Surely, the US government is more wicked than that of Iran and has a history to back it up.[/quote]
It’s comments like these that place you in a unique category with only one or two others on this board. [/quote]
I am sorry, you cannot convince me that any government in the history of the world bears any distinction from each other. It’s all about the abuse of power.
So you subscribe to the religion of American Exceptionalism and its false idols and that is the only difference between you and a Nazi. Big deal.[/quote]
No government is perfect but you fail to see the good that we do. For example, the US is first in line with the most aid wherever there is a tragedy in the world. I wouldn’t call that “wicked”.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No government is perfect but you fail to see the good that we do. For example, the US is first in line with the most aid wherever there is a tragedy in the world. I wouldn’t call that “wicked”.[/quote]
If you take credit for the good then you must take responsibility for all the bad too.
Surely, the US government is more wicked than that of Iran and has a history to back it up.[/quote]
It’s comments like these that place you in a unique category with only one or two others on this board. [/quote]
I am sorry, you cannot convince me that any government in the history of the world bears any distinction from each other. It’s all about the abuse of power.
So you subscribe to the religion of American Exceptionalism and its false idols and that is the only difference between you and a Nazi. Big deal.[/quote]
No government is perfect but you fail to see the good that we do. For example, the US is first in line with the most aid wherever there is a tragedy in the world. I wouldn’t call that “wicked”.[/quote]
Surely, the US government is more wicked than that of Iran and has a history to back it up.[/quote]
It’s comments like these that place you in a unique category with only one or two others on this board. [/quote]
I am sorry, you cannot convince me that any government in the history of the world bears any distinction from each other. It’s all about the abuse of power.
So you subscribe to the religion of American Exceptionalism and its false idols and that is the only difference between you and a Nazi. Big deal.[/quote]
No government is perfect but you fail to see the good that we do. For example, the US is first in line with the most aid wherever there is a tragedy in the world. I wouldn’t call that “wicked”.[/quote]
When you consider the whole of Europe is comparable to America as apposed to comparing any specific country to America
I’m with HH on this one. However, I would only do it as an absolutely last resort. I don’t want those crazy fuckers even having the chance at getting their hands on anything nuclear.
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
I’m with HH on this one. However, I would only do it as an absolutely last resort. I don’t want those crazy fuckers even having the chance at getting their hands on anything nuclear.
CS[/quote]
Yeah, I mean, surrounded by some crazy fuckers that have enough ammo to blow the whole planet up a gaziillion times (yeah, that would be you), Israelis that want to WIPE THEM OF THE MAP (no reason why I could not lie too, is there?), and of course India and Pakistan, both having nukes, why could they possibly want to keep their nuclear option open.
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
I’m with HH on this one. However, I would only do it as an absolutely last resort. I don’t want those crazy fuckers even having the chance at getting their hands on anything nuclear.
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
I’m with HH on this one. However, I would only do it as an absolutely last resort. I don’t want those crazy fuckers even having the chance at getting their hands on anything nuclear.
Sorry, but I’m not for the USA starting another war based on flimsy NSA/CIA gathered intel. If anyone here can post links presenting solid, undeniable evidence of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons material, I’ll change my position.
If Israel feels the need to execute a preemptive strike to protect themselves against Iran, than so be it. If the Saudis want Iran out of the way then let them pay the price with their own blood and petro-dollars.
As a patriot, I refuse to contribute anything towards any puppet regime run by the lobbyists of the money hungry warmonger machine, and their proven disregard for the safety and lives of our young American soldiers.
As a person with Iranian heritage, I can assure you that I have heard more ‘western’ people talk about bombing Iran with lust than I have ever heard an actual Iranian living in Iran talk about doing anything remotely similar to a western country. Sure the government has it’s agenda but so do other countries.
Well, Iran is a party to the NPT and has been declared to be in violation of several articles of that treaty and there does need to be something done about it. I do, however, think that it would be very bad for the US to unilaterally decide to invade or bomb a sovereign country that we are currently at peace with just because they are violating a treaty that the US does not have the authority to enforce.
If the UN decides to take military action, then I am all for the US, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a member of the UN, to participate in and even lead the campaign assuming that congress approves or it falls within the president’s power to approve the action.
Developing a weapon is not in and of itself an act of war, though, and unprovoked first strikes are a violation of several international treaties that the US has ratified and UN resolutions and other international laws. We got away with it in the Iraq case, but we cannot continue to do so forever. Besides, when it comes to nuclear weapons, the US has no claim, absolutely zero, to any moral high ground when it comes to nuclear weapons seeing as how it is the only nuclear power to ever use nuclear weapons on a populated area, and an overwhelmingly civilian population at that.
If there is one country that has shown it should not possess nuclear weapons, it is the US, and this kind of crying out for blood and the death that is taking place is just one of the reasons why.
EDIT: Iran has actually been found in non-compliance of the NPT, not in violation. It was, however, found that by the IAEA that this non-compliance falls within the competence of the Security Council, which means that military action could be warranted, but not unilateral action by one nation.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Bahahaha! In violations?! According to who - people who are already armed to the teeth?!
[/quote]
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is an autonomous body independent of the UN that investigates and regulates the proliferation of nuclear technology and provide reports to the UN and the Security Council. The Board of Governors consists of 35 people, each from one of the 151 member states.
One of the major purposes of the IAEA is to prevent the use and development of nuclear weapons, as well as to facilitate the disarmament of current nations with nuclear weapons. The second major purpose of the IAEA is to help with the development and spread of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes that benefit mankind as a whole, and that includes helping nations develop nuclear power plants.
There are currently 5 countries that are absolutely known to have nuclear weapons, 3 that have successfully conducted weapons tests and are believed to possess at least one nuclear weapon and it is speculated that Israel may have nuclear weapons despite no evidence of successful tests.
That makes a potential total of 8 members (there are currently 7) out 35 of the Board of Governors that can be from nations with nuclear arsenals since North Korea is not a member nation. No matter how you look at it, there are not enough nations with nuclear weapons to create a majority on the Board of Governors, and there has never been a Director General from a nation with nuclear weapons.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I guess I just don’t see those agencies as having any legitimacy.
And it is weird to think that the US government which does not respect its own decrees would respect some foreign agency’s.[/quote]
How exactly do you see the IAEA as having no legitimacy?
The IAEA was set up through a massive international treaty signed by 152 different sovereign nations who agreed, under no duress and through their own governing bodies, to abide by the articles of the treaty and to accept the punishments laid out in the treaty. The IAEA only has authority over nations that agreed to the conditions of the treaty. How much more legitimacy can you get?
If a nation does not want to that, like North Korea, who was originally a member nation, that nation has the ability to back out, but it also forfeits access to a lot of nuclear technology and expertise, 151 nation’s worth of information to be exact.
You do not get it both ways: you cannot gain the benefit of most of the world’s expertise on nuclear technology by agreeing to a treaty saying that you will not use that information to develop weapons, ignore that treaty, and go ahead and use that information to develop weapons anyway.
Iran is a member nation of the IAEA and a signatory of the NPT, which means that it agreed to certain restrictions on it’s nuclear technology. Until it withdraws from those treaties, then it is subject to them, and they still cannot use the information and equipment they gained through the NPT to develop weapons.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
How exactly do you see the IAEA as having no legitimacy?
[/quote]
Institutions which derive their influence from the threat of violence should be considered illegitimate.
All forms of violence need to be deligitimized - even the violence we are told is done “only for our own good.”
I don’t accept being told what to do by arbitrary forms of violence.[/quote]
What threat of violence are you talking about? There was no threat of violence for not signing the IAEA treaty or the NPT. There was no punishment for not signing the NPT or not becoming a member of the IAEA at all outside of not being allowed access to member nation’s knowledge and technology. In fact, there is no violent punishment for withdrawing from either treaty, as evidenced by North Korea.
The only reason violence is an option in the Iran matter is because the treaty allows other members to use violence under certain conditions as a result of other member nation’s violation of the articles of the treaty. The Iranian government signed both treaties fully knowing that violence was one of the possible repercussions for violating articles of those treaties.
It is not like most of the world’s nations were forced to sign this treaty without knowing that violating it could lead to war, the treaties spell out the possible repercussions of not following the articles of the treaties and every nation that signed them agreed to those repercussions. Iran is now and was then fully aware of what would happen if they used the information and technology gained from being a signatory to those treaties to produce nuclear weapons, in fact they agreed by signing those treaties not to do so, knowing that war was a possible and likely penalty. If they decided to do so regardless, it is on them.
If they had not signed the treaties or backed away from them at an appropriate time, then this would be a non-issue and there is nothing any nation could do without violating international laws and treaties, just like for North Korea.
[quote]Cuso wrote:
Sorry, but I’m not for the USA starting another war based on flimsy NSA/CIA gathered intel. If anyone here can post links presenting solid, undeniable evidence of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons material, I’ll change my position.
[/quote]
You are aware that the Obama administration now admits that the Iraqi WMD were moved to Syria – an admission made necessary because Assad just threatened to use them on his own people if attacked from outside?
