Right to be a nuclear state...

[^Ben]

I support their nuclear power program, I don't support them making nukes IF they are making nukes. But I don't support nukes in genereal.

 

[ray_MAN]

It seems to be a peaceful country.

Nothing is as it seems. Just the fact that they are developing nuclear material and that they really dislike the US is a concern. I am not saying that they should be banished from the far ends of the Earth, but I think that they are pretty scary. And, I do not think that Bush is more dangerous to Iran. Not even close.

 

[Nofuture]

Nothing is as it seems. Just the fact that they are developing nuclear material and that they really dislike the US is a concern. I am not saying that they should be banished from the far ends of the Earth, but I think that they are pretty scary.

I have a contrary opinion.

They dislike US? It's 100% justified. The USA are GUILTY of this. US should apologize, try to correct their mistakes and eventually start a new foreign policy, which makes friends

And, I do not think that Bush is more dangerous to Iran. Not even close

A moment please! Who threatens here whom?! If US in aggresive and provoking manner threaten Iran and Iran says, OK, we are ready, what do you think, who is from these two more dangerous?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Since the inauguration of moderate President Mohammad Khatami in 1997, Iran has taken steps towards liberalization and made conciliatory gestures towards the United States—including public condemnations of terrorist attacks by Algerian and Egyptian groups. It remains, however, one of the most active state sponsors of international terrorism. It continues to support terrorist groups. In the trial of an Iranian and four Lebanese for the 1992 killing of Iranian Kurdish dissidents in a Berlin restaurant, a German court in 1997 found the Government of Iran to have implemented a policy of assassinating dissidents abroad. Iran conducted at least 13 such assassinations in 1997.
Affiliated Groups: Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, PKK
Sanctions: The Iran & Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 deprives foreign companies of certain economic benefits for investing in Iran's energy sectors.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terrorism4.html

US should apologize, try to correct their mistakes and eventually start a new foreign policy, which makes friends

In a perfect world, all countries would get along perfectly and militaries would not be needed. This is not the case.

 

[Tr0n]

"In the case of Iran: Once again, a wacko contols the country who dislikes the US's ways"


believe it or not Iran once had democracy ...which was overthrown by the US when they installed the brutal shah of iran ...so I can see why they have a reason to .....dislike them

I know this is off-topic and all, but that statement is so true I acutally laughed at it.

Does that mean I'm a sad person?

So if we do get nuked by Iran...guess we are partly to blame.

 

[Nofuture]

Seinfeldrules, I even have a thread in this forum about the US policy as a state terrorism. Isn't it enough for you?

It remains, however, one of the most active state sponsors of international terrorism.

It's given with a very little back up, isn't it?


In contrary, I backed up my statement "Today, the USA remains the world's primary state carrying out state terrorism" pretty well.

One could write hundreds of books about the USA as a rogue state - there is so much material!!!

 

[seinfeldrules]

Seinfeldrules, I even have a thread in this forum about the US policy as a state terrorism. Isn't it enough for you?

Maybe I'll make a thread entitled 'Iran is a State Sponsor of Terrorism'. If I do that, it must be true!

It's given with a very little back up, isn't it?

Iran
Despite the victory for moderates in Iran's Majles elections in February, aggressive countermeasures by hardline conservatives have blocked most reform efforts. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. Its Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) continued to be involved in the planning and the execution of terrorist acts and continued to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.

Iran's involvement in terrorist-related activities remained focused on support for groups opposed to Israel and peace between Israel and its neighbors. Statements by Iran's leaders demonstrated Iran's unrelenting hostility to Israel. Supreme Leader Khamenei continued to refer to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that must be removed; President Khatami, labeling Israel an "illegal entity," called for sanctions against Israel during the intifadah; and Expediency Council Secretary Rezai said, "Iran will continue its campaign against Zionism until Israel is completely eradicated." Iran has long provided Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups--notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC--with varying amounts of funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. This activity continued at its already high levels following the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May and during the intifadah in the fall. Iran continued to encourage Hizballah and the Palestinian groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities against Israel. Iran also provided a lower level of support--including funding, training, and logistics assistance--to extremist groups in the Gulf, Africa, Turkey, and Central Asia.

Although the Iranian Government has taken no direct action to date to implement Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the decree has not been revoked, and the $2.8 million bounty for his assassination has not been withdrawn. Moreover, hardline Iranians continued to stress that the decree is irrevocable. On the anniversary of the fatwa in February, the IRGC released a statement that the decree remains in force, and Ayatollah Yazdi, a member of the Council of Guardians, reiterated that "the decree is irrevocable and, God willing, will be carried out."

Iran also was a victim of Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)-sponsored terrorism. The Islamic Republic presented a letter to the UN Secretary General in October citing seven acts of sabotage by the MEK against Iran between January and August 2000. The United States has designated the MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/index.cfm?docid=2441&CFNoCache=TRUE&printfriendly=true

I cannot believe you honestly support Iran and North Korea in their ventures to obtain nuclear weapons. It is a very scary thought. You are free to believe what you want, but some of the stuff you put out there is outlandish.

 

[CptStern]

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terrorism4.html


In a perfect world, all countries would get along perfectly and militaries would not be needed. This is not the case.

"In 1951, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, "the most popular politician in the country," was elected Prime Minister of Iran. His major election plank was the nationalization of the only oil company operating in Iran at that time-British Petroleum. The nationalization bill was passed unanimously by the Iranian Parliament.
Though Mossadegh offered BP considerable compensation, his days were numbered from that point on. The British coordinated an international economic embargo of Iran, throwing its economy into chaos. And the CIA, at the request of the British, began spending millions of dollars on ways to get rid of Mossadegh.

The CIA's plans hinged on the young Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, a timid and inexperienced figurehead. (He was a mere shadow of his father, who had led a pro Nazi regime during World War n. ) In 1953, with CIA backing, the Shah ordered Mossadegh out of office and appointed a Nazi collaborator as his successor. Demonstrators filled the streets in support of Mossadegh, and the Shah fled to Rome.

Undaunted, the CIA paid for pro-Shah street demonstrators, who seized a radio station and announced that the Shah was on his way back and that Mossadegh had been deposed. In reality, it took a nine-hour tank battle in the streets of Tehran, killing hundreds, to remove Mossadegh.

Compared to the bloodshed to follow, however, that was just a drop in the bucket. In 1976, Amnesty International concluded that the Shah's CIA-trained security force, SAVAK, had the worst human rights record on the planet, and that the number and variety of torture techniques the CIA had taught SAVAK were "beyond belief."

Inevitably, in 1979, the Iranian people overthrew the bloodstained Shah, with great bitterness and hatred toward the US for installing him and backing him all those years. The radical fundamentalist regime that rules Iran today could never have found popular support without the CIA's 1953 coup and the repression that followed."

source


here's a good read about CIA activities in Iran

 

[seinfeldrules]

Stern, how did that have anything to do with my post? When you have something relevant, please feel free to post it. You must have accidentally used the quote button on my post instead of tron's.

 

[Nofuture]

I cannot believe you honestly support Iran and North Korea in their ventures to obtain nuclear weapons. It is a very scary thought. You are free to believe what you want, but some of the stuff you put out there is outlandish.

I haven't enough material on NK. I don't know their mentality well too. Have I stated directly that I support NK nuclear ambitions?

Concerning Iran, I say that because of the huge threats from US and Israel and having such a dangerous neighbour as Israel and US military bases in its neighbourhood, Iran should have nuclear weapons. Every country has right to protect herself, so Iran too.


I see, nobody wants to participate in my quiz. OK, here is the answer:

"The existence of Israel is the reaffirmation of Jews as the chosen people ... Israel is suffused for me with a moral meaning absent from the existence of any other nation in the world. If there was a war between the United States and Israel, I would choose Israel. Sometimes I think I am secretly glad for its occasional brutality so that the world will know there is a monster out there -- a monster who will never forget [the
Holocaust]. Although in general I believe in nuclear disarmament, I am glad Israel has the atomic bomb, and the continued existence of Israel is the only cause for which I consider it justifiable to use nuclear weapons. Let me put this in its starkest and ugliest light: I am not sure, but I believe that, if the choice were between the survival of X and that of the remaining 4 or 6 billion people of the world, I would choose the 4 million [Jews]."

Jane Delynne, Jewish American author, in Rosenberg, David. Testimony. Contemporary Writers Make the Holocaust Personal. Times Books, 1985, p. 65

 

[seinfeldrules]

I dont see how one man's opinion represents all of Israel, you seem to have it in for them.

Oh, and in posing your argument for Iran you neglected to mention this:

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968, restricting the possession of nuclear weapons. The vast majority of sovereign states (189) are parties to the treaty. However two out of seven nuclear powers and one possible nuclear power have not ratified the treaty.

The parties to the treaty are: Afghanistan... Iran... Zimbabwe

 

[Nofuture]

I dont see how one man's opinion represents all of Israel, you seem to have it in for them.:

No, opinion of one person doesn't represent all Israel, but how do you know how many of them share this opinion? Chosen people, hmm, says me something...
I was schocked, as I first time read this, how can somebody have such horrible thoughts!?


Non-Profileration treaty? As I know it's possible to withdraw from it, hasn't NK done this?

Even worse:

However two out of seven nuclear powers and one
possible nuclear power have not ratified the treaty.

Three states - India, Pakistan, and Israel - have declined to sign the treaty.


And Israel lies about not not having nuclear weapons at all. Pretty silly...

Why US doesn't put THEM under pressure?!

ISRAEL
Status: Suspected Nuclear Weapons State

Nuclear Weapons Tests
First: Unknown

Warheads
2001: 200 (estimated)

Israel's nuclear weapons program dates back to its creation in 1948 and evolved quickly in the 1950s and '60s with French assistance. Although Israel has never openly admitted to being a nuclear weapons power - its official policy since 1961 has been known as "nuclear ambiguity" - officials of the Middle Eastern country have stated that Israel would not be the first nation to introduce nuclear weapons into the unstable area. Some type of non-nuclear test, perhaps a zero yield or implosion test, occurred on Nov. 2, 1966, possibly in the Negev Desert. There is no evidence that Israel has ever carried out a nuclear test, although many observers speculated that a suspected nuclear explosion in the southern Indian Ocean in 1979 was a joint South African-Israeli test. Israel has the capability to deliver nuclear weapons with medium-range missiles and medium-range bombers.
cbsnews.com

Israel has been for many many years spitting on international law. How can you feel safe with nuclear weapons in their hands? Me not!

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, opinion of one person doesn't represent all Israel, but how do you know how many of them share this opinion?

"You say they're terrorists, I say they're freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples' heart, in the Aryan race, that they have for their father, who they call Allah."

One man said this, because of that he obviously represents all of America. Its not like every country doesnt have its extremists/wackos.

Non-Profileration treaty? As I know it's possible to withdraw from it, hasn't NK done this?

Yes, NK has done this, but look at the pressure they are under because of it. Also, if you are basing your stance on what NK did, then you may want to revise your stance. They're not a role model I'd want my country following. Iran signed the treaty and should fulfill their commitments.

Three states - India, Pakistan, and Israel - have declined to sign the treaty.

True, that still does not excuse somebody who already has signed.

And Israel lies about not not having nuclear weapons at all. Pretty silly...

Why US doesn't put THEM under pressure?!

The US should put them under pressure, but I think every other Arab nation is doing a pretty good job at that without needing our help.

Israel has been for many many years spitting on international law. How can you feel safe with nuclear weapons in their hands? Me not!

I dont feel that they should have nukes. However, because they do makes that much of a greater case against Iran controlling nukes. I dont see how you can condemn Israel on one hand, but then support countries like NK and Iran in the other hand.

 

[Nofuture]

One man said this, because of that he obviously represents all of America. Its not like every country doesnt have its extremists/wackos.

As I've said, "Chosen people, hmm, says me something..."

Yes, NK has done this, but look at the pressure they are under because of it. Also, if you are basing your stance on what NK did, then you may want to revise your stance.

It's a possibility. As I know, NK did this in relation od US invasion into Iraq. I assume, they felt threatened and did it.

Three states - India, Pakistan, and Israel - have declined to sign the treaty.

True, that still does not excuse somebody who already has signed.

‘Double standards exist in Iran nuclear probe’
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-11-2003_pg4_12

"CAIRO: Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa said Wednesday that it was hypocritical to accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons while Israel escaped censure.
“We see that there are double standards and that one country is singled out while there is silence about Israel, which owns weapons of mass destruction,” Mussa said after meeting a senior Iranian diplomat. Mussa had held talks with Mohamed Sabhani, an Iranian foreign ministry official, who passed on a letter from Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi about “efforts to set up a nuclear-arms free zone” in the Middle East.
“We are for equality in the application of international conventions,” Mussa said, pointing out that Israel “is exempt from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) while other countries are subject to pressure.” Unlike Iran, Israel has not signed up to the treaty, which allows international inspections of nuclear plants."

The US should put them under pressure, but I think every other Arab nation is doing a pretty good job at that without needing our help.

You are completely wrong here. If an Arab/ME country had violated the international law in such amount as Israel did, they would be invaded, crashed etc. etc. etc. a long time ago. US are sole country in the wordl which supports Israels violations. As US is a world's dictatorial superpower, one can't do much about this (yeah, it's screams hypocrisy!):

"Here is a list of UN resolutions that Israel has not complied with, far more than Iraq. Note that she has also illegally developed nuclear weapons. Further, the situation is far worse than would at first appear, it involves the serious distortion of the official Security Council record by the profligate use by the United States of its veto power. Israel's defiance goes back to its very beginnings. This collection of resolutions criticizing Israel is unmatched by the record of any other nation as Israel stands in violation of more UN resolutions than ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH. [My note: I've searched for the information on UN sites in the databases of them, but I couldn't get a compiled information about a sole county; anyway, it's a huge amount and furthermore I don't have any facts not to believe that this statement isn't true].

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel" 1955-1992: *
Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid". *
Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people". * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem". *
Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions". *
Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria". Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control". *
Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan". *
Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem". *
Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250". *
Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital". *
Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation". * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation". *
Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport". *
Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan". * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem". *
Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon". *
Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem". *
Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon". *
Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon". * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem". * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon". *
Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty". * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon". *
Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon. * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces". *
Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". *
Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon". *
Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories". *
Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program". *
Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon". * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return". *
Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians". *
Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". *
Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'". * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'". *
Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re- admit two deported Palestinian mayors". *
Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility". *
Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith". *
Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon". *
Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops". *
Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon". *
Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in". *
Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon". *
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon". *
Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut". *
Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters. *
Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw". *
Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops". *
Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians. *
Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention. *
Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians". *
Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians. * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. *
Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations. Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return. *
Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return.

1993 to 1995UNGA Res 50/21 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 12, 1995) UNGA Res 50/22 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 12, 1995) UNGA Res 49/35 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995) lUNGA Res 49/36 - Human Rights of Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995) UNGA Res 49/62 - Question of Palestine (Feb 3 1995) UNGA Res 49/78 - Nuclear Proliferation in Mideast (Jan 11 1995) UNGA Res 49/87 - Situation in the Middle East (Feb 7 1995) UNGA Res 49/88 - The Middle East Peace Process (Feb 7 1995) UNGA Res 49/149- Palestinian Right- Self-Determination (Feb 7 1995) UNGA Res 48/213 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Mar 15, 1994) UNGA Res 48/40 - UNRWA for Palestinian Refugees (Dec 13, 1993) UNGA Res 48/41 - Human Rights in the Territories (Dec 10 1993) UNGA Res 48/58 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 14 1993) UNGA Res 48/59 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 14 1993) UNGA Res 48/71 - Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Mideast (Dec 16 1993) UNGA Res 48/78 - Israeli Nuclear Armament (Dec 16 1993) UNGA Res 48/94 - Self-Determination & Independence (Dec 20 1993) UNGA Res 48/124- Non-interference in Elections (Dec 20 1993) UNGA Res 48/158- Question of Palestine (Dec 20 1993) UNGA Res 48/212- Repercussions of Israeli Settlements (Dec 21 1993) ==========+++===========

to be continued...

 

[Nofuture]

Continuation:

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel (1972-2002)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Vetoes: 1972-1982 Subject Date & Meeting US Rep Casting Veto Vote Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1 Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.) Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1 Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6- power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.) Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0 Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4- power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4 Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4 Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5 Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1 Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3 Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1 Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present Subject Date Vote Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983 S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK) Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France) Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK) Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand) Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK) Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK) Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK) Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories 3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US) Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US), with four abstentions (Britain, France, Ireland and Norway) Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/15/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US) with two abstentions (Britain and Norway) Source: U.S. State Department"

However, because they do makes that much of a greater case against Iran controlling nukes

.

No, the opposite of that.

I dont see how you can condemn Israel on one hand, but then support countries like NK and Iran in the other hand.

Should I repeat it? OK:

I haven't enough material on NK. I don't know their mentality well too. Have I stated directly that I support NK nuclear ambitions?

Edit: The situation with NK remainds me a bit of situation at the Cold War time. Russia and US both had nuclear weapons and what? Did they attack each other?

Concerning Iran, I say that because of the huge threats from US and Israel and having such a dangerous neighbour as Israel and US military bases in its neighbourhood, Iran should have nuclear weapons. Every country has right to protect herself, so Iran too.

Israel: See above

 

[skull24]

Nuclear threat is not real yet but it will be in a few years. The rate that science is moving in, we have some new weapons of mass destruction in development. Like the antimatter bomb and the zero-point gravity weapon that crates a black hole over it's target to complete destroy it. A nuclear bomb take a lot of time to develop and calibrate and rescuers just to make one can cost billions. It's true, that suite case bombs are real but they have short blast rang and are very volatile and leak radiation to much for them to be used correctly. So, I think we have a long time before we get nuked and blow up.

 

[Eg.]

now if we make a good show of getting rid of our nukes how will that play out?

iranian ruler "ohh what nice guys i must follow their example"

but more realistically they would feel pressure from non nuclear nations to disarm.

to put it in simpler terms: how do u convince a man with a knife to put it down when you have only your hands?

now lets say the man with the knife is crazy, or better yet there are several crazy men with kinves and several men without knives. who is going to win the argument.

sadly the only way to equalize the playing field is to get knives. or make swords so the knives are too short.

so really as long as we have a knife, we have to wave it around like a madman to make sure no one gets there own and makes things worse

 

[Calanen]

I support the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons, and hope that the USA considers exporting ICBMs to Iran. Would help revive the US nuclear weapons industry, and get that deficit down. The US would have to make the Ayotallah Pinky Swear that they'd only be used for good things. Im sure hes a man of his word.

Speaking of which I saw an article recently which said Iran had imported 12 ICBMS from Ukraine, with a range of some 1800 miles.

 

[willyd]

According to my history teacher there was a UN agreement or something where nations signed saying they would not use nuclear weapons. And the problem with Iraq was that they supposively did but never signed the agreement.

I have no proof to back this up...

 

[seinfeldrules]

I support the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons, and hope that the USA considers exporting ICBMs to Iran. Would help revive the US nuclear weapons industry, and get that deficit down. The US would have to make the Ayotallah Pinky Swear that they'd only be used for good things. Im sure hes a man of his word.

Speaking of which I saw an article recently which said Iran had imported 12 ICBMS from Ukraine, with a range of some 1800 miles.

Sigh, some people just wont open their eyes until its too late...

Edit: The situation with NK remainds me a bit of situation at the Cold War time. Russia and US both had nuclear weapons and what? Did they attack each other?

Read about or watch 13 Days.

If an Arab/ME country had violated the international law in such amount as Israel did, they would be invaded, crashed etc. etc. etc. a long time ago.

Is it any worse than intentionally blowing up school busses filled with children and civilians? You are fooling yourself into thinking Israel is acting without justification or cause. Neither side is right in this situation.

It's a possibility. As I know, NK did this in relation od US invasion into Iraq.

Is that so? Then why did they begin this program long before Iraq was even in the picture. It would be virtually impossible to build a nuclear weapon in 2 years.

 

[Nofuture]

You are fooling yourself into thinking Israel is acting without justification or cause.

1. Hmm, resolutions condemn certain false actions/non-actions. So you say that UN are fooling themselves into condemning that certain actions/non-actions of Israel?
2. Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility" is e.g. not related with Palestinian/Israeli conflict.


Israel has not complied with far more resolutions than Iraq. Then how does it come, that Iraq was invaded and not Israel??

Is that so? Then why did they begin this program long before Iraq was even in the picture. It would be virtually impossible to build a nuclear weapon in 2 years.

The withdrawal of the NPT.

 

[seinfeldrules]

1. Hmm, resolutions condemn certain false actions/non-actions. So you say that UN are fooling themselves into condemning that certain actions/non-actions of Israel?
2. Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility" is e.g. not related with Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

Israel has not complied with far more resolutions than Iraq. Then how does it come, that Iraq was invaded and not Israel??

You avoided my statement. I said you are fooling yourself into thinking Israel acts without justification or cause. If you cannot see that, then you are probably too blind to see your own feet. Saddam was throwing SCUDS at Israel during the 1st Gulf War, imagine what those would have been like nuclear tipped...

The withdrawal of the NPT.

You again avoided the true meaning of my statement. NK was developing nuclear weapons far before we invaded Iraq, because of that your reasoning is incorrect.

 

[Nofuture]

You avoided my statement. I said you are fooling yourself into thinking Israel acts without justification or cause. If you cannot see that, then you are probably too blind to see your own feet.

I see, it's pointless.

I've posted here resolutions, they are resolutions of UN, not mine; unfortunately I'm not warranted to do this
I'm talking about international law. Does it tell you anything?

You again avoided the true meaning of my statement. NK was developing nuclear weapons far before we invaded Iraq, because of that your reasoning is incorrect.

It's enough, isn't it?!

YOUR and MY statements in postings #53 and #54 are about withrawal:

#53 MY statement: Non-Profileration treaty? As I know it's possible to withdraw from it, hasn't NK done this?

#53 and #54 YOUR statement: Yes, NK has done this [withdrawal], but look at the pressure they are under because of it. Also, if you are basing your stance on what NK did, then you may want to revise your stance.

#54 MY statement: It's a possibility [of withdrawal]. As I know, NK did this [withdrawal] in relation od US invasion into Iraq. I assume, they felt threatened and did it.

Everyone who will read the postings #53 and #54 will see this. So what do you want?!

There is no escape here for you. It's documented and the postings #53 and #54 hadn't been edited. So give up!

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oct. 16, 2002:
The White House announces that North Korea has re-started its nuclear weapons program, despite agreeing to scrap it in 1994. The country was also supposed to have allowed inspectors to inspect its nuclear facilities. No inspectors have been allowed entry, and North Korea says the 1994 agreement no longer applies.

In clear violation of the NPT. They were planning this long before the US invasion. When the invasion did occur it was merely a good excuse for the N. Koreans.

I've posted here resolutions, they are resolutions of UN, not mine; unfortunately I'm not warranted to do this
I'm talking about international law. Does it tell you anything?

How many resolutions have there been against Palestine for terrorist actions?

 

[Pesmerga]

It's not a matter of right, it's a matter of who has them and their threat to use them. Hydrogen bombs are the worst thing in the world, but if they are used, it's probably going to be against the US or between a civil war of a middle-eastern or Russian conflict.

 

[kirovman]

It's not a matter of right, it's a matter of who has them and their threat to use them. Hydrogen bombs are the worst thing in the world, but if they are used, it's probably going to be against the US or between a civil war of a middle-eastern or Russian conflict.

The middle east don't have Hydrogen Bombs...

sub-Hiroshima at best...
The only states having Hydrogen bombs are US, Russia, UK, France, China. And I think they've all stepped down from Hydrogen bombs to precision Atomic Bombs...smaller, not city destroying.

India, Pakistan, Isreal, etc only have rudimentary nuclear weapons. Not enough to destroy big cities, or deliver them sufficiently. Their nuclear weapons couldn't destroy the biosphere (but the retaliation effects of the first 5 countries could do).

 

[Calanen]

Hydrogen? Meh - give me the Nuetron bomb! yay!