• 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
MildSteel said:
So basically your contention is that Israel should not sign it because it is flawed. So do you think the world should try to do anything about the proliferation of nuclear weapons other than to keep nations that might be hostile to Israel and/or the U.S. from having them?
Click to expand...

What makes you think the UN treaty itself does, or could do, any of this?
 
MildSteel said:
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

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.

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.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you're trying to deny that Iran is on record as saying it wants to destroy Israel. So here's another one for you.

Iran general: 'Our hands are on the trigger' to destroy Israel | The Times of Israel
 
Apocalypse said:
There's a huge difference between not trusting America and Israel in general and not trusting America and Israel over backwards, dark regimes such as Iran and North Korea.
Click to expand...
Isreal is as bad or even worse than Iran or North Korea, they keep millions of Palestinians in illegally occupied territories and kill them whenever they feel like it.
 
PoS said:
Isreal is as bad or even worse than Iran or North Korea, they keep millions of Palestinians in illegally occupied territories and kill them whenever they feel like it.
Click to expand...

According to you, and you are far from being a voice of morality aren't you being a declared supporter of Islamic terror organizations and all. :shrug:
 
PoS said:
Isreal is as bad or even worse than Iran or North Korea, they keep millions of Palestinians in illegally occupied territories and kill them whenever they feel like it.
Click to expand...
The ignorance of this statement doesn't even warrant a response, so I had to do a quick little debate in my head to decide if I should respond to say so or not.
 
Apocalypse said:
According to you, and you are far from being a voice of morality aren't you being a declared supporter of Islamic terror organizations and all. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I support Palestinian independence, thats all. As far as terrorism, Isreal has killed far more civilians than her so called enemies have.
 
The biggest problem with this thread and the question is the inclusion of the word "required". No nation can require another sovereign and independent nation to sign a treaty. They can cajole, or coerce, or pressure, or maybe even blackmail, but they cannot require.
 
radcen said:
The ignorance of this statement doesn't even warrant a response, so I had to do a quick little debate in my head to decide if I should respond to say so or not.
Click to expand...

Welcome to my world. :lol:
 
PoS said:
I support Palestinian independence, thats all. As far as terrorism, Isreal has killed far more civilians than her so called enemies have.
Click to expand...

Same goes for US, UK, France, etc. versus their enemies.
Logic is a strong part of your arguments isn't it.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
Yes you are, but not as big allies as you use to be. The US has burnt quite a few bridges over the last 15 years.



No doubt about that, as long as APIAC is around and which is why the US will always be seen as an Israeli puppet. As for the UK, that relationship with Israel has changed a lot and will change a lot after the next election. Bibi calling for Jews to go to Israel from Europe did not go down well among all established political parties.
Click to expand...

You live in a fantasy land. Allies quibble. They always have, they always will. That doesn't mean they aren't allies.

Take Germany for example. Without the United States, there would be no unified Germany today. You would still have east and west germany. Do you honestly think a minor spying incident is going to fracture that relationship?

Instead of focusing on the negative, look at how the Germans and Americans are working together on the Ukraine issue, and on the Russian sanctions issue. Look at the amount of trade going on between the two nations. Germany is on the top tier of US allies. A couple minor disagreements and bumps on the road aren't going to derail a productive working relationship that benefits both countries immensely.

On the American side, German is the largest ethnic group in the nation. Larger than English, even. Many, many people have family in Germany. The will of the American People is to be friendly with Germany, and for that reason, we are.

As for Israel, like Germany, they would not exist without the United States. That means they're our allies by necessity, and we support them because they are a stable democracy in the middle east, and we have a large Christian and Jewish population in the United States.

The fact that you mention APIAC shows you read too many of the wrong kinds of blogs. Lobbying groups are the norm in US politics. Now, we can debate how beneficial that actually is, but the fact is, if there is any kind of organization with any kind of clout at all, there is a lobbying group there to represent their interests.

There are more Jewish people in the United States than there are in Israel. They also happen to be very successful, as a group, and they punch above their weight class when it comes to lobbying power. There's no doubt about that, but there's also nothing wrong with it, as long as they work within the laws and use the system to their advantage.

There is nothing stopping Muslim groups from doing the same. They just don't seem to have the same prowess in that way.
 
Apocalypse said:
Same goes for US, UK, France, etc. versus their enemies.
Logic is a strong part of your arguments isn't it.
Click to expand...
The US, UK and France does not occupy millions of people for 50 years and subject their own laws on them, only Isreal does that. So much for your logic.
 
Apocalypse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Coming from you that's a compliment! :lamo
 
PoS said:
The US, UK and France does not occupy millions of people for 50 years and subject their own laws on them, only Isreal does that. So much for your logic.
Click to expand...

Great comeback.
Only that I was referring to the claim that Israel kills more civilians than the terrorists kill Israel's, so not so much.

Regardless as I said you can preach all you want but a person who can actually bring himself to cry over the deaths of Islamic terrorist ****heads isn't the right person to give a lecture on morality eh.
 
OrphanSlug said:
What makes you think the UN treaty itself does, or could do, any of this?
Click to expand...

By "this" do you mean keep anyone who might be hostile to Israel and/or the U.S. from having them? Or do you mean non-proliferation in general? I am asking because I am not sure what you mean.
 
MildSteel said:
Thanks. Coming from you that's a compliment! :lamo
Click to expand...

Then you should treasure that compliment all the way to the conspiracy theories forum mate.
 
radcen said:
The biggest problem with this thread and the question is the inclusion of the word "required". No nation can require another sovereign and independent nation to sign a treaty. They can cajole, or coerce, or pressure, or maybe even blackmail, but they cannot require.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. For my employer requires me to come to work for a paycheck. I don't have to do it, but they can require that I do.
 
Apocalypse said:
Then treasure that compliment all the way to the conspiracy theories forum mate.
Click to expand...

Thanks again! :lamo

Again, supreme proof of my genius. THE KING REIGNS SUPREME!!!! :lamo
 
MildSteel said:
By "this" do you mean keep anyone who might be hostile to Israel and/or the U.S. from having them? Or do you mean non-proliferation in general? I am asking because I am not sure what you mean.
Click to expand...

This, I am asking why you (or anyone really) thinks the NPT is working in any sense.
 
OrphanSlug said:
This, I am asking why you (or anyone really) thinks the NPT is working in any sense.
Click to expand...

I see. You made some excellent points. I understand what you are saying. That said, my personal opinion is that although it is indeed flawed, it does provide a point of reference and as such is part of a framework that to some extent has kept the proliferation of nuclear weapons from being worse than it would be without the framework of which it is a part.
 
MildSteel said:
I disagree with you. For my employer requires me to come to work for a paycheck. I don't have to do it, but they can require that I do.
Click to expand...
This alleged logic hurts my brain cells. Even your last sentence completely shreds your point.

Anyway, in your example, it's an agreement. The trading of one thing of value for another. Voluntarily. You don't have to work for that particular employer, nor do you have to work at all. You agree to do so because there's something of benefit in it for you.
 
radcen said:
This alleged logic hurts my brain cells. Even your last sentence completely shreds your point.
Click to expand...

I really don't think so radcen. Then only thing I can think of here is that you may feel offended by someone saying that Israel can be required to do something. It's one thing to require someone to do something. It's another issue as to whether compliance can be successfully enforced. The world could impose sanctions on Israel such as those that were imposed on Iran if it did not meet the requirement.

radcen said:
Anyway, in your example, it's an agreement. The trading of one thing of value for another. Voluntarily. You don't have to work for that particular employer, nor do you have to work at all. You agree to do so because there's something of benefit in it for you.
Click to expand...

Again, I think the issue here is that you appear to feel that require means that compliance can be successfully enforced. That is not the case. They can require that I come to work if I want to receive a paycheck. The U.S. could require that Israel sign the NPT if they want to receive U.S. aid. Israel does not have to comply. That is a different issue. I really don't understand your problem with the word "require", unless you just find it somewhat offensive to Israel that someone could require it to do something.
 
Simpleχity;1064331057 said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

I would disagree that nuclear disarmament is on a par with a global ban on war, sorry.

And Einstein's body of work, and his observations of the use of scientific development cannot reasonably be judged by a failing or three of his. Otherwise we must all sit down and hush.
 
Apocalypse said:
According to you, and you are far from being a voice of morality aren't you being a declared supporter of Islamic terror organizations and all. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And prominent figures like PM David Cameron, who considers the Gaza Strip on par with a concentration camp. Yes, a concentration camp, enforced by the least likely people, having endured the treatment themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom