Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections

OK-Cancel-Apply

When the discussion descends into this whole "Iran is full of mad muslims!" level, I just lose interest. Amazing how some people have no problem with Israel having illegal nukes, even though they are one of the biggest troublemakers in the region, and even though they have proven that they are answerable to nobody. I don't think ANYONE should have nukes, but Iran has SIGNED the NPT, welcomes inspection and discussion and claims to only want nuclear power.

The only country in history to use nukes is the USA, and they seem to be willing to start war and conflict at the drop of a hat. Iran is not a threat to anybody. It's simply a country that won't roll over and submit to US hegemony. Iran is in the west's crosshairs (by the west, I include Israel). What leader in their right mind would not run war simulations while their neighbour is currently under military occupation by the very power that would like to do the same to them?

Kev_ps3

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

When the discussion descends into this whole "Iran is full of mad muslims!" level, I just lose interest. Amazing how some people have no problem with Israel having illegal nukes, even though they are one of the biggest troublemakers in the region, and even though they have proven that they are answerable to nobody. I don't think ANYONE should have nukes, but Iran has SIGNED the NPT, welcomes inspection and discussion and claims to only want nuclear power.

The only country in history to use nukes is the USA, and they seem to be willing to start war and conflict at the drop of a hat. Iran is not a threat to anybody. It's simply a country that won't roll over and submit to US hegemony. Iran is in the west's crosshairs (by the west, I include Israel). What leader in their right mind would not run war simulations while their neighbour is currently under military occupation by the very power that would like to do the same to them?

I also find it strange that alot of Irish on here fully support the west and their bullying of another country/s when our country suffered under the same people for 800 years. Our ancestors would turn in their graves.

Manic Moran

The only country in history to use nukes is the USA, and they seem to be willing to start war and conflict at the drop of a hat.

There was a bit of a war on at the time, and I don't think you could argue it was really one that the US started. They certainly finished it, though.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was a bit of a war on at the time, and I don't think you could argue it was really one that the US started. They certainly finished it, though.

NTM

Interesting way to refer to the murder of 1000s of civilians. What the US did was a war crime plain and simple. If the Japanese had used nuclear weapons to end the war quicker, no one would dispute it as a war crime.

Also, the the conflict between the US and Japan, began before Pearl Harbor. The US was trying to bankrupt Japan before the attack on Pearl Harbor, due to Japans actions in Asia. The US version of events once again leaves out essential facts.

Also, btw I am not saying any of the above to excuse the actions of Japan during World War 2, they engaged in plenty of war crimes and other atrocities, which cannot be excused, but I don't think there actions some how excuse the other sides war crimes either.

prinz

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

When the discussion descends into this whole "Iran is full of mad muslims!" level, I just lose interest. Amazing how some people have no problem with Israel having illegal nukes, even though they are one of the biggest troublemakers in the region, and even though they have proven that they are answerable to nobody. I don't think ANYONE should have nukes, but Iran has SIGNED the NPT, welcomes inspection and discussion and claims to only want nuclear power.

I think you may find it is the people who are supporting Iran's plans here who generally resort to "it's because they're muslims/Israel is full of zionists" etc first. The important word in the last sentence is claims btw. The new site has gone beyond the facilities needed for an energy plant and is looking like an enrichment/weapons grade facility now.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

The only country in history to use nukes is the USA, and they seem to be willing to start war and conflict at the drop of a hat. Iran is not a threat to anybody. It's simply a country that won't roll over and submit to US hegemony. Iran is in the west's crosshairs (by the west, I include Israel). What leader in their right mind would not run war simulations while their neighbour is currently under military occupation by the very power that would like to do the same to them?

Iraq isn't under "military occupation", and the rest is nonsense.

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I also find it strange that alot of Irish on here fully support the west and their bullying of another country/s when our country suffered under the same people for 800 years. Our ancestors would turn in their graves.

........can you ever talk about anything without coming back to the likes of this? Utter nonsense.

Nodin

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.

They've actually never been ruled by one of the religious parties, though those parties do inevitably form part of right wing coalition Governments, such as the one in power at the moment.

Once more I'm forced to point out that there is no nessecary correlation between a states 'moral' behaviour and its system of Government, save for a tendency not to crap on its own citizens. Others may fare differently.

anonymous_joe 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..

Actually they aren't, as the Iranian facilities are all deep underground. Its generally conceded they need to get certain munitions from the states for the job. Their aircraft aren't ideal either.

It should be noted that an Iranian weapons program is unlikely to produce any great quantity of weapons in the short and medium term. Also, the only thing they can acheive with them is detente and a security blanket against US aggression (not paranoia, given their history). Any attack on Israel, even if successful, would cause also the US to retaliate, thus obliterating Iran. So really, its all much ado about nothing in terms of "world threat" and more about keeping Iran down.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

You'd rather have a murderous dictatorship, that seized power in a bloody coup..

Popular revolution, actually. A faction may have hijacked it, but the "coup" itself was backed by the majority of the people.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Israel does not present anyone a nuclear threat, because they're nukes are merely a deterrent, it's a basic insurance policy. ..

....allowing it to be a regional 'superpower'. And just look at all the joy thats brought.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

They certainly finished it, though.

NTM

They sure did, finished the lives of 250,000 civilians compared to 57 civilians killed in Pearl Harbor. The good old USA.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Iraq isn't under "military occupation"

Yes it is.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes it is.

The American military has been invited to stay.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

They sure did, finished the lives of 250,000 civilians compared to 57 civilians killed in Pearl Harbor. The good old USA.

Would you care to add up the numbers of civilians killed by Imperial Japanese forces across south east Asia during it's period of expansion. Take Nanking for example, one Chinese city, which suffered a death toll higher than both atomic bombs combined. The Japanese Army even had a beheading championships, did you know that? It became a sport.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Would you care to add up the numbers of civilians killed by Imperial Japanese forces across south east Asia during it's period of expansion. Take Nanking for example, one Chinese city, which suffered a death toll higher than both atomic bombs combined. The Japanese Army even had a beheading championships, did you know that? It became a sport.

It's a moot point. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a direct response for the attack on Pearl Harbor, and not for any such attacks on Nanking.

My point still stands, 250,000 civilians died because 57 American civilians died.

anonymous_joe

Nodin wrote: »

They've actually never been ruled by one of the religious parties, though those parties do inevitably form part of right wing coalition Governments, such as the one in power at the moment.

Once more I'm forced to point out that there is no nessecary correlation between a states 'moral' behaviour and its system of Government, save for a tendency not to crap on its own citizens. Others may fare differently.

I know that, but both of these governments are morally questionable. I think Iran's even more so than Israel's if I'm honest.

Actually they aren't, as the Iranian facilities are all deep underground. Its generally conceded they need to get certain munitions from the states for the job. Their aircraft aren't ideal either.

Fair enough so.

It should be noted that an Iranian weapons program is unlikely to produce any great quantity of weapons in the short and medium term. Also, the only thing they can acheive with them is detente and a security blanket against US aggression (not paranoia, given their history). Any attack on Israel, even if successful, would cause also the US to retaliate, thus obliterating Iran. So really, its all much ado about nothing in terms of "world threat" and more about keeping Iran down.

I dunno. Would America really nuke Iran if Iran wiped out Israel? (Probably imo, but I don't know.) I doubt the Israelis would feel that guarentees their safety.

Popular revolution, actually. A faction may have hijacked it, but the "coup" itself was backed by the majority of the people.

True, but a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. They replaced one brutal oppressive regime with another.

....allowing it to be a regional 'superpower'. And just look at all the joy thats brought.

I don't doubt that the Americans etc would prefer Israel to be the region's superpower than Iran. Would counterbalance Arab and Persian's strength which comes from dominating the oil of the region.

Presumably one reason America doesn't want Israel being ground down.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Would you care to add up the numbers of civilians killed by Imperial Japanese forces across south east Asia during it's period of expansion. Take Nanking for example, one Chinese city, which suffered a death toll higher than both atomic bombs combined. The Japanese Army even had a beheading championships, did you know that? It became a sport.

So 2 wrongs make a right then?

So those civilians in Japan had coming then? You seem to be using the kind of logic various terrorists groups use, ironically enough.

prinz

wes wrote: »

So 2 wrongs make a right then?
So those civilians in Japan had coming then? You seem to be using the kind of logic various terrorists groups use, ironically enough.

I never said two wrongs make a right. My point is that it's pointless to start comparing numbers. The Chinese civilians didn't have it coming either. It happened. Nothing is going to change that. Giving Iran a nuclear weapon won't change that. It was off-topic from the get go, Israel/Iran/UN/nuclear weapons and yet dlofnep feels the need to resort to comparing Pearl Harbour and the atomic bombs.

In case you hadn't picked up, despite repeatedly saying it, I am against all nuclear weapons. Some have them, they should destroy them. No point giving them to others now. The ones that exist are dangerous enough.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Again, amazing how some people like to justify mass murder. Also, I do know there is a small group here on boards who like to laugh at Palestinians being burned to death with White Phosphorous and who like to admire all the shiny weapons used by Israel and the U.S., so I think I'll go elsewhere before they show up, as my faith in humanity is already quite low.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

The American military has been invited to stay.

No it hasn't. My cousin's husband is an Iraqi and he had to leave Iraq because of the US occupation. Many of his family members and friends died as a direct result of that occupation, so don't come on pretending here to be in the know. It's a military occupation of the country, and the Iraqi people do not want them there. Probably something to do with the 1 million dead civilians who have died as a direct result of that said occupation.

Quite alot of data here on what how welcome the American Military is: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

I'll do you a favour of explaining the numbers to you so you don't make anymore silly statements.

71% wanted the Americans to leave within a year, a further 20% within 2 years, and only 9% supported them staying until security improves.

78% believe that the US forces are provoking more conflict than it is preventing.

Infact, 61% of Iraqis actually support armed resistance against US forces.

My point still stands. It is a military occupation.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

and yet dlofnep feels the need to resort to comparing Pearl Harbour and the atomic bombs.

Wrong, I was giving context to Manic Moran's comments. If you actually read the thread, you'd see that I wasn't the one who actually brought up the topic, so I'll expect an apology for your accusation, thanks.

JimiTime

dlofnep wrote: »

My point still stands. It is a military occupation.

I'm totally clueless to most of this stuff, but I'm curious. Would it all be better if the US had left? or if they leave now? Is it all propaganda that they need to stay? If so, why is it that they are staying?

dlofnep

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm totally clueless to most of this stuff, but I'm curious. Would it all be better if the US had left? or if they leave now? Is it all propaganda that they need to stay? If so, why is it that they are staying?

Why don't you ask the Iraqis? They have already answered that question. See my previous post. Nearly 80% actually feel that the US is provoking more violence than preventing. If that doesn't say enough, then nothing will.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

My point still stands. It is a military occupation.

Conducted in 2006.

In January, nearly half of Iraqis approved of attacks on US-led forces--but the sense that American troops are now focused on reducing violence in Baghdad may have altered the equation.

Support appears to be related to widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq and would not withdraw its forces from Iraq even if the Iraqi government asked it to. If the US were to commit to withdraw, more than half of those who approve of attacks on US troops say that their support for attacks would diminish...............................

A sample of 1,150 out of a population of how many million?

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Wrong, I was giving context to Manic Moran's comments. If you actually read the thread, you'd see that I wasn't the one who actually brought up the topic, so I'll expect an apology for your accusation, thanks.

So you were the first to mention Pearl Harbour? Because I can't find any specific mention of those two words before you..

OK-Cancel-Apply alluded to it, Manic Moran similarly just alluded to it, but you went the whole hog. Apology is in the post as they say :pac:

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Conducted in 2006.

And, your counter-argument is where?

prinz wrote: »

A sample of 1,150 out of a population of how many million?

If you can provide counter-evidence, then you have an argument. If not, then you're not worth discussing anything with. I've personally spoke to Iraqis about the issue, and the general consensus is that they hate the American troops and feel that they are the main cause of destruction there.

When was the last time you spoke to an Iraqi and asked them for their opinion, instead of trying to dictate to us what their opinion is without even researching into it?

wes

prinz wrote: »

I never said two wrongs make a right. My point is that it's pointless to start comparing numbers. The Chinese civilians didn't have it coming either. It happened. Nothing is going to change that. Giving Iran a nuclear weapon won't change that. It was off-topic from the get go, Israel/Iran/UN/nuclear weapons and yet dlofnep feels the need to resort to comparing Pearl Harbour and the atomic bombs.

Well, I think it is on topic, seeing as the country banging on about Iran building nuclear weapons, are the only people to actually use them and they used them on a civilian target as well. They are also a country who seem to want to attack Iran. It provides context to the situation.

prinz wrote: »

In case you hadn't picked up, despite repeatedly saying it, I am against all nuclear weapons. Some have them, they should destroy them. No point giving them to others now. The ones that exist are dangerous enough.

I agree no one should have them, but put yourself in Iran shoes. Are the US, China, Indian, Russia or Pakistan going to get rid of theres any time soon? Isn't it kind of hypocritical for any of those countries to try and stop other from getting those weapons, in the name of the greater good, but not take concrete steps to get rid of there own arsenals?

I don't want Iran to have weapons, but I can see why they would want them, seeing as they are clearly in the cross hairs of the US, and pretty much all there Arab neighbors hate them, as there from the wrong religious sect. Hell, Iran has many of the same excuses to have nuclear weapons as Israel in the end.

**EDIT**
Just to add, that I see nuclear non-proliferation, as something that will fail, unless those who currently have them take active steps to get rid of them. Until that happens, the current efforts are simply too tainted by hypocrisy for a lot of people to take seriously.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

So you were the first to mention Pearl Harbour? Because I can't find any specific mention of those two words before you..

They were discussing Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I gave context to the post. I wasn't the one to initially bring up the topic. End of discussion.

Mr.Micro

What's in it for the US? Its certainly not altruism. No doubt its for the benefit of the US that it continues to be present in Iraq. I guess it can keep an eye on its neigbour Iran and be ready to supply weapons to whoever if another war breaks out. The good old US always dependable to cause a crisis somewhere in the world.

JimiTime

dlofnep wrote: »

Why don't you ask the Iraqis? They have already answered that question. See my previous post. Nearly 80% actually feel that the US is provoking more violence than preventing. If that doesn't say enough, then nothing will.

Just to clarify, and not to belittle, but you are basing this view on this Poll carried out in 2006? Also, do 'you' think that America should have withdrawn, or should withdraw? Is the whole, 'they are needed' just propaganda? If so, why are they still there in your opinion?

stevedublin

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?

source?

dlofnep

JimiTime wrote: »

Just to clarify, and not to belittle, but you are basing this view on this Poll carried out in 2006? Also, do 'you' think that America should have withdrawn, or should withdraw? Is the whole, 'they are needed' just propaganda? If so, why are they still there in your opinion?

I am basing my view on the available evidence, and from directly speaking to Iraqis about the issue.

I think America should withdraw immediately, and should never have been there in the first place. The Iraqis feel that the Americans are counter-productive. I have no idea why the Americans are still there, and I think you'll find that many Americans have been asking the same question and want their troops to be brought home.

stevedublin wrote: »

source?

http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?a=jj1m4jgdicj&title=Saudis_will_allow_Israel_to_bomb_Iran%27s_nuclear_site__

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

And, your counter-argument is where?

"Desire for a Timeline: Which of the following would you like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the U.S.-led forces to do after they take office?"
Withdraw Within Six Months/ Withdraw Gradually Over Two Years Only Reduce U.S.-led Forces as the Security Situation Improves in Iraq

Immediate/ Over Two Years /When Security improves

Overall 35% / 35% (Total: 70%) 29%
Kurds 13% / 28% (Total: 40%) 57%
Shia 22% / 49% (Total: 71%) 29%
Sunni 83% / 11% (Total: 94%) 4%

Source: WorldPublicOpinion.org Jan. 2-5, 2007

Given that the Sunnis form a minority of the Iraqi population, and were given preferential treatment under Saddam ( a Sunni ) it seems to me that the majority of Iraqis here support a gradual withdrawal, in line with their government's policy.

"How long do you think U.S. and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave?"

Date

Leave Now 35%

Remain Until Security Is Restored 38%

Remain Until Iraqi Govt. Is Stronger 14%

Remain Until Iraqi Security Forces Can Operate Independently 11%

Remain Longer But Leave Eventually 2%

Never Leave 1%

Refused/Don't Know 0%

Feb. 25-Mar. 5, 2007 -Source: ABC News BBC ARD German TV USA Today Feb. 25-Mar. 5, 2007

http://usiraq.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=673

As regards your 2006 poll from earlier..

Polling was conducted September 1-4 with a nationwide sample of 1,150, which included an oversample of Arab Sunnis.

An oversample of Sunnis, the very people who were most supportive of Saddam and his regime :eek: Of course that would in no way affect the outcome of the poll I suppose..:rolleyes:

dlofnep

Still disregarding the "78% believe that the US forces are provoking more conflict than it is preventing." I see..

I've asked you to provide counter-evidence. You have not. You have not either answered me when I asked you if you actually discussed the issue with an Iraqi.

Let's be frank, you're absolutely clueless about the general opinion of Iraqis, and either purposely ignorant or extremely naive in coming to grips with the reality that Iraqis consider the US forces as an occupying force.

Figures from your given link show that 70% of Iraqis feel that the US forces have done a bad job, with 61% stating that they find US forces counter-productive to their security. The majority also feel that the security in Iraq would be better if US forces left. All from a more recent poll in 2008. (http://usiraq.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=673#II.A.)