"Irrational" Iran can't get nuclear arms: Netanyahu

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

 

That's one of the best analogies and examples of the double standard and hypocrisy at play here...Pakistan and India as compared to Iran and Israel. The similarities of the situation are glaringly obvious, and in some cases far more volatile, as you mentioned. It's been mentioned in a few threads on this subject in bits and pieces, but I haven't seen it summarized logically, point by point..

No. India has nothing in common with Israel so you cannot compare India with Israel. I don't speak for Pakistan because I do not care about Pakistan one bit. Even though India believes in maintaining cordial relations with all countries but I'm proud India has stated their policy clearly in case of Israel-Palestine issue. India supports Palestine.

Even Mahatma Gandhi also known as Father of Nation for India has clearly stated

"My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?"

He thus questioned the very foundational logic of political Zionism. Gandhi rejected the idea of a Jewish State in the Promised Land by pointing out that the "Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract."

Same way British occupiers invaded India, Mahatma Gandhi reflected that Britishers helped Zionist invade Palestine and take away their land. India is nothing like Israel and never will be.

reply to post by name pending

It's not the perfect analogy but it's the best we have to compare when discussing the potential double-standards and hypocrisies here.

Let's see what Israel and India do have in common. Both non-signatory to the NPT. Both developed their weapons independently and in secret. Both resisted for years even confirming they had weapons (Israel still neither confirms nor denies). Both situated near countries that are alleged hotbeds of "terrorist" activities that they feel threatened by.

One difference is that one has a record of peace and the other one of war.




[edit on 7/12/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by name pending

 

It was a JOKE. But thanks for bringing those points up. India is also not a signatory to the NPT. Neither is Pakistan.

Yes India is not signatory to NPT and never will be. If you take the geographical area and history into account India had little option but to work on a nuclear deterrence system. It was unarmed in a virulent anti-India nuclear neighborhood – a nuclear China, and a China aided nuclear Pakistan. India has been on the receiving end of both Chinese and Pakistani military aggression.

Even then India has agreed to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and to place its civilian reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

While India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), it has declared a unilateral moratorium on testing nuclear weapons and India is one of the rare countries which has policy of "NO FIRST USE", meaning India will only use nuclear weapon if it is attacked by Nuclear Weapon.....otherwise in no condition will it use it's Nuclear weapon whereas Israel has now at times threatened using nuclear weapons against it's enemies and even hinted at using them against it's European allies if they don't help Israel. All of this separates India from Israel's nuclear program.

You also need to keep in mind the history of India's nuclear program. In no way ever India has proliferated it's nuclear technology to other countries unlike China which helped Pakistan or Israel which tried to do sell nuclear arms to apartheid South Africa.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by name pending]

Thanks for your posts...I learned a lot more about India and their nuclear history than I came into this topic knowing, and that's always a plus.

The no-first-use policy sounds as if it's along the lines of MAD?

I will say again that there are some similarities in the situation, and in addition, world judgment on India seems to have been far more understanding and fair than it has been on Iran.

[edit on 7/12/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


India has always supported Iran and always had enjoyed good relations with Iran and even had cordial relations with Iraq at the time of Saddam Hussain. India don't want to make enemies with anyone and want's to remain neutral. Since Iran is signatory to NPT, India has only recently asked Iran to make sure it is not developing weapons otherwise India has maintained that Iran has full right to enrich uranium as a signatory to NPT. The recent call was also due to pressure from U.S which was helping remove (commercial nuclear material) sanctions against India. I have also just edited my last post and would urge you to go through it again.

You also need to keep in mind that China already possessed nuclear weapons before India got it's. Whereas, ME was relatively nuclear free until Israel introduced them thus it's only rightful (IMHO) for it's neighbors to gain them for minimum deterrence.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


No MAD is actually Mutually Assured Destruction. In that anyone can launch nuclear weapon first. Whereas, in NO FIRST USE India will only retaliate if it is attacked specifically with Nuclear weapons. For eg. if anyone attacks India and does not use nuclear weapon, India won't use it either. This was proved at the time of Kargil war in 1999 when Pakistan launched a war against India but India did not use any nuclear weapon and retaliated and won the war.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by name pending]

reply to post by name pending

Yes. I've been following their comments about the situation. Also, India does not have a seat on the UN Security Council at present either. I wonder how different the vote on the sanctions would have been if they did.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


It has been reported very widely that Netanyahu's shrink commited suicide and that was his note...

Though the "joke" at the time was that he was arkencided because he wanted out after seeing exactly what he was up against...

edit to add:
here is a thread from the time
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 12-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I think if India get's membership at UNSC it will only follow United Nations resolutions and vote according to that. For eg. When United States launched Iraq War, India opposed and maintained the war was illegal as it was not approved by United Nations. Due to China's interference India has not been able to get UNSC from last 1-2 times I think, not sure how many. It was recently in news that India and Brazil are next in line to get UNSC memberships with veto power.

reply to post by name pending


Right...similar but not the same again. Why the hell doesn't everyone adopt no-first-use. Seems so very logical...almost like a given really.

reply to post by name pending


Are they increasing the number of permanent seats then? Interesting.

Originally posted by Lupin
This hatred between the two goes all the way back to when the Bible was written so it's no surprise that Israel would be worried about these individuals getting nuclear weapons since Israel knows more than any one else how much these people want to blow them off the face of the map.

Well, Ive only really known about Israels actions for a few years, and I want it blown off the map - those Iranians must be slow to anger.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Amagnon]

reply to post by Danbones

I totally missed that story. What a statement he made with that suicide. Thanks for the link.

reply to post by Amagnon

That observation is not without merit...they do appear slow to anger. They have also been a relatively peaceful nation state and quite restrained in their actions in the face of very heavy and sustained pressure. So far, anyway, but there doesn't appear to be anything in their history to suggest that this would change.

[edit on 7/12/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


The current president is really not acting like a traditional president. I would far soon believe the US some how got him in to create an enemy over supporting that Iran is acting slow to anger. They are anything but slow to anger. They simply don't have the tools nor the support to activate that anger.

reply to post by Amagnon


This would undoubtedly lead the the bombing of Jerusalem. If it rids the world of that cursed city, go ahead. A world without Jerusalem is a world without war in the region.

reply to post by Gorman91

"Slow to anger" would be a subjective term, and it depends on the definition you choose to assign to it. I believe you and I have discussed before that Iran has not wage but one aggressive/offensive war on anyone for hundreds of years. That would be one way to measure it. I personally wasn't measuring exchanges of certain words, particularly words that lose much in translation and in how they are reported, that volleyed back and forth in the media as anger or an indication of their historical propensity toward anger.

[edit on 7/12/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Let me get this straight,

the psycho right wing war criminals who argue that a big magic psycho in the sky gave them magic 'rights' to that particular patch of real estate,

is calling the self-preserving, election stealing Iran regime irrational?!?!?

,

OMG, can you say insane absurd irony anyone?

reply to post by ~Lucidity


About a year ago the Iranians posted an English translation that stated they wanted to blow Israel off the map, and not in a nice way. It has hence forth been deleted and around the same time Iran said it was a mistranslation. So I simply cannot trust their current government in anything as they themselves change their own words around many times.

Iran has a historical wise and peaceful people and government. But the current president has got to go. He is a demented radical and trying the patience of the world. I am convinced he is like America's own radical religious groups who believe they have to start WW3 so that salvation and the 2nd coming will begin.

I will always stand by Iran's right to be free and lead themselves. I always have argued that. I have stated that I want Iran's government to be replaced and that occupation is unwise.

I was counting the current administration's slow to anger, not hundreds of years.

This administration is hardly slow to anger. He is quick to anger but lacks the army toys to commit to his own words.

So yea, their people and nation are a proud people. But to call the current government slow to anger is not true.

reply to post by slank


God said Israel is for all children of Abraham. That would mean Muslims too. That is why I support a UN controlled region, as it is the only way to force an open land.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91


You have that a bit wrong. The initial translation was taken too literally and also translated wrong. Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. The erroneous quote went viral to vilify both Iran and Ahmadinejad, and many people, like you, remember the erroneous, sensationalistic quote, but have no idea it was ever reversed. And this is exactly how wars start.

In fact, this was briefly covered on page to of this thread...

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Saturday July 28 2007

In the article below we reported that last year President Ahmadinejad said (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini) that Israel should be "wiped off the map". A more literal translation of the statement he made in 2005, at The World without Zionism conference in Tehran, is "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Then why did the government website of Iran put it up in the original way in English for months?

Every speech he gives he always changes the meaning to afterwards.

He's given speeches with chants for eternal conflict with America.

He wants an eternal enemy because he's using nationalism just like Hitler. Nationalism alone is not that bad, though it is bad in extremes. But nationalism + an eternal enemy is called extremism.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Gorman91]

Funny
Iran has a huge Jewish population of Jewish folk who won't move to Israel for love nor money...

Could it be that Israel wants to destroy them because they are the "REAL " Jews?

In any event those Iranian Jews need our support in their fight against international tyranny in a big way...

Everytime, anytime, anyone speaks against those Iranian Jews and their country isn't that the height of anti sematism and Jew hate?

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Danbones]