Shalom, Mr Ahmadinejad

[Aemilius Paulus]

The difference is that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did. The reason the UN is going after Iran is because Iran is violating the terms of that treaty. Nobody forced them to sign it, but since they did, they are obligated to abide by its principles.

ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!


Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by? Nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bollox as are generally all international treaties banning a specific weapon. No one pays attention to them even if they signed it, and the only reason so few break it is because nations do not generally sign it if they plan a nuclear program in the future. And you do not even have to sign.

So how can you even condemn Iran for this when US broke essentially the oldest and the most respected one of them all - the Geneva Convention. How much did US torture suspected terrorists, circumventing laws, squeezing through loopholes, finding technicalities or even going over and into the territory of the absurd, such as redefining the very word "torture"? Even UK engaged in "enhanced interrogation".

How many times have the Israelis employed forbidden weapons, whether they signed the treaties prohibiting the use of those armaments or not? And the main point with Israelis is that they did not even have to use all the manure they did. It is not like Lebanon or Palestine are serious opponents engaged in a life or death war with Israel.


Please, cut the jokes...

[rvg]

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by?

Please do. Let's see how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified and subsequently dishonored in the past, say, 50 years.

[Beskar]

Trident actually breaks the Nuclear Disarmament treaty. Also, the Kyoto Protocol is a contending too. (Those just from the top of my head and big ones too)

[Aemilius Paulus]

Please do. Let's see how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified and subsequently dishonored in the past, say, 50 years.

Bah, you can do the research if you are so interested - I have a a class in thirty minutes, but to be on equal ground, Iran may have broken one treaty. And US, without a doubt, also broke one treaty. Iran is most likely going to aim for the nuclear bomb. That broke the non-proliferation treaty. US abused prisoners of war, and tortured them, so there goes the Geneva Treaty. There goes a definite violation (since Iran does not yet posses the bomb, nor is clearly attempting to produce it - for all we know it is merely developing nuclear power).

Oh, and just because I feel so amicable today, I will throw in another treaty US broke - the ones dealing with chemical weapons, which it stockpiled (as did everyone else, but still, a rule broken is a rule broken). Not to mention, do you believe US is complying or is going to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention it signed? Not a chance.

[drone]

ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!


Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.

It was that Israel didn't sign, and Iran did. This is why there wasn't nearly as much fuss when it became obvious that Israel had the bomb. They weren't bound by the treaty. Neither were India and Pakistan.

All Iran has to do is put in it's 90-day notice, and then it can give El Baradei the finger when it comes to inspections.

Kyoto Protocol

how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified

[rvg]

I see a lot of claims regarding Uncle Sam's frivolities with international treaties, but no sources to back up those claims.

[LittleGrizzly]

Only Iran is in relatively little danger of actually being attacked. Russia and China would not like it either. There is no way America would attack Iran without bringing them on board, in which case Iran is screwed anyway, nukes or no nukes.

Not so long ago Iran was thought to be a possible target by alot of people, it had the rhetoric to go with it from the president as well.... Israel was also recently considering strikes... thats just recent history... the further you go back the more you see Iran being the much more threatened...

Honestly on a playground level Iran is a small six year old with a stocky 12 year old and his 16 year old brother picking on him... to call Iran the threatening one is quite frankly laughable....

Only if your equation is wrong to start with.

So taking your own national interests out of the equasion you still think two of the worlds most powerful militarys (even without thier nukes) need defensive nukes more than the relatively weak Iranian military ?!

RVG im not sure but you may have heard of Gauntanamo bay...

[rvg]

RVG im not sure but you may have heard of Gauntanamo bay...

Indeed. I haven't heard of any actual laws being broken there. U.S. or International.


Guantanamera, guajira guantanamera....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not so long ago Iran was thought to be a possible target by alot of people, it had the rhetoric to go with it from the president as well.... Israel was also recently considering strikes... thats just recent history... the further you go back the more you see Iran being the much more threatened...

Why was Israel considering strikes? Because Iran was and is thought to be going for nuclear bombs, as well as helping out the terrorist groups fighting Israel.
Why did America consider Iran to be a possible target? Because it is actively working against them in Iraq and going for nuclear bombs, in addition to funding terrorist activity against Israel.

Iran isn't threatened. It's doing the threatening.

Honestly on a playground level Iran is a small six year old with a stocky 12 year old and his 16 year old brother picking on him... to call Iran the threatening one is quite frankly laughable....

Iran being picked on? No, Iran is the six year old who keeps making fun of the other six year old, because he knows that the twelve year old brother won't do anything about it. If Iran wasn't posturing like this and actively trying to work against us, we wouldn't even care it existed.

So taking your own national interests out of the equasion you still think two of the worlds most powerful militarys (even without thier nukes) need defensive nukes more than the relatively weak Iranian military ?!

Yes, since Iran going for nuclear weapons only raises the chance that we will strike them. In HOI2 speak, it adds significantly to their belligerence level.

[Azathoth]

ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!


Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by? Nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bollox as are generally all international treaties banning a specific weapon. No one pays attention to them even if they signed it, and the only reason so few break it is because nations do not generally sign it if they plan a nuclear program in the future. And you do not even have to sign.

So how can you even condemn Iran for this when US broke essentially the oldest and the most respected one of them all - the Geneva Convention. How much did US torture suspected terrorists, circumventing laws, squeezing through loopholes, finding technicalities or even going over and into the territory of the absurd, such as redefining the very word "torture"? Even UK engaged in "enhanced interrogation".

How many times have the Israelis employed forbidden weapons, whether they signed the treaties prohibiting the use of those armaments or not? And the main point with Israelis is that they did not even have to use all the manure they did. It is not like Lebanon or Palestine are serious opponents engaged in a life or death war with Israel.


Please, cut the jokes...

Just like how the UN didn't care when Sadaam won the war with chemical weapons, right?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Just like how the UN didn't care when Sadaam won the war with chemical weapons, right?

Well they did not, if you are being sarcastic. UN never does anything by itself. When was the last time they stopped a genocide? Oh, that is right - never. Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Former Yugoslavia... All happened and still happens right under the eyes of UN, as it does nothing but wastes millions of dollars in maintenance costs for the army... Sure, UN helps out, and they were known to facilitate the evacuation of refugees during the Yugoslav and Kosovo Wars, but when actual acts of mass-murder happen, UN is either powerless to stop them, or merely chooses to stay at the sidelines - I understand they are avoiding direct confrontation and war, but really,... Gah, why shovel manure any further?

The bottom line is that if not for US, Hussein could have gotten away with all his chemical mischief against Iran as well as the Kurds and much, much more. But Bush already selected him as a target, fabricated a plethora of outright lies in addition to the true allegation that Iraq had chemical weapons and invaded the country.

Just take one of them - that Iran supposedly obtained 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger. Five hundred? Was he serious? With the sorry state of roads and transportation in Niger that would have taken weeks to transport that from the mines to the coast, utilizing a great deal of trucks, and human resources. And there are no railroads there, as far as I read. This could not have been kept secret from even the common people, let alone the ever-prying eyes of CIA. Or the other watchdog organisations. Now, this data actually came from the British intelligence report, but it never said that it actually happened - it merely speculated, devoting literally one sentence to this alleged incident.

We all know Bush did not invade Iraq because of chemical weapons. He certainly had other reasons. Can we at least agree to that?