WAR: Sharon Rules Out Attacking Iran Over Nukes

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
In an interview broadcast on CNN, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated that his country would not attack Iran unilaterlay over the nuclear issue. He further called for an international coalition to deal with the issue and Israel did not need to take the lead in resolving it. Sharon indicated that while Iran was years away from producing a weapon, several technical challenges would soon be solved and that we are reaching the point of no return.

 



news.yahoo.com
JERUSALEM - Israel will not mount a unilateral attack aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capability, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Wednesday in a CNN-TV interview.

Sharon said he did not see "unilateral action" as an option. He said Israel did not need to lead the way on the Iran nuclear weapons issue, calling for an international coalition to deal with it.

Iran is years away from possessing a nuclear weapon, Sharon said, but warned that Iran is only months away from solving "technical problems" toward building a nuclear weapon.

Sharon said, "Once they will solve it, that will be the point of no return." He did not give details about the technical issues or how he drew his conclusions.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Its not surprising as any attack on Iran by Israel would be a stretch and that they would face the same difficulty of target selection as the U.S. would. The productions complexes are no doubt disbursed or hardened and you could never be sure of complete destruction. The showing of the hardened bunker last month was no random event, rather one to show the difficulty of trying to take out the facilities. The other danger of a unilateral attack would be the uproar such an event would cause in the Middle East.




posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Don't believe everything you've read or heard from the horse's mouth. Anything can change at any moment's notice.

Recently, Iran's Revolutionary Guards chief stated that Israel and United States posed a threat to Iran's Islamic rule: www.iranian.ws...



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Israel will not act unilaterally? Does this mean a pre-emptive strike is still on the cards as far as Iran is concerned? Who will do it with the Israelis? They didnt say they wouldnt attack, just that they wouldnt do it alone. Will America assist?

There has been absolutely no proof backing up the claims of Iran's nuclear weapons ambition. Atleast they tried to fake evidence surrounding Saddam's WMDs. They havent even attempted such a lie this time, they've just expected people to trust them on this one. Given their previous record I would not believe Bush or Blair if they said the sky was blue.

Boy who cried wolf, actual threat or a complete lie I believe no body has the right to strike out at a nation that has not attacked any one.

They have threatend Israel due to their human rights violations with the Palestinians, which is understandable IMHO. Why can America be the Worlds only human rights policeman and threaten/invade those who abuse human rights? They have clearly stated however that they will not attack Israel unless attacked themselves.


Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari:"Iran will retaliate against any stupid moves by Israel


Basically, what has Iran done that America hasnt done themselves?

Broke the NPT treaty? - The US walks away from treaties it has personally authoured and wouldnt think twice about shirking from a treaty if it wanted to. There is also no proof that the Iranians have even broken the NPT and have complied fully with the IAEA inspection process.

Threatend a country that is violating human rights? - The US has militarily intervened in Yugoslavia and Somalia for human rights reasons. It has threatend North Korea and China for its human rights violations. It has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 4 years.

Where is the proof that they are striving for nuclear weapons? None has been offered other than hearsay.

This is international bullying, nothing more and nothing less. "Do as I say, not as I do"

[edit on 14/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I tend to think Israel won't attack because 1) Iran has buried their uranium enrichment centrifuges deep underground and any attack would have little if any effect on these. 2) Iran's plutonium enrichment capacity at the reactor at Busherh is vulnerable to attack, but any attack invites Iranian retaliation against Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona. And Iran has much greater ability to retaliate with missiles than Iraq had in 1981 when their Osirak facility was bombed by Israel. Israel has anti-missile technology, but it's hardly foolproof.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Just how many cold-war style, low power efficiency reactors does a nation have to build before you'll believe they're working to build nuclear weapons? How many times can a nation refuse to allow it's spent rods to be handled by the Russians until you realize they are reprocessing them for plutonium?

In a nation where there is abundant and cheap solar and petroleum sources to generate more power than the entire nation can actually use, why the insistence on multiple reactors? Why insist on designing them using inefficient cold-war designs when new pebble bed reactors can deliver better safety, scalability, and efficiency? Because the older reactors were designed for weaponization primarily. This is why there's such a similarity between the Hanford (USA) Chernobyl (USSR) and the new Tehran plants.

Why is it everyone screams it's a god given right for every small nation to build shoddy, inefficient reactors everywhere, but wrong for the US to invest in newer, efficient reactors at home? Especially when we're a nation where most of our people have electricity and hundreds of devices using it?

But if Asscrakistan wants a 30 megawatt reactor to provide power to the 112 people priveledged enough to have electricity, it's okay for them to slap up an old Russian plutonium producer, and their nuclear waste isn't a problem?

But I forget-there's less nuclear waste, because it's reprocessed into warheads. Great idea.




Originally posted by subz
Israel will not act unilaterally? Does this mean a pre-emptive strike is still on the cards as far as Iran is concerned? Who will do it with the Israelis? They didnt say they wouldnt attack, just that they wouldnt do it alone. Will America assist?

There has been absolutely no proof backing up the claims of Iran's nuclear weapons ambition. Atleast they tried to fake evidence surrounding Saddam's WMDs. They havent even attempted such a lie this time, they've just expected people to trust them on this one. Given their previous record I would not believe Bush or Blair if they said the sky was blue.

Boy who cried wolf, actual threat or a complete lie I believe no body has the right to strike out at a nation that has not attacked any one.

They have threatend Israel due to their human rights violations with the Palestinians, which is understandable IMHO. Why can America be the Worlds only human rights policeman and threaten/invade those who abuse human rights? They have clearly stated however that they will not attack Israel unless attacked themselves.


Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari:"Iran will retaliate against any stupid moves by Israel


Basically, what has Iran done that America hasnt done themselves?

Broke the NPT treaty? - The US walks away from treaties it has personally authoured and wouldnt think twice about shirking from a treaty if it wanted to. There is also no proof that the Iranians have even broken the NPT and have complied fully with the IAEA inspection process.

Threatend a country that is violating human rights? - The US has militarily intervened in Yugoslavia and Somalia for human rights reasons. It has threatend North Korea and China for its human rights violations. It has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 4 years.

Where is the proof that they are striving for nuclear weapons? None has been offered other than hearsay.

This is international bullying, nothing more and nothing less. "Do as I say, not as I do"

[edit on 14/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
There has been absolutely no proof backing up the claims of Iran's nuclear weapons ambition. Atleast they tried to fake evidence surrounding Saddam's WMDs. They havent even attempted such a lie this time, they've just expected people to trust them on this one. Given their previous record I would not believe Bush or Blair if they said the sky was blue.


Get your facts straight. Bush and Blair relied on the same intel that other foreign governments and the United Nations have on Iraq for over a decade. Saddam did have WMD programs on hand but choose to bury such documents and materials by stalling the inspectors for almost 12 years, then passed the stuff around and subsequently passed onto Syria, with Russia's help.

You can believe the sky is really blue if you're wearing blindfolded and being led to a pit where you'll be summarily executed for speaking out against Saddam.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Just how many cold-war style, low power efficiency reactors does a nation have to build before you'll believe they're working to build nuclear weapons?

First time I've heard that their reactors are low powered and old fashioned.

Lets play devils advocate for a moment. Lets say "yes" they are building nuclear weapons. What exactly gives the United States or Israel the right to deny them it?

The NPT? A nation like the United States is in no position to lecture on how to respect and adhere to treaties. The list of treaties the United States has broken or walked away from when it suits them is longer than my arm.

Human Rights Violations? Amnesty International criticises the human rights records of both the United States and Israel yet these countries both have nuclear weapons. The United States has recently agreed to sell F-16's and F-18's to Pakistan, a country which built nuclear weapons - against US wishes. The United States also plans on selling weapons to India, another nuclear weapon owning country. Both Pakistan and India are classed as human rights abusing countries. Israel currently sells military technology to China, another human rights abusing country and nuclear power.

Terrorism? About the only credible reason for denying Iran's right to producing nuclear weapons. It currently supports Hamas's aims of preventing further Israeli persecution of Palestinians. Hamas's methods are wrong and abhorrent to me but that doesnt change that their cause is just. Israel has treat the Palestinians with gross contempt for human dignity and have mirrored the barbarism of the Nazi's. The Iranian P.M has stated that they would not attack Israel unless provoked. Thats more than can be said for the United States government who have threatend no fewer than 4 countries and have invaded no fewer than 2 of them. Its a thin line between terrorism and state sponsored military intimidation.

Why such emphasis on Iran then? Heres the answer: they are a government hostile to America dominance and they are sitting on one of the World's largest oil fields.


Originally posted by the_oleneo
Get your facts straight. Bush and Blair relied on the same intel that other foreign governments and the United Nations have on Iraq for over a decade. Saddam did have WMD

Why should I bother to get my facts straight when neither Bush or Blair bothered to? Any mistake I make will result in nothing more than a mere embarrasment on my behalf. The monumental cock-up on behalf of Bush and Blair have resulted in the death of no less than 19,770 Iraqi civilians.

The facts are that Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons but after the First Gulf War they were destroyed and the programs were not revived. Now how do you prove a negative? How do you actually prove to inspectors and a beligerent President of the United States that you categorically do not have any WMDs? Its impossible. The onus should of been on the invading beligerants to prove that they actually did have WMDs BEFORE invading. They said they had such proof but nothing materialised from this.

Their excuse? That Saddam sent all his WMD's to Syria. Wheres the satellite imagery of such a vast operation? You can see satellite imagery of tank and troop manouvers that Saddam's Army carried out. Where are the images of vast swathes of trucks and machinery that must of been transported to Syria? Again, is the onus of Saddam to prove a negative? That infact he did not transport WMD's to Syria? Thats proposterous to even start to prove. How can you prove a negative?


Originally posted by the_oleneo
You can believe the sky is really blue if you're wearing blindfolded and being led to a pit where you'll be summarily executed for speaking out against Saddam.

What happens in America when you create a stamp with the image of Bush Jr. on it with a gun to his head? You get a nice interogation by the Secret Service thats what. Until your own patriotic blindfold comes off you will continue to believe that everything is going swimmingly in your own country when in fact you have been had and your rights are summarily being erased.

[edit on 14/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Subz,

If Iran had peaceful intent for its nuclear program, why did they refuse the offer of a light water reactor? There really is only one reason for breeder type reactor, and centrifuges buried in deep underground bases no?

Also, id love to see the list of treaties that the US has pulled out of. At any rate, the NPT is one that makes sense and should be enforced and adhered to.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Subz,

If Iran had peaceful intent for its nuclear program, why did they refuse the offer of a light water reactor? There really is only one reason for breeder type reactor, and centrifuges buried in deep underground bases no?

Also, id love to see the list of treaties that the US has pulled out of. At any rate, the NPT is one that makes sense and should be enforced and adhered to.


FredT, No offence intended by jumping between you and Subz
just a quick google search yielded this...I am sure you can dig up more sources if you want....

Apartheid, South Africa
nsarchive.chadwyck.com...

In the 1960s, U.S. criticism of South Africa's policies of apartheid was coupled with full or partial restrictions on arms sales to Pretoria........
..........However, the full force of the arms embargo was blunted by the fact that, the United States had failed to adopt procedures to effectively implement the restrictions. Documents included in this collection indicate that, since the first imposition of an arms embargo in 1963, the United States continued to authorize the sale of aircraft, including Lockheed L-100s, Cessna 185s and "gray area" goods--such as computers and aircraft engines--to South Africa. In addition, U.S. firms exploited loopholes in the embargo and continued to sell arms and military equipment to South Africa through wholly- or partially-owned subsidiaries of U.S. firms in third countries, illegal direct corporate sales of "military hardware and technology by U.S. arms firms, the sale of "dual use" equipment--transport planes, helicopters, communications systems and computers. Similarly, sales of embargoed items were made through South Africa licensees. ......
........ the Reagan Administration increased nuclear-related assistance to Pretoria by approving exports of nuclear material, computers and high technology items to South Africa. The Administration also re-negotiated with Pretoria for the resumption of uranium imports, prohibited when Congress passed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act in 1978.


Kyoto Protocol
Well, to be fair US never signed this one, but then again, Why should nation A, B or C sign the NPT or CTBT. They should look at thir own interest..huh? (Either way, I am not a big fan of the NPT in its present form)

www.cnn.com...


Iraq War

Now, we all know US and the "coalition of willing" invaded/liberated Iraq without the UN approval, effectively ditching the principles of UN...This does not require a source, does it


So, what I want to say is we don't have the "moral" right to prech Iran on possesion of nuclear reactors/weapons. What we can do is a completely different issue



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Oh FredT, you dont need me to list the treaties and protocols the United States has abandoned



From MSNBC
In its first year the administration withdrew from five international treaties—and did so as brusquely as it could. It reneged on virtually every diplomatic effort that the Clinton administration had engaged in, from North Korea to the Middle East, often overturning public statements from Colin Powell supporting these efforts. It developed a language and diplomatic style that seemed calculated to offend the world. (President Bush has placed a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt in the White House. TR’s most famous words of advice are worth recalling: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”) Key figures in the administration rarely traveled, foreign visitors were treated to perfunctory office visits, and state dinners were unheard of.

MSNBC Arrogant Empire

Outright walkouts on treaties
CNN: United States Quits the Anit-Ballastic Missile Treaty
U.S Quits Capital Penalty Protocol For Foreign Nationals
United States Breaches Geneva Convention and Human Rights At Camp X-Ray

Going against the will of the World - Becomes Rogue State
United States refuses to become a party to the UN Rights of the Child Convention
United States Walks Out of World Judicial Body
Ottawa Convention on the Banning of Land Mines - US does not sign
White House Seeks Lifting of 9 Year Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons Research Ban
U.S tries to wriggle out of War Crimes with ICC treaty snub
Kyoto Protocol
Bush tries to weakon tobacco ban treaty
Cheney Stymies Trade Initiative That Would Provide Cheap Drugs For Worlds Poor
America Backs Away from the UN Cairo Program on Population Control
U.S Army Patents Weapon That Breaks Biological Weapons Convention
Pariah? Amount of UNSC Vetos: France=3, USA=33
U.S: Ashcroft Attacks Human Rights Law
Wolfowitz Practically Calling For A Military Coup In Turkey
US Trying To Weaken UN Treaty on Cluster Mines
UN General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly For The End of US Embargo of Cuba
Only 3 countries voted against it: The United States, Israel and the Marshall Islands

United States Breaks WTO Trade Rules
Supreme Court Considers Foreign Arrests - Sneaking Into Foreign Countries and Kidnapping Suspects
Bye-bye international law as a whole
White House Doles Out More WTO-illegal Payments
Venezuela Supreme Court Implicates U.S in Coup Detat
U.S Stymies Global Small Arms Ban
Bush Bans International Aid For Family Planning Groups Because Of Abortion

This is not a comprehensive list by any means.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Why should I bother to get my facts straight when neither Bush or Blair bothered to? Any mistake I make will result in nothing more than a mere embarrasment on my behalf. The monumental cock-up on behalf of Bush and Blair have resulted in the death of no less than 19,770 Iraqi civilians.


Seem you cared more about those 20,000 Iraqi citizens "killed" by "Bush-Blair war junta", as you silly anti-war moonbats have been raving about, than an estimated 1 millions Iraqis perished under Saddam, half were summarily executed in various criminal methods of suppression and human right violations.



Originally posted by subz
The facts are that Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons but after the First Gulf War they were destroyed and the programs were not revived. Now how do you prove a negative? How do you actually prove to inspectors and a beligerent President of the United States that you categorically do not have any WMDs? Its impossible. The onus should of been on the invading beligerants to prove that they actually did have WMDs BEFORE invading. They said they had such proof but nothing materialised from this.


This is from the Duelfer Report. Saddam had every intention to PRESERVE his WMD programs secretly while "honoring" the UNSC resolutions with the goal of ending sanctions by showing his hands "clean" of WMD development after each initial inspection regime:
www.cia.gov...


Originally posted by subz
Their excuse? That Saddam sent all his WMD's to Syria. Wheres the satellite imagery of such a vast operation? You can see satellite imagery of tank and troop manouvers that Saddam's Army carried out. Where are the images of vast swathes of trucks and machinery that must of been transported to Syria? Again, is the onus of Saddam to prove a negative? That infact he did not transport WMD's to Syria? Thats proposterous to even start to prove. How can you prove a negative?


Read here: www.washingtontimes.com...


Originally posted by subz
What happens in America when you create a stamp with the image of Bush Jr. on it with a gun to his head? You get a nice interogation by the Secret Service thats what. Until your own patriotic blindfold comes off you will continue to believe that everything is going swimmingly in your own country when in fact you have been had and your rights are summarily being erased.


Oh, wow, you believed in anything! Just for the records, any direct, indirect or implied threat of violence or murder you make against the President of the United States (or the Vice President, from on down) get a knock on your door and tons of questions from the US Secret Services. Their job is to protect the PRESIDENT and the Office of the Presidency, not the name of the person who is the President of the United States.

subz, you're nothing but a typical anti-American tool. That's what you are.


[edit on 4/16/2005 by the_oleneo]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Seem you cared more about those 20,000 Iraqi citizens "killed" by "Bush-Blair war junta", as you silly anti-war moonbats have been raving about, than an estimated 1 millions Iraqis perished under Saddam,

I dont know about you, but I care when any innocent people are killed regardless of who did the killing. Do you think the family of a murdered child gives a damn whether it was Bush's bombs that did it or Saddam's bullets?. I dont justify the killing of any innocent civilians regardless of the outcome.

Now you presume to know me and my values but let me help you with this part, I vehemently agreed with the Iraq War. I agreed with it on WMD grounds and I agreed with it because Saddam was a genocidal maniac. The WMD's were the sole reason given by our politicians, the fact that he was a murderous tyrant didnt come into it apart from being a happy side effect. The fact that our politicians lied to us about the WMD's is the point here, we were hoodwinked into supporting this invasion on information that they have admitted was faulty. They didnt apologise for their mistake, they just blamed their intelligence agencies.


Originally posted by the_oleneo
This is from the Duelfer Report. Saddam had every intention to PRESERVE his WMD programs secretly while "honoring" the UNSC resolutions with the goal of ending sanctions by showing his hands "clean" of WMD development after each initial inspection regime:

And I should believe this report why? Because its hosted on a CIA website? The same CIA that George Bush has blamed his intelligence failures on? Sorry but I would require more proof than that.


Originally posted by the_oleneo
Read here: www.washingtontimes.com...

Read it. Was that meant to bolster your argument?
1. The language used in it was no stronger than "may" and "believed".
2. The explosives that the Russians "may" have helped Saddam move were all conventional. No WMD's at all

Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.
The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.

3. The only reference to WMD's was:

Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.

An "official said"? Hardly concrete evidence huh?
4. If the Russians had something to hide why this then?

The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.

Surely if the Russians had something to hide they wouldnt be advocating that Saddam give in to the U.S demands and leave the country. Effectively hampering any "arms-removal program". Again its an "official said" so it could also be a lie, afterall who can verify an "official said".
5. The only specific weapons this article said were transfered were all conventional explosives such as RDX, HMX and PETN. So how this backs up your assertion that WMD's crossed borders into Syria I do not know. Here are some useful descriptions of what the article actually says were (not may have been) transfered:
What is RDX
What is HMX
What is PETN


Originally posted by the_oleneo
Oh, wow, you believed in anything! Just for the records, any direct, indirect or implied threat of violence or murder you make against the President of the United States (or the Vice President, from on down) get a knock on your door and tons of questions from the US Secret Services. Their job is to protect the PRESIDENT and the Office of the Presidency, not the name of the person who is the President of the United States.

And that changes what I said how? Oh its the Presidents life thats in danger...so if it was any one elses head that it was pointed against thats fine. Their life isnt worth protecting. Yep, that clarifies EVERYTHING.


Originally posted by the_oleneo
subz, you're nothing but a typical anti-American tool. That's what you are.

After reading that eloquent sentence I added you to my ignore list only to change my mind because the only thing better than ignoring arrogance is to show it up for what it is, completely contemptuous.

Anti-American, no. Anti-Lies, yes. Anti-Bush, yes.

[edit on 16/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   


Seem you cared more about those 20,000 Iraqi citizens "killed" by "Bush-Blair war junta", as you silly anti-war moonbats have been raving about, than an estimated 1 millions Iraqis perished under Saddam, half were summarily executed in various criminal methods of suppression and human right violations


Care to cite a source for your 1 million claim? I know its utter BS. The Foreign Secretary of the UK himself claims it was only 300,000 (which is still probably hyped for propaganda, latest figures put it nearer 100,000). It only reaches 1 million of you include the deaths as a direct result of sanctions.

Whilst this still alot of people, shall we put this into perspective?

More people than this die every year in Africa from Wars, genocide, Famine etc. What is done? Nothing.

And since the invasion, estimates put the number of dead Iraqis in excess of 100,000 (could be as many as 300,000) caused mainly by actions from coalition forces. That means we are doing considerably better than Mr Hussein at killing Iraqis, as we have only been at it for 2 years!

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands that died from Sanctions inposed by the west, inlcuding children, but then I suppose the pro-War lot will lump these deaths in and blame them all on Saddam, when we have to share the blame also as the sanctions where uneccessary.

Anyway, slightly off topic there..............

Please, all you pro-Iran War lot, give me one non-hypocritical reason why Iran should NOT have Nukes?

See, I am not denying they might be making them, I just want some good reasons for going to war and killing tens of thousands first....................

EDIT: for crappy crappyness....

[edit on 16/4/05 by stumason]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Have you ever LIED before, subz?

I have. Everybody have. No one is innocent in this world. I just don't buy the "any innocent" argument.

Everybody lives and dies on this world for all kinds of reasons, even the senseless ones.

We ain't perfect. Deal with it.


And yes, you should believe the Duelfer Report because it is explained the very basis of why the WMD claims and intel became so f****ed up in the first place, even it came from the CIA which has been just exorcizing its ghosts . Anything else you're asking for is blowing in the wind.

You're blaming Bush for all the wrong reasons, man. Even though I faulted Bush for the poor handling of intel matters on WMD claims, it doesn't change the fact that Saddam was just untrustworthy, deceptive and uncooperative. You're just stretching and grasping for any straw to dismiss me with the article I just pointed you about the Russians' involvement with Iraq's WMD materials. The Russians are very capable in pulling this kind of covert operation anywhere, that's a well-known fact.

My problem is with your stupid "internationalism" agenda. You're not anti-lies, you are an anti-American, plain and simple. The links you provided three posts ago are clearly showing your anti-American bias: you wanted the United States to kowtow to all international law and international treaties but you're angry that Bush is doing a f***all to your beloved "internationalism" and you're branding the US a rogue state because of that.


Any international law or treaty bestows or foist upon the United States without consent or consultation is a VIOLATION AND INFRINGEMENT to each and every state's sovereignty! Therefore no state shall oblige or conform to any international law or treaty without the consent of the people living in the state or without consulting with the neighboring states and its elected representatives. Period.

"The federal government did not create the States. The States created the federal government." ~ Ronald W. Reagan



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Care to cite a source for your 1 million claim? I know its utter BS. The Foreign Secretary of the UK himself claims it was only 300,000 (which is still probably hyped for propaganda, latest figures put it nearer 100,000). It only reaches 1 million of you include the deaths as a direct result of sanctions.


Throughout the entire reign of Saddam Hussein (30+ years).



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

posted by the_oleneo
Any international law or treaty bestows or foist upon the United States without consent or consultation is a VIOLATION AND INFRINGEMENT to each and every state's sovereignty! Therefore no state shall oblige or conform to any international law or treaty without the consent of the people living in the state or without consulting with the neighboring states and its elected representatives. Period.


So...the US shouldn't kowtow to international law because the people didn't agree to it? What about your Government YOU elected signing those treaties?

Hell, if the US shouldn't obey international law beacuse it infinges your "rights", then why the hell should Iran obey the IAE over the Nuclear issue?

The hypocrasy stinks!


posted by the_oleneo
Throughout the entire reign of Saddam Hussein (30+ years).


Erm.....what are you trying to say there?



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Please, all you pro-Iran War lot, give me one non-hypocritical reason why Iran should NOT have Nukes?


It is too dangerous for them to nuclear weapons!! Once they have nukes, the entire country is targeted for a nuclear wipe-out (by Israel). Same for Pakistan and India (all this over Kashmir, for God's sake!).

And under the hands of the mullahs who have a special hatred for Israel and the United States?

And how would you know that the mullahs won't share its nukes with any terrorist with a boatload of money up-front?

How would you know that?! Are you going to rely on the words of the mullahs in the near future, "We do not share or provide our nuclear materials with any terrorist," contrarily to their proven supports of terrorism in the past?!


HUH?!



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   


It is too dangerous for them to nuclear weapons!! Once they have nukes, the entire country is targeted for a nuclear wipe-out (by Israel). Same for Pakistan and India (all this over Kashmir, for God's sake!).


But its ok for the West and the Soviets to sit and glare at each other for 40 years with thousands of them? You nearly got the entire world nuked over Cuba (for Gods sake!)



And under the hands of the mullahs who have a special hatred for Israel and the United States?


Iran has stated, and has a proven track record of, not attacking any other state. More than can be said for either Israel (got nukes), UK (got nukes), US (got nukes).

And what about MAD? The Iranians would be immensely stupid (and they are far from that) to launch anything other than a retallitory strike against anyone.



And how would you know that the mullahs won't share its nukes with any terrorist with a boatload of money up-front?


For the same reason no-one else has. They are not the same breed of Muslims as the Wahabi guys you are chasing all over the globe. They are Shia, and only support Hezbollah in their fight against Israel. They would not mingle with the Sunni Wahabi's as they do not share the same beliefs.

Coupled with the fact that if they did give a nuke to them, it could be traced back to Iran though its signature, and they would get burnt pretty bad as a result. Hence, i do not believe they are that stupid.



How would you know that?! Are you going to rely on the words of the mullahs in the near future, "We do not share or provide our nuclear materials with any terrorist," contrarily to their proven supports of terrorism in the past?!


The US has supported and sponsored more terrorism (rightly or wrongly) throughout history than Iran ever has. What about Afghanistan (when you ARMED AND TRAINED the very terrorists you now fight? What about Central America? What about Cuba?



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

So...the US shouldn't kowtow to international law because the people didn't agree to it? What about your Government YOU elected signing those treaties?


Go back and read the US freaking Constitution!!


To ratify an international treaty require the two-third majority votes from the Congress (the Representatives and the Senate, respectively) before it is presented to the President for his signature or veto altogether. Ratify an international treaty takes a very long time due to intensive lobbying, second thoughts or doubts.


Originally posted by stumason
Erm.....what are you trying to say there?


Ask the Iraqis, don't ask me.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I feel like I wanted to strangle you for blatant ignorance!





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join