[Winstonm]

Quote

GENEVA - An Iranian envoy said Monday his government will not submit to extensive nuclear inspections while Israel stays outside the global treaty to curb the spread of atomic weapons.

"The existing double standard shall not be tolerated anymore by non-nuclear-weapon states," Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told a meeting of the 190 countries that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Nuclear safeguards are far from universal, he said, adding that more than 30 countries are still without a comprehensive safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure full cooperation with that U.N. body.

"Israel, with huge nuclear weapons activities, has not concluded" such an agreement or submitted its facilities to the IAEA's safeguards, Soltanieh said.

It seems reasonable that everyone should have to play by the same rules, so on the surface Iran's claim makes sense - Iran and Israel should be subject to the same rules.

So if someone who is unreasonable makes a reasonable statement, is that statemtent reasonable or unreasonable?

[mike777]

I am still trying to figure out why no one seems to really care that Mrs. Clinton is going to kill 70 million Iranians if they nuke Israel without a treaty or without Congress saying that it is ok. No one even worries about the global fallout and how many that will kill. So much for the rule of law and the voters say no problem and she wins Penn and may win Tuesday.

But talk about double standards, why cannot Iran have Nukes and use them in self defense. The USA has done so. Russia, UK, France China, Pakistan and India say they will do so.

[kenberg]

And Hannibal Lecter should be allowed to sit at the dinner table with everyone else. Fair is fair.

[barmar]

Ideally, everyone should play by the same rules. But in the real world, we worry more about countries that we think are likely to act aggressively. We also worry more about our enemies than our allies.

Analogy: if you discover that your best friend has an unlicensed handgun, are you likely to turn him in to the police? But what if you discover that an ex-convict you're not friendly with has one?

Double standards are natural, since people and countries are not the all the same.

[Elianna]

Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel hasn't. So Iran is subject to conditions under it, as a signatory nation, and Israel isn't.

India and Pakistan also are nonsignatory nations. North Korea signed, and then withdrew.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel hasn't. So Iran is subject to conditions under it, as a signatory nation, and Israel isn't.

So, in essence this is saying that Israel is the "rogue" state, operating outside the confines of international treaties, while Iran is acting within the framework of international treaties.

Yet Iran is considered the threat. Hmmm. Curious.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Ideally, everyone should play by the same rules. But in the real world, we worry more about countries that we think are likely to act aggressively. We also worry more about our enemies than our allies.

That is certainly reasonably presented. I wonder what makes the U.S. believe Iran is more likely to act aggresively when their history refutes this idea?

Perhaps there is some degree of emellishment due to the conflicts between the two countries? Isn't it also natural to accept your friends' flaws while exaggerating those of your eniemy?

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on May 5 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

And Hannibal Lecter should be allowed to sit at the dinner table with everyone else. Fair is fair.

Only if he is having "an old friend for dinner."

The question, though, is of the portrayal - is it really Hannibal Lecter or only Anthony Hopkins portrayed as the evil Hannibal the Canibal?

[Winstonm]

How do you fix the title after it is posted? This title was meant to be:
Is Reason from Unreasonable Still Reason?

[blackshoe]

You'd have to get an admin to edit the title, I expect.

[Gerardo]

Editing the first post, but yes, I think you need an admin.

[P_Marlowe]

Winstonm, on May 5 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

Quote

Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel hasn't. So Iran is subject to conditions under it, as a signatory nation, and Israel isn't.

So, in essence this is saying that Israel is the "rogue" state, operating outside the confines of international treaties, while Iran is acting within the framework of international treaties.

Yet Iran is considered the threat. Hmmm. Curious.

#1 Iran commited itself to follow a certain policy,
so it violates the commitments it made

#2 The US policy toward Israel is problematic, and
this policy is one of the major reasons, why the
conlict in the Middle East is in the state as it is
now.
This has to do with strong lobbying of Jewish
organisations in the US itself.
The US believes, that it is viewed as a fair arbitary,
but knowing yourself is not an strength American
posses.
Selfreflection leads quite often to hestitation.

#3 Pakistan is a lot more problematic than Iran,
but Pakistan is an ally, ... similar as Israel.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 5 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

Quote

Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel hasn't. So Iran is subject to conditions under it, as a signatory nation, and Israel isn't.

So, in essence this is saying that Israel is the "rogue" state, operating outside the confines of international treaties, while Iran is acting within the framework of international treaties.

Yet Iran is considered the threat. Hmmm. Curious.

winston, rate how you consider israel's "threat potential" to the usa on a scale from 1 to 10, if you would... how likely are they to attack us? i'd say 0

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 6 2008, 05:10 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 5 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

Quote

Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel hasn't. So Iran is subject to conditions under it, as a signatory nation, and Israel isn't.

So, in essence this is saying that Israel is the "rogue" state, operating outside the confines of international treaties, while Iran is acting within the framework of international treaties.

Yet Iran is considered the threat. Hmmm. Curious.

winston, rate how you consider israel's "threat potential" to the usa on a scale from 1 to 10, if you would... how likely are they to attack us? i'd say 0

Yes, Jimmy, I'd agree that the probability of an attack is 0, but it is not so clear that the probability of bringing harm is as low.

The American Conservative reports:

Quote

Israeli sources are reporting that the FBI investigation of the Ben-Ami Kadish spy case resulted from a leak coming from inside the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.  The information on Kadish and on a number of other Americans who have spied for Israel was provided to the FBI anonymously, leading to the Bureau’s opening of a full investigation.

Is spying by an ally harmless?

[DrTodd13]

If guilt by association really mattered then you'd think that Hitler's socialism would have been repudiated by the western world. Instead, they have embraced it. I have to run now as Godwin is chasing me down.

[cherdano]

barmar, on May 5 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

Ideally, everyone should play by the same rules. But in the real world, we worry more about countries that we think are likely to act aggressively.

Indeed. That's why so many in the world are waiting to see what is going to happen in the US elections.

SCNR.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 6 2008, 07:53 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 6 2008, 05:10 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 5 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

Quote

Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel hasn't. So Iran is subject to conditions under it, as a signatory nation, and Israel isn't.

So, in essence this is saying that Israel is the "rogue" state, operating outside the confines of international treaties, while Iran is acting within the framework of international treaties.

Yet Iran is considered the threat. Hmmm. Curious.

winston, rate how you consider israel's "threat potential" to the usa on a scale from 1 to 10, if you would... how likely are they to attack us? i'd say 0

Yes, Jimmy, I'd agree that the probability of an attack is 0, but it is not so clear that the probability of bringing harm is as low.

The American Conservative reports:

Quote

Israeli sources are reporting that the FBI investigation of the Ben-Ami Kadish spy case resulted from a leak coming from inside the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.  The information on Kadish and on a number of other Americans who have spied for Israel was provided to the FBI anonymously, leading to the Bureau’s opening of a full investigation.

Is spying by an ally harmless?

no, spying isn't harmless but i thought we were speaking of nuclear weapons and their potential use

[mike777]

1) Keep in mind we spy on all our allies and always have and they always spy on us, lets not be naive or run a country in some naive way.
2) Keep in mind at no time in history of mankind have we all played by the same rules or close to it. Lets not be naive or run a country in some naive way.

If you are talking only about the USA we have run the country on double, triple or no standards very often. We have made, broken or ignored treaties at will. We have stolen/taken lands early and often. As all countries do.

I think a much more important question is not is the USA or any country going to do some kind of "double standard" but in what manner should we and our leaders respond or anticipate.

Just to use a simple example, many forum posters say one should never use force or threaten to use force ever. Others say only when the bad guys are literally in your home backyard, others say use it often if it is to stop a genocide.


As for me I am not sure how spying or using force is not always going to end being some type of double or unfair/unjust standard in this world given the nature of man.

The voters get the government they deserve, If Hillary bombs Iran without Congress can voters be shocked, If McCain wants to bomb Iran with or without Congress are the voters somehow shocked? If Obama invades Pakastin, how can the voters be shocked, all of them said they would do it if they thought it was the right time to do it.

It is sort of like the Democrats winning in the fall and then raising taxes, imposing more regulations on the free markets, imposing more Federal government oversight and burdens on the free markets, more pro Abortions laws or judges and the Republicans acting shocked. This is what they promised and what the people voted for.

[Winstonm]

Quote

As for me I am not sure how spying or using force is not always going to end being some type of double or unfair/unjust standard in this world given the nature of man.

This is probably true, but it is not justification for not attempting to be less unfair or less unjust.

[Winstonm]

Quote

no, spying isn't harmless but i thought we were speaking of nuclear weapons and their potential use

And I thought the discussion should be centered on the U.S. treatment of other nations - nuclear weapons just happens to be the focus at this time.

I'm am not claiming that Iran is harmless or that Israel is a threat, but it is interesting to alter your viewpoint to that of a Palestinian or an Iranian, in which case their claims about "double standards" are understandable and not unreasonable.

I am of the belief that we paint Iran with too evil of brush, while at the same time turning a blind eye to Israel's misdeeds - and it is that gap that is the root cause of Arab anti-Americanism.