• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel recoils as US backs nuclear move

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,213
Reaction score
32,788
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I recently got into a tiff with USA-1 where he argued that President Obama's foreign policy has been comparably error-free; that the problems with today's world stem from the Bush administration. Ladies and gentlemen, here we are, stabbing one of our closest allies in the face. well done, Obama, well done. Israel's one guarantee of survival you want to threaten. gee wiz, that won't make them more likely to use it :roll:

guess this is what you get when you elect a man who spent 20 years in Reverend Wright's Church


Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical." ...


:roll: sure. Iran (backer of Hezbollah and Hamaz, ally of Al-Qaeda) having nukes is fine. Israel having nukes threatens the region. well done, boys, really well done.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hope and change, I suppose.

Here's your change, have hope that Iran doesn't nuke you.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You are omitting an important fact of the story, although I totally agree with your assessment of it. Regardless of the fact that this is non-binding resolution and merely "calls" for an action and therefore is powerless, the US should have stuck to its Bush era policy of not backing any resolution that so narrowly focuses on Israel while claiming to cover an entire region. But Obama did say "The greatest threat to proliferation in the Middle East, and to the NPT, is Iran's failure to live up to its NPT obligations." "We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel, and will oppose actions that jeopardize Israel's national security," said President Obama, adding that the U.S. supports the idea of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East but that a comprehensive and durable peace in the region "are essential precursors for its establishment."

As much as Im all for a nuclear free world, I'd agree Obama made too big of a compromise for goodwill in the Middle East by still voting for this resolution when he is also stating how terrible the thing is in the first place. It makes him come off as weak in a way.

HOWEVER, just for a little political theorizing. Remember that these are simply statements and non-binding resolutions. The US so far as taken no real, ie enforceable, actions which are negative towards Israeli policy. Both the nuke issue and settlements have cause disagreements but have not been backed with any real threat from the US, in other words we've been playing soft-ball with Israel on this. If Israel really trusts the US more than it will officially state at this point, than all this loud noise from Israel and the US may be just for show. If the two can convince some of the Middle East that they are on bad terms, without either taking any real action as they haven't so far, it may open up a few unrealized opportunities in the Middle East for the US to negotiate which would be in line with both Israeli and US goals.

Thats a lot of what ifs and maybes I know, and I'm not advocating that's whats really going on, but I thought it was an interesting line of thought.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,213
Reaction score
32,788
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hmm.... that would require a level of coordination and trust between our administration and theirs that i'm just not seeing. of course, that's the beauty of conspiracy theories, countering evidence can always be "well of course that's what they would want you to think"; but i'm thinking that's just not very plausible, given what we know (at least) about this President.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I dont think its really plausible at all either, but everyone loves a good conspiracy theory.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I

:roll: sure. Iran (backer of Hezbollah and Hamaz, ally of Al-Qaeda) having nukes is fine. Israel having nukes threatens the region. well done, boys, really well done.
Surely, you,re missing the point here. The idea behind a nuclear free middle east, is infact, that the middle east will be nuclear free. This includes Iran as much as it does Israel. No one of any consequence is saying that a nuclear armed Iran is acceptable (Hence the pressure for increased sanctions from the U.S UK France etc.) the idea is simply that if Iran is not allowed to go nuclear then Israel should follow the same rules. This could be mutually beneficial for both Israel and Iran as Israel would be spared the trouble of stiking Iran (and the horrendous backlash it would provoke) and Iran would be spared the trouble of being hit. If both sides managed to convice their respective populations that this was a diplomatic victory then i think they could pull it off.

I find it intresting that those who are screaming from the rooftops about the need to prevent Iran from sparking off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East (with some legitimacy) are the same ones criticising this resolution. This resolution provides the means to prevent a nuclear arms race without military strikes. And let's be under no illusion of what the consequences of military strikes on Iran would be, we would see a huge increase in oil prices leading to higher food prices and instability across the world, Iran would cause as much trouble as possible in Afganistan, Iraq and through Hamas and Hezbollah, and Islamists would be given a boost in popularity across the world. If these problems can be avoided while still preventing a nuclear armed Iran then im all for it.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,213
Reaction score
32,788
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Surely, you,re missing the point here. The idea behind a nuclear free middle east, is infact, that the middle east will be nuclear free. This includes Iran as much as it does Israel.
Apparently you missed this part of the OP:

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme

No one of any consequence is saying that a nuclear armed Iran is acceptable
of course they are; those in government are simply saying it quietly to each other while they wait for events to inevitably take us there.

the idea is simply that if Iran is not allowed to go nuclear then Israel should follow the same rules.
well, 1) no, that's not 'the idea' and 2) if it was the idea, it would be a remarkably stupid one

This could be mutually beneficial for both Israel and Iran as Israel would be spared the trouble of stiking Iran (and the horrendous backlash it would provoke) and Iran would be spared the trouble of being hit. If both sides managed to convice their respective populations that this was a diplomatic victory then i think they could pull it off.
and then Israel would have the huge benefit of having no ace in the hole to keep her increasingly genocidal neighbors from practicing their beliefs. the only reason Israel continues to exist is her credible threat of force in retaliation to attack.

I find it intresting that those who are screaming from the rooftops about the need to prevent Iran from sparking off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East (with some legitimacy) are the same ones criticising this resolution.
me too. i find those who attempt to draw equivalency between Israel and Iran similarly interesting.

This resolution provides the means to prevent a nuclear arms race without military strikes
:lamo:lamo:lamo

:) ah yes. a resolution is the means to prevent a nuclear arms race.

:smacks self on forehead: why didn't we think of this before? quick! pass a resolution against poverty, disease, and hatred! hurrah, at long last, these age-old dillema's are solved!!! resolutions cause people to cease acting like people!

And let's be under no illusion of what the consequences of military strikes on Iran would be
jumped up Iranian support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Taliban.

Even Saudi Arabia has given Israel permission to use her airspace to strike Iran; the mulahs have few friends in that region.

we would see a huge increase in oil prices
we wouldn't see any increases above what we would get from "sanctions"; as the oil is denied to the market either way. the Iranian effect on the price of oil is overblown; much of it is already in a guaranteed contract to China, who is the big loser if sanctions go through; which is why they either will not, or will be watered down to insignificance.

Iran would cause as much trouble as possible in Afganistan, Iraq and through Hamas and Hezbollah, and Islamists would be given a boost in popularity across the world
probably; however, they will not cause nearly as much trouble in the region (and Islamists will not gain nearly the PR boost) as they would were they to become a nuclear state.
 
Last edited:

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hope and change, I suppose.

Here's your change, have hope that Iran doesn't nuke you.
Iran won't nuke you.
Hizb'allah and Hamas just might. Whether or not Iran has full control of these entities anymore needs observation.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,213
Reaction score
32,788
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iran won't nuke you.
yeah. because they're not led by a megalomaniac who's convinced Allah has sent him to Earth to prepare the way for the 13th Mahdi
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
They've got more to gain by keeping the world alive, than by destroying it. You forget that Iranian oil makes our world work.
Usama bin Laden, on the other hand... that's a different story.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,213
Reaction score
32,788
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They've got more to gain by keeping the world alive, than by destroying it.
are you kidding? by nuking Israel they usher in Paradise on Earth where they will be immortal heroes attended by those 72 nubile virgins.

we're talking about Iranian Shia fundamentalists; these are the people who brought us the Suicide Bomber - Al Quada learned it from these guys. we are truly talking about people who don't mind destroying themselves and a good hunk of the world because they think they will come out ahead from that bargain.

You forget that Iranian oil makes our world work.
no, it doesn't. the world is not dependent upon Iranian oil.

Usama bin Laden, on the other hand... that's a different story.
Iranian ally.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
are you kidding? by nuking Israel they usher in Paradise on Earth where they will be immortal heroes attended by those 72 nubile virgins.
No they wouldn't. They would immediately have the hell of the world unleashed upon their door stop.

we're talking about Iranian Shia fundamentalists; these are the people who brought us the Suicide Bomber - Al Quada learned it from these guys. we are truly talking about people who don't mind destroying themselves and a good hunk of the world because they think they will come out ahead from that bargain.
The suicide bomber became famous by either anarchists in the pre-WWII US, or by the Japanese in WWII. Depends on who you ask. Japs won't live up to it.

no, it doesn't. the world is not dependent upon Iranian oil.
Don't kid yourself.


Iranian ally.
No. Usama hates Shia almost as much as he hates the West. Iran sending arms to the Taliban/FATA recently is less of an alliance in the sense you're talking about and more in the US-Soviet Union in WWII.... just a common enemy.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,213
Reaction score
32,788
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No they wouldn't. They would immediately have the hell of the world unleashed upon their door stop.
no, they wouldn't, because Allah would either protect them, or because the world would instantly convert to Islam in concurrance with the appearance of the 13th Mahdi.

put on your 'red hat' here; think like they do.

The suicide bomber became famous by either anarchists in the pre-WWII US, or by the Japanese in WWII. Depends on who you ask. Japs won't live up to it.
i'm not sure I would conflate the Kamikazi with Hezbollah.

Don't kid yourself.
take a look at the numbers and the situation; Iran is a net importer of gasoline, and oil is about 50% of the governments' budget. They collapse much much much faster than we do. Though we wouldn't collapse; Iran actually reached it's peak of oil production back in the 70's. don't get me wrong, they are alot of oil - 10% of the worlds' reserves.

but not enough to collapse the system. the world is not dependent on Iranian oil. :) though China might be scrambling. which wouldn't be too bad.

No. Usama hates Shia almost as much as he hates the West. Iran sending arms to the Taliban/FATA recently is less of an alliance in the sense you're talking about and more in the US-Soviet Union in WWII.... just a common enemy.
here i only wish you were correct. but first EIJ and now AQ under Zawahiri (who has operational control of Al-Qaeda) have a lengthy history of cooperation, first with Iran proxy Hezbollah and then with Iran proper. Iran is the major backer of Sunni Hamas, and has no problem working with Sunnis.
 
Last edited:

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I recently got into a tiff with USA-1 where he argued that President Obama's foreign policy has been comparably error-free; that the problems with today's world stem from the Bush administration. Ladies and gentlemen, here we are, stabbing one of our closest allies in the face. well done, Obama, well done. Israel's one guarantee of survival you want to threaten. gee wiz, that won't make them more likely to use it :roll:

guess this is what you get when you elect a man who spent 20 years in Reverend Wright's Church


Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical." ...


:roll: sure. Iran (backer of Hezbollah and Hamaz, ally of Al-Qaeda) having nukes is fine. Israel having nukes threatens the region. well done, boys, really well done.
Oh good god!

That tears it ... it's time for Obama's ass to be impeached.... and he can take Ramblin' Joe Biden with him.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Oh good god!

That tears it ... it's time for Obama's ass to be impeached.... and he can take Ramblin' Joe Biden with him.
Obama should be impeached for trying to prevent a nuclear arms race in the middle east?
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,213
Reaction score
32,788
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
no, just voted out in '12 for gross incompetence.
 

Simba

Active member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
280
Reaction score
52
Location
Along the coast of South Carolina.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree that their should be a nuclear-free Middle East. No further action should be taken against Iran unless all parties are held to the same standard. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,213
Reaction score
32,788
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Israel is surrounded by an entire region whose population has dedicated themselves almost irrationally to it's annihilation; furthermore, Israel is a democracy that provides greater rights to its' Arabic population than Iran does to its own citizens. the two are not comparable.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Israel can't give up their nukes. It is a powerful tool that keeps them alive. They are surrounded by crazy Arab nationalists, Islamists, and terrorist organizations that all call for the destruction of Israel and the Jews. Iran and Israel are not equal when it comes to nuclear arms. Regardless, Israel has had nukes for a long time. They have proven to be a responsible westernized democracy. This call to action singles out Israel and doesn't focus on Iran. They don't want a nuclear free Middle East. They want to cripple Israel and turn a blind eye to Iran.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,097
Reaction score
12,352
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I recently got into a tiff with USA-1 where he argued that President Obama's foreign policy has been comparably error-free; that the problems with today's world stem from the Bush administration. Ladies and gentlemen, here we are, stabbing one of our closest allies in the face. well done, Obama, well done. Israel's one guarantee of survival you want to threaten. gee wiz, that won't make them more likely to use it :roll:

guess this is what you get when you elect a man who spent 20 years in Reverend Wright's Church


Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical." ...


:roll: sure. Iran (backer of Hezbollah and Hamaz, ally of Al-Qaeda) having nukes is fine. Israel having nukes threatens the region. well done, boys, really well done.
It also calls for India and Pakistan to join the NPT. The big difference between Israel and Iran is that the former already has nuclear weapons, the latter does not.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It also calls for India and Pakistan to join the NPT. The big difference between Israel and Iran is that the former already has nuclear weapons, the latter does not.
and, of course, that one is speculating openly on how they wish to use them as an offensive weapon upon the other in the case they do achieve nuclear capability.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,759
Reaction score
8,564
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
are you kidding? by nuking Israel they usher in Paradise on Earth where they will be immortal heroes attended by those 72 nubile virgins.

we're talking about Iranian Shia fundamentalists; these are the people who brought us the Suicide Bomber - Al Quada learned it from these guys. we are truly talking about people who don't mind destroying themselves and a good hunk of the world because they think they will come out ahead from that bargain.



no, it doesn't. the world is not dependent upon Iranian oil.



Iranian ally.
No they wouldn't. They would immediately have the hell of the world unleashed upon their door stop.



The suicide bomber became famous by either anarchists in the pre-WWII US, or by the Japanese in WWII. Depends on who you ask. Japs won't live up to it.


Don't kid yourself.




No. Usama hates Shia almost as much as he hates the West. Iran sending arms to the Taliban/FATA recently is less of an alliance in the sense you're talking about and more in the US-Soviet Union in WWII.... just a common enemy.
In recent history (ie post WW2) It was the Tamil Tigers who introduced suicide bombing. They are hindu's not muslims.

Suicide bombing is just a tool that is used in warfare, typically when better methods are not avaliable. I am sure that if military strategists using Suicide bombing had cruise missiles, they would be using cruise missiles instead
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Suicide bombing is just a tool that is used in warfare, typically when better methods are not avaliable.
THose who do not distinguish between warfare and terrorism might say so, especially if they support the terrorism.

In truth, however, anybody who seeks to engage in mass murder of innocent civilians is a terrorist. In order to qualify as geurilla war, the targets need to be miltary and strategic, not civilians killed for being civilians.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,097
Reaction score
12,352
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
THose who do not distinguish between warfare and terrorism might say so, especially if they support the terrorism.

In truth, however, anybody who seeks to engage in mass murder of innocent civilians is a terrorist. In order to qualify as geurilla war, the targets need to be miltary and strategic, not civilians killed for being civilians.
Kills me to say so, but Gardener is right on this.
 
Top Bottom