Well, I see some fairly obvious flaws there, but the UN is not the enforcer…it, in fact, doesn’t have an enforcement arm and relies on member states to act as the muscle. Did you have anything else or is that the entire documentation you are hanging your agreement with BordelDeMerde’s statement on?
-XT
[QUOTE=newcomer]
Sure.
[/QUOTE]
Well, glad we cleared that up then old boy.
-XT
No it’s not. Why is it so hard to give a simple “yes” or “no”
So if next week Israel launches a cruise missile and destroys the Iranian embassy in Bucharest; and the week after that Mossad agents in New York assassinate the Iranian ambassador to the UN, you will not see it as an Israeli attack against Iran?
Ok, so all Israel has to do is fund a paramilitary organization and use that to bomb Iran’s nuclear program. And Israel is not attacking Iran in any way. What shall we call this organization? How about the “IDF”?
I guess that means you have no answer. Because the reality is that Iran’s leadership might very well think that it can get away with a nuclear attack against Israel.
No you didn’t.
Show me where you did.
Anyway, please explain to me why you see no difference between someone who is a Zionist and someone who isn’t and someone who supports the Balfour Declaration and someone who doesn’t.
From the UN Charter:
I’m not an expert on international law, but I am not aware of any international law which would be violated by such a strike. If Israel deliberately targeted non-combatants, that would be a different story.
What law would be violated?
This is the most moronic post I have ever seen. It is really a monumentally stupid post. When it went to Post School it took the short bus. After Post School it wound up living under a bridge.
In addition to being stupid, this post is weird and obsessive. I suspect this post also has bad hygiene and chronic halitosis.
ETA: …with all due respect.
While this is an improvement over direct insults, I’d prefer you stick to commenting on the ideas in question and not your feelings about another poster.
Absolutely.
By “justified,” do you mean morally justified or legally justified? I’m not an expert but I’m pretty sure that Iran would be legally justified under such circumstances in launching a military strike against Israel, i.e. launching an attack against legitimate Israeli military targets. Launching a missile into a residential area in Haifa would not be legally justified.
[QUOTE=Spoke]
From the UN Charter:
[/QUOTE]
Generally, this article is used as the counter.
Here’s the thing. It’s the same exact debate that raged over the US’s ‘illegal’ actions during the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There is simply nothing specific enough in the charter to make Israeli actions against Iran rise to the level of ‘illegal’…even if that word had any meaning wrt sovereign states and international relations. Ironically, one of the precedences used for preemptive strikes is the Israeli attack against Egypt who was poised to invade them. The Israelis preempted the Egypt’s attack, and no one threw them in jail. Same with the Israeli strike against Iraq’s nuclear facility (same with Syria’s facility). There is nothing in the Charter that makes it ‘illegal’ or ‘criminal’ for Israel to attack a nuclear weapons development facility in Iran if they feel a clear threat from such a program…especially if the UN is unable or unwilling to act (which would be the case, since the UNSC would be divided on any sanctioned military action in the same way they are divided right now wrt Syria).
-XT
The key phrase there being “if an armed attack occurs.” The provision is meant to be a stop-gap in the event of armed attack, emphatically not a justification for preemptive strikes.
Do you not recall Colin Powell’s “yellow cake moment” at the UN?
[QUOTE=Spoke]
The key phrase there being “if an armed attack occurs.” The provision is meant to be a stop-gap in the event of armed attack, emphatically not a justification for preemptive strikes.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but you might THINK that’s what it means, but in practice this has been used in the past to justify preemptive strikes. And there are precedence, the cornerstone of the law, showing that, again, in practice, this is how it actually works.
Even if you don’t buy into that, there is simply no such thing as ‘international law’…pretty clear, really, when Iran is breaking their treaty as we speak and developing nuclear weapons and nothing is happening to them at the UN level. All of the sanctions being imposed are being imposed at the individual states level. Same goes for Syria. There are specific things in the charter that sort of discourage wiping out large numbers of your citizens, yet there is no UN resolution making it ‘illegal’ or ‘criminal’ for Assad and his merry men to continue to do so.
The bottom line is if Israel feels sufficiently threatened they WILL act. The US has held them in check for over a decade now, and we continue to do so, but eventually, as Iran gets close to producing a weapon, Israel is going to do what they think is best for their own security, if no one else will act first (my guess is the US and Europe WILL act, if Iran actually gets within shouting distance of producing a real weapon).
Why yes, I do. And your point would be?
-XT
Readers might also notice that they are 100% factual and logical refutations which you are mischaracterizing in order to avoid answering their logical and factual counters. One might note that insults are forbidden in this forum, so your claim that they are “ridden” with insults is strangely wrong. Readers will also note that an inability to answer them indicates that your argument has no logical support and, therefore, is not only wrong but indefensibly so. Of course, were you correct it would be trivially easy to prove you are. Like I do. Repeatedly. So effectively in fact that you can offer no response and silence becomes the only valid answer for a position which cannot be defended.
Readers will note, for example, your continued lack of any support for your “false flag” claims, including but not limited to your claim that your original cite supported such an assertion when it did not in fact even mention it.
Then Israel should have no fear of sanctions…even without a US veto. Right?
As you pointed out, Israel is not a party to that treaty, and therefore not a beneficiary of it. So how, therefore, does Israel get to be self-appointed enforcer of that treaty?
[QUOTE=Spoke]
Then Israel should have no fear of sanctions…even without a US veto. Right?
[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how you come to that conclusion. Again, there are sanctions being made against Iran but without any UN stamp of approval. Individual nations would be free to impose sanctions on Israel if they so choose. If Israel were to act right now, today, the US might even impose sanctions against Israel, or in other ways make our displeasure known to them. That would be one of the risks Israel would take in acting. They may choose to act anyway (much as Iran is choosing to continue down this path they are on, despite increasing international pressure for them to stop doing this dippy shit and straighten up and fly right), if they feel sufficiently threatened.
Which treaty? The NNPT? Israel wouldn’t be striking at Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities based on an attempt to enforce the NNPT…they would be doing so out of a calculation of threat to them based on Iran completing a nuclear weapon. I have no idea where you are going here.
-XT
Iran has repeatedly used both Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israel via force of arms.
What measures has “the Security Council […] taken […] to maintain international peace and security?” Have Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s weaponry supplies been interdicted? Have they been disarmed? Have their members been arrested and jailed? Then no measures have been taken to maintain international peace and security and Israel is entitled to self defense against Iran.
Article 51 is quite clear in that respect.
YOU just invoked the treaty, and Iran’s purported violation of it, as justification for an Israeli strike.
Has Israel taken its case to the Security Council? Have they presented evidence of Iran’s involvement? Have they asked for a vote? Have they asked for UN Security Council enforcement?
[QUOTE=Spoke]
YOU just invoked the treaty, and Iran’s purported violation of it, as justification for an Israeli strike.
[/QUOTE]
No, I used it as an example of Iran doing the same sort of ‘illegal’ and ‘criminal’ activity (actually, it’s not the same at all). That wouldn’t be Israel’s justification for launching an attack…their justification would be a preemptive strike due to a perceived threat to their security.
-XT
OK, I misunderstood what you were saying.
As for Iran’s purported illegal activity, Iran is currently under sanctions. So your argument that they are not being penalized is wrong.
And if Israel engages in unlawful strikes, they should be prepared to accept sanctions as the penalty (and the US should withhold its veto).