Iran Rejects Nuclear Inspections Unless Israel Allows Them

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

Associated Press
By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS – 3 hours ago

GENEVA (AP) — An Iranian envoy said Monday his government will not submit to extensive nuclear inspections while Israel stays outside the global treaty to curb the spread of atomic weapons.

"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.

Nuclear safeguards are far from universal, he said, adding that more than 30 countries are still without a comprehensive safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure full cooperation with that U.N. body.

"Israel, with huge nuclear weapons activities, has not concluded" such an agreement or submitted its facilities to the IAEA's safeguards, Soltanieh said.



Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gvr7j491Cmq9QVFPn-gLjgBDX9tQD90FMQEG0

[habitual]

1. sounds reasonable to me!!!

and long overdue!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[razors edge]

13. Why does Israel get a pass?

And since Israel has had nukes for a long time, why don't they acknowledge their own responsibility in berthing a nuclear arms race in the region, if there really is one?

[Pavulon]

15. N-P-T non signatory

cant have that cake and threaten to wipe Israel off the map too..

[razors edge]

26. But it is OK to tell the Arabs

You may have the oil, but we have the match?

The problem here isn't that Israel has nukes outside the UN's oversight, it is that several countries who were signatories violated the treaty to supply Israel with the equipment to do so and have never pursued their own responsibilities in the contracts to inspect the use of the materials to verify use in accordance with the peaceful use clauses Israel signed to receive those materials to begin with.

So here we have the biggest proliferaters on earth bitching over a power plant that is not even making bombs.

[Freddie Stubbs]

117. Iranians are Persians, not Arabs

[darue]

39. of course, you could look at what was said, rather than parrot that they made such a threat

but that would be too damn much to ask wouldn't it?

[ronnie624]

111. Careful.

A warning was issued from on high a while back about challenging that meme.

If you value your registration at DU, you should steer clear of that subject. You're likely being baited by that particular poster.

[Cieran]

127. Misquote

"cant have that cake and threaten to wipe Israel off the map too.."

Well, it's a good thing Iran never threatened that then. The Iranian President was referencing the similarities between Zionism and the USSR, the actual quote was:

""This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Keeping quoting the Israeli's FRAUDULENT mis-translation if you like, it just exposes you for the ignorant shill for Zionism that you really are.

[Phx_Dem]

128. I guess the Iranians have bought into the zionist propaganda

Billboard in IRAN:

[ronnie624]

130. Interesting. I wonder why it is printed in English. n/t

[Chulanowa]

14. You're kidding?

We should all be anti-Iran, pro-israel? Are you reading the same subject material that we are?

What right does Israel, an aggressive nation with clear plans for regional military conquest, have to nuclear weapons? Why does Iran, a nation that hasn't attacked anyone in modern history, who has repeatedly allowed the IAEA to inspect its facilities, have no right to nuclear energy?

Or is your position more of Liebercrat, "We must support Israel at all times no matter hte cost to our nation or others, so I can make a million and those dumbfuck fundies can get their armageddon!"

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kool Kitty]

24. NO ONE has the right to have nuclear weapons.

NO ONE. They are a crime against humanity.

[timtom]

119. Love your response!

Spot on.

[bdamomma]

126. exactly there should be none.

plus we have most of them, such BS, Pakistan has them and Iran does not have any. Again, this is all for the oil, and these greedy murderous bastards in our goverment want it, and they do not give one shit about killing people again for it, even our own. And Israel should comply to the IAEA rules.

[tchunter]

25. nice strawman....

never once did chulanowa say that iran should have nuclear weapons, he/she said they should have access to nuclear ENERGY, something reasonable as they despite having oil reserves, a net importer of gasoline.

My position is that Israel has the right to nuclear weapons, but part of that right is having to submit to the international safeguards and disclosure protocols.

[Baby Snooks]

28. Worse than shameful

Those who would call Israel the aggressor simply have never bothered to look at the history of Israel from the point the Partition Plan of 1947 was agreed upon and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria sent in the tanks.

And some from time to time have wondered if they declared war on the Palestinians as well as the Israelis. The Arabs at the time didn't think much of the Palestinians either. The Arabs wanted to complete teh Holocaust. And didn't mind getting rid of the Palestinians as well.

The reality of Israel is not as simple as some would like to believe it is.

"Damaging truth, I prefer to advantageous error. Truth heals the pain which perhaps it evokes." - Goethe.

People in this country really do not like truth for some reason.

[Djinn]

35. Who's been sending tanks lately

sure as shit isn't IRAN

Israel has attacked it's neighbors CEASELESSLY since becoming a nation

[katerinasmommy]

48. Umm

I actually support Israel's right to exist, but as a history major near graduation I have to ask ya, did anyone ask the Palestinians if they agreed to this? I can tell you right now that the answer is no. Jews during the British Mandate worked agressively and not always peacefully to carve out Israel long before the Holocaust. Zionists simply used it to pressure the U.N. into getting what it wanted. And please don't tell me Zionist is a dirty word, it's what they called themselves. So let's not pretend that Israel is wholly the victim here. It never was and it isn't now. NO ONE in that area is. They all have a LOT to answer for. That includes the Arabs and the Jews. I'm simply sick of this country trying to be referee. Let them kill each other and then we can deal with the sensible people that stayed out of it or at least have a clear victor. I'm more than happy to open the doors of this country to anyone from any country in the region who's sick of the bullshit and wants to wait until they are done. This rant doesn't make me anti semitic or anti arab. It just makes me damn tired of it all and everyone's offended sensibilities or virtues or whatever that in the end are going to get us all killed

[TheWraith]

65. Read history much?

The partition plan of 1947 was NOT agreed upon. Only the Israeli settlement groups approved of it--both the British and the Palestinians rejected it as being unacceptable. And the invading countries didn't want to "complete the Holocaust," they were there for a land grab, pure and simple. Hell, at the beginning of the war the king of Jordan, who was the head of the war effort, made no secret about wanting to take over the areas marked for the Palestinian state and annex them to Jordan. And no, despite the Arab League's statement calling for a democratic constitutional state in Palestine, they didn't really give much of a crap about the Palestinians. Most of the countries involved just wanted to prevent a flood of Palestinian refugees showing up at their door.

As an aside, there's a very famous quote from the first Prime Minister of Israel:

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

[Baby Snooks]

105. We must be reading different history

"Only the Israeli settlement groups approved of it--both the British and the Palestinians rejected it as being unacceptable."

You mean the British and the Arabs. The Palestinians as a people had little voice. Many were Christian. Who were just as "unacceptable" to the Arabs as the Jews.

Great Britain under the British Mandate of 1917 began the immmigration to Palestine by Jews. Then opposed further immigration. No doubt following what would become the official unofficial foreign policy of the West - setting human rights policies based on the amount of oil exports to the West by any particular country. Great Britain did not, however, vote against the Partition Plan of 1947. They merely abstained in the United Nations General Assembly Vote. It is a very complex history. Not so simple, again, as some would like to believe.

As for the quote by an Israeli leader, who you do not name, the reality is the Jews bought much of the land. Most of the land involved in the Partition Plan of 1947 was already owned by the Jewish settlers. Much of it bought from Arab landowners. Who then claimed the Jews had stolen their land. Sounds good. But is not the reality.

The Palestinians we see today are not the Palestinians of yesterday. Many converted to Islam as a result of assimilation when they "exiled" themselves following the War of 1948. And along with the conversion came a hatred of Jews. And to a degree a hatred of Christians.

Again it is not a simple matter. What is a simple matter is that the majority of Palestinian and Israeli people want peace and co-existence and want both a Palestine and an Israel. The politicians do not. The politicians are influenced on both sides by the Arab League and by the United States. And so there is no peace.

Do not assume to know what it is to be Jewish and an Israeli based on propaganda. Go to Israel and experience it for yourself. And you will quickly learn that the aggression you speak of is merely self-defense albeit an aggressive one. But a justified one just the same.

Israel is still surrounded by enemies who have publicly called for the annihilation of Israel. Only Egypt and Saudi Arabia have changed their positions. Egypt officially. Saudi Arabia unofficially and very cautiously although its position has begun to change the position of the Arab League somewhat although the main obstacle to partition is Jerusalem but it is an obstacle for not two sides but three. It is the site of the holiest shrines for the three religions who believe in the God of Abraham. The Arab League is not the only organization demanding some sort of partition for Jerusalem. Jewish and Christian organizations also demanded it.

And because of Iraq the Arab League has begun to change its position on the United States - in some ways many Arabs are seeing the manipulation of Israel by the United States as a greater threat to them than Israel itself but they also look upon Iran as a threat as well simply because Iran could then destroy them after they destroyed Israel.

It is highly possible that if we did not respond to a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv that Saudi Arabia would. And that points out what is not being pointed out but should be. Saudi Arabia most likely also has nuclear weapons. Most likely provided by us.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave. A web woven by us, by the Bushes and their CIA, since the end of World War II.

[Winterblues]

115. How about in the beginning, how did Israel get the land?

What does the Bible say about that? Exodus..anyone.....

[darue]

41. no combination of states pose any real military threat. now more than ever

invading armor would be easily blown away. invading air power is vastly weaker. the greatest threat would be human wave attacks, but I'm sure there's no shortage of air-fuel devices. no need to nukes. now more than ever.

[peacetalksforall]

61. So, because Israel is small and has not been a nice neighbor, Israel deserves to

have nuclear facilities and nuclear gifts from the U.S, but their neighbors can't.

Play fair and seek peace. Though Israel has received decades of total support from the U.S., the people are tiring. We can see that there is no progress. We can see that war is a hot goal. We are tired of our kids being used. We are no longer tolerable of the Israeli leaders who make a ton of money for themselves, cohorts, and citizens by profiting on war. We are no longer tolerating the ways Palestinians are treated, the expansion, and the Israeli involvement in our government - every branch of it having to do with State and War and the maufacture of war toys.

When the leaders of Israel lead their people to peace and provide justice, we'll be on board. We just ran out of empathy, sympathy, unquestioning support when in the last couple of years there has been no relief for Palestinians, the expansion keeps going, and Israel bombs the heck out of Lebanon, helped set up an invasion by bombing in Syria, plays tit for tat with the highest of technology against people who have stones, body bombs, missiles (Palestinians).

We've just had it. The Isreali leaders who have been getting voted into office don't want peace. We want peace. Sorry to have to lay it out so bluntly, even though I may only be writing here for myself.

The support of the people might have been blind far beyond when we started to get sight of the unending drums of war for Israel - with no lasting peace while the war effort continues. We are unsupportive of the way Israel treat Palestinians and other neighbors.

Leaders do cruel things to their people when they are in perpetual war with the leaders of other nations.

How long do you want Israel to have it all from us?

We don't want Iran bombed. Plain and simple. We've had it. And it doesn't have a darn thing to do with religion for most of us. Democrats mostly seek peace. Exception: Republican-Lite Democrats want war.

Israel blew it - crossed a line - lost many supporters. No anti-anything coming from me except I am anti-perpetual war and partnerships with leaders here in this country who I can't respect.

[TheWraith]

64. It might help to get your basic facts right.

For starters, you seem to be implying that people complaining about the fact that the Israelis get a pass for a covert nuclear program while the Iranians get threatened for it are somehow biased against Israel. This is a bogus argument that is generally considered to be an attempt to squash legitimate debate: the idea that if you disagree with Israeli government policy, you're anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.

Second, Israel is not the size of Rhode Island. It's actually about 6.5 times the side of Rhode Island. It also helps to recall that there hasn't been a significant military action against Israel by anybody for 34 years. Despite that, the Israeli government persists in an extremely militaristic foreign policy that continues to isolate it, and close down the possibility of further peace negotiations.

Now by the logic that the Israelis have the right to covert nuclear weapons production because they have nearby hostile countries, then the Iranians have the same right. Their next door neighbor Pakistan, with whom they have traditionally hostile relations, is a nuclear power with an incredibly high poverty rate and four times the population density of Iran, making Iran a prime target for invasion if the Pakistanis decided they needed expansion room. They're across the region from Israel, a country which has a long history of bombing other countries without provovation, and has threatened to do so to Iran. And there's us, who've talked about small scale nuclear strikes.

Me, I think allowing anybody in a band stretching from Egypt to the Chinese border to have nukes is probably a bad idea, but proceeding from the idea that one country's known arsenal shouldn't be questioned while another country is threatened for maybe having had a program at one time is... disingenuous at best.

[azurnoir]

66. So you are claiming that Israel has plans on useing

it's nukes? On who pray tell, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria? You do realize that Damascus and Tel Aviv are about 60 miles apart?

And welcome to DU, yet another ProIsrael "democrat" bad mouthing other Democrats that do not fall into lock step, we've had alot of you lately. Very disturbing indeed.

[liberalmike27]

69. I am amazed

That you keep calling an equitable agreement, somehow anti-Israel. It just shows how twisted we've become, or you've become. Fair is fair. If Iran should have to be inspected, why not Israel? Otherwise, we should shut up.

Calling both sides to agree to the standards set is not anti-anyone, it's just fairness in action. We don't see much of it in our foreign policy these days, that's for sure. You see, your democratic party, as you so neatly phrase it, is interested in truth, and honesty of policy. Republicans on the other hand, blind subserviance to the government in power. Right and wrong is important to us.

[snort]

79. i smell a plant.

[hack89]

29. Clear plans for regional military conquest?

care to elaborate on that one - just how do they plan to conquer the more populate countries around them?

[acetylyne]

37. with the help of our military of course.

[hack89]

47. I keep forgetting who really runs our country.

:eyes:

[acetylyne]

102. well it sure isn't 'we the people'

[LeftishBrit]

91. And when has the American military ever been involved in a war between Israel and its neighbours?

[acetylyne]

103. Oh that's right Israel has nothing to do with us being in Iraq.

or our incessant saber rattling against Iran.

[LeftishBrit]

136. You are absolutely right. Israel has NOTHING to do with our being in Iraq!

('our' meaning both America and Britain)

Israel aren't perfect, but they also aren't the rulers of the world!

And it is just this sort of scapegoating of bogeynations that did get us into the mess that we're in. Let's not do it to Iraq, Iran ... or Israel.

[The Stranger]

114. Are you trying to insert the U.S.S. Liberty into the discussion?

It is the only answer to your question.

[Mr Rabble]

51. Let's start with the repeated invasions of Lebanon.

Israel has invaded Lebanon how many times since 1980? How many thousands of civilians have Israeli air strikes killed?

How about bombings in Syria?

How about the Golan Heights?

How about the repeated threats by Israeli leadership of bombings of Iran?

This isnt about jews, or being jewish. This is about Israel being a terrorist state, which is in violation of dozens of UN Resolutions. Even a simple look at UN security council resolutions- and the veto's- will show you what Israel wants in the way of peace.

[LeftishBrit]

89. Perhaps there are more UN resolutions against Israel than other countries...

because certain UN countries are politically against Israel, not because Israel is worse than Iran or Saudi Arabia or China or Russia or America or....

Not saying that Israel doesn't deserve any of these resolutions; but so do other countries that don't get them.

As regards nuclear weapons, I think that both Israel and Iran should be inspected, and so should ALL countries that are known to have nuclear weapons (including Britain and America) or are likely to get them. And there should be active pressures for global nuclear disarmament. Sadly, this isn't likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

[hack89]

96. How about the Sinai? Gaza?

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Israel control less territory then it did 15 years ago?

[LeftishBrit]

90. Clear plans for regional military conquest? Of whom?

Which countries do you think Israel will be able to conquer? Repel if attacked, yes - but conquer?

And remember that if Israel were to use nukes on its neighbours, the nuclear fallout would seriously affect Israel as well. So it will not do so, except in retaliation. Same goes for Iran, IMO. The more countries have nukes, the greater the risk of accidental disaster, or of use by terrorist groups; but I don't think that any of the countries themselves would use them regionally for a first strike, unless they are utterly suicidal.

[habitual]

16. welcome to DU

happy watching!

[Hardrada]

54. Has anyone alerted on that one yet?

[Usrename]

19. It is becoming more and more difficult to continue to support Israel.

How does one support Israel, as a Democrat, while at the same time being against nuclear proliferation and apartheid?

[darue]

45. you support them they way you would any friend who's got a problem

sometimes friends need help getting out of a harmful cycle of events. this situation REQUIRES one to not support everything they do. there are signs of hope, and possibilities that peace may come.

[Usrename]

67. People are changing all over the world, especially in Israel.

There are always possibilties for peace and signs of hope. There does seem to be a slow awakening, here and there.

[Djinn]

33. as a democrat

who just happened to pop up to propagate the smear that lefties hate Israel? as your 2nd post? So you'll be "watching" us for thought transgressions huh?

[JRicks_GA]

40. Probably just a visitor that uses Megaphone...

Pushing an agenda, 21st century style.

Megaphone

Give Israel Your United Support

[jpak]

99. LOL - "anit-Iran"

Vigilance is indeed warranted and the proper authorities will be informed if these disturbing trends continue...

:rofl:

[Tight_rope]

132. Me too...everyone should be inspected...the first should be the USA.

Sorry....I just don't trust us.

[LSparkle]

2. That's only fair, I must agree

Why all this BS secrecy about Israel's nuclear weapons programs? Why have
people been ARRESTED for even disclosing that Israel HAS such a program
(the existence of which is universally acknowledged, even though Israel's
"official" position is to deny it)?

[Ian David]

5. Israel didn't sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why should they abide by it?

And secondly, what if Israel's nukes are just "Davidka Mortars"-- in other words, what if it's just a hoax Israel is perpetrating to make everyone THINK they have secret nukes?

[LSparkle]

6. Secret nukes? If they DON'T have them, why are people arrested

for claiming they DO? If the goal is to make people THINK they
have them, then why punish the Israelis who have admitted to
working on those programs? If Israel hasn't signed the NPT,
it's not like they're violating an agreement by having such
a program ... ???

[Ian David]

97. Cover story. If they want people to think they have nukes, then arresting people who "expose"...

their imaginary nukes adds to the story.

Pretending to have nukes they don't actually have may keep them as safe (if not safer than) actually having them.

Go google the phrases "Davidka Mortar" and then google the phrase "Cast a Giant Shadow."

[wuushew]

7. There also the mysterious flash picked up by the Vela satellite in 1979

although lack of supporting evidence is problematic.

[razors edge]

52. So if Iran just unsigns the NPT

then all of this will just go away, won't it?

[Ian David]

98. You can't unsign a treaty. Bush needs to learn that, too. n/t

[razors edge]

108. But, since there was a revolution

in 1979, they do have the ability to claim they never signed the treaty, the Shah did in 1970/74.

[Ian David]

109. Hmm... that's a very good point. However...

... if they were going to make that argument, they sould have made it in 1979.

Since then, they've taken advantage of the "carrot" provisions of the treaty, and can't just walk away from it because they don't like the "stick" parts.

[razors edge]

110. I agree, it's late in the game for that.

But seeing as how all the "stick" holders have abandoned their responsibilities under the treaty, I don't think they will care too much what we say.

[Ian David]

112. Well, that's because Iran doesn't have mangoes. n/t

[TaffyMoon]

3. Now there's a thought!

[Pastiche423]

4. Works for me!

[acetylyne]

8. makes perfect sense! Israel will make it look bad for Iran somehow though.

[harmonicon]

9. Israel is capable of making another country look bad?

I thought Israel tried to exist just to out-bad every other country.

"Oh, really? They ran someone over with a tank? Fuckin' pussies. We'll run someone over with a god-damned bull dozer, and continue on to destroy their whole fuckin' neighbourhood."

[acetylyne]

31. haha good point

Israel sure does love trying to make other countries look bad to justify their actions though, and I have a feeling they're going to react to this with: 'Iran won't let us inspect! they must be hiding something! rabble! rabble! rabble!'

[Pavulon]

10. Iran can pull out of the NPT

and then set terms.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. What's sauce for the goose ......

is sauce for the gander.

[stanley01]

18. Ive had enough

This world wont stand long
 if the Israelis want war let them use their own nuclear
devices es

[HuffleClaw]

17. Bush's response to this should be classic

really.

[Chisox08]

20. So how long will it be before we see another "Mission Accomplished" banner?

[UndertheOcean]

21. Sounds reasonbable to me too, only the current Iranian dictatorship needs to go nevertheless

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. The nature of the Iranian government is not for us to decide

It's up to the Iranians.

[hack89]

49. If it was a true democracy

that might be the case. But it isn't. As a purely theoretical question, don't you think that the democracies of the world have a moral obligation to help oppressed people overthrow oppressive governments?

[Mr Rabble]

53. So should I be on the lookout for a helpful democracy for us?

If "oppressive regime" is your standard for overthrow, we can immediately start with Tel-Aviv and Washington DC. Neither are functioning democracies, and both are large state supporters of terror.
The US was even lucky enough to be condemned for it by the World Court in 1986.

History clearly shows that "democracies" are in fact fine with oppressive regimes and in fact openly support them as long as they play ball. Indonesia, Iraq, Columbia, Haiti, Chile etc...are all great examples.

It might be a good idea for you to actually look into some of this stuff so that you can better articulate your point of view.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. No--I know my recent history too well

That assertion leaves the "democracies" the option of arbitrarily defining some countries as dictatorships needing to be overthrown while others, just as bad or worse (military allies, those that allow U.S. companies to build sweatshops) are okay.

Prime examples:

Iraq: dictatorship under Saddam Hussein BAAAAAAD COUNTRY. MUST KILL
Uzbekistan: dictatorship under (I forget his name). Just as bad as Saddam Hussein. LETS U.S. BUILD BASES. GOOOOOOD COUNTRY.

Cuba: Communist country that has defied the U.S. for fifty years. BAAAD COUNTRY.
China: Communist country that allows U.S. companies to run sweatshops. GOOOOD COUNTRY.

Nicaragua in the 1980s: Marxist-leaning government whose revolutionary victory was twice confirmed by popular vote, made a sincere effort to spread literacy and improve public health. BAAAADD COUNTRY.
El Salvador in the 1980s: Right-wing dictatorship with wealth controlled by 14 families and the rest desperately poor. "Right wing death squads" that somehow never got caught managed to kill an average of 200 people a month during the worst period. GOOOOD COUNTRY.

Then there's Afghanistan. No one in government gave a rat's ass about the plight of women under the Taliban. In fact, the CIA supported the Taliban because they brought "stability." That all fell apart when the Taliban refused to allow U.S. oil companies to build a pipeline across their territory.

May I also remind you that all of Eastern Europe kicked the Soviets out without U.S. intervention.

To "help" a country establish "democracy" without the express permission of the people of that country is to treat them like children. Besides, in these cases, "democracy" is usually defined as "friendliness to U.S. business interests."

[14thColony]

100. If I may point out:

For Iraq it's more like:

Iraq: dictatorship under Saddam Hussein launched unprovoked war against post-revolution Iran - GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD COUNTRY - help supply with weapons

THEN it's:

Iraq: dictatorship under Saddam Hussein that put their mitts on oil that wasn't theirs - BAAAAAAD COUNTRY. MUST KILL.

Sorry, minor tweak to show yet more complicity from Washington. Otherwise great overview of the March of Democracy, American style!

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Iran's current regime is in place because the United States installed a dictator in 1953

Mohammed Mossadeq was Iran's Prime Minister in the early 50's and he was secular, western educated, and very popular. We overthrew him because he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company. The Shah was then overthrown in 1979 and support for tossing him out of power was overwhelming in Iran. Unfortunately of all of the Shah's opponents, the Islamic radicals were the ones best in position to take power.

I would love to see Iran become a democracy but I wouldn't expect even the most secular western sympathetic Iranians to actually trust America after how much we have already fucked up their country.

[hack89]

95. Doesn't have to be America

I just dispute the point that it is up to the Iranians to change their leaders - they can't.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. Sure they can

They did it in 1979.

The problem is that the mullahs actually have a lot of popular support among the less sophisticated types.

[Hippo_Tron]

118. Yup, Khamenei knows he can be overthrown...

Which is why he uses his puppet Ahmadinejad to rally the hard-liners. These people aren't actually under the impression that they can wipe Israel off the map. They say that for the same reason Bush says he wants to ban gay marriage and overturn Roe v Wade. They want their base to remain loyal.

[Duppers]

22. if both have them, who is the more likely to use them first?

just asking. It would seem to be a pertinent point, no?

[razors edge]

55. Probably the one who has shown

a history of invading, or other belligerence, in the memorable past.

[Duppers]

138. ah, and just who that would be?

It depends on whom you ask.

[bonito]

27. Until people realize the middle east situation

Is the foremost problem at hand, and work to provide a fair and balanced arrangement there, and I'm not talking oil but the relationship between the people, only then can we ALL begin to realize a brighter future.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Absurd.

But the comments sure aren't unexpected.

[Hardrada]

Back at your post again I see (no pun intended.)

Really the double standard must end and then perhaps we may see some attempt at sanity and genuine diplomacy in that region of the world.

[Behind the Aegis]

70. So, if I have something to say, then I am "back at my post." How pathetic.

There is no double standard in this case, but far be it from me to stand in the way of your constant anti-Israeli narrative (talk about being at a post).

[Hardrada]

121. I guess we are just NOT going to change our minds, are we?

So be it.

[Behind the Aegis]

123. I guess WE are not.

So it shall be, as it was.

[SavageDem]

32. I don't think Iran should submit to inspections...

...until the U.S. allows Iranian inspectors to review our nuclear weapons stockpile as well!

Same "what's good for the goose..." argument as mentioned earlier...

And I also agree that anyone possessing nukes is a bad idea. As is the insanity of creating a "Star Wars" satellite-based missile defense system.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Fair enough

What's sauce for the Iranians is sauce for the Israelis.

[Andy823]

38. Great Idea

I have no problem with that.

[NoodleyAppendage]

42. Can't argue with that. It's high time that Israel be held to account. n/t

J

[Poll_Blind]

43. Oh- Snap! SNAP! SNAAAAAAP! Wait, though, is it anti-Semitic to inspect Israeli nuclear power...

...plants? I'm pretty sure someone from the Israeli government will clue us in.

PB

[reprehensor]

44. Good.

Iran does have a point.

[Better Believe It]

46. Very Reasonable Indeed!

K & R

[PFunk]

50. Very reasonable and long overdue

the time for the double-standard towards isreal has long since past (and got us into this mess in the first place).

[ChristianDemocrat1]

56. DOUBLE-STANDARDS discredit America's message of Freedom, Democracy & Civil Rights

"Iran Rejects Nuclear Inspections Unless Israel Allows Them"

This is completely reasonable. And there is nothing "anti-Israel" about it; it is simply fair. Its tiring to hear the classic Zionist shout-down that it is somehow "anti-Israel" (or "anti-Semitic") for Israel to be held to the same standards as everyone else. Justice requires this.

And it is baloney to say that it is a worrisome disturbance for a Treaty signatory to seek nuclear technology but not worrisome for a non-signatory (Israel) to already possess the same.

And it is baloney to say that Israel has a right to nuclear weapons because "When you are a country that is the size of Rhode Island, and you are surrounded in layers by countries that pray for your destruction. They have been attacked by many of those countries, and by terrorist organizations that are proxies for heads of state." By applying that faulty standard, the Palestinians have a right to nuclear weapons for their abject victimization by Israeli tyranny that surrounds & destroys their homes at will. Again, by that same faulty reasoning, Iran qualifies for the right to nuclear weapons for being surrounded by layers of American-Israeli threats to "totally obliterate them," especially since both have long ago developed the ability to do so.

And if the world is safer when Iran is inspected for nuclear weapons development,
then the world is safer when Israel is inspected for nuclear weapons development, too.

For the truly religious: Is not your God more interested in life, justice (fairness), mercy, peace & love than a certain people-group controlling a certain spot on the planet?

ON THE SUBJECT OF DOUBLE-STANDARDS
For the political: Why should it be of any import to the American Federal Government that a Foreign State be established and maintained whose primary reason for being is to provide a homeland for the practitioners & descendants of a specific religious tradition? Or for a particular cultural group? As unrighteous as it is to employ the powers of Government to set apart the States of Virginia & Maryland as a Roman Catholic states, or the State of Georgia as a Southern Baptist State, or the State of Utah as a Mormon State, or New Jersey as a Jewish State, so is unrighteous to employ the powers of Government to maintain a Jewish State anywhere else. As racist as it is to employ the powers of Government to ensure Black rule in Louisiana, or enforce White rule in Mississippi, or Hispanic rule in Texas, it is racist to use the powers of Government to enforce a Jewish rule, whether inside America or abroad. A moral principle is either right or wrong everywhere just the same or it is hypocrisy. Just as undemocratic as it would be for the State Government of New Jersey to employ the powers of Government to establish & maintain therein a Jewish majority, so it is equally undemocratic for the government of Israel to employ the powers of Government to establish and maintain for itself a Jewish ruling majority.

Whether based upon religious or racial criteria, it is inherently contrary to America's Principles of Freedom, Democracy & Civil Rights to employ the powers of Government to ensure a Jewish majority, here or abroad.

DOES NOT SUCH HYPOCRISY DISCREDIT & UNDERMINE AMERICA'S CALLING TO PROPAGATE FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY & CIVIL RIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD?

Peace, Not Apartheid.

[cstanleytech]

60. Well its not the first time the US has done that.

Look at how we condemn human rights abuses of some countries and the torture of people while at the same time we have places like secret CIA prisons where torture and human rights abuses are condoned.
Makes me shake my head in wonder at times.

[ChristianDemocrat1]

62. Yeah, the hypocrisy just annuls whatever moral authority we try to excercise...

... and that leaves us with nothing but bribes & military force by which to persuade other countries to align with our national interests. Our economy, which depends upon the goodwill of other nations to buy our products and loan us money, cannot support the bribe-or-bomb approach to world leadership much longer. We either return to the moral high ground to influence through commanding respect or we quietly retreat with each economic setback.

[clixtox]

94. Thank you for such a insightful post &...

a super sincere welcome to DU!

This is the first "welcome to DU" I have ever posted and also probably my briefest post!

Your recondite analysis and perceptions are especially needed on this site, along with everywhere else...

[Tempest]

107. I second that

I hope he/she sticks around and continues to contribute to the threads.

[ChristianDemocrat1]

133. NON-SIGNATORY w/ NUCLEAR WEAPONS more alarming than SIGNATORY w/ NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

Thank you both. I am glad to be a part of it here. I actually joined back in 2004 but forgot my log ins and joined again.
-------------------------------------------------------


DOUBLE-STANDARD
It is ludicrous to call it alarming when an NPT signatory seeks nuclear technology
but somehow not alarming when an NPT non-signatory deploys nuclear weapons.


It should be very alarming that one of the very first projects that a newly formed government undertakes is to secretly develop and deploy nuclear weapons. It is entirely alarming that Israel's government which was formally declared in 1948 should informally deploy nuclear weapons by 1968. And not a peep of official alarm from America. But if, over 30 years AFTER said deployment of nuclear weapons by Israel, another country in the region seeks nuclear technology it is cause for "Axis of Evil" speeches, fear-mongering and saber rattling if not and pre-emptive bombing like they did over Syria and Iraq. DOUBLE-STANDARD.

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS DANGEROUS, WHETHER BY SIGNATORIES OR NON-SIGNATORIES.
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS BY NON-SIGNATORIES WHO DEPLOY NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN SECRET.

America's failure to alarm over Israel's undeclared nukes is a DOUBLE-STANDARD. There is absolutely no justification for supporting Israel's secret nuclear ambitions, ambitions from Israel's very founding - and these are not just ambitions, they are ambitions long fulfilled.

DEMAND A NON-BIASED, NO-TOLERANCE POLICY FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. NO DOUBLE-STANDARD FREE PASS FOR ISRAEL.

Peace, not Apartheid.
Stop the Double-Standard favoritism for Jewish immigrants & their descendants over the native Semitic peoples.
Might does not make right.

[Voltaire99]

57. Old "Obliterate 'Em" Ironsides won't like this

But I rather like it: fair is fair, and the "light of nations" should come clean. Either the US is for or against nuclear proliferation; we cannot be for both.

[cstanleytech]

58. Bleh, while I dont trust Iran they do

have an excellant point, why should Israel be exempt?

[harun]

63. Israel always wants to be "special". If they played by the same rules

everyone else did, they wouldn't be "special" anymore.

[Lady-Damai]

68. Well, Israel was never "special" to me....I agree with the Neturei Karta.

[Behind the Aegis]

72. You find yourself agreeing with many right-wing religious organizations?

Fred Phelps, perhaps?

[Lady-Damai]

73. I don't agree with Fred Phelps.

[Behind the Aegis]

74. Well, at least that is a small relief.

So, it is only fundies who think Israel should not exist?

[Lady-Damai]

75. Yes

[Behind the Aegis]

76. At least your honest.

You are OK with the dismantling of Israel. Any thoughts on what to do with the Israelis living there?

[Lady-Damai]

77. They can live there ...just like the whites did after the apartheid ended in South Africa.

[Behind the Aegis]

78. That's good to know you aren't an advocate for relocation.

So, you really expect the Israelis to go from living in a democracy to another Islamic republic? That should go swimmingly.

[Lady-Damai]

80. Hmm.....

There are Jews who live in Islamic republics. Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt are all Islamic republics.

[Behind the Aegis]

82. Might want to check those numbers...

"There are Jews who live in Islamic republics. Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt are all Islamic republics."

Algeria -- 0
Tunisia -- ~1000
Morocco -- 5,230
Libya -- 0
Tunisia -- ~1000
Egypt -- ~100

These are 2001 numbers. You left off Iran which does have the largest Jewish population in an Islamic republic. Of course, given the numbers, do be sure to take a look at the treatment of the Jews in those areas and feel free to explain how Jews will go from a secular democracy to an Islamic republic. But, I am sure the destruction of the current state of Israel will make everything "all right."

[Lady-Damai]

86. You checked the numbers for me?

I used the same line in argument a while back. I didn't bother to check the numbers this time around. I'm sorry to have left Iran off the list. Interesting how Hillary wants to totally obliterate Iran if it touches Israel. Does she plan to warn the Jews in Iran 2 days in advance....hmm...

If treatment of Jews in Iran is bad why continue to live there? Using the word destruction is strong. I doubt Israel will be dismantled. Israel thinks its untouchable. It could do whatever it wants to Palestinians because countries like America support their terrorism. Anybody who dares speak against Israel...you are labeled a anti-semite.

The problem in the Middle East is ignorance on both sides.

[Behind the Aegis]

87. Of course, I checked the numbers...but, not for you.

"Interesting how Hillary wants to totally obliterate Iran if it touches Israel. Does she plan to warn the Jews in Iran 2 days in advance....hmm... Not an accurate use of the quote, but whatever; it is still a strawman.

"If treatment of Jews in Iran is bad why continue to live there?" I wonder the reaction you would get if you had written..."If treatment of blacks in the US is bad why continue to live there?"

"I doubt Israel will be dismantled. Israel thinks its untouchable. It could do whatever it wants to Palestinians because countries like America support their terrorism. Anybody who dares speak against Israel...you are labeled a anti-semite." More hyperbolic propaganda, barely touching the plane of truth.

"The problem in the Middle East is ignorance on both sides." I almost agree with this statement, but it really the ignorance of all sides, there aren't just two "sides."

[Lady-Damai]

88. Awww...not for me?

The history of Blacks in America and Jews who moved voluntarily to Islamic republics are two different things.


So, the genocide of Palestinians is just a lie? Israel has every right to kill innocent Palestinians.

[LeftishBrit]

93. The Jews didn't 'move voluntarily to Islamic Republics'

They lived there for many years, often centuries. Many of them were kicked out or fled. About half the Israeli Jews are refugees, or descendants of refugees, from Islamic countries.

I disagree with a lot of what Israel does to Palestinians, and would favour a two-state solution.

[YankmeCrankme]

125. "Many of them were kicked out or fled." I'd like to see proof of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah

Contains a graph that gives numbers for number of immigrants to Israel. You'll see that those from Muslim nations is only about 1/8 the total. Most coming from Europe and the Americas. And of those from Muslim countries, mainly Arab, it was primarily for one of two reasons, fulfillment of their belief in the return to the Land of Israel and two, backlash caused by Arab enmity to the forced establishment of the nation of Israel in Arab lands.

Historically, Jews were welcome in Muslim countries, much moreso than European ones. During the time of Moorish Spain they were prominent merchants, scholars and advisors to the Muslim rulers. They were allowed to practice their religion without interference. It was during the reconquest that Christian authorities forced many to flee Europe and go to Muslim countries to live. Typically, that was the case throughout Europe. Most immigrants to Israel have been European, accelerating with the Zionist movement in the 18th century.

And don't use the "they didn't have the full rights of Muslims and had to pay a special tax if they didn't convert" canard. They had the same issues, most times worse, in Europe. The US had blatant discrimation against Jews for decades, too. Jews were banned from many places of employment and housing well into the 20th century here. There are people here who still discriminate and commit acts of vandalism against Jews.

Islamic discrimination was not an isolated event, European Christian discrimination and persecution were common and brutal.

[14thColony]

101. Strange you mention that

I was recently doing a bit of research on Iranian Jews, of which 25,000 to 35,000 remain in Iran, as they have for nearly 3,000 years (down from about 150,000 or so, mostly leaving after 1979). Turns out they are a feisty bunch of folks who are very proud of being Iranian. While there is oppression, many pointed out that anti-Semitism in Europe has historically been far worse and far more lethal than anything in Iran. In fact a couple of (Muslim) Iranian diplomats were honored by Israel as "Righteous Among Nations" for resucing hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Jews from the Nazis while they were posted in Europe by issuing them on-the-spot Iranian passports or travel visas to third countries. One diplomat damned near got shot for forcibly removing arrested Jews from German control, then sending them out of Europe as fast as he could. The Iranian constitution guarrantees a seat in the Parliament for the Jewish community, which due to their numbers would otherwise not be represented. In fact certainly some (dunno how many) Iranian Jews who emigrated to Israel later decided to move back to Iran, citing a desire to be among Iranians and be able to speak Persian, regardless of religion. Yes, there is semi-official repression in Iran (even though it violates the 1979 Constitution), and certainly unofficial 'street' repression, but it appears in general the Iranian Jews that remain have no desire to live anywhere else. Of course if Israel or the US bombs Iran things will get very bad for them (and the Iranian Christians) pretty fast unless the Tehran government is prepared to step in quickly - don't laugh - apparently the government sent soldiers to protect a synagogue from violent protestors recently when the synagogue was falsely accused by IRNA of having flown Israeli flags on its outside walls. Strange place, and apparently not nearly as monolithically crazed radical Shi'a Muslim as we are led to believe. As in most things, the world is more often shades of grey than black and white.

[ChristianDemocrat1]

81. You seem to conclude that Israel cannot exist if held to the same standards as everybody else

The Israelis and their neighbors can learn to live together in peace the same way various ethnic and religious groups do here in America --- by truly taking to heart our principles of Freedom, Democracy and Civil Rights. That's why America preaches them to the world because these are the principles by which nations are blessed with peace & prosperity as such luminaries as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King proclaimed. But so long as Israel & her neighbors are coddled into clinging to the Old World notions of employing the powers of Government to respect one race or establishment of religion over another, they will be at each others' throats with race and religious wars of the sort they used to have in Europe and presently experience in and around Israel. These places need to adopt America's principles of Religious Freedom, Civil Rights and Government of ALL the people, by ALL the people, for ALL the people rather than of, by & for the government-favored people-group. This is how racial & religious strife is avoided. And it is old hat, pretty clear to America's founders over 200 years ago. Whether or not you would call people who believe this "fundies" tells us more about you than it does them.

The keys to Arab-Israeli peace are true Religious Freedom and Civil Rights that genuinely produce Government of ALL the People, by ALL the People, and for ALL the People who live there -- not just for those descended from practitioners of Rabbinic Judaism or some other cultural or religious group. We all know these things. There is no reason for Israel to be "the Devil's Triangle" for morality around which normal moral principles inexplicably go haywire & disappear.

[Behind the Aegis]

83. If only Israel were held to the same standards as others.

Your pollyannish view, while lovely, is not going to occur any time soon. It also shows you are not very familiar with the state of Israel and her government. As for the Neturei Karta, they are fundies, there is just no getting around that fact.

Edit: spelling error

[ChristianDemocrat1]

84. That's right, by holding Iran & Israel to the same nuclear inspection standards

"Pollyannish?" That's what Old World people of England thought of America's Founders -- but we benefit today from the Founders' vision and sacrifice. It begins with Hope. And it ends with Peace. And it takes consistent justice (fairness) every step of the way. That means holding eveyone to the same standards -- no playing favorites, whether they be Whites, Blacks, Browns, Christians, Muslims, Mormons or Jewish. To the extent a country deviates from Justice (fairness: holding eveyone to the same rule), they deviate from the things that bring them peace.

[Behind the Aegis]

85. You are aware Israel is **NOT** a member of the NPT, correct?

You have given a prime example of how posters here hold Israel to a completely different standard. Again, your post indicates you may not be all that familiar with Israel.

[14thColony]

106. This is a valid and salient point

Israel (like North Korea, India, and Pakistan) is not a signatory of the NPT - actually these are the ONLY four countries on earth that are not party to the NPT - so I must grudgingly admit it is disingenuous to hold Israel accountable for breaking the rules of a club they never joined. Even the proliferator country, France, gets of scot-free because the NPT did not come into effect until AFTER their nuclear cooperation program with Israel ended.

But then one must ask...if...

Israel never signed the NPT and built the bomb.
India never signed the NPT and built the bomb.
Pakistan never signed the NPT and built the bomb.
North Korea signed the NPT, but then withdrew and built the bomb.

Then...if Iran is really building a nuclear weapon, why not just withdraw from the NPT? What's the worst that might happen, SANCTIONS?!? So if Iran refuses to withdraw from the NPT and still allows pretty hard-core IAEA inspections (which the IAEA said they were quite happy with), it's gotta make you say "hmmmmmmmmmm...." Unless of course for those with the clarity of vision to never let facts distract.

[Behind the Aegis]

124. "Unless of course for those with the clarity of vision to never let facts distract."

90% of the posts in this thread fall into that category. Too bad you were one of the few that had to "...admit it is disingenuous to hold Israel accountable for breaking the rules of a club they never joined." Too many here are stuck in "anti-Israel" mode to notice facts like that, so they just let them pass by them.

[cstanleytech]

129. I dont see it as

an "anti-Israel" thing much, how many here have even asked for them to be disbanded as a country or that we invade them and force them to obey our rules or laws?
I think most people are just "pro-accountable" which means we stop protecting Israel like we have been for the past few decades and let them live with the consequences of their actions more often instead of coming to their aid.

[ChristianDemocrat1]

134. non-signatory w/ secret nuclear weapons worse than signatory w/ nuclear technology

counterpoint


DOUBLE-STANDARD
It is ludicrous to call it alarming when an NPT signatory seeks nuclear technology (Iran)
but somehow not alarming when an NPT non-signatory deploys nuclear weapons (Israel).


It should be very alarming that one of the very first projects that a newly formed government undertakes is to secretly develop and deploy nuclear weapons. It is entirely alarming that Israel's government which was formally declared in 1948 should informally deploy nuclear weapons by 1968. And not a peep of official alarm from America. But if, over 30 years AFTER said deployment of nuclear weapons by Israel, another country in the region seeks nuclear technology it is cause for "Axis of Evil" speeches, fear-mongering and saber rattling if not pre-emptive bombing like they did over Syria and Iraq. DOUBLE-STANDARD.

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS DANGEROUS, WHETHER BY SIGNATORIES OR NON-SIGNATORIES.
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS BY NON-SIGNATORIES WHO DEPLOY NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN SECRET.

America's failure to alarm over Israel's undeclared nukes is a DOUBLE-STANDARD. There is absolutely no justification for supporting Israel's secret nuclear ambitions, ambitions from Israel's very founding - and these are not just ambitions, they are ambitions long fulfilled.

DEMAND A NON-BIASED, NO-TOLERANCE POLICY FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. NO DOUBLE-STANDARD FREE PASS FOR ISRAEL.

Peace, not Apartheid.
Stop the Double-Standard favoritism for Jewish immigrants & their descendants over the native Semitic peoples.
Might does not make right.

[LeftishBrit]

92. 'Same standards as everyone else'?

Do you think that all other countries follow perfect standards of peace and morality?

'The Israelis and their neighbors can learn to live together in peace the same way various ethnic and religious groups do here in America --- by truly taking to heart our principles of Freedom, Democracy and Civil Rights. That's why America preaches them to the world because these are the principles by which nations are blessed with peace & prosperity as such luminaries as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King proclaimed. ....These places need to adopt America's principles of Religious Freedom, Civil Rights and Government of ALL the people, by ALL the people, for ALL the people rather than of, by & for the government-favored people-group. This is how racial & religious strife is avoided'

Do you have any idea how condescending you sound? 'Everyone needs to be like the Americans'. With this attitude, Bush 'brought freedom and democracy' to Iraq - killing hundreds of thousands in the process. And yes, my country collaborated; and yes, the British Empire caused disaster in many parts of the world for many years through the same arrogant attitude as you're expressing: 'our way is best and everyone needs to follow it'. But it's not an attitude I'd expect to see on a liberal board.

[ChristianDemocrat1]

135. This is first of all an AMERICAN DEMOCRAT liberal board

LeftishBrit:
As a Brit, do you get to register with the Democratic Party in America?

Didn't think so.

So, please, as a British guest enjoying political discussion amongst members of the American Democratic Party about America's proper response to world affairs, please refrain from patronizing me or my fellow Americans for appealing to our traditions of Freedom, Democracy & Civil Rights for which American families have sacrificed, fought and died to secure and defend since our nation's independance from Britain.

And right, Bush went on a personal tour of Iraq reminding of America's principles of Freedom, Democracy, and Civil Rights, politely asking that all countries of the region be held to the same standard without hypocrisy, reminding that "All Men are Created Equal" and the inalienable First Amendment Right with which all people are endowed. NOT!

As I recall it, Bush preached up "Axis of Evil" speaches about 3 countries that are no where close to doing what Israel does with WMD's & NUKES since 40 years ago in the early 1960's. Bush then ordered up a "Shock & Awe" pre-emptive invasion of Iraq that has left us all shocked, broke, embarrassed and faltering in diplomatic respect. This is no at all like my politely advocating that America return to her world-respected roots of promoting the same principles of Freedom, Democracy & Civil Rights for which people have come from all over the world since 1776.

You are way out of line.

[LeftishBrit]

137. It's a forum for everyone who supports liberal causes and wants Democrats to win the White House

I have a right to express my views as much as you do.

And the British have been HEAVILY involved in the consequences of American foreign policy; so on those grounds alone, we have the right to comment. We are in Iraq too!


ETA:

'politely advocating that America return to her world-respected roots of promoting the same principles of Freedom, Democracy & Civil Rights for which people have come from all over the world since 1776.'

That is fine. Your post came across, not as advocating that America should return to these roots, but that they should put pressure on OTHER countries, e.g. Middle Eastern countries, to follow American principles.. This latter point has its dangers (and so does pressing other countries to follow British principles).

If I misunderstood your post, then I apologize; but it was not very clear

[Megahurtz]

113. HA! HA! Cool!

Go Iran. Don't take any shit! :thumbsup:

[Freddie Stubbs]

116. So, they are refusing to comply with a treaty which they signed until

a country which did not sign the treaty complies with that treaty.

[Indenturedebtor]

131. Yes it doesn't make any kind of sense

It would be like me telling a cop "Yes I know I was doing 80 in a 45, but in Germany they can drive whatever speed they want. Oh and that joint... well I'm not giving up my weed until Amsterdam does."

The historical revisionism and anti-Israel, even anti-semitic comments in this thread are spectacular though.

I especially love the ones about Israel being bent on conquering the region.. especially when coupled by the dozen or so ones that allude to the global jewish conspiracy. Give me a freakin break.

What did Israel do to Iran again to bring on this animosity?

Look there was no government in Israel. Jews bought the land from Palestinians. Jews formed a government. The Arab nations attacked along with the Palestinians trying to take the land back and to kill all the Jews. They lost. Then they tried again and lost. And over time there has been steady terrorism from the surrounding countries. Israel responds. If Israel really wanted to take over Egypt it could have... same with Lebannon, or at least level it. They really do just want to be left the fuck alone. The way people talk in this forum it's as though Israel just suddenly wakes up every once in awhile and says "Hey lets go kills some Arabs..." gimme a fucking break :eyes: You couldn't be more onesided to the entire history of the region. :eyes:

Israel shouldn't be settling certain areas. There are also other ugly behaviors going on towards the Palestinians, but there does have to be some kind of response when Israel is attacked.

The people on this forum hold Israel to a gross double standard. If America was actually under attack WE would commit a genocide. That is not what Israel is doing. But for fucks sake it will do whatever it has to to survive and I will support that to the death.

You can't hide bigotry by saying "Don't tell me to be PC this is reality!" You sound like a bunch of pukes ffs.

[BeHereNow]

120. What's that saying about "What's good for the goose is good for the gander?"

Bwahahaha.

:popcorn: :rofl: :popcorn: :rofl:
BHN

[drool_n_yank]

122. my nieghbor has 6 shot guns, 4 large cal rifles, and 4 handguns,

he got wind that I plan to get a pellet gun for a problem with rabid squirrels and hes freaking out.

Jack http://nypostoplobotomy.com/