Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran regrets India’s launch of Israeli satellite

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Tronic View Post
    Cactus, it seems the intent of my post has been misplaced. I am not quibbling about America's relationship with Pakistan. I am merely stating that India should not hijack its own national interests for the sake of pleasing others. The US-Pakistan relationship was given as an example of that (i.e. putting national interests foremost); not as a reason for an Indo-Iranian relationship! ;)
    Yes, I understand that you present the US-Pakistan relationship as an example... but as an example of what? Of benefits of strict and unwavering adherence to self-interest? In that case, I wished to point out that the costs are outweighing the benefits. Further I would suspect that if India too were to make its choices on the faulty assumptions about the benefits of self-interested foreign policy, it too would eventually have to pay the piper.

    Again: Now what lesson should you really learn from this?

    Comment


    • #62
      Adux Reply

      Adux,

      You say-

      "The whole treaty itself is immoral. It was made to assure the supermacy of the nuclear powers in the disguised as "for the safety of the word", when it is was not the primary motive."

      Then you say-

      "It was made for a geo-political goal along with a decent one."

      You backtrack in recognition of your viewpoint's inherent weakness. Good. There's hope for you yet if your personal view here is honestly expressed.

      "Iran has to ask herself, wether the word she gave the international community is worth progress of the country."

      Nuclear weapons are progress? I think India already realizes that they represent a painful necessity-no more. Iran will wreck herself on the shoals of WMD acquisition. Iran is wrong and needs to be told that by anybody interested in a secure Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz. It's really just that simple. At every turn they've rejected each and every offer made by Russia, America, and the EU-3 that would have assured Iran's desire for nuclear energy while safeguarding global interests.

      That's not good.

      I'm not sorry if you feel personally attacked. Your POV traces directly back to your moral character and personal word. How can it be otherwise? You won't respond? How and why would you? Your perspective is morally reprehensible. Fire away but until you repent your perspectives clearly and unambiguously, I'm not reneging a single word written.

      At WAB you are what you write.
      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by S-2 View Post
        Adux,

        You say-

        "The whole treaty itself is immoral. It was made to assure the supermacy of the nuclear powers in the disguised as "for the safety of the word", when it is was not the primary motive."

        Then you say-

        "It was made for a geo-political goal along with a decent one."
        Dear Sir,

        Decent one : Eradiction of Nuclear Weapons.
        The Double Play: Subjugation of countries from acquring weapons while the N-5 keeps them. Very convenient isnt it.

        My problem is with the treaty.

        You backtrack in recognition of your viewpoint's inherent weakness. Good. There's hope for you yet if your personal view here is honestly expressed.
        I have been reading your post for quite a while in 2 differnet boards, of which I am only member of this one. I have great deal of respect for you and your views.I hope you make the right choice.I am a very patient man, especially when I know I am clear about myself.

        "Iran has to ask herself, wether the word she gave the international community is worth progress of the country."
        I have already explained my mistake in the usage of word 'adhere'. When you dont adhere by a treaty(publicly), it means you renounce it. My bad, can i blame my english:))

        Nuclear weapons are progress? I think India already realizes that they represent a painful necessity-no more. Iran will wreck herself on the shoals of WMD acquisition. Iran is wrong and needs to be told that by anybody interested in a secure Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz. It's really just that simple. At every turn they've rejected each and every offer made by Russia, America, and the EU-3 that would have assured Iran's desire for nuclear energy while safeguarding global interests.
        Sir,

        Go to page 2 and 3, read my views on Iran acquring n-weapons. Iran is not going for nuclear energy, it is clear.

        I'm not sorry if you feel personally attacked. Your POV traces directly back to your moral character and personal word. How can it be otherwise? You won't respond? How and why would you? Your perspective is morally reprehensible. Fire away but until you repent your perspectives clearly and unambiguously, I'm not reneging a single word written.

        At WAB you are what you write.
        I am not going to repent anything that I wrote about NPT, You have mis-understood me, for which I am partly to blame. Now, it is your choice.

        Comment


        • #64
          Adux Reply

          I'll relent and we'll see how matters transpire.
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • #65
            Adu,

            You have NOT addressed the fundamental point in all of this. If Iran is making toilet paper out of the NPT, then what makes you think that she won't to any agreement she signs with India? Iran gives her word. Iran breaks her word.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Adu,

              You have NOT addressed the fundamental point in all of this. If Iran is making toilet paper out of the NPT, then what makes you think that she won't to any agreement she signs with India? Iran gives her word. Iran breaks her word.
              Sir,

              First of all,

              I dont think Iran is a trust worthy country, and even for our geo-political concerns I believe we should take a long term view and shun away from Iran.

              Regarding the conduct of nations....

              Is an unequal treaty like the NPT the litmus test for honesty and value of word?It was created to make sure N-5 remains on top, Specifically why India refused to sign it. It was not for eradication of nuclear weapons, but limiting of nuclear weapons to the N-5 only.

              Since I have caused much confusion before, Let me make it clear

              I would understand if any country not sign it, or renounce(back off) from the treaty all together.

              India honours its treaty of supplying Pakistan with water, even after all the wars it has caused us and not to mention their terrorist activities they have spun around in my country. Should we continue the treaty, ofcourse Yes. It is our word to the Pakistani farmers and civilians, and we will honour it.

              So I will not blame Iran if it backs out of the Treaty, But that is not the case now, they are saying they are 'adhering by it' while they are actually making nuclear bombs. 'Having the cake and eating it too' isnt that the right term sir.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Adux View Post
                Is an unequal treaty like the NPT the litmus test for honesty and value of word?It was created to make sure N-5 remains on top, Specifically why India refused to sign it. It was not for eradication of nuclear weapons, but limiting of nuclear weapons to the N-5 only.
                It also allowed nuclear energy development without fear of spreading nuclear weapons. It also allowed nuclear weapons capable countries (Canada, Japan, Australia, Germany) to proceed with research, development, and implementation without the need to safeguard weapons development. It also allowed countries like Iran to gain nuclear powerplant expertize which she would never get on her own.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  It also allowed nuclear energy development without fear of spreading nuclear weapons. It also allowed nuclear weapons capable countries (Canada, Japan, Australia, Germany) to proceed with research, development, and implementation without the need to safeguard weapons development
                  .

                  Definitly.
                  Why bother about spreading, Why not eradicate it all together? NPT and CTBT before 1998 Pokran test was the most debated topic in my country for a long long time.

                  I dream of my country becoming another USA hopefully in my lifetime, I am happy with our current position. Therefore I myself dont morally grandstand.


                  It also allowed countries like Iran to gain nuclear powerplant expertize which she would never get on her own
                  I dont know if the Iranian scientist wouldnt be able to achieve nuclear capability without NPT,If we can, I am sure anybody else with the money and motivation can. Anyways, people who sold those reactors should be hitting their head against a brick wall...:))

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    More

                    ...and both the United States and Russia have drawn down their nuclear warhead stockpiles IAW NPT provisions.
                    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                      ...and both the United States and Russia have drawn down their nuclear warhead stockpiles IAW NPT provisions.
                      Sir,

                      That doesnt change a thing when viewed from the eyes of a non-nuclear nation.


                      Adu

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Adux View Post
                        I dont know if the Iranian scientist wouldnt be able to achieve nuclear capability without NPT,If we can, I am sure anybody else with the money and motivation can. Anyways, people who sold those reactors should be hitting their head against a brick wall...:))
                        How quickly do people forget. You got your expertise from Canadian and Russian reactors built in India.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          How quickly do people forget. You got your expertise from Canadian and Russian reactors built in India.
                          I havent sir, I just missed to write it. I havent forgotten our two canadian reactors and the rest of Russian one's. But India does hold a unique position in Nuclear technology development, Isnt that why the world see's us in a different light to Pakistan. Doesnt Pres.Bush's Nuclear Deal stand testament to that.

                          But then what was achieved in 1950's by other countries, is something I am sure a Second Tier country like Iran when comes to education and infrastructure in 2000's, nearly half a century later build themselves. You as an Engg would know how much technology has become easy to replicate especially old technology like Nuke tech. Therefore my assumption that Iranians will be able to pull it off.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            The NK's test was a complete fizz. During Indian tests, there was at least 1 dud, if not 3. The Pak tests were 3 duds and they had working Chinese blueprints. Even if you look at the N5, there were far more failures than successes and they spent a hell of a lot more money than what Iran could even dream of. Hence, why they took short cuts ... like buying from AQ Khan.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              .....and they had working Chinese blueprints.....
                              Just trying to understand...isnt this clearly against the NPT? Looks like China has clearly broken the treaty and not adhered to her word. Where is the morality here?

                              So what is the action that US and the other NPT members are taking on China for breaking the treaty?
                              God is a cruise missile.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by FullTank View Post
                                Just trying to understand...isnt this clearly against the NPT? Looks like China has clearly broken the treaty and not adhered to her word. Where is the morality here?

                                So what is the action that US and the other NPT members are taking on China for breaking the treaty?
                                The co-operation ended before the Chinese signed the NPT.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X