1. Israel opposes ban of Cluster bombs and will continue to use them because they're "useful on the battlefield."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7423714.stm

2. Olmert refuses to step down from his position after being asked to by Barack. There's plenty of evidence supporting the corruption of Olmert.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E5A85472-5DC9-40B1-8083-7EC76800462A.htm

3. Ex. US President Jimmy Carter sez: Israel has 150 atomic bombs.
Israel engulfs in absolute silence regarding their nuclear arsenal. It doesn't deny or approve of whether it holds any. Unpleasant things happen to those who speak up (look Mordechai Vanunu). While this is the case, Israel is constantly having talks about Iran's nuclear program. Basically, it's only okey for them to keep theirs a secret.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AE85272F-D328-4529-BA16-9E038F9B8075.htm

Why ?

Snooky,

I suggest you take Point 1) out of this thread.

After all, you missed the whole sentence - allow me to help:

Countries like the US, India, Pakistan and Israel claim such munitions are highly useful on the battlefield

Care to change the title of the thread to include these countries?

No, I don't. If you want to talk about those countries as a whole opposing Cluster Bombs, then start another thread for it and knock yourself out.

As much as you seem to eagerly want it, I did not miss that line. My first point about present Israel is a subset from a whole other issue including other countries. Fair enough, I believe.

Now why don't we focus on topic rather than trying hard to flaw threads ?

I did not have to try hard

By only mentioning Israel in your quote accompanying point 1), you have deliberately set-out to mislead people into believing that only Israel will continue to use them because they're "useful on the battlefield."

I don't understand how *I* could mislead anyone since that info is mentioned in the link *I* provided.

Regarding the battlefield comment, that is in fact what Israel only said about the issue when asked about the issue.

Nonetheless, I'd really prefer to talk about why Israel will continue to use Cluster Bombs since it's an extremely potential harm for civilians rather than anything else.

PS. No nickname for me ? =D

Snooky,

Spot the difference:

A) Israel opposes ban of Cluster bombs and will continue to use them because they're "useful on the battlefield."

and

B) Countries like the US, India, Pakistan and Israel claim such munitions are highly useful on the battlefield

Are we clear?

Moving on, I suggest your thread should be divided into three threads:

1) What do you think of the fact that countries like the US, Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel and India refuse to sign the treaty banning cluster bombs?

2) What do you think about Barak’s suggestion that Olmert should resign? Do you think the fact that the police investigation has not finished yet is a good reason for Olmert not having to resign? Note: this thread is nothing to do with the country of Israel

3) What do you think about Jimmy Carter’s claim that Israel has 150 atomic weapons? And do you also agree with Jimmy Carter that the US government should talk directly to Iran in order to persuade it to drop its nuclear ambitions. It seems that Carter does not mind if Israel has weapons – but he does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Finally, if Vanunu was treated ‘unpleasantly, does this mean that Carter will have his head cut-off?

PS What nickname would you like my friend?

Dude...I don't know where we're going with this but if it really itches you, then I can change the first point to:

1. Israel is one of the few countries to oppose the ban of Cluster bombs and will continue to use them because they're "useful on the battlefield."

That's about the only change I can make to suit what we both want. Though I'd agree you did a better job than me with phrasing the questions I wanted to be answered in my 2nd and 3rd point.

Btw...can you answer those questions you just raised ?

PS I thought you always decide that.

How about Nookie.......?

I hope you're first and the last one to spot it from the original. I'm astonished you did. Must take a native to do it.

Nookie - Limp Bizkit

1) What do you think of the fact that countries like the US, Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel and India refuse to sign the treaty banning cluster bombs?

I think what will happen with landmines will happen………a number of countries did not sign that treaty, but they have not used them since

2) What do you think about Barak’s suggestion that Olmert should resign? Do you think the fact that the police investigation has not finished yet is a good reason for Olmert not having to resign? Note: this thread is nothing to do with the country of Israel

I don’t think he should resign if the investigation is still under way. In the same way that I didn’t think Clinton should resign whilst he was under investigation. Innocent until proven guilty and all that

3) What do you think about Jimmy Carter’s claim that Israel has 150 atomic weapons? And do you also agree with Jimmy Carter that the US government should talk directly to Iran in order to persuade it to drop its nuclear ambitions. It seems that Carter does not mind if Israel has weapons – but he does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons

Who knows what to think about Carter’s claim. There is no doubt that Israel has nuclear weapons – not sure the number really matters. I agree with Carter’s view about Iran

Israel has used Cluster Bombs in the last fight against Hezbollah ? While we're it it, it's fun to note that... http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/no-charges-over-israeli-cluster-bombs/2007/12/25/1198345010362.html

I agree with you on Olmert.

Do you justify Israel having nuclear weapons, keep it a secret and whine about others' ?

I don't know that the issue boils down to "fairness".

I think in the abstract, you would have to admit that there COULD be some country controlled by crazed lunatics that should not have a nuclear weapon.

Now, if you are really trembling with fear that Muscat might be attacked by Israeli nuclear weapons, then I see your point. But I don't seriously think anyone is trembling with fear over such a prospect.

If you really believe that Israel, which has withdrawn from south Lebanon and then withdrawn from Gaza, actually has a plan to conquer Syria and Jordan behind the shield of atom bombs, then I see your point. But I don't think that's realistic.

If you think that Iran is a nice country with a good government that is being unfairly targetted by nasty Americans, then I see your point.

But someone who thinks that Iran is a hyperaggressive power bent on conquest behind the shield of nuclear weapons and that it might even actually use them because it is partially contolled by milleniallists, then you might think it would be a DISASTER for the region and the world if Iran got such things.

Now I agree, that's not "fair". But your judgment on what to do about that is going to depend on overall political understanding, not the issue itself.

Actually "Israels" nuclear weapons ... NO secret. None at all. Everyone knows they have them and many know exactly how many and where they are kept. Ain't no friggen secret there :rolleyes:

But Irans nuclear weapons program is at this point a secret.

Don't get it ...

That's my point exactly: The issue boils to down to fairness. Even if it's alright in a hypothetical rainbow world to keep the lunatics from WMDs, who's do judge who in our world ? I don't see why some people should be in a such a better level than others (to judge others).

Something else...Israel has withdrawn from Gaza but they couldn't have possibly controlled more than when they were occupying it. This is somewhat an old article but it's valid for explaining the present http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FD6B601-A2DB-4216-BC9A-4BE0D81B1439.htm

And I don't give a shitstick about Muscat really....

Actually "Israels" nuclear weapons ... NO secret. None at all. Everyone knows they have them and many know exactly how many and where they are kept. Ain't no friggen secret there :rolleyes:

But Irans nuclear weapons program is at this point a secret.

Don't get it ...
That's right. What I meant was that Israel wants to keep it a secret.

About Iran's Nuclear program: Doesn't the world have a judge for that already ? Their watchdog has been sniffing around for years. I say innocent until proven guilty. However that won't be the case if it sniffs around in Israel. You obviously agree.

Well, the latest word from the watchdog is that the Iranians are giving strong reasons from their behavior to believe that they are increasing their attempt to produce a nuclear weapon. The IAEA just published a pointed paper fuel of fury and accusations against Iran.

And you figure it: the Iranians say they are producing sophisticated nuclear fuels as part of an energy program. But they aren't even building facilities to produce energy from such fuels, let alone having any such facilities already.

If you don't have any cars or trucks, what do you need gasoline for?

On the other hand, all the other components of a strategy for researching and building nuclear weapons are going full throttle in Iran.

No one believes the Israelis don't have nuclear weapons. And no one believes the Iranians are producing nuclear fuel as part of an energy program.

Both of these things defy belief.

Why not go back to fairness then ?

Well, because truth to be told fairness doesn't govern international relations.

Despite the UN and all, we live in a world of sovereign nations. And we live in a world governed by Powers.

We can try to build systems to constrain some of that. And we can encourage our leaders to act responsibly.

Who knows what to do about nuclear weapons? It's too bad they exist.

Can we legislate them out of existence? No one is strong enough to enforce it.

All we can do is try to limit it in two ways:

1. Discourage proliferation. That's obviously unfair isn't it? Why should China have one and Brazil not?

2. Try to make sure that really violent and untrustworthy countries don't get them, if necessary by going to war. But that's arrogant...someone has to decide who the "bad guys" are.

3. Try to build effective defensive measures. We're working hard on that.

Otherwise, fairness means laissez-faire. Anyone who wants one gets one.

Lunacy on the one hand.

Arrogance and unfairness and pushing your weight around on the other.

Those are the only choices I can see, neither one very appealing.

I choose Number Two.