With Libya secured an American invasion of Africa is under way

Haven't you ever heard of a loaded diaper? MOTS

Please continue, Gustav.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And this is why arguing with SAM is a total waste of time.

Even our use of weapons that brought an end to a war, that if it had continued with an invasion of Japan would have resulted in much more death and destruction, SAM thinks we were wrong to do so.

In essence, because of her hatred of all things US, anything US does is wrong.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In what manner did the US assist Israel to produce these nuclear weapons?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where to begin?

 

Okay lets apply this logic against the US. Given the last 150 years of global warfare by the US should we use nuclear weapons against Americans to make them stop? This will save millions of lives in the Middle East and Africa

 

I note that you've repeatedly drawn a connection between the Israeli and South African nuclear programs, perhaps to insinuate that Israel directly assisted the Apartheid or otherwise benefited from it. But if that's the case, can you explain where Iran got its own uranium, aside from their reportedly limited domestic supply?

In any case, you seemed to be arguing that the US handed Israel its nukes on a silver platter. Your source only indicates that the US started turning a blind eye to it as of 1969 (two years after the first alleged warheads had already been coming off the mass-production assembly lines), and provided certain high-tech components in later years. Are you meaning to assert that the US gave Israel its nukes from the start, or merely that the US helped them to expand and improve their existing arsenal?

 

I'm not sure what the first part of your question has to do with your second. The Israel-South Africa connection is relevant only as Stephen Zunes has outlined it. Its not a secret that Israel offered to sell nuclear weapons to South Africa:

I'm not sure how Iran is relevant here.

Is that all?

I have a feeling that it was much more than what is declared - especially considering that it was an American woman who lured Vanunu in Rome - but what is known is enough to support US complicity in aiding and abetting the development of nuclear weapons

We may know more on this issue if the thing unravels. Israelis don't know how to keep a secret

 

There are many claims that Japan was in fact offering a surrender and that the US insisted on demonstrating to the Soviets what it was capable of doing to future aggressors. Conflicting accounts and arguments, but a lot of doubt has been cast on the claim that the US had no other choice but a massive ground invasion. Doesn't keep me up at night personally, given that Japan started the war, committed a holocaust in China and assaulted the US navy in the name of a self-invented divine destiny to rule the world.

Or at least that anything done wrong in the world is somehow the responsibility of the US and Europe.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm not the one who recommends it. Maybe we should ask the Japanese if nuclear bombing is good for society. If we get unanimous approval of Arthur's claim, we might even be able to convince the US to bomb itself. They've already made a start by using the gas canisters they supply to Israel against their own war veterans. Palestinians with gas canisters on the brain now equal to American war veterans with gas canisters on the brain.

Anything for progress

 

If it's no secret, then why is the article labelled as a "Guardian Exclusive"? South Africa hasn't been particularly friendly towards Israel in a long time, why don't they go ahead and publish all the exact details? I haven't heard the UN say a peep about Israel selling or offering to sell nuclear weapons to Apartheid South Africa, only the usual complaints about the ambiguity policy.

So you ask what this all has to do with Iran? Well, whenever you discuss the subject of Israeli nuclear weapons, you tend to select articles which invoke claims about its ties to the Apartheid regime, and to single those ties out from all the rest. Is that just a pure coincidence and a fiction in my own mind? If not, I'd like to know where Iran got the bulk of its enrichable uranium, 'cuz word is it came directly from... drumroll... Apartheid South Africa. And I presume P.W. Botha & friends must have received something very valuable in return. I don't hear you calling on the Iranians to send it all back and reverse the dirty deed... but lemme guess, once again it's entirely America's fault, because Iran's programs started first under the Shah, so whatever is continued and perpetuated from such programs under the Ayatollah's watch is also America's fault.

Well? Are you saying the US gave Israel the foundations for its nuclear tech, or are you just saying the US helped them out after they'd already built their first few dozen?

I have no doubt the US didn't make serious efforts to prevent Israeli armament, or they wouldn't be sending it any form of military assistance as a reward for this kind of behaviour.

I hope it unravels too, so we can get to the bottom of this issue instead of reading through "Guardian Exclusives" or debating the potential utility of someone launching WMD attacks on the United States.

 

Lol there you have it in a nutshell. They turned a blind eye, provided the tech and the components and rewarded their development of nuclear weapons with more arms support. All thats missing is a big yellow bow on the whole thing.

Really? I have no recall for this tendency. Could you post at least two previous occasions when I have done this?

Again, not sure how that is relevant. Under the NPT, Iran is permitted to invest in nuclear technology, so buying uranium from anyone is not a problem. They are actually entitled to aid from all those who have signed the treaty to help develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, which has yet to be forthcoming. [btw, the Iranian nuclear plant started supplying energy in September and gasp! we are all still alive!] The Americans were doing business with both the Nazis and the Pretorians, but providing arms to a belligerent regime is not the same as buying oil I mean, uranium from them. Otherwise. with all the dictators spread out over the oil, your code of ethics would make it unlawful for you to use anything that was imported from any country with a dictator, correct?

 

I'm asking you where your evidence is that the US "provided the tech and components", because everything I've read suggests the US had little to no involvement in developing Israel's first nuclear warheads.

I can try, but the search capabilities here seem pretty limited, and my personal abilities to filter Google site searches are also limited. I've found statements from pjdude, Strawdog and Kathaksung containing these kinds of accusations, but haven't yet parsed anything from you on the subject, other than your posts in the current thread (What's this? I haven't yet managed to browse through your 70000 posts and find the smoking gun? Shocker...). But maybe my memory fails me on this one- so you would say you've never drawn any connections between the Israeli and South African nuclear programs here at Sciforums outside this specific thread?

Yes, I believe importing goods from dictators should generally be banned, i.e. the US and its allies should never have signed any trade agreements with China in the absence of any commitments to human rights from the latter. The only exception I can think of is when another superpower is playing by a different set of rules in the same region, i.e. when the Soviet Union was selling weapons to allied African dictatorships left right and centre, the U.S. didn't have many options to counter the expansion of these dictatorships other than supporting dictators in opposition to Soviet expansion, most of whom have since crumbled now that the Cold War is a distant memory.

But if you ever want to accuse Israel of somehow assisting South Africa's Apartheid regime (which was originally founded on pro-Nazi roots), then you should take account of all the other countries which had trade relations of one sort or another with this same regime, including Iran, in addition to the trade relations between various world powers and African dictatorships in general.

 

I'm not particularly interested in accusing Israel of anything here. We are discussing US policy which is to supply arms to countries that do not sign the NPT and develop nuclear weapons while invading countries with no nuclear weapons based on half assed assumptions and most important, using WMDs against their civilians

I hope you practise what you preach

I'm glad you agree that its idiotic to bomb people with nuclear weapons in order to stop their governments making war on anyone else

Don't worry, I don't report "insulting" posts. I'll even go so far as to say I am not insulted so if anyone else reports it, the admin has no grounds for banning.

I'm actually pleased that you see how idiotic it is to kill civilians with horrific weapons in order to punish their governments for their moronic policies

 

While Mao certainly was a dictator in every sense, the current Chinese leadership is not. There is no single person with absolute power. It is a single party rule, but lacks a dictator.

Also, the human rights thing is tricky, because I can find human rights violations for almost every country on this planet.

The US, for example:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/139/the-usa-and-human-rights

Would you propose starting off boycotting ourself? More often then not, I see the human rights issue used as a self-righteous pretext for the invasion of other countries.

 

That was interesting

 

Now when is the last time the US used a WMD on anyone, since WWII? But yes, I believe the invasion of Iraq seriously undermined the consistency and credibility of America's arguments for foreign interventions, and I still believe some form of reparations are due to the Iraqi people. All the same, when regional partners request US military involvement, I don't believe it's wrong for the US to oblige such a request at its own discretion, if another actor is already trying to make a military push on the region.

I do my best with what's available to me- if you have a computer and a comfy lifestyle, I doubt you could consider yourself any better at this. I don't go out of my way to boycott China, but when given the option of purchasing from China or spending slightly more to purchase equal quality goods from democracies, I pick the democracies, i.e. I prefer "made in Canada" or "made in the USA" or "made in Mexico" to "made in China", although Mexico itself is somewhat suspect when it comes to government accountability. Likewise, I use efficient public transportation systems to get around, powered by domestic sources, and try to avoid activities which consume fossil fuels in general because even buying domestic oil indirectly benefits the market for oil dictatorships.

It's still ruled by an unaccountable clique which comprises only 10% of the population at best. They can't even let their own citizens use freakin' Google without perceiving a deadly threat to the state.

Why not boycott American industries which have contributed to ripping off American consumers and/or sending American soldiers and foreign civilians to their deaths for the sake of profit, such as those who advised GWB on what to do in Iraq? Why not boycott Chiquita for persuading its friends in the CIA to install and support banana republic dictatorships throughout South America? Or try to cut back on the desire for Chinese goods and other third-world dictatorship junk in favour of higher-quality domestic goods produced with a fraction of the pollution and exploited labour.

 

How many reports of human-rights violations does China permit to be printed in its domestic newspapers? I.e. if you can read about it in London, can you also legally read about it in Beijing? Does China let its citizens write freely in their newspapers and blogs every time Amnesty International has an accusation to direct at them?

 

Yes, that is true, but now the defintion has been changed from opposing trade with dictators to opposing trade with countries ruled by a small group of elites? That would effectively exclude most of the world...

All very good things and I say more power to people (the very few) who actually live by these rules. Although these days, you will be VERY hard pressed to absolutely followed these rules. Your "Made in Canada" electronic product for example, probably contains resisters, capacters, etc made in dictatorship countries. I guess if one took the Thoreau Walden route then one could do it.

 

To be fair this is written on the Amnesty Site (the same point you make):

http://www.globalissues.org/article/139/the-usa-and-human-rights