No, and I don’t support bombing Iran, mostly because I don’t think it would do any good. But you asked what right or authority the US gets to decide who has nukes, and I answered. International law, and self interest.
I’ll think about supporting radical action against Iran’s potential nuclear weapons programme the day after similar action is taken against Israel’s actual existing nuclear weapons programme.
Zealots ye both…
What ‘international law’ gives the USA authority to decide who has nukes, who should be bombed on suspicion of having nukes etc? Self interest doesn’t give them any rights, either.
America may have the arrogance to decide that they should be the ‘world’s policeman’ [or the world’s bully], but how many other countries agree with this?
86.9% voted that the USA was the most dangerous country and the biggest threat to world peace. http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html
The world would be a safer place, IMO, if America publicly renounced its own nuclear armaments, and made a real effort to lead disarmament by example. Other countries may be more inclined to disarm if the USA did likewise, instead of using threats.
The US is also a signatory. What steps have they taken towards their obligations to totally disarm of their nuclear weapons?
We have no such obligation under the Treaty.
Here: Read it.
Ordering the public execution of adulterers is insane, no matter how much Koranic authority you can cite for it. Every dictatorship executes dissidents, but Khomeini’s regime did that to twelve-year-old girls, according to news reports I read at the time. And ordering a hit on an author who was not even Iranian was not only insane but presumptuous.
Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-proliferation_treaty
Of course, we should not bomb Iran – if nothing else, because it would be impossible to be sure that would not lead to war.
You just answered your own question. What does “earliest possible date” mean? Exactly nothing, that’s what. We agree to eliminate nuclear weapons some time between now and never, whenever we deem it “possible”. The interdictions on purchase, transfer to, or development in non-nuclear weapon states of nuclear weapons are quite clear. They mean, “Not now, and not ever.”
Right. And I asked what steps they had taken towards fulfilling this obligation, to which you replied that the obligation doesn’t exist.
By the way, if someone had borrowed some money from you in 1968 and promissed to re-pay it ‘at an early date’, would you be happy to still be waiting? 
You realize that such a response by the US would be one of unmatched and unforgivable evil, do you not?
Nuclear war is a situation where a retaliatory strike is just as evil as the first strike. You don’t rectify the murder of civilian by murdering other civilans. Making insane threats to slaugher everyone else in the world if they try to stop you is hardly an argument as to why you should have nukes and someone else shouldn’t.
No, I’d kick myself in the ass for not setting a specific date for repayment.
Well, yes, but so what? I’m not advocating such a response, I discussing what I think would be likely, and taking that into account when assessing what might be the best course of action for all involved, given those conditions.
Would it be that much of a surprise if we did something unforgiveably evil? Has the US not done numerous such things in the past, at least in the estimation of some? That’s why the terrorists want us dead, after all; we’re already unforgivably evil.
Unless it is the Iranians making the threat, apparently.
So when a country chants “Death to the USA”, this is evidence that they should be encouraged to obtain nuclear weapons. But overthrowing a dictator and holding elections is evidence of mass murder, and that country is horrible and wicked for defending itself.
You really do hate the US, don’t you?
[Flock of Seagulls]
And Iran, you are so far away
And Iran, we bombed you night and day
You could not get away
[/Flock of Seagulls]
Cite for Iran making threats to nuke the US?
Countries don’t chant.
What is the US defending itself against?
:rolleyes:
Provided for the benefit of those who can’t read:
Fine, then they don’t invade either, so every stupid rant you have ever posted about the US invasion of Iraq is invalid.
Cripes, can’t you even pretend to be rational anymore?
Iran. Try reading the fucking thread.
How is Iran a threat?
Since when is chanting a threat?
You need more than some people saying “death to America” (and you didn’t link that quote) to constitute a threat.
If Iran ever attacks the US, then we’ll have a right to bomb them, but not a moment before.
By the way, just the fact that our idiot president is even contemplating such a thing out loud shows that the US is a direct threat to Iran, so by your own logic, they have the right to preemptively bomb the shit out of us. Lucky for us they don’t have the ability.
DTS - you’ve been here long enough to know that for these people there is no equivalence. Whatever Bush decides is by definition right and true. The USA and only the USA is allowed to threaten and invade whoever it wants for whatever specious reasons it can get people to close their eyes and choke down. You simply cannot use the same logic to point out the fallacy of their position, it’s like trying to argue with children. There’s always a reason why it’s fine to torture people, invade unthreatening nations, kill civilians who dare to presume to be on the same road as your convoy etc etc. And then they wonder why so many of us look in horror at a nation we once so admired.
If I was in charge of Iran I’d be busting a gut to get nuclear weapons ASAP and setting up guerilla resistance networks as that’s the only thing that in the end will guarantee sovereignty against an attack on some trumped up charge when the neo-cons feel they can get away with it.
Ok, so with that analogy ‘Death to America’ shouldn’t be next to Sieg Heil :rolleyes:
Well you’ve just contradicted yourself
Make your friggin’ mind up.
I’m sorry but I have no idea what you’re trying to say with this.
My previous quote referred to nuclear retaliation, especially as it pertained to threatening nuclear strikes against all of Europe if they tried to prevent us from launching nukes at Iran.
Measured retaliatory strikes at military targets are not in the same ballpark as launching a nuclear holocaust. I have not contradicted myself.