Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:08 AM
bananas (20,128 posts)
Netanyahu to set "clear red line" for Iran in U.N. speech
Source: Reuters
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will set out, in his speech at the United Nations on Thursday, an ultimatum for Iran to halt its disputed nuclear drive or risk coming under military attack, an Israeli official said. Netanyahu faces the world body after U.S. President Barack Obama disappointed some Israelis, in his own address to the annual assembly, by not calling for a deadline to be imposed on Tehran - though he did say time for diplomacy "is not unlimited". <snip> "The prime minister will set a clear red line in his speech that will not contradict Obama's remarks. Obama said Iran won't have nuclear weapons. The prime minister will clarify the way in which Iran won't have nuclear arms," a senior Israeli official said en route to New York, without elaborating. <snip> Speaking on Israel Radio, Ayalon said the Netanyahu government and Obama administration were in discreet contacts and approaching agreement on setting limits for Iran. Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/us-un-assembly-israel-iran-idUSBRE88Q0GI20120927 In 2003, MIT wrote in it's report "The Future of Nuclear Power": To preserve the nuclear option for the future requires overcoming the four
challenges described above—costs, safety, proliferation, and wastes. These challenges will escalate if a significant number of new nuclear generating plants are built in a growing number of countries. The effort to overcome these challenges, however, is justified only if nuclear power can potentially contribute significantly to reducing global warming, which entails major expansion of nuclear power. It's now clear that NONE of those four "challenges" have been overcome, and it's unlikely they ever will. It's also clear that there won't be a major expansion of nuclear power, primarily because of cost. There's no reason for preserving nuclear power as an option for the future.
|
40 replies, 4075 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| bananas | Sep 2012 | OP | |
| cpwm17 | Sep 2012 | #1 | |
| ronnie624 | Sep 2012 | #5 | |
| bananas | Sep 2012 | #8 | |
| sabrina 1 | Sep 2012 | #12 | |
| bemildred | Sep 2012 | #14 | |
| sabrina 1 | Sep 2012 | #18 | |
| Deuce | Sep 2012 | #28 | |
| movonne | Sep 2012 | #16 | |
| Scootaloo | Sep 2012 | #26 | |
| ronnie624 | Sep 2012 | #34 | |
| Ash_F | Sep 2012 | #36 | |
| cpwm17 | Sep 2012 | #35 | |
| bemildred | Sep 2012 | #2 | |
| Purveyor | Sep 2012 | #3 | |
| dipsydoodle | Sep 2012 | #4 | |
| L0oniX | Sep 2012 | #6 | |
| dipsydoodle | Sep 2012 | #25 | |
| JDPriestly | Sep 2012 | #7 | |
| Kolesar | Sep 2012 | #9 | |
| FiveGoodMen | Sep 2012 | #11 | |
| frylock | Sep 2012 | #13 | |
| dipsydoodle | Sep 2012 | #20 | |
| Kolesar | Sep 2012 | #22 | |
| dipsydoodle | Sep 2012 | #24 | |
| Kolesar | Sep 2012 | #27 | |
| Kolesar | Sep 2012 | #21 | |
| FiveGoodMen | Sep 2012 | #29 | |
| JohnnyBoots | Sep 2012 | #10 | |
| Nye Bevan | Sep 2012 | #15 | |
| dipsydoodle | Sep 2012 | #19 | |
| tama | Sep 2012 | #30 | |
| dipsydoodle | Sep 2012 | #31 | |
| cpwm17 | Sep 2012 | #40 | |
| adigal | Sep 2012 | #17 | |
| OnlinePoker | Sep 2012 | #23 | |
| adigal | Sep 2012 | #37 | |
| oberliner | Sep 2012 | #32 | |
| Megahurtz | Sep 2012 | #33 | |
| RainDog | Sep 2012 | #38 | |
| Behind the Aegis | Sep 2012 | #39 |
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:19 AM
cpwm17 (1,252 posts)
1. So the leader of a nuclear weapons possessing, aggressive war-mongering Apartheid state
|
Last edited Sat Sep 29, 2012, 03:41 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2) that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is going to go to the UN to call for an unproved war against an NPT compliant state – brilliant! The war mongers are going to be excited.
|
Response to cpwm17 (Reply #1)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:04 PM
bananas (20,128 posts)
8. Iran is not in compliance with the NPT.
|
That's why there are UN sanctions against it - to urge it to come into compliance.
The UN sanctions aren't working. |
Response to bananas (Reply #8)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:50 PM
sabrina 1 (34,028 posts)
12. Is Israel in compliance with UN regulations? Last I heard Israel apparently ignores
|
all the rules they demand other countries abide by.
Sorry, Netanyahu is a liar and a bully and Americans very much resent his interfering in the business of the US and especially with his outrageous attempts to involve our military, our troops in war HE will completely responsible for, not Iran, Netanyahu, if such a disaster happens. He needs to learn his place, he is not an elected US official. He is NOT president of the US. We have a president who has made his position clear and which apparently Netanyahu is refusing to respect. NO War with Iran and if this administration allows itself to be bullied into such a disaster by a nobody as far as the American people are concerned, it will result in a final break-up of the Dem Party to which many people are still barely clinging as the only alternative to the rabid, Netanyahu supporters on the far right. |
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:28 PM
bemildred (67,478 posts)
14. Israel is not signatory to the NPT, and had a policy of "ambiguity" about its nukes.
|
Last edited Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) Last time I checked. Edit: they like having it both ways, as who does not?
Edit: so they (Israel) are not exactly breaking any rules, and neither is Iran; but Iran signed the NPT, and so is obligated not to make nuclear weapons, but is entitled to have nuclear energy as a consequence (according to the NPT.) |
Response to bemildred (Reply #14)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:45 PM
sabrina 1 (34,028 posts)
18. Thank you. I think it is way past time to get every country to sign the NPT.
|
The problem could be solved by disarming all Nuclear States, NOT by trying to stop one country from having nukes. That does nothing to ensure the safety of the world. Israel is not the only country in the world threatened by Nuclear war.
The issue should be disarming all of them. Either that, or all countries should have nukes, making it less likely that any of them will be willing to use them. |
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #18)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:54 PM
Deuce (62 posts)
28. I agree...and quite sure many others feel the same way.
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:38 PM
movonne (9,467 posts)
16. My thoughts exactly..
Response to bananas (Reply #8)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:38 PM
Scootaloo (5,834 posts)
26. Neither will blowing up Iranians.
|
Frankly approaching Iran - or any nation - as a rabid dog in need of a good whipping isn't going to ever work. Period.
|
Response to bananas (Reply #8)
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:08 PM
ronnie624 (3,692 posts)
34. Iran’s Nuclear Program: Tehran’s Compliance with International Obligations
|
The IAEA board has neither formally found that any of the Iranian actions described above are in
noncompliance with Tehran’s safeguards agreement, nor referred these issues to the U.N. Security Council. The IAEA board adopted a resolution November 27, 2009, that described Iran’s failure to notify the agency of the Fordow facility as “inconsistent with” the subsidiary arrangements under Iran’s safeguards agreement, but this statement did not constitute a formal finding of noncompliance. A September 13, 2012, IAEA board resolution expressed “serious concern” that Tehran has not complied with the obligations described in IAEA Board of Governors and U.N. Security Council resolutions, but the September resolution did not contain a formal finding of noncompliance. [link:http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf| |
Response to ronnie624 (Reply #34)
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:04 PM
Ash_F (1,723 posts)
36. Thank you.
|
The sanctions against Iran are mostly military related as well as related to prevention of the weaponization of the nuclear program(no problems with that from me). They are not a declaration that the nuclear program is illegal as it is, or that the NPT is being violated. There would not have been enough signatories otherwise.
|
Response to bananas (Reply #8)
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:41 PM
cpwm17 (1,252 posts)
35. No, there are UN sanctions because the US dominates the UN Security Council
|
and the US is one of the two main belligerents in this case – it's the foxes guarding the hen house. The sanctions are a hate crime.
Here's what the results of this hate crime will look like if the bigots get their way: IRAQ ISN'T ANCIENT HISTORY The US dominated the UN Security Council against Iraq also. The White House supported the same extreme racist slim back then. The US systematically destroyed in a genocidal manner the Iraqi people from 1990 onward. Iran is next if the same people get their way. |
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:22 AM
bemildred (67,478 posts)
2. Time for Bibi to cover his butt, is it? nt
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:36 AM
Purveyor (13,177 posts)
3. Anyone know what time this pos is to bloviate? eom
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:58 AM
dipsydoodle (32,567 posts)
4. One here to save him the bother.
![]() |
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:43 PM
L0oniX (17,317 posts)
6. Evangelicals are looking forward to the end of the world ...thanks to Nuttyahoo.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #6)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:24 PM
dipsydoodle (32,567 posts)
25. Off topic
|
I'm so used to seeing those bug gismos that earlier when I had a real one same size on my computer screen I thought "fuck me - that's clever"
|
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:57 PM
JDPriestly (37,712 posts)
7. I agree. Especially in the wake of Fukushima and with the memory of Chernobyl in our hearts,
|
we should all agree to stop looking toward nuclear energy as a solution to our problems. It should not even be a part of the solution.
As the plants in the US age, we should shut them down, one by one, and not rebuild them. What to do with the nuclear waste? That we have no answer to that question is one of the reasons we need to shut them down and not build any more. |
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:25 PM
Kolesar (29,305 posts)
9. If Iran's leaders weren't supplying the bombs that go off in Israel
|
Then Netanyahu's party wouldn't express a fear of destruction by Iran by nuclear weapons, too.
|
Response to Kolesar (Reply #9)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:48 PM
FiveGoodMen (13,234 posts)
11. And if Iraq hadn't had WMDs just 45-minutes away from destroying the UK
|
we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq.
|
Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #11)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:51 PM
dipsydoodle (32,567 posts)
20. lol
|
down memory lane with the lies which were told here in the UK.
|
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #20)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:07 PM
Kolesar (29,305 posts)
22. Uh, he's in Minnesota, dude...eom
Response to Kolesar (Reply #22)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:16 PM
dipsydoodle (32,567 posts)
24. His / her location
|
is unassociated with what became worldwide tragic joke.
|
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #24)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:39 PM
Kolesar (29,305 posts)
27. You forgot the "I'm an off-topic clown" glyph to put on your post...eom
Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #11)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:06 PM
Kolesar (29,305 posts)
21. You forgot the "I'm an off-topic clown" glyph to put on your post...eom
Response to Kolesar (Reply #21)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:19 PM
FiveGoodMen (13,234 posts)
29. Same message twice in a row?
|
Running out of ideas, are we?
|
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:44 PM
JohnnyBoots (2,920 posts)
10. He's on now...NT
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:36 PM
Nye Bevan (10,768 posts)
15. Similar to JFK's attitude to the Cuban missiles in 1962.
|
The US announced that it would not permit offensive weapons to be delivered to Cuba and demanded that the Soviets dismantle the missile bases already under construction or completed in Cuba and remove all offensive weapons. The Kennedy administration held only a slim hope that the Kremlin would agree to their demands, and expected a military confrontation.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis |
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #15)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:48 PM
dipsydoodle (32,567 posts)
19. At which time the US had nuclear missiles in Turkey.
|
Cynicism at its worst.
|
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #19)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:28 PM
tama (9,137 posts)
30. And right after US
|
had tried to invade Cuba (Bay of Pigs).
|
Response to tama (Reply #30)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:39 PM
dipsydoodle (32,567 posts)
31. That was comedy at its best.
|
After that Cuba took some simple precautions. When I first went there I couldn't figure why there were so many bridges over roads which didn't go anywhere either side. It was later explained to me that they prevent movement of heavy military vehicles by road.
|
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #31)
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 03:35 PM
cpwm17 (1,252 posts)
40. Power currupts
|
Every last president in my lifetime, which started with Dwight Eisenhower, have committed crimes worse than any occupant of any prison in the US.
That's an interesting fact about Cuba. |
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:42 PM
adigal (4,703 posts)
17. If Israel attacks Iran, we need to sit on our hands
|
and if we go to war with them, I will declare 10 dependents on my taxes and refuse to pay one cent more in taxes at tax time.
|
Response to adigal (Reply #17)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:09 PM
OnlinePoker (1,223 posts)
23. You have social security numbers for all of those dependents?
|
It won't work otherwise.
|
Response to OnlinePoker (Reply #23)
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 01:14 AM
adigal (4,703 posts)
37. It works unil tax time
|
You can declare up to 10 dependent so you don't pay a lot during the year. And actually, my point is to force the issue publicly.
|
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:37 PM
oberliner (22,095 posts)
32. That cartoon bomb was kind of ridiculous
|
Much well-deserved ridicule coming his way for that choice, I would imagine.
|
Response to bananas (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:48 PM
Megahurtz (6,913 posts)
33. NetanYahoo Needs a Diaper Change,
|
it's getting pretty stinky
|
Response to bananas (Original post)
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 02:29 AM
RainDog (24,212 posts)
38. doesn't this saber-rattling between Iran and Israel happen every U.S. election season?
|
for at least the last four prez elections?
|
Response to RainDog (Reply #38)
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 02:38 AM
Behind the Aegis (27,553 posts)
39. No, every US election gets in the way.
|
Seriously though, this has been going on for over ten years, at least. I have a documented list of articles, as well as DU threads, that stretch back to 2002. They seem to happen in March, June, August, Sept/October, and something usually pops up in December.
|


