U.S. Desperately Tries to Justify Act of War

Discussion in 'Israel and Palestine' started by TheGoodShepherd, Apr 25, 2008.

  1. TheGoodShepherd
    Offline

    TheGoodShepherd BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    344
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +12
    Another attempt to show photos a la Colin Powell's mobile death labs that turned out to be far different than what Washington said they in fact were.

    The United States revealed its intelligence material on Thursday about the suspected Syrian atomic plant, saying it was "nearing operational capability" a month before Israeli warplanes bombed it on September 6.

    "The United States and Israel have not identified any plutonium-separation or nuclear weaponisation facilities," David Albright and Paul Brannan of the Institute for Science and International Security said in an email commentary.

    "The absence of such facilities gives little confidence that the reactor was part of an active nuclear weapons program," they said. "The United States does not have any indication of how Syria would fuel this reactor..., which raises questions about when this reactor could have operated."

    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washi...north-usa.html

    What this is, is obvious.

    The US and Israel are trying to justify a clear violation of international borders and an act of war.

    These pictures are pretty much crap. They prove nothing and Syria has every right in the world to build a reactor if they want to.

    The Bush Administration has released detailed photographic images to support its assertion that the building in Syria destroyed by Israel in an air strike last year was a nuclear reactor constructed with years of help from North Korea.

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...743252020.html
     
  2. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Both the links you provided above are dead. Just like your baseless argument. Come up with some contradictory evidence, rather than just your reactionary opinion. The pictures are "pretty much crap?" Right, sheep-boy. Since when are you a nuclear weapons materials expert? You do not know a thing about what the inside of a nuclear weapons material processing reactor looks like. What you are is an unmitigated liar and propagandist. And if you were not such an immature little boy, some people might make a mistake and take you seriously.

    Israeli Spy Images Show Syria-North Korea Nuclear Link

    http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=53789

    Spy images obtained by Israel apparently show linkage between Syria and North Korea regarding the Syrian reactor bombed by Israel in 2007. When the bombing occurred there was skepticism, including in the US, that the destroyed site was a nuclear reactor under construction. Now the US agrees that it was, and that the reactor was not for peaceful purposes. The Syrians are still denying everything. How can NK be trusted to keep any agreements reached in the Six Party NK nuke disarmament talks?

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. TheGoodShepherd
    Offline

    TheGoodShepherd BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    344
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +12
    I'm going to ignore your personal insults this one time. It will add nothing to the debate and has nothing to do with the topic.

    What is the topic? The topic is the US releasing the images in an attempt to justify Israel's bombing of an alleged nuclear facility in Syria that the US and Israel claim was for "harmful purposes."

    I find extraordinary interest in the sources you used. "Spy images obtained by Israel," or "the US agrees" it was not for "peaceful purposes." The images - said to have been obtained by Israel - showed striking similarities between the Syrian facility and the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, the US said.

    What else did you expect internal documents from the US and Israel to say? Where is your objective evidence from independent sources? Do you have any to provide?

    I have yet to see any proof Syria was a) building a nuclear reactor b) intending to use that reactor for warheads.

    Nor have you successfully argued or even commented on Syria's right to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves against an aggressive foreign force.

    Providing quotes and comments from the internal security apparatus of Israel or the U.S. will not suffice and is not serious.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,513
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,922
    Yup people like you will play this game until a nuclear weapon goes off, then you will claim we did it till proven otherwise, THEN you will want to know why we let them get nukes.
     
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Go ahead, though, post something that shoots his ideas on this subject down and he'll tell you he can't respond because it's too "political".

    :rolleyes:
     
  6. Abelian Sea
    Offline

    Abelian Sea o_O

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    659
    Thanks Received:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +177
    That's really the crux of the matter here, I think.


    Any country with an active military that develops nuclear power is going to develop nuclear weapons. It would only be sane for them to do so.

    Identifying the jump from nuclear power to nuclear weapons is much trickier than identifying the establishment of nuclear power to begin with.

    Therefore, if you're bound and determined to prevent a country from developing nuclear weapons, it makes sense to prevent them from developing nuclear technology at all. That of course would be mean since it stops them from having a nice way of generating electricity, but if you're not letting them have nukes you've already decided to be mean, and it's not like lacking nuclear electricity plants is going to kill a nation.


    So, the real question here is, "is Isreal justified in forceably preventing Syria from having nuclear weapons?" If so, then are good logistical reasons for them to keep Syria from developing reactors, and it seems there was good evidence that that was happening. If not, then no amount of evidence would be relevant.
     
  7. BrianH
    Offline

    BrianH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,520
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +238
    It goes beyond the fact that the U.S. is a bully and just doesn't want other nations to have nuclear facilities. They just don't want supremely unstable nations to have them, because once they're developed in these UNSTABLE nations, it would not take much for nuclear weapons to "go missing" or spark a war bigger war. We seem to not have a problem with other responsible and organized nations having them, it's when you get the third-world, terrorist-infested, unstable nations creating nuclear weapons, the risk for someone "bad" getting their hands on them is significantly higher.

    It's called preemptive strike. Do you wait for them to blow you up before you do anything? Or strike?
     
  8. TheGoodShepherd
    Offline

    TheGoodShepherd BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    344
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +12
    I don't understand what I personally have to do with the issue we're discussing. If you want a name for yourself as the poster who invokes irrelevant angles into a serious topic, be my guest.

    Just don't do it in my thread.

    Discuss the topic like a grown man or bugger off and hijack another posters thread.

    Respect the topic, or please leave.
     
  9. TheGoodShepherd
    Offline

    TheGoodShepherd BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    344
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +12

    Now this I find interesting. Your comment, "It would only be sane for them to do so" highlights something very important to nations in the region.

    Nuclear weapons prevent invasions from foreign hostile aggressors.

    Iraq could be attacked precisely because it was weak and had no deterrent capability. There's no doubt about that.

    The lesson learned for nations in the Middle East is get yourself a nuclear weapon to prevent those crazy Americans from invading your lands.

    It's a rational, sane step to take.
     
  10. TheGoodShepherd
    Offline

    TheGoodShepherd BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    344
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +12
    And who gets to say what country qualifies as an unstable nation? I know in the real world, military power does.

    But strength alone does not judge what is moral or just. You're not in the right. You just happen to be the biggest, baddest dog in the room.

    The caveat with this line of reasoning is that it's a free for all.

    Basically you're arguing the case for Iraqi nationals, You're arguing the case for Al-Queda, and for Syria, Iran, Israel or US.

    You're arging for continuation of war and not diplomacy.
     

Share This Page