Thread: Considering a war with Iran

Originally Posted by Ray

While many nations may not approve of the Israeli highhandedness, the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers cannot be condoned and the action taken was justified.

There is a gross imbalance in the coverage of matters relating to Israel. Look at the massive reporting of the capture of Gilad Shalit. Just 24 hours prior to that event, Israelis commandos launched an incursion into Gaza and kidnapped 2 civilians, a doctor and his brother, taking them bak to the Israeli prison system. Although this was a serious crime, it wasn't reported anywhere in the western mainstream. That makes me sad.

Originally Posted by timhaughton

It is, you're absolutely right. Ther's a good debate to be had about the NPT, what state it's in, why some countries signed it, why others refused.

Now the tough question though. If you were an oil rich nation, what lengths would you go to in order to protect yourself from illegal invasions by nuclear states?

Ok,

So now, we've gone from NO evidence of a nuclear weapons program to the evidence does not indicate a desire for nuclear weapons to now guilty with an explanation.

You're shifting your goal post each and every time here.

Now, the tough question is why should you allow a state that obviously lied, broke her own word, stated an entire people lied, and whether true or not about saying he wanted to destroy Israel, did not come out and explicitly denied such allegations ANY chance at nuclear weapons?

North Korea at least withdrew from the NPT before setting off her nuke. Why should we demand any less of Iran?

Originally Posted by timhaughton

There's a lovely debate to be had on the definition of terrorism.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).


There's that "unlawful use of force" term again. Unfortunately, the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq meets that definition, so that's no good.

Current U.S. national security strategy: "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."

Well, around 1 million dead Iraqi civilians. You be the judge.

United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

Iraq meets that.

League of Nations Convention (1937): all criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.

Iraq meets that.

Gee, I wish I had some facts to back up what I was saying.

Gee, so do I.
States have the right to make war, individuals do not, again international jurisprudence, everything you cite applies to individuals, not states.
Got anything else, or you just gonna make the same old unsubstantiated claims?


Pssst: Just so you know where to look, here's a hint: state sponsorship of terrorism.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Gee, so do I.
States have the right to make war, individuals do not

Where is it written. Please substantiate this.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Ok,

So now, we've gone from NO evidence of a nuclear weapons program to the evidence does not indicate a desire for nuclear weapons to now guilty with an explanation.

OK.

Fact: There is NO evidence for a nuclear weapons program. None. It doesn't exist. If we accept the Khan-blueprint thing as fact, that is not proof of a weapons program. It simply doesn't follow. Although if it is true, and I'm inclined to think it is, it does constitute a breach of the NPT.

I'm all for the NPT. I think it is an important piece of legislation. Major nuclear powers like the US and UK are in breach of it, so should they be allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to Iran?

(Source : Legal report, quoted in full here: : In the News - Renewal of US-UK Nuclear Cooperation 'in Breach of NPT' say Eminent Lawyers)

So can we be constructive? What would our advice to Iran be? They live in a world where the strongest nations do not observe the same treaties we are demanding they observe. They live in a world where the strongest nations commit acts of terrorism against Iran's neighbours. What would our advice be?

Originally Posted by Parihaka

everything you cite applies to individuals, not states.

Can you substantiate this too?

Originally Posted by timhaughton

OK.

Fact: There is NO evidence for a nuclear weapons program. None. It doesn't exist. If we accept the Khan-blueprint thing as fact, that is not proof of a weapons program. It simply doesn't follow. Although if it is true, and I'm inclined to think it is, it does constitute a breach of the NPT.

Again, we have AQ Khan as evidence. Not ONLY has he provided the blueprints, the expertise BUT ALSO the equipment AND the paperwork specifically designed to hide the intent from both the IAEA AND Pakistan's own laws. The cascades the Iranians are using came from AQ Khan.

AQ Khan is the smoking gun.

Originally Posted by mike nickeas

I'm all for the NPT. I think it is an important piece of legislation. Major nuclear powers like the US and UK are in breach of it, so should they be allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to Iran?

(Source : Legal report, quoted in full here: : In the News - Renewal of US-UK Nuclear Cooperation 'in Breach of NPT' say Eminent Lawyers)

So can we be constructive? What would our advice to Iran be? They live in a world where the strongest nations do not observe the same treaties we are demanding they observe. They live in a world where the strongest nations commit acts of terrorism against Iran's neighbours. What would our advice be?

Unfortunately for you, updating nuclear stockpiles and disarmaments are not the same thing as breaking the NPT. All five N5 powers have reduced their stockpiles dramatically which is a tenet of the NPT. All five can provide ample proof that they have disarmed - just not all the way but then the NPT does not have a time limit nor prevents maintenance or replacing an old warhead with a new one.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

AQ Khan is the smoking gun.

Wishing it doesn't make it so. Knowledge, equipment, designs - they do not constitute a weapons program. If you have proof of a weapons program, let's see it.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Unfortunately for you, updating nuclear stockpiles and disarmaments are not the same thing as breaking the NPT. All five N5 powers have reduced their stockpiles dramatically which is a tenet of the NPT. All five can provide ample proof that they have disarmed - just not all the way but then the NPT does not have a time limit nor prevents maintenance or replacing an old warhead with a new one.

Wishing it doesn't make it so. Unfortunately for you, educated legal opinion is against you. US and UK are in breach. Fact.

Originally Posted by timhaughton

Wishing it doesn't make it so. Knowledge, equipment, designs - they do not constitute a weapons program. If you have proof of a weapons program, let's see it.

We have the testimony of AQ Khan. What more do you want?

Originally Posted by timhaughton

Wishing it doesn't make it so. Unfortunately for you, educated legal opinion is against you. US and UK are in breach. Fact.

Legal opinion is NOT a legal judgement - FACT.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

We have the testimony of AQ Khan. What more do you want?

Proof. Proof that there is a very real, ongoing development program to develop a nuclear bomb. Not the testimony of a man trying to save his own skin. What he is saying may well be true. It may also be false. There may be a weapons program. There might not be. We have no way to know. That's why we don't call it proof.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Legal opinion is NOT a legal judgement - FACT.

When it comes to international law, whose opinion do you think carries more weight? A group of non-partisan, impartial legal experts, or you? Feel free to quote a group of non-partisan, impartial legal experts backing up your point of view.

Originally Posted by timhaughton

Proof. Proof that there is a very real, ongoing development program to develop a nuclear bomb. Not the testimony of a man trying to save his own skin. What he is saying may well be true. It may also be false. There may be a weapons program. There might not be. We have no way to know. That's why we don't call it proof.

We have the paper work of the illegal transactions. Of the documents, including the blueprint, provided. Of the altered dates of the transactions. Of the money trail. The Iranians bought everything they needed to make the bomb from a man who knew how to make one AND they did it under the table in clear violation of both the NPT and the IAEA.

Originally Posted by timhaughton

When it comes to international law, whose opinion do you think carries more weight? A group of non-partisan, impartial legal experts, or you? Feel free to quote a group of non-partisan, impartial legal experts backing up your point of view.

Oh, that's too easy to counter. Both your Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court has refused to hear the argument. Who do you trust in this matter? A bunch of nobodies or your own courts?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

We have the paper work of the illegal transactions. Of the documents, including the blueprint, provided. Of the altered dates of the transactions. Of the money trail. The Iranians bought everything they needed to make the bomb from a man who knew how to make one AND they did it under the table in clear violation of both the NPT and the IAEA.

So, again, no proof. We're not arguing about the NPT violation. Because it's up to the UNSC to decide sanctions, assuming the US doesn't invade first.

What we're saying is this - There is absolutely no proof, whatsoever, that there is an Iranian weapons program. Being in violation of the NPT, and having a weapons program, are 2 very, VERY different things.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Oh, that's too easy to counter. Both your Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court has refused to hear the argument. Who do you trust in this matter? A bunch of nobodies or your own courts?

That's a counter? Gee, you're struggling Let's say that we had a supreme court. Which we don't. But let's say we did. Are you saying that "la la la la we're not listening" is a legal endorsement? Please say you are.

As always, could you also substantiate the above claim regarding the US Supreme court and their refusal to hear it. And the same for our non-existent supreme court. I'm not trying to catch you out. I've already learned a lot on this board, and I'm still learning. Long may it continue.

Originally Posted by timhaughton

What we're saying is this - There is absolutely no proof, whatsoever, that there is an Iranian weapons program. Being in violation of the NPT, and having a weapons program, are 2 very, VERY different things.

You're seriously joking me! What to you think the NPT is all about?

Originally Posted by timhaughton

That's a counter? Gee, you're struggling Let's say that we had a supreme court. Which we don't. But let's say we did. Are you saying that "la la la la we're not listening" is a legal endorsement? Please say you are.

As always, could you also substantiate the above claim regarding the US Supreme court and their refusal to hear it. And the same for our non-existent supreme court. I'm not trying to catch you out. I've already learned a lot on this board, and I'm still learning. Long may it continue.

Oh please! Your courts as well as ours AND your justice ministry (whatever they may be called) would have gone over the legal wording of any treaty with a fine tooth comb. If your courts have decided not to hear a case that was obviously brought forth as late as 2004, then it is deemed to have no merit. Courts dismisses motionless lawsuits all the time.

As for the US Supreme Court, I've found no motion submitted to them on the above.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're seriously joking me! What to you think the NPT is all about?

Well, I don't really have time to teach you all about the NPT, you could try reading it. There are numerous ways a signatory can be in breach of it. Read the legal brief I posted the link to to see the ways in which the US and UK are in breach of it as examples.

The fact remains that obtaining materials that could be preparatory to starting a nuclear weapons program is a breach.

Starting a nuclear weapons program is a breach, albeit in a different way.

But they are VERY different things.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Oh please! Your courts as well as ours AND your justice ministry (whatever they may be called) would have gone over the legal wording of any treaty with a fine tooth comb. If your courts have decided not to hear a case that was obviously brought forth as late as 2004, then it is deemed to have no merit. Courts dismisses motionless lawsuits all the time.

Again, please substantiate the reference. Otherwise you're just some guy saying stuff.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

As for the US Supreme Court, I've found no motion submitted to them on the above.

If you can't substantiate either, shall we move on?