U.S. Desperately Tries to Justify Act of War

[TheGoodShepherd]

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

 

[onedomino]

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?

Syria 'had covert nuclear scheme'

complete BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7364269.stm

The United States has accused North Korea of helping Syria build a nuclear reactor that "was not intended for peaceful purposes".

The site, said to be like one in North Korea, was bombed by Israel in 2007.

Syria must "come clean" about its secret nuclear programme, the White House said in a statement after CIA officials briefed members of Congress.

Syria has repeated denials that it has any nuclear weapons programme, or any such agreement with North Korea...

...The CIA briefings included pictures which the US says prove that North Koreans were working inside the secret site.

One of the images, which shows two men standing side by side, was said by the CIA to be of the head of the North Korean nuclear plant and the head of the Syrian atomic energy commission together in Syria.

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.

However, the facility was not yet operational and there was no fuel for the reactor, officials said.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Both the links you provided above are dead. Just like your baseless argument. Come up with some contradictory evid

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?

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[jillian]

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".

 

[Abelian Sea]

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

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.

 

[BrianH]

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?

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

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.

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.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

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.

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.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

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?

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.

 

[Swamp Fox]

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.

Because God knows you are EVER so respectful and stay on topics in threads you don't start................

 

[Swamp Fox]

Haven't heard the Syrians saying anything abouot the topic. Makes you wonder, are they being quiet because it was being used for weapons, or are they being quiet because they're afraid Israel will come kick their ass again?

My guess is, they're afraid of getting their ass kicked again.

 

[jillian]

Haven't heard the Syrians saying anything abouot the topic. Makes you wonder, are they being quiet because it was being used for weapons, or are they being quiet because they're afraid Israel will come kick their ass again?

My guess is, they're afraid of getting their ass kicked again.

The Syrians know they screwed up and they had no business doing what they did.

I figure they just want it to go away quietly. It's only the anti-Israel crowd that's bitching about it.

 

[Swamp Fox]

The Syrians know they screwed up and they had no business doing what they did.

I figure they just want it to go away quietly. It's only the anti-Israel crowd that's bitching about it.

I wondered what got TGS's panties in a knot............

 

[jillian]

I wondered what got TGS's panties in a knot............

Takes all kinds.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Haven't heard the Syrians saying anything abouot the topic. Makes you wonder, are they being quiet because it was being used for weapons, or are they being quiet because they're afraid Israel will come kick their ass again?

My guess is, they're afraid of getting their ass kicked again.

Of course the Syrian ambassador has commented on it. So get your facts straight please.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Of course the Syrian ambassador has commented on it. So get your facts straight please.

Look, you simpering puss bucket, I said I hadn't heard anything. Care to read the post before typing your drivel????

The other question I have on this is, why does the US need to justify a supposed act of war done by the Israelis to the Syrians?

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Look, you simpering puss bucket, I said I hadn't heard anything. Care to read the post before typing your drivel????

The other question I have on this is, why does the US need to justify a supposed act of war done by the Israelis to the Syrians?

You said you hadn't "heard anything," yet you claimed the lack of Syrian comment is because they're too afraid to getting their "ass kicked again."

Nice contradiction.

You're not the brightest star in the sky are you?

Let me know when you want to discuss the issue or please stop talking to me and get out of my thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You said you hadn't "heard anything," yet you claimed the lack of Syrian comment is because they're too afraid to getting their "ass kicked again."

Nice contradiction.

You're not the brightest star in the sky are you?

Let me know when you want to discuss the issue or please stop talking to me and get out of my thread.

Hate to break it to you bubba, but once you post it, it ain't "yours" anymore. Nice dodge on not answering the question.

 

[BrianH]

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.

It's amazing how you can assume all of that out of something I didn't say. I did not express support for either side. I simply stated the reasoning behind this topic. Overly emotional anti-war nuts seem to think that explaining the reasons behind things is giving support.
You're right, more powerful nations do decide what nations are unstable and which are not, but that's because the more powerful nations have had stability in order to get as powerful as they are (most of the time). The third-world countries are so unstable, that they have not been able to "prosper." You wouldn't intentionally place guns/weapons in a prison yard would you? No. Same concept, larger, more stable countries, don't want nuclear technology to become rampant in the unstable regions of the world, because there's a higher possibility that nuclear weapons could come into the wrong hands. This was evident after the fall of the Soviet Union, and many nuclear weapons simply went missing.