Who is really in violation of the NPT, Iran or US

A reminder

Ted or U. Sam, do either of you think that you're being denied the right to express your opinion(s) here? Remember that this forum is not the "home of the free" nor does it even originate in the U.S.. Anyone is free to politely express thier personal opinions and anyone else is free to express differing opinions as long as they too are civil and mindful of the other members.
Just as a general reminder, if anyone feels that there is a post that violates this basic principle or is offensive, please use the report function and the staff will look into it.
 
Uncle Sam said:
Well, the responses to this post so far have been more than a little lacking in content, we have:

1) I'm a mullah and not British, therefore ignore the content of what is being said and look at the untrsuted sterotype instead.

2) The US has Nukes to protect the free world, Iran wants them to bully neighbours. There is still no evidence that Iran has the will or capability to produce nuclear weapons, my only source for this is the IAEA. But the point of my post was to ask who is in breach of the NPT not who do we believe is trying to make nuclear weapons or protect the free world.

Its a simple question, who is in breach of the NPT on balance of evidence gathered from non partisan sources.
Click to expand...

These people aren't going to be convinced by any argument. If they (I'm not going to point fingers here,Deleted) don't have any arguments themselves, they'll resort to ranting and bogus accusations :D
 
Well DTop, of course we can express our opinion without any consequence, that is not the issue. But what you read a lot is that a critical view on any topic makes you an enemy of the US.

Some neutral points (imo of course) have been shot to pieces because they were: neo-Marxist, communist, America-hating, hippie talk. You can't defend your point of view against this and any discussion about the content is down the drain.

So we are in no way hindered to express our opinion (or should I say mine) but the content has been thrown overboard on more then one occasion in dubious ways.

I didn't PM you this because I hope that some might take this into account and start to see the difference between constructive criticism and trolling.
 
Speaking about constructive criticism, what's the old saying? "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"? Constructive criticism is that which helps both the speaker and the listeners. In order for the criticism to be constructive the recipients and critic all have to be open and considerate. Otherwise it is merely destructive commenting. Both critics and critical recipients are repsonsible for how the criticism is recieved and processed.
All of us render judgments about others' beliefs, values, and behaviors. It's just natural. Some of our judgments are well thought out; yet, others are more spontaneously offered. At times, judgments are made, and not always intentionally, to belittle or demean receivers. Other judgments seem rendered to make critics appear superior or powerful rather than to support or enhance receivers.
A troll is an inflammatory post with only one intent and that is to disrupt a discussion by drawing emotional responses. It only serves to upset the members of the forum which is its intent.
In order to prevent these negative things or at least to attempt to minimize them here, the staff moderates these forums. I am trying not to single you or Sam out, nor am I trying to single out your points of view. The only motivation here is for the forums to be a place where our members feel that they can express their views (whatever they may be) politely and without being unjustly set upon. We can't be everywhere all the time. That's why when something occurs that is not in line with our efforts, the only correct way to handle it (as we keep repeating) is to use the report function or a PM and let the staff handle it. Otherwise a member is likely to become part of the problem rather than the solution.
 
To respond to the title of the thread (no, I'm not picking through a Blog), neither nation (US and Iran) is currently confirmed to be in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The USA remains in comliance by not enabling nations who were not Nuclear Powers at the signing of the NPT to develop nukes. Iran, according to their own claims, is not developing nuclear weapons. Unless they are lying, then they are not breaking the NPT. The US, China, France, the UK and the USSR are/were/will always be exempt from the condition of "not owning or developing nuclear weapons" and that is built into the wording of the Treaty. The idea was not to eliminate nukes worldwide. That wasn't possible with the Cold War on, and it may never be possible. What the NPT was was an agreement by the nations of the world to not to have any new nations developing them. South Africa, for instance, could have developed nukes and did not in compliance with the NPT.
 
Uncle Sam said:
Rabs, I appreciate your straight forward response. If understand what your saying its that you believe we have to treat the US differently or Iran differently with respesct to the international law that both countries have signed up to due to extenuating cumstances.

This view seems to be at the heart of most US foreign policy, and it is interpreted by a large portion of the world as "one rule for us and another rule for them" whatever the perceived merits of the extenuating cumstances if we break international law we send a clear signal to everyone else that the only law that counts is the law of the jungle.
Click to expand...

See as how Iran wants to wipe another race of the face of the earth, took U.S. hostiges in the 80's , has threatened Israel, started a war with Iraq, has threatened the U.S. and has flaunted about that they have Nuclear capibilities.

Yes.
 
Cadet Seaman said:
See as how Iran wants to wipe another race of the face of the earth, took U.S. hostiges in the 80's , has threatened Israel, started a war with Iraq, has threatened the U.S. and has flaunted about that they have Nuclear capibilities.

Yes.
Click to expand...

wait a minute... all you said was true except the part of the war with Iraq.

According to the UN security council resolution # 598 & 685 signed in summer of 1988 between the two hostile governments, Iraq was declared as the one which began the war in 21st of Sep 1980.

http://www.parstimes.com/history/un_598.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War


http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/21/IMG/NR059621.pdf?OpenElement

Over & Out!
 
Last edited:
When the United States infringes international resolutions or treaties I agree with that 99% of the times. Well 99,98%.
When Iran does, I fear it.
Because in no way whatsoever do I believe the US being in possess of nuclear weapons is as dangerous as Iran. The stronger the US is the safer I feel, the stronger Iran is, the more threatened I feel. And that's because the US is an ally, and Iran an enemy. Weren't you guys talking realpolitik?
Simply put.
 
Last edited:
Well, I feel that if Iran were to have large amounts of Nuclear Warheads, that would be a threat bigger than North Korea!
 
Last time i read the NPT (was a coupple of years a go though so it might have chamged) but I did not see anything in there that the USA violated, it was all done acording to the NPT. Iran on the other hand violated alot of the rules acording to the NPT.

I however dont think any country needs any type of weapons of mass destructions.
 
Italian Guy said:
When the United States infringes international resolutions or treaties I agree with that 99% of the times. Well 99,98%.
When Iran does, I fear it.
Because in no way whatsoever do I believe the US being in possess of nuclear weapons is as dangerous as Iran. The stronger the US is the safer I feel, the stronger Iran is, the more threatened I feel. And that's because the US is an ally, and Iran an enemy. Weren't you guys talking realpolitik?
Simply put.
Click to expand...

well put!
 
Fuelling the crisis

Leader
Thursday January 5, 2006
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1677989,00.html

Iran is entitled under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to develop nuclear energy. Yet it played cat and mouse with the International Atomic Energy Agency for 18 years, is still evading full disclosure and slicing away, salami-style, at agreements. That was one reason why talks with Britain, France and Germany collapsed last autumn. That is why Moscow is now trying to persuade Tehran to carry out joint uranium enrichment on Russian soil.
Click to expand...
 
I would like to inquire as to what specific international laws Iran is in violation of?

Not saying they aren't, just asking for this to be made explicit. Sources backing this up would be nice too, particularly the law itself AND the claims of their violation.
 
bulldogg said:
I would like to inquire as to what specific international laws Iran is in violation of?

Not saying they aren't, just asking for this to be made explicit. Sources backing this up would be nice too, particularly the law itself AND the claims of their violation.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, I don't care. "laws" when it comes to international relations I think are completely stupid and asanine. Who is going to enforce these laws? The global police? Yay Team America: World Police to the rescue!

Give me a break.

The truth is that each government works to the betterment of its own citizens to the best that it can. "laws" are only made for the sake of their own citizens or so the politicians can retain power. I don't want Iran to have nukes, they can abide by evey law in the world but if in the end they have nukes it's a really bad deal. OJ Simpson can get off through loopholes in the law and we can still deal with it. When evil countries have the ability to kill everyone on the planet through loopholes in "international law" there is no way to just deal with it.
 
Granted WD but the charge was levelled and I am just inquiring as to whether this has any substance to it or just more jingoistic hot air of no import. I am of the opinion that at least a few people run their mouth on subjects speaking with authority on a subject which they simply know SFA about and spout off short terse statements that they believe others want to hear... I'm just calling the hand out of curiousity.
:)
 
bulldogg said:
Granted WD but the charge was levelled and I am just inquiring as to whether this has any substance to it or just more jingoistic hot air of no import. I am of the opinion that at least a few people run their mouth on subjects speaking with authority on a subject which they simply know SFA about and spout off short terse statements that they believe others want to hear... I'm just calling the hand out of curiousity.
:)
Click to expand...

I'm sure when Iran makes threats of wiping a whole country off the face of the earth they are good for it.


http://maryam-rajavi.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=306&Itemid=67
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top