The Symington and Glenn ammendments

the watcher

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2016
1,503
1,281
1,938
forbid US aid to any country trading in nuclear arm proliferation, and is not subject to the NPT and does not allow international inspection. Israel does not and apparently Congress has some eyewink agreement with them to the tune of billions if not trillions per year. I believe this may be true for Pakistan and maybe India also, so if anyone knows how this is done I would like to know too.
 
forbid US aid to any country trading in nuclear arm proliferation, and is not subject to the NPT and does not allow international inspection. Israel does not and apparently Congress has some eyewink agreement with them to the tune of billions if not trillions per year. I believe this may be true for Pakistan and maybe India also, so if anyone knows how this is done I would like to know too.

Trading?
 
forbid US aid to any country trading in nuclear arm proliferation, and is not subject to the NPT and does not allow international inspection. Israel does not and apparently Congress has some eyewink agreement with them to the tune of billions if not trillions per year. I believe this may be true for Pakistan and maybe India also, so if anyone knows how this is done I would like to know too.
Hell, Israel did not want to give the Ukes weapons....Good thing now I guess.

Israel's "wink-wink" nukes are for a Sampson-type counter strike in case they face obliteration from their rowdy ME neighbors.....I suspect Iran will be the first to "glow".
 
forbid US aid to any country trading in nuclear arm proliferation, and is not subject to the NPT and does not allow international inspection. Israel does not and apparently Congress has some eyewink agreement with them to the tune of billions if not trillions per year. I believe this may be true for Pakistan and maybe India also, so if anyone knows how this is done I would like to know too.
The Symington amendment states: . It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections.[2]


Israel had developed nuclear enrichment technology long before there was an NPT.

The Glenn Amendment reaffirmed the provisions of the Symington Amendment in regard to uranium enrichment. However, the Amendment implicitly equated the reprocessing of spent fuel with proliferation, as the law required the cutoff of U.S. economic and military aid to any country that imported or exported reprocessing equipment, materials, or technology whether or not the country complied with IAEA safeguards.


It clearly does not apply to Israel.
 
So they amended (tweaked) the law (John Glenn) to accommodate Israel, and here we are, being bullied and blackmailed by the threat of nuclear war, is that correct? Israel is like that toady we all knew in school, "why don't you and him fight"? I just can't quite make the connection to why we are mortally bound to do their bidding. It makes no sense to me at all to continue this bloodletting.
 
So they amended (tweaked) the law (John Glenn) to accommodate Israel, and here we are, being bullied and blackmailed by the threat of nuclear war, is that correct? Israel is like that toady we all knew in school, "why don't you and him fight"? I just can't quite make the connection to why we are mortally bound to do their bidding. It makes no sense to me at all to continue this bloodletting.
So in your last post you pretended to be concerned about enforcing the law, and now you have no more interest in the law. You seem very, very confused about what is going on in the world, and the only thing you seem sure of is that it is all Israel's fault.
 
So in your last post you pretended to be concerned about enforcing the law, and now you have no more interest in the law. You seem very, very confused about what is going on in the world, and the only thing you seem sure of is that it is all Israel's fault.
It's not always about the law, it's about right or wrong and accountability. Everything the Nazis did after they passed the enabling law was legal, and they enforced it. The world is not black or white, left or right or up and down, there are always in betweens and there is enough "fault" as you describe it, to go around. So easy to assume a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in order to justify violence. There is more than enough fault in this area to last another hundred years, if there's that much time left. Extremists have divided the world, and it is a very dangerous place.
 
It's not always about the law, it's about right or wrong and accountability. Everything the Nazis did after they passed the enabling law was legal, and they enforced it. The world is not black or white, left or right or up and down, there are always in betweens and there is enough "fault" as you describe it, to go around. So easy to assume a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in order to justify violence. There is more than enough fault in this area to last another hundred years, if there's that much time left. Extremists have divided the world, and it is a very dangerous place.
In your first post you said it was about the US not enforcing laws, and now you say it is not about the law at all, but the one constant in your message is that you are opposed to the US relationship with Israel. Why continue to dance around the issue instead of coming right out and stating your objection to America's relationship with Israel? Come on, if you squeeze real hard, you can probably get it out.
 
What is your opinion on our relationship with Israel? Why is it unconditional, with no limits on what we will do? Do you think that is rational? Maybe you can help me understand this codependency, I can't seem to do it on my own. To me it is an abusive relationship and one sided.
 
What is your opinion on our relationship with Israel? Why is it unconditional, with no limits on what we will do? Do you think that is rational? Maybe you can help me understand this codependency, I can't seem to do it on my own. To me it is an abusive relationship and one sided.
You clearly have no idea what the relationship is, yet you have strong opinions about it, so no one can explain it to you in terms you would be able to understand.
 
I have some idea. I think we sent 2.5$ billion every year from 1999 to 2009, at which time it was increased to 3.3 billion. That is in addition to non military aid. I know that the US has traditionally vetoed every UN resolution to censor Israel, no matter what the issue is. I know that a lot of states have passed non BDU laws protecting boycotts of Israel. I know that we have consistently demonstrated our willingness and eagerness to put our own security in jeopardy to secure theirs, and to automatically assume their enemies as ours. I know that we have spent a lifetime protecting their borders while ignoring ours, and blindly accepting refugees from this bullshit war we enable. What is it that you know? We don't have to agree at all, but I just can't see why we are compelled to act this way, against our national interests.
 
I have some idea. I think we sent 2.5$ billion every year from 1999 to 2009, at which time it was increased to 3.3 billion. That is in addition to non military aid. I know that the US has traditionally vetoed every UN resolution to censor Israel, no matter what the issue is. I know that a lot of states have passed non BDU laws protecting boycotts of Israel. I know that we have consistently demonstrated our willingness and eagerness to put our own security in jeopardy to secure theirs, and to automatically assume their enemies as ours. I know that we have spent a lifetime protecting their borders while ignoring ours, and blindly accepting refugees from this bullshit war we enable. What is it that you know? We don't have to agree at all, but I just can't see why we are compelled to act this way, against our national interests.
Your post confirms that you don't know what the relationship is.
 

Forum List

Back
Top