UN tells Israel to let in nuclear inspectors

[Shofercia]

Not if Israel does it covertly, via AIPAC. It's the usual Modus Operandi, so I'm a bit surprised why they didn't just run with that, this time.

It may also be that America is largely interested in Iran and Iranian nuclear weapons due to Israel, so they may feel that they have to be somewhat overt about it to make America and Americans understand why they're making a fuss over a nation a depressingly large number of its citizens cannot locate on a map. That said, you do raise a good point here.

America's interested in controlling the Middle East, or at least having a huge say in that region. There are three power centers there - Mecca, Tel Aviv and Teheran. America can topple the government in Mecca on a whim, and US and Israel cooperate somewhat; certainly Israeli cooperation could be better. But Teheran is refusing to take orders from Washington, so it's not hard to guess which country's the target of America's ire. Add to this AIPAC's influence and all of their anti-Iranian campaigns, and, well they're in it to take Iran down a notch. Certainly Obama isn't insane enough to destroy Iran, but he doesn't want Iran to be one of the three power centers in the Middle East.

Iran's also an interesting case for Russia, because it's in the Caucasus Region. Before the cries of "hurr durr Russian Imperialism" that some posters love to make, (you're not one of them, but they need to be preempted,) the Caucasus Region is an integrated region, meaning that whatever happens in one part of the region, affects all of the region. Yeltsin's Government tried to chop off a part of the region during the mid 1990s, and it failed miserably, so you can't. Under the USSR, the RFSFR controlled the North Caucasus Region, and the Georgian, Armenian, Azeri SSRs, as well as Abkhaz ASSR, and South Ossetian, and N-K and some other AOs, along with parts of Iran and Turkey, controlled the South Caucasus Region. Because of the Kurdish situation, and the might of the Red Army, Turkey and Iran agreed not to provoke any conflicts in the South Caucasus Region. Thus the region, with the exception of the time period known as Stalin's Idiocy, was fairly stable. Then Gorbachev conducted his reforms, and the region went to shit in the later 1980s and early 1990s. Now it's pacified again, but because of Iran's presence in that region, Russia cannot ditch Iran altogether, unless there was a way of ensuring that Iran couldn't harm Russia in that region, which is doubtful. However, assuming that Obama can find a way to remove Iran from being a power center, without harming the Caucasian Affair, he might, or might not get Russian support.

They've essentially already been 'caught' here, as it is an open secret. The UN resolution is non-binding, which means Israel is only any closer to being any more 'caught' (which presumably means it being overtly and officially recognized that Israel has nuclear arms) if Israel permits it to be so.

Yeah, but now UN is pressuring Israel to admit weapon inspectors. Israel will probably resist, and lose political capital as a result.

Indeed, and likely that is the whole point of the resolution. While it made sense for Israel to be cagey in times prior, this resolution is likely aimed at causing the situation to be 'more trouble than it is worth'. We shall see how this plays out. At least for now, I don't think Israel will sign the NPT or permit inspectors access. The fall-out from that may decide much.[/quote]

I just think that if Israel's on the verge of a massive PR hit, and we're talking epic proportions here, it might be easier to scrap WMDs and sign NPTs. But you're right, they'll look at the fallout first.

[Tmutarakhan]

No, it's because the Big Five do not allow outsiders to spy on their nuclear programs. Why should they? The US and USSR have sometimes exchanged inspectors with each other, to verify compliance with disarmament agreements; they do not allow anybody else to.

Source, please?

What are you talking about? You think the US lets anybody who wants to drop by their nuclear-weapons plants? Or that the Russians, Brits, French, or Chinese do? It was very difficult for Reagan to persuade members of his own party that exchanging inspectors with the USSR was a good idea: the Start I treaty was not ratified, in fact, until 1992 because of such objections, and the Start II treaty has been held hostage precisely because Republicans don't think anybody from Russia should be allowed in their plants-- even though that means no American inspectors get to go into Russian plants anymore, either.

[IshCong]

Source, please?

What are you talking about? You think the US lets anybody who wants to drop by their nuclear-weapons plants? Or that the Russians, Brits, French, or Chinese do? It was very difficult for Reagan to persuade members of his own party that exchanging inspectors with the USSR was a good idea: the Start I treaty was not ratified, in fact, until 1992 because of such objections, and the Start II treaty has been held hostage precisely because Republicans don't think anybody from Russia should be allowed in their plants-- even though that means no American inspectors get to go into Russian plants anymore, either.

I'm asking for a source that suggests the US doesn't let inspectors from the UN, especially the IAEA, access to US sites. Especially since I already posted a link that suggests that they do. Russia is not the UN, nor the IAEA.

[Shofercia]

What are you talking about? You think the US lets anybody who wants to drop by their nuclear-weapons plants? Or that the Russians, Brits, French, or Chinese do? It was very difficult for Reagan to persuade members of his own party that exchanging inspectors with the USSR was a good idea: the Start I treaty was not ratified, in fact, until 1992 because of such objections, and the Start II treaty has been held hostage precisely because Republicans don't think anybody from Russia should be allowed in their plants-- even though that means no American inspectors get to go into Russian plants anymore, either.

I'm asking for a source that suggests the US doesn't let inspectors from the UN, especially the IAEA, access to US sites. Especially since I already posted a link that suggests that they do. Russia is not the UN, nor the IAEA.

Part of UN and IAEA inspectors include Russia's contingent. The difference is in name only. Additionally, Start II was approved by the US Military, so I don't see why Republican politicians were being douchebags about it. Do they not trust America's military?

[IshCong]

I'm asking for a source that suggests the US doesn't let inspectors from the UN, especially the IAEA, access to US sites. Especially since I already posted a link that suggests that they do. Russia is not the UN, nor the IAEA.

Part of UN and IAEA inspectors include Russia's contingent. The difference is in name only. Additionally, Start II was approved by the US Military, so I don't see why Republican politicians were being douchebags about it. Do they not trust America's military?

Yes, there are Russians in the IAEA, but as far as I can tell START II wouldn't affect them anyway, so START II is, at best, tangential to my original request.

[Shofercia]

Part of UN and IAEA inspectors include Russia's contingent. The difference is in name only. Additionally, Start II was approved by the US Military, so I don't see why Republican politicians were being douchebags about it. Do they not trust America's military?

Yes, there are Russians in the IAEA, but as far as I can tell START II wouldn't affect them anyway, so START II is, at best, tangential to my original request.

START II could stop Nuclear Proliferation, which is one of the IAEA's chief goals. START II is the most important nuclear treaty ever signed. It sucks for regulating missiles, but it rocks for regulating nukes!

[Tmutarakhan]

What are you talking about? You think the US lets anybody who wants to drop by their nuclear-weapons plants? Or that the Russians, Brits, French, or Chinese do? It was very difficult for Reagan to persuade members of his own party that exchanging inspectors with the USSR was a good idea: the Start I treaty was not ratified, in fact, until 1992 because of such objections, and the Start II treaty has been held hostage precisely because Republicans don't think anybody from Russia should be allowed in their plants-- even though that means no American inspectors get to go into Russian plants anymore, either.

I'm asking for a source that suggests the US doesn't let inspectors from the UN, especially the IAEA, access to US sites. Especially since I already posted a link that suggests that they do. Russia is not the UN, nor the IAEA.

Burden of proof is on the positive side. I wouldn't know where to look for a document that says "No such thing has ever happened or ever been proposed."

Additionally, Start II was approved by the US Military, so I don't see why Republican politicians were being douchebags about it. Do they not trust America's military?

Not "were" being douchebags-- still are being douchebags. No, I don't see why Republicans are douchebags either, but it has just become a fact of life that Republicans will veto any kind of international treaty (see the disgusting debate over rights for the disabled, which had everyone shaking their heads yesterday).

[Shofercia]

Additionally, Start II was approved by the US Military, so I don't see why Republican politicians were being douchebags about it. Do they not trust America's military?

Not "were" being douchebags-- still are being douchebags. No, I don't see why Republicans are douchebags either, but it has just become a fact of life that Republicans will veto any kind of international treaty (see the disgusting debate over rights for the disabled, which had everyone shaking their heads yesterday).

But it was drafted by the most talented men, most of whom are either extremely loyal to US, or don't want a nuclear war...

Fuck it. How long will they keep on opposing that treaty? If that's the case, Dems should seriously start hitting them with "anti-US Military" campaign ads.

[Tmutarakhan]

Not "were" being douchebags-- still are being douchebags. No, I don't see why Republicans are douchebags either, but it has just become a fact of life that Republicans will veto any kind of international treaty (see the disgusting debate over rights for the disabled, which had everyone shaking their heads yesterday).

But it was drafted by the most talented men, most of whom are either extremely loyal to US, or don't want a nuclear war...

Fuck it. How long will they keep on opposing that treaty? If that's the case, Dems should seriously start hitting them with "anti-US Military" campaign ads.

2014 is the next chance to get a bunch of those asshats out of there. The Reps do seem determined to look crazier and crazier between now and then.

[Shofercia]

But it was drafted by the most talented men, most of whom are either extremely loyal to US, or don't want a nuclear war...

Fuck it. How long will they keep on opposing that treaty? If that's the case, Dems should seriously start hitting them with "anti-US Military" campaign ads.

2014 is the next chance to get a bunch of those asshats out of there. The Reps do seem determined to look crazier and crazier between now and then.

That'll be tough, their Senators are well entrenched, Dems won't be able to get 60. 2016 maybe. Then again, Reps can't really elect a Pres, so Dem Presidents could still abide by the treaty.

[IshCong]

It may also be that America is largely interested in Iran and Iranian nuclear weapons due to Israel, so they may feel that they have to be somewhat overt about it to make America and Americans understand why they're making a fuss over a nation a depressingly large number of its citizens cannot locate on a map. That said, you do raise a good point here.

America's interested in controlling the Middle East, or at least having a huge say in that region. There are three power centers there - Mecca, Tel Aviv and Teheran. America can topple the government in Mecca on a whim,

I think 'on a whim' is probably a bit of an exaggeration, to be frank. And a large chunk of why America wants to have a say in the reason is due their connections with Israel. Certainly, Iran would less problematic if America wasn't as tied to Israel, a fact Israel is well aware of. There are other reasons, of course, (Saudi Arabia, oil, maritime trade, general international politics, etc) but Israel is one as well.

and US and Israel cooperate somewhat; certainly Israeli cooperation could be better. But Tehran is refusing to take orders from Washington, so it's not hard to guess which country's the target of America's ire.

Well, and the ire of the IAEA and several other nations who are...less than pleased with the actions of Iran regarding any one of a number of topics. =T

Add to this AIPAC's influence and all of their anti-Iranian campaigns, and, well they're in it to take Iran down a notch. Certainly Obama isn't insane enough to destroy Iran, but he doesn't want Iran to be one of the three power centers in the Middle East.

Iran's also an interesting case for Russia, because it's in the Caucasus Region. Before the cries of "hurr durr Russian Imperialism" that some posters love to make, (you're not one of them, but they need to be preempted,) the Caucasus Region is an integrated region, meaning that whatever happens in one part of the region, affects all of the region. Yeltsin's Government tried to chop off a part of the region during the mid 1990s, and it failed miserably, so you can't. Under the USSR, the RFSFR controlled the North Caucasus Region, and the Georgian, Armenian, Azeri SSRs, as well as Abkhaz ASSR, and South Ossetian, and N-K and some other AOs, along with parts of Iran and Turkey, controlled the South Caucasus Region. Because of the Kurdish situation, and the might of the Red Army, Turkey and Iran agreed not to provoke any conflicts in the South Caucasus Region. Thus the region, with the exception of the time period known as Stalin's Idiocy, was fairly stable. Then Gorbachev conducted his reforms, and the region went to shit in the later 1980s and early 1990s. Now it's pacified again, but because of Iran's presence in that region, Russia cannot ditch Iran altogether, unless there was a way of ensuring that Iran couldn't harm Russia in that region, which is doubtful. However, assuming that Obama can find a way to remove Iran from being a power center, without harming the Caucasian Affair, he might, or might not get Russian support.

I agree with much of this. Of course, marginalizing Iran isn't a simple matter, and it would become far and away more difficult if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons. Certainly, Russia has been voting in favor of UN sanctions on Iran.

I just think that if Israel's on the verge of a massive PR hit, and we're talking epic proportions here, it might be easier to scrap WMDs and sign NPTs. But you're right, they'll look at the fallout first.

(Some snipping because I think the code needed clearing up.)
It may be, but I don't think it would be advisable (from an Israeli perspective) to jump into the NPT and disarm until/unless Israel has been able to gauge just what sort of PR hit they would take. And, of course, Israel probably feels compelled to not move too quickly, lest that be mistaken for a show of weakness.

Yes, there are Russians in the IAEA, but as far as I can tell START II wouldn't affect them anyway, so START II is, at best, tangential to my original request.

START II could stop Nuclear Proliferation, which is one of the IAEA's chief goals. START II is the most important nuclear treaty ever signed. It sucks for regulating missiles, but it rocks for regulating nukes!

I'm not disagreeing, but START II is still tangential to my original query, at best. =T

[IshCong]

I'm asking for a source that suggests the US doesn't let inspectors from the UN, especially the IAEA, access to US sites. Especially since I already posted a link that suggests that they do. Russia is not the UN, nor the IAEA.

Burden of proof is on the positive side. I wouldn't know where to look for a document that says "No such thing has ever happened or ever been proposed."

I already posted a link demonstrating an agreement between the US and the IAEA. Do you have anything to refute that, or was your post just conjecture supported by tangential topics? You posted an assertion, either support it or don't, either way playing ring-around-the-rosy is quickly growing tiresome. =T
It's not like there aren't documents galore about Iran rejecting IAEA inspections.

[Tmutarakhan]

I have absolutely no problem what so ever with having Israel's nuclear capabilities inspected by the UN. I'd even go so far as to say the US should have similar inspections, except for the the fact that America's nuclear capabilities are fairly well known at this point. IE: a lot.

Doesn't the US permit inspections?
Found this...?

OK, I didn't see this bit at first, didn't know that was the "link" you were talking about. This was news to me, BUT: you are ignoring the rather important point that no nuclear weapons plants are included:

1) The U.S. offer excludes activities of direct national security significance and does not contain any limitations on use of nuclear material by the United States. (Therefore, the agreement provides that at any time the United States can remove a facility from the list of those eligible for safeguards should the facility become associated with activities of direct national security significance, and the United States can transfer nuclear material from eligible facilities to any location including non-eligible facilities.) 2) The United States has sole authority to decide which U.S. facilities are eligible for safeguards, and the IAEA has sole authority to decide which eligible facilities will be selected for safeguards (although the IAEA is obliged to take into account the requirement that the U.S. Government avoid discriminatory treatment between U.S. commercial firms similarly situated). 3) The United States had made separate commitments to provide to the IAEA, for safeguards purposes, information on imports and exports of nuclear material.

[The Zeonic States]

Oh Yes; Its been FAR too long since they have been Pursueing a Nuclear Weapons Agenda and yet they won't agree to the same treatment as they would inflict upon others? Oh Yes force those two faced assholes to show their Nuclear stockpile and force them to sign the damn treaty.

The United States should make formal requests along with the UN to make Israel see reason upon the issue.

[Dilange]

Oh Yes; Its been FAR too long since they have been Pursueing a Nuclear Weapons Agenda and yet they won't agree to the same treatment as they would inflict upon others? Oh Yes force those two faced assholes to show their Nuclear stockpile and force them to sign the damn treaty.

The United States should make formal requests along with the UN to make Israel see reason upon the issue.

Why should Israel when nations liek India and Pakistan dont have to? Pakistan who has threated to nuke Tel Aviv and India, who harbors terrorist groups and leaders, wh wont compelety oust the Pakistani Taliban that threatens its democracy for the sole reason that the Pakistani Taliban attacks India.

Who should be more looked at right now? Israel who has never threated to nuclear destruction, or Pakistan who has threatened to use WMDs and harbors terrorist groups.

Why should Israel get rid of their deterrant that protects them from nations like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and other violent anti-Israel nations? Any attempt to get Israel to forcibly sign the NPT is a death sentence for them. Its an anti-Israel policy that the United States needs to stop.

Why should nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and other anti-Israel nations decide whats best for Israel and what affects Israel? Because they yell the loudest in the United Nations? This is just an attempt to weaken Israel, and Im sick of it.

[Yankee Empire]

I have absolutely no problem what so ever with having Israel's nuclear capabilities inspected by the UN. I'd even go so far as to say the US should have similar inspections, except for the the fact that America's nuclear capabilities are fairly well known at this point. IE: a lot.

Which would make an inspection fucking pointless...

[Cevalo Nacio]

The UN and its gang of anti-semitic dictators and other scum can go fuck themselves. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and to defend itself it needs to have a wide arsenal of different weapons that mustn't be revealed to the outside world.

You really cant call anyone prejudiced when the colors of your flag are that of apartheid era South Africa and have advocated for a Volkstaat in the past. No the only racists are the Israelis and their messed up apartheid state.

[Souseiseki]

The UN and its gang of anti-semitic dictators and other scum can go fuck themselves. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and to defend itself it needs to have a wide arsenal of different weapons that mustn't be revealed to the outside world.

You really cant call anyone prejudiced when the colors of your flag are that of apartheid era South Africa and have advocated for a Volkstaat in the past. No the only racists are the Israelis and their messed up apartheid state.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=207004&p=11547639#p11547639

never forget

[Cevalo Nacio]

You really cant call anyone prejudiced when the colors of your flag are that of apartheid era South Africa and have advocated for a Volkstaat in the past. No the only racists are the Israelis and their messed up apartheid state.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=207004&p=11547639#p11547639

never forget

Oh My God, your response there! HAhahahahahahaha! Seriously though,he thinks is opinions on matters like these are sophisticated but really hes no different from my Arkansan family which sais "Now im not slavery was a good thing, but it wasnt so bad for many in the peculiar intsitution." Seriously this Norse silver spoon baby makes me doubt the education system of Finland.

Suggesting that Israel should submt to the same regulations as anyone else in the nuclear club is hardly "anti semitic"

[Hippostania]

The UN and its gang of anti-semitic dictators and other scum can go fuck themselves. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and to defend itself it needs to have a wide arsenal of different weapons that mustn't be revealed to the outside world.

You really cant call anyone prejudiced when the colors of your flag are that of apartheid era South Africa and have advocated for a Volkstaat in the past. No the only racists are the Israelis and their messed up apartheid state.

Former flag of South Africa had different colors and different proportions, and my flag doesn't have the weird tri-flag symbol in the middle. My flag resembles Prinsenvlag more than it resembles the South African flag.

And yeah, there are plenty of people here who have hammers and sickles in their flag. It means that they're all stalinists amirite?

[Conserative Morality]

Former flag of South Africa had different colors and different proportions, and my flag doesn't have the weird tri-flag symbol in the middle. My flag resembles Prinsenvlag more than it resembles the South African flag.

And yeah, there are plenty of people here who have hammers and sickles in their flag. It means that they're all stalinists amirite?

Er, that looks quite like yours in terms of color and proportion.

[Souseiseki]

You really cant call anyone prejudiced when the colors of your flag are that of apartheid era South Africa and have advocated for a Volkstaat in the past. No the only racists are the Israelis and their messed up apartheid state.

Former flag of South Africa had different colors and different proportions, and my flag doesn't have the weird tri-flag symbol in the middle. My flag resembles Prinsenvlag more than it resembles the South African flag.

And yeah, there are plenty of people here who have hammers and sickles in their flag. It means that they're all stalinists amirite?

didn't you have a weird tri-symbol in one of the older versions?

well if they were posting about how stalin was better and how they miss lenin then yeah it'd make people wonder

[Souseiseki]

You really cant call anyone prejudiced when the colors of your flag are that of apartheid era South Africa and have advocated for a Volkstaat in the past. No the only racists are the Israelis and their messed up apartheid state.

Former flag of South Africa had different colors and different proportions, and my flag doesn't have the weird tri-flag symbol in the middle. My flag resembles Prinsenvlag more than it resembles the South African flag.

And yeah, there are plenty of people here who have hammers and sickles in their flag. It means that they're all stalinists amirite?

personally, i think you talking about how "original African tribal cultures should be discouraged or even suppressed due to their primitive, aggressive and inhumane features" does far far far more for you than just the flag, but that's just me

[Kvatchdom]

You really cant call anyone prejudiced when the colors of your flag are that of apartheid era South Africa and have advocated for a Volkstaat in the past. No the only racists are the Israelis and their messed up apartheid state.

Former flag of South Africa had different colors and different proportions, and my flag doesn't have the weird tri-flag symbol in the middle. My flag resembles Prinsenvlag more than it resembles the South African flag.

And yeah, there are plenty of people here who have hammers and sickles in their flag. It means that they're all stalinists amirite?

So, every other country ever needs to reveal their nuclear weapons except Israel? How is this anti-semitic? I can't really understand your logic in this.

[Hippostania]

Former flag of South Africa had different colors and different proportions, and my flag doesn't have the weird tri-flag symbol in the middle. My flag resembles Prinsenvlag more than it resembles the South African flag.

And yeah, there are plenty of people here who have hammers and sickles in their flag. It means that they're all stalinists amirite?

personally, i think you talking about how "original African tribal cultures should be discouraged or even suppressed due to their primitive, aggressive and inhumane features" does far far far more for you than just the flag, but that's just me

That is true. Or do you support people being murdered to scare away evil spirits etc etc etc? The fact is, it is the duty of the West to destroy those inhumane cultures and introduce secular, democratic and modern Western culture and values to those who haven't had the chance to adopt it yet.