Cartoon on Vanunu's Release

[nicky g]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2004/04/22/bellvan2.jpg

By the way, did anyone know it's actually illegal under US law for the US to give Israel military aid if it has or develops nuclear weapons? Was mentioned on the new yesterday, I hadn't heard that before. If anyone knows of the relevant law I'd be interested to know more.

[Gamblor]

This is not a moral issue, I will not comment on the morality.

I will comment that if a Brit were to suddenly divulge the UK's military secrets, then convert to Islam (Vanunu converted to Christianity), and denounce the UK as a whole (he demands a secular binational state), he would be regarded the exact same way.

One need only to examine Lebanon and Yugoslavia to see what a binational state will amount to.

Incidentally, no Israeli nuclear program has ever been recognized by an international Nuclear organization, thus Israel does not have nuclear weapons. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, did anyone know it's actually illegal under US law for the US to give Israel military aid if it has or develops nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wishful thinking on your part there Nicky. Israel has had nuclear weapons for many years. In october of 2003 they equipped American Harpoon missiles with nuclear warheads for use on their submarines.

In fact amusingly enough France helped Israel begin their nuclear program in the 1950's and by the 60's Israel had become the 5th largest stockpiler of nukes.

[nicky g]

All this we know. The speaker was suggesting the reason that Israel refuses to officially admit to having nuclear weapons, even though it's common knowledge, was that it would have to forfeit the aid.

It seems what he was referring to was the Symington amendment which several sites have paraphrased as making it illegal to give military aid to a country either acquiring nuclear weapons illicitly or exporting nuclear technology to other countries (which Israel is supected of having done to apartheid South Africa). I haven't had time to go into it in more detail yet so I don't know if that is indeed what the act says.

[Jimbo]

You have been brainwashed by the liberal news media in Europe. In the USA suspicions are not enough we require a little thing called proof. Plus your interpretation of the Symington amendment is a bit too broad to apply to Israel.


Jimbo

[Chris Alger]

Probably because it hasn't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel contends that it abides by its provisions anyway. Except the parts, I guess, about inspections.

[Cyrus]

"In the USA suspicions are not enough we require a little thing called proof. Plus your interpretation of the Symington amendment is a bit too broad to apply to Israel."

Spoken like a calling station. In other words, keep calling those raises and re-raises, until you see proof. (Then muck 'em, muttering something appropriate.)

If you do not believe that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, you must be one hell of a gullible guy - or a closed minded one. You figure out which is worse.

[Gamblor]

"He was the only guy there at the time of the murder, why bother with the trial, the judge, the arrest, the jury, let's just give him the chair right now!"

Sustained.

[Cyrus]

Judge : You are bringing a motion to dismiss, councel? Sit down and eat your muffins. Your client has refused to be searched (inspected) by officers of the law (IEAE) although they had a search warrant. So although this does not make him guilty, it sure desn't stop this trial from proceeding.

Gamblor : But...

Judge : And one more thing, to be done with this item. The fact that your client does not recognize the United States Constitution (!) as he stated (the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Arms Treaty) does not absolve him of his constitutional obligations and you should know that. not to the eyes of this court (the world and the U.N.) and not to the eyes of the Law. So no more frivolous objections in this court, or I'll have you back to the bar for more studying.

Cyrus : Thank you, Your Honour. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Judge : Stop smirking or I'll cite you for contempt.

[nicky g]

"Plus your interpretation of the Symington amendment is a bit too broad to apply to Israel. "

What an incredibly unhelpful post: if that is the case, why don't you explain why.

[nicky g]

" In the USA suspicions are not enough we require a little thing called proof. "

Oh, like the proof of Saddam's nuclear programme?

How can you get proof when the US refuses to push Irael to opening its nuclear facilities? You can't say "there's no proof" if you won't even look for it.

[Gamblor]

You are bringing a motion to dismiss, councel?

I am moving that this argument is not admissible as evidence.

So cranky. Don't work so late, it'll kill ya. Perhaps your family would like to spend a little time with you. One must be well-rounded - oh, I forgot, you're a corporate superstar who is so important he must go to great pains to remind everyone how important he is, but also that he can not reveal his name for his "privacy's" sake.

Judging by your posts, I'd guess you're a 70-year old ex-janitor at a high school in Peoria, Illinois.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Spoken like a calling station. In other words, keep calling those raises and re-raises, until you see proof. (Then muck 'em, muttering something appropriate.)

If you do not believe that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, you must be one hell of a gullible guy - or a closed minded one. You figure out which is worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, so many trolls, so little time. OK Cyrus first put one foot after the other then read carefully and perhaps you will notice that I was referring to any infractions of the Symington Amendment (see the quote to which I referred: "(which Israel is supected of having done to apartheid South Africa):) not as to whether or not Israel possesses nuclear weapons. I thought even a troll like you knew that they have had nuclear weapons for many years and kept it no secret.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
"Plus your interpretation of the Symington amendment is a bit too broad to apply to Israel. "

What an incredibly unhelpful post: if that is the case, why don't you explain why.


[/ QUOTE ]

And this blantant lie of yours was helpful? [ QUOTE ]
By the way, did anyone know it's actually illegal under US law for the US to give Israel military aid if it has or develops nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

and this one was helpful? [ QUOTE ]
The speaker was suggesting the reason that Israel refuses to officially admit to having nuclear weapons, even though it's common knowledge, was that it would have to forfeit the aid.


[/ QUOTE ] It is more like backpedaling after your first post was pointed out to be faulty.

There are 5 volumes and 1137 pages to the Arms Export Control Act (commonly called the Symington Amendment) so if you want further clarification as to why your interpretation was too broad then read it for yourself.

Arms Export Control Act (http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/108/87164.pdf#xml=http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwc%2E house%2Egov%2Finternational%5Frelations%2F108%2F87 164%2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collection=comms&QueryZip=sy mington+amendment&)

It is in pdf format so you will need Adobe Acrobat reader to open this link. Get back to me when you have digested the material and are able to respond intelligently about the subject.

Jimbo

[iblucky4u2]

Isreal is not the only country to consider here. Recently, Powell visited Pakistan, a known distributor of weapons of mass distruction to terrorist nations. He presented Pakistan with a reward consisting of the forgiving of billions in debt and a gift of hundreds of millions for "helping" us find Osama. What a joke!

[Jimbo]

I could feel your little brain preparing to explode due to information overload as well as being asked to actually look something up for yourself so I'll offer you some help.

Sec. 737 of the Arms Export Control Act states

The Congress finds that any transfer of a nuclear explosive device to a non-nuclear-weapon state or, in the case of a non-nuclear-weapon state, any receipt or detonation of a nuclear explosive device would cause grave damage to the bilateral relations between the United States and that country.

In other words we would be pissed but are not prescribing any penalty for nuking your neghbor. Hope that is clear to you now.

Edited Below

After further review the Symington Amendment is specifically Sec 102 which now does prescribe financial penalties for unauthorized export of nuclear technology. It is subject to the determination of the President as to whether any violation has occured. It is really quite complex and you can read the entire section beginning on page 494 of the link I provided in a prior post.



Jimbo

[iblucky4u2]

See my post below about Pakistan and how they were "penalized" for exporting their nuclear technology.

[Cyrus]

You posted that in the U.S. you need proof before condemning someone. I understood that this clearly referred to the "accusation" (more like stating the obvious) that Israel is the only country in the Middle East to possess Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not to mention that Israel never allowed outside inspectors or the IAEA, which was highly suspicious of Israel also selling nuke secrets to such friendly nations as apartheid South Africa.

If I was wrong and you referred to something else such as Symington's, I apologize. Could be my Alzheimer's. /images/graemlins/cool.gif I am pleased to see, in any case, that you do not contest the fact that Israel does indeed possess WMDs. (Which should normally lead us to a nice debate about what to do with that rogue nation, but I guess it won't.)

Nice to see you in your usual feisty mood, by the way. Good for the ol' ticker.

[Cyrus]

"Don't work so late, it'll kill ya."

Would you love to do the deed.

"Perhaps your family would like to spend a little more time with you."

Oh but I consider you family, too.

"I guess you're a 70-year old ex-janitor at a high school in Peoria, Illinois."

Correct in all counts but one : Lose the "ex" bit! I'm still sweepin' 'em out.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
One need only to examine Lebanon and Yugoslavia to see what a binational state will amount to.

[/ QUOTE ]

To say nothing of that crucible of perpetual civil war and ethnic strife, Canada.

[Gamblor]

FLQ Crisis (http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/october/video.html)

It ended only when the English, the "nation" well-represented in government, manipulated law and forcefully suppressed the "resistance". Perhaps there is a lesson there.

It only works because the second nation (French) is a significant minority compared to the first (English), and as such, Canada is for all intents and purposes an English state. Jews in Israel would not enjoy such a safe majority with which to effectively control government and ensure their safety, as the English do in Canada. No government in history (at the time of Israel's founding, and to some extent even today, for example in Toronto and Montreal this month) has ever completely eliminated violence against Jews for sole reason that they are Jews.

[nicky g]

"I could feel your little brain preparing to explode due to information overload as well as being asked to actually look something up for yourself so I'll offer you some help."

I mentioned something that had been stated on the news, said I would look into it and asked if anyone else knew anything more about it. Your post simply told me I was wrong without bothering to explain why. That is unhelpful. I've posted dozens of statistics, articles and links on this forum, all of which I've lookoed up for myself. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a little help from time to time given that none of us have infinite resources, and that that is partly the point of this site (help and advice), or to ask that people give evidence to back up blanket assertions.

Thank you for the link, I'll have a look at the info.
NG.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a little help from time to time given that none of us have infinite resources, and that that is partly the point of this site (help and advice), or to ask that people give evidence to back up blanket assertions.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct I apologize. I supposed what bothers me is that you often state things you hear on the news as fact and then expect others to provide a referece when your "fact" is disputed. Seems assbackwards to me is all.

Jimbo

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
I supposed what bothers me is that you often state things you hear on the news as fact and then expect others to provide a referece when your "fact" is disputed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did also ask for a reference in my initial post, before anyone disputed what I said, which I think someone mitigates the fact that I presented something as fact without being able to back it up (ie I acknowledged that it was somnething I had heard and that I wasn't able to back it up - somewhat contradictory but still. I think I showed that I accepted it as fact more than presented it as such). Also I wasn't so much asking you for a reference as simply to explain something to me that you obviously knew more about; but I didn;t do it in a constructive way, and you are right that I shouldn't have stated it as fact in the first place, for which I am sorry.