Netanyahu Slams Ban Ki-Moon's 'Occupation' Remarks

Dec 12, 2014 19:44:37 GMT pjohns1873 said:

No, I do not believe that the Iranian leadership is either "crazy or stupid"; but I certainly do believe that it is in the grip of an apocalyptic fervor.  And if one fervently believes that the Eschaton (predestined by Allah) is near--and that it is truly glorious!--then it makes perfect sense to try to hasten that day. 

I find it interesting that you equate killing in war with "murder"; and that you believe that soldiers should merely attempt to wound the enemy.  (It is probably a very good thing that you were not a general in WWII, instead of Eisenhower, Patton, or Bradley.) 

To claim that Israel should allow its very existence to be threatened if it is unwilling to join the NPT sounds to me like attempted blackmail. 

Oh, here is a link to a brief story from the AP as concerning Iran's incipient nuclear program: www.foxnews.com/world/2014/12/09/un-diplomats-say-report-cites-increased-iranian-purchases-for-reactor-that/

I took this opportunity to review statements made by the "Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei" that is the supreme leader of Iran and I didn't find a single statement indicating the "apocalyptic fervor" you claim exists. Is this something you or Fox News made up? It sounds like another right-wing conspiracy theory to me that is devoid of any foundation in fact.

It was actually the US Army that taught me wounding an enemy soldier was preferrable to killing them. As noted it requires several people to care for a wounded soldier and that manpower requirement reduces the overall combat capability of the enemy forces. I don't believe that Eisenhower, Patton, or Bradley would have disagreed with the proposition that wounding the enemy is preferrable to killing them.

What I would claim is that the members of the NPT have an obligation under the treaty conditions to make every attempt to stop nuclear proliferation by any nation regardless of whether they are a member of the NPT or not. These members should be taking pragmatic steps related to all rogue nuclear weapon nations including N Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel that would "encourage" them to dismantle their nuclear weapons. These measures should be based upon one political consideration alone. If they have nuclear weapons they must dismantle them. The same economic sanctions that the UN Security Council is imposing on N Korea should also be applied to India, Pakistan, and Israel if they also refuse to dismantle their nuclear weapons.

Did you actually read the Fox News report? It doesn't claim that there is any actual evidence that Iran is attempting to produce a nuclear weapon. What is states is: "The Iranian purchases suggest Tehran isn't heeding U.S. demands to redesign Arak to produce tiny amounts of plutonium."

Did you read the word "suggest" in the statement? To suggest something is not to claim it is actually happening.

Am I concerned with the possibility that Iran might produce a nuclear weapon? Absolutely but as long as we're not doing anything about the nuclear weapons in India, Pakistan, and Israel I don't know what authority we really have to deny any other nation the sovereign right to produce a nuclear weapon as a deterent against a potential nuclear attack. As I noted Israel is an enemy of Iran and Israel has demonstrated that it will attack other nations whenever it damn well pleases in violation of it's UN member treaty obligations. It's only one minor step from Israel using conventional bombs, like it did against Iraq, to using nuclear bombs against Iran.

Iran has a Right of Self-Defense against a potential nuclear attack by Israel.

Dec 15, 2014 18:59:10 GMT pjohns1873 said:

In pure theory, it might be preferable to wound enemy soldiers, for the reason you stated--if they are truly maimed, and not just superficialy wounded.  Too many "wounded" soldiers, if they are not maimed, may return to the battlefield soon enough; and that is certainly not a good thing. 

Your argument as concerning Iran's nuclear program reminds me somewhat of a lawyer's mutually-exclusive arguments:  (1) "My client never borrowed his neighbor's lawnmower" and (2) "My client returned that lawnmower several weeks ago."  That seems quite similar to the arguments that (1) there is no compelling evidence that Iran is attempting to produce a nuclear weapon; and (2) it has every right to produce a nuclear weapon, to defend itself against Israel. 

Again, I celebrate the fact that Israel destroyed Iraq's Osarik nuclear reactor in 1981.  You, on the other hand, appear to see it as a very bad omen.   

How would you "encourage" North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons through mere "sanctions"?  The Hermit Kingdom is already cut off from the rest of the world (except, to some extent, from China).  And India is certainly capable of self-sustenance.  Chiefly, you would just be punishing Israel (and perhaps Pakistan).   

Wounding of the enemy is not just a theory but instead is a fact based upon the most basic of combat weapons, the bullet. A jacketed bullet is designed to wound whenever possible as opposed to kill. An unjacketed bullet, and especially a hollow-point bullet, that are prohibited under the Laws and Customs of War are far more deadly than a jacketed bullet. An unjacketed bullet can cause death by shock and trauma alone where the wound itself may not be fatal.

Any wound that incapacitates the enemy soldier is effective because by the time they can return to battle the battle is long over. Yes, during long conflicts they might return to fight in a future battle but in those cases there is a constant flow of wounded that the enemy must use precious resources in both manpower and logistics to deal with. During WW II General Patton's 3rd Army advanced 60 miles in two weeks and some estimates claim that 1/3rd of the German resources in his line of march were dedicated to dealing with wounded German soldiers. That was a huge tactical advantage for Patton. The only reason Patton stopped was because fuel supplies he required were sent to General Montgomery that was going "nowhere fast" with his army.   

The Osarik was never built so we don't know much about it really. Iraq did have a nuclear weapon program as we've learned but we don't have any evidence that Iran actually has a nuclear weapon program. Iraq was not subjected to IAEA inspections but Iran is. A huge difference between the two.

The UNSC could have dealth with Iraq without Israeli military interventionism but because the US was protecting Iraq during the 1980's as an "ally agianst Iran" (because the Iranians had disposed of the tyrannical regime of the Shah) I'm not sure it would have.

If we remove the "threat of nuclear attack" then no nation can justify the production of nuclear weapons. Israel represents the only threat of nuclear attack in the Middle East presently (excluding the US that also has nukes and is militarily involved in the Middle East).

It is in both the interests of India and Pakistan to dismantle their nuclear weapons. The only reason either of them have nuclear weapons is because the other nation has nuclear weapons.

A for a proposal that might induce N Korea to dismantle it's nukes I would suggest that a willingness of the US to withdraw it's 28,500 US military personnel from S Korea. Because the US is a nuclear weapon nation those troops represent a nuclear threat to N Korea. Of course we don't need US troops in S Korea because the ROK military is one of the best fighting forces in the world. I know because we had ROC forces in Vietnam when I servedd there and they were more feared by the N Vietnamese and Viet Cong than even the US military forces. In all of the statements I've read coming out of N Korea related to it's potential use of nuclear weapons they all related to self-defense in the event of a US lead invasion of N Korea. Let's be willing to remove that threat to N Korea if they will openly destroy their nukes.

Would it work? I don't know but it is an option that directly addresses the expressed reason that N Korea uses to support it's need for nuclear weapons.

As I've noted there really isn't a reason for the US military to be in S Korea today anyway. The Korean War ended 60 years ago and S Korea doesn't require any US military assistance to defend itself and hasn't required it for decades. This would be similar to JFK's willingness to remove tactical nukes from Turkey to end the Cuban missile crisis. The nukes in Turkey were no longer needed and the US didn't lose anything by secretly agreeing to remove the nukes from Turkey.

Dec 17, 2014 21:42:40 GMT pjohns1873 said:

To imagine that Kim Jong-un (or any future North Korean head of state) would suddenly dismantle all of North Korea's nukes, if only the US were to remove its forces from the DMZ, is just slightly less believable than the stories by Lewis Carroll, found in Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass.

Your assertion that it is in the mutual "interests" of India and Pakistan to "dismantle their nuclear weapons" does not quite dovetail with your prior assertion that they should be sanctioned if they do not. Which is it: the carrot or the stick?

The only serious "threat" of a nuclear attack by Israel is this:  From what I have read on the subject, it is possible that Israel might attempt to destroy Iran's hardened (underground) nuclear facilities with bunker-buster bombs, followed by tactical nuclear weapons.  But there is absolutely no indication that Israel might nuke downtown Tehran.  Or Riyadh.  Or any place else. 

Flamethrowers--like unjacketed bullets--are officially banned from warfare.  Nuclear weapons, however, are not.  Neither are land mines.  So what?

Neither of us know what it would take to ultimately convince N Korea to dismantle it's nuclear weapons but there are two things we do know. First is that the world would be a safer place and secondly that there is absolutely no reason for the US maintaining a military force of over 28,000 US military personnel in S Korea as S Korea is very capable of defending itself from any N Korean invasion.

As for India and Pakistan it's actually the use of both the carrot and the stick. Of course to simply stop trading with a country isn't really a stick. There isn't a "right of trade" between nations and the effected nation's right of sovereignty is not violated. The US refusing to trade with India would be no different than me refusing to shop at Hobby Lobby.

CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

(Hague IV 1907)

Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

lawofwar.org/hague_iv.htm

The nuclear facilities in Iran are fundamentally undefended from attack and it would be a war crime if Israel were to attack them with any weapon. Additionally there is no evidence that these nuclear reactors are being used for any purpose other than for peaceful nuclear reasons such as producing fuel for electrical production and nuclear medicine. Iran is not enriching uranium above the 20% level required for medicine and nuclear fuel for electrical production and it requires 90% enrichment for weapon's grade uranium. All of Iran's uranium is being tracked by the IAEA and so we know all of this to be a fact.

Additionally the UN Charter expressly prohibits any attacks by a nation except in cases of self-defense where another nation attacks them under Article 51 and even in that situation the nation can only carryout defensive military operations pending a UNSC response. 

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

If Israel attacks Iran to destroy Iran's nuclear reactors it would be a WAR CRIME and a violation of Isreal's treaty obligations as a member of the United Nations.

Of note in 1967 Israel, because Egypt never attacked Israel, it also committed war crimes and violated it's treaty obligation in starting the 6-Day War. Israel is a rogue nation that refuses to honor it's treaty obligations or to follow the laws and customs of war in it's actions.

Dec 19, 2014 22:02:16 GMT pjohns1873 said:

You appear to fetishize century-old declarations from The Hague. I do not. Neither does Benjamin Netanyahu. And I seriously doubt that he would risk the very existence of the state of Israel just to be in exact compliance with this 1907 document, which (clearly) did not envision the situation as it exists today.

Again, you seem to be advancing mutually-exclusive arguments:  (1) that there is just no compelling evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons; and (2) that Iran has every right to have nuclear weapons, in order to protect itself against That Evil Israel. 

As Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said just this past summer:

Iran remains on the cusp of a breakout capability to build a nuclear weapon.  The final agreement must verifiably prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. Anything less would be dangerous and unacceptable.

Starting with the last point first. Iran has for years agreed to comply with any IAEA inspection criteria if Israel will join the NPT and also comply with exactly the same conditions. It is Israel's refusal to join the NPT and consent to IAEA inspections that is the real issue.

Israel can live in peace with every nation in the Middle East if it will do just one thing. It must abandon the Zionist goal of a complete take-over of all of Palestine by the Jewish people that has been it's goal since the end of WW I.   

Dec 22, 2014 19:11:26 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Please  show me where Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that he wants Israel to "take over" anything that is not already in Israel's possession.

And, as I have noted previously, Iran's point--with which you appear to agree--is that if Israel will just give up what it already has, Iran will quit pursuing nukes. 

Excluding Gaza all of the territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 6-Day War (all of Palestine plus the Golan Heights) remains under Israeli military control. Even Gaza, due to Israeli military blockade (an act of war), remains fundamentally under Israeli military control. The only territory Israel has any right to, based upon international laws and conventions, is the pre-1967 territorial lands of Israel. Not a single nation, to my knowledge, accepts the take-over of the Golan Heights, E Jerusalem, or any part of the West Bank by Israel and the occupation of these territories have been rightfully condemned universally by the world nations.  

We need only address the fundamental goal of Zionism to understand all of the events that have transpired since the end of WW I.

"Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, translit. Tziyonut) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel, also referred to as Palestine."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

The goal of Zionism has always been the complete take-over of all of Palestine which always required the eviction or subjugation of the existing population of Palestine and it's replacement by the European Jews. Initially, prior to 1948, the Zionists resorted to terrorism and murder and since 1948 the Israeli Zionists have resorted to military tyranny and murder to achieve this goal.

I'm reminded of a passage in our own Declaration of Independence:

".... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The non-Jewish people of Palestine have suffered this abuse of the European Jews that invaded their homeland with the express purpose of taking Palestine away from them. They have suffered "absolute Despotism" and have both the "right" and the "duty" to throw off the Israeli government and provide "new Guards for their future security."

I most certainly disagree with the methods of resorting to acts of terrorism against the civilial population of Israel by groups like Hamas but I cannot argue with the fact that their cause is just. The cause is outlined in our very own Declaration of Independence. The non-Jewish population of Palestine have a right to their "homeland" that the Zionist Jews have relentlessly been taking from them and the ultimate goal of Zionism is to evict and/or subjugate the non-Jewish residents to Israeli control.

People rationalize the Israeli revolution against the non-Jewish residents of Palestine, they rationalize the 6-Day War, but fail to see that these were simply steps necessary for the "purification of Palestine" to make it a Jewish State. For Israel to achieve the expressed goal of Zionism it must eradicate the non-Jewish population of Palestine and every event of history documents this systematic purge of the Arabs from Palestine with the ultimate goal of a complete Zionist victory when all of the Arabs are forced from their homeland. These actions by the Zioinists are little different from the Nazi purge of the Jews in the 1930's that lead to the Holocaust.

Why do so many fail to see the big picture when it is so evident based upon the last 90 years of history documenting the Zionist take-over of Palestine?

Dec 26, 2014 19:42:12 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I have previously requested that you cease using the reprehensible "Z" word.

I will not respond again to any thread in which that horrid word is again used! 

As long as the Zionist agenda exists how I am to avoid using the word? I agree completely with you it is a reprehensible word because of what it represents but how do we address a problem if we can't refer to it? Cancer is a horrible desease as well but we still use the word. Zionism is a horrible political ideology so what word can we use to address it?

Shall I refer to it as the "Z-word" instead? You're going to have to provide me with the means of referring to this poltical ideology historicaly based upon terrorism, tyranny, and murder.  

Dec 29, 2014 20:11:14 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Dec 28, 2014 14:14:39 GMT ShivaTD said:

As long as the Zionist agenda exists how I am to avoid using the word? I agree completely with you it is a reprehensible word because of what it represents but how do we address a problem if we can't refer to it? Cancer is a horrible desease as well but we still use the word. Zionism is a horrible political ideology so what word can we use to address it?

Shall I refer to it as the "Z-word" instead? You're going to have to provide me with the means of referring to this poltical ideology historicaly based upon terrorism, tyranny, and murder.  

It is most illuminating that you would compare "cancer" with Jewish orthodoxy.

There--that is your term:  Jewish orthodoxy. 

Zionism and the State of Israel are generally rejected and opposed by the Orthodox Jews.

www.truetorahjews.org/our_mission

While many Jews reject Zionism and Israel the Orthodox Jews are the largest and most identifiable group to my knowledge and oppose it far more than non-orthodox Jews. Many non-orthodox Jews accept Israel today but reject the expansion of Israel to the Palestinian territories (i.e. the Zionist agenda) and believe that Israel should comply with UN Security Council Resolution 242 to bring peace between the Palestine and Israel (which it would do).