Is it your opinion that any nation is justified in nuking some other nation on the grounds that it instigated a riot? What sort of world do you live in anyway?:rolleyes:
No, I have not. I’ve heard a random Congressman or two grab for headlines by saying things like "“I think if you have to hit Iran, you don’t put boots on the ground. You do it with tactical nuclear devices, and you set them back a decade or two or three", but that hardly constitutes “The U.S.” doing anything.
A Swiss politician just called for the arrest of Henry Kissinger as a war criminal. Can it now be said that the Swiss get their way by threatening to arrest foreign dignitaries?
Perhaps. But I believe that when a bumpkin manages to get membership to an exclusive club, the old boys will come to realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to step in and teach him how to manoeuvre the place without knocking over the porcelain cabinette.
Hardly constitutes the U.S. doing anything? Indeed. That is what’s called “a threat”.
The U.S. has actually nuked the population of Japan … twice … but for some reason you think American threats are nothing to worry about while Iran scares the shit out of you. Hmmmmmm.
Assuming you are American, can you imagine why Iran might want to nuke you? And if so wouldn’t it be prudent to make friends instead of intimidating them? Or is treating others with equal respect not the American way?
If you can provide a citation showing that the United States “didn’t even reply,” that would be helpful. Because I’m finding cites of Colin Powell saying that Iran’s overtures were “hopeful”, but that Iran had to do more on ceasing its lengthy record of support for terrorism.
Let’s recap here: you asked why people are opposed to Iran getting the bomb. I pointed out that Iran has a legal commitment not to get the bomb. You agreed that Iran shouldn’t be bound by old treaties, to which I stated that Iran has had 34 years to renounce the NPT, but they have not.
I can’t think of any response that it more relevant to what you said than pointing out that Iran has maintained its membership in the NPT for 34 years. That has literally nothing to do with US foreign policy; Iran stayed a member of the NPT by their own accord.
You said that Iran might deserve the bomb to prevent what happened in 1953, a CIA-sponsored coup. I’m not clear what having a nuclear weapon has to to do with foreign meddling like that. Would Iran threaten to use a nuclear weapon against a country that would undertake such meddling? And if a country is doing such meddling, how would Iran really know who is responsible? Don’t you see a risk in linking nuclear deterrence to events that may or may not have any foreign hand in them?
Your response to half of my posts have been comments about US hypocrisy. As my link shows, that is a textbook definition of “tu quoque,” a universally recognized logical fallacy. If a father tells his son not to smoke cigarettes, but the son points out that the father smokes, the accusation of hypocrisy does not actually undermine the fact that the father is giving sound advice.
Similarly, if I write something about the destabilizing policies of Iran, the question of whether or not other countries also have destabilizing policies does not actually have any bearing on the accuracy of my comments on Iran.
You’ve been around this board a long time, I know you know what a tu quoque argument is. At least in a silly sense, that is.
Good point. If we ever get in a world war because Iran conducts a sneak attack on the United States killing 2,800 Americans, and then Iran goes on a rampage of conquest around its region while allying itself with genocidal maniacs, and then the American president is given a choice between sending one million American GIs into Iran or attacking with two nuclear weapons, Iran may have something very real to worry about.
Because it has happened before!
Sorry, but you can’t substitute one guy’s remarks for U.S. policy. Do you really want to play that game? I have access to a search engine, y’know. Name a political position, and there’s someone from some nation’s government that’s espoused it.
American threats are plenty to worry about…when made by someone with the ability and inclination to carry them out.
I’m not afraid of Iran, though I do think adherence to treaty obligations is a cornerstone of international order and peaceful cooperation.
It’s being worked on, there’s an interim deal in place. Treating others equally is precisely not what you’re advocating, since you wish to give Iran a special, and un-asked for, exemption to the NPT.
Colin Powell has been duped by the White House and Pentagon more than once. It’s a matter of record.
Anyway, this is not the original source I’m familiar with but pretty much says it anyway.
I called it irrelevant because you’ve used the same argument twice, ignoring my initial rebuff as if you never saw it.
And to put one point on the jab … I didn’t state I think “that Iran shouldn’t be bound by old treaties”. I never even addressed it.
I gave several reasons why Iran might have use of the bomb, not merely the CIA overthrow of the Democratic government of Iran in the 50’s but all that has followed since the Islamic Revolution, tossing out the U.S. Furthermore I never once said that I advocate Iran bombing the U.S. You are letting your imagination get the best of you.
There is nothing false or hypocritical about history - factual history that is. In response to your claim that my response is … whatever … I might just as well say that yours have been more on the order of, “Oh! I hate conspiracy theories and I’m so sick of people blaming the U.S.!”
What is important to realize is that the U.S. is a super power. It is arguably the only super power. The U.S. has been involved in so much treachery, torture, murder, cover-ups, black flag operations, and down-right nasty behaviour one can imagine. Perhaps you don’t believe that the CIA can organize a political or military coup? Destabilize the governments of other nations? Planing and executing long-term operations that could take years? Do you play chess?
I think you should look up the e-post address of the Whine House and the Pentagram and beg them to cease intimidating Iran, thus thwarting any bad vibes they might be suffering and maybe lull them into a fuzzy relationship with you.
Iran will get the bomb and there is nothing you can do about it. Make friends now.
Don’t forget Russia, China, France, the U.K., and Germany.
This is not a Iran-U.S. issue, it is a world issue.
Obama is now enlisting The Devil to intimidate Iran?
Don’t be childish and feign ignorance, please.
All the more reason for Iran to work over-time in the lab.
Whose adherence and cooperation are you referring to?
Not true. I really don’t see the U.S. having nuclear might while others do not - nor do I see one nation bound by a treaty but not everyone. I guess it boils down to the notion of true equality (mine) in opposition to inequal equality (sort of a contradiction, isn’t it) like yours.
While it is true that English is not my mother tongue I’m fairly certain the title of this thread is “Iran: More sanctions now or wait?”
I can’t find any of the countries you name, unfortunately.
Why not? The Axis of Evil in one corner and the Devil in the other.
Yeah, I’m not. You seem to believe the U.S. threatens the use of nuclear weapons to get its way. It does not, unless one subsitutes “any American” for “The U.S.”…which is silly.
When those threats occur, perhaps. They aren’t now, and probably never will. Note the 68 years without a nuclear attack, and those occured under circumstances that are unlikely to ever exist again.
In this case, Iran’s, to the NPT.
168 nations signed the NPT of their own free will. Why do you suppose they did that?
Okay, I think you’ve done a fair job citing that instance of Iran wanting to cooperate with the US but being rebuffed. Since you said that the US has turned down Iran’s overtures “scores” of times, can you provide other instances?
elucidator posted that the treaties were signed by a former (and perhaps not legitimate) government of Iran, and you responded: “Short, sharp and a nail hit upon its head.”
If I misinterpreted your comment, what did you actually mean?
You made a vague statement about Iran defending against aggression, so I asked if you meant that Iran might respond to another Iraqi invasion by using a nuclear weapon. You then posted a link to a wikipedia page on the 1953 coup, and a comment about the general poor relations between the US and Iran. Since you brought up the coup and the poor relations, I was led to believe that Iran should threaten or actually use a nuclear weapons in response to the type of things you brought up. If that wasn’t your intention, that was not clear… and I’m also confused on why you raised them in response to my question.
Seeing as how Russia, China, France, Germany, UK, and the US are all negotiating with Iran to try to find a peaceful end to the nuclear program, it is a mistake to imply that this issue is about only the US and Iran. It’s really an issue between Iran and most other countries in the world, as evidenced by the number of countries at the negotiating table and the UN resolutions on the matter.
So, while you can criticize the US for assassinations, bad TV shows, and faked moon landings, that really has little to do with Iran’s nuclear program and why so many different countries, and the UN, want it done away with.
Everyone who signs the NPT must be subject to it. Happy?
Yes, it is. Did you think the U.S. is the sole negotiating partner with Iran on this issue, or the source of all sanctions on Iran? They are not.
Pardon?
Is the $500 million in sanctions relief that you have mentioned the same thing or similar as relief that Iran might expect to gain from the P5+1 volunteering to stop enforcement of any of those existing sanctions that were not part of some kind of relief that was mentioned in the interim deal?
I ask you because you are claiming that the White House is ‘splitting hairs’ by opposing tough new sanctions the US Senators and the neocon’s want all the while going about the business of cracking down on violators of existing sanctions.
How about you figure it out and report back to the class.
Just a question for clarification and nothing more. Are you referring to the region where Iran is located and where one nation in that region is not bound by the NPT because they have not signed it?