|
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
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. |
You're right the Cold War was awesome. Two superpowers on the verge of nuking each other for decades. Let's give every country nukes so we can live in a persistent Cold War state. How exactly do you know that Iran is nowhere near having nuclear capabilities? Did they let you in for an inspection? Are you privileged to Iranian internal documents or sources?
Secondly, world response is a deterrent for the nuclear club's use of nuclear weapons. If any of the current world powers used a nuke, for whatever reason, the following economic and political effects would be devastating...I don't care who it was who used it. Iran, and pre-war Iraq for that matter, have shown time and time again that they have no concern for world reaction. A perfect example is right now. For all practical purposes, the entire planet wants inspectors to verify that there is no chance of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Even in the face of sanctions and military intervention, Iran continues to disregard the requests of the entire world. In short, the problem with Iran having nuclear weapons is both their instability and lack of restraint.
You're also missing a key point; the US wants to invade Iran because it is believed to be in the process of producing nuclear weapons. If anything, Iran having nuclear weapons is an anti-deterrent.
| quote: |
- 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.
|
Non sequitur: 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
The US and their compliance with international guidelines has absolutely no consequence on Iran breaking the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Unless, and I'll say it again, you're arguing that two wrongs make a right and since one country breaks the rules, another country should be able to.
Iraq refused international inspections (a condition of surrender of the first gulf war) just as Iran is now refusing inspections (a condition set forth by both the Non-proliferation treaty as well as the UN). Are you now arguing that no country should be held accountable for UN inspections? Or are you saying that no country should be inspected or required to follow international law or treaty?
| quote: | | In 2005, Iran was held to be non-compliant with the NPT Safeguards agreement; which is Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute as it had not disclosed it's civilian uranium enrichment program. |
Right now a military invasion is hypothetical at best. People can cry wolf at contingency plans all they want, but right now the only facts we have are that Iran is currently working in the field of nuclear power/weapons and it refuses inspection, mandated by both the UN and the Non Proliferation Treaty. People love to look at the US and its faults as a scape-goat for Iran, but this is an international problem and an Iranian problem.
This entire issue would be irrelevant if Iran would simply agree to IAEA inspections as it agreed to when signing the NPT. However, since Iran has decided to go against the NPT as well as the UN, here is where we find ourselves. Iran is the culpable party here. It has the power to ease international pressure and relic this incident to history. However, it continues not to do so, and nothing cited about the US has any impact on making Iran's decision any more acceptable.
Last edited by NeoPhono on Feb-24-2007 at 22:32
|
Yea you like breaking treaties don't you? DON'T YOU?? Yea you want me to spank you hard with some bunker busters and then rub it nice with a furry reconstruction grant. You're so naughty. I love your style Iran.
Anyone act like this ,unforunatly i've no images 4Iran acts i think that there'sno irredeem f it's happened and nothing on the surface for any delicating....needing tact or easily offended
