Containing Iran

Originally posted by centurion1211
Being able to blow the world up many times over is no comfort to the millions that could be dead from just one iranian nuke.

Could you run that by me again? I think your saying I should be grateful for the US/UN use of nukes (DU) to protect me from the mere threat of a possible Iranian nuke. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You are correct. Israel never signed on the dotted line. And to this day Israel has yet to make claim to having such weapons even though other countries are required to disclose to the international community what they are sitting on. The West turned a blind eye to Israels nukes, chemical and biological weapons arsenal since about 1968.

I would think that this particular display of double standards may be the instigating factor in some Middle East minds....not to mention the repeated violations of international law Israel commits against the Palestinians.

What "double standards"? Either everyone gets held to the agreements they make, or no one does. How is that a double standard?

I would consider it to be more of a double standard to let Iran slide on agreements they HAVE made, and to simultaneously hold Israel responsible o agreements they have NOT made.

Maybe you can help me by pointing out Israels alleged "repeated violations of International Law"?

reply to post by nenothtu


Here are a few of the crimes www.ifamericansknew.org... the sources are investigative articles. We could go all the way back to Ariel Sharon if you like.

I say it is high time that the world start calling out the "Double Standards" whether there is an agreement or not. Iran has cooperated in the past. Perhaps they simply see the writing on the wall. The bar will continually be raised on Iran as it was with Irag.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Here are a few of the crimes www.ifamericansknew.org... the sources are investigative articles. We could go all the way back to Ariel Sharon if you like.

After a cursory examination of the link provided (and by no means an in-depth examination), I've not seen a citation or evidence of actual "International Laws" broken, but I'm unwilling to dismiss the arguments out of hand without further examination. Because of that, and because there is a lot of reading and examination to go through there that isn't at all germaine to the discussion at hand, I'll have to concede that particular argument to you at this point - but reserving the right to go into it in more depth in a more appropriate thread.

A lotta flowery words that just mean "you win this round".

I say it is high time that the world start calling out the "Double Standards" whether there is an agreement or not. Iran has cooperated in the past. Perhaps they simply see the writing on the wall. The bar will continually be raised on Iran as it was with Irag.

I agree, double standards are not to be tolerated, but maintain that whether an "agreement" has actually been agreed to is pivotal in determining just what ARE double standards.

"Bar raised" on Iraq? Iraq was obfuscatory at every single turn, until very late in the game. TOO late in the game.

Containing Iran?

Do as we did with the Germans.

Surround them on all sides

Cut off their supply lines.

Make the sea not their sea

Make the air not the air

Make them the bad dog on the block

Fill the MSM focus on

Draw Iran into an occasion

Let them feel their feet and play their game until they fall prey to TPTB

End (for now) of the Great Game

reply to post by nenothtu


Yup. A lot of double standards. en.wikipedia.org... It seems the good old U.S is sharing technology they shouldn't be. A violation of that treaty?

A great deal of history between Iran's signing of the treaty and now. en.wikipedia.org...

A total set up to use as a reason to invade a country, or hand Israel the Middle East on a silver plater.

reply to post by nenothtu


Should the US government be held responsible for THEIR breach of the treaty?

Maybe you should go look up what the treaty says about selling and assisting nuclear weapons and their development.

Here I will give it to you:
"These five NWS agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).
It is called the Nuclear NON-PROLIFERATION Treaty for a reason."

Of which the United States has breeched Articles I, II, and III.

Yet it is the Amercian government that wishes to selectively enforce the treaty.

Back to pot meet kettle...

Edit to add: NNWS = non-nuclear weapon state, which, at the time of the treaty, was any and all countires that did not posses nuclear weapons. Israel was and "supposedly" is still a NNWS.

reply to post by Witness2008


I must admit to being sort of dense at times, so I'll need this to be explained.

What, precisely, are you labelling as a "double standard"?

which article of the NPT do you claim has been violated, by whom, and how?

I must re-state my position that any sort of "invasion" is vanishingly unlikely. It doesn't make any sense to do so, either tactically, strategically, or in any other way. It would be worse than counter-productive.

I'm not opposed to chucking explosives at Iran, however. Any sort of "invasion" just wouldn't make sense.

reply to post by peck420


I thought that might be the argument. I'll wait to see if the two of you are on the same page before I respond, so that hopefully I can get both arguments out of the way at one time, and we can get back to the topic at hand, the containment of Iran.

Originally posted by Bagatell

Originally posted by centurion1211
Being able to blow the world up many times over is no comfort to the millions that could be dead from just one iranian nuke.

Could you run that by me again? I think your saying I should be grateful for the US/UN use of nukes (DU) to protect me from the mere threat of a possible Iranian nuke. Please tell me I'm wrong.

No, (pay attention here) I'm saying that the U.S. having enough strategic nuclear warheads to "blow up the world" is not a balance against or even related to iran having and using just one to potentially kill millions of Americans. DU munitions were never part of this discussion, but if that's what it takes to keep a nuke from detonating on U.S. soil and the iranians saying wow, we wonder where that came from ...

Oh, and does anyone else really confuse DU weapons with either strategic or tactical nuclear weapons? For example, M1 Abrams tanks use DU as part of their armor. Does that make the M1 tank a "nuclear weapon"? Nah, didn't think so.

reply to post by centurion1211


I think they're using the term "DU" to mask the depleted part of the depleted uranium equation.

Or maybe they just aren't clear on what "depleted" means, and are hoping that someone, somewhere, will just read "uranium" and erroneously conclude "nuclear weapon".

reply to post by nenothtu


I believe that the NPT is a central issue to the "containment" of Iran.

It is Iran's nuclear ambitions (for power or weapons is insignificant at this point) that the US, Israel, and any countries they can pressure into, feel the need to contain Iran.

Iran has done nothing but defensive actions for a very long time.

Where as the countries that are calling for containment have all participated in aggresive actions recently.

This leads me to seriously question who actually needs to be contained.

What are your views on the containment and possible ramifications?

reply to post by centurion1211


I hope you aren't implying that the US should "contain" Iran based on a potential outcome.

If you are, the first country that should be "contained" is the United States of America, for they have far more destructive potential than Iran.

reply to post by peck420


Yes, certainly as things stand the NPT is central to the issue of Iranian containment.

I question why you (among many others - not really singling you out) feel the need to drag Israel into that particular discussion, since the NPT doesn't apply to them in any fashion. Looks like a smoke screen to me, but perhaps not, and perhaps you have some valid rationale for doing so.

Originally posted by peck420

Of which the United States has breeched Articles I, II, and III.

Source please ...

BTW, before you try and blame the U.S. the CW is that Israel got or stole it's nuclear material from France ...

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by centurion1211

 

I hope you aren't implying that the US should "contain" Iran based on a potential outcome.

The other strategy is to wait until you have to say "Oh s--t!"

Kind of like what happened with 9/11.

reply to post by nenothtu


I only include Israel because of the constant rhetoric that comes from their government.

As they are not involved in the NPT, when it comes to critising another country for breeching that treaty, my opinion is "sod off, you refused to sign, you get no say in the benefits or consequences concerning the countries involved".

Aside from that, I think they should not be involved one way or another.

reply to post by centurion1211


Yes "stolen", not that the containment, maintenance, and general upkeep of said nuclear arsenal is payed for with US dollars.

Willingly given to Israel by the US government.

To aid or abet a crime is a crime in and of itself.

reply to post by centurion1211


Hmmm.

Saudi's take planes and crash them into buildings...let's attack AFGHANISTAN!

As I stated earlier, Iran hasn't performed an aggresive action in a VERY long time, to assume that they would now is about as logical as thinking that the sky is made of wood. It doesn't even connect on a basic level.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by peck420

Of which the United States has breeched Articles I, II, and III.

Source please ...

BTW, before you try and blame the U.S. the CW is that Israel got or stole it's nuclear material from France ...

Where Israel got nuclear material is really irrelevant, since they are neither signatories of the NPT, nor a NNWS under it's provisions. Under those circumstances, neither the US nor France can be considered in breach of the treaty.