Yes.
Short, sharp and a nail hit upon its head.
If Iran has decided it isn’t going to honor its treaty obligations, there are provisions in the treaty for it to withdraw. Iran has not invoked those provisions.
Regards,
Shodan
Israel, unlike Iran, isn’t signatory to the NPT.
[QUOTE=Riga Marole]
ETA: It is unfortunate that agressive, war-mongering entities do not respect the unarmed innocent. The U.S. is the only country that has nuked populations, and it is their fall-back stance that if X doesn’t do as it is told the U.S. may bomb it to hell and back. Policies of all other nuclear nations, however, is that if they are threatened with nukes they will “call and ante up”. It’s a **VERY BIG **difference.
[/QUOTE]
You’re saying the difference in nuclear policy between the U.S. and other nuclear powers is what, now? I can’t make sense of this paragraph.
Well, I’d like to say something … but you’re not going to like it …
Alright, but what choice do you leave?
All of this three-decades-old post-revolution you talk about is relevant and, SORRY, but Iran has tried to make friends with the U.S. scores of times, being snubbed each and every time. So … Iran has bounced between soft and hard government due directly to the U.S. playing hard ball. Therefore, your assumption is decidedly wrong about Iran’s “ample opportunity”. In the end the bomb just might give them comfortable spot where the opinion and agressive stance by the U.S. no longer concerns them.
No. I’m speaking about Operation TP Ajax, the political climate between Iran and the U.S. by America’s own insistence, and the very subject of threat (by the U.S.) put forth in this thread.
Sorry, didn’t get the memo. When did the statute of limitations run out and our virginity restored?
The U.S. insinuates nuclear threat to get its way while the other nuclear nations use their nuclear abilities as defense. The sense of my paragraph is in the difference between offense and defense.
Name five efforts that were snubbed.
Hard and soft government? Are you talking about khomeini and Khamenei? Because those are the only two officials who have mattered in Iran’s post-revolution foreign policy. It is common knowledge that the President of Iran does not have control over national security policy, because that is vested in the Supreme Leader.
And my reference to “ample opportunity” is the 34 years which post-revolution Iran had to renounce the NPT, and they did not.
:):D:)
Um…cite? When, in the past 50 years, has the U.S. threatened to use nuclear weapons to get its way?
So, if they had officially renounced the treaty, then everything would be all hunky-dory? We would just back off and say its all OK?
Ok, so let’s say the youth of Iran finally gets fed up with theocratic rule and take to the streets, sort of what happened in 2009. The leaders of Iran call this a CIA plot, just as they did in 2009. Do you believe Iran will then be justified to launch a nuclear strike against the United States?
You’re asking the wrong question. Why should anyone have to put up or shut up if a country refuses to uphold its treaty obligations? What is the point of treaties if you want to give them a free pass on whether or not to uphold them?
I’m counting down to the next “oh yeah but AMERICA didn’t do blah blah blah” comment in 5, 4, 3…
Explain to me why such criticisms are not permissible? Or not valid? You’re not poisoning the well, you’re dynamiting it and paving it over.
Another reason: there are 168 signatories to the NPT. Do they not count? Why would adherence to the NPT be based on what America does?
I’ll give you one off the top of my head. If you cannot concede the point I might find the will to access 4 more.
Immediately after the 7-11 attacks on NYC Iran offered an initiative to cooperate with the U.S. in weeding out Al Qaida. Iran didn’t like Al Qaida anyway and their geographic position together with the U.S. would have definitely put a huge dent in bin Laden’s future, if not stop him all-together. The U.S. didn’t even reply, thus spinning its own wheels and getting nowhere for years.
The result was in making the Iranian government seem (to its own population) soft, weak and toothless - puppy eyeing the Americans only to be snubbed - so the climate changed and Iran went back to being tough.
Irrelevant. With the U.S. putting pressure on Iran and threatening this, that and the other thing, what should Iran do … go back to the U.S. puppeting out the Iranian government? My above example shows that Iran did what it could, to no avail. Being tough is the only thing the U.S. respects. All in all getting a bomb seems like the answer to Iran’s worries. They might even be right too.
Right. Got it. Its my fault you don’t have an answer. How can I make it up to you?
Are you saying that you’ve never heard top-level American politicians and military men suggesting they ought to nuke Iran? Gosh! :eek:
No, they are most probably wrong. Its only that we have given them good reason to be wrong.