- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,432
- Reaction score
- 39,000
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
India has not signed and neither has Pakistan.Hell yes.. since the west almost "requires" countries like Iran and Pakistan to sign up, then why not Israel? After all Israel has actually sold nuclear tech to a hostile nation.. Iran and Pakistan has not..
I saw a story that talked about how the U.S. government recently released classified documents on Israel's nuclear program. Since its obvious that Israel has a nuclear weapons program, should they be required to sign the NPT?
What ally? Israel? HAHAHAHA you have got to be kidding. Israel is no ally of the US.. at best a tolerated accomplice in a sea of hostile fish. Allies dont attack your military. Allies dont spy on you and plant moles in your intelligence organisations. Allies dont assassinate people in friendly countries.
To the bolded, yes you DID!
Right here!!!!
Originally Posted by joko104
And Ukraine is paying for it now in deaths and being militarily defeated and, essentially, eliminated as a country. If Ukraine has 6 nuclear warheads there wouldn't be a Russian soldier in Ukraine now.
If Israel gave up their atomic weapons they slaughtered. But plenty of people want exactly that. Curiously, increasingly it has become liberals who support making that possible.
I saw a story that talked about how the U.S. government recently released classified documents on Israel's nuclear program. Since its obvious that Israel has a nuclear weapons program, should they be required to sign the NPT?
In my opinion, the answer is yes. Israel should be required to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If everyone else has to sign such, why shouldn't Israel? During the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, Israel used white phosphorus, a chemical element which burns the skin when used as an incendiary weapon against the enemy. Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of State, admonished Israel against using such a weapon in that war with Hezbollah. Many Lebanese were treated at the hospital for burns caused by white phosphorus. There should be no exceptions to the rule of NPT.
Once again, a lie. Nothing in that message of mine advocated Ukraine using nuclear weapons.
Nuke technology was transferred from one apartheid state to another. At least South Africa stopped its apartheid, Isreal has not.Yep and certain technologies were sold, just not the whole "hog". The end of aparthied fixed that problem.
Yes, they should be required to sign it just like any other nation.
We as the west, the supposed "good guys".
What other nations are "required" to sign such treaty?
Gotcha. It's voluntary, unless you want sanctions. Any nation that refuses should expect such. Thanks for pointing that out. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. No sanctions for one nation when none are given to another.
That's a more reasonable approach.
If you want to place sanctions on your own as an individual on India, Israel and Pakistan for not signing the NPT then do go ahead and do so, I don't know any country that actually will.
In my opinion, the answer is yes. Israel should be required to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If everyone else has to sign such, why shouldn't Israel? During the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, Israel used white phosphorus, a chemical element which burns the skin when used as an incendiary weapon against the enemy. Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of State, admonished Israel against using such a weapon in that war with Hezbollah. Many Lebanese were treated at the hospital for burns caused by white phosphorus. There should be no exceptions to the rule of NPT.
Then I trust you will do your part to keep in check any of those in your country who would think of striking nations developing their own.
What is the content of the treaty and does Israel officially have nukes for this to be a topic?I saw a story that talked about how the U.S. government recently released classified documents on Israel's nuclear program. Since its obvious that Israel has a nuclear weapons program, should they be required to sign the NPT?
And that ignorance comes from those who believe a non-threatening Nation should be "required".I see ignorance is alive and well on this site, on this subject.
:dohBut AIPAC cannot control Congress forever.
:dohAs long as the USA "sanctions" Iran for allegedNuke research, it presents itself as the maximum hypocrite for not insisting upon Israeli compliance with an International agreement expressly regarding Israel's nuclear weapons program.
It doesn't work that way I'm afraid.
Leadership in Israel, as well as in other Western nations, ain't going to allow a backwards fanatical regime that is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet and that doesn't miss an opportunity to call for the "death" of other nations have nuclear weapons of its own thank you very much.
Holy ****. Besides being unwise, that would not demonstrate such.The USA should initiate teh same sanctions against Israel just to demonstrate that the sanctions are "just and fair" and not a naked political ploy discriminately aimed for covert purposes. Israel needs to comply.
:dohIt makes no sense that we should shield Israel's nuclear weapons program when they won't stop settlement expansion when we ask them to do so. That is totally stupid on our part. I guess you can't blame them for taking advantage of us in that way tho. Why do we keep allowing such nonsense?
Stop the exaggerations.The thing is this, we do all this stuff for them, but when we ask them to do something as simple as stopping the settlement expansion, they spit in our face. It is totally amazing that we allow this type of thing to continue.
:doh There is no hypocrisy.Your statement runs contrary to the alleged secret agreement that the U.S. has with Israel to shield Israel's nuclear program. Look everyone knows that the U.S. does not honest broker when it comes to Israel. It's hypocrisy pure and simple.
That would be your baloney.Go peddle your phoney baloney somewhere else
If Israel engaged in the same quality and quantity of threats and behavior that Iran does, you may have a point. As it is, you do not.Its not so much a case about whether they are the same but whether they should be held to the same standard (espicially if one is to enforce said standards on the other)
Bs. They don't just have a right, but it can be said it is a duty to speak out against a known hostile nation obtaining nukes.but until it is a signatory to that agreement then its voice, its view should never be heard about another nation seeking nuclear capacity
No nation is required to sign the treaty. The NPT is strictly voluntary.Yes, they should be required to sign it just like any other nation.
The Abbottabadd Military Academy is an institution of the Pakistani military, not the ISI.ISI involvement is a given, but ISI does not mean government. The ISI is pretty much rogue and has been for a very long time. Just look at their support in hiding Bin Laden... next to their military academy pretty much.
that's the height of hypocrisyIf you believe in sovereignty the only answer to "requirement" is no.
And that ignorance comes from those who believe a non-threatening Nation should be "required".
:doh
They do not control Congress.
:doh
There is no hypocrisy.
As Apocalypse said.
Holy ****. Besides being unwise, that would not demonstrate such.
:doh
The two are not even comparable.
Stop the exaggerations.
No one spit in our face.
:doh There is no hypocrisy.
That would be your baloney.
What you think you provided means, and what it actually means are two different things.
If Israel engaged in the same quality and quantity of threats and behavior that Iran does, you may have a point. As it is, you do not.
Which in reality, does make it a case of not being the same.
Bs. They don't just have a right, but it can be said it is a duty to speak out against a known hostile nation obtaining nukes.
Total nuclear disarmament has not occurred during the past 70 years of the nuclear age. There is no international instrument currently available to remedy this situation. So yes, at this juncture total nuclear disarmament is a Utopian dream. That said, I would totally support such an initiative.Well, I mean you can ridicule the notion by referring to it as nirvana. Or you can embrace it and lobby for it.
It is possible, but not likely. Einstein had his share of foibles. The cosmological constant and quantum mechanics come to mind.It's not an impossibility, nor are Einstein's calculations on world war, if we don't.
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?