It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


US 'silent on Israeli nuclear arms'

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:21 AM
Well yeah, it would be a given that he address ALL nations with nuclear stockpiles, which is what I thought he plans on doing?

If I am not mistaken isn't the OP and his source suggesting Obama is going to completely ignore Israel and their nuclear stockpile?

Im just saying that it doesn't make any sense to want to disarm a world of nukes, but ignore one country... So either the source is bogus or if it isn't then Obama must be naive to leave one country out.
Forgive me if I'm wrong or I have mistaken something

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by stevegmu
How is it a double standard? Israel is an ally.

Israel is the ally of the far religious right in the country. To the rest of us its just another country draining of us our resources and our relations with other nations.

Our allies should have nuclear weapons

Since when? When did the United states have the authority as to what nations can and cant have nuclear weapons? Did God give us that authority? What BS, seriously.


Thank you seperating from the thread which is already full of horseradish.
"They're not going to nuke anybody on our side so its ok"
So what makes someone "our" side?
Because they listen and follow every word thrown out?

And as you pointed out,
Why is it if America say its ok it is ok?
Why cant someone from Iran, Russia or China go to inspect it.

We have been led our entire generation to think America is the leader of the world which is complete poppycock.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:31 AM
reply to post by Echelon117

He is just complaining that Obama took a stance on Iran and hasn't said anything about Israel.

Obama isn't in any posistion to disarm any country other then his own. The UN as a whole agreed to the terms against Iran. If the UN decides as a whole to disarm the world of Nukes then everyone with a Nuke will be addressed.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:34 AM
Ah yeah, I see! Cheers

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:08 AM

Originally posted by oozyism
Double standards any one, or do we still have our heads under the sand. WAKE UP!

I personally believe the US should stop this none-sense not because they have to, but because they should care. They should care that certain policies of theirs causes more harm than good.

Barack Obama, the US president, has agreed to abide by a 40-year policy of allowing Israel to keep nuclear weapons without opening them to international inspection, according to a US newspaper.

In a report on Saturday, The Washington Times quoted three unnamed sources as saying Obama had confirmed to Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, that he would maintain the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by oozyism]

I really have to wonder what your agenda is oozyism. What do we need to wake up from? That Israel is an enemy? That the West should not try prevent an Islamic Theocracy from having access to nuclear weapons because a rogue ally of ours (Israel) has nukes? Two wrongs don't make a right now do they?

We all know that the USA is being hypocritical on the Iran nuclear technology issue. I think you are trying emphasise this one point over and over in your threads so that it appears more valid to you.

Funny you should mention those "unnamed sources" because they appear to be prerequisites for most negative stories about Israel. At the root of almost every single piece of "breaking news" there are always unnamed sources. It's funny because any other country would dismiss most of the stories as fiction fabricated out of thin air or quarter-truth air.

It's understandable to keep the identity of your sources hidden on certain issues. The problem is that the more anonymous sources that you have, the less credible the story actually is. No matter how many times you repeat it.

Then building upon this idea by using stories that are based on anonymous sources to prove an argument is troublesome.

[edit on 8/10/2009 by Dark Ghost]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Echelon117
If Obama wants to be serious about disarming the world of nukes, and wants Iran to stop all enrichment activity's, then I think he should address Israel's nuclear stockpile...

Wouldn't that make sense?

It is unfortunate that for some it has no sense at all
I don't know how they receive this mentality, but all in all it is a problem.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by oozyism]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by jd140

Obama isn't in any posistion to disarm any country other then his own. The UN as a whole agreed to the terms against Iran. If the UN decides as a whole to disarm the world of Nukes then everyone with a Nuke will be addressed.

Yeah exactly, Obama is in no position to disarm any country other then his own, and the same went with bush who disarmed Iraq

It is also true that Iran is merely following the international law which permits them to pursue peaceful nuclear energy. The UN brought sanctions against Iran because of the US and its allies who are pushing against the right Iran has. Plus the US has too much power when it comes to the UN.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

We used Iraq as a hedge against Iran. Neither were never our ally. We used the Taliban to fight the Soviets. We were never allied with nor associated with UBL, nor any Arab mujahadeen.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by GhostR1der

That facility is destroyed?

We are fighting Iran via proxy in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they are training and equipping our enemy. They are also a state sponsor of terrorists and terrorism. Of course they have no right to nuclear weapons. They will use them. If Israel has them, they would only use them as a weapon of last resort. We used them to save lives in WWII, because those who attacked us were unwilling to surrender, unless a massive show of force was used. We also warned the populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima before we dropped the bombs.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by oozyism

we dont care about pakistani nukes either I wonder what they both have in common with us the U.S. oh yeah there are allies! Down with radical Islam and lets the Jews have peace PLEASE!

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by oozyism

There is no double standard because the situations are vastly different. As others have already stated, the US and Israel are allies. By contrast, Iran and the US have hostile diplomatic relations and as a result, the US should be expected to take whatever political course of action is available to them in order to reduce or eliminate any potential threat they might pose. The burden doesn't all fall on the US, anyway. The Iranians aren't exactly an honest broker themselves.

I'd also point out that the balance of power in the region is precarious at best. The Israelis are surrounded and badly outnumbered, but their nuclear forces level the playing field. If the Iranians develop a nuclear weapon, that balance of power goes right out the window, and if that happens, the Israelis might very well feel compelled to launch a first strike and that's something no one wants because it probably wouldn't end there.

posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 04:50 PM
Here's an interesting article supposedly from an Israeli historian.

In his view, the continued struggle of the Palestinians will inexhorably lead to the collapse of the State of Israel. Which is why Tel-Aviv has no choice but to "transfer" the Israeli Arabs and the stateless Palestinians beyond safe borders (that is, not only outside the 1948 borders but also from the 1976 occupied territories and, ideally, from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). In the event the Europeans opposed such a transfer, in order to survive Tel Aviv will be forced to destroy the European capitals with nuclear weapons, it being understood that the Europeans will be unable to retaliate without annihilating their Palestinian friends

Love how the pro Israeli people are always going on about Iran supplying weapons to Israel's enemies, but as usual you have no proof to backup your claims, only conjecture & speculation. But what's new. Also please no more BS about Iran being a threat. It's the US, UK & Israel attacking everyone based on lies, not Iran. They have yet to attack anyone

Americans & British calling Iran a terrorist nation is like the pot calling the kettle black. If the US has lousy diplomatic relations with Iran then it has no one to blame but itself. Brush up on your history, specifically 1953. That's why the majority of Iranians hate you and they have every right to do so.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by kindred]

posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by stevegmu
If Israel has them, they would only use them as a weapon of last resort.

That'll be like the white phosphorus they used on kids in Gaza

Very trustworthy

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in