Officer of Engineers

You really trust a country who deliberately lied and broke her word at getting nukes? Remember Iran signed the NPT.

__________________
Chimo

Adux

Sir,

NPT is treaty to protect the supermacy of the super-powers. Any self-respecting country wouldnt sign it or adhere by it. Though since we have nukes, I am all for it.

S-2

"...or adhere by it."

That's a weak moral compass you employ to assess treaty obligations once signed.

Iran's obligation is to follow the rules or openly leave. Iran should not, however, engage in dissembling half-measures that ruin their credibility across all issues much less this one.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Adux

Morality has nothing to do with geo-politics. 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. We never signed it, for exactly the same reasons. But I understand why it was created, and the political selfishness behind it.

But as I said earlier, we have nuclear weapons now, therefore Yipee

That would be the gentlemanly thing to do. I dont think Iran of all nations will do that.

Officer of Engineers

That would be the ONLY thing to do. India did not signed the NPT and therefore, not subject to its terms. You mean to tell me that countries have a choice of whether or not to live up to its word?

You don't get it, do you. Iran gave her word and we expect her to live up to her word. You are saying that it is all right for India to trust a Iran who deliberately breaks her word and still have good relationship. Well, good relationships are built on trust and we have proven Iran cannot be trusted.

Adux

Sir,

I do get it, for Indians especially NPT holds no value and we consider it a subjugating treaty, reason we didnt sign it. The NPT issue has been discussed in our Parliment from the day my dad taught me how to read the Newspaper. Iran has to ask herself, wether the word she gave the international community is worth progress of the country. Why I said, I do understand when some people dont adhere by it. It is something I cant stand on morally in front of you, sir. But then again geo-politics isnt.

Tronic

Adux, Iran knew what it was getting into when it signed the NPT.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Officer of Engineers

You still don't get it. It is not whether the NPT is worth it or not, it is about Iran living up to her word. Period. If Iran won't live up to her NPT word, what makes you think that Iran would live up to any agreement, even with India?

Iran has TWO and ONLY TWO legitimate choices. Either she comes clean about her nuclear weapons program, subject herself to complete verification OR withdraw from the NPT and subject herself to the consequences. Right now, she wants nuclear weapons while maintaining all the rights of the NPT. Sorry, that is as underhanded as it gets.

S-2

Adux,

You said this-

"Morality has nothing to do with geo-politics."

and this-

"But then again geo-politics isnt [moral]."

If treaties represent mutual agreement on issues, then you are wrong. Were the same cynical absence of moral obligation to guide the principles of India's civic institutions, you'd face absolute chaos. Laws agreed upon would be a matter of convenience. Perhaps that is the case. If so, I pity India. However, I suspect your bankrupt viewpoint is in a decisive minority on this score. If so, then also on "geo-politics".

India's credibility as a nation-state is divined by it's willing (read "transparent") adherance to treaties upon which it freely engages. So too Iran. It is Iran's obligation to adhere to the by-laws and requirements imposed by the IAEA IAW provisions of the NPT, to which it's a signatory, or withdraw.

Not dissemble nor deceive.

I find your views on nation-state relations irresponsibly selfish. As such, anything you offer derived from such a foundation is immediately suspect as disingenuous and untrustworthy as representing your true viewpoint.

In short, Adux, you can't be trusted.

Adux

Tronic,

They could easily say Shah signed not them, it was signed in 1970.

S-2

"They could easily say Shah signed not them, it was signed in 1970."

Geo-politically speaking, it's called "renouncing" a treaty. That's what you do when you withdraw.

Adux

[quote]I

Does this at all have something to do with my grasp of English?

I have already told you that it is not morally right thing to do. I have advocated against Iran having nukes more than anyone else on this thread even against my own countrymen.
But I believe NPT is such a skewed treaty, the people who made it also have some moral responsibility. It was made for a geo-political goal along with a decent one.

Complete eradication of nuclear weapons or none at all.

We didnt sign it, Sir. We have been the most vocal about how unfair it is.


You made that assesment of me based on my view of a single subject. Breaking treaties, keeping promises to nation states as well as people, isnt something that US, West or for the matter any country in this world can say. I can give you examples of treaties broken by US, India, Pakistan, Soviet Union etc etc. I am sorry, I have a very cynical view when it comes to security of my people, I dont believe in moral-grandstanding. Lets call a spade, a spade.

I will not reply to your personal attack.

Adux

Dear Sir,

Iran using NPT as toilet paper is for all to see. Why isnt Iran being thrown out of NPT?

I am more bothered about how they are going to link their space program along with nuclear program. Iran shouldnt have nuclear weapons, its not a state that can be trusted with it my humble opinion.


Adu

Adux

Wrongful usage of 'adhere', What I meant is, not adhere it publicily which means getting out of the treaty.

Sorry.

Officer of Engineers

They are. Hence why all these UN sanctions with all the steps being laid to war.