quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer yes violence should be the last resort but with this administration voilence seems to be the first options for all the conflicts.

well you wont have them much longer so chill.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo damn you're good.

I'm just starting to take an interest in international law and conventions and how they are applied. But the fundamental difference between a treaty and a law is that a treaty requires parties to willfully abrogate sovereignty in favor of an international norm. Only four states refused to do so in the case of the NPT - Israel, India, Pakistan, and N. Korea. That's why it is tricky bringing any legal argument to bear against those states, and why diplomacy with N. Korea has been so vital.

That said, the NPT does allow for development of nuclear technology for civilian purposes, which has made monitoring developments in Iran rather tricky.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer yes violence should be the last resort but with this administration voilence seems to be the first options for all the conflicts.

really? what about North Korea? what about the Iranians? what about Venezuela? what about Kenya, Sudan ect. ect. ect.


deeper thinking, hardcore trancer. i know you're capable of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov a treaty requires parties to willfully abrogate sovereignty in favor of an international norm.

up to a point in our case then we have the Constitution, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo up to a point in our case then we have the Constitution, right?

If we sign a treaty we are bound by the terms of it under international law no matter what our own internal laws may be - that is why it is important for politicians not to enter into international agreements if they are not compatible with domestic law.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov If we sign a treaty we are bound by the terms of it under international law no matter what our own internal laws may be - that is why it is important for politicians not to enter into international agreements if they are not compatible with domestic law.

i didn't know that. thanx.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You are the one saying that it would be ok for them to do so, I'm saying that it would go against our best interests. EOM

Are you going to quote me on that, or slap on an argument I never made?

quote:

wow man you are on a shallow tear tonight aren't ya? here, get educated >link< if it held up in a "UN court" would it matter to you then?

In a courtcase, you need to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty. That case remains to be made.

quote:

In this case, they aren't operating outside of international law at all. In order to be held by the terms of the treaty, they have to have signed it first. Treaties have to be entered into willingly - that is a state sovereignty issue, yes? The US can't simply force Israel into signing it. That said, this was a source of a huge diplomatic struggle between Israel and the US. I suggest going here to read some of the documents testifying to that fact: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel...ttle/index.html

I'm alarmed that Israel is not brought to any accountability at all simply because they are a western democracy..

quote:

up until this point you did.

What, and give Israel a monopoly on nuclear weapons? Don't you see that the very fact that Israel has nukes basically guarentees that other MIddle Eastern countries just might want nukes of their own!?

quote:

agreed. they should also stop sponsoring terror and calling for the destruction of Israel.

Oh, and let's forget about the Palestinian occupation. . .

quote:

there's your problem. in the haste to cry "double standard" and invoking needless fear you've ignored decades of nuclear good faith and stewardship on the part of the Israelis in favor of a myopic, head-in-the-sand view of nuclear proliferation by an internationaly recognized State sponsor of terror.

Invoking fear? Stewardship of the Israelis? Are you crazy? It's Bush who is invoking World War III prophecies! And this "internationally recognized state sponsor of terror" line is completely subjective. What list are you using for this "international recognized" bit? You also assume that Hezbollah is viewed by the entire world as terrorists, when in fact many nations, including several European nation consider them a resistance group.

quote:

be honest though. you really don't know what you expect from Iran do you? your too busy worrying about double standards and wordplay or some other esoteric bullshit to be bothered with what Iran does, right? well listen, there are literally thousands of people all over the world. smart people. good people that don't give a damn what Bushitler says or does in the next 8 months that are determined to prevent Iran from proliferation. so forgive the rest of us who aren't going to buy into your shallow, prophetic, double standard fear mongering and let the international community worry about the important stuff.

Important stuff? Like maintaining Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East right?

What I expect from Iran is for them to continue to respond to US-Israeli saber rattling with saber rattling of its own. Do you honestly think that you can force the Iranians to bow down to your own agenda? Proliferation should be discouraged, but when you have a double standard of Israel's own nuclear program, how are you EVER going to expect the Iranians to just bow to pressure. You fail to realize the unfairness incentive of resistance. That unfairness breeds hostility and rebellion against the status quo.

quote:

it's only hypocricy if you believe Iran is not a threat to anyone or you want "Israel wiped off the map". smart people though, can make a distinction.

First of all, the president of Iran did not say, "Israel should be wiped off the map." This was a mistranslation. He said, "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad). Cole, Juan (May 03, 2006). "

Secondly, "smart" people is subjective also.

P.S. Lively debate today. . .

Does anyone have any comments on the documentary?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Are you going to quote me on that, or slap on an argument I never made?

From your first post on page 1;

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton ...My prejudice is against the Zionist hypocrits who says no other country except us are allowed to have WMDs.

That sounds like someone who wants to see Iran have nuclear capabilities to me, simply because Israel has it.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco From your first post on page 1; That sounds like someone who wants to see Iran have nuclear capabilities to me, simply because Israel has it.

Well, I would not say I want Iran to have nuclear weapons capabilities. I do believe they entitled to civilian nuclear power.

But here is where things get ugly. Israel today is the only country in the Middle East with nukes. Such a status is surely going to encourage other nations in the region to feel they must acquire their own nuclear arsenals. Think about it. If your enemy has nukes, wouldn't you be scard into thinking, "We need our own nukes?" I'm not justifying Iran's alleged program. But what I am saying is, as long as their is this perception of unfairness, essentially of hypocrisy, then no, you won't have Iran lying flat. As long as we saber rattle, they will answer in kind. Like American patriotism, they've got a strong Persian pride. They won't be forced to do anything they don't agree to.

Did you know that the previous Iranian administration offered to agree to a peace treaty with the US which meant cessation of all Iranian aspirations for nuclear weapons as long as the US promised never to attack them? Guess what happened? Bush called them part of the "Axis of Evil". Guess what happened to the proposal? Got ripped to shreds. . .

All I can say is my ultimate point is, I think our policy is completely wrong right now and we need to change it. Thank god for term limits..