Time to attack iran

[del]

"Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global spread of nuclear weapons.

As a result, it is not subject to inspections and the threat of sanctions by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency."

now why is this okay? take your time.

 

[rhodescholar]

now why is this okay? take your time.

Excellent question. The issue, sadly for you in this thread, is not whether it is fair or not for a nation to freely enter/not enter a treaty - it is whether iran, who has upon its own free will signed and is therefore, bound by said treaty, and needs to fulfill its obligations to it.

If you have a problem with the fact that israel, india, and pakistan, against their own free will, should be compelled to sign this treaty, by all means, start a new thread.

But since the NPT was never compulsory, it has no place here. Sorry...

BTW, N korea unilaterally exited the NPT, which is also an act of war. As I understand it, a nation can choose whether to sign the treaty or not; but once it is a signatory, it cannot just walk away from it.

 

[del]

now why is this okay? take your time.

Excellent question. The issue, sadly for you in this thread, is not whether it is fair or not for a nation to freely enter/not enter a treaty - it is whether iran, who has upon its own free will signed and is therefore, bound by said treaty, and needs to fulfill its obligations to it.

If you have a problem with the fact that israel, india, and pakistan, against their own free will, should be compelled to sign this treaty, by all means, start a new thread.

But since the NPT was never compulsory, it has no place here. Sorry...

well if it's not compulsory, then iran has no need to comply.

sucks to be you, huh?
sorry...

 

[rhodescholar]

Iran will have their hands tied if they get a nuclear weapon. It is a weapon that does nothing but ensure your total destruction if it's used.

It is really just the opposite. It is just the threat of it, having one as an umbrella under which their terrorist proxies can operate under, is sufficient to panic.

If iran were to allow hezbollah to conduct greater operations in europe, what would be europe's recourse? How would they or anyone else stop them, if iran were to declare a mutual defense pact openly with hezbollah, saying an attack against hez is an attack against iran?

This would give iran a huge amount of latitude to further de-stabilize nations and regions, and would inevitably lead to a major war. Now is the time that that can be prevented; in a few years we might have immense regrets for not taking action to doing so.

The bottom line is that, if I'm wrong, iran's facilities are smashed, and the terror proxies weakened. But if the pacifists are wrong, the world could be entering a Dark Age the ikes we have not seen for 800 years...

 

[rhodescholar]

well if it's not compulsory, then iran has no need to comply.

sucks to be you, huh?
sorry...

No, the choice of signing the treaty or not is optional - but once a nation signs it they ARE legally obligated to follow it to the letter. The legal enforcement mechanism is the UNSC.

 

[L.K.Eder]

LKE, good post above, it wasn't too hard for someone to find the answer to my question now, was it?

no it wasn't. i guess that no one posted this before has more to do with the fact that you display such obnoxious behavior. i could have posted that days or weeks (?) ago, but felt not inspired.

It is my opinion that Iran is on the way to develop a nuclear weapon.

Manufacturing a nuclear weapon is a direct violation of the NPT treaty, and could be considered an act of war. Since iran has already been sanctioned 3 times for NPT violations, iran could then potentially be referred as a violator of both article 6 and 7 of the UN charter, which would legally allow for a war to be initiated against them...

well, there is an easy solution, iran just has to retreat from the stupid treaty like north korea did. then they can join the pro-proliferation treaty together with israel, india, pakistan, north korea and nukehavistan

and why not, history has shown that you are on the safe side as soon as you forced your way into the nuclear club. no matter how. so of course, they want to be a member of this club. It is also my opinion that a nuclear Iran would not do anything with those weapons. They are NOT crazy. But they saw what happened to the neighbors.

Are you certain they would not use one - or absolutely sure they would not hand one over to one of their terror proxies?

Since they do not allow inspections, there is no way to track the uranium back to them - they could even drop one themselves on Paris from an iranian plane, and you couldn't prove it was them, since noone has catalogued their uranium...

i am quite certain, but of course not absolutely sure. i am also not absolutely sure that some rogue or moron from the US does not do something stupid or heinous with the nuclear devices.

 

[del]

well if it's not compulsory, then iran has no need to comply.

sucks to be you, huh?
sorry...

No, the choice of signing the treaty or not is optional - but once a nation signs it they ARE legally obligated to follow it to the letter. The legal enforcement mechanism is the UNSC.

how's that working out?

 

[rdean]

rhodescholar
But if the pacifists are wrong, the world could be entering a Dark Age the likes we have not seen for 800 years...

there is no way to track the uranium back to them - they could even drop one themselves on Paris from an Iranian plane, and you couldn't prove it was them, since noone has catalogued their uranium...


Ever hear the story of "Chicken Little"? "THE SKY IS FALLING!":

That's what you sound like. Do you seriously believe that Iran would be able to "secretly" fly a plane over Paris, or even outside its own borders? A plane big enough to carry a primitive nuclear device? And no one would know it? It's almost funny.

They have to have "inspectors" because we have inspectors?

How many times has Iran attacked its neighbors? They fought with Iraq, but who started it?

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

 

[Gurdari]

Not exactly as you described... he is saying they would have a stalemate because the result of such a attack by each party would damage one less than the other.

Funny how we do not hear israel threatening other nations 1,000 miles away...

Not sure what proximity has to do with it, but we hear Israel threatening Iran, so however many miles they are both apart it is still a credible threat, no?

Hahaha - so is the US a legit target for attack because of these activities? You must feel that they are, since Iran is.

Absolutely, it is an act of war, and Nicaragua is welcome to try, just as israel, after suffering decades of bombings and missile strikes from iran's poodles, is welcome to destroy iran.

Wow, I am surprised you feel the US is a legit target for attack. Most people here tend to gloss over responsibility when it comes to the good guys. So, while I don ot see Iran's actions toward Israel as nearly as aggressive as US actions towards Nicaragua (I mean really, is there even a comparison?) it does seem like you are saying might makes right ("Nicaragua is welcome to try"). So, if Nicaragua is too weak to fight back, tough shit. Well, Nicaragua actually took the high road and went in search of help from international law - which the US thumbed its nose at. (two standards remember)

So, in the interest of both internal and external peace - one should hesitate to promote strength as a means of settling disputes. Unless you believe (nationally, for example) that police forces should be disbanded as well, and roving gangs of the most powerful be left to settle grievances. To me that would be a step back - upholding the law - one law for all - seems to send us in a more wise direction.

Is this a joke? Please list for us the "good things" hamas has "done" for the people of Gaza?

Without researching it this minute - I would say education, medical clinics, water, etc. but I really would need to research to give a good answer - however, this would be a new thread: "What has Hamas done (good or bad) for the people of Gaza"
Feel free to start it.

If they were "dicks" that did not want to control the middle east, i might agree - but they have hegemonic aspirations, and are applying them as i write this in four other countries.

So, having aspirations is a crime now... though you would need to be specific as to what laws they are breaking and how that is deserving of an attack... but what of the US's apirations (clearly applied) in the Middle east? Look at who has soldiers everywhere and who is dropping the bombs... unless you are against US involvment in the ME, you must agree Iran has just as much right (actually more right - they live there) to aspirations regarding that area of the world. Imagine Iran had troops all around these borders here, and had a history of meddling with the government - would you then see them more as international colleagues? Or peers?

If the US fit the same criteria as Iran - would the US deserve the same treatment? And an attack? There should only be one anser - YES. Unless you're not applying your logic evenly...

As I said above, if the US illegally meddles in another nation's affairs, it is welcome to attack it.

I agree - however I suspect you would change your tune if the US had a tiny army and eveyrone else had the power to f*ck it up. But, I really do not know how you would feel in that situation - other than to assume you would be protesting like crazy every time someone wanted to attack another nation.

ahaha - so they just have to 'pull out' of the NPT? Or why not violate at will like the US of A?

#1 that is what N Korea did
#2- how is the US "violating" the NPT?

So, pulling out is fine - i.e. disregarding something is ok as long as you say 'I no longer wish to play by these rules'.

So, Iran should do that - then you and John Bolton can relax!
As for US violations - please do not take my word for it - fin dout for yourself, as you expressed earlier, the US could be inviting legitimate attacks.

Here are a few things I found that may relate:
Who is the Greatest Proliferator of Nuclear Weapons?
Ignoring the U.S.'s "Bad Atoms"

and:

Saturday, May 9, 2009
New York, United Nations headquarters, May 9, IRNA -- Iran on Friday called for instant and unconditional beginning of Non-Proliferation Treaty discussions.
Iranian delegation participating in the third meeting of the preliminary committee of the 2010 NPT Review Conference in a statement strongly criticized the failure of nuclear countries to fulfill their commitments envisaged by the NPT in past four decades.
The delegates also reviewed the international developments since the beginning of the third millennium and stressed that the repeated violation of NPT principles by certain nuclear states was a disappointing and backward trend which strongly damaged the spirit of the treaty.
The statement also cited such severe cases of NPT violations by certain world countries as development of new nuclear arms, threatening non-nuclear states by use of atomic arms, mass-production of tens of tons of plutonium and enriched uranium as well as the lack of transparency on the part of some nuclear countries over developing secret nuclear programs.
The Iranian delegation in the statement called on the meeting to focus on the concerns of world states about the expansion of nuclear programs of certain world states and urged it to adopt decisions to stop development and proliferation of new nuclear arms.


* Agian, read that with a "grain of salt", so to speak - we are in an argument here - and find out what the situation is on your own terms - Nuclear war is a threat to everything.

 

[L.K.Eder]

and because the US has the mighty military, no enemy would think of attacking with their puny military. they will use other methods; asymmetric warfare. like the american revolutionaries, and the french resistance, and al qaeda.

 

[rhodescholar]

no it wasn't. i guess that no one posted this before has more to do with the fact that you display such obnoxious behavior. i could have posted that days or weeks (?) ago, but felt not inspired.

If you haven't noticed, it is nearly impossible to get into a civilized discussion on this forum for more than 1 page, as there are many immature idiots who seek to derail any thread they dislike.

well, there is an easy solution, iran just has to retreat from the stupid treaty like north korea did.

That is the point, they cannot legally do so - it is illegal to withdraw from the treaty. A nation can decide whether they want to join or not, but once they do, they cannot legally exit it. This is stated in the treaty itself.

i am quite certain, but of course not absolutely sure. i am also not absolutely sure that some rogue or moron from the US does not do something stupid or heinous with the nuclear devices.

I would have to believe that the US-designed safeguards are superior to the ones in place elsewhere. They might be, as they are the model the IAEA uses to train other nations with respect to maintaining their nuclear materials, and weapons if they possess them.

 

[rhodescholar]

how's that working out?

Clearly not well, which is why a war on the peninsula is all the more likely.

 

[rhodescholar]

Ever hear the story of "Chicken Little"? "THE SKY IS FALLING!": That's what you sound like.

Why is that? Pakistan and india developed their nukes a full 10 years or so before the intelligence estimates timeline expected them to. Now we have a potential nuclear war on the horizon, especially since paki is such an unstable, terror-driven shithole...

You cannot tell me that after the mumbai attack you were not concerned india was about to light pakistan up? Then wait for another mumbai, or a coordinated series of them in multiple indian cities, and see how much your nerves hold out that india won't use a nuke after saying "enough is enough."

Do you seriously believe that Iran would be able to "secretly" fly a plane over Paris, or even outside its own borders? A plane big enough to carry a primitive nuclear device? And no one would know it? It's almost funny.

I was trying to be. My point is that without inspections, noone outside of iran can determine where the detonated bomb material came from.

If you saw "Sum of all fears," you might remember the scene were the protagonist traces the uranium back to its source. That cannot be performed if the material is not first catalogued, and that is done through inspections and sample acquisition.

They have to have "inspectors" because we have inspectors?

All signatories to the NPT are REQUIRED to allow unannounced inspections.

How many times has Iran attacked its neighbors? They fought with Iraq, but who started it?

How many times has israel attacked iran? Yet iran has attacked israel multiple times...

 

[L.K.Eder]

no it wasn't. i guess that no one posted this before has more to do with the fact that you display such obnoxious behavior. i could have posted that days or weeks (?) ago, but felt not inspired.

If you haven't noticed, it is nearly impossible to get into a civilized discussion on this forum for more than 1 page, as there are many immature idiots who seek to derail any thread they dislike.

well, there is an easy solution, iran just has to retreat from the stupid treaty like north korea did.

That is the point, they cannot legally do so - it is illegal to withdraw from the treaty. A nation can decide whether they want to join or not, but once they do, they cannot legally exit it. This is stated in the treaty itself.

i am quite certain, but of course not absolutely sure. i am also not absolutely sure that some rogue or moron from the US does not do something stupid or heinous with the nuclear devices.

I would have to believe that the US-designed safeguards are superior to the ones in place elsewhere. They might be, as they are the model the IAEA uses to train other nations with respect to maintaining their nuclear materials, and weapons if they possess them.

as far as i know the Shah's Iran signed the treaty after some blackmailing. you don't get this stuff from us if you don't sign the treaty.
i am not surprised that the mullahs don't feel like they have to honor that pact.

and north korea showed how to withdraw from that treaty. now they have nukes, and i doubt anything will be done about it.

 

[rhodescholar]

Not sure what proximity has to do with it, but we hear Israel threatening Iran, so however many miles they are both apart it is still a credible threat, no?

Was that before or after iran threatened israel?

Was that before or after iran sent in hamas and hezbollah suicide bombers and rocket attacks?

Would you consider it an act of war if israel were to place non-uniformed proxy armies and mercs on iran's borders to fire mortars and rockets into iran, as well as send in suicide bombers into teheranian cafes?

Wow, I am surprised you feel the US is a legit target for attack.

Consistency is important.

So, while I don ot see Iran's actions toward Israel as nearly as aggressive as US actions towards Nicaragua (I mean really, is there even a comparison?)

I think you must be kidding - iran murdered via suicide bombins and rocket attacks thousands of israeli civilians. The US provided money and weapons...

So, if Nicaragua is too weak to fight back, tough shit. Well, Nicaragua actually took the high road and went in search of help from international law - which the US thumbed its nose at. (two standards remember)

Then a tiny nation should not fuck with a larger/more powerful one - like iran should not be attacking israel with proxies, and expecting to be able to claim they are not responsible.

So, in the interest of both internal and external peace - one should hesitate to promote strength as a means of settling disputes. Unless you believe (nationally, for example) that police forces should be disbanded as well, and roving gangs of the most powerful be left to settle grievances. To me that would be a step back - upholding the law - one law for all - seems to send us in a more wise direction.

How would you propose to crush hamas and hezbollah, along with rogue nations like iran and their use of non-uniformed terror groups?

So, having aspirations is a crime now...

Aspirations and influence throught trade, education, medical assistance, etc is fine - not through military might and the use of terrorism/proxy armies.

but what of the US's apirations (clearly applied) in the Middle east? Look at who has soldiers everywhere and who is dropping the bombs... unless you are against US involvment in the ME, you must agree Iran has just as much right (actually more right - they live there) to aspirations regarding that area of the world.

The US removed a dictator, and is leaving the country - do you think the iraqis were better off under saddam?

Imagine Iran had troops all around these borders here, and had a history of meddling with the government - would you then see them more as international colleagues? Or peers?

If their intentions were democratic and peaceful, as opposed to totalitarian...

So, pulling out is fine - i.e. disregarding something is ok as long as you say 'I no longer wish to play by these rules'.

As i said, it is illegal to withdraw from the treaty.

 

[rhodescholar]

and north korea showed how to withdraw from that treaty. now they have nukes, and i doubt anything will be done about it.

Is that something you advocate/wish for? Why would any sane person want iran, who has just shown its true colors murdering thousands of its own people - to have nuclear weapons?

It has seemingly gotten to the point where to be reflexively anti-american, the Left will cheer for the world's worst rogue nations, no matter the larger issues or cost to those suffering under the regime's rule or reach.

Would you be as accepting of the US walking away from all of its own treaty obligations - including all of the arms control ones with russia, the UN, etc.? Or are only anti-american rogue nations allowed to do that with impunity?

 

[del]

how's that working out?

Clearly not well, which is why a war on the peninsula is all the more likely.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I would personally advocate that the United States walk away from any "obligation" that threatens our sovereignty. NATO, the UN, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, World Bank, IMF, etc...

 

[L.K.Eder]

and north korea showed how to withdraw from that treaty. now they have nukes, and i doubt anything will be done about it.

Is that something you advocate/wish for? Why would any sane person want iran, who has just shown its true colors murdering thousands of its own people - to have nuclear weapons?

It has seemingly gotten to the point where to be reflexively anti-american, the Left will cheer for the world's worst rogue nations, no matter the larger issues or cost to those suffering under the regime's rule or reach.

Would you be as accepting of the US walking away from all of its own treaty obligations - including all of the arms control ones with russia, the UN, etc.? Or are only anti-american rogue nations allowed to do that with impunity?

see, we almost had a decent conversation. then you go on a stupid rant again. you are the one advocating and wishing for war.

link to the body count or retract your number.

 

[rhodescholar]

see, we almost had a decent conversation. then you go on a stupid rant again. you are the one advocating and wishing for war.

I wasn't necessarily pointing at you exclusively. My point was that many seemingly condone iran not having to act responsibly with respect to the NPT, or can use an d apply methods of violence - but these same people will scream to high heaven if/when the US does something similar. I do not think that this statement is in question.

link to the body count or retract your number.

The regime claims 20 have been killed, but there are widespread reports that there are thousands missing, with mass graves reported and bodies buried without the families being allowed to see them prior to burial.

See:

http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2009/06/list/