Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. It knew then, full well, that inspections where part of the deal. Over a year ago, in February of 2006, Iran halted those inspections. I find it hard to believe that a country claiming "good intentions" with its nuclear program would deny UN (IAEA) inspections for a year.

Bringing up any other country in this situation is a non sequitor. We're talking about Iran and Iran alone. It willfully signed a treaty and it has willfully decided to break that treaty both by vocal affirmation and by prohibiting inspections.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. It knew then, full well, that inspections where part of the deal. Over a year ago, in February of 2006, Iran halted those inspections. I find it hard to believe that a country claiming "good intentions" with its nuclear program would deny UN (IAEA) inspections for a year. Bringing up any other country in this situation is a non sequitor. We're talking about Iran and Iran alone. It willfully signed a treaty and it has willfully decided to break that treaty both by vocal affirmation and by prohibiting inspections.

Damn right!

Similar to how the US signed the Geneva Conventions and would never even think of using torture for personal means.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Damn right! Similar to how the US signed the Geneva Conventions and would never even think of using torture for personal means.

Gotcha...the old "two wrongs make a right" argument. So as long as one country breaks a treaty you have no problem with another doing so? Giving examples of where one country may have broken their word does absolutely nothing to justify another country in doing so.

This is a world problem, not just a US problem. If Iran does make nukes and finds the reason to use them, I can almost guarantee it would be another Middle Eastern or European country that would be hit first. Again though, I fail to see how one country's transgressions gives another country the go-ahead to build nuclear weapons.

This thread is exactly why I party as hard and as long as I can each and every chance I get. The Chinese are sitting back, just laughing. The 2008 Olympic games have a very familiar feel to them. Anyone remeber Hitler and the '36 Olympic games? The similarities are pretty obvious, and scary. If my estimates are correct, we'll be knee deep in Chinese soldiers by 2012.

___________________
I'm gonna eat your brains, and gain your knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by misterpink This thread is exactly why I party as hard and as long as I can each and every chance I get. The Chinese are sitting back, just laughing. The 2008 Olympic games have a very familiar feel to them. Anyone remeber Hitler and the '36 Olympic games? The similarities are pretty obvious, and scary. If my estimates are correct, we'll be knee deep in Chinese soldiers by 2012.

Nah, I still think they are at least a good 15-20 years away from being capable to doing what you are suggesting. Maybe the 2028 games will be in China.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.

GODDAMN DISASTER

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Gotcha...the old "two wrongs make a right" argument. So as long as one country breaks a treaty you have no problem with another doing so? Giving examples of where one country may have broken their word does absolutely nothing to justify another country in doing so. This is a world problem, not just a US problem. If Iran does make nukes and finds the reason to use them, I can almost guarantee it would be another Middle Eastern or European country that would be hit first. Again though, I fail to see how one country's transgressions gives another country the go-ahead to build nuclear weapons.

While I agree with you completely that two wrongs do not make a right, I think you have to agree with hardcore's inherent point that it's very difficult for the U.S. to claim any moral highground on abiding international laws when we have certain ethical lapses such as breaking Geneva (and throw in extraordinary rendition as well). Our leading by example philosophy has seemingly gone right out the window. We are, albeit a very light version, slowly becoming the very thing we are fighting, and it's difficult for us to point any fingers at anyone else having certain ethical lapses in international treaties when we refuse to address the guilty irony.

Again, that's not to say sanctions against Iran shouldn't be enforced, nor is it saying we shouldn't be frowning upon Iran and continuing to push diplomatic plans on nuke inspections, but I feel we've certainly come a long way during this Administration, and most around the world (except our wonderful buddy in Australia) would agree it's not in the right direction.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 (except our wonderful buddy in Australia).

So KICK Cheney also

From the Conservative-friendly Daily Telegraph:

quote:

Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal. To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon. A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...24/wiran124.xml

Take that article for whatever you think it's worth. Again, this may be mere contingency plans, but it's still slightly troubling regardless.

The tin foil hat I've got on right now is telling me that there's another rationale for our troop "surge" in Iraq, which has much to do with Iraq in the short run but very little to do with it in the long run. Must be on too tight, methinks.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

US refuses to ban cluster bombs The United States has rejected an international call to ban the use of cluster bombs, despite 46 other countries calling for a ban on the weapons. Groups such as the Red Cross and the United Nations are opposed to cluster munitions because of the high proportion of civilians killed by the weapons. But the US State Department says cluster bombs have a place in armed conflicts as long as countries follow proper rules of engagement. Forty-six nations at a conference in Norway have called for a treaty to ban such weapons by next year. But some of the world's major military powers did not attend, including the US, Russia and China.

Source


Getting LURK now to achieve her misssion in MEast beside Israel

quote:

Originally posted by M.Johan Source Getting LURK now to achieve her misssion in MEast beside Israel

Since when China became a major military power? Is that because they shot down a bunch of garbage flying on earth orbit?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. It knew then, full well, that inspections where part of the deal. Over a year ago, in February of 2006, Iran halted those inspections. I find it hard to believe that a country claiming "good intentions" with its nuclear program would deny UN (IAEA) inspections for a year. Bringing up any other country in this situation is a non sequitor. We're talking about Iran and Iran alone. It willfully signed a treaty and it has willfully decided to break that treaty both by vocal affirmation and by prohibiting inspections.

First of all, Iran no where near having nuclear capability for military purposes. Secondly, it's in their national interest to aquire nukes since the sole super power in the world has made it clear that you'd better have a deterant otherwise we'll invade you. Thirdly, I really don't see any reason why any country shouldn't have nukes while the countries which are part of the nuclear club won't disarm their. It the same fucking reason, a deterrant. And they could use one right now.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Bringing up any other country in this situation is a non sequitor. I find it hard to believe that a country claiming "good intentions" with its nuclear program would deny UN (IAEA) inspections for a year. It willfully signed a treaty and it has willfully decided to break that treaty both by vocal affirmation and by prohibiting inspections.

• That's complete BS.
  
• I already gave the example of Iraq, no WMDs.
  
• How exactly has it broken that treaty? And if so, how does that justify and invasion or military strike? And if that's to be a standard response to violation of a contract, and assuming you think that standard applies to everyone, well then, we're long overdue for being carpet bombed the fuck out of. Two wrongs don't make a right, yes. But considering how many treaties we pay no heed to and violate, you can't really use that as an argument against Iran with out being quite hypocritical.
  

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller