3 ms·

This is a really poor argument for why Israel is allowed to skirt the Non-Proliferation Treaty scot-free. The less nuclear weapons we have to worry about, the b

by jameslk 11y ago

This is a really poor argument for why Israel is allowed to skirt the Non-Proliferation Treaty scot-free. The less nuclear weapons we have to worry about, the better. But instead, the US rewards them with billions of dollars and high-tech weaponry[0]. When other countries do the same, like Iran, they receive sanctions and threats of military action (Iran is even a member of the NPT[1]). Worse yet, Iran has been clear about its intentions[2] and there's been high-profile accounts of intelligence officials agreeing that Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons[3][4]. And we wonder what kind of message this double standard sends to the rest of the world... 0. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_nuclear_program_of_Iran#2007_U.S._National_Intelligence_Estimate_.28NIE.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_nuclear_program_o... 4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cabl...

TheGuyWhoCodes 11y ago
It's a realistic argument nothing is black and white. 1. Documents are signed, UN regulations are passed so what, it's the actions that count. I agree that the world needs less if any nuclear weapons, but there is a big difference who holds them. Iran IS NOT clear about it's intentions, why would they say they want it specifically to attack someone? It's better to lie and say it's only for research, every country lies I would take the words of a fanatic murders country with a grain of salt.
- jameslk 11y ago
  Your argument does nothing other than distract away from my point. Your statements about Iran are opinionated at best, and misinformed at worst (Iran has never threatened to attack anyone with nuclear weapons). You are not countering the fact that Israel is the elephant in the room, the only nuclear weapons holder in the middle east (confirmed by their own former Prime Minister[0]) and flagrantly dismisses signing the NPT while condemning and threatening other nations for exercising their right to nuclear energy. The pot is calling the kettle black. 0. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/13/israel http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/13/israel
  - TheGuyWhoCodes 11y ago
    They have the right to nuclear energy, I'm not disputing that and if they weren't an enemy of Israel and a murders fanatic country - Israel, and me personally, wouldn't have a problem with that. Not signing the NPT means nothing just like signing it means nothing. You look good on paper but that's about it. Even tho Iran signed the NPT it violated it numerous times and resumed its enrichment program even after the security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment. Indeed you are correct they didn't say they want to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons but they did say that they want to destroy it, does the means change that fact? And if they said that and they did/are trying to procure nuclear weapons what should we think of that? Would they just stay in the silos collecting dust? You western logic and it's all going to be alright doesn't not apply here. And I counteract that Israel is the elephant in the room, just because you say so, it's another argument to delegitimize it for no other reason but to just do that.
DrScump 11y ago
If you read your own link #1, you will see that Israel is not even a signatory to the treaty, so they aren't "skirting" anything. Iran and North Korea are signatories but violated it anyway.
- jameslk 11y ago
  By skirt I meant avoid. It's a lot easier to violate a treaty by not even recognizing it. By that logic, Iran and North Korea would have been better off not signing it too. North Korea actually announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003.

by jameslk 11y ago

TheGuyWhoCodes 11y ago

It's a realistic argument nothing is black and white. 1. Documents are signed, UN regulations are passed so what, it's the actions that count. I agree that the world needs less if any nuclear weapons, but there is a big difference who holds them. Iran IS NOT clear about it's intentions, why would they say they want it specifically to attack someone? It's better to lie and say it's only for research, every country lies I would take the words of a fanatic murders country with a grain of salt.

jameslk 11y ago
Your argument does nothing other than distract away from my point. Your statements about Iran are opinionated at best, and misinformed at worst (Iran has never threatened to attack anyone with nuclear weapons). You are not countering the fact that Israel is the elephant in the room, the only nuclear weapons holder in the middle east (confirmed by their own former Prime Minister[0]) and flagrantly dismisses signing the NPT while condemning and threatening other nations for exercising their right to nuclear energy. The pot is calling the kettle black. 0. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/13/israel http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/13/israel
- TheGuyWhoCodes 11y ago
  They have the right to nuclear energy, I'm not disputing that and if they weren't an enemy of Israel and a murders fanatic country - Israel, and me personally, wouldn't have a problem with that. Not signing the NPT means nothing just like signing it means nothing. You look good on paper but that's about it. Even tho Iran signed the NPT it violated it numerous times and resumed its enrichment program even after the security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment. Indeed you are correct they didn't say they want to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons but they did say that they want to destroy it, does the means change that fact? And if they said that and they did/are trying to procure nuclear weapons what should we think of that? Would they just stay in the silos collecting dust? You western logic and it's all going to be alright doesn't not apply here. And I counteract that Israel is the elephant in the room, just because you say so, it's another argument to delegitimize it for no other reason but to just do that.

DrScump 11y ago

If you read your own link #1, you will see that Israel is not even a signatory to the treaty, so they aren't "skirting" anything. Iran and North Korea are signatories but violated it anyway.

jameslk 11y ago
By skirt I meant avoid. It's a lot easier to violate a treaty by not even recognizing it. By that logic, Iran and North Korea would have been better off not signing it too. North Korea actually announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003.