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.

 

UN criticizes Israel's atomic program

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Here you have Iran talking trash and busting it's balls to develop nuclear weapons. Then you have Israel, who has had nuclear weapons for several years and hasn't used them. Get real!


Oh I see. So if Iran can show they've had nuclear weapons for years, that's no problem then. Do nuclear weapons have some kind of break in period? Like after 5 or 10 years they aren't dangerous to the security of the free world anymore? North Korea has had nuclear weapons since the start of the decade, does that mean they're no longer a threat?

[edit on 9/18/2009 by ZombieOctopus]


Outstanding point friend and funny too. Obviously everyone would prefer because of the strategic importance of the region and it's oil supply that no one have nuclear weapons.

Maybe when the nukes finally do start flying if we covered ourselves with oil they wouldn't target us?

Seems like oil is a bit more important than human beings are these days!




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


US drafts UN resolution urging nuclear disarmament

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 11 (Reuters) - The United States has drafted a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on all countries with atomic weapons to get rid of them, a text Washington hopes will be approved by a special council session presided over by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The 15-nation council will debate the draft resolution on Sept. 24 on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the General Assembly, where Obama is making his debut appearance at the United Nations. Washington holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council during September.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



the document, which "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities," and links it to "concern about the threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons for the security and stability of the Middle East."


It expresses concerns, it doesn't say Israel should disarm now, so anti-Israeli's should stop foaming at the mouth!



But chief Iranian delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh said the vote should serve as a warning to Washington and other supporters of the Jewish state.

"The US Administration .... has received a message that they should not continue supporting Israel at any price," he told reporters.


You can take this about as serious as Ahmadinejad's holocaust denials. If this came from Russia, China or a EU state then I'd say it would be a turn of events, but this is nothing new coming from the Iranian regime.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I would sleep better knowing NO ONE had nuclear weapons.


Funny that you should say this, because I would sleep better at night knowing that EVERYONE has nuclear weapons.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the only way to go, because Pandora's Box has already been opened. Even if we were able to achieve "total nuclear disarmament" you can bet your bottom dollar that somebody will keep at least one or two around.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by digger2381
 


That's a good point, and imagine if everyone had actually disarmed, and we had WW3 straight after with conventional weapons on a WW2 or greater scale. It would be an oops, we should have kept nukes to deter this from happening, or to prevent the odd rogue nation from attacking their neighbour under the threat of nuclear retaliation.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by digger2381

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I would sleep better knowing NO ONE had nuclear weapons.


Funny that you should say this, because I would sleep better at night knowing that EVERYONE has nuclear weapons.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the only way to go, because Pandora's Box has already been opened. Even if we were able to achieve "total nuclear disarmament" you can bet your bottom dollar that somebody will keep at least one or two around.


Could we make sure that is everyone but my estranged wife?

She's been known to cut off her nose to spite herself!



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by john124
 


US drafts UN resolution urging nuclear disarmament

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 11 (Reuters) - The United States has drafted a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on all countries with atomic weapons to get rid of them, a text Washington hopes will be approved by a special council session presided over by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The 15-nation council will debate the draft resolution on Sept. 24 on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the General Assembly, where Obama is making his debut appearance at the United Nations. Washington holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council during September.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by SLAYER69]


Oh yes I agree we all need to disarm eventually, but I think we have to make sure nobody else is building nukes first, and for the main players to learn how to get on with each other permanently.

I don't think everyone will disarm completely for a long time, it will take lots of UN resolutions just to get it down to half of where we are now. The UN isn't completely inept, just inept most of the time!


Israel isn't going to disarm, just like Britain aren't. First the US and Russia take the first steps, and countries like Iran and N.Korea will have to agree, otherwise there'll be consequences for them.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


The UN has been the main mechanism of control, and manipulation of the World for a very long time. It is the prime mechanism used as an excuse in Iraq. Now I am guessing due to internal conflicts with the Elite We are able to use somewhat unaltered information, or reports that cast a better shadow, and peace outlook for the World. Your argument is weak for the very fact of the People You call anti "Israel" are nothing more than "peace mongers". We aren't anti Israel, but anti Zionism; which transcends Religion, and race.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
countries like Iran and N.Korea will have to agree, otherwise there'll be consequences for them.




Both the US and Russia will dispose of their last few nukes on them for not complying to the non-nuke treaty.




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


I'm basing my analysis of the UN on recent events, of course it has been useful in the past. More recently the UN has not prevented Hezbollah from rearming and has withheld reports until a couple of days ago that Iran is capable of producing a nuclear bomb. The UN is most certainly corrupt and/or inept in some fashion.

Since Israel is a secular state, then any argument against them having nuclear weapons is not anti-zionist, it's anti-Israel.

I'm not sure what peacemongering
has to do with it. I doubt anyone here is extremely anti-Israel to the point they would wish a country to attack them, but there are many folks who allow themselves to be mislead.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
reply to post by john124
 


The UN has been the main mechanism of control, and manipulation of the World for a very long time. It is the prime mechanism used as an excuse in Iraq. Now I am guessing due to internal conflicts with the Elite We are able to use somewhat unaltered information, or reports that cast a better shadow, and peace outlook for the World. Your argument is weak for the very fact of the People You call anti "Israel" are nothing more than "peace mongers". We aren't anti Israel, but anti Zionism; which transcends Religion, and race.




For some strange reason Sancho, us peace mongerers appear to be if I understand the arguments correctly the cause of why we need all these wars. Evidently our desire for peace displays a sign of weakness that will invite war in some peoples minds and peace is a dangerous thing to have until everyone is killed that might not be trusted to remain peacable first before the truly peaceful people who can be trusted to remain peacable can be peacable.

It's of course too intellectual an argument for a mere peace mongerer to understand but as I understand violently attacking everyone who is currently peaceful but might not always be peaceful is the only was us truly peaceful can enjoy peace????

The war mongerers of course aren't really war mongerers but peace loving people whose peace is threatened by our peace mongering?

It's kind of like a who's on first, no who's on 2nd, what's on 1st type of argument that evidently only some people are gifted with the extreme intelligence to understand.

Our peace mongering reluctance to take the war mongerers word for this is what makes the world a dangerous place for the peacable.

I hope I have enlightened you so you can better understand the true dangers of peace mongering now!

Peace mongering animals!



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


It's funny that you use a strawman argument to refute the observation that somebody's comments are anti-Israel. That does not mean pro-war, anti-war, pro-peace or anti-peace, it just means that I've observed many people clutching at straws to criticise Israel whenever they can!

Now you may be mislead by others, if not by the warmongerers on your side, it may be the warmongers on the other side. How's the rose-tinted glasses you wear when looking at the Iranian regime?!


We may all want to live in a peaceful world without war, without nukes, but we know it isn't going to happen. So we make a more realistic analysis instead.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Well my feelings on the subject are if she can pay, she can play.

Sorry amigo.

Your only option is to buy/build one yourself as a deterrent to her

[edit on 18-9-2009 by digger2381]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Huh, seems that warrenb pointed out that Israel is not 100% Jewish. I know Zionism runs deep throughout the World.......Christian Zionism is rampant in the States. Biden, and Tom Delay amongst others claim to be proud Zionists.

So, I definitely have a different view than You. That being said, Your argument has gone from weak to biased.

You in short order said whatever Israel, or the States deem credible at the time is the only truth..... The UN can be useful at times, but currently is only corrupt, and full of bad reviews...................... that's basically what You said, do You realize how deranged that makes You sound????

Foaming at the Mouth for Peace Sancho



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Since Israel is a secular state, then any argument against them having nuclear weapons is not anti-zionist, it's anti-Israel.


Zionism has nothing to do with religion, it's a right-wing nationalist ideology.

You can be a Zionist and not be an Orthodox Jew if you want...



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
reply to post by john124
 


Huh, seems that warrenb pointed out that Israel is not 100% Jewish. I know Zionism runs deep throughout the World.......Christian Zionism is rampant in the States. Biden, and Tom Delay amongst others claim to be proud Zionists.

So, I definitely have a different view than You. That being said, Your argument has gone from weak to biased.

You in short order said whatever Israel, or the States deem credible at the time is the only truth..... The UN can be useful at times, but currently is only corrupt, and full of bad reviews...................... that's basically what You said, do You realize how deranged that makes You sound????

Foaming at the Mouth for Peace Sancho


I was merely pointing out how the UN and IAEA have withheld information, and also how the UN can be a useful tool for future disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Everything else you have inferred from my comments is completely invalid, and your conclusions are based on an invalid pretext.

Israel aren't going to disarm yet, and that was another point I made. Israel is a secular state, so anti-zionism doesn't apply here, it's more anti-Israel if someone were to suggest Israel should disarm when others still possess nukes in greater numbers.

The foaming at the mouth remark was intended to demonstrate how folks here may pick up on the slightest bit of information and intend to use that as a catalyst to support their usual anti-Israel stance, however weak it is. The recent foaming at the mouth from that clan involves blowing a UN resolution out of proportion, based on a comment from an Iranian delegate whose comment is the usual threatening message towards Israel and the US.

As somebody has already shown, there is a UN resolution put in motion to disarm all nuclear weapons, which is a great idea. There's concerns for everyone's nukes, and there's concerns about the consequences of disarmament.

To infer a concern means a significant shift in power is only blatent Iranian regime garbage. I know many here will claim anything that is against Israel, however minor, to be a change of world policy, because they hope it to be so! That doesn't mean to say there aren't also peaceful people here who don't think like that, and only have reasonable concerns about nuclear weapons, which is perfectly justifiable. We should all have concerns about all nukes, not just Israel's nukes.

Israel, the US etc do have justifiable reasons to prevent Iran from possessing a nuke.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by john124
Since Israel is a secular state, then any argument against them having nuclear weapons is not anti-zionist, it's anti-Israel.


Zionism has nothing to do with religion, it's a right-wing nationalist ideology.

You can be a Zionist and not be an Orthodox Jew if you want...


Israel is still a secular state, with muslims, jews etc. Therefore my original points still stand.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Wow John who exactly is the we that you refer to that's running this show?

Which policy making body are 'we' a member of friend John?

Iran has not attacked anyone, England and the United States have, Israel has.

The world is no safer place for it. In fact the wars are so unpopular the German Army is actually performing a combat role in Afghanistan. That's pretty desperate for troops to let the Germans out of the dog house to fight.

Meanwhile in Germany there is a movement growing of rather unhappy people who are now all of a sudden remembering what it's like to see their children march off to war and come back in coffins.

What makes the world dangerous the world over is not nations but people who live in nations who are predisposed to violence who all employ your identical argument on both sides of the coin.

Somewhere in Iran right now there is a guy just like you who is certain the only way they can ever have peace is to get rid of your nation.

The only thing that makes your thinking and indisciminate glorification of war and violence any different than theirs in your mind is that you aren't them and it's them you would prefer to kill for the sake of exercising your own blood lusts and frustrations with your own life.

The reality is it's got nothing to do with them, it's just all about John and John's own image of self.

There are a lot of really great people in England and a lot of really great people in Iran.

There are a lot of really great people the world over.

All I can do is hope that calmer, saner, more rational and intelligent minds will prevail.

Life is worth living John, everyone's life is worth living, and honestly if I was an Iranian and was listening to some one like you spout off at the mouth I would feel a need to develop greater defences too.

Defensive weapons and offensive thinking are two different things, the only side advocating war here is Israel and it's Zionist and few key Western supporters, the rest of the world including Iranians are terrified of the prospect, Iran simply understands that because of people like you it's probably wise to do everything it can to defensively protect itself while you espouse the best defense is a withering offence which is really as offensive as you can get.

Will you still be laughing when your petrol is 25.00 pounds a litre, your ale is 15.00 pounds a bottle, and fish and chips are 20.00 pounds and you lost your job because of the economic collapse that will occur when the Persian Gulf has been blocked?

Will you still be laughing when the good old dear Queen Mum presses you into service and your guts are dangling all over an Iranian street corner?

For such a brave warrior tell me how come you aren't in Afghanistan fighting already?

Laugh worse than your bite?



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Have you finished foaming at the mouth making strawman rhetoric?!


I'm sorry, but you don't see the issue. I have not condoned any war, neither do I want it to happen. I know many consequences of any such conflict, and I have many Iranian friends who tell me a great deal about their country.

You are misunderstanding my support for the Iranian opposition to expressing desire for a war.

I was referring to consequences for these countries, not as my actual desire, but how things may play out. Although we simply cannot waste time negotiating with Ahmadinejad who has no power in which to stop the enrichment programme. UN santions providing Russia will go along with it, are the correct way forward to support the Iranian opposition movement, and further the demise of Khamenei, his son and the particular revolutionary guards who will remain loyal until the end.

Your comments are often based on precondtions set for others. It seems one cannot be anti-Iranian regime without being pro-war.

Black and white approaches only lead to confused views on these issues, and even anti-israeli stances under the pretext of peacemongering, whether by ignorance or choice



[edit on 18-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   


"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.


The above quote, and many more came from here...whatreallyhappened.com...

It is a page compilation of all the racist remarks spoken by the Zionists. Food for thought especially as We are moving toward war with Iran; who again has done nothing wrong. They are remaining vigilant while Israel is openly stating they are going to attack.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join