IAEA, Hypocrisy and Israeli Nukes.

[T-Rex]

More than 10 percent (conservative guess) of your computer's software and hardware are the inventions of Jews. The financial sector, defence etc
Why should IAEA deal with Israeli Nukes?
World without Israel will have irreversible affects because they are very strong.
Why does the U.S. listen to Israel and not Palestine?
Beggars are not choosers.

Why does EU, the U.S., Russia etc have more sympathizes with Israel than any other country?
What are we missing?

We are missing leadership like Ayatullah Khomeni, that is what we're missing. What we have are Mubarak and Karzai.

 

[Kompromat]

^ You forgot Zardari and Mujib

 

[SekrutYakhni]

We need to improve everything from education to defence.

 

[T-Rex]

^ You forgot Zardari and Mujib

I did not mention Mr. Ten Percent because I don't want to be the target of the present Pakistani government. I did not mention the other because he's dead.

 

[Kompromat]

'World should focus on Israel's nukes'
Wed, 19 May 2010 02:19:08 GMT



Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says the dispute over Iran's nuclear program has been resolved and the international community should focus on Israel now.

"In fact, there is no nuclear weapon in Iran now but Israel, which is also located in our region, possesses nuclear arms. Turkey is the same distance from both of them," Turkey's Star newspaper quoted Erdogan as saying on Tuesday.

"What has the international community said against Israel so far? Is this the superiority of law or the law of superiors?" he added.

Most experts estimate that Israel has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads, largely based on information leaked to the Sunday Times newspaper in the 1980s by Mordechai Vanunu, a former worker at the Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor.

Israel, which has started several wars in the region in its 60-year history of occupation, maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity over its nuclear weapons program and does not allow international inspectors to visit its nuclear sites.

MGH/HGL

'World should focus on Israel's nukes'

 

[T-Rex]

'World should focus on Israel's nukes'
Wed, 19 May 2010 02:19:08 GMT



Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says the dispute over Iran's nuclear program has been resolved and the international community should focus on Israel now.

"In fact, there is no nuclear weapon in Iran now but Israel, which is also located in our region, possesses nuclear arms. Turkey is the same distance from both of them," Turkey's Star newspaper quoted Erdogan as saying on Tuesday.

"What has the international community said against Israel so far? Is this the superiority of law or the law of superiors?" he added.

Most experts estimate that Israel has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads, largely based on information leaked to the Sunday Times newspaper in the 1980s by Mordechai Vanunu, a former worker at the Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor.

Israel, which has started several wars in the region in its 60-year history of occupation, maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity over its nuclear weapons program and does not allow international inspectors to visit its nuclear sites. The American double standard is there for all to see and realise what the Great Satan stands for.

MGH/HGL

'World should focus on Israel's nukes'

The US, as usual, will defend the Israeli nukes by saying that Israel is not a signatory of the NPT. However, it cannot justify why there is no pressure on Israel to sign the NPT while it is bent on forcing the Muslim states to sign the NPT.

 

[Kompromat]

IAEA meeting to discuss Israel

Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons but has never confirmed or denied it [AFP]

The United Nations nuclear agency is expected to discuss Israel's nuclear capabilities at its board of governors meeting in the Austrian capital, Vienna.

It is the first time since 1991 that Israel's nuclear issue is included in the five-day meeting of the International Atomic Engery Agency (IAEA), which began on Monday.

Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher, reporting from Vienna, said an 18-country bloc led by the Arab nations had been pushing for the discussion.

"It's regarded as a bit of a coup that they managed after 19 years of trying to get a discussion about Israel's nuclear capability," he said.

"It's on the agenda and will be discussed at some point during the next two or three days."

Israel, widely believed to have nuclear weapons, has neither denied or acknowledged the claim.


Iran reaction

Iran, which itself is under scrutinity from the IAEA over its nuclear programme, welcomed the coming discussion.

"US, Canada and European Union preferred not to discuss Israel's nuclear capability, but they joined the consensus because they had no other choice," Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, said.


Yukiya Amano, the IAEA director-general, recently asked member states for ideas on how to persuade Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and accept IAEA inspections.

On Monday, Amano said he had received replies from 17 governments out of a total 151 so far.

Meanwhile, Amano deflected Iranian calls for the IAEA to treat Israel's alleged nuclear work with the same scrutiny as it applies to Iran.

But Amano said Tehran's failure to dispel fears over its intentions made it a "special case" and that the agency could not inspect Israel in the same way until Israel signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"Iran is a special case because, among other things, of the existence of issues related to possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme," Amano said, opening the meeting of the 35-nation board of governors.

Western powers believe Iran's nuclear programme is aimed at producing nuclear weapons, claims which Tehran has repeatedly denied.

Amano also said he was waiting for a response from big powers on a plan for Iran to part with some of its nuclear material in return for fuel rods for a medical research reactor.

Western officials have made clear that they are unsure about the latest plan, brokered by Turkey and Brazil, which comes eight months after a similar idea to ease nuclear tensions was outlined with the help of the IAEA.

Amano said things had changed since the IAEA made its offer, with Iran starting higher-grade nuclear enrichment and the fact that its low-enriched uranium stockpile had doubled in size.

The UN Security Council is expected to vote on new Iran sanctions this week.

IAEA meeting to discuss Israel - Europe - Al Jazeera English

 

[T-Rex]

Now the Americans are saying that Israel's nukes are an insurance policy against the possibilty of annihilation. Even in this logic the western double standard is evident, it means that the west is entitled to nuclear insurance against annihilation, treaties and promises are no good for them while the Muslim states have to accept empty words and treaties as insurance policy against annihilation. So it boils down to nuclear blackmail and to sustain that blackmail is the real goal of IAEA and NPT.

 

[Optimus]

Becuase MAD theory doesnt work with some countries
MAD == Mutually Assured Destruction - And the world believes in the concept of MAD theory when it comes to nukes

 

[Kompromat]

Becuase MAD theory doesnt work with some countries
MAD == Mutually Assured Destruction - And the world believes in the concept of MAD theory when it comes to nukes

Well summed up , but the nukes have assured peace time and again dont you think ?

 

[tomp]

Well summed up , but the nukes have assured peace time and again dont you think ?

And they can, so long as the balance of power is firmly shifted to one side. NATO's. For they hold the nukes already.

If Iran was to gain nuke capabilities, they'd have a bigger mouth in international diplomacy. They'd demand more. There would be more tension, and more chance of actual nuclear war.

Therefore i find the whole debate about "if israel can have nukes, so can iran" academic at best. It may *seem* best if both sides have nukes, but in reality i believe it's best if only 1 side has the nukes.

That way, the balance of power is very clear, and the lesser party (iran) has to comply with some of the wishes of the rulers of the world (the west + israel).

 

[Kompromat]

And they can, so long as the balance of power is firmly shifted to one side. NATO's. For they hold the nukes already.

If Iran was to gain nuke capabilities, they'd have a bigger mouth in international diplomacy. They'd demand more. There would be more tension, and more chance of actual nuclear war.

Therefore i find the whole debate about "if israel can have nukes, so can iran" academic at best. It may *seem* best if both sides have nukes, but in reality i believe it's best if only 1 side has the nukes.

That way, the balance of power is very clear, and the lesser party (iran) has to comply with some of the wishes of the rulers of the world (the west + israel).

Just for the record & your peace of Mind - Iran has had Nukes for a while now.

 

[NWO]

Even if Iran gains only a single nuclear warhead, then it'll stop Israel from attacking.

The only question is, will Iran develop a nuclear weapon or will Israel attack first?

 

[Kompromat]

Even if Iran gains only a single nuclear warhead, then it'll stop Israel from attacking.

The only question is, will Iran develop a nuclear weapon or will Israel attack first?

We have discussed it heads on - Iran VS Israel in a Nuclear war = Total devastation of Israel because of its Tiny size and saturated Urban population in Til aviv and few other cities.

 

[500]

@ TruthSeeker.

Now old man your post confirms it and i am gonna need your Honest Personal view about it.

Why NOT Israel ??????

Why NOT Pakistan ?????