Latest Breaking News

reorg

(3,317 posts)

40. well, there must be a reason why they have them

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:11 PM

Mar 2013

so, the double standard applies when they can't see that others may have the exact same reason to want them.

I believe Israel can understand all too well that people in Iran might feel a little safer if Iran actually had nuclear weapons.

Perhaps it explains why some Israeli politicians are so convinced that Iran is developing this capability.

Even though there is not the slightest evidence whatsoever that Iran's nuclear program is not peaceful.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nuclear watchdog agency says Iran not cooperating [View all] bananas Mar 2013 OP

Damned if they do, damned if they don't Tempest Mar 2013 #1

What are the conditions placed on them? JDPriestly Mar 2013 #2

The U.S. has been moving the goal posts for years now on this issue. Tempest Mar 2013 #6

How about you explain what "conditions" that have been made that you cstanleytech Mar 2013 #10

But you mentioned "conditions." What are they? JDPriestly Mar 2013 #13

I often see the red herring used of "but Israel has nukes". cstanleytech Mar 2013 #15

well, there must be a reason why they have them reorg Mar 2013 #40

the conditions placed on Iran exceed their actual contractual obligations reorg Mar 2013 #38

Israel's nuclear program and weapons are irrelevant. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #4

From your perspective, not Iran's. n/t Tempest Mar 2013 #7

They can use that red herring all they want, doesn't relieve them of their duties. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #8

When the US applies sanctions on Israel to end its nuclear program, this will be the right thing leveymg Mar 2013 #14

Red herring, not a double standard. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #18

Israel's nuclear bombs are outside the NPT, and the initial batch were made of plutonium stolen from leveymg Mar 2013 #20

Well you got one thing correct, FINALLY. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #21

I'm surprised you didn't know about the Israeli theft of plutonium from a US Navy nuclear plant, leveymg Mar 2013 #22

Oh...that explains it. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #23

And pretty obviously untrue. If it is US plutonium, I am sure we gave it to them. stevenleser Mar 2013 #24

Yup, especially given the nature of those sites. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #25

If you prefer the term, diversion of U.S. nuclear materials to Israel, that's still illegal under leveymg Mar 2013 #26

How can Israel be in violation leftynyc Mar 2013 #27

The US is in violation of the NPT for diversion; Israel in violation of US law for receipt leveymg Mar 2013 #28

You just asserted it was a theft. Now because it suits your purposes, you are saying it was transfer stevenleser Mar 2013 #29

If the transfer was authorized, it was diversion. If unauthorized, theft. Take your pick. leveymg Mar 2013 #32

Again, that analogy doesnt work. Israel never signed the NPT. If you want to assert hypocrisy your stevenleser Mar 2013 #34

Yawn leftynyc Mar 2013 #31

No, not up in arms. I don't expect that Israel will be prosecuted, but I don't think sanctions on leveymg Mar 2013 #35

Sorry, leftynyc Mar 2013 #36

A past President stated this. Also, read Hersh's, The Samson Option leveymg Mar 2013 #39

Here's more from that '07 NYT article about Israel's nuclear blackmail of the US leveymg Mar 2013 #41

Kissinger? That's who you want to hang leftynyc Mar 2013 #42

None of that makes Kissinger's statements about the diversion untrue, nor does it change the fact leveymg Mar 2013 #43

You are accusing Israel of leftynyc Mar 2013 #44

No, Israel cannot be in violation of a treaty it never signed and to which it is not a party. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #30

Steven, read more carefully. I said if not a theft, the transfer would be an NPT violation leveymg Mar 2013 #37

What do many think nineteen50 Mar 2013 #3

Of course they aren't. Cough cough. Myrina Mar 2013 #5

Oh, no, that's code for "We will liberate them soon" Blandocyte Mar 2013 #9

Odd, If that was the code then we should have invaded N. Korea by now. nt cstanleytech Mar 2013 #11

Well, if Iraq had actually possessed WMDs... I wouldn't have been against the war... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #12

You never seem to be a big fan of that freedom and democracy stuff cpwm17 Mar 2013 #16

"Nukes" are a pretext ronnie624 Mar 2013 #33

Are we sure this is LBNs? ripcord Mar 2013 #17

Video here Ash_F Mar 2013 #19