Forcing Iran to halt uranium enrichment illegal: ElBaradei

VIENNA (MNA) -- UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said on Saturday that obliging Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program is illegal, but Iran should suspend all enrichment-related activities in order to restore confidence after all the ambiguities about its nuclear activities.

www.tehrantimes.com.../19/2004&Cat=2&Num=007

Of course it is illegal to force sovereign countries to do what other countries want. That is called independence and freedom to own choices.

[edit on 18-9-2004 by Samiralfey]

You are obviously forgetting who our Lord and Master is, and that we must pledge loyalty and obedience at all times.......

absolutely right Samiralfey. As far as I am concerned Iran is more than allowed to have nukes and Israel's and the US's "holier than thou" approach to Iran is wrong and hyprocritical. The US should never demand another nation to stop its nuclear ambitions unless it gives up every single one of its nukes.

thanks,
drfunk

I have to agree with that philosophy as well.

I'm sorry, moral philosophy is down the hall; This class is geo-politics.

In reality, moral right to take an action is secondary to the material ability to accomplish it- this saves us from the paradox that moral rights sometimes contradict. Iran has the right to nuclear power, America has the right to guard against developing threats from enemy nations. America has the ability to intervene in Iran's decision and force it's will on Iran- Paradox solved.

You line of moral reasoning is flawed because of the situations it opens up:

By your line of reasoning, America could crank out all the green house gasses we wanted, even at dire risk of destroying the planet, because we are free to do what we like.

By your line of reasoning, nations can engage in the trafficking of arms, drugs, and slaves to generate revenue and political influence, and the world can not intervene in that nations private affairs.

Gotta go. anxious to see if you actually consider my points.

By your line of reasoning, America could crank out all the green house gasses we wanted, even at dire risk of destroying the planet, because we are free to do what we like.

Er.....you do! Remeber Kyoto? No? Seems like George Bush has forgotten as well.......

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm sorry, moral philosophy is down the hall; This class is geo-politics.

In reality, moral right to take an action is secondary to the material ability to accomplish it- this saves us from the paradox that moral rights sometimes contradict. Iran has the right to nuclear power, America has the right to guard against developing threats from enemy nations. America has the ability to intervene in Iran's decision and force it's will on Iran- Paradox solved.

You line of moral reasoning is flawed because of the situations it opens up:

By your line of reasoning, America could crank out all the green house gasses we wanted, even at dire risk of destroying the planet, because we are free to do what we like.

By your line of reasoning, nations can engage in the trafficking of arms, drugs, and slaves to generate revenue and political influence, and the world can not intervene in that nations private affairs.

Gotta go. anxious to see if you actually consider my points.

So basically, considering your points, any country can attack or interefere anyone if it suits the countrys own interests? US is trying to develope mininukes so can for example China use it for reason to attack US?

"By your line of reasoning, America could crank out all the green house gasses we wanted, even at dire risk of destroying the planet, because we are free to do what we like."

Well, I didn't see US ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

But this is a tough question to think about, what is allowed and not allowed and how to stop not-allowed-items without interefering the sovereginity of a country. Iran has of course the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes but has it the right to delevop nuclear weapons too as a independent country?
Is it like 'I have this bright new SUV but you are not allowed to buy because you use it for overspeeding. It is OK for me to have because I never overspeed'?



[edit on 18-9-2004 by Samiralfey]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I
You line of moral reasoning is flawed because of the situations it opens up:

By your line of reasoning, America could crank out all the green house gasses we wanted, even at dire risk of destroying the planet, because we are free to do what we like.

By your line of reasoning, nations can engage in the trafficking of arms, drugs, and slaves to generate revenue and political influence, and the world can not intervene in that nations private affairs.

Not at all, the things you suggest WOULD effect other countries.

Having a nuke on THEIR land effects us in no way whatsoever.

The only way it could effect us if they use it. They have the right to have have this protection. If they have nukes then there is no chance of Isreal or the US or anyone else ever nuking them. It is preventative, thats why the US and UK have them, right?

As for suggesting they may use them against the US and therefore must be stopped? Thats getting a little too "Minority Report" for me, very paranoid indeed.

[edit on 19-9-2004 by Kriz_4]