Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Claire.

US to Iran: You're "On Notice"

204 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker
14 hours ago, Yamato said:

You're making the case for Iran to never sign the treaty in the first place, so we can completely ignore them just like Israel.   Yeah, sure you are.

If Israel attacked any NATO member, ALL OTHER NATO members would be attacked.   Thus, the Treaty was thrown in the trash can as soon as Israel attacked NATO members on international waters.  Another example of what we do to our treaties for our "unbreakable ally", the criminal state that's above the law, again.

How failsafe are systems that have never been tested before, or according to rumors, decades and decades ago?   Nobody knows if Israel has ever tested a nuke before and that's another reason why inspections are even more important.   Israel is above the law however and has no compliance and can't be verified.   Because way too many people just like you would like nothing more to do than make endless rhetorical excuses for criminals.

BS Yamato. Have you got an example where Israel attacked a NATO country, or their military, and the US did nothing about it? 

I think you should go read up on the NPT.

The treaty is there for everyone who signs it. Those who don't are going it on their own. No trading of nuclear technology or materials is allowed. And they have zero protection from everyone else. That some nations remain outside the treaty in no way diminishes the treaty effects on everyone else.

In other words, you'd like every nation to be in on every treaty. Otherwise it isn't fair and is discriminatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poppi

Haven't read past #126 yet- maybe addressed in following posts...but...

" How many Iranians flew planes into the World Trade Center? "...Didn't some of the 911 terrorists enter through Iran without having their passports stamped?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poppi

Still caching up- Didn't Saddam hold up an "atom trigger" back in the day (1990?).

New York Times, May 9, 1990. Paul Lewis- " WASHINGTON, May 8— President Saddam Hussein asserted today that Iraq had acquired a secret American electronic device that could be used to detonate a nuclear bomb and that it was now able to make the detonators itself. "

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/09/world/iraq-says-it-made-an-atom-trigger.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
On 2/5/2017 at 9:58 AM, DieChecker said:

Probably because I've never seen thousands of Israelis standing in a market square shouting, "Death to America!". That tends to put those nations on my "questionable" catagory that need to be watched.

So whether they like your country or not, according to the propaganda being shoveled at you, is your principle for the international standards on nuclear weapons proliferation.   Incredible. 

What about the nuclear threat from Israel?   Total Crickets.   Just listen to them all

 

Quote

What has Israel ever really done? Won a war launched against them by the Arabs? Put settlements on land they conquered? Reciprocated when terrorists attack from their self governed segregated communities? Yeah, they're the boogie man alright.

If you and your cool friends came here with brute force to build "settlements" in my backyard, you'd get the .270.  That has nothing to do with Arabs or Allah.   That's just me delivering Justice to you.   There are those who would celebrate your success in my yard because they voraciously swallow the anti-Jewish propaganda that "Thou Can Steal." wholesale.  

Either believe in property rights or do not.  Either believe in international law or do not.   There's nothing deserving of more disdain than an authoritarian criminal.   That's getting it backwards on both ends.  

Now we're going to be stealing Iraq's oil if Donald Trump is an honest man.  Iraq likes Iran now

What Israel has done oh good grief, it's a major thread in the ME forum and a lot of reading.   It'd be a thread for the next eight years. 

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm

Now what's your excuse?   At 3000+ fps there's no time for excuses, brah!   I don't need a Koran or any of the historical cherry picking to know how much time you have left.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
On 2/11/2017 at 4:23 AM, DieChecker said:

BS Yamato. Have you got an example where Israel attacked a NATO country, or their military, and the US did nothing about it? 

Sure, take for example the Freedom Flotilla. 
 

Quote

 

I think you should go read up on the NPT.

The treaty is there for everyone who signs it. Those who don't are going it on their own. No trading of nuclear technology or materials is allowed. And they have zero protection from everyone else. That some nations remain outside the treaty in no way diminishes the treaty effects on everyone else.

 

So the world wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in nuclear non proliferation without the existence of the treaty?    Funny!

 

Quote

In other words, you'd like every nation to be in on every treaty. Otherwise it isn't fair and is discriminatory.

No longer chopping the world up into pieces and having double standards on different sides of the invisible lines, no longer carrying around dead peoples' baggage to make excuses with?   Yes let's try to improve mankind and evolve into a more consistent and compassionate people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, Yamato said:

So whether they like your country or not, according to the propaganda being shoveled at you, is your principle for the international standards on nuclear weapons proliferation.   Incredible. 

What about the nuclear threat from Israel?   Total Crickets.   Just listen to them all

I said it put them on my Watch List. You apparently, if threatened, will look the "other way" for the "Real" threat??

Perhaps Japan, and South Korea, have zero to fear from North Korea? If a nation threatens you, it is Rational to consider them dangerous. Does that not make sense to you?

Hey, if Israel is a nuclear threat, then Iran should go to the UN and complain about it. Does simply owning nuclear bombs make a nation a threat? What about India and Pakistan, they are in the exact same situation as Israel. Neither is part of the NPT, and both have nukes. Should we force them to sign also?

Quote

If you and your cool friends came here with brute force to build "settlements" in my backyard, you'd get the .270.  That has nothing to do with Arabs or Allah.   That's just me delivering Justice to you.   There are those who would celebrate your success in my yard because they voraciously swallow the anti-Jewish propaganda that "Thou Can Steal." wholesale.  

To use the example of your backyard. No you wouldn't shoot anyone, because you'd have been forced off your land. Since you (The Palestinians) violently attacked the local government (Israel in Six Day War) and lost your rights to your land, and now you live in an apartment with no land at all. Yet, you feel that the development going up on your former land is wrong, and you go over at night and damage equipment.

The Palestinians lost their land 50 years ago.

What are called Palestinian Territories today are Gaza (Which was taken from Egypt), the West Bank (Taken from Jordan) and sometimes the Golan Heights (Taken from Syria). Jordan, and Egypt abandoned their claims to these lands. And Israel has since occupied them. That the UN considers these NOT part of Israel is ridiculous. It has been 50 years. The land is part of Israel. They can build on it. Technically there was no preexisting Palestinian state, so when Egypt and Jordan withdrew their claims, the land belonged to no one. It is only recently in the last ten years that it has become fashionable to proclaim there is a Palestinian State. But, it still is not a member nation of the UN.

Quote

Either believe in property rights or do not.  Either believe in international law or do not.   There's nothing deserving of more disdain than an authoritarian criminal.   That's getting it backwards on both ends.  

Now we're going to be stealing Iraq's oil if Donald Trump is an honest man.  Iraq likes Iran now

What Israel has done oh good grief, it's a major thread in the ME forum and a lot of reading.   It'd be a thread for the next eight years. 

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm

Now what's your excuse?   At 3000+ fps there's no time for excuses, brah!   I don't need a Koran or any of the historical cherry picking to know how much time you have left.  :D

Oh, the UN made another statement!! They've been doing that for 50 years and what good has it done them? 

I don't see much changing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 hours ago, Poppi said:

#151- " an example where Israel attacked a NATO country"

Unfortunately, yes...1967- USS Liberty-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Interesting, but it doesn't fit my question of where their was no action by the US. Israel apologized immediately (Saying it was a mistake) and paid millions to try to make up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glockornothing

Hoping Iran doesn't do anything to provoke a war between our countries. Iraq took us ~4 months to make them say uncle, Iran might take us 6 months without any foreign help, which is a problem and could suck if Putin decided to join them. Otherwise they will end up like Iraq, especially if the next POTUS decides to pull out all the troops from the area and really destabilize the area (me thinks the last one was on purpose).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness
2 hours ago, Glockornothing said:

Hoping Iran doesn't do anything to provoke a war between our countries. Iraq took us ~4 months to make them say uncle, Iran might take us 6 months without any foreign help, which is a problem and could suck if Putin decided to join them. Otherwise they will end up like Iraq, especially if the next POTUS decides to pull out all the troops from the area and really destabilize the area (me thinks the last one was on purpose).

Putin has to join them to protect his country from nuclear fall out, if we or the Israelis damage one of their reactors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I said it put them on my Watch List. You apparently, if threatened, will look the "other way" for the "Real" threat??

Perhaps Japan, and South Korea, have zero to fear from North Korea? If a nation threatens you, it is Rational to consider them dangerous. Does that not make sense to you?

Hey, if Israel is a nuclear threat, then Iran should go to the UN and complain about it. Does simply owning nuclear bombs make a nation a threat? What about India and Pakistan, they are in the exact same situation as Israel. Neither is part of the NPT, and both have nukes. Should we force them to sign also?

To use the example of your backyard. No you wouldn't shoot anyone, because you'd have been forced off your land. Since you (The Palestinians) violently attacked the local government (Israel in Six Day War) and lost your rights to your land, and now you live in an apartment with no land at all. Yet, you feel that the development going up on your former land is wrong, and you go over at night and damage equipment.

The Palestinians lost their land 50 years ago.

What are called Palestinian Territories today are Gaza (Which was taken from Egypt), the West Bank (Taken from Jordan) and sometimes the Golan Heights (Taken from Syria). Jordan, and Egypt abandoned their claims to these lands. And Israel has since occupied them. That the UN considers these NOT part of Israel is ridiculous. It has been 50 years. The land is part of Israel. They can build on it. Technically there was no preexisting Palestinian state, so when Egypt and Jordan withdrew their claims, the land belonged to no one. It is only recently in the last ten years that it has become fashionable to proclaim there is a Palestinian State. But, it still is not a member nation of the UN.

Oh, the UN made another statement!! They've been doing that for 50 years and what good has it done them? 

I don't see much changing.

If someone has nukes and threatens you with them, a "nuclear threat" is arguable.   The US and Israel would be two real examples of that.   "All options are on the table!"  If I hear Sarah Palin's voice utter that stupid cliche one more time...

Iran should go to the UN, but if Israel has already been condemned by the UN 45 times, what's 46?   Is 46 the magic number?   Does Iran have more clout than Palestine to oppose Israel as a member, as a state, as a whatever it is Palestine is lacking in next?

I'm living on my own land just like Palestinians were living on their land.   If you somehow were slick enough to also get away with stealing my land, then you'd be celebrating your crimes against me just like you can't stop making poor excuses for Israel's.

There you go again, with another example of the hypocritical dissonance on this issue, now with the United Nations, that you have to appeal to the UN's authority to even get Israel in the first place, and now it's reduced to "the UN made another statement!!"    You don't have Israel without the UN.   You can't actually support the existence of one state and not the other when they were both created at the same time in the same partition by the same organization.   You can't appeal to authority when you want to and scoff at it when you don't.

Despite wherever it is you're learning your disinformation to be claiming it was settled 50 years ago, 136 countries recognize the State of Palestine today representing 5.5 billion people and over 80% of the world's population.  The UN ALSO formally recognizes Palestine as a STATE by a vote of 138 to 9.   If you want to defer to the UN for anything else in the course of this discussion, that's your starting point for reality.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
12 hours ago, Poppi said:

Haven't read past #126 yet- maybe addressed in following posts...but...

" How many Iranians flew planes into the World Trade Center? "...Didn't some of the 911 terrorists enter through Iran without having their passports stamped?

This is really about the US response to Iran for conducting a missile launch which was a response to more sanctions. 

At least I hope this doesn't have anything to do with 9/11.   

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Interesting, but it doesn't fit my question of where their was no action by the US. Israel apologized immediately (Saying it was a mistake) and paid millions to try to make up for it.

NATO was my example, so by my criteria, Israel attacked the US with the attack on USS Liberty too (a US flagged vessel is considered territory of the US as you well know), and there was no NATO response. 

Israel, not the US, paid $3.3 million for the dead, then they paid $3.5 million for the wounded, then they settled their bill with $6 million more for the cost of damages done to the ship etc.

We the US taxpayers give Israel $8 million a day. 

What's wrong with this country Israel that they can't buy their own weapons?   This is like Donald Trump says, we need to stop being taken advantage of, and start to get something in return for our help.  Like $38 billion delivered to our treasury, for just one arms deal.

http://fortune.com/2016/09/13/us-israel-military-aid/

The biggest pledge of US military assistance ever made, but in the FAKE NEWS that unfortunately shapes our perceptions of reality, Obama was "no friend to Israel".   How much more do they have to extort from us before we can finally get to "friend"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
12 hours ago, Yamato said:

Iran should go to the UN, but if Israel has already been condemned by the UN 45 times, what's 46?  

Not for threatening someone with nukes.

Quote

I'm living on my own land just like Palestinians were living on their land.   If you somehow were slick enough to also get away with stealing my land, then you'd be celebrating your crimes against me just like you can't stop making poor excuses for Israel's.

Do you know anything about the Six Day War? The Palestinians threw in with the attacking Arab nations, and lost. They don't have any land anymore. The actual land they say is the Palestinian Territories used to belong to Egypt and Jordan, not the mythical state of Palestine. So, the land wasn't stolen, it was lost in a fight and never handed back.

Quote

There you go again, with another example of the hypocritical dissonance on this issue, now with the United Nations, that you have to appeal to the UN's authority to even get Israel in the first place, and now it's reduced to "the UN made another statement!!"    You don't have Israel without the UN.   You can't actually support the existence of one state and not the other when they were both created at the same time in the same partition by the same organization.   You can't appeal to authority when you want to and scoff at it when you don't.

You're missing that 50 years has gone by. There was two states proposed, but one of them attacked the other and lost their land.

Do you believe that if Israel had lost the war in 1948 or 1967, that the Arabs would be as kind to the remaining Jews, as the Jews are to the remaining Arabs? 

Quote

Despite wherever it is you're learning your disinformation to be claiming it was settled 50 years ago, 136 countries recognize the State of Palestine today representing 5.5 billion people and over 80% of the world's population.  The UN ALSO formally recognizes Palestine as a STATE by a vote of 138 to 9.   If you want to defer to the UN for anything else in the course of this discussion, that's your starting point for reality.

So go yell at the UN to make them a member nation. Till then they are not an actual nation, but simply a government that is ALLOWED to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
12 hours ago, Yamato said:

NATO was my example, so by my criteria, Israel attacked the US with the attack on USS Liberty too (a US flagged vessel is considered territory of the US as you well know), and there was no NATO response. 

There was a NATO response. A 5 second google search showed it to me.

Quote

20px-Flag_of_NATO.svg.png NATO held an emergency meeting on 1 June 2010 in response to the attack.[18] Turkey is a NATO signatory, and Article 5 of the NATO charter states that armed attacks against one or more NATO members in Europe or North America will be considered an attack against all of them, and each will take action (including the possibility of armed force) "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area". Article 6 explicitly mentions the Mediterranean Sea as a location for where attacks will trigger responses.[19] The result of the meeting was that the NATO Secretary General issued a statement expressing "deep regret" over the loss of lives and "As a matter of urgency, [he] also request[ed] the immediate release of the detained civilians and ships held by Israel."[20]

You are trying to imply that for attacking a US merchantman, the US should have declared WAR and all other NATO nations also. Well, I'm sorry, but that is a very ignorant argument. 

Quote

Israel, not the US, paid $3.3 million for the dead, then they paid $3.5 million for the wounded, then they settled their bill with $6 million more for the cost of damages done to the ship etc.

We the US taxpayers give Israel $8 million a day. 

What's wrong with this country Israel that they can't buy their own weapons?   This is like Donald Trump says, we need to stop being taken advantage of, and start to get something in return for our help.  Like $38 billion delivered to our treasury, for just one arms deal.

http://fortune.com/2016/09/13/us-israel-military-aid/

I'd agree that we shouldn't be handing out so much aid to Israel. I've said so many times in threads about Israel. They should get their money from taxing their own people. And, last I heard it was closer to $10 million per day.

Regardless, Israel is not part of the NPT, and Iran is, so that is that. Iran MUST submit to inspections, but historically has tried to hide their programs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

There was a NATO response. A 5 second google search showed it to me.

I'd agree that we shouldn't be handing out so much aid to Israel. I've said so many times in threads about Israel. They should get their money from taxing their own people. And, last I heard it was closer to $10 million per day.

From your link:

NATO held an emergency meeting on 1 June 2010 in response to the attack.[18] Turkey is a NATO signatory, and Article 5 of the NATO charter states that armed attacks against one or more NATO members in Europe or North America will be considered an attack against all of them, and each will take action (including the possibility of armed force) "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area". Article 6 explicitly mentions the Mediterranean Sea as a location for where attacks will trigger responses.[19] The result of the meeting was that the NATO Secretary General issued a statement expressing "deep regret" over the loss of lives and "As a matter of urgency, [he] also request[ed] the immediate release of the detained civilians and ships held by Israel."

The Secretary issued a statement?  Oh thank God for their....response.   When the example given is Article 5 and an act of war, a letter of regret in the aftermath of the event isn't a response.

 

Quote

You are trying to imply that for attacking a US merchantman, the US should have declared WAR and all other NATO nations also. Well, I'm sorry, but that is a very ignorant argument. 

I'm not implying anything I'm telling you.   In fact, it's in a section of your own link.    NATO got attacked in international waters.   That should have triggered an air and naval response.    US air power should have protected those people who were shot through the back of the head execution-style by Israeli thugs.   And yes, NATO airpower should have been used to stop the attackers.   I think some 20mm Vulcan across their bows would be enough to make the point to stop the violence, honor the Treaty, and save lives!   If we'd prefer to keep the tone nationalistic, it's the murder of an American.

Article 5 in the NATO charter says if you attack one, you attack all.  Like Article 1 in the US Constitution, this is not multiple choice!

Aggressive foreign policy towards Iran has been an uninterrupted disaster ever since massive oil deposits became known to exist in the area.   That Iran just so happened to have a lot of religious motivation for being able to pull off a revolution to shake us off isn't their fault.   They were willing to suffer a Theocracy to relieve themselves from a brutal dictator they considered to be a traitor and a puppet of the West, and arguably rightly so.   

Young Iranians are now well on their way to liberty on their own if we could just keep our hands to ourselves in the meantime, otherwise if we keep poking them with economic warfare, they're going to dig in behind their religion, a matter of cultural identity that brings them tighter together. 

If I was President we'd make friends with Rouhani so fast it'd make our heads spin.    Rouhani has a lot of power to do a lot of things, but he can't do anything without the religious authority above him agreeing with it.  

And so to genuinely attack Iran's spine, you'll have to start a religious war by making up the constant fearful narrative that pinpricks at their religion constantly.  There's always some chunk of the "Muslims" the warmongers are cutting out of the whole so they can keep saying the anti-Muslim bigotry over and over again.   But it always feels like we have ants in our pants, and we can't wait to let freedom and friendship solve our huge prob-lem over there, we just have to create endless conflict instead.   And over what?   Nuclear hypocrisy and "Death to America" parades are the excuses that we provide publicly.   Behind the scenes, there's massive amounts of money changing hands and a lot of Zionist paranoia about getting someone else to fight Israel's wars for it.

 

Quote

I'd agree that we shouldn't be handing out so much aid to Israel. I've said so many times in threads about Israel. They should get their money from taxing their own people. And, last I heard it was closer to $10 million per day.

And we're just talking the taxpayer peanuts of $10 million/day.   Add up the money changing hands in groups like AIPAC, ZOA, CUFI, etc

 

Quote

Regardless, Israel is not part of the NPT, and Iran is, so that is that. Iran MUST submit to inspections, but historically has tried to hide their programs.

It makes no difference.  Non-compliance is not immunity!  

I'm sorry but when you sign the treaty you get treated better.  You get treated like you have nuclear rights. you know, the ones written down in the treaty.  :rolleyes:

Your argument is for Iran to leave the NNPT and just be immune to everything!   Nobody agrees with that!   It's a total centaur from Narnia that nobody here would accept for one minute.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Not for threatening someone with nukes.

Do you know anything about the Six Day War? The Palestinians threw in with the attacking Arab nations, and lost. They don't have any land anymore. The actual land they say is the Palestinian Territories used to belong to Egypt and Jordan, not the mythical state of Palestine. So, the land wasn't stolen, it was lost in a fight and never handed back.

You're missing that 50 years has gone by. There was two states proposed, but one of them attacked the other and lost their land.

Do you believe that if Israel had lost the war in 1948 or 1967, that the Arabs would be as kind to the remaining Jews, as the Jews are to the remaining Arabs? 

So go yell at the UN to make them a member nation. Till then they are not an actual nation, but simply a government that is ALLOWED to exist.

You do realize that what you're saying is more extreme than some of the worst Zionist propaganda I've ever heard?   You're saying genocide. 

Whether a few of them "threw in" or not, 80% of the world officially recognizes Palestine as a State and so do I.   I'm sure a few of them threw in for Israel too, for BOTH partitions.  They didn't want their land being overrun by anyone.  That's .270 time.

They'd be a UN-member state decades ago if the US didn't veto almost everything the UNSC does to condemn (legally challenge) Israel.  

All I've been asking for is abstinence and I couldn't believe we actually abstained.  More of that would have been nice, but now that we have a change of the guard in the White House, it's not looking promising. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/23/us-abstention-allows-un-to-demand-end-to-israeli-settlements

I don't think matters of international law should ever get written by only one country, even if it's Israel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
11 minutes ago, Yamato said:

You do realize that what you're saying is more extreme than some of the worst Zionist propaganda I've ever heard?   You're saying genocide. 

That's a pretty big accusation Yamato. On what basis are you stating that? Where did I say genocide. I said they took their land as a result of war. A war the Palestinians caused to happen.

Quote

They'd be a UN-member state decades ago if the US didn't veto almost everything the UNSC does to condemn (legally challenge) Israel.  

I've looked it up and it does not require the US to agree to the membership. All it takes is the UNSC to send it to the Assembly for a 2/3 vote. If it is not a member yet, it likely is for other reasons then who would vote for it. A UNSC membership recommendation requires only 9 of the 15 members.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/ropga/adms.shtml

Quote

I don't think matters of international law should ever get written by only one country, even if it's Israel.

It's not one nation. India, Pakistan, and North Korea all fit into the same category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

That's a pretty big accusation Yamato. On what basis are you stating that? Where did I say genocide. I said they took their land as a result of war. A war the Palestinians caused to happen.

I've looked it up and it does not require the US to agree to the membership. All it takes is the UNSC to send it to the Assembly for a 2/3 vote. If it is not a member yet, it likely is for other reasons then who would vote for it. A UNSC membership recommendation requires only 9 of the 15 members.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/ropga/adms.shtml

Every time your rhetoric denies the existence of Palestine in any way that the dictionary definition of Genocide defines, that's genocidal rhetoric.

9 of 15, and how many vetoes does it take to veto something in the UNSC?
 

Quote

 

It's not one nation. India, Pakistan, and North Korea all fit into the same category.

 

And they simply don't enjoy the rights in the treaty that Iran is treated with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
37 minutes ago, Yamato said:

From your link:

NATO held an emergency meeting on 1 June 2010 in response to the attack.[18] Turkey is a NATO signatory, and Article 5 of the NATO charter states that armed attacks against one or more NATO members in Europe or North America will be considered an attack against all of them, and each will take action (including the possibility of armed force) "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area". Article 6 explicitly mentions the Mediterranean Sea as a location for where attacks will trigger responses.[19] The result of the meeting was that the NATO Secretary General issued a statement expressing "deep regret" over the loss of lives and "As a matter of urgency, [he] also request[ed] the immediate release of the detained civilians and ships held by Israel."

The Secretary issued a statement?  Oh thank God for their....response.   When the example given is Article 5 and an act of war, a letter of regret in the aftermath of the event isn't a response.

So what were you expecting? F16s bombing Jerusalem? An eye for an eye? Regardless of your approval, or lack thereof, the UN and NATO reacted to that incident.

Quote

I'm not implying anything I'm telling you.   In fact, it's in a section of your own link.    NATO got attacked in international waters.   That should have triggered an air and naval response.    US air power should have protected those people who were shot through the back of the head execution-style by Israeli thugs.   And yes, NATO airpower should have been used to stop the attackers.   I think some 20mm Vulcan across their bows would be enough to make the point to stop the violence, honor the Treaty, and save lives!   If we'd prefer to keep the tone nationalistic, it's the murder of an American.

Article 5 in the NATO charter says if you attack one, you attack all.  Like Article 1 in the US Constitution, this is not multiple choice!

Uh... So? Death does not always have to be met with death. In fact here is what the homepage of NATO says....

From your seemingly naive belief, every time the East Germans shot across the border into West Germany, the US should have sent bombs into the Soviet Union. That's a poor argument.

Quote

NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.

MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.

Note that it says finding PEACEFUL ways of setting disputes. Note also that to act they need the US or UN to buy off on it.

Do you have a link where people were shot through the back of the head execution style? That smells like BS to me Yamato.

Quote

Aggressive foreign policy towards Iran has been an uninterrupted disaster ever since massive oil deposits became known to exist in the area.   That Iran just so happened to have a lot of religious motivation for being able to pull off a revolution to shake us off isn't their fault.   They were willing to suffer a Theocracy to relieve themselves from a brutal dictator they considered to be a traitor and a puppet of the West, and arguably rightly so.   

Young Iranians are now well on their way to liberty on their own if we could just keep our hands to ourselves in the meantime, otherwise if we keep poking them with economic warfare, they're going to dig in behind their religion, a matter of cultural identity that brings them tighter together. 

If I was President we'd make friends with Rouhani so fast it'd make our heads spin.    Rouhani has a lot of power to do a lot of things, but he can't do anything without the religious authority above him agreeing with it.  

And so to genuinely attack Iran's spine, you'll have to start a religious war by making up the constant fearful narrative that pinpricks at their religion constantly.  There's always some chunk of the "Muslims" the warmongers are cutting out of the whole so they can keep saying the anti-Muslim bigotry over and over again.   But it always feels like we have ants in our pants, and we can't wait to let freedom and friendship solve our huge prob-lem over there, we just have to create endless conflict instead.   And over what?   Nuclear hypocrisy and "Death to America" parades are the excuses that we provide publicly.   Behind the scenes, there's massive amounts of money changing hands and a lot of Zionist paranoia about getting someone else to fight Israel's wars for it.

I skipped this, but really isn't worth responding to.

Quote

And we're just talking the taxpayer peanuts of $10 million/day.   Add up the money changing hands in groups like AIPAC, ZOA, CUFI, etc

Yeah, I agree. Stop the bottle feeding. That money could be building us a YUGE wall on the Mexico border, and staffing it with the Unemployed.

Quote

It makes no difference.  Non-compliance is not immunity!  

I'm sorry but when you sign the treaty you get treated better.  You get treated like you have nuclear rights. you know, the ones written down in the treaty.  :rolleyes:

Your argument is for Iran to leave the NNPT and just be immune to everything!   Nobody agrees with that!   It's a total centaur from Narnia that nobody here would accept for one minute.  

Non-compliance is a red flag that things are not what they are saying. That's why we need to watch Iran extra close. 

Nope, when you sign the treaty, you have the right to trade technology and materials to improve your nation's power systems, and other radioactive sciences/technologies. Sounds like a big win, in my opinion. Unless you intend to co-opt that technology for a weapon, in which case it really is a hamstring.

One... Iran pulling out of the NNPT would be an even bigger flag, and after that any testing would probably result in a war. So that's not a real good idea for them. They should just abandon researching ballistic missiles, nuclear detonators, plutonium and advanced enrichment of uranium and settle for the "Medical" nuclear plant that the Russians have offered them. They get their peaceful nuclear program and everyone else gets to know they aren't trying to cause MAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
19 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Every time your rhetoric denies the existence of Palestine in any way that the dictionary definition of Genocide defines, that's genocidal rhetoric.

9 of 15, and how many vetoes does it take to veto something in the UNSC?
 

And they simply don't enjoy the rights in the treaty that Iran is treated with.

Vetoing membership is not mentioned. If you think it is a real thing, go find it and post it. Otherwise you're talking out of your rectum. 

The US and all other NNPT members are not allowed to trade nuclear materials, technology, or knowledge with those nations. They are all on their own. If you think that is not true, then AGAIN, find some evidence and post it here.

EDIT: Looks like the 5 Permanent Members can do a Veto. Regardless no such vote ever happened. Probably never will happen. Though if it did happen, then it would highlight if the US is bias toward Israel, or not. Technically the US could Veto the current resolution, but instead they abstained. So who knows what would happen if a vote happened today.

Quote

In order for a state to gain membership in the General Assembly, its application must have the support of two-thirds of member states with a prior recommendation for admission from the Security Council. This requires the absence of a veto from any of the Security Council's five permanent members.[36] At the prospect of a veto from the United States, Palestinian leaders signalled they might opt instead for a more limited upgrade to "non-member state" status, which requires only a simple majority in the General Assembly but provides the Palestinians with the recognition they desire.

 

Here is a good summation of why Palestine is not a member state, but only a landless government.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Palestine-not-recognised-as-a-country-by-UN

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I skipped this, but really isn't worth responding to.

That part was vital.  You won't get the point if you don't accept the cause of the problem.

 

Quote

Uh... So? Death does not always have to be met with death. In fact here is what the homepage of NATO says....

Saving lives is the opposite of death.

 

Quote

Do you have a link where people were shot through the back of the head execution style? That smells like BS to me Yamato.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarakore

/peeks in

Sanctions for Israel would be nice. Sometime before the mid-century. 100 years is too long...

/runs out dodging flying debris and weaponry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Vetoing membership is not mentioned. If you think it is a real thing, go find it and post it. Otherwise you're talking out of your rectum.

Really?   I'm really surprised you don't already know this.  There's a long history there.

http://www.heritage.org/report/the-us-must-oppose-the-palestinian-statehood-effort-the-un

 

Quote

The US and all other NNPT members are not allowed to trade nuclear materials, technology, or knowledge with those nations. They are all on their own. If you think that is not true, then AGAIN, find some evidence and post it here.

So Iran should be on their own and then they'll be uhh-lowed?  You can keep spinning it both ways but eventually you're going to get mad and talk about my private parts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
24 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Every time your rhetoric denies the existence of Palestine in any way that the dictionary definition of Genocide defines, that's genocidal rhetoric.

That's BS Yamato. There never was a Palestine nation. There were lines drawn up, but then those people went to war against the people on the other side of the lines, and the lines changed. You can'd deny the existance of something that never existed. You can't destroy something that never existed.

Those people are still there. Their politics/government (such as it is, run by thugs) is still there. And their culture is still there. And they never were a nation...

Thus no genocide.

Quote

 

genocide

noun
1. the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/genocide

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
7 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Really?   I'm really surprised you don't already know this.  There's a long history there.

http://www.heritage.org/report/the-us-must-oppose-the-palestinian-statehood-effort-the-un=

Yeah. I went back and fixed that before you posted.

Quote

So Iran should be on their own and then they'll be uhh-lowed?  You can keep spinning it both ways but eventually you're going to get mad and talk about my private parts.  

That's what I said. They'd not have to submit to inspectors anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.