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

Should Israel be required to sign the NPT? [W:348]

Should Israel be required to sign the NPT


  • Total voters
    41
Yeah yeah, as soon as Russia stops helping Iran, right?

No. Israel can look after it's own interests without our support. They create more problems for the U.S. than they solve. It simply is not worth it.
 
Not really.
In your case you've brought up a quote of Ariel Sharon saying things that he never intended on following with. He talks about Jewish morality and how it backfires on Israel according to him and how if it didn't exist Israel would be allowed to defend itself more fiercely, but during his time as PM did he follow any of that? No, he did the opposite of that. He was the one responsible for the withdrawal from Gaza. So it's empty propaganda on your side and nothing more. On Iran however, its leaders are actually following with the agenda dictated by their words - they claim the US is the big Satan and that Israel is the small Satan, and indeed they've been known to support anti-American and anti-Israeli terror organizations for years to this very day. They are a backwards and dark regime and attempting to defend them by claiming that their words are taken out of context the same way you did with Sharon here is shamefully immoral. There is no basis for comparison between any of the Western democracies and the Iranian government. None at all.

The question was context. And you are wrong. Iran needs to be seen in context, but that is something that you don't want to do because of your extreme, irrational bias towards Israel.
 
Every nation wants to prevent nations that are hostile to them from having them (if they can).

I'm right there with you on the warm-and-fuzzy desire to diminish (and/or eliminate) nuclear weapons, but as long as those who already have them insist on keeping them, I simply don't see it as being practical, so I'm choosing the side of practical reality.

I understand what you mean. That said, I think we need to give it a shot. The human race made a big mistake here. I hope it will not result in our destruction, or at least the destruction of human civilization as we know it today.
 
The question was context. And you are wrong. Iran needs to be seen in context, but that is something that you don't want to do because of your extreme, irrational bias towards Israel.

So anyone who doesn't agree with your radical world views is an extremely biased irrational person.
There's nothing wrong about you clearly. [/sarcasm]
 
Simpleχity;1064330262 said:
Einstein had his share of foibles. The cosmological constant and quantum mechanics come to mind.

I may not understand what you mean, but Einstein was not responsible for quantum mechanics. That was more the work of Erwin Schrodinger.
 
So anyone who doesn't agree with your radical world views is an extremely biased irrational person.
There's nothing wrong about you clearly. [/sarcasm]

No, that's not true. But what is true is that you have an irrational bias towards Israel. It appears you feel they can do no wrong and bear no responsibility whatsoever for the problems in the Middle East. That is irrational bias. That is the truth. Now if you don't feel that way, and understand that Israel does indeed do wrong and bears some of the responsibility for the problems in the Middle East, then I stand corrected.
 
What do you mean by "equals" in this context?

Equal means equal trust.

As far as Germany and France helping Putin steep the game towards an invasion of Iraq, it was indeed a an act not of "disloyalty", but of callousness and/or enmity. A lot of people do not understand enough about negotiation and game theories to have picked that up, believing in, what is said and not looking behind the words for effects and intent. But one would come to understand that, were they to do the maths on the situation back then. Most are too lazy, however, or to little educated.

Eh? Germany and France were correct about Iraq.. They objected to an invasion because there was no just cause, especially on the grounds that the US/UK were pushing.. which were lies upon lies.. something the Germans and the French had warned the US government many times. The French had told the US that the Niger yellowcake story was bogus, the Germans had told the US that the Iraqis had destroyed their WMD.. but were ignored.

What did Germany and especially France get thrown in their face? Renaming French Fries (even though they come from Belgium) to a spike in insults that continue to this day.

But you are right that some in the US misinterpreted Schröder/Chirac to have been "disloyal" instead of just understanding that that is the nature of the scorpion. You just have to keep an eye on nations. They tend to be loose cannons.

Some? HAHA you mean the US government and the GOP.. that is not "some".

Where you would be right, if we had a system of robust and believably general security enforcement with r2p at the global level with the appropriate legal recourse and all that, we should have general standards of weaponry. But that is something that would only be logically consistent under those circumstances. Until countries are willing to stop free riding and initiate, maintain and pay for that type of system it would only make the world more dangerous. Lots of people argue the way you do. But that is always from a position with no responsibility for international security for themselves or others and where the security is paid for by others.

Denmark BTW is not the worst offender in this, but are one of the free riders and does not honor its treaty spending obligations nor has it for very many years.

LOL you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Denmark is hardly a "free rider", as it not only for a long while followed the US blindly (till the US screwed that up), but has allowed on the cheap, US forces to be on Danish soil for 60+ years, polluting Danish people and land with god knows what. We freakingly forced moved citizens for the US military on their request and without any compensation. And what did the US do.. defy our agreement on no nuclear weapons on Danish soil.. On top of that, without Denmark during the cold war, the US would never have been able to contain the Russian fleet as it did, especially in the early days.
 
So I ask again, why trust Israel or the US with nukes more than other countries? Should there not be equal standards on the subject?

Listen, Iran is a terrorist state and has promised to destroy Israel and threatens the U.S. Letting Iran have nukes is akin to letting Hitler get the bomb.

The time is coming when Israel is going to have to do what Obummer and the European Community are too morally weak to do - take out Iran's nuclear program. I support Israel whacking terrorist Iran to keep them from getting nukes.

And you'd better be glad the U.S. has had the 'bomb' for all these years or you people would be speaking Russian.
 
Allies are equals. Europe has never been treated as equals and when they forced the issue, then the US called countries like France and Germany as disloyal and all that bull****. Just look at when the UK pulled out of Iraq, how the attitude towards the UK suddenly changed overnight. They went from being key competent allies to being incompetent baffons.. classy.

As I stated.. trust has to be earned and gained. It can also easily be lost. The "special relationship" with the UK is only as special as long as the UK is in the EU.. that has been US policy since Reagan when Thatcher threatened to leave.. it is no different today. Is that a real ally or a bully in a so called complicated marriage?

So I ask again, why trust Israel or the US with nukes more than other countries? Should there not be equal standards on the subject?
I'm sorry but a country that's smaller than one of our states is not our equal. That's even meashurable in terms of military power and GDP.
 
Listen, Iran is a terrorist state and has promised to destroy Israel and threatens the U.S. Letting Iran have nukes is akin to letting Hitler get the bomb.

When exactly did Iran promise to destroy Israel?

The time is coming when Israel is going to have to do what Obummer and the European Community are too morally weak to do - take out Iran's nuclear program. I support Israel whacking terrorist Iran to keep them from getting nukes.

So your solution is to attack Iran from now until the end of eternity to keep them from having a nuclear program? Do you actually think that is practical? That is not a practical solution to the problem.
 
Well, that's what I meant. Israel is one of our best paid prostitutes in the region. But other than Obama, and maybe Carter, there's been no real push against Israeli expansion. We'd be raising hell if Russia was pushing such expansions.

I was thinking that it would be like being married to Jennifer Aniston but paying Angelina Jolie to be a live in the same house prostitute. First of all you would have to constantly keep the two from fighting, and next of all for what you would have to pay Angelina Jolie, the sex would not be worth it.
 
When exactly did Iran promise to destroy Israel?

Seriously?

Multiple times, over the years. Here's just one:

Khamenei Threatens to Annihilate Israel – After Obama Sends Him Secret Letter | The Gateway Pundit

So your solution is to attack Iran from now until the end of eternity to keep them from having a nuclear program? Do you actually think that is practical? That is not a practical solution to the problem.

Yeah, it is. It keeps terrorist state Iran from incinerating millions.

Perhaps someday, if Iran matures and starts acting like a responsible citizen in world affairs, we can relax our concerns for them. But not now.

I promise you Israel is going to whack Iran to keep them from getting the bomb, and I hope they do a real thorough job of it.
 
No. Israel can look after it's own interests without our support. They create more problems for the U.S. than they solve. It simply is not worth it.

Even without funding, we still have treaties. Read about treaties in the Constitution, it's difficult to just ignore them.
 
Seriously?

Multiple times, over the years. Here's just one:

Yes I am serious. First of all he didn't say Iran was going to do it, so you are wrong. Next of all you link says

Of course the elimination of Israel DOES NOT mean the massacre of the Jewish people of this region.

Your response presumes that his response means he intends to massacre the Jewish people of the region. The quote from your source contradicts your claim.

Yeah, it is.

No it is not. All that it will do is make it such that Iran will one day indeed build one to stop such strikes. It is possible to do it without detection if you know how, it just would take a very long time. But when seen against the backdrop of an infinite amount of time, it can become a reality. That's why your proposal is bogus.
 
Even without funding, we still have treaties. Read about treaties in the Constitution, it's difficult to just ignore them.

We don't have to fund them neither do we have to keep shielding them in the U.N. and shielding their nuclear program. It is simply not worth the trouble.
 
(1)Equal means equal trust.

(2) Eh? Germany and France were correct about Iraq.. They objected to an invasion because there was no just cause, especially on the grounds that the US/UK were pushing.. which were lies upon lies.. something the Germans and the French had warned the US government many times. The French had told the US that the Niger yellowcake story was bogus, the Germans had told the US that the Iraqis had destroyed their WMD.. but were ignored.

(3) What did Germany and especially France get thrown in their face? Renaming French Fries (even though they come from Belgium) to a spike in insults that continue to this day.

Some? HAHA you mean the US government and the GOP.. that is not "some".

(4) LOL you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Denmark is hardly a "free rider", as it not only for a long while followed the US blindly (till the US screwed that up), but has allowed on the cheap, US forces to be on Danish soil for 60+ years, polluting Danish people and land with god knows what. We freakingly forced moved citizens for the US military on their request and without any compensation. And what did the US do.. defy our agreement on no nuclear weapons on Danish soil.. On top of that, without Denmark during the cold war, the US would never have been able to contain the Russian fleet as it did, especially in the early days.

(1) That is an odd way to define "equal". I do not understand, what you mean.

(2) The question of having been right or wrong is quite a different one, than the negotiations and game theory implications of how Putin, Chirac and Schröder influenced the outcome and is quite mute in the context we were speaking. What is important here, it that their line of negotiating made the invasion more probable and not less so. That would make quite a bit of sense, considering the multipolar strategy Chirac tended towards and of which Putin is a strong proponent. For Schröder the driver was probably different, though, I think we may assume that he knew quite well, that he was making the war more probable. When all is said and done, had Schröder wanted to prevent war and not be reelected, he would have acted quite a bit differently.

(3) Nobody ever said that American Senators don't do childish things from time to time. But in fact, they were quite right, that the French/German alignment with Putin in a situation of international security was a de facto enemy act. What is intersting is that the French and German political elite seem to have realized how badly they harmed themselves and have significantly changed their stances in accord. Whether they will be able to maintain the more rational approach is still open, as their populations are poorly educated in these things and certainly do not want to have to pay for their share of maintaining international security.

(4) Just look at the military expenditures. Nato members have a formal agreement to spending. Denmark has in not one single year spent, what it committed to. Not paying your dues is free riding by definition.
 
When exactly did Iran promise to destroy Israel?

So your solution is to attack Iran from now until the end of eternity to keep them from having a nuclear program? Do you actually think that is practical? That is not a practical solution to the problem.

Actually, I do remember a number of times, where the then PM of Iran promised that and similar stuff. But you can google that as easily as I.
 
I was thinking that it would be like being married to Jennifer Aniston but paying Angelina Jolie to be a live in the same house prostitute. First of all you would have to constantly keep the two from fighting, and next of all for what you would have to pay Angelina Jolie, the sex would not be worth it.

I do not know that I understand your argument, but I am pretty sure you are right, when you say that Ms Jolie can probably make more money with movies than with sex.
 
Actually, I do remember a number of times, where the then PM of Iran promised that and similar stuff. But you can google that as easily as I.

Although I am aware of what Ahmadinejad allegedly said, he did not say that Iran was going to destroy Israel.
 
I do not know that I understand your argument, but I am pretty sure you are right, when you say that Ms Jolie can probably make more money with movies than with sex.

No you don't understand. What I am saying is that what one would have to pay her to do it would not be worth that amount of money for the sex that one would get in return.
 
No, that's not true. But what is true is that you have an irrational bias towards Israel. It appears you feel they can do no wrong and bear no responsibility whatsoever for the problems in the Middle East. That is irrational bias. That is the truth. Now if you don't feel that way, and understand that Israel does indeed do wrong and bears some of the responsibility for the problems in the Middle East, then I stand corrected.

Since you have nothing to base that weird claim of yours on, my earlier conclusion that you would label anyone who will question your delusional and radical world views as an "irrational" and an "extremely biased" person remains true. Your earlier claim that Jewish-Americans, who make 2% of the American population, are dictating (not influencing, dictating) American policies only strengthens that conclusion. You are a radical, conspiracy theorist, and quite frankly a huge waste of bandwidth.
 
Heckling the other team while supporting your own is not hypocrisy.
it's more like one team making repeated three-point shots while and then whining each time that the other team attempts one because it is against the rules of the game

Likewise Isreal trying to deny Iran nukes while protecting it's own is not hypocrisy. We do all play by the same rules but those rules aren't what you think they are.
when one complains about another doing the same thing the whining one is engaged in, then that's hypocrisy
if the circumstances were reversed and iran covertly had the bomb yet tried to sway public opinion that those dastardly israelis had no right to that same weapon, it would be just as wrong

And if Isreal does sign the treaty, they're fully justified in carrying out a black nuke program. Isreal has a moral blank check to do absolutely whatever it needs to do to survive.
[emphasis added by bubba for the comment below]

and so does iran
why is israel more entitled than iran?
your double standard is showing
 
Wow, it's both totally supportable, and a utopian dream, lol.
Well, the two are not mutually exclusive. The total abolition of war is another such Utopian ambition. Highly desirable, but at best on a far horizon.

And dismissing Einstein, oh boy.
Come now, I would never dismiss Einstein. That said, his notions about quantum-locality were indeed mistaken.

I suggest you peruse Einstein's many debates and thought experiments with Bohr at Solvay.
 
Back
Top Bottom