expandmymind
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 120
- Location
- Scotland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Member states of the U.N. nuclear watchdog rejected on Friday an Arab-proposed resolution calling on "nuclear-armed" Israel to join a global anti-atomic arms treaty.
US administration has pledged to shield Israel from criticising at the meeting, pressing countries to vote against the resolution.
An assembly meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency last year approved a resolution calling on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation treaty.
It seems double standards are at play again. But not only with Israel - Both Pakistan and India are not signatories either and all three should have their nuclear arsenals inspected.
When it is Israel leading the charge against Iran, I'm surprised you can't see the relevance of bringing them into the discussion or why the Arabs would 'single' them out.
First of all it really doesn't change the obvious and crude double standards of the Arab world.
Secondly Iran is signed on the NNPT, it is already in an agreement to get itself inspected.
Thirdly the leading of the charge against Iran is done by the US, and sided by the majority of the Western world.
Fourth, once again, double standards by the Arab world.
Fifth, in case we forget, double standards by the Arab world.
Like I mentioned, the double standards are noted in the OP
And thank you for mentioning that Iran are signatories of the NPT, for this means that if they were ever to try to build a weapon, they would have to divert material (which they have not done) after throwing out the inspectors. And even after that, they have only currently enriched uranium to the 20% needed for medical isotopes (themselves, after the US rejected a swap deal involving Brazil and Turkey - again showing the rather obvious agenda), meaning it would literally be years from throwing out inspectors to attaining nuclear weapon status.
And just to mention - the leading charge has been Israel. They have been stating falsely now for nearly 20 years that Iran are 'close to acquiring the bomb'.
The US' stance on the matter has nothing to do with nuclear weapons and everything to do with the fact that Iran are the only country (along with Venezuela now, actually) who have managed to get rid of US influence, showing they are not afraid. The US has a bone to pick and it has nothing to do with nukes and everything to do with pride and wiping out the only resistance in the region, and also the only source of inspiration for the hundreds of millions of suppressed people in the region, to the US empire. In other words, Iran are a threat to US corporate interests and Israel's dominance of the region.
Could you please back up your statement that the 'western world...'? I mean, considering the western world are basically political lapdogs for the US, it's a weak connection to make anyway, but please, list these western countries for me who have, by majority, agreed in unison that Iran is a threat.
No idea what you're talking about, and as usual it appears that any connection between your words and reality is completely coincidental.
Nevertheless; Iran has not been following the NNPT and has been violating it constantly, whether by not allowing inspectors when necessary or by enriching centrifuges way beyond the maximum limit the NNPT allows it to.
Once more, no facts to see here it would seem, besides the fact that Israel and Iran have shared a close alliance 20 years ago and besides the fact that Israel has only became worried and has only begun expressing its worries for a nuclear Iran after Iran has started its hostility crusade against it, Israel is indeed not the one "leading the charges". The US is the one that leads this wave in the UN, if only because the US like the other countries who have shown opposition to a nuclear Iran understands the meaning of a tyrannical mad and fanatical regime getting its hands on the world most destructive power.
Feel free to test your conspiracy theories, I know Ahmadinejad did yesterday in the UN.
You mean the US, Canada, Israel, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, Spain, Finalnd, Czech Republic and so on and so on and so on?
Yes, a double standard, but not the one you'd expect.
There is no law or agreement that forces a country to sign on the NNPT agreement, so it's pretty much absurd to try and pass a resolution to force a country to do so.
Now the double standard exists, as you say, because the Arab world did not go after Pakistan and India, but only after Israel.
Even if that were not the case, Israel developed its nuclear arsenal prior to the NPT. Hence, it would come under the Treaty as a nuclear arms state. Recent efforts aimed at Israel merely serve to detract from the larger issues concerning Iran's nuclear activities and the IAEA's concerns over those activities.
Real reason for lack of cooperation
The US and the UN, acting upon no legitimate authority whatsoever, have demanded that Iran submit to an Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement, which would ban any further enrichment on Iranian soil, as well as demanded they submit to an endless regime of IAEA inspections and questioning, based mostly on the “alleged studies” documents, which several sources have said are forgeries posing as a pilfered laptop of a dead Iranian nuclear scientist.
These separate, UN Security Council-mandated investigations have even demanded blueprints for Shahab 3 missiles – a subject far removed from hexafluoride gas or any legitimate IAEA function. In 2003, Iran voluntarily agreed to the extra burden of the unratified Additional Protocol during “good faith negotiations” with the so-called “E-3,” Britain, France, and Germany, acting on behalf of the US. When those negotiations broke down, Iran withdrew in 2006.
With these details left out of the discussion, the impression is left that Iran is refusing to abide by international law, when in fact, it is completely within its NPT obligations.
Even if that were not the case, Israel developed its nuclear arsenal prior to the NPT. Hence, it would come under the Treaty as a nuclear arms state. Recent efforts aimed at Israel merely serve to detract from the larger issues concerning Iran's nuclear activities and the IAEA's concerns over those activities.
Yes, that is pretty much obvious to your average logical person, it's also obvious because the Arab states do not go after Pakistan and India who share the same status of Israel as countries that have not signed on the NNPT and unlike Israel have actually declared that they have nuclear powers.
Very unfortunate that such hypocrisy is not something that should surprise anyone following this subject.
This shows how ill informed you are. Iran have completely complied the the NPT.
Can you show me that Iran and Israel had a 'close relationship 20 years ago' please?
Ah yes, the old dismiss anything out of hand as a conspiracy theory tactic. It is common knowledge what I have said. This is why the US is hated in the region, this is why 9/11 happened, this is basically the reason behind hatred for the US government worldwide (most notably in South America and the Middle East though).
Dismiss it all you want, I know I get more debate out of my cat than I do from you anyways.
Got a link? I haven't seen one that includes 'the majority of the West'. As if that even qualifies for anything anyways.
I think the bold is the point. They are looking for an end to Israel's 'ambiguity'.
I think the bold is the point. They are looking for an end to Israel's 'ambiguity'.
They do not go after Pakistan and India who have declared they have nukes, while Israel, a state that has never declared to have nuclear weapons, is being chased after.
You would have to agree that is not the endgame. It is not to say, OK we thought Israel had nuclear weapons now we know thanks. It would be the first step in trying to disarm Israel of their weapons.
With all the talk about the Israeli isues with the Palestinian problem it tend to make people forget that this is a tiny country with many very rich enemies in the area.
Tell that to the IAEA, they tend to disagree.
While Israel and Iran have been very close allies during the Pahlavi dynasty, after the Islamic revolution Iran has begun cutting its ties off with Israel, and while 20 years ago the relations were still friendly, they became hostile once Ahmadinejad begun his hate speeches on the Zionist entity and making it the scapegoat of his government.
Before those statements Israel did not regard Iran as an hostile entity and there were really no conflicts between the two nations.
While I find the fact that you debate with cats to be unsurprising, I do not engage in one 'tactic' or another, but merely point out the lack of basis in reality of those conspiracy theories you preach on.
Second half of the 20th Century:
bullet
Relations between Islamic countries and the U.S. were profoundly affected by the west's cold war on communism. U.S. foreign policy promoted the creation and training of terrorist, gorilla, and military units. Usama Bin Laden's group was originally trained by the CIA.
bullet
The U.S. fought the growth of a pan-Arab nationalism in the region. Rather than supporting it as a cohesive force -- a source of stability -- throughout the Middle East, the U.S. encouraged divisions among Islamic states.
bullet
Some believe that the U.S. government supported Fundamentalist religious movements as an additional mechanism to fragment the Arab world.
bullet
Petro-dollars brought enormous wealth to many Muslim countries. Unfortunately, only Turkey out of the 50 or so Islamic countries involved are democracies. The leaders are generally autocratic, unelected, and not particularly accountable to public opinion. Their governments see no need to be responsive to the needs of their people. Civil liberties are sharply curtailed.
bullet
Political commentator Gynne Dyer writes: "The West created the modern Middle East, from its rotten regimes down to its ridiculous borders, and it did so with contemptuous disregard for the wishes of the local people. It is indeed a problem that most Arab governments are corrupt autocracies that breed hatred and despair in their own people, which then fuels terrorism against the West, but it was the West that created the problem -- and invading Iraq won't solve it. If the U.S. really wants to foster Arab democracy, it might try making all that aid to Egypt conditional on prompt democratic reforms. But I wouldn't hold my breath." 11
Name the Western countries that you believe are not opposed to a nuclear Iran and I'll refer you with a link to actions/statements taken by those countries that prove otherwise.
Tell that to the IAEA, they tend to disagree.
In view of the fact that the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important outstanding
issues after two and a half years of intensive inspections and investigation, Iran’s full transparency is
indispensable and overdue. Given Iran’s past concealment efforts over many years, such transparency
measures should extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional
Protocol and include access to individuals, documentation related to procurement, dual use equipment,
certain military owned workshops and research and development locations. Without such transparency
measures, the Agency’s ability to reconstruct, in particular, the chronology of enrichment research and
development, which is essential for the Agency to verify the correctness and completeness of the
statements made by Iran, will be restricted.
Previous reports by the Director General have detailed the outstanding issues related to possiblemilitary dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and the actions required of Iran necessary to resolve those issues. In the Director General’s February 2010 report (GOV/2010/10), the Agency described a number of technical matters it needed to address with Iran. Since August 2008, however, Iran has declined to discuss the outstanding issues with the Agency or to provide any further information or access to locations and people necessary to address the Agency’s concerns, asserting that the allegations relating to possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme are baseless and that the information to which the Agency is referring is based on forged documents…
Based on an overall analysis undertaken by the Agency of all the information available to it, the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. There are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004.
From the link I provided above which I suggest you read:
On September 6, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a new paper on the implementation of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement which reported that the agency has “continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran to any military or other special purpose.”
-- This becomes all the more ridiculous when we consider that the issue of nuclear 'weapons' is currently being used as a pretext to target Iran, a country that is using its nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
-- not only with Israel - Both Pakistan and India are not signatories either and all three should have their nuclear arsenals inspected.--
IAEA rejects Arab resolution on "nuclear-armed" Israel [ WORLD BULLETIN- TURKEY NEWS, WORLD NEWS ]
It seems double standards are at play again. But not only with Israel - Both Pakistan and India are not signatories either and all three should have their nuclear arsenals inspected. These are nuclear weapons we're talking about here and not signing the NPT is extremely worrying. Especially when we have NK becoming a nuclear power largely due to Pakistan's inability to control the flow of information regarding the technical aspects of nuclear power and weapons. Not to mention Israel's attempted sale to Apartheid South Africa back in the 70s.
This becomes all the more ridiculous when we consider that the issue of nuclear 'weapons' is currently being used as a pretext to target Iran, a country that is using its nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
Double standard indeed.
Iran should pull out of the treaty unless Israel is forced to also sign up to it.
Since Israel can not be held to the treaty, why should Iran if they pull out of NPT.
Double standard indeed.
Iran should pull out of the treaty unless Israel is forced to also sign up to it.
Since Israel can not be held to the treaty, why should Iran if they pull out of NPT.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?