When all is said and done, what the recently-approved Iran nuclear agreement is all about is ensuring that Iran honors its commitment under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) not to develop nuclear weapons.
After the Iran Nuclear Agreement: Will the Nuclear Powers also Play by the Rules?
Iran has shown no indication that it is even thinking about developing a nuclear bomb, and you're asking if they're going to uphold their end of the bargain?? When the big ELEPHANT in the room, Israhell, HAS upwards of (best estimates are around 400) already EXISTING nuclear warheads and refuses to sign the NPT?? Can you explain to me the logic in that question?
Israhell is expecting a nice little defense package to the tune of $5 billion, vs the normal $3 billion, as "compensation" for this deal with Iran, who I might point out again, has NO BOMB. Israhell needs to be held to the same strict standards as Iran. They need to sign the NPT and allow for inspections, or all the AID, all $5 billion of it, every single year ($3 billion previously, $5 billion going forward) is in fact ILLEGAL. But no one talks about this ELEPHANT in the room.
I personally would rather my tax dollars go towards finding a cure for cancer, than towards strengthening the worlds third strongest military, defending themselves against firecrackers. But, that's just me.
Which is also why I will not vote for any candidate that is an Israhell firster, stands with Israhell, supports Israhell, believes Israhell is the only democracy in the Middle East....and on and on. Enough already.
...and ALL politicians running for office as a Democrat will vote for this "aid" to Israel.
It's doubtful that you actually read the article since Mr. Wittner IS pointing out the discrepancies:
"Some of the nuclear powers, in fact, have been quite brazen in rejecting it. Israel, India, and Pakistan have long defied the NPT—first by refusing to sign it and, later, by going ahead and building their own nuclear weapons. North Korea, once a signatory to the treaty, has withdrawn from it."
And while your intent is to merely blame Israel, these statistics should put the dangers into a more genuine perspective:
"On the other hand, 45 years after the NPT went into effect, nine nations continue to cling to about 16,000 nuclear weapons, thousands of which remain on hair-trigger alert. These nations not only include the United States and Russia (which together possess more than 90 percent of them), but Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. If their quarrels—of which there are many—ever get out of hand, there is nothing to prevent these nations from using their nuclear weapons to lay waste to the world on a scale unprecedented in human history."
The reflex to ONLY bash Israel shows a particular prejudice.
And you'll GET Trump or Bush. That makes lots of sense, doesn't it?
Doubtful? It was really easy to click on the link, open the article, and then read the said article in its entirety from top to bottom.
This is a public forum, and all readers are allowed their opinions, whether you agree or not.
I don't make judgement calls about you or your opinions. When I agree, I heart, when I don't I move on by.
I won't get Trump or Bush. The people that vote for Trump or Bush will get Trump or Bush. I am not voting for the "lesser of two evils." If politicians want to be Israhell firsters, my vote is lost. That's my line. It's not up to me to define anyone else's line.
And lastly, any country in line to receive upwards of $5 billion in military aid this year alone, $3 billion every single year prior, is going to be a country I will point out by name, instead of turning a blind eye like everyone else...
That hardly qualifies as a "particular prejudice" bend. It qualifies as WTF??!!
"Israel, India, and Pakistan have long defied the NPT—first by refusing to sign it and, later, by going ahead and building their own nuclear weapons."
Unlike India and Pakistan, Israel had already built nuclear weapons by the time the NPT was opened to signing on July 1, 1968.