Iran seeks condemnation of Israeli nukes

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Iran seeks condemnation of Israeli nukes

2006-12-19 19:17:18

[UTQ]_Ausch88: Banned; +23|6920

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061220/ap_ … ran_israel

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.

Do you think that the "anti-semite" U.N. Security Council will condemn ISRAEL for HAVING nukes like they already condemn IRAN for trying to build some? Since olmert already confirm the fact that they are a nuclear power like france and the United States i don't see why not at least condemn them.

discuss?

ps. mod, If this belong in the ISRAEL vs palestine thread im sorry you can lock.. but i think its an important issue and its more like a ISRAEL vs Iran topic.

2006-12-19 19:19:06

Naughty_Om: Im Ron Burgundy?; +355|7058|USA

Yea, israel should not have nukes, by giving them nukes, Iran has a better argument. Condmenation YES. Sanctions YES. protection NO! Existence ABSOLUTELY YES!

2006-12-19 19:20:08

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

I would like to see if Israel has nukes.

2006-12-19 19:22:33

[UTQ]_Ausch88: Banned; +23|6920

Naughty_Om wrote:
Yea, israel should not have nukes, by giving them nukes, Iran has a better argument. Condmenation YES. Sanctions YES. protection NO! Existence ABSOLUTELY YES!

I agree completely.. they have the right to exist.. (waiting for Pollux to come here post all my posting history)

the question is.. can they exist without protection and nukes?

2006-12-19 20:00:21

Fen321: Member; +54|6923|Singularity

Would only seem "fair" to apply the same treatment to all nations, thus Israel is no exception to the rule...well at least in a ideal world it isn't an exception lol

2006-12-19 20:02:47

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6830|North Carolina

I like the idea of letting Iran and Israel develop nuclear technology without the world breathing down either of their necks. That's a fair way of doing things as well.

2006-12-19 20:35:52

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6974|Southeastern USA

slippery slope, they (iran) are in effect setting precedent to have the same done to them

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-19 20:36:07)

2006-12-19 20:37:18

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7026|132 and Bush

What nukes? They should at least declare they have them.

[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
the question is.. can they exist without protection and nukes?

I suggest you check history to get an idea.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-19 20:39:03)

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-12-19 22:54:46

Drakef: Cheeseburger Logicist; +117|6787|Vancouver

An Iranian condemnation of Israeli nuclear weapons programs is fair. However, so should there be a condemnation of any Iranian nuclear ambitions.

2006-12-20 01:31:40

B.Schuss: I'm back, baby... ( sort of ); +664|7266|Cologne, Germany

usmarine2007 wrote:
I would like to see if Israel has nukes.

while the "official" Israeli policy on statements about their status as a nuclear power is neither to confirm nor to deny it, I believe it is generally accepted that Israel does have nukes.

PM Olmert even admitted to it during a TV interview with a german news channel, while he was visiting germany last week.

More info on the state of Israel's nuclear weapons program here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and … estruction

2006-12-20 01:50:00

B.Schuss: I'm back, baby... ( sort of ); +664|7266|Cologne, Germany

on the topic at hand:

well, contrary to Iran, Israel hasn't signed the NPT, so why should they not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons ?

more info on the NPT here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_No … ion_Treaty

there are also sections that specificly deal with Iran and Israel.

I don't think there will be any action taken against Israel. Condemnation, maybe, but nothing more.

2006-12-20 01:54:01

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6986

Drakef wrote:
However, so should there be a condemnation of any Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Have you been living in a cave the past year?

2006-12-20 02:32:03

JahManRed: wank; +646|7053|IRELAND

In the current Nuke mud slinging, name calling climate in the world today its only right that countries who claim to be neutral, show some neutrality and condemn Israel's nukes just like they did NK's.

2006-12-20 02:42:40

Bernadictus: Moderator; +1,055|7162

[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
the question is.. can they exist without protection and nukes?

Question is:

Can the middle-east hide fast enough to evade the I.D.F. once they go an a rage?

Answer is:

No, I.D.F. kick-ass. I dare to say that their military is, in skills and technology, runner-up next to America and Britain. And there is no Arab state stupid enough to attack them.

2006-12-20 02:55:37

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7026|132 and Bush

Bernadictus wrote:
[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
the question is.. can they exist without protection and nukes?
Question is:

Can the middle-east hide fast enough to evade the I.D.F. once they go an a rage?

Answer is:

No, I.D.F. kick-ass. I dare to say that their military is, in skills and technology, runner-up next to America and Britain. And there is no Arab state stupid enough to attack them.

I would love to agree with it 100 percent but I must say after what happened this summer in Lebanon I am perplexed. Maybe it was because the battle wasn't fought against an actual state, but none-the-less I was surprised at what little was accomplished.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-12-20 03:45:53

JahManRed: wank; +646|7053|IRELAND

Kmarion wrote:
I would love to agree with it 100 percent but I must say after what happened this summer in Lebanon I am perplexed. Maybe it was because the battle wasn't fought against an actual state, but none-the-less I was surprised at what little was accomplished.

The summer has hopefully humbled Israel abit, for everyones sake. If perhaps Israel had concentrated on attacking the Hezbollah fighters instead of trying to economically ruin Lebanon by destroying her civilian infrastructure which in itself constitutes an attack on the "actual state", she might have been more successful in creating the buffer strip and stopping the rocket attacks.
Israels might seams to lay in her air power. Her ground troops don't seam to be adept at urban warfare.

Last edited by JahManRed (2006-12-20 13:43:24)

2006-12-20 04:07:48

B.Schuss: I'm back, baby... ( sort of ); +664|7266|Cologne, Germany

I agree that the IDF, as good as they might be, could not handle a large-scale conventional war against Iran.
They lack supplies, logistics and also financial means to support such a war, let alone an invasion of Iran.

Just compare the sizes of the two nations and tell me that you sincerely believe Israel would be able to exercise control over there.

Israel: 22,145 km², around 7 Million people.
Iran: 1,648,195 km², around 70 Million people.

The two countries don't even share a border....

Moreover, even if Israel tried to invade / attack Iran, it would result in the Palestinians going completely nuts in Israel. Result: war at two fronts. I think we can only imagine the ensuing chaos.

Let's try to keep it realistic, shall we ? There is no way Israel would actually try a large-scale attack on Iran.

Airstrikes or commando operations against selected targets, maybe ( they have sufficient air force and special forces capabilities for that ), but no invasion.

Right now, I cannot imagine a situation under which an invasion of Iran could be pulled off or justified.
Ok, maybe if they attacked one of their neighbours first, but who would that be ? They are surrounded by other islamic nations.
The closest enemy is by far Israel, but even the Iranian President, as misguided / stupid / fanatic he might be, is not stupid enough to attack Israel. He knows the US would turn his nation into a parking lot.

2006-12-20 06:13:39

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6974|Southeastern USA

Kmarion wrote:
Bernadictus wrote:
[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
the question is.. can they exist without protection and nukes?
Question is:

Can the middle-east hide fast enough to evade the I.D.F. once they go an a rage?

Answer is:

No, I.D.F. kick-ass. I dare to say that their military is, in skills and technology, runner-up next to America and Britain. And there is no Arab state stupid enough to attack them.
I would love to agree with it 100 percent but I must say after what happened this summer in Lebanon I am perplexed. Maybe it was because the battle wasn't fought against an actual state, but none-the-less I was surprised at what little was accomplished.

tactically/militarily it was a victory, politically it was a failure when they decided to allow the UN to handle the situation, in spite of the glorious successes the UN has had in the past

2006-12-20 06:34:05

B.Schuss: I'm back, baby... ( sort of ); +664|7266|Cologne, Germany

kr@cker wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Bernadictus wrote:

Question is:

Can the middle-east hide fast enough to evade the I.D.F. once they go an a rage?

Answer is:

No, I.D.F. kick-ass. I dare to say that their military is, in skills and technology, runner-up next to America and Britain. And there is no Arab state stupid enough to attack them.
I would love to agree with it 100 percent but I must say after what happened this summer in Lebanon I am perplexed. Maybe it was because the battle wasn't fought against an actual state, but none-the-less I was surprised at what little was accomplished.
tactically/militarily it was a victory, politically it was a failure when they decided to allow the UN to handle the situation, in spite of the glorious successes the UN has had in the past

the UN is only as strong as the support it receives from its members will allow.

and btw, the War in Iraq was also considered to be a military victory, and the UN stayed out of the post-war struggles, yet you wouldn't call the current situation a success, would you ?

Even Pres. Bush admitted today ( or was it yesterday ) that the US are losing in Iraq. With all the criticism the UN has been facing lately ( especially from US forum members ) it is somehow satisfiying to see the US can fuck up a situation just as good.

...and before you all jump on me, I am not putting down the efforts of US soldiers in Iraq or attempting to damage the reputation of those who gave their life in what they believed to be the defense of freedom.

2006-12-20 07:00:52

Stormscythe: Aiming for the head; +88|6974|EUtopia | Austria

I really wonder...

Why do so many people still think that one nation can succeed in battle over another one? War nowadays works only by destroying the other's infrastructure like Israel did this summer in Lebanon. Any war that is not about total annihilation of the enemy will not bear any fruits. We saw that in Iraq. And complete annihilation of a whole country's people - well, as far as I'm concerned, I'd say that's more than eye for an eye. Really.

Israel probably needs the nukes they got to protect themselves. They might never use them, but they need the others to know, that there's a way for them to deal at least equal damage to any oppressor. If Iran, however, had these nukes, they would impose a huge threat on Israel. No reasonable thread, though - a strike on Israel would have to eliminate every possible control over nuclear weapons at once, which might be close to complete destruction - of course nobody would tolerate this.
So to say, Iran can't attack Israel because of rational reasons. On the long run, they'd lose a lot more than they would win. Even with Israel gone, there would be very little left of Iran. Many nations would bash whatever leader's head there after such an attack on Israel.

2006-12-20 07:45:55

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6944|Πάϊ

I just can't understand this whole nuke thing... To my mind it's pretty simple: If one country is allowed to have WMDs of any nature (be it nukes) why is it wrong for any other country to have them as well?

Why is India, the US, Russia, Pakistan, France, Israel etc etc better than say Iran or NK?

And also, I cannot understand Israel's ridiculous stance on this matter. Since the incident with Mordechai Vanunu the whole world (not just the various intelligence agencies) knows that they posses nukes. What purpose does it serve to neither confirm or deny that fact?

_ƒ³

2006-12-20 07:48:03

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7141

oug wrote:
Why is India, the US, Russia, Pakistan, France, Israel etc etc better than say Iran or NK?

Because those nations know how to be responsible handling nuclear arms and know that it's not smart to sell nuclear arms to terrorists... Oh, and they don't make a constant threat about wiping an entire nation off the map.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-12-20 07:54:55

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6974|Southeastern USA

that and they don't run around pledging the total annhilation of other nations to rabid extremists

though india and pakistan are somewhat worrisome, i daresay i'd trust the soviet union more than them, in spite of the past few decades of cold relations

2006-12-20 07:57:08

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6944|Πάϊ

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
oug wrote:
Why is India, the US, Russia, Pakistan, France, Israel etc etc better than say Iran or NK?
Because those nations know how to be responsible handling nuclear arms and know that it's not smart to sell nuclear arms to terrorists... Oh, and they don't make a constant threat about wiping an entire nation off the map.

There can be no proof of what you claim. Who is to say who is responsible and who isn't? For one, the US are the only ones that have actually used them. France tested theirs in Atoll Mororua ffs!!! And god only knows what Pakistan and India have done in that respect...

and btw, bare in mind that governments change... but the nuclear ability remains...

Last edited by oug (2006-12-20 07:58:50)

_ƒ³

2006-12-20 08:04:26

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7141

oug wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
oug wrote:
Why is India, the US, Russia, Pakistan, France, Israel etc etc better than say Iran or NK?
Because those nations know how to be responsible handling nuclear arms and know that it's not smart to sell nuclear arms to terrorists... Oh, and they don't make a constant threat about wiping an entire nation off the map.
There can be no proof of what you claim. Who is to say who is responsible and who isn't? For one, the US are the only ones that have actually used them. France tested theirs in Atoll Mororua ffs!!! And god only knows what Pakistan and India have done in that respect...

and btw, bare in mind that governments change... but the nuclear ability remains...

Pakistan won't get near those nukes, US won't allow them because of their scientists selling nuclear secrets to terrorist, India is more likely to get nuclear technology. US used them to end a war where an enemy will not surrender and their people were willing to suicide to kill as many Americans as they could. I would say the 5 permanent members of the security are responsible enough to keep nuclear arms. We defiantly know that the US and Russia are responsible, how? Were still on this fucking earth and they haven't nuked each other even with those tensions between the two nations.

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Iran seeks condemnation of Israeli nukes

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Iran seeks condemnation of Israeli nukes

Naughty_Om wrote:

[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Drakef wrote:

[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:

Bernadictus wrote:

[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bernadictus wrote:

[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bernadictus wrote:

oug wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

oug wrote:

oug wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

oug wrote:

Board footer