The simple matter of the thing is, Israel doesn't need to use them. Iran would.

Where is your evidence to suggest that Iran would? Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. Israel does. When was the last time Iran attacked another nation and when was Iran last accused of war crimes?

Buffy the bitch

prinz wrote: »

Iran isn't cooperating much either though. The news in the last few days proves that. IMO it was a valid defensive measure taken by Israel as a deterrant.

What are you talking about? There isn't another country in the world that has cooperated so much with the IAEA as Iran has. I guess you're talking about the new plant they're building? Under IAEA regulations they don't have to tell anybody anything what they do have to do is tell the IAEA about the new plant 6 months before it's operational, the plant you're talking about won't be operational for about 18 months so what exactly have they done wrong?

prinz wrote: »

Yes and no. I believe they should be signed up to the NPT and have their facilities and stockpiles etc examined, even largely decommission if they have any. It's a fairly well known secret but the truth should be made public exactly what Israel has. I can also understand the reason Israel believes they need them in the first place.

Why should they have them, incase Israel is nuked by Iran? So Iran should be allowed them incase they're attacked by Israel, or even North Korea incase they're ever attacked?

prinz wrote: »

You're missing the point. Israel has the capabilities to strike Iran with an air raid and destroy any and all suspected nuclear sites etc, similar to the "shock and awe" raids early in the war in Iraq. Iran would be unable to prevent that. The Israeli air force has frequently shown their neighbours they have that ability apparently. Iran has formidable ground forces but given the distance by land or sea, Iran's only real threat is by air, with conventional forces or using missiles. The former is really a non runner IMO in the area. I don't think any of the countries in between will be comfortable allowing Iran use their airspace.

Why couldn't Iran prevent it? Look this counry isn't Iraq. They have the capability to look after themselves. If it was so easy for Israel they already would have done it, but attacking them means a full blown war it won't be like attacking Iraq's plant and getting one or two scud missiles fired in return it will be a full war. Israel couldn't beat Hezbollah never mind Iran.

prinz wrote: »

That we suspect of, yet. The simple matter of the thing is, Israel doesn't need to use them. Iran would.

What a stupid remark. If Iran used a nuke on Israel they would be wiped off the map, literally.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. Israel does.

Iran doesn't have any that we know of. IIRC no one has verified beyong doubt that Israel has either.

Blazer

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes they are, they are co-operating 100%. They have already stated that they will allow inspectors into the site which is more than Israel are doing?

dlofnep wrote: »

Where is your evidence to suggest that Iran would? Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. Israel does. When was the last time Iran attacked another nation?

Are you mad? Iran was secretly building a nuclear facility that no one knew about bar the US?

Maybe Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet but it's only a matter of months...and you can bet ur ass that it's a million times more likely that Iran would release one of these than Israel.

prinz

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

What are you talking about? There isn't another country in the world that has cooperated so much with the IAEA as Iran has. I guess you're talking about the new plant they're building? Under IAEA regulations they don't have to tell anybody anything what they do have to do is tell the IAEA about the new plant 6 months before it's operational, the plant you're talking about won't be operational for about 18 months so what exactly have they done wrong?

Any back up to this 18 month timeline? Funny I swore I heard the Ayatollah or one of his pals saying it was about to go operational very soon

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Why should they have them, incase Israel is nuked by Iran? So Iran should be allowed them incase they're attacked by Israel, or even North Korea incase they're ever attacked?

Simple difference, but that would be lost on you so I won't waste my time.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Why couldn't Iran prevent it? Look this counry isn't Iraq. They have the capability to look after themselves. If it was so easy for Israel they already would have done it, but attacking them means a full blown war it won't be like attacking Iraq's plant and getting one or two scud missiles fired in return it will be a full war. Israel couldn't beat Hezbollah never mind Iran.

Iran doesn't have the capabilities to prevent an Israeli airstrike. Would you like to explain how exactly it would be a "full war" ? Ground forces? Naval forces? In case you hadn't noticed Iran doesn't have too many friends between themselves and Israel.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

What a stupid remark. If Iran used a nuke on Israel they would be wiped off the map, literally.

And? What did I say contradicted that?

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Iran doesn't have any that we know of.

All the intellgience agencies across the world have no qualms in stating that Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons.

prinz wrote: »

IIRC no one has verified beyong doubt that Israel has either.

Kind of hard when they refuse to co-operate with the UN, now isn't it? They pretty much confirmed it when they kidnapped Mordechai Vanunu for spilling the beans on their nuclear weapons. All intelligence agencies have no problem in stating that Israel has nuclear weapons. Jimmy Carter, former US president has stated that they have 150 of them. It's the world's worst kept secret that they are a nuclear country. You're naive to think otherwise.

dlofnep

Berkut wrote: »

Are you mad? Iran was secretly building a nuclear facility that no one knew about bar the US?

No they weren't. They do not have to disclose it's existence by international law, until 180 days prior to holding of nuclear material. They have offered to allow inspectors in to confirm this. There is no big secret.

Berkut wrote: »

Maybe Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet but it's only a matter of months...and you can bet ur ass that it's a million times more likely that Iran would release one of these than Israel.

Where is the evidence to suggest that Iran would use them? When was the last time Iran attacked another nation?

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Kind of hard when they refuse to co-operate with the UN, now isn't it? They pretty much confirmed it when they kidnapped Mordechai Vanunu for spilling the beans on their nuclear weapons. All intelligence agencies have no problem in stating that Israel has nuclear weapons. Jimmy Carter, former US president has stated that they have 150 of them. It's the world's worst kept secret that they are a nuclear country. You're naive to think otherwise.

So what you are saying is there is no actual concrete independant evidence that Israel holds nuclear weapons. Do I think Israel has nulear weapons, of course I do. Do I think Iran is desperately trying to obtain nuclear weaponry under the guise of a "civilian energy programme"? Yes I do. It comes down to a question of who do I think is less likely to use them.... and that's an easy one for me. Do I think Iran should have a nuclear weapon? Absolutely not. There are many countries I think should be without. tbh I am against nuclear weapons altogether, on the other hand you seem to be misunderstand non-proliferation, basing your opinion on 'well if Israel has them, then Iran should have some' which leads to 'well if Iran has them, Iraq should have them'....'if Iraq has them, Syria should have them' etc etc etc proliferation.

Some countries have nuclear weapons, some don't. The point is that we should try to stop more countries getting new nuclear weapons. Then decide what to do with te ones that exist now.

Buffy the bitch

prinz wrote: »

Any back up to this 18 month timeline? Funny I swore I heard the Ayatollah or one of his pals saying it was about to go operational very soon

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that Iran was building a second uranium enrichment facility near the Shia Muslim city of Qom, about 100 miles southwest of Tehran. He said the plant won't be operational for about 18 months.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/26/iran.nuclear/index.html

Incase you forgot this isn't a big secret. Iran was the one to come out and say they were building it, it's not like the world found out Iran was building secret nuclear weapons, the new plant can hold 3,000 centrifuges which would take one year to build 1 nuke they already have well beyond that as they have bigger plants that are running longer than one year.

prinz wrote: »

Simple difference, but that would be lost on you so I won't waste my time.

Yeah one prays to Allah the other doesn't :rolleyes:

prinz wrote: »

Iran doesn't have the capabilities to prevent an Israeli airstrike. Would you like to explain how exactly it would be a "full war" ? Ground forces? Naval forces? In case you hadn't noticed Iran doesn't have too many friends between themselves and Israel.

A full blown war as in a full blown war. No friends? China? Russia? Not like they need FRIENDS they can look after thamselves. They have the best missiles system in the middle east along with like the Tor-M1 or even the S-300 (which America wanted to buy and Russia wouldn't sell to them)

prinz wrote: »

And? What did I say contradicted that?

Like I said your remarks are stupid. You said Iran would use a nuke.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Do I think Israel has nulear weapons, of course I do.

As do I.

prinz wrote: »

It comes down to a question of who do I think is less likely to use them.... and that's an easy one for me. Do I think Iran should have a nuclear weapon? Absolutely not.

That's a valid question, but you have yet to prove why Iran is more likely to use them. Is it perhaps because Iran is a muslim country, which receives consistently negative heat from Western media?

I have already outlined why Israel is a much greater threat to the stability of the middle-east. You have yet to prove why Iran is more of a threat.

Kev_ps3

Iran doesnt want nuclear weapons, any fool can see that, but if they were to get them then I would welcome it. Maby then that illegal state Israel would think twice if the threat of total destruction was hanging over them.

prinz

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/26/iran.nuclear/index.html
Incase you forgot this isn't a big secret. Iran was the one to come out and say they were building it, it's not like the world found out Iran was building secret nuclear weapons, the new plant can hold 3,000 centrifuges which would take one year to build 1 nuke they already have well beyond that as they have bigger plants that are running longer than one year.

Iran came out and admitted the facility just last week, because they knew Obama was about to out the secret that it wasn't just a nuclear power plant but a uranium enrichment facility, i.e. to produce weapons grade material. The US and UK have known about the place for 3 odd years, but only recently it has become clear that this is not a power plant. As for China being Iran's buddy, China is taking some time to decide whether or not to go along with the Security Council call for sanctions. According to the Americans China looks like they will come on board and back the sanctions.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yeah one prays to Allah the other doesn't :rolleyes:

Most countries in the region pray to Allah but you can be sure none of them want to live in Tehran's shadow.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

A full blown war as in a full blown war. No friends? China? Russia? Not like they need FRIENDS they can look after thamselves. They have the best missiles system in the middle east along with like the Tor-M1 or even the S-300 (which America wanted to buy and Russia wouldn't sell to them)

Where do you expect this "full blown war" to take place? Do you think Russia or China would send troops to Iran? :pac:.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Like I said your remarks are stupid. You said Iran would use a nuke.

If it came to military strikes between Israel and Iran, yes the only conceiveable way I see of Iran coming out on top would be by using a nuclear weapon, or other such weapons. Using conventional weaponry, Israel would finish the Iranian nuclear plants and be back in time for lunch.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

That's a valid question, but you have yet to prove why Iran is more likely to use them. Is it perhaps because Iran is a muslim country, which receives consistently negative heat from Western media?

Being a Muslim country is irrelevant. Like I said I am against any more countries obtaining or developing nuclear weapons. The more people have them the more likely someone is going to use them IMO. Like the arms race prior to World War I. In a perfect world, I would support no more proliferation, and a reduction of all nuclear weapons currently held. I don't care if it's Iran or Papua New Guinea. The argument to allow someone have nuclear weapons just because someone else has them is pointless at best and dangerous at worse.

dlofnep wrote: »

I have already outlined why Israel is a much greater threat to the stability of the middle-east. You have yet to prove why Iran is more of a threat.

Simple, and down to geography if nothing else. Israel has the capacity to strike with conventional weapons literally anywhere, any time in the region. Iran doesn't.Iran I would argue has pretty much certainty of winning a ground war, but that could only be done by invading a number of other countries between themselves and Israel, none of which are going to be too happy about it. Israel has a buffer zone tbh, like the Warsaw Pact Bloc provided the Soviet Union. The only way Iran will be able to beat Israel in any conflict would be by long range attacks delivering overwhelming firepower, the ultimate of course being a nuclear weapon.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

The argument to allow someone have nuclear weapons just because someone else has them is pointless at best and dangerous at worse.

That's not the argument at all. The argument is why Israel gets off without sanctions, while Iran is threatened with them.

Manic Moran

They have the best missiles system in the middle east along with like the Tor-M1 or even the S-300 (which America wanted to buy and Russia wouldn't sell to them)

Would you mind awfully quoting a source for that last bit? Given the current capabilities of US anti-air systems and particularly US doctrine which has de-emphasised operational-level anti-aircraft missile systems, I would find a need to purchase any except for evaluation and training purposes to be a bit pointless.

As of earlier this month, the missiles hadn't been delivered to Iran yet anyway, and it does take a bit of time to make such a thing operational. At this time the Iranian equipment is about a generation (technologically) old.

A full blown war as in a full blown war. No friends? China? Russia?

He means there is a slight geographical problem. In order to have a good, old-fashioned war with someone, you have to be able to get there, and Iran has little power projection capability and I doubt the lads between Iran and Israel are going to just let the Iranian army drive across.

Interestingly, you'll find that Israel does have a fairly good working relationship with both Russia and China, particularly in the field of military hardware. Israel has developed quite a market in upgrading Russian miltiary hardware, and Israel is China's second-largest source of imported military equipment and technology, after Russia.

For example, the Chinese J-10 seen here is generally believed to be developed with Israeli assistance (Compare with Israeli Air Industries Lavi) and is carrying Israeli Python-3 missiles.



I'm not sure just how much the Chinese or Russians really feel like annoying Israel.

Sortof coincidently, the Iranians have no airborne radar system, as of last week (Very handy for stopping air raids). The vaunted Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force managed to collide with the thing using one of their 35-year-old fighters, during an anniversary celebration. The real irony was that it was an Iraqi aircraft which had flown to Iran in 1991, and the anniversary in question was the Iran/Iraq war.

NTM