It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
India. Though South Africa has been mentioned as well, but they've denied it strongly.

My frustration stemmed from the post before yours. Apologies...




posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Excellent point Nighthawk, if that is true it would have been an obvious move for America.

By effectively passing on the message that Israel wanted to be friends, they would have lost billions of dollars in military sales per year to Israel, and assorted contracts.

And we all know how deep the Military-Industrial Complex runs, way too many influential people are making way too much profit from it, and there's no chance in hell they'd give it up for peace in the Middle East.

Israel is the largest receiver of US Foreign assistance, in 2004 they got around $2.16 billion dollars in US arms and aid, which should give you an idea of the size and scope of US-Israeli contracts and assistance.
Absolutely staggering...

You'd think Ehud Olmert has a gun pointed to Bush's head or something the way he's throwing cash at them. Remind me again... what is America's debt and commitment to these people?
I don't recall any time in Israel's existence that they've actually given the US money or arms.

Talk about state-sponsored terrorism, forget Iran, what they supply to Hezbollah is peanuts compared to arsenal the US gives Israel per year. And what do they do with this massive combination of military and arms?
Shell towns, demolish houses, erect Israeli settlements, force the Arabs out and build 60ft walls all around.

Who makes the Caterpillar D9 bulldozer Israel uses to knock down Palestinian homes? Caterpillar Inc. Who owns them? America.

Who makes all the F-16's or Longbows used by the IAF for precision strikes on terrorist homes... which later turn out to be apartment blocks full of kids?

Who makes the M-16, the M-1 Abrams, the M-113 APC, who makes every single piece of Israeli military hardware apart from their MBT and their standard assault rifle?
Hell the US may as well be firing their weapons and driving their dozers for them, I don't see the difference...

Hypocrisy all round folks...
You can do this, can't do that, allow inspections or else.
But we, we can build Nukes, supply terrorists, topple governments and fk around all we like.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by _Del_
 


Actually, Israel's nuclear programme was funded and supplied by the UK and France during the 50's and 60's. Without aid from them, Israel wouldn't have had a nuclear programme.


Yes, much like China, North Korea and Russia have supplied surrogates with similar support. I'm acutely aware of a double standard in that regard. I doubt Israel stole the uranium from the US. I'm sure it was a gift. And no, that doesn't make it any less suspect.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


now that just smacks of hypocrisy - india hasn`t signed the npt either
and won`t all because of the US policy of nuclear weapon sharing which they say violates the treaty anyway.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by _Del_
 


now that just smacks of hypocrisy - india hasn`t signed the npt either
and won`t all because of the US policy of nuclear weapon sharing which they say violates the treaty anyway.


That's why they're working together
They're actually pretty close. The whole region is a tangled web of alliances where the friend of a friend may be an enemy.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
and pakistan working with NK and Libya - oh the tangled webs



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Karlhungis,

Excellent post S&F'd. While tensions run high on the subject the exchange is noteworthy and revealing of may 'contrary' perceptions regarding international 'posturing' in the Middle East.

Personally, in diplomatic affairs Iran has played very well, often in ways much superior to her detractors. Israel, on the other hand, has relied much too heavily on the ham-handed US overtures and will soon find that our friendship will become something of a liability rather than a strength (ironically switched, no?)

The US has too many 'superfluous' connections with Israel that interfere with our ability to represent US interests in the region. We are only now beginning to shrug off some of the old-school luggage we inherited from the deep dark past, but we are along way from erasing the 'influences' brought to bear in the US over Israeli's 'affairs'.

In the final analysis Iran does NOT have to do anything Iran does not want to do. Linking their cooperation with Israel's compliance is a clever method of obfuscating the goal of determining her nuclear capabilities, but that's Irans' prerogative. Diplomatically though, Israel is NOT involved in this matter and the treaty members must 'agree' to acknowledge the connection has validity, lacking that, these are just 'words.'



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   


"The existing double standard shall not be tolerated anymore by non-nuclear-weapon states," Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told a meeting of the 190 countries that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.


HA! Kudos to Soltanieh.

I must say that I agree with this one. Of course, I'm all for ANY nation acquiring nuclear energy, as long as it's used for the people and not for war monger (United States & Russia). I think all should be monitored by the IAEA (United States, Russia & China). But, this statement really take the cake since Israel refuses to acknowledge it's nuclear weapons program.

The U.N. is a two-faced agency. What's the reason the world isn't pressuring North Korea? I'll give you the reason: China.

Why are the "Super-Powers" exempt from monitoring? Because they're "Responsible" with nuclear arms? Before you answer that, remember it's been said that "ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE" when it come to a confrontation with Iran. With the possibility of someone like John McCain taking the reigns of President, the chances of using tactical nukes against any nation that stands as a formidable adversary is very real. How responsible is that? Not very, in my opinion.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I think I have to agree.

If development of nuclear weapons is to be prohibited, then why is possession of these weapons by the United States or Israel (just to mention two) tolerated?

It's hypocrisy.


I'd feel much safer if NO NATION had nuclear arms.


Matter of fact, I'd support American invasion of other countries as a last resort to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons if and only if I was absolutely sure and convinced that we didn't have any ourselves.

Otherwise, actions taken in the name of anti-proliferation are total BS.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Iran is a bigger threat to the Middle East than any other ME nation at this time.


That's a load of CRAP.

Show me proof of Iran being a threat to their neighbors - and don't whip out that damned mis-interpreted quote from Ahmadinejad. The best you'll get is some commander in Iraq vying for more troops/money/time offering evidence that weapons or bombs are coming from Iran into Iraq. When, in fact, 60% of the terrorist doing the bombing are from Saudi Arabia. Where are the special forces that are operating in Saudi Arabia trying to curb the export of terrorist? There are none.

A point I've made numerous times: If China or Russia invaded Canada AND Mexico, we'd be shipping whatever arms we could find to the freedom fighters operating in those countries. Why? Because it's in our best interest to do so.

If we butted our nose out of the whole Middle Eastern issue, they're be peace in about 90% of the region. There will always be killings and such over religious difference, but at least they're not killing over something as meaningless as tennis shoes, which America has seen it's deal of in the 80's and 90's.

The best solution for the region? The world's oil industries need to start sinking money into alternative energy and get the hell out of the Middle East. If the world really wanted peace the region, they'd pursue this concept and let the region run itself.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
The best solution for the region? The world's oil industries need to start sinking money into alternative energy and get the hell out of the Middle East. If the world really wanted peace the region, they'd pursue this concept and let the region run itself.


Ah, but that won't happen. It's about money and control. True alternative energy decentralizes the energy supply and puts control directly in the hands of the consumer.

Let's say you have a hydrogen-powered car. You could set up, in your garage, a unit that "cracks" water into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis, which in itself can be powered self-sufficiently through solar energy (Honda has already demonstrated the viability of such a system) or a wind turbine. Unless you take a long road trip to the outer range of your car, you never have to go to a "gas" station again. If you want to make it even better, the solar panels you've set up also supplement your home's power use, storing any excess in batteries or a capacitor system, and you could use a hydrogen-fueled generator to add more power to your home as well. Imagine that! Your home essentially powers itself, hooked to the grid only for communication systems. When you're not home it just sits there storing power for when you come back.

The only thing Big Energy could keep you on the hook for would be maintenance and replacements, and stations for those who haven't yet set up the "home version" or those traveling. There's no money in that, at least not the profits they're getting now. They'd be done for! And worse yet, they lose the thing they want even more than money--they lose control. The people in charge of Big Energy get their jollies knowing we line up at the pumps every day to put that stinky juice in our cars, knowing we have little choice. Giving us choices is the last thing they want. Big Energy and its owners are the True Enemy of the entire Human Race, and they know it, which is why they try to keep us under their collective thumb. The question is, what do we do about it?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Let me see. I live in a neighborhood where a neighbor has guns. I also want to have guns but many neighbors tell me I can't have them. Why can my neighbor have them and not me? It doesn't make any sense. And please, don't tell me my house is full of fundamentalists. I haven't used my guns and haven't trespassed into anyone's house. But what if my neighbor ever threatens me with their guns? Shouldn't I have the right to defend myself?

In a simple way, that's how I see it.


[edit on 6-5-2008 by manticore]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by manticore
In a simple way, that's how I see it.


And you're absolutely right. Add in the fact your richest neighbor wants to dig up your yard and steal all your good gardening soil, and tap your water pipes, and plug his house into your electrical system and dump his sewage and garbage into your yard and enslave your children to do his housework, and he'll kill you if you don't comply, and you have American foreign "policy" in a nutshell.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by manticore
 


That's pretty much what it boils down to Manticore.
As long as you agree to follow US initiative in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, abide by it's doctrine and generally lick it's ass from time to time, your allowed Nuclear Weapons.

The moment you step over the Republican agenda line and say try to privatize your Oil Industry for the benefit of your nation or god forbid, challenge US policy and say their wrong, your "not with them".

And when your not with them, your against them, there's no gray area to the Bush Admin, because George Bush cannot compute anything other than "BAD" or "GOOD". Far too much for the Texan mind.

Thus Foreign Policy boils down to "Rogue States" as he put it, and Allies.

I don't get why they just don't abolish the IAEA, and replace with the American Council for Nuclear Proliferation Initiatives, just cut the bs and tell like it is.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
As long as you agree to follow US initiative in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, abide by it's doctrine and generally lick it's ass from time to time, your allowed Nuclear Weapons.


I doubt that even if Iran did submit themselves to the US, that the US would still give them access to nuclear material, for the simple fact that Israel would still view Iran as a threat.

I'm doubting that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for weapon manufacturing, but the only way I can see a resolve to this issue is if Israel gets rid of any nuclear weaponry of their own, and only uses nuclear technology for power. Then no one in the Middle East would feel threatened from this Salem Witch Hunt.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I understand that the moral and ethical solution is to just let everyone have their cake and eat it too.

But the fact of the matter is that disputes on the international scale, when it comes to treaties are legally settled. In this case, Iran should pull out of the NPT if they want nuclear weapons. Plain and simple. They agreed when signing that document that they wouldn't pursue nukes in exchange for techonolgy. Israel didn't, are these not facts? I don't want war with Iran more than anyone else does, but the legal facts speak for themselves.

If we want peace we need to get out of these intertwined alliances that have all this mess in place. ME politics is a mess on its own without it.

[edit on 5/6/2008 by ludaChris]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Iran is absolutely right. Israel lives in the Middle East and they have nuclear weapons. Which makes them the most powerful nation in the Middle East. Iran should feel threatened that their enemy has nuclear weapons and they don't. Isn't that how the US and Russia started building thousands of nukes? I honestly think every nation should abolish nuclear weapons, but it won't happen.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Sounds fair to me. Everybody should be held to the same rules when it comes to nuclear energy period. why should we get all on irans case but not isreals. THeir propensity to use the weapons are pretty much the same. how about all the nuclear weapons that get into the black market that are USGI or Ruski. why aren't the press hammering us as much as iran.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Very true and very sad.

You're preaching to the choir, here. It's not just big energy that pulls stunts such as these. Nearly all major corporations and yes, even our government, operates by the same self-preservation means.

The fact is, until the rest of the world (and I hate this over-used term) "wakes-up" and demands sufficient R&D on alternative energy, we're screwed. The only REAL way to get the best (meaning most effective and least costly to the consumer) means of alternative energy is to offer a bid contract - much like the Air Force does with it's major developers.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Double standard and hypocrisy be dammed. Iran has every right to pursue within its own borders nuclear or any other item. If they ever threaten to use them..then its another matter entirely. NPT be dammed its a piece of paper if Israel can have nukes..and be smug about it..then the Arab states have that right as well...if they choose to use them..then its a world issue and the US may get the go ahead to step in. Let them do what they want until they threaten to cause a problem for US..or the USA..until then hands off. Maybe one ore two explosions in the middle east might be the price we have to pay for some PEACE and quiet...Let them sort it themselves...better yet give them the NEUTRON BOMB technology...lethal to life...and leave the infrastructure intact.
FACE it they are doing it peicemeal now lets give them the tools for WHOLESALE slaughter.. Peace will come soon enough...when enough blood has been shed..today theres not enough.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join