D
droid
Guest
Found this in the bin at the History department the other day:
Well, opposition to the regime is not "a Mousavi faction" (for a start)
Meanwhile, Droid is still annoyed that Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in 1981! Yes, that was a dark day, indeed.
So is there a sizable contingent who oppose the regime but don't support Mousavi
the issue of Non-Proliferation in the region has still not been addressed.
Er, yes it has. What I think you mean is that the question of Israel's nuclear bomb has not been addressed to your liking.
especially when the aim of the IAEA has been to develop a Nuclear-Weapons-Free-Zones in the Middle East, with the explicit intention of preventing a nuclear arms race.
Right, so it has been addressed, then -- just not in the way you think it should be, which is to expose and dismantle Israel's nuclear capability. You just said what I said you'd say.
It just seems to me that you equate regional nuclear proliferation solely with Israel's tightly-guarded Bomb
It just seems to me that you equate regional nuclear proliferation solely with Israel's tightly-guarded Bomb, rather than the more troubling development of a nuclear arms race between Iran, the Saudis and Turkey.
I also wonder how exactly you think the issue of Israel's nukes should be "resolved" or "dealt with" -- I can only imagine you mean disarmament. You may think there is hypocrasy involved, but there are reasons that the Arabs can live with an Isreali bomb but not an Iranian one.
Could this have anything to do with the fact that Israel is the only state in the region that actually HAS nukes? In fact, has many of them, and has had them for a long time?
Should all nuclear armed states sign up? If not, why?
Yeah, of course they should. Frankly, though, a Middle East with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey in possession of nulear bombs increases the danger from Israel's bomb. It may be the elephant in the room, but it's not the only bloody elephant. Not even the biggest elephant.