So, a nuclear program which has had large parts hidden and which has never been given full access to the IAEA is discussed as if the IAEA does not have perfect knowledge. This is a problem why?
And even with that being the case, the IAEA has certified that aspects of Iran’s nuclear program have included actions that are not dual-use but are specific to weaponization.
As a signatory nation to the NPT they don’t have a “right” to them. Even if they withdrew from the NPT, nations are not fungible. The idea that, well, it’s a nation so it should be treated exactly the same as all other nations is an abdication of judgment and reason.
The idea that, because it’s a nation, it has the same rights and sovereignty as all others is, in international law and diplomacy, no abdication of reason, but simply an essential foundation for beginning. We haven’t done too well lately by classifying some nations as “rogue” or “outlaw” nations, best to drop that attitude entirely.
The last time the US military war gamed an invasion of Iran, an entire US Carrier fleet got sent to the bottom of the Persian Gulf. It was so humiliating the Top Brass ordered the Brass ordered the fleet “refloated”, ordered “the Iranians” to stop using the tactics that had worked and for the exercise to continue. The Marine General leading “the Iranians” resigned in protest.
No BG, you can’t simply make stuff up, abdicate reason and judgment, and then claim that because you made something up that it’s okay. National sovereignty does not mean that whatever a nation chooses to do is acceptable or allowable. Sovereignty is not a magic blanket. Nor does it mean that a nation which supports international terrorism and attempts to dominate its neighbors can obtain any type of weapons it wishes. To say nothing of the fact that nukes are not a “right” and Iran has explicitly agreed that it does not have the “right” to nukes by signing the NPT.
For myself, I think going to War with Iran for either the US or Israel would be disastrous.
Additionally, I’d rather not see large numbers of my countrymen killed due to the medieval stupidity of Iran’s leaders.
Finally while I’d rather not see nuclear weapons in the hands of medieval fanatics who celebrate the turning of their own children into human bombs and human minesweepers, I suspect we’re just going to have to learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran.
True even without the scare quotes and it’s pretty difficult to honestly deny.
We’re not talking about ‘respect’, we’re talking about the actual actions taken by nation states on the world stage. And as the UNSC has demonstrated, Iran’s desires for its nuclear are not beyond challenge.
Huh…that most certainly was not the message of Band of Brothers.
Have you ever read Stephen Ambrose, or at least seen the mini-series?
I ask, because I don’t see how anyone remotely familiar with Ambrose could think he’d say something so stupid.
Your observations regarding Stephen Ambrose’s work regarding WWII doesn’t inspire confidence in your knowledge, understanding, or ability to judge US versions of history.
The US has certainly been at least in a state of belligerency for a few decades with both sides committing what could be seen as acts of war against each other.
Beyond that, I wasn’t arguing the US had no right to prevent Nazi Germany from getting nukes, but based on the logic of his arguments, that all nations are entitled to them then the US was wrong to do so.
Again, did you actually watch the series or read anything Stephen Ambrose has written on the subject, or are you making this judgement based on the title of an episode that was a play on a documentary.
I ask, because if you genuinely believe that America’s foremost historian on WWII believes that the US went to war to save the Jews or that that was the message of his book or the miniseries it was based on was designed to say that then that would lead many to question your understanding of American views of history.
You understand the tv miniseries was written by about 10 people, and “based” on Ambrose’s work. People more directly involved than Ambrose include Spielberg and Hanks.
It’s entertainment for an emotionally invested prime time US audience - not a history lesson.
That’s at best an extremely misleading statement regarding a tragic accident. You might as well argue the US committed a war crime by “sinking a Japanese fishing boat”.
Moreover, I’ve heard that the US naval officers in charge during the accident recieved medals for doing so.
Can you please produce evidence of them receiving medals for doing so from a reliable source?