Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 196

Thread: Geneva deal reached

  1. #46
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    I am sorry, that is a whole load of horse phuckey. The most important job of any government is to protect its people and its interest, not some 'honor' as decided by a western narrative, which is at best hypocritical in nature when they themselves have thousands of nukes, and intimidate the rest of the world with the same. Iranians security and interests are worth hell of a lot more than some word.
    You're conflating the issue. Of course, a nation's first responsibility is national security. But its honor, or rather its word in honoring its international treaties, ranks high up on the list of critical national interests. Iran has said it is not building a nuke and, more than that, has no intention of EVER building one. Ok, now it's time to stand by that in a verifiable manner, given the breaches in the NPT Iran signed.

    The argument that it needs nukes to protect its people because other countries have nukes is circular reasoning. It can only justify having nukes in terms of actual threats to its security. What are those threats? How serious are they. I think you'll come up with a dry hole on that question. The truth is Iran has regional ambitions that would be significantly advanced if it had a nuke force.

    But you see how regional ambitions quickly take a back seat to national security. Now Iran is now focused on the economic aspect of its national security, which is a critical element for its survival. We are now in the process of negotiating with Iran a return to economic health in return for absolute certainty that she will not be able to build a nuke.

    The yellow flags are flying. Iran, being a nation of suburb traders, will try to keep as much of its nuclear program as it can. We've learned that lesson before. In Iran a good deal is not a balanced deal, but one in which Iran gets the better of it. This is their standard of honor. If we can shape a deal that satisfies both objectives, all the better.
    Last edited by JAD_333; 25 Nov 13, at 18:06.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  2. #47
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 11
    Location
    God's own country
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    What part of keeping your word do you not understand? If your government cannot be trusted to keep her word in foreign treaties? Then what makes you trust her in obeying her own laws restricting her actions against you?

    The NPT allows you an out. Don't like it? Sign yourself out.

    Your position and those of you who argues for Iran to cheat on the NPT itself is complete horse puckey. If Iran does what you suggest she does, then we should declare war today. No, more than that, we are obligated to declare war today before she gets the nuke. While we may not win this war, I guarantee you that it would be the Iranian population would suffer a hell of a lot more than keeping nukes. We just pay higher costs for TVs and DVD players.
    I wonder why Israel has nukes then? Is it the not right of the soverign government to protect its citizens? NPT hypocritical and unfair arrangement. The only reason any country will have the cajones to declare war, is because they dont have a nuke , case in point Pakistan. Therefore it is more than necessary for Iran to have a nuke.
    NPT is a western narrative to make sure the world follows their rules and dance according to them, it wont hold for long. India made sure of that.

  3. #48
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    I wonder why Israel has nukes then? Is it the not right of the soverign government to protect its citizens? NPT hypocritical and unfair arrangement. The only reason any country will have the cajones to declare war, is because they dont have a nuke , case in point Pakistan. Therefore it is more than necessary for Iran to have a nuke.
    NPT is a western narrative to make sure the world follows their rules and dance according to them, it wont hold for long. India made sure of that.
    You proved the Colonel's point.Israel is not a signatory of the NPT.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  4. #49
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 11
    Location
    God's own country
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    You're conflating the issue. Of course, a nation's first responsibility is national security. But its honor, or rather its word in honoring its international treaties, ranks high up on the list of critical national interests. Iran has said it is not building a nuke and, more than that, has no intention of EVER building one. Ok, now it's time to stand by that in a verifiable manner, given the breaches in the NPT Iran signed.

    The argument that it needs nukes to protect its people because other countries have nukes is circular reasoning. It can only justify having nukes in terms of actual threats to its security. What are those threats? How serious are they. I think you'll come up with a dry hole on that question. The truth is Iran has regional ambitions that would be significantly advanced if it had a nuke force.

    But you see how regional ambitions quickly take a back seat to national security. Now Iran is now focused on the economic aspect of its national security, which is a critical element for its survival. We are now in the process of negotiating with Iran a return to economic health in return for absolute certainty that she will not be able to build a nuke.

    The yellow flags are flying. Iran, being a nation of suburb traders, will try to keep as much of its nuclear program as it can. We've learned that lesson before. In Iran a good deal is not a balanced deal, but one in which Iran gets the better of it. This is their standard of honor. If we can shape a deal that satisfies both objectives, all the better.
    I think it will be my last post on the NPT issue, lest we digress from the main topic at hand.

    There are extreme threats from USA, Israel and Saudia against Iran. Any sane country will require nukes when faced with such threats. The word of the nation is not as important as the ultimate survival of the nation, such hypocrisy is shown Western countries day in and day out, with regards to the world regulatory structures on a multitude of issues.

    What is honour, when you are being forced to honour a unhonourable world equation. There is no honour,truth or fairness in the NPT.

    There is no reason for Iran, India or anybody to help the West keep the primacy in World arena.

    PS: That said, from an Indian nationalist perspective, I wouldnt want the Iranians to have the bomb, but then again I wouldnt want the western centric perspective to prevail either. This kool aid of everything the west does and the structures it has made in this world is good and dandy, cannot be unchallenged.
    Last edited by Defcon5; 25 Nov 13, at 19:15.

  5. #50
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 11
    Location
    God's own country
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    You proved the Colonel's point.Israel is not a signatory of the NPT.
    I have no issues with it, India used the same argument. Yet, it was sanctioned much before it tested, while Israel is not. West support for Israel and the hypocrisy in the world politics, is not a unknown thing. Carry on.

  6. #51
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    I wonder why Israel has nukes then?
    Looking back now, a very big mistake on their part. Ask yourself this. Which has protected Israel more? The US or nukes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    Is it the not right of the soverign government to protect its citizens?
    It is NOT the right of a soverign government to risk the lives of their people for the sake of ego.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    NPT hypocritical and unfair arrangement.
    1) No one forced Iran to sign.
    2) It is far from an unfair arrangement.
    3) The NPT works whether you like it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    The only reason any country will have the cajones to declare war, is because they dont have a nuke , case in point Pakistan.
    What the hell are you talking about? Both nucelar weapons powers and non-nuclear weapons powers have been declaring war against one another ever since Hiroshima.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    Therefore it is more than necessary for Iran to have a nuke.
    Define Iran's needs for nukes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    NPT is a western narrative to make sure the world follows their rules and dance according to them, it wont hold for long. India made sure of that.
    India for all intents and purposes signed the NPT. Nuclear proliferation is NOT going to happen because of India.

  7. #52
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Mar 09
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    I wonder why Israel has nukes then? Is it the not right of the soverign government to protect its citizens? NPT hypocritical and unfair arrangement. The only reason any country will have the cajones to declare war, is because they dont have a nuke , case in point Pakistan. Therefore it is more than necessary for Iran to have a nuke.
    NPT is a western narrative to make sure the world follows their rules and dance according to them, it wont hold for long. India made sure of that.
    i) India, Pakistan and Israel have never signed NPT. They never agreed to never develop nuclear weapons. But Iran did.

    In other words, development of nuclear weapons by India, Pakistan and Israel is not a betrayal. But if Iran does, it is.

    ii) If Iran has a right to develop nuclear weapons by hook or crook then other nations (Israel, SA, USA) also have a right to stop an adversary from developing it. Right of the sovereign government to protect its citizens goes both ways.

  8. #53
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ajhax View Post
    i) India, Pakistan and Israel have never signed NPT. They never agreed to never develop nuclear weapons. But Iran did.
    I will add to this point. North Korea signed herself out of the NPT in order to develop nuclear weapons.

  9. #54
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Mar 09
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I will add to this point. North Korea signed herself out of the NPT in order to develop nuclear weapons.
    And still North Korea is pressurized to give up their nuclear weapons program. This adds to my second point that this talk about right to have nuclear weapon is bulls**t.

  10. #55
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ajhax View Post
    And still North Korea is pressurized to give up their nuclear weapons program. This adds to my second point that this talk about right to have nuclear weapon is bulls**t.
    Well, North Korea doesn't have nukes. They have duds. Actually, out of all the non-NPT nuclear weapons powers, only India has demonstrated a weaponized nuke.

    However, if you can figure out NK motivations, there's a job and a desk waiting for you at the Pentagon.

    However, addressing your second point, other Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty, I don't see India and Pakistan being pressure to disarm.

  11. #56
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post

    There are extreme threats from USA, Israel and Saudia against Iran. Any sane country will require nukes when faced with such threats. The word of the nation is not as important as the ultimate survival of the nation, such hypocrisy is shown Western countries day in and day out, with regards to the world regulatory structures on a multitude of issues.
    Those threats are related to Iran's potential acquisition of nukes. I meant threats to an Iran without nukes or seeking nukes.


    What is honour, when you are being forced to honour a unhonourable world equation. There is no honour,truth or fairness in the NPT.
    Honor is in keeping your treaties, not trying to circumvent them. Also, there is honor in withdrawing from a treaty by whatever means provided in the treaty. But avowing adherence to a treaty while breaking it is not honorable.


    There is no reason for Iran, India or anybody to help the West keep the primacy in World arena.
    I disagree and could give you reasons, but that is another issue.


    PS: That said, from an Indian nationalist perspective, I wouldnt want the Iranians to have the bomb, but then again I wouldnt want the western centric perspective to prevail either.
    So, to achieve the latter you would favor the former? Standing on principle can get you into trouble.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  12. #57
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Mar 09
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Well, North Korea doesn't have nukes. They have duds. Actually, out of all the non-NPT nuclear weapons powers, only India has demonstrated a weaponized nuke.

    However, if you can figure out NK motivations, there's a job and a desk waiting for you at the Pentagon.

    However, addressing your second point, other Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty, I don't see India and Pakistan being pressure to disarm.
    Well there was a time when both countries were sanctioned. But both of them kind of earned there right by just being stubborn and also useful in some other ways.

  13. #58
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    993
    Quote Originally Posted by ajhax View Post
    Well there was a time when both countries were sanctioned. But both of them kind of earned there right by just being stubborn and also useful in some other ways.
    Iran is useful too, if you ask India, China or anyone else who buys enormous quantities of oil from them. Countries which don't depend on them for oil, would obviously have no problem calling for "International" sanctions against Iran, which is exactly what they did.

  14. #59
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Mar 09
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    Iran is useful too, if you ask India, China or anyone else who buys enormous quantities of oil from them. Countries which don't depend on them for oil, would obviously have no problem calling for "International" sanctions against Iran, which is exactly what they did.
    How useful is nuclear Iran? How harmful is nuclear India? On the other note, Pakistan is an example of why we should be worried about nuclear Iran.

  15. #60
    Regular Norseman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Oct 13
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    62

    Iran has a right to nuclear weapons!

    Since there appears to be no Iranians on this forum, I will for the sake of argument take upon myself the role as the devil's advocate.


    Does Iran have a right to nuclear weapons? Well, it would be a breach of the “Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” (NPT) But, does the USA, the nation with the greatest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction on the planet, a demonstrated history of using them offensively, an ongoing addiction to waging unnecessary, pre-emptive and mass-destructive conventional war, any say in Iran’s or any other country’s right to nuclear weapons?

    Opposition to Iran’s nukes reveals more than conventional hypocrisy or a refusal to concede that the chain reaction started by the Manhattan Project is unstoppable. Any nation that decides to acquire nuclear weapons will do so. It’s no longer a matter of if or how but of when. And any nation that acquires the weapon will live by the same calculus of deterrence that nuclear powers have lived with since the 1950s. All nations are entitled to possess nuclear WMD – not inspite of, but because of the NPT.

    What sounds like a blunt contradiction is nothing but the logical outcome of the unfair (or unipolar) interpretation and implementation of international rules and if the NPT is to be taken seriously and literary, Iran has a right to go nuclear simply because the NPT has – given the practise of the official nuclear powers – already lost it validity.

    So, then, why should Iran have a right to nuclear weapons? According to the NPT only the five nuclear weapon states are entitled to possess nuclear weapons. All other states and that supposedly include Iran, mustn’t manufacture or own any nuclear weapons. Herein, one could dismiss the above thesis as invalid, because the implied Iranian nuclear weapons program is a clear breach of the NPT’s Article IX. Iran is no official nuclear power state and it can impossibly become one. Consequently Iran mustn’t posess nuclear weapons – to which it wouldn’t be entitled to, given the terms of the NPT.

    So far, so good. In fact, the NPT, on which the non-proliferation regime is founded on, has already lost its validity on account of two main reasons:

    Firstly, the five official nuclear powers openly practise what Iran is assumed to be doing, that is: the violation of the treaty. The Iranian nuclear program is legitimate in accordance with Article IV of the NPT – to and only to the extent that it is limited to the peaceful and civile usage of nuclear energy. What is more critical is the upgrading of existing nuclear weapons stockpiles. Five official nuclear powers are obliged to disarm. None of the nuclear powers has done so todate. On the contrary they strive to make the stockpile up to date. And this is a clear breach of Article IV.

    Secondly, the political reality is such that the essence of the treaty has alredy been violated. Amidst the furore about Iran, what is usually forgotten is that apart from the five officially recognised nuclear powers there are four other non-nuclear weapons states that possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. None of these states is authorized by the NPT to possess nuclear weapons.

    However, three of these states – India, Pakistan and Israel – are not only tolerated, but are also supported by the official nuclear powers. In addition, India and USA have a treaty on nuclear cooperation that de facto legitimises the Indian nuclear weapons program and recognises India as an official nuclear power. One could argue, that neither India, nor Pakistan, nor Israel (nor North Korea, that resigned from the NPT in 2003) are members of the NPT. So, the restrictions of the NPT are not binding them. My two retorts are: Firstly, the NPT constitutes a global non-proliferation regime that binds all its members. And this means, that, as stated in the cited Articles, none of the signatories is allowed to cooperate with non-nuclear power states (no matter whether they are signatories or not) in a way that could enable them to go nuclear. Otherwise, and this is my second reply, Iran had just to resign the NPT to legally become a nuclear weapons state – like India, Pakistan or Israel. And that is not convincing. That is why the world did not recognize North Korea when it resigned from the NPT with this argument. Otherwise it would, as it has already done, violate the essence of the NPT.

    However, and here we come full circle, the recognized breach of the NPT by the official nuclear powers as well as the nuclear political reality (that we have three officially recognized non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons) make the NPT and the non-proliferation regime invalid.

    Firstly, the five nuclear powers violate the NPT, and because so do so they also violate the “estoppel”-principle. According to this principle, a law-breaker must’t demand of another the kind of behaviour that he does not recognize.

    Secondly, to become a reliable global non-proliferation regime, the NPT must be reciprocal and equal. This means, that all and not only some states are bound by the restrictions. And, furthermor, if we are willing to allow some exceptions to the rule, these exceptions must be applicable to everyone under similar circumstances. And this means, that the official nuclear powers have to disarm and that all other states (like India or Israel) have to disclose and stop their nuclear weapons programs – otherwise the NPT member states have to seriously question the relations to that states. However, this is not the way it is. In contrast, the NPT constitutes not a reciprocal and equal non-proliferation regime, but a proliferation privilege: giving one side access to the power of nuclear destruction, while leaving the other helpless. Either we revive the non-proliferation regime as an equal and fair system – under the above noted conditions –, or we accept, that the NPT has no obligation at all and all states have the same equal and general right to nuclear weapons.


    I’m not justifying the possession of nuclear weapons—by anyone!
    To say that any nation has a right to possess nuclear weapons does not mean, that it is desirable and reasonable that they asserts this right. The opposite is true. Although it is a matter of record that nuclear weapons have thus far proved to be better political than military tools, and that not since their original spread from the United States has any national leader been able to make sense of firing them off.

    But as Kenneth Bainbridge, director of the Trinity test in July 1945, put it immediately after the explosion: “Now we are all sons of bitches.”

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Iran @ Geneva
    By Minskaya in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 22 Nov 13,, 12:12
  2. New Deal on Bush tax cuts reached............
    By MIKEMUN in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 12 Dec 10,, 23:52
  3. Geneva Convention Turns 60
    By Merlin in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12 Aug 09,, 16:52
  4. Shotguns and the Geneva Convention
    By Ironduke in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 20 May 09,, 22:03
  5. US detainees to get Geneva rights
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Jul 06,, 05:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •