NationStates Jolt Archive

Sun., April 03, 2005 Adar2 23
By Amir Oren(AlJAzeeraNEWS)

The State Department yesterday called on Israel to forswear nuclear weapons and accept international Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all nuclear activities.
This is the second time in about two weeks that officials in the Bush administration are putting the nuclear weapons of Israel, India and Pakistan on a par.

The officials called on the three to act like Ukraine and South Africa, which in the last decade renounced their nuclear weapons.

It'd be nice if it did happen, but then again, Israel would have limited options in defending itself. It should retain its present course of maintaining a stockpile, but not declaring it.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=79510



The statements were made by two mid-level State Department Officials, ahead of the NPT Review Conference, scheduled to open in New York on May 2.

The purpose of the conference is to evaluate implementation of the NPT and determine its future course. The officials’ comments regarding Israel’s weapons capability were made, apparently, in order to put the issue of Israel’s nukes on the conference’s agenda. The comments appeared to deviate from Bush Administration policy, which up to now, refrained from using terminology that confirms Israel’s status as a nuclear nation.

The most recent statement came from Jackie Wolcott Sanders, the president’s representative for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. In an essay titled “How to Strengthen the NPT” Sanders mentions Israel, along with India and Pakistan, within the context of enforcing “universal NPT adherence,” but adds that it’s not likely “in the foreseeable future.”

Two state department pukes does not the US make.

South Africa had nuclear weapons?

I dont think Israel would ever comply. And I dont think we would twist their arm either.

South Africa had nuclear weapons?
South Africa and Israel helped each other build nukes

do you realy think izzy is going to give up its nukes

South Africa and Israel helped each other build nukes

Yeah, I went ahead and looked it up. Surprised me.

Pakistan and India won't give up their nukes. Nor will Israel.

So it's a lost cause.

South Africa had nuclear weapons?

Yes they did but got rid of them because they realized they didn't need them. Kazakhstan did too and they got rid of theirs as well.

.. pukes...Jackie Wolcott Sanders, ambassador, Conference on Disarmament and special representative of the president for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,he made those statements on official bussiness for the US State Department.

do you realy think izzy is going to give up its nukes
Nope, I don't, nor do I think they should until the situation with the rest of the Middle East is such that they can safely give up their weapons.

Yes they did but got rid of them because they realized they didn't need them. Kazakhstan did too and they got rid of theirs as well.

All of the former Soviet republics ceded their nuclear weapons to Russia after the collapse of the USSR.

Yeah, I went ahead and looked it up. Surprised me.


Thats out of left field for me. I would never have seen South Africa and Isreal partnering for anything.
India and Pakistan having nukes always disturbed me.

All of the former Soviet republics ceded their nuclear weapons to Russia after the collapse of the USSR.


We hope. we hope.

Thats out of left field for me. I would never have seen South Africa and Isreal partnering for anything.
India and Pakistan having nukes always disturbed me.

India and Pakistan, no matter how much them having nukes is scary, will never give up their nukes. At least, not until they finally achieve peace with each other or one of them is destroyed :/.

Sun., April 03, 2005 Adar2 23
By Amir Oren(AlJAzeeraNEWS)

The State Department yesterday called on Israel to forswear nuclear weapons and accept international Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all nuclear activities.
This is the second time in about two weeks that officials in the Bush administration are putting the nuclear weapons of Israel, India and Pakistan on a par.

The officials called on the three to act like Ukraine and South Africa, which in the last decade renounced their nuclear weapons.
Actually, Israel very possibly has thermonuclear weapons.

We neither confirm nor deny we have nukes. ;p

All of the former Soviet republics ceded their nuclear weapons to Russia after the collapse of the USSR.
Ukraine has nukes.

India and Pakistan, no matter how much them having nukes is scary, will never give up their nukes. At least, not until they finally achieve peace with each other or one of them is destroyed :/.


I dont blame them for that sentiment, you cant fault them for self preservation through the threat of mutually ensured destruction. To feel otherwise would be hypocritical. Sadly-I dont think there will ever be peace between them.

I dont think Israel would ever comply. And I dont think we would twist their arm either.
I don't know what you are talking about. Israel has no nukes, got it? No nukes.


*looks around and then retreats*

Ukraine has nukes.

Well they are their own. They gave all the Soviet nuclear weapons that were in Ukrainian territory to Russia.

South Africa and Israel helped each other build nukes
Yea, France contributed too. France already had nukes, but Israel helped make them thermonuclear bombs. France and Israel were all friendly back then.

According to Vanunu, we also have Neutron Bombs and we killed JFK for snooping on Dimonah...could he be right? -.^

All of the former Soviet republics ceded their nuclear weapons to Russia after the collapse of the USSR.

Kazakhstan surrendered theirs to the IAEA!

Jackie Wolcott Sanders, ambassador, Conference on Disarmament and special representative of the president for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,he made those statements on official bussiness for the US State Department.
Your point? It still wasn't an official statement, and something like that if it isn't "official" than it's generally made either to make the US look good or because it is the opinion of the ambassador in question. If and when Israel gets notified of this officially and/or an official statement is made to the press it will become reliable. Until then it's really quite worthess as an indicator to the government's actual stance.

It still wasn't an official statement.it was official.

it was official.

And your proof of this is?

And your proof of this is?
I could prove it...but I dont feel like doing it.

I could prove it...but I dont feel like doing it.

Then I guess you don't have it. Thanks for playing.

Those mid-level pukes shot their mouths of because they're not "in the know" about Israel's nuclear blackmail of the United States, hence the invasion of Iraq and Iran (coming soon!). Certain Christian radicals in prominent positions may also perceive the rapture as "a comin'" and want the holy land nice and accessable. Or chalk this up to yet another demonstration of the inadequacies of realpolitik. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Then I guess you don't have it. Thanks for playing.you can "guess" whatever you want.

If you are too lazy to read the News and Figure that he is making an official statement...then I cant help you...Im not a Brain surgeon (translation: dont waste my time)

^ ad-hoc

you can "guess" whatever you want.

If you are too lazy to read the News and Figure that he is making an official statement...then I cant help you...Im not a Brain surgeon (translation: dont waste my time)

Prove that it is an official statement! The burden of proof is on you and not on me.

I think that Israel having nukes in the first place is a big mistake. The Palestinians are already outweaponed, and it has more than likely contributed to the suicide bombings . . . which, unfortunately is the Palestinian's only way of fighting back against the Israelis

Prove that it is an official statement! The burden of proof is on you and not on me.why is the burden on me?

For the record: I never claimed the Burden to be on you..or on anyone else.

We hope. we hope.


Yes, they didnt get rid of them in the best way possible either.


Some of the weapons are still unaccounted for and have most likely fallen into the hands of arms dealers that specialize in weapons that make your nation go "BOOM" when used on it.


Odds are the disarming of other countries caused the same stockpiles of illegal nuclear weapons to grow more.

why is the burden on me?

BTW This is an empirical question

You made the statement and I'm calling you on it. Now cough up the proof or retract your statment.

You made the statement and I'm calling you on it. Now cough up the proof or retract your statment.hahaha, you silly kid.

please carry on, you are amusing me.

hahaha, you silly kid.

ad hominem

If you are too lazy to read the News and Figure that he is making an official statement
That's just it, he wasn't making an official statement. A major change in US policy would rate a much bigger comment that what was probably a response tyo someone else's question give that he was going to a conference about the NPT. It would either be given directly to the press by the state department or a conference would be called by the white house itself. Also, given how major that shift in stance would be it would certainly ping off of US press sources but it hasn't. The only places mentioning it are international news sources that are either paranoid or grasping at straws for any shift in the situation. The Israelis and Palestinians respectively . This makes it even less likely to be an official statement.

hahaha, you silly kid.

ACtually I'm in college getting a degree in Poli Sci and history. I am not a kid. Nice Ad homin though.

Now stop dodging. Prove that its an official statement or retract the comment.

dp

Mmh... Argh! Headache!... Evil thoughts appearing in my head... can't help it... must type... Germany is having real big issues about what to do with their nuclear waste.

I propoze we juzt reprocezz zat shit and build nice littil nukes, ze bigga ztandard nukez, ze crazy nukez, the big ol' nukes and, of courz, ze famouz Über-nukez.

Lemme see, how did zat saying go?

If at first (or second for zat matta) you don't succed, try try again...

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

*throws in a bottle of aspirin*

Huh? What?! Anything happen? No? Good! :D

I'm all against nukes - those things are dangerous! I can't even do the dishes without cutting myself... So, no nukes for me :p

Mmh... Argh! Headache!... Evil thoughts appearing in my head... can't help it... must type... Germany is having real big issues about what to do with their nuclear waste.

I propoze we juzt reprocezz zat shit and build nice littil nukes, ze bigga ztandard nukez, ze crazy nukez, the big ol' nukes and, of courz, ze famouz Über-nukez.

Lemme see, how did zat saying go?

If at first (or second for zat matta) you don't succed, try try again...

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

*throws in a bottle of aspirin*

Huh? What?! Anything happen? No? Good! :D

I'm all against nukes - those things are dangerous! I can't even do the dishes without cutting myself... So, no nukes for me :p

Well you can have nukes, just make sure you keep the little button of doom out of reach lol

... that what was probably a response tyo someone else's question ....It could ve been... It would ve been...It probably was not...could ve been...anything. :rolleyes:
... it would certainly ping off of US press sources but it hasn't. The only places mentioning it are international news sources...How Pathetic..."It its not on the US press...then it must be a Lie" :gundge:

Ambassador Sanders is the Special Representative of the President for the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons.. at The Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040106-01.html

Doesn't make it official unfortunately. If it was, it would've been blasted all over the news not to mention would've made my breaking news alerts I get from CNN and Fox News. Since it hasn't occured....

...pukes shot their mouths...
Ambassador Sanders is the Special Representative of the President for the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons.. at The Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040106-01.html

Doesn't make it official unfortunately. If it was, it would've been blasted all over the news not to mention would've made my breaking news alerts I get from CNN and Fox News. Since it hasn't occured...."It its not on the US press...then it must be a Lie"

How Pathetic..."It its not on the US press...then it must be a Lie"

Its not on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. It isn't even on ABC either.

YOu've only posted it from *gasp* Al Jazeera!

BTW: Your link is a year old and you don't have a link to your story! You posted it but can we have the link to view the whole article please?

Sun., April 03, 2005 Adar2 23
By Amir Oren(AlJAzeeraNEWS)

The State Department yesterday called on Israel to forswear nuclear weapons and accept international Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all nuclear activities.
This is the second time in about two weeks that officials in the Bush administration are putting the nuclear weapons of Israel, India and Pakistan on a par.

The officials called on the three to act like Ukraine and South Africa, which in the last decade renounced their nuclear weapons.

If you are going to comment, do you really think it fair to twist the facts to suit your desires?

The Aljazeera article you reference clearly states that the comments were made outside of conference conditions, and are, in fact, State Department 'journal' entries' - which means they are not a 'statment':

"Sanders was quoted on Friday in the State Department's Electronic Journal, published ahead of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference due to be held next Month in New York".

It also says that Sanders (and his associate) have DEFINITELY not demanded any form of disarmament...:

"Sanders and Fitzpatrick refrained from explicitly calling on Israel, India and Pakistan to forswear nuclear weapons"...


Also - just for the record - the entire 'quote' paints a very different complexion:

""The Conference should also reinforce the goal of universal NPT adherence and reaffirm that India, Israel and Pakistan may join the NPT only as non-nuclear-weapon states. Just as South Africa and Ukraine did in the early 1990s, these states should forswear nuclear weapons and accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities to join the treaty. At the same time, we recognize that progress toward universal adherence is not likely in the foreseeable future".

It is quite clear that nobody is 'calling on Israel' to disarm... all that is being said (off record, officially) is that the aim of the NPT Conference should be to 'reaffirm' (note: reaffirmation, not affirmation) that the ENTRY REQUIREMENT for Israel (as for India and Pakistan) into the NPT, should be a non-weapon status.

How Pathetic..."It its not on the US press...then it must be a Lie" :gundge:
Again, something like this that easily qualifies as a MAJOR U.S. policy shift in the middle east would show up on at least 1 US news source if it was remotely valid. It hasn't, therefore it in all probability isn't official

Its not on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. It isn't even on ABC either.

YOu've only posted it from *gasp* Al Jazeera!
Oh...i have other non US sources.

no US sources so far...but I dont need them.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1305438,00050001.htm

BTW: Your link is a year old and you don't have a link to your story! You posted it but can we have the link to view the whole article please?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/560047.html

its dated April 03, 2005

If you are going to comment, do you really think it fair to twist the facts to suit your desires?
feel free to point out the part where I suposedly "twisted the facts".

If you can that is... :D

... clearly states that the comments were made outside of conference conditions, and are, in fact, State Department 'journal' entries' - ...
what "journal entries"??

my NEWS article never mentioned those.

You got that from a different source...now your turn to post the LINK.

what "journal entries" ????

So - you made the original post, without ever even researching what the material was referring to?



The 'Journal' in question, is the State Department Electronic Journal, the reference being found in the "March 5th: Foreign Policy Agenda" document.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0305/ijpe/sanders.htm

It clearly states in the introduction that Sanders is recommending actions that NPT parties COULD take:

"In order to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), we must deal with today's reality. NPT parties must maintain pressure on existing violators and strengthen efforts to deter future noncompliance, according to Ambassador Jackie Wolcott Sanders, U.S. Representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and the Special Representative of the President for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. She summarizes here six specific actions that NPT parties could take to reinforce the treaty's nonproliferation obligations.

And, worthy of note, the whole section referring to Israel reads as follows:"Universality

The Review Conference should reinforce the goal of universal NPT adherence and reaffirm that India, Israel and Pakistan may join the NPT only as non-nuclear-weapon states. Just as South Africa and Ukraine did in the early 1990s, these states would have to forswear nuclear weapons and accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities to join the treaty. At the same time, we recognize that progress toward universal adherence is not likely in the foreseeable future. The United States continues to support the goals of the Middle East resolution adopted at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, including the achievement of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction".

Obviously, this is not an 'Official Statement', since it was never 'declared' through offical channels - but it IS publically available OPINION of possible suggestions, as documented by the State Department Electronic Journal.

feel free to point out the part where I suposedly "twisted the facts".

If you can that is... :D

You claimed to find the information through Aljazeera - but, were ACTUALLY reporting an Aljazeera article second-hand, from an Israeli News site, were you not?

And, the problem with that is - you hadn't actually READ the article you were supposedly quoting - so, you don't actually know WHAT that source reported.

Or, am I wrong?

Further - you haven't even read the State Department document that is the inspiration of the piece, or have you?

dp

..you hadn't actually READ the article you were supposedly quoting

Or, am I wrong?
You are dead wrong. (I hope my answer is crystal clear)


Further - you haven't even read the State Department document that is the inspiration of the piece, or have you?
oh that is good...so you claim to know what was the Inspiration of the NEWS article????

So - you made the original post, without ever even researching what the material was referring to?



The 'Journal' in question, is the State Department Electronic Journal, the reference being found in the "March 5th: Foreign Policy Agenda" document.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0305/ijpe/sanders.htm.
What I posted is NEWS...as reported in NEWSpaper websites.

what you posted is an e-Juornal from US Gov. http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0305/ijpe/ijpe0305.htm

whatever the State Department choose to put in the E-Journal...does not make the Ambassador's Statement un-Official.

What I posted is NEWS.

what you posted is an e-Juornal from US Gov. http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0305/ijpe/ijpe0305.htm

whatever the State Department choose to put in the E-Journal...does not make the Statement un-Official.

You are wriggling around semantics.

What you posted was in a news article - but you were quoting THAT article, which was referring to an Aljazeera article, which was referring to a State Department document.

You presented one side of the matter, and that was actually only a second-hand-source, anyway.

I don't see how you think claiming it as 'news' absolves you of any responsibility for trying to ascertain whether or not it was true, before starting a potentially inflammatory debate on the matter.

I clearly stated that I was quoting the State Department Journal. What is your problem with that?

Is the State Department original source somehow LESS reliable than your second or third hand retelling?

Finally - it isn't a State Department Official Statement... the ONLY avenue through which it was presented by the State Department was the Journal - which is more of a record of opinions and hopes, than a catalogue of formal policy. Until an Official Statement IS made, there is no 'Official' statement, it is that simple.

e.g. For all the talk of war, the US didn't open hostilities OFFICIALLY, until Bush made the Official statement.

You are dead wrong. (I hope my answer is crystal clear)


oh that is good...so you claim to know what was the Inspiration of the NEWS article????

Curious:

First: If you HAVE read the actual Aljazeera piece, why did you cite "Haaretz", an Israeli News service (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/560047.html) as your source?

Second: The Aljazeera article clearly cites the State Department Electronic Journal as the source for Sanders comments, as shown in the Aljazeera article. It is cited... IN the Aljazeera article.

It really is that obvious... you don't need to look far to find the 'comment' that 'inspired' the article.

You are wriggling around semantics.No you are,

A US Gov Officcial makes a Public Statement in the exercise of his Official functions..it is AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT.

To make it even more clear the said official is an Pressident apointed Ambassador.

what part dont you understand?

Curious:

First: If you HAVE read the actual Aljazeera piece, why did you cite "Haaretz", an Israeli News service (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/560047.html) as your source?
.Because my original source was Haaretz.

No you are,

A US Gov Officcial makes a Public Statement in the exercise of his Official functions..it is AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT.

what part dont you understand?

I'm finding it hard to debate with you, considering you are now contending that Jackie Wolcott Sanders is a man.

There are 'avenues' through which an Official Statement is made, including (but not limited to - although an issue of this order WOULD rather demand it) Press Conference.

No Press Conference has been called, no Official Statement has been registered (try searching the State Department site).

The ONLY 'official' document mentioning the matter, is the Electronic Journal - which is not an 'official' avenue of release.

All of which is - ultimately - irrelevent, since the Journal doesn't actually 'demand' what Haaretz reports.

Your 'journalism' is flawed, your argument is debunked, and you are now fighting over semantics.

I would advise that you discontinue the attempt - you have nothing.

Because my original source was Haaretz.

And yet, your opening post claims that the information is sourced at Aljazeera.

Dishonest, or careless - I don't much care, either way.

and you are now fighting over semantics.no you are...and you are also pointing my typos regarding the Sex of the ambassador.

but I have stated a Clear definition for "Official Statement"

its when an Official (male or female) appointed by the President or by Congress...

1) while on the exercise of his functions,
2) he make a statement meant to be Public.

no It does not have to be the President in person...and no it does not have to be a press conference...It could be a at the UN, at the embassy, at Geneva, etc.

no you are...and you are also pointing my typos regarding the Sex of the ambassador.

but I have stated a Clear definition for "Official Statement"

its when an Official (male or female) appointed by the President or by Congress...

1) while on the exercise of his functions,
2) he make a statement meant to be Public.

no It does not have to be the President in person...and no it does not have to be a press conference...It could be a at the UN, at the embassy, at Geneva, etc.

I would advise you to read back over the thread, paying careful attention.

You made an assertion of a source - now, proved false.

You made an assertion of what that source 'said' - now, proved false.

You made an assertion about the 'nature' of the comment - now, proved false.

You have quibbled semantics, but it has gained you nothing.

You have attributed the wrong gender to the original instigator of the statement, and have tried to claim it as a typo... you ACCIDENTALLY type 'him' instead of 'her'?

You've had your fifteen minutes. Let it rest.