Does Israel have close to 400 nuclear warheads? Former Pentagon official and whistle-blower, Daniel Ellsberg, made the announcement at a recent news conference before the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference at the UN in New York. "That’s more than Britain, China, India and Pakistan, and probably more than France”, he said.
Israel's arsenal should be abolished and pressure placed on them to do so by the world community. The American acceptance of Israel's nuclear warheads proves their inherent hypocrisy when discussing the reduction of weapons worldwide. Furthermore, the Bush administration has frequently announced its intention to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. How can countries like Iran or North Korea take America seriously when the US is flaunting the weapons themselves? Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said in 2003: "How can we possibly go to the international community or to these countries and say 'How dare you develop these weapons', when it's exactly what we're doing?"
Ellsberg disclosed the secret Pentagon documents in the early 1970s that proved the real agenda and situation behind the Vietnam War. "The Pentagon Papers" remains the quintessential insider's leak. His bravery can be summarised thus:
"On return to the RAND Corporation in 1967, he worked on the Top Secret McNamara study of U.S. Decision-making in Vietnam, 1945-68, which later came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. In 1969, he photocopied the 7,000 page study and gave it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; in 1971 he gave it to the New York Times, Washington Post and 17 other newspapers. His trial, on twelve felony counts posing a possible sentence of 115 years, was dismissed in 1973 on grounds of governmental misconduct against him, which led to the convictions of several White House aides and figured in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon."
The Iraq war will bring its own Pentagon Papers eventually, such was the duplicity and deception leading the US and its allies to war.
A landmark 1971 decision by the US Supreme Court allowed the New York Times and Washington Post to publish articles based on the Pentagon Papers, after government stalling, and it remains a fine example of the US Supreme Court realising, as the New York Times reported at the time, that "the courts lack the power to suppress any press publication no matter how grave a threat to security it might pose."
Justice Hugo L. Black explained the reasons behind the decision; his brave words still resonate today, in an age of government reliance on secrecy:
"Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press, is the duty to prevent any part of the Government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
Israel's arsenal should be abolished and pressure placed on them to do so by the world community. The American acceptance of Israel's nuclear warheads proves their inherent hypocrisy when discussing the reduction of weapons worldwide. Furthermore, the Bush administration has frequently announced its intention to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. How can countries like Iran or North Korea take America seriously when the US is flaunting the weapons themselves? Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said in 2003: "How can we possibly go to the international community or to these countries and say 'How dare you develop these weapons', when it's exactly what we're doing?"
Ellsberg disclosed the secret Pentagon documents in the early 1970s that proved the real agenda and situation behind the Vietnam War. "The Pentagon Papers" remains the quintessential insider's leak. His bravery can be summarised thus:
"On return to the RAND Corporation in 1967, he worked on the Top Secret McNamara study of U.S. Decision-making in Vietnam, 1945-68, which later came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. In 1969, he photocopied the 7,000 page study and gave it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; in 1971 he gave it to the New York Times, Washington Post and 17 other newspapers. His trial, on twelve felony counts posing a possible sentence of 115 years, was dismissed in 1973 on grounds of governmental misconduct against him, which led to the convictions of several White House aides and figured in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon."
The Iraq war will bring its own Pentagon Papers eventually, such was the duplicity and deception leading the US and its allies to war.
A landmark 1971 decision by the US Supreme Court allowed the New York Times and Washington Post to publish articles based on the Pentagon Papers, after government stalling, and it remains a fine example of the US Supreme Court realising, as the New York Times reported at the time, that "the courts lack the power to suppress any press publication no matter how grave a threat to security it might pose."
Justice Hugo L. Black explained the reasons behind the decision; his brave words still resonate today, in an age of government reliance on secrecy:
"Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press, is the duty to prevent any part of the Government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
11 Comments:
Great moral equivalence there...the US=Israel=North Korea=Iran. It's not the possession, but what you plan on doing with them.
Why are cops allowed to carry guns and ordinary people (mostly) not? By this logic, if the Commonwealth of Australia wants criminals to get rid of their guns, it is the height of hypocrisy that they still maintain an arsenal for state and federal police and other agencies.
It's really not that hard to follow.
For one country to suggest it has the right to develop nuclear weapons and other do not, the ones without will justifiably see this as hypocrisy. See, that wasn't too hard, was it?
As for Israel. The entire Middle East should be nuclear free. Simple as that. America's incompetent job at persuading Iran to not go nuclear will fail, not least because Israel has them, and Iran will say, 'why can they, and not us'?
Israel can no longer get away with being the exception in the Middle East. Isn't it enough of a pariah already? Perhaps it should start playing by the rules for once...
my view on nuclear weapons is simple;
Dont give them to suicide bombers.
Anyone else can have as many as they want, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction will make them useless.
Where to begin on that nonsense? Anyone else can have them? Wonderful logic. You'd be happy with a new arms race? Obviously yes, as long as it's countries you think are nice and friendly....
The logic is here is absolutely obvious.
If two non nuclear countries are on hostile terms the incentive for both is to get nuclear weapons in order to have an advantage over their opponent. THIS IS AN ARMS RACE. Because if one is able to develop nukes first it has gained a large advantage over its opponent.
If both countries have nuclear weapons there is no incentive to get more, because there is a limit to how much you can have before you blow this planet up, and plus making nukes is expensive. Furthermore there is no incentive to increase hostilities as both countries are capable of wiping each other of the map. Like i said before, mutually assured destruction, the only thing that saved us during the cold war.
With the 'suicide bomber' states, iran, syria, north korea, the stakes are different for obvious reasons. Mutually assured destruction doesnt work, because their prepared to destoy themselves either way. I know i am generalising, but the same mullahs that created this fundamental islam that causes tens of thousands of men and women to volunteer to become suicide bombers in iraq and israel are about to become in charge of their own nuclear weapons. Thats a scary proposition.
Tens of thousands volunteering to become suicide bombers? I must have missed so many. Sounds like you think suicide bombing is likely of most Muslims.
Enough said...
iranian government has set up a unit to recruit suicide bombers.
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/2424
400 iranians volunteer for suicide bombings. The Iranian government agency responsible claims that they have enrolled 35 thousand volunteers nationwide.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-4-2005_pg4_23
Your'e attempts at twisting my words doesn't work. I included north korea in my list of 'suicide bomber' states for a reason. We dont know the mental state of their dictator, he may wake up one day and decide to end it all with a nuclear missile barrage.
Ok, you seriously believe that 35,000 people have volunteered? Of course you do, they're Muslims, they're programmed for terrorism, aren't they?
It's bollocks. Saddam said similarly before the invasion. And yes, many suicide bombers are now in Iraq, some Iraqi and some foreign, but really,let's put all this in perspective.
North Korea. The leader is indeed nuts. The chances of him releasing nuclear missles is beyond comprehension. It guarantees his self-destruction, not likely for a man so keen on promoting himself.
You seem to believe, as for the racist Daniel Pipes, that all Muslims are suspect. Wonder how many you've actually met?
again with the "youre only saying this because you hate muslims" nonsense.
I honestly dont hate anyone, i have met many muslims and have nothing against them. I have no idea how to proove it over the internet.
And yes i have no idea how many actually volunteered for suicide bombings and I dont believe that 35 thousand people volunteered for it. However you have to ask, why would a Iranian government agency be putting these figures out there?
Sure their exagerating, just like saddam and most regimes in the region. But every-one of these regime's has one thing in common, they exagerate the details not the intent. It is a fact that the iranian regime is sponsoring these suicide bombers, their doing it on a religious justification, wether they have 10 or 10 thousand on the books ready to go is immaterial. However if you look at their tactics during the iran-iraq war, where die-hard volunteers charged through minefields so that the tanks behind them would be undamaged, you have to assume a higher number.
and daniel pipes isnt racist.
Racism is irrational. You hate because you know nothing of those you hate, hence you can hide what makes them and you the same.
Racists spout on about the superiority of their (usually white) race over others with a laughable psuedo-science as their justification.
Daniel Pipes spent decades as a student of islam. If you hate something you dont dedicate youre life studying it, or alternatively you come to an understanding that hate is irrational. Sure he is critical of some islamic practices and beliefs, but too many professors in the oriental studues faculties act(ed) as apologists, aka Edward Said.
Look at the riots in Afghanistan over the alleged desecration of the koran...and you don't see why it's a bad idea to let these guys have nukes? Sheesh, Lowy! That's crazy-talk!
Post a Comment
<< Home