|| Replies ||

User	Blue Monk | 2006-09-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Nukes? What Nukes? That’s an unsubstantiated rumor!

User	mae | 2006-09-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Here’s an interesting read concerning Israeli nuclear capability and the U.S.’s involvement. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ mae

User	joeyalphabet | 2006-09-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Unfortunately, the United States unilaterally divesting itself of ’nu-cul-ar’ weapons is about as likely as Bush switching parties. There’s zero interest in the White House and Congress for even negotiating levels down, let alone acting on our own. Our current government only believes in unilateral action when it involves attacking somebody.

User	Blue Monk | 2006-09-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	There is only one country currently calling for the total distruction of another. That, as you well know, is Iran wanting to distroy Israel.

User	abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-09-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Maybe if ... a more influencial country started to disarm; like the United States, then others would follow.

User	joeyalphabet | 2006-09-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	What we should be doing is negotiating with all nuclear countries to get rid of all nuclear weapons - then there wouldn’t be a threat from any country or terrorist group. Unfortunately, countries like North Korea wouldn’t cooperate.

User	abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-09-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	mae, HOW does a signing of a treaty help a bomb not being dropped? Governemnts and leaders keep changing; and weapons could go into the wrong hands very easily. ’Isn’t it a bit hypocritical of the US to demand that Iran stop pursuing nuclear goals when we haven’t done anything about Israel’ It’s probably things like these which make the US seem unfair in the eyes of Muslims. SAY NO TO NUCLEAR BOMBS

User	Chell | 2006-09-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	So, Israel didn’t sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? I assume the decision to stand as a non-signatory means that in 1968 Israel made it clear to the world that it was their intention to obtain a nuclear weapon. I also assume that since they didn’t sign that treaty that America and the other 189 signatories couldn’t do anything about Israel developing nuclear weapons. (or we could but decided to turn a blind eye) And what exactly is an “unacknowledged nuclear weapons state”? Does that mean that we think they have nuclear bombs but no one knows for sure? I assume the since we don’t know for sure that the I.A.E.A. isn’t allowed into Israel. (No wonder we don’t argue with Israel, they could have a thousand nuclear bombs.) None of this makes anyone nervous?? I mean there were some major things agreed upon in that treaty, including restricting the dissemination of nuclear weapons to other countries, allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to enforce safeguards, and undertaking effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Being a non-signatory, Israel isn’t restricted from nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water- which could have SEVERE ramifications to the whole world. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical of the US to demand that Iran stop pursuing nuclear goals when we haven’t done anything about Israel refusing to join in probably the most important treaty on the planet and are, apparently, developing WMD’s without full transparency to the IAEA or the world? Iran signed the N.P.T. and is looking at sanctions for non-transparency, but Israel on the other hand, is allowed to pursue their nuclear ambitions without ANY checks and balances and no one blinks and eye. It seems that the attitude toward the possession of these weapons by other countries is based on whether the regime pursuing nuclear initiatives is supportive of or antagonistic to U.S. interests. Which means it’s not the world deciding who should and should not have nukes, it IS the decision of the U.S. Otherwise the U.N. would be demanding that all the signatories of the N.P.T. impose major sanctions on Israel in the attempt to get them to join the N.P.T. and make the world a safer place. We can only be free from the threat of nuclear destruction if there are no more nuclear bombs.

User	mae | 2006-09-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	from buzz - then I don’t think it should be the Americans who should say something. From Wikipedia - At present, 189 states are party to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. These include all five declared Nuclear Weapons States (NWSs): the People’s Republic of China, France, the Russian Federation, the UK, and the USA. Notable non-signatories to the NPT are Israel, Pakistan, and India (the latter two have since tested nuclear weapons, while Israel is considered by most to be an unacknowledged nuclear weapons state). North Korea was once a signatory but withdrew in January 2003. From mae - it isn’t just the U.S. saying it, buzz. It’s the WORLD. mae

User	abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-09-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	That such launchers where hidden in populated areas is an unfortunate tactic that Hezbollah finds necessary and they evidently do not care about the fact that they are using civilians as shields. Whats more unfortunate is how people think Hezbollah has such long range missiles which they can launch all the way from Central Beruit. And whats the most unfortunate is that Israel sprinkles cluster bombs all over Lebanon so that they can ’destroy even more launching pads’

User	joeyalphabet | 2006-09-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Nuclear weapons are a whole different ballgame. At least I hope the Iranians realize they are...

User	Blue Monk | 2006-09-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Iranians have already proven stupid enough to supply Hezbollah to do such dirty work for them. As if Israel doesn’t know where the rockets and training comes from. And yes, Israel took out Iraq’s budding nuke facility and probably will do the same for Iran as soon as those targets are well located.

User	joeyalphabet | 2006-09-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	If the Israelis think for one minute they’re in danger from Iranian nuclear weapons, they won’t wait for anyone else to act. They’ll do their best to level all their nuclear facilities. And I don’t think the Iranians are stupid enough to attack or threaten to attack Israel; they know the Israelis would respond with their nuclear weapons.

User	Blue Monk | 2006-09-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	It is widely suspected though not proven that Israel already has a substantial nucular arsenal and could therefore resort to that if necessary, but such a scenario is a lose/lose proposition for everyone. Israel has not (yet) decided it is in their best interest to attack anyone who’s not already launching rockets at them. Their destruction of launch sites in Lebanon after the rockets were observed as being on the way was really too little, too late, but maybe they did prevent the launchers from being reloaded and manage to destroy some stacks of rockets on the ground before being launched. That such launchers where hidden in populated areas is an unfortunate tactic that Hezbollah finds necessary and they evidently do not care about the fact that they are using civilians as shields.

User	abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-09-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Yeah, India and Pakistan having them is as safe as Israel and Iran having them. In my opinion, thats one of the few things keeping one of the countries attacking the other. Also, didn’t we see on TV Israel literally destroying another country? Okay, they had a .reason. but still, they seem easily agitated and again, something small could turn into bombs falling.

User	Blue Monk | 2006-09-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	It’s hard to get the genie back into the bottle. Almost every major country has them, even N.Korea which is no major country, just a crazy one. No current nuclear power has threatened to blow up (distroy) Israel or any other country. Iran has. Is this a lie or not? What could you trust? India and Pakistan both have bombs, what will happen if they get into a serious war? In the mean time, the rest of the world does not consider them a threat. The current government of Iran is considered radical and dangerous chiefly because of the hatred they preach towards the U.S. and Israel. If they kept their mouths shut they would probably be left alone long enough to make their bombs, then we’ll just have to watch what they really do. If Israel was ever bombed with a nuke, they would know it was Iran regardless of how it came. I don’t doubt that Israel (and maybe the U.S.) would respond in kind, making the Iranian ranting madness considering that millions of their own would suffer and die. The president of Iran has "rationalized" that by saying they could and would be willing to suffer that. (I bet he has a cozy bunker) Now they say they are not developing the bomb, and we are to believe them? The use of the bomb against the Japanese in WWII ended up saving a great many lives because even though they were already beaten, they would have otherwise fought to the last man except that their leaders realized they could not fight against such a monstrous power. They were very brave, but not stupid. Once that point was made, the war was over and we helped to rebuild.

User	abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-09-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Okay fine, even IF they have developed nuclear weapons, then I don’t think it should be the Americans who should say something. Firstly, they themselves have nuclear weapons Secondly, they were the only country to ruthlessly use an atomic bomb.

User	mae | 2006-09-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	it doesn’t let other countries even develop nuclear energy mainly for domestic purposes buzz, the raw materials necessary for developing nuclear energy for domestic purposes differs in its grade and quantity than that used for weapons. If a country purchases or manufactures those materials in a quantity and grade used for weapons, they aren’t going to use them for domestic purposes. It’s much more expensive to develop weapons. If the country is protesting that it’s for nuclear energy for power, etc., yet they’ve developed it to the degree required for weapons, then their protests are hugely suspect - and probably just lies. mae

User	Toxic_Rayne | 2006-09-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	May seem stupid, but I just don’t like, nor trust the pope. He served in a Nazi youth camp and (lol, the most important) he thinks Harry Potter books are Satanic and should be burned and condemned by the church. That’s just weird to me. *tox*

User	Blue Monk | 2006-09-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Be thankful the F16 jets were not delivered. Your government should have taken a lesson from the F14 Tomcats that were left with Iran after their revolution. It seems like they couldn’t make anything work on those high tech gizmos or get any replacement parts. (And we sure hated to lose that business too!) But, they did kick us out and they held hostage our embassy personnel for a long time with no reason, so what else could we do? That’s usually grounds for war. Deals are now in the works for Pakistan with a joint fighter program with China. Be careful the same thing doesn’t happen - with the Chinese holding the critical parts like an ignition key to be withheld if there’s any problems between the two countries. Beware, they are infidels who persecute any of their own people who even believe in God, how much more will they do to others as their influence expands? The Russians are almost as bad, what with Mr. KGB himself now in charge. The U.S. and Christian origanizations are always glad to help any way we can with a disaster, as long as we’re not getting shot at in the process. I hope Pakistan’s government continues to remain more stable than the geological forces at work there. Remember, moslems and others are free to worship in their time honored manner here in the U.S.A., which is more than we can say for many places.