Prince Lightwing Wrote: Yet another disaster looms...
TEHRAN, Iran (June 12) - Iran won't accept any new internationally imposed
obligations regarding its nuclear program and the world must recognize Iran as
a nuclear-capable nation, the foreign minister said Saturday.
AP
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi speaks with the media.
The comments suggested a toughening of Iran's position two days before a
meeting of the 35-nation board of governors of the International Atomic Energy
Agency to discuss Iran's nuclear program.
"We won't accept any new obligations," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told
reporters.
"Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the
international community as a member of the nuclear club," Kharrazi said. "This
is an irreversible path."
The IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has wrestled for more than a year with
what to do regarding what the United States and its allies say is a secret
Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran has rejected such allegations, saying its
nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not making a bomb.
Kharrazi insisted Saturday that Iran won't give up its development of the
nuclear fuel cycle, the steps for processing and enriching uranium necessary
for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says it has achieved the full
cycle but is not enriching uranium.
"That somebody demands that we give up the nuclear fuel cycle ... is an
additional demand," Kharrazi said. He apparently was referring to demands by
U.S. and European countries that Iran halt operations of a plant it inaugurated
in March in Isfahan, central Iran, that processes uranium into gas and abort
plans to build a heavy water reactor in Arak, another city in central Iran.
"We can't accept such an additional demand, which is contrary to our legal and
legitimate rights," he said. "No one in Iran can make a decision to deny the
nation of something that is a source of pride."
Iran has confirmed it possesses technology to extract uranium ore, processing
it into a powder called yellow cake, then converting it into gas. The gas is
injected into centrifuges for low-grade enrichment that turns it into fuel for
nuclear reactors.
Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium
can be used in bombs.
Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year under mounting international
pressure. In April, it said it had stopped building centrifuges. IAEA
inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium at two sites, which
Iranian officials maintained was due to contaminated imported materials.
Kharrazi also said a draft resolution critical of Iran drawn up by Germany,
France and Britain to be presented at the IAEA board meeting Monday was
"unacceptable unless changes are made."
The minister said insistence by Europeans on "very tiny issues is contrary to
the spirit of cooperation" and accused them of bowing to U.S. pressure and
showing "lack of independence."
Washington wants the IAEA to declare Iran in breach of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and refer Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council,
which may impose sanctions.
Kharrazi warned that failure in settling the debate over Iran's nuclear dossier
will be a "failure for all," including Iran, Europe and the IAEA.
The minister confirmed Iran's efforts to buy 4,000 magnets needed for uranium
enrichment equipment, saying the issue was being "unnecessarily" hyped. He did
not say where the magnets were bought.
Diplomats told The Associated Press in Vienna that Iran had acknowledged
inquiring about 4,000 magnets needed for uranium enrichment equipment with a
European black-market supplier and had dangled the possibility of buying a
"higher number."
.
|
|
| User: "Nova Carta" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
13 Jun 2004 05:41:18 AM |
|
|
Well this isn't going to make me popular but I can't understand how
any nation that has nuclear weapons can say to another nation "you
can't have any of your own" To me it's hypocrisy.
Nova
On 13 Jun 2004 03:22:05 GMT, (Lightwing07) wrote:
Prince Lightwing Wrote: Yet another disaster looms...
TEHRAN, Iran (June 12) - Iran won't accept any new internationally imposed
obligations regarding its nuclear program and the world must recognize Iran as
a nuclear-capable nation, the foreign minister said Saturday.
AP
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi speaks with the media.
The comments suggested a toughening of Iran's position two days before a
meeting of the 35-nation board of governors of the International Atomic Energy
Agency to discuss Iran's nuclear program.
"We won't accept any new obligations," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told
reporters.
"Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the
international community as a member of the nuclear club," Kharrazi said. "This
is an irreversible path."
The IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has wrestled for more than a year with
what to do regarding what the United States and its allies say is a secret
Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran has rejected such allegations, saying its
nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not making a bomb.
Kharrazi insisted Saturday that Iran won't give up its development of the
nuclear fuel cycle, the steps for processing and enriching uranium necessary
for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says it has achieved the full
cycle but is not enriching uranium.
"That somebody demands that we give up the nuclear fuel cycle ... is an
additional demand," Kharrazi said. He apparently was referring to demands by
U.S. and European countries that Iran halt operations of a plant it inaugurated
in March in Isfahan, central Iran, that processes uranium into gas and abort
plans to build a heavy water reactor in Arak, another city in central Iran.
"We can't accept such an additional demand, which is contrary to our legal and
legitimate rights," he said. "No one in Iran can make a decision to deny the
nation of something that is a source of pride."
Iran has confirmed it possesses technology to extract uranium ore, processing
it into a powder called yellow cake, then converting it into gas. The gas is
injected into centrifuges for low-grade enrichment that turns it into fuel for
nuclear reactors.
Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium
can be used in bombs.
Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year under mounting international
pressure. In April, it said it had stopped building centrifuges. IAEA
inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium at two sites, which
Iranian officials maintained was due to contaminated imported materials.
Kharrazi also said a draft resolution critical of Iran drawn up by Germany,
France and Britain to be presented at the IAEA board meeting Monday was
"unacceptable unless changes are made."
The minister said insistence by Europeans on "very tiny issues is contrary to
the spirit of cooperation" and accused them of bowing to U.S. pressure and
showing "lack of independence."
Washington wants the IAEA to declare Iran in breach of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and refer Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council,
which may impose sanctions.
Kharrazi warned that failure in settling the debate over Iran's nuclear dossier
will be a "failure for all," including Iran, Europe and the IAEA.
The minister confirmed Iran's efforts to buy 4,000 magnets needed for uranium
enrichment equipment, saying the issue was being "unnecessarily" hyped. He did
not say where the magnets were bought.
Diplomats told The Associated Press in Vienna that Iran had acknowledged
inquiring about 4,000 magnets needed for uranium enrichment equipment with a
European black-market supplier and had dangled the possibility of buying a
"higher number."
.
|
|
|
| User: "dreamwalker" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
13 Jun 2004 11:50:21 AM |
|
|
Mutual assured destruction kept America and Soviets from going to war for 5 decades. Iran must
understand that if they use nuclear weapons they will be turned to a sea of glass. Pretty simple
really.
Using your logic, why not arm every nation in the world with 15 nuclear warheads. Fair is
fair.......right?
"Nova Carta" <reply@newsgroup.net> wrote in message
news:anboc0ldo8laqrl7ni5o69us4odoluo7hi@4ax.com...
Well this isn't going to make me popular but I can't understand how
any nation that has nuclear weapons can say to another nation "you
can't have any of your own" To me it's hypocrisy.
Nova
On 13 Jun 2004 03:22:05 GMT, (Lightwing07) wrote:
Prince Lightwing Wrote: Yet another disaster looms...
TEHRAN, Iran (June 12) - Iran won't accept any new internationally imposed
obligations regarding its nuclear program and the world must recognize Iran as
a nuclear-capable nation, the foreign minister said Saturday.
AP
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi speaks with the media.
The comments suggested a toughening of Iran's position two days before a
meeting of the 35-nation board of governors of the International Atomic Energy
Agency to discuss Iran's nuclear program.
"We won't accept any new obligations," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told
reporters.
"Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the
international community as a member of the nuclear club," Kharrazi said. "This
is an irreversible path."
The IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has wrestled for more than a year with
what to do regarding what the United States and its allies say is a secret
Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran has rejected such allegations, saying its
nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not making a bomb.
Kharrazi insisted Saturday that Iran won't give up its development of the
nuclear fuel cycle, the steps for processing and enriching uranium necessary
for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says it has achieved the full
cycle but is not enriching uranium.
"That somebody demands that we give up the nuclear fuel cycle ... is an
additional demand," Kharrazi said. He apparently was referring to demands by
U.S. and European countries that Iran halt operations of a plant it inaugurated
in March in Isfahan, central Iran, that processes uranium into gas and abort
plans to build a heavy water reactor in Arak, another city in central Iran.
"We can't accept such an additional demand, which is contrary to our legal and
legitimate rights," he said. "No one in Iran can make a decision to deny the
nation of something that is a source of pride."
Iran has confirmed it possesses technology to extract uranium ore, processing
it into a powder called yellow cake, then converting it into gas. The gas is
injected into centrifuges for low-grade enrichment that turns it into fuel for
nuclear reactors.
Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium
can be used in bombs.
Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year under mounting international
pressure. In April, it said it had stopped building centrifuges. IAEA
inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium at two sites, which
Iranian officials maintained was due to contaminated imported materials.
Kharrazi also said a draft resolution critical of Iran drawn up by Germany,
France and Britain to be presented at the IAEA board meeting Monday was
"unacceptable unless changes are made."
The minister said insistence by Europeans on "very tiny issues is contrary to
the spirit of cooperation" and accused them of bowing to U.S. pressure and
showing "lack of independence."
Washington wants the IAEA to declare Iran in breach of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and refer Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council,
which may impose sanctions.
Kharrazi warned that failure in settling the debate over Iran's nuclear dossier
will be a "failure for all," including Iran, Europe and the IAEA.
The minister confirmed Iran's efforts to buy 4,000 magnets needed for uranium
enrichment equipment, saying the issue was being "unnecessarily" hyped. He did
not say where the magnets were bought.
Diplomats told The Associated Press in Vienna that Iran had acknowledged
inquiring about 4,000 magnets needed for uranium enrichment equipment with a
European black-market supplier and had dangled the possibility of buying a
"higher number."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
13 Jun 2004 05:22:17 PM |
|
|
"dreamwalker" <backfromthe@dead.net> wrote in message news:<14519$40cc85d2$407628f8$27856@powerweb.allthenewsgroups.com>...
Mutual assured destruction kept America and Soviets from going to war for 5 decades. Iran must
understand that if they use nuclear weapons they will be turned to a sea of glass. Pretty simple
really.
"sea of glass" revelations- Bible NT.
Using your logic, why not arm every nation in the world with 15 nuclear warheads. Fair is
fair.......right?
Good point.
Then it comes down to religion. If one religion says 72 virgins await
you if you murder your opponent and the other says you will go to hell
then whom do you think is less concerned about shooting them off
first?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
14 Jun 2004 05:37:17 AM |
|
|
On 13 Jun 2004 15:22:17 -0700, (Michael
Johnathan McDonald) wrote:
"dreamwalker" <backfromthe@dead.net> wrote in message news:<14519$40cc85d2$407628f8$27856@powerweb.allthenewsgroups.com>...
Mutual assured destruction kept America and Soviets from going to war for 5 decades. Iran must
understand that if they use nuclear weapons they will be turned to a sea of glass. Pretty simple
really.
"sea of glass" revelations- Bible NT.
Using your logic, why not arm every nation in the world with 15 nuclear warheads. Fair is
fair.......right?
Good point.
Then it comes down to religion. If one religion says 72 virgins await
you if you murder your opponent and the other says you will go to hell
then whom do you think is less concerned about shooting them off
first?
congratulations on your first semi-intelligent argument, Ronald. you
are absolutely correct (for once).
this highlights the prejudice in streamwalker's misuse of nova carta's
logic. he would rather use it to argue that all nations should have
WMDs, rather than everyone (including the US) *not* having *any* at
all. i suppose he just likes the idea of having such powerfull
weapons at his disposal, and just can't imagine a world without them.
Reminds me of an old tagline I once had from the old BBS days..."Power
corrupts, absolute power is kinda neat." I wonder which US president
thought that one up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henning Larsen" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
13 Jun 2004 04:56:18 PM |
|
|
"dreamwalker" <backfromthe@dead.net>, wrote in
alt.prophecies.nostradamus, sų, 13 jun 2004 16:50:21 GMT:
Mutual assured destruction kept America and Soviets from going to war
for 5 decades. Iran must understand that if they use nuclear weapons
they will be turned to a sea of glass. Pretty simple really.
Using your logic, why not arm every nation in the world with 15
nuclear warheads. Fair is fair.......right?
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear weapons neither Iran, Pakistan
or any other muslim country in that area would need to acquire
nuclear weapons.
--
Henning
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
14 Jun 2004 10:56:01 AM |
|
|
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons neither Iran, Pakistan
or any other muslim country in that area >would need to acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to exist.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henning Larsen" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
14 Jun 2004 06:01:43 PM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001), wrote in alt.prophecies.nostradamus, ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons neither Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would need to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set by USA and Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire nukes as well
if I am going to follow your logic.
--
Henning
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
15 Jun 2004 04:51:40 AM |
|
|
Henning Larsen <NONEXISTANT@NONEXISTANT.XXX> wrote in message news:<calaom$un1$1@troll.powertech.no>...
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001), wrote in alt.prophecies.nostradamus, ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons neither Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would need to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set by USA and Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire nukes as well
if I am going to follow your logic.
Israel is in a rather unique situation, given that pretty much all its
neighbors would be happy if it ceased to exist. That is a little
different than a border dispute! I agree with Tony...if Israel didn't
have nukes to deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
16 Jun 2004 04:28:27 AM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406150151.54b8606b@posting.google.com...
Henning Larsen <NONEXISTANT@NONEXISTANT.XXX> wrote in message
news:<calaom$un1$1@troll.powertech.no>...
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001), wrote in alt.prophecies.nostradamus, ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons neither Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would need to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set by USA and
Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire nukes as
well
if I am going to follow your logic.
Israel is in a rather unique situation, given that pretty much all its
neighbors would be happy if it ceased to exist.
So you think people should be allowed to pick and choose whether
International Law applies to them and everyone shouldl just shut up about
injustice?
That is a little different than a border dispute!
I suspect India would be happy if Pakistan ceased to exist and vice versa.
I agree with Tony...
A bad sign ;-)
if Israel didn't
have nukes to deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago.
I'm afraid that is completely illogical and not consistent with history.
First, they have only had nukes since the 80's which is hardly long ago. HOw
were they deterring the aggressors who would have ceased there existance
long ago by building nukes recently?!
Secondly, in 47, 67 and 73 they didn't have nukes, and avoided ceasing to
exist. It appears it is the billions and billions of dollars worth of US
miltary aid which keeps the Israelis safe, especially seeing as since the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the peace treaties with Egypt there isn't
an army in the region they couldn't destroy in a gentle afternoon's work.
The threat they face at the moment (Palestinian insurgency) isn't exactly
being deterred by their nukes is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
16 Jun 2004 10:38:54 AM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<cap3nf$1rg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406150151.54b8606b@posting.google.com...
Henning Larsen <NONEXISTANT@NONEXISTANT.XXX> wrote in message
news:<calaom$un1$1@troll.powertech.no>...
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001), wrote in alt.prophecies.nostradamus, ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons neither Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would need to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set by USA and
Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire nukes as
well
if I am going to follow your logic.
Israel is in a rather unique situation, given that pretty much all its
neighbors would be happy if it ceased to exist.
So you think people should be allowed to pick and choose whether
International Law applies to them and everyone shouldl just shut up about
injustice?
Does International law apply also to those who blow up discos and
pizza shops?
That is a little different than a border dispute!
I suspect India would be happy if Pakistan ceased to exist and vice versa.
No doubt. However, they both still have their nukes, in spite of
International law. I think Pakistan having them is far more dangerous
than Israel (or India, for that matter), because of the radical
islamic element and the potential for them to seize power.
I agree with Tony...
A bad sign ;-)
if Israel didn't
have nukes to deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago.
I'm afraid that is completely illogical and not consistent with history.
First, they have only had nukes since the 80's which is hardly long ago. HOw
were they deterring the aggressors who would have ceased there existance
long ago by building nukes recently?!
Secondly, in 47, 67 and 73 they didn't have nukes, and avoided ceasing to
exist. It appears it is the billions and billions of dollars worth of US
miltary aid which keeps the Israelis safe, especially seeing as since the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the peace treaties with Egypt there isn't
an army in the region they couldn't destroy in a gentle afternoon's work.
Of course, Israel also has a strong conventional army, as the arabs
found out when they thought they could gang up and take her out.
However, I don't blame them for wanting some extra security.
The threat they face at the moment (Palestinian insurgency) isn't exactly
being deterred by their nukes is it?
Nope! But then, how does one deter those who would rather die and
join their 72 houris in paradise? They are not dealing with rational
people!
Israel could also take out the Palestinians in a "gentle afternoon's
work". the fact that they choose not to speaks to their moral
superiority over those who would blow up a bus full of innocents!
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
17 Jun 2004 02:13:26 AM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406160738.6dd06ce7@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cap3nf$1rg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406150151.54b8606b@posting.google.com...
Henning Larsen <NONEXISTANT@NONEXISTANT.XXX> wrote in message
news:<calaom$un1$1@troll.powertech.no>...
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001), wrote in alt.prophecies.nostradamus,
ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons neither
Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would need to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set by USA
and
Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between
Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire nukes
as
well
if I am going to follow your logic.
Israel is in a rather unique situation, given that pretty much all its
neighbors would be happy if it ceased to exist.
So you think people should be allowed to pick and choose whether
International Law applies to them and everyone shouldl just shut up
about
injustice?
Does International law apply also to those who blow up discos and
pizza shops?
Absolutely. Such people should be punished to the full extent for commiting
such crimes.
That is a little different than a border dispute!
I suspect India would be happy if Pakistan ceased to exist and vice
versa.
No doubt. However, they both still have their nukes, in spite of
International law. I think Pakistan having them is far more dangerous
than Israel (or India, for that matter),
Of course you do, you have admitted your bigotry on several occasions.
because of the radical
islamic element and the potential for them to seize power.
I agree with Tony...
A bad sign ;-)
if Israel didn't
have nukes to deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago.
I'm afraid that is completely illogical and not consistent with history.
First, they have only had nukes since the 80's which is hardly long ago.
HOw
were they deterring the aggressors who would have ceased there existance
long ago by building nukes recently?!
Secondly, in 47, 67 and 73 they didn't have nukes, and avoided ceasing
to
exist. It appears it is the billions and billions of dollars worth of US
miltary aid which keeps the Israelis safe, especially seeing as since
the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the peace treaties with Egypt there
isn't
an army in the region they couldn't destroy in a gentle afternoon's
work.
Of course, Israel also has a strong conventional army, as the arabs
found out when they thought they could gang up and take her out.
Buh buh but you said "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter aggressors, it
would have ceased to exist long
ago" - I take it you agree that history shows otherwise?
However, I don't blame them for wanting some extra security.
So you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter
aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago." is provably false then. These nukes have gone from "totally vital to
Israel's existence" to "a useful bit of extra securuty" - sort of destroys
your whole argument justifying Israel's defiance of international law,
don'tchathink?
The threat they face at the moment (Palestinian insurgency) isn't
exactly
being deterred by their nukes is it?
Nope! But then, how does one deter those who would rather die and
join their 72 houris in paradise?They are not dealing with rational
people!
Neither am I apparently . You admit their nukes are a useless deterrent so
what justifies the Israeli's egregious breach of international law and non
proliferation treaties?
Israel could also take out the Palestinians in a "gentle afternoon's
work". the fact that they choose not to speaks to their moral
superiority over those who would blow up a bus full of innocents!
The Israelis have killed plenty of innocents, I can't say I'm convinced of
the moral superiority of anyone in that particular mess.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
17 Jun 2004 09:05:22 AM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<carg6c$5e8$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406160738.6dd06ce7@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cap3nf$1rg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406150151.54b8606b@posting.google.com...
Henning Larsen <NONEXISTANT@NONEXISTANT.XXX> wrote in message
news:<calaom$un1$1@troll.powertech.no>...
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001), wrote in alt.prophecies.nostradamus,
ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons neither
Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would need to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set by USA
and
Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between
Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire nukes
as
well
if I am going to follow your logic.
Israel is in a rather unique situation, given that pretty much all its
neighbors would be happy if it ceased to exist.
So you think people should be allowed to pick and choose whether
International Law applies to them and everyone shouldl just shut up
about
injustice?
Does International law apply also to those who blow up discos and
pizza shops?
Absolutely. Such people should be punished to the full extent for commiting
such crimes.
That is a little different than a border dispute!
I suspect India would be happy if Pakistan ceased to exist and vice
versa.
No doubt. However, they both still have their nukes, in spite of
International law. I think Pakistan having them is far more dangerous
than Israel (or India, for that matter),
Of course you do, you have admitted your bigotry on several occasions.
Guilty as charged. Only muslims call nukes (to paraphrase) a "gift
from Allah".
because of the radical
islamic element and the potential for them to seize power.
I agree with Tony...
A bad sign ;-)
if Israel didn't
have nukes to deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago.
I'm afraid that is completely illogical and not consistent with history.
First, they have only had nukes since the 80's which is hardly long ago.
HOw
were they deterring the aggressors who would have ceased there existance
long ago by building nukes recently?!
Secondly, in 47, 67 and 73 they didn't have nukes, and avoided ceasing
to
exist. It appears it is the billions and billions of dollars worth of US
miltary aid which keeps the Israelis safe, especially seeing as since
the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the peace treaties with Egypt there
isn't
an army in the region they couldn't destroy in a gentle afternoon's
work.
Of course, Israel also has a strong conventional army, as the arabs
found out when they thought they could gang up and take her out.
Buh buh but you said "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter aggressors, it
would have ceased to exist long
ago" - I take it you agree that history shows otherwise?
However, I don't blame them for wanting some extra security.
So you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter
aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago." is provably false then. These nukes have gone from "totally vital to
Israel's existence" to "a useful bit of extra securuty" - sort of destroys
your whole argument justifying Israel's defiance of international law,
don'tchathink?
The threat they face at the moment (Palestinian insurgency) isn't
exactly
being deterred by their nukes is it?
Nope! But then, how does one deter those who would rather die and
join their 72 houris in paradise?They are not dealing with rational
people!
Neither am I apparently . You admit their nukes are a useless deterrent so
what justifies the Israeli's egregious breach of international law and non
proliferation treaties?
Ummm, not totally useless. If another country in the region, Iran for
example, should develop their own weapons, THEN Israel's would
certainly be a deterent. Hopefully, Israel will take out Iran's
proposed reactor before they have a chance to develop them.
Having said that, I truly do wish that ALL countries would destroy
their nukes, but that is not a realistic hope at the moment.
Israel could also take out the Palestinians in a "gentle afternoon's
work". the fact that they choose not to speaks to their moral
superiority over those who would blow up a bus full of innocents!
The Israelis have killed plenty of innocents, I can't say I'm convinced of
the moral superiority of anyone in that particular mess.
Excuse me, I guess the difference is that they do not TARGET
innocents, unlike the Palestinians. The Palestinian militants like to
surround themselves with innocents, as they know some will be caught
in the crossfire and have ggood propaganda value. In addition, I've
seen the age of some of those kids out battling the Israeli soldiers.
As a mother, I can assure you my children would not be going out into
the streets. You don't see Israeli children out in the fray.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
17 Jun 2004 09:25:32 AM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406170605.61c6f88c@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<carg6c$5e8$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406160738.6dd06ce7@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cap3nf$1rg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406150151.54b8606b@posting.google.com...
Henning Larsen <NONEXISTANT@NONEXISTANT.XXX> wrote in message
news:<calaom$un1$1@troll.powertech.no>...
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001), wrote in
alt.prophecies.nostradamus,
ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons neither
Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would need
to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the
bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set by
USA
and
Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between
Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire
nukes
as
well
if I am going to follow your logic.
Israel is in a rather unique situation, given that pretty much all
its
neighbors would be happy if it ceased to exist.
So you think people should be allowed to pick and choose whether
International Law applies to them and everyone shouldl just shut up
about
injustice?
Does International law apply also to those who blow up discos and
pizza shops?
Absolutely. Such people should be punished to the full extent for
commiting
such crimes.
That is a little different than a border dispute!
I suspect India would be happy if Pakistan ceased to exist and vice
versa.
No doubt. However, they both still have their nukes, in spite of
International law. I think Pakistan having them is far more dangerous
than Israel (or India, for that matter),
Of course you do, you have admitted your bigotry on several occasions.
Guilty as charged.
Of course.
Only muslims call nukes (to paraphrase) a "gift
from Allah".
Only an American greeted the detonation of the first nuke with the words
"Now I have become death, destroyer of worlds". I believe the Israelis call
their plan for nuke deployment "Jericho". What's your point?
because of the radical
islamic element and the potential for them to seize power.
I agree with Tony...
A bad sign ;-)
if Israel didn't
have nukes to deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago.
I'm afraid that is completely illogical and not consistent with
history.
First, they have only had nukes since the 80's which is hardly long
ago.
HOw
were they deterring the aggressors who would have ceased there
existance
long ago by building nukes recently?!
Secondly, in 47, 67 and 73 they didn't have nukes, and avoided
ceasing
to
exist. It appears it is the billions and billions of dollars worth
of US
miltary aid which keeps the Israelis safe, especially seeing as
since
the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the peace treaties with Egypt there
isn't
an army in the region they couldn't destroy in a gentle afternoon's
work.
Of course, Israel also has a strong conventional army, as the arabs
found out when they thought they could gang up and take her out.
Buh buh but you said "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter aggressors,
it
would have ceased to exist long
ago" - I take it you agree that history shows otherwise?
However, I don't blame them for wanting some extra security.
So you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter
aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago." is provably false then. These nukes have gone from "totally vital
to
Israel's existence" to "a useful bit of extra securuty" - sort of
destroys
your whole argument justifying Israel's defiance of international law,
don'tchathink?
Eh? Eh?
The threat they face at the moment (Palestinian insurgency) isn't
exactly
being deterred by their nukes is it?
Nope! But then, how does one deter those who would rather die and
join their 72 houris in paradise?They are not dealing with rational
people!
Neither am I apparently . You admit their nukes are a useless deterrent
so
what justifies the Israeli's egregious breach of international law and
non
proliferation treaties?
Ummm, not totally useless. If another country in the region, Iran for
example, should develop their own weapons, THEN Israel's would
certainly be a deterent.
LOL What incredible double think! A pre-emptive deterrent eh? Looking at it
from Iran's point of view, another country in the region HAS developed
nukes, why then should Iran not develop them to have a deterrent? You're
answer appears to be simply "because they're muslims".
Still, at least you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to
deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long ago." is provably
false.
Hopefully, Israel will take out Iran's proposed reactor before they have a
chance to develop them.
Or Iran will somehow be convinced that they should stick to the
non-proliferation treaty even though a hostile neighbour is given a free
pass.. Are you getting a small hint as to how some Muslims might feel
they're being discriminated against?
Having said that, I truly do wish that ALL countries would destroy
their nukes, but that is not a realistic hope at the moment.
...or ever. At least, not until something even more destructive comes along.
Unfortunately you can't de-invent things.
Israel could also take out the Palestinians in a "gentle afternoon's
work". the fact that they choose not to speaks to their moral
superiority over those who would blow up a bus full of innocents!
The Israelis have killed plenty of innocents, I can't say I'm convinced
of
the moral superiority of anyone in that particular mess.
Excuse me, I guess the difference is that they do not TARGET
innocents, unlike the Palestinians.
Plenty of cases of the Israelis TARGETTING kids throwing stones, they've
wasted a couple of journalists too when there was no other shooting going
on.
The Palestinian militants like to
surround themselves with innocents, as they know some will be caught
in the crossfire and have ggood propaganda value.
They see it as total warfare, same as the Soviets in WWII. THey are fighting
for their homeland.
In addition, I've seen the age of some of those kids out battling the
Israeli soldiers.
As a mother, I can assure you my children would not be going out into
the streets. You don't see Israeli children out in the fray.
Well, I believe Army service is compulsory for Israeli's of 17 and up, 17
sounds like a kid to me. It's all very depressing and ignoring the
legitimate grievances of one side and trying to lay ALL the blame on them
doesn't help.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
17 Jun 2004 12:44:12 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<cas9gf$i1f$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406170605.61c6f88c@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<carg6c$5e8$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406160738.6dd06ce7@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cap3nf$1rg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406150151.54b8606b@posting.google.com...
Henning Larsen <NONEXISTANT@NONEXISTANT.XXX> wrote in message
news:<calaom$un1$1@troll.powertech.no>...
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001), wrote in
alt.prophecies.nostradamus,
ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons neither
Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would need
to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the
bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set by
USA
and
Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between
Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire
nukes
as
well
if I am going to follow your logic.
Israel is in a rather unique situation, given that pretty much all
its
neighbors would be happy if it ceased to exist.
So you think people should be allowed to pick and choose whether
International Law applies to them and everyone shouldl just shut up
about
injustice?
Does International law apply also to those who blow up discos and
pizza shops?
Absolutely. Such people should be punished to the full extent for
commiting
such crimes.
That is a little different than a border dispute!
I suspect India would be happy if Pakistan ceased to exist and vice
versa.
No doubt. However, they both still have their nukes, in spite of
International law. I think Pakistan having them is far more dangerous
than Israel (or India, for that matter),
Of course you do, you have admitted your bigotry on several occasions.
Guilty as charged.
Of course.
Only muslims call nukes (to paraphrase) a "gift
from Allah".
Only an American greeted the detonation of the first nuke with the words
"Now I have become death, destroyer of worlds". I believe the Israelis call
their plan for nuke deployment "Jericho". What's your point?
because of the radical
islamic element and the potential for them to seize power.
I agree with Tony...
A bad sign ;-)
if Israel didn't
have nukes to deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago.
I'm afraid that is completely illogical and not consistent with
history.
First, they have only had nukes since the 80's which is hardly long
ago.
HOw
were they deterring the aggressors who would have ceased there
existance
long ago by building nukes recently?!
Secondly, in 47, 67 and 73 they didn't have nukes, and avoided
ceasing
to
exist. It appears it is the billions and billions of dollars worth
of US
miltary aid which keeps the Israelis safe, especially seeing as
since
the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the peace treaties with Egypt there
isn't
an army in the region they couldn't destroy in a gentle afternoon's
work.
Of course, Israel also has a strong conventional army, as the arabs
found out when they thought they could gang up and take her out.
Buh buh but you said "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter aggressors,
it
would have ceased to exist long
ago" - I take it you agree that history shows otherwise?
However, I don't blame them for wanting some extra security.
So you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter
aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago." is provably false then. These nukes have gone from "totally vital
to
Israel's existence" to "a useful bit of extra securuty" - sort of
destroys
your whole argument justifying Israel's defiance of international law,
don'tchathink?
Eh? Eh?
The threat they face at the moment (Palestinian insurgency) isn't
exactly
being deterred by their nukes is it?
Nope! But then, how does one deter those who would rather die and
join their 72 houris in paradise?They are not dealing with rational
people!
Neither am I apparently . You admit their nukes are a useless deterrent
so
what justifies the Israeli's egregious breach of international law and
non
proliferation treaties?
Ummm, not totally useless. If another country in the region, Iran for
example, should develop their own weapons, THEN Israel's would
certainly be a deterent.
LOL What incredible double think! A pre-emptive deterrent eh? Looking at it
from Iran's point of view, another country in the region HAS developed
nukes, why then should Iran not develop them to have a deterrent? You're
answer appears to be simply "because they're muslims".
Well, if you were surrounded by hostile enemies, I think you would
fortify your home. I know I would!
Still, at least you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to
deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long ago." is provably
false.
Hopefully, Israel will take out Iran's proposed reactor before they have a
chance to develop them.
Or Iran will somehow be convinced that they should stick to the
non-proliferation treaty even though a hostile neighbour is given a free
pass.. Are you getting a small hint as to how some Muslims might feel
they're being discriminated against?
Having said that, I truly do wish that ALL countries would destroy
their nukes, but that is not a realistic hope at the moment.
..or ever. At least, not until something even more destructive comes along.
Unfortunately you can't de-invent things.
Israel could also take out the Palestinians in a "gentle afternoon's
work". the fact that they choose not to speaks to their moral
superiority over those who would blow up a bus full of innocents!
The Israelis have killed plenty of innocents, I can't say I'm convinced
of
the moral superiority of anyone in that particular mess.
Excuse me, I guess the difference is that they do not TARGET
innocents, unlike the Palestinians.
Plenty of cases of the Israelis TARGETTING kids throwing stones, they've
wasted a couple of journalists too when there was no other shooting going
on.
Ummm, they certainly use rubber bullets on the stone throwers. You
can't just let them throw stones! Any kids younger than, say, 16,
would not be allowed to participate if they had responsible parents.
The Palestinian militants like to
surround themselves with innocents, as they know some will be caught
in the crossfire and have ggood propaganda value.
They see it as total warfare, same as the Soviets in WWII. THey are fighting
for their homeland.
So you sacrifice your own babies for your homeland? I would sacrifice
myself...but not my kids, at least until they were old enough to make
their own decision. Even then, I wouldn't like it, being a mother,
but would applaud their patriotism.
In addition, I've seen the age of some of those kids out battling the
Israeli soldiers.
As a mother, I can assure you my children would not be going out into
the streets. You don't see Israeli children out in the fray.
Well, I believe Army service is compulsory for Israeli's of 17 and up, 17
sounds like a kid to me. It's all very depressing and ignoring the
legitimate grievances of one side and trying to lay ALL the blame on them
doesn't help.
I don't know, we can drive here at 16...a truly dangerous pastime for
a hormone-driven teenager. Israeli soldiers of 17 would presumably be
well-trained before going into the field and would have some
understanding of what they were facing. Quite a difference between
that and the 4-year-old Palestinian holding an UZI bigger than him
while riding Dad's sholdiers into a war zone.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
18 Jun 2004 02:20:58 AM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406170944.56293290@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cas9gf$i1f$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406170605.61c6f88c@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<carg6c$5e8$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406160738.6dd06ce7@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cap3nf$1rg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406150151.54b8606b@posting.google.com...
Henning Larsen <NONEXISTANT@NONEXISTANT.XXX> wrote in message
news:<calaom$un1$1@troll.powertech.no>...
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001), wrote in
alt.prophecies.nostradamus,
ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons
neither
Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would
need
to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to
exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the
bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international
rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set
by
USA
and
Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between
Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire
nukes
as
well
if I am going to follow your logic.
Israel is in a rather unique situation, given that pretty much
all
its
neighbors would be happy if it ceased to exist.
So you think people should be allowed to pick and choose whether
International Law applies to them and everyone shouldl just shut
up
about
injustice?
Does International law apply also to those who blow up discos and
pizza shops?
Absolutely. Such people should be punished to the full extent for
commiting
such crimes.
That is a little different than a border dispute!
I suspect India would be happy if Pakistan ceased to exist and
vice
versa.
No doubt. However, they both still have their nukes, in spite of
International law. I think Pakistan having them is far more
dangerous
than Israel (or India, for that matter),
Of course you do, you have admitted your bigotry on several
occasions.
Guilty as charged.
Of course.
Only muslims call nukes (to paraphrase) a "gift
from Allah".
Only an American greeted the detonation of the first nuke with the words
"Now I have become death, destroyer of worlds". I believe the Israelis
call
their plan for nuke deployment "Jericho". What's your point?
because of the radical
islamic element and the potential for them to seize power.
I agree with Tony...
A bad sign ;-)
if Israel didn't
have nukes to deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist
long
ago.
I'm afraid that is completely illogical and not consistent with
history.
First, they have only had nukes since the 80's which is hardly
long
ago.
HOw
were they deterring the aggressors who would have ceased there
existance
long ago by building nukes recently?!
Secondly, in 47, 67 and 73 they didn't have nukes, and avoided
ceasing
to
exist. It appears it is the billions and billions of dollars
worth
of US
miltary aid which keeps the Israelis safe, especially seeing as
since
the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the peace treaties with Egypt
there
isn't
an army in the region they couldn't destroy in a gentle
afternoon's
work.
Of course, Israel also has a strong conventional army, as the
arabs
found out when they thought they could gang up and take her out.
Buh buh but you said "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter
aggressors,
it
would have ceased to exist long
ago" - I take it you agree that history shows otherwise?
However, I don't blame them for wanting some extra security.
So you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter
aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago." is provably false then. These nukes have gone from "totally
vital
to
Israel's existence" to "a useful bit of extra securuty" - sort of
destroys
your whole argument justifying Israel's defiance of international
law,
don'tchathink?
Eh? Eh?
The threat they face at the moment (Palestinian insurgency)
isn't
exactly
being deterred by their nukes is it?
Nope! But then, how does one deter those who would rather die and
join their 72 houris in paradise?They are not dealing with
rational
people!
Neither am I apparently . You admit their nukes are a useless
deterrent
so
what justifies the Israeli's egregious breach of international law
and
non
proliferation treaties?
Ummm, not totally useless. If another country in the region, Iran for
example, should develop their own weapons, THEN Israel's would
certainly be a deterent.
LOL What incredible double think! A pre-emptive deterrent eh? Looking at
it
from Iran's point of view, another country in the region HAS developed
nukes, why then should Iran not develop them to have a deterrent? You're
answer appears to be simply "because they're muslims".
Well, if you were surrounded by hostile enemies, I think you would
fortify your home. I know I would!
So what's wrong with Iranians acting on that self-same logic? Try and stick
to the point Jane. You excused Israel's blatant violations of the
no-proliferation treaty with an argument you have since admitted is invalid,
and now you are trying to say it's OK for any country to have nukes if it
has a hostile neighbour unless it's Iran! NO wonder you agree with posters
like Douglas and Z, your "logic" is just as shot as theirs!
Still, at least you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to
deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long ago." is provably
false.
Hopefully, Israel will take out Iran's proposed reactor before they
have a
chance to develop them.
Or Iran will somehow be convinced that they should stick to the
non-proliferation treaty even though a hostile neighbour is given a free
pass.. Are you getting a small hint as to how some Muslims might feel
they're being discriminated against?
eh? eh?
Having said that, I truly do wish that ALL countries would destroy
their nukes, but that is not a realistic hope at the moment.
..or ever. At least, not until something even more destructive comes
along.
Unfortunately you can't de-invent things.
Israel could also take out the Palestinians in a "gentle
afternoon's
work". the fact that they choose not to speaks to their moral
superiority over those who would blow up a bus full of innocents!
The Israelis have killed plenty of innocents, I can't say I'm
convinced
of
the moral superiority of anyone in that particular mess.
Excuse me, I guess the difference is that they do not TARGET
innocents, unlike the Palestinians.
Plenty of cases of the Israelis TARGETTING kids throwing stones, they've
wasted a couple of journalists too when there was no other shooting
going
on.
Ummm, they certainly use rubber bullets on the stone throwers.
They certainly use lead ones too.
You can't just let them throw stones!
Hell no! YOU have to kill 'em!
Any kids younger than, say, 16,
would not be allowed to participate if they had responsible parents.
*sheesh* They live in a country under occupation. Should the Jews in the
Warsaw Ghetto who were under 16 not have been allowed to fight the Nazis if
the'd had "responsible parents"? Is your argument now that "only countries
with responsible parents should be allowed to own nuclear weapons"?! LOL
The Palestinian militants like to
surround themselves with innocents, as they know some will be caught
in the crossfire and have ggood propaganda value.
They see it as total warfare, same as the Soviets in WWII. THey are
fighting
for their homeland.
So you sacrifice your own babies for your homeland?
Who is "sacrificing babies"?!
I would sacrifice
myself...but not my kids, at least until they were old enough to make
their own decision.
What are you on about?
Even then, I wouldn't like it, being a mother,
but would applaud their patriotism.
Exactly what a Palestinian mother feels, no doubt.
In addition, I've seen the age of some of those kids out battling the
Israeli soldiers.
As a mother, I can assure you my children would not be going out into
the streets. You don't see Israeli children out in the fray.
Well, I believe Army service is compulsory for Israeli's of 17 and up,
17
sounds like a kid to me. It's all very depressing and ignoring the
legitimate grievances of one side and trying to lay ALL the blame on
them
doesn't help.
I don't know, we can drive here at 16...a truly dangerous pastime for
a hormone-driven teenager. Israeli soldiers of 17 would presumably be
well-trained before going into the field and would have some
understanding of what they were facing.
Still kids-.
Quite a difference between that and the 4-year-old Palestinian holding an
UZI bigger than him
while riding Dad's sholdiers into a war zone.
LOL! Where did you see that? At a parade most likely. Or do you think Hamas
go into battle with Uzi-totin' toddlers strapped to their heads?
You want to lay off the diet pills, ma'am they appear to be making you
delusional.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
18 Jun 2004 10:59:43 AM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<cau50d$coo$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406170944.56293290@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cas9gf$i1f$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406170605.61c6f88c@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<carg6c$5e8$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406160738.6dd06ce7@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cap3nf$1rg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406150151.54b8606b@posting.google.com...
Henning Larsen <NONEXISTANT@NONEXISTANT.XXX> wrote in message
news:<calaom$un1$1@troll.powertech.no>...
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001), wrote in
alt.prophecies.nostradamus,
ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons
neither
Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would
need
to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to
exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the
bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international
rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set
by
USA
and
Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between
Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire
nukes
as
well
if I am going to follow your logic.
Israel is in a rather unique situation, given that pretty much
all
its
neighbors would be happy if it ceased to exist.
So you think people should be allowed to pick and choose whether
International Law applies to them and everyone shouldl just shut
up
about
injustice?
Does International law apply also to those who blow up discos and
pizza shops?
Absolutely. Such people should be punished to the full extent for
commiting
such crimes.
That is a little different than a border dispute!
I suspect India would be happy if Pakistan ceased to exist and
vice
versa.
No doubt. However, they both still have their nukes, in spite of
International law. I think Pakistan having them is far more
dangerous
than Israel (or India, for that matter),
Of course you do, you have admitted your bigotry on several
occasions.
Guilty as charged.
Of course.
Only muslims call nukes (to paraphrase) a "gift
from Allah".
Only an American greeted the detonation of the first nuke with the words
"Now I have become death, destroyer of worlds". I believe the Israelis
call
their plan for nuke deployment "Jericho". What's your point?
because of the radical
islamic element and the potential for them to seize power.
I agree with Tony...
A bad sign ;-)
if Israel didn't
have nukes to deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist
long
ago.
I'm afraid that is completely illogical and not consistent with
history.
First, they have only had nukes since the 80's which is hardly
long
ago.
HOw
were they deterring the aggressors who would have ceased there
existance
long ago by building nukes recently?!
Secondly, in 47, 67 and 73 they didn't have nukes, and avoided
ceasing
to
exist. It appears it is the billions and billions of dollars
worth
of US
miltary aid which keeps the Israelis safe, especially seeing as
since
the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the peace treaties with Egypt
there
isn't
an army in the region they couldn't destroy in a gentle
afternoon's
work.
Of course, Israel also has a strong conventional army, as the
arabs
found out when they thought they could gang up and take her out.
Buh buh but you said "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter
aggressors,
it
would have ceased to exist long
ago" - I take it you agree that history shows otherwise?
However, I don't blame them for wanting some extra security.
So you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter
aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago." is provably false then. These nukes have gone from "totally
vital
to
Israel's existence" to "a useful bit of extra securuty" - sort of
destroys
your whole argument justifying Israel's defiance of international
law,
don'tchathink?
Eh? Eh?
The threat they face at the moment (Palestinian insurgency)
isn't
exactly
being deterred by their nukes is it?
Nope! But then, how does one deter those who would rather die and
join their 72 houris in paradise?They are not dealing with
rational
people!
Neither am I apparently . You admit their nukes are a useless
deterrent
so
what justifies the Israeli's egregious breach of international law
and
non
proliferation treaties?
Ummm, not totally useless. If another country in the region, Iran for
example, should develop their own weapons, THEN Israel's would
certainly be a deterent.
LOL What incredible double think! A pre-emptive deterrent eh? Looking at
it
from Iran's point of view, another country in the region HAS developed
nukes, why then should Iran not develop them to have a deterrent? You're
answer appears to be simply "because they're muslims".
Well, if you were surrounded by hostile enemies, I think you would
fortify your home. I know I would!
So what's wrong with Iranians acting on that self-same logic? Try and stick
to the point Jane. You excused Israel's blatant violations of the
no-proliferation treaty with an argument you have since admitted is invalid,
and now you are trying to say it's OK for any country to have nukes if it
has a hostile neighbour unless it's Iran! NO wonder you agree with posters
like Douglas and Z, your "logic" is just as shot as theirs!
Well, of course they can try, but if Israel should blow it up before
it is finished, more power to them!
Still, at least you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to
deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long ago." is provably
false.
Hopefully, Israel will take out Iran's proposed reactor before they
have a
chance to develop them.
Or Iran will somehow be convinced that they should stick to the
non-proliferation treaty even though a hostile neighbour is given a free
pass.. Are you getting a small hint as to how some Muslims might feel
they're being discriminated against?
eh? eh?
See above. Iran can go to town if it likes and Israel will hopefully
remove the plant before it becomes a threat.
Having said that, I truly do wish that ALL countries would destroy
their nukes, but that is not a realistic hope at the moment.
..or ever. At least, not until something even more destructive comes
along.
Unfortunately you can't de-invent things.
Israel could also take out the Palestinians in a "gentle
afternoon's
work". the fact that they choose not to speaks to their moral
superiority over those who would blow up a bus full of innocents!
The Israelis have killed plenty of innocents, I can't say I'm
convinced
of
the moral superiority of anyone in that particular mess.
Excuse me, I guess the difference is that they do not TARGET
innocents, unlike the Palestinians.
Plenty of cases of the Israelis TARGETTING kids throwing stones, they've
wasted a couple of journalists too when there was no other shooting
going
on.
Ummm, they certainly use rubber bullets on the stone throwers.
They certainly use lead ones too.
You can't just let them throw stones!
Hell no! YOU have to kill 'em!
Any kids younger than, say, 16,
would not be allowed to participate if they had responsible parents.
*sheesh* They live in a country under occupation. Should the Jews in the
Warsaw Ghetto who were under 16 not have been allowed to fight the Nazis if
the'd had "responsible parents"? Is your argument now that "only countries
with responsible parents should be allowed to own nuclear weapons"?! LOL
MY child would not be out in the streets! You don't see Israeli kids
out fighting the Palestinians (yeah, yeah some of the soldiers are
older teenagers. Altogether different).
The Palestinian militants like to
surround themselves with innocents, as they know some will be caught
in the crossfire and have ggood propaganda value.
They see it as total warfare, same as the Soviets in WWII. THey are
fighting
for their homeland.
So you sacrifice your own babies for your homeland?
Who is "sacrificing babies"?!
Those militants who intentionally surround themselves with children
for the propaganda value.
I would sacrifice
myself...but not my kids, at least until they were old enough to make
their own decision.
What are you on about?
Even then, I wouldn't like it, being a mother,
but would applaud their patriotism.
Exactly what a Palestinian mother feels, no doubt.
Rightly so.
In addition, I've seen the age of some of those kids out battling the
Israeli soldiers.
As a mother, I can assure you my children would not be going out into
the streets. You don't see Israeli children out in the fray.
Well, I believe Army service is compulsory for Israeli's of 17 and up,
17
sounds like a kid to me. It's all very depressing and ignoring the
legitimate grievances of one side and trying to lay ALL the blame on
them
doesn't help.
I don't know, we can drive here at 16...a truly dangerous pastime for
a hormone-driven teenager. Israeli soldiers of 17 would presumably be
well-trained before going into the field and would have some
understanding of what they were facing.
Still kids-.
Quite a difference between that and the 4-year-old Palestinian holding an
UZI bigger than him
while riding Dad's sholdiers into a war zone.
LOL! Where did you see that? At a parade most likely. Or do you think Hamas
go into battle with Uzi-totin' toddlers strapped to their heads?
Yes, I saw such a photo at a Palestinian militants funeral. Very
volatile atmosphere and no place for a kid. He even had a cute little
green Hamas headscarf on!
For the record, I am also disgusted when folks over here take children
to the picket line, or other demonstrations where there is the
potentional for violence. I would hope in a war zone that they would
have more sense, as the Israelis do.
You want to lay off the diet pills, ma'am they appear to be making you
delusional.
Now you sound like your old pal Gassum Burnham ("Gas-and-Burn-'em").
*****.
Jane
Jane
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grantland" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran won't accept any new IAEA Obligations |
17 Jun 2004 09:47:25 AM |
|
|
(Jane) wrote:
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<carg6c$5e8$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" < > wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406160738.6dd06ce7@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cap3nf$1rg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Jane" < > wrote in message
news:a8a04f01.0406150151.54b8606b@posting.google.com...
Henning Larsen <NONEXISTANT@NONEXISTANT.XXX> wrote in message
news:<calaom$un1$1@troll.powertech.no>...
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001), wrote in alt.prophecies.nostradamus,
ma,
14 jun 2004 15:56:01 GMT:
Henning Larsen
wrote:
If it wasn't for Israel getting their nuclear >weapons neither
Iran,
Pakistan or any other muslim country in that area >would need to
acquire nuclear
weapons.
LOL!!!
If it weren't for those nukes, israel would cease to exist.
Like Israel got a god given right to have nukes while the bordering
countries does not? Israel has broken the international rules on
acquiring nuclear weapons just like Pakistan and India.
What this discussion is showing is the double standard set by USA
and
Israel.
Vietnam has had fights with China about the border between
Vietnam/China
for years, no doubt the country then have the rights acquire nukes
as
well
if I am going to follow your logic.
Israel is in a rather unique situation, given that pretty much all its
neighbors would be happy if it ceased to exist.
So you think people should be allowed to pick and choose whether
International Law applies to them and everyone shouldl just shut up
about
injustice?
Does International law apply also to those who blow up discos and
pizza shops?
Absolutely. Such people should be punished to the full extent for commiting
such crimes.
That is a little different than a border dispute!
I suspect India would be happy if Pakistan ceased to exist and vice
versa.
No doubt. However, they both still have their nukes, in spite of
International law. I think Pakistan having them is far more dangerous
than Israel (or India, for that matter),
Of course you do, you have admitted your bigotry on several occasions.
Guilty as charged. Only muslims call nukes (to paraphrase) a "gift
from Allah".
because of the radical
islamic element and the potential for them to seize power.
I agree with Tony...
A bad sign ;-)
if Israel didn't
have nukes to deter aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago.
I'm afraid that is completely illogical and not consistent with history.
First, they have only had nukes since the 80's which is hardly long ago.
HOw
were they deterring the aggressors who would have ceased there existance
long ago by building nukes recently?!
Secondly, in 47, 67 and 73 they didn't have nukes, and avoided ceasing
to
exist. It appears it is the billions and billions of dollars worth of US
miltary aid which keeps the Israelis safe, especially seeing as since
the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the peace treaties with Egypt there
isn't
an army in the region they couldn't destroy in a gentle afternoon's
work.
Of course, Israel also has a strong conventional army, as the arabs
found out when they thought they could gang up and take her out.
Buh buh but you said "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter aggressors, it
would have ceased to exist long
ago" - I take it you agree that history shows otherwise?
However, I don't blame them for wanting some extra security.
So you agree your statement "if Israel didn't have nukes to deter
aggressors, it would have ceased to exist long
ago." is provably false then. These nukes have gone from "totally vital to
Israel's existence" to "a useful bit of extra securuty" - sort of destroys
your whole argument justifying Israel's defiance of international law,
don'tchathink?
The threat they face at the moment (Palestinian insurgency) isn't
exactly
being deterred by their nukes is it?
Nope! But then, how does one deter those who would rather die and
join their 72 houris in paradise?They are not dealing with rational
people!
Neither am I apparently . You admit their nukes are a useless deterrent so
what justifies the Israeli's egregious breach of international law and non
proliferation treaties?
Ummm, not totally useless. If another country in the region, Iran for
example, should develop their own weapons, THEN Israel's would
certainly be a deterent. Hopefully, Israel will take out Iran's
proposed reactor before they have a chance to develop them.
Having said that, I truly do wish that ALL countries would destroy
their nukes, but that is not a realistic hope at the moment.
Israel could also take out the Palestinians in a "gentle afternoon's
work". the fact that they choose not to speaks to their moral
superiority over those who would blow up a bus full of innocents!
The Israelis have killed plenty of innocents, I can't say I'm convinced of
the moral superiority of anyone in that particu | | | | | | | | | | | |
