Irrelevant to the question. There is no proof the US is going to bomb Iran either.
Since they signed the NNPT if they try to develop it we have the right to blow it up.
No, Airman’s right. The Senate has to ratify a treaty for it to be valid so it’s considered to have the force of law. It’s illegal for the United States to violate a treaty. So when we do it, we claim we’re just interpreting it in a new way.
[
QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]Bush pulled the US out of the ABM and ICC treaties. What's the difference?
Plus, we have a valid pretext for an invasion of Iran- at least one the American people will accept, and the current administration has shown no sign that it cares what global public opinion may be- They are a state sponsor of terrorism. The same pretext was implied as part of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
We have done the same thing in the past in Latin America, and through governments we have fought proxy wars almost continuously until the last decade or so.
[/QUOTE]
For the sake of argument, say Iran really only wants nuclear energy, and feels that they would like to go about their research for said energy (enriching uranium and all other processes involved) to gain understanding of the process and to reap any rewards/technologies that come with the research (I’m guessing on the way to finding C, one may come up with B or Z, which may be useful in other ways. Hope I’m being coherent here). So why not allow them to gain nuclear energy while installing/partnering scientists or irregular/surprise inspections. Now I believe this is what was occuring before but the IAEA found the Iranians to be further along in their enrichment but had no proof that there was something afoot. So, the Int’l community asks them to halt and have another country enrich (Russia). I don’t see why Iran should agree with this based on the above information. They would be relying on another State for their energy which is somethig the U.S. would not do itself. As it stands now, the U.S. relies on less than 20% of their energy needs from foreign sources and we’ve all observed the backlash against this.
Now, say Iran refuses all negotiations (yes, I know they have already but at least they’re pretending to want talks as they stall) and the U.S. along with Security Council, employs sanctions, travel ban, asset seize etc. How much does this impact Iran. Does it stop them from their objective of acquiring nuclear technology? They have been under U.S. sanctions over 20 + years. Granted they have some trading partners that are keeping their economy alive but they do some manufacturing and can feed themselves so I really don’t see this having as great an effect. Not to mention that the sanctions will most certainly be busted by friendly nations and friendly capitalists (sanctions are great for business. Prices go up and people pay).
I think we all agree that the U.S. will not be invading with ground forces any time soon. It is possible that the U.S. may strike at their nuclear facilities, or could arm the Iranian rebel groups that have protection in Iraq and make life difficult for the regime but that would be like a pin prick on ones calussed thumb. It would also give the Iranians a way to make the U.S. look bad if they decided to beat back the armed group in a big way (much like the recent Somalia war lord beat down).
Finally, the real question: we know that the U.S. has more fire power/technology and can bomb a nuclear facility in Iran. What happens then? How does Iran react and is their possible reaction more the reason NOT to do anything right now about their nuclear ambitions? I keep hearing references to Sadaams reactor in 1981 but these are very differenct times. The covert and guerilla reaction from Iranian sympathizers could be worse than any bomb Iran could whip up now. I think having an idea of the Iranian reaction to being made a nuclear free zone should play a bigger role in determining what happens next. Keep in mind that even the Iranian western leaning youths feel their nation is entitled to nuclear energy and research.
I hope I haven’t rambled on but this board can be a bit intimidating so wanted to be as clear as possible in my logic.
Nah, not every single one of them. Just the ones that openly call for the destruction of Israel that would happen to have control of those nukes.
Can’t see what the nervousness is about.
And of course, the little fact of pissing on a UN agreement to not develop the technology. But we can overlook that inconvenience. I’m sure the UN will draft a stronger resolution to save everyone. Hell, the one drafted and approved for North Korea was so strong the DPRNK representative had to flee the room in mortal fear. :rolleyes:
There are quite few people that want an all out war with anyone else for the sake of going to war. No matter what popular sentiment among some is. I, for one, have been optimistic for 20 years about seeing Iran returning to a more liberal government. It’s not the Iranians that are the threat, it’s the Iranian government. Again, the same government rattling thier sabres in declaring nothing short of the destruction of Israel, as well as the West, that will be in control of the nukes.
Think of this. There are parents so ingrained with the idea of martyrdom that they teach their children how to wear a bomb to blow up a bus to fight the infidels. Now imagine that parent becomes the leader of a nuclear nation. If that parent is willing to sacrifice his child to blow up a dozen Jews, think of the glory he’d see in just launching some warheads at Tel Aviv, and to hell with the incoming arsenal?
Hell, Hugo Chavez seems like a bit of a nut to me. But at the very least he’s limited his rhetoric to the present administration, not the entire US population. I still wouldn’t trust him with nukes, but he’d be a far more appealing candidate to stability if he had the bombs compared to Iran right now.
Now to Godwinize, I guess. I can’t help but compare this to Hitler. Hitler stated his intent to eradicate the Jews from existence. To “wipe them off the face of the Earth”. Hitler didn’t have nuclear weapons. So what the hell was WWII all about? Why did we go in guns-a-blazin’ to confront him?
Oh, that’s right. We left it to the League of Nations to mediate the problem. Using diplomacy with a regime that clearly stated it’s destructive intent was the way to go. Maybe the second time will be the charm?
I don’t remember that the US actually belonged to the League. President Wilson helped to set it up, but the Senate wanted none of these foreign entanglements. And the US didn’t want any Jewish refugees in the 1930s either.
Totally agree. So when is the US getting rid of their arsenal?
Bullshit. All of it. The Iraq invasion was clearly illegal no matter how much handwaving and jumping up and down you do. And then you want other nations to respect UN resolutions or abide by treaties. :rolleyes:
This is really getting to be tired. Actually, it’s been tired for a long time. What was the country we used a nuclear weapon on?
Since the US is so willy-nilly in it’s use of nukes, I’m sure you can come up with something in the past 60 years. Or at least something where we declared the desire to eradicate an entire race of people.
Anything? Didn’t think so. Take your anger elsewhere. You’ve gone from entertaining to boring. I’m still waiting for the day you claim the US is the reason for starvation, disease, war, religious strife and stillborn meerkats.
Another poster once promised a 20,000 page manifesto. Maybe you’ll hang onto sanity long enough to deliver one. It would be a fascinating read into nuttiness. Don’t keep us waiting.
The only world power cannot (by most definitions) be a rogue state. A rogue state is trying to create a new world order, what sort of nutcase would try to upset the applecart when they were top dog? Hrmmm, never mind, I just realized that we might be a rogue state.
Jesus Christ. Let me say this one more time. (To deaf ears, I’m sure.)
It wasn’t illegal. Give that shit up. Ill-advised? Ill-conceived? Possibly. History will determine that, not your hatred. Follow me here, if you get a moment of clarity at some point.
First, you have to openly declare that Gulf War I was illegal. Do that and the rest is moot. For everyone else that can take a shit without drooling on themselves, keep this in mind.
Gulf War I never actually ended. The end of “hostilities” (war) comes about with a signing of a peace treaty. Remember a guy named Hirohito? He sent a team to board a US warship to sign such a treaty. In it the treaty spelled out the agreement between the two countries to stop bombing the shit out of each other. Something similar, I hear, happened in Germany. Guess what? We stopped bombing them and have somehow restrained ourselves from doing so.
You know why? Because they didn’t break the agreement of those treaties.
With Gulf I, there was no peace treaty. It was a cease-fire, contigent on Iraq following the stipulations of the agreement. Part of that agreement was full and unfettered access for, ahem, UN inspectors. When the first interference was displayed, technically, the cease-fire was over. But in the US’s bloodthirsty ways, we waited. And waited. And passed resolution after resolution in the fabled UN to preserve the cease-fire. For over a decade.
The war was never ended. Get that through your head. It was a cease-fire with very clear rules. Hussein broke the rules, the US kept holding back giving him second, third and eleventh chances to comply. Surprisingly, with no nuclear weapons launched. Imagine that. What a rogue nation we are!
This isn’t the “Iraq War.” This is Gulf War I still being fought. It’s a 15 year old war that never ended, no matter how much you want to think otherwise.
Now, if you can show me where a peace treaty was signed, I’ll back off. But you can’t. The war was never ended. It was a cease-fire that kept the bombs from falling so long as Saddam followed the rules he agreed to. He broke the rules. A bunch of times. But I suppose that was our fault. too. :rolleyes:
Japan. Now that I’ve reminded you of that, please, do tell, which other nuclear power has used theirs against anyone?
Where did I say anything anything especifically about getting rid of nukes? See, nukes /= arsenal. Meantime, your arsenal has killed something in the vicinity of 3 million people (feel free to add or subtract a million either way if it makes you feel better) in the past oh, sixty years or so.
Of course, we can only guesstimate the death toll in Iraq, since, as you’re probably well aware, “you don’t do body counts.”
Right then. Let’s not sweat the “small stuff” such as Panama, Dom Rep, Granada, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, Guatemala…
Try “thinking again.” Or read: Killing Hope
Don’t give a shit about “another poster” or what he promised. In the meantime keep the insults to yourself.
PS-I don’t go by “Jesus Christ,” but thanx anyway. He’s a great myth.
Wow. Perle, quoted in the Guardian, has the final say? I stand corrected. I hadn’t realized his opinion was fact in all things worldly. Let’s elect him World Leader today!
Care to address anything else? While you do so, I’m emailing Perle. I demand an answer to why my new car can’t run on water. I bet he can tell me why.
As are you. Including your sense of superiority that must seem valid in whatever reality you live in. Good luck to you and send me a postcard. I wonder what your world’s stamps look like. I may be inspired to start a collection.
If you could include a picture of what the sky in your world looks like, I could make a mint on eBay. Maybe I’ll use the proceeds to sponsor a trip for you to visit us. Carny sideshows are woefully lacking in new attractions.
Superior? Naw. It’s simply called “living in reality.”
Try it, you might even like it.
Ad hominnens aside, the sky “in my world,” has many shades – depends on the circumstances, you see – unlike yours where the “Star spangled banner” is on a continious loop with bright rays of sunshine beaming down on your forehead.
Honestly, I almost feel sorry for you.
Then again, you’ve been given facts, not lame excuses, and yet yu continue to refuse them. Afraid it’d take some reality version of this Jesus Christ character to set you straight.
Not that I’m holding out much for that to occur.
Sleep tight, don’t let the bedbugs bite.
Cheers.
PS- “Hope,” that’s what I am not holding out much for…
Yeah, you win. Let the bombing begin tomorrow. Or 50 years ago. Or whatever. You’re not even fun. I miss Reeder. 
:mad: