It's too late to halt Iran nuclear bomb - Page 2

Donkey® · 02-15-2007, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

You asked this.

The world responded with the NPT.

Our country keeps it's nuclear security tight, there is little chance of largescale governmental change. Their are no foreseeable circumstances in which we will give nuclear technology to private entities. We are a "stable" country.

And Iran couldn't keep their "nuclear security tight?" Iran would automatically sell their nukes to the highest bidder because why? They need the money? And so what if they did? We're the biggest arms dealer on the planet...we have no right to complain.

Donkey® · 02-15-2007, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

far from the point

No it isn't. Bringing the NPT into the discussion as a "rule" is ridiculous to begin with. Iran has as much of a right to ignore it as anyone else.

nbiggershaft · 02-15-2007, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And Iran couldn't keep their "nuclear security tight?" Iran would automatically sell their nukes to the highest bidder because why? They need the money? And so what if they did? We're the biggest arms dealer on the planet...we have no right to complain.

Why in gods name are the far left crowd defending Iran's right to produce nukes? It's not like I am advocating a fullscale land invasion here. But if you don't see a difference between a non-secular highly stable government with nuclear weapons and a theocracy that has changed the shape of it's government several times in a century getting them, I'm not sure what you guys are being influenced by. Certainly their is no desire to defend a religious theocracy who has an underground democratic revolution. As an extremely liberal person I always thought the whole blind hatred of liberals for America thing was a crock. But if reasonable discussions of Iran's nuclear capabilities turns into, but America sells weapons, and America isn't stable and America broke treaties, blah blah blah, then I guess I will have to give the theory some credence.

Donkey® · 02-15-2007, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Why in gods name are the far left crowd defending Iran's right to produce nukes? It's not like I am advocating a fullscale land invasion here. But if you don't see a difference between a non-secular highly stable government with nuclear weapons and a theocracy that has changed the shape of it's government several times in a century getting them, I'm not sure what you guys are being influenced by. Certainly their is no desire to defend a religious theocracy who has an underground democratic revolution. As an extremely liberal person I always thought the whole blind hatred of liberals for America thing was a crock. But if reasonable discussions of Iran's nuclear capabilities turns into, but America sells weapons, and America isn't stable and America broke treaties, blah blah blah, then I guess I will have to give the theory some credence.

First of all, there is no proof they are producing nukes. Second, if the US abided by all the rules, I wouldn't mind if they told people what to do. But they don't. So we look like fucking retards.

Scrum · 02-15-2007, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

far from the point

No it isn't.

We can't hold up the NPT and say that only these countries are allowed nuclear tech, then hand that tech over to people who didn't sign it.

It's a useless piece of paper now. Why should anyone have to follow a treaty if certain members ignore it?

Scrum · 02-15-2007, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Why in gods name are the far left crowd defending Iran's right to produce nukes?

I don't think it's as much about "defending" their right to make nukes as much as it's pointing out the flaws of us telling countries what they can and cannot do.

nbiggershaft · 02-15-2007, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No it isn't.

We can't hold up the NPT and say that only these countries are allowed nuclear tech, then hand that tech over to people who didn't sign it.

It's a useless piece of paper now. Why should anyone have to follow a treaty if certain members ignore it?

The point is, and the reason why I brought up the NPT, is that it was determined a long time ago by people far more important and educated in the manner than us, that nuclear technology should not spread. That only a few, stable, countries should have nuclear arsenals, and this principle was widely agreed upon. Their is a massive difference between countries that can be reasonably trusted to have nuclear weapons and ones that can't.

ibbutUSweretheonlyonestousethem

nbiggershaft · 02-15-2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I don't think it's as much about "defending" their right to make nukes as much as it's pointing out the flaws of us telling countries what they can and cannot do.

Yeah hence the whole, "giving credence to the self loathing thing." I suppose we should stop having any discourse in the world because we are the bad guys.

emo america ftl

Donkey® · 02-15-2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

The point is, and the reason why I brought up the NPT, is that it was determined a long time ago by people far more important and educated in the manner than us, that nuclear technology should not spread. That only a few, stable, countries should have nuclear arsenals, and this principle was widely agreed upon. Their is a massive difference between countries that can be reasonably trusted to have nuclear weapons and ones that can't.

ibbutUSweretheonlyonestousethem

Agreed upon by whom? The people that already had nukes...and those people don't abide by their own rules.

nbiggershaft · 02-15-2007, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Agreed upon by whom?

Donkey® · 02-15-2007, 03:39 PM

Gee...how did I know you'd list a group of people that signed it. That wasn't the point. The point was WHO determined there needed to be an NPT to begin with? People that already had nukes.

nbiggershaft · 02-15-2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Gee...how did I know you'd list a group of people that signed it. That wasn't the point. The point was WHO determined there needed to be an NPT to begin with? People that already had nukes.

If I recall correctly, the dutch and other countries in Europe were primary supporters fearing they would be caught in another world war, this time nuclear, if more countries got nuclear weapons. Anyways, this is just getting tiring. If you can find me information that a majority of those countries were forced to sign the NPT and that proliferation of nuclear weapons is somehow a good thing, then I'll come back, otherwise we're just going in circles.

Donkey® · 02-15-2007, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

If I recall correctly, the dutch and other countries in Europe were primary supporters fearing they would be caught in another world war, this time nuclear, if more countries got nuclear weapons. Anyways, this is just getting tiring. If you can find me information that a majority of those countries were forced to sign the NPT and that proliferation of nuclear weapons is somehow a good thing, then I'll come back, otherwise we're just going in circles.

You're right and I am with you...circles are retarded. But one last comment. We (the US) don't seem to think proliferation is bad unless someone we don't like proliferates. We didn't invade India when they got the bomb. We haven't condemned Israel for their bombs. Pakistan sold their knowledge around the globe and we did nothing. So you see...it once again goes back to the fact we look like a bunch of asses when we say one thing and do another. We lose WAY more credibility in the world doing that shit than our nukes gain us.

R-Type · 02-15-2007, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Why in gods name are the far left crowd defending Iran's right to produce nukes? It's not like I am advocating a fullscale land invasion here. But if you don't see a difference between a non-secular highly stable government with nuclear weapons and a theocracy that has changed the shape of it's government several times in a century getting them, I'm not sure what you guys are being influenced by. Certainly their is no desire to defend a religious theocracy who has an underground democratic revolution. As an extremely liberal person I always thought the whole blind hatred of liberals for America thing was a crock. But if reasonable discussions of Iran's nuclear capabilities turns into, but America sells weapons, and America isn't stable and America broke treaties, blah blah blah, then I guess I will have to give the theory some credence.

1. it's not an 'if' at all, but a 'when' they will get nukes. For our own security, we should be focusing our national policy on that, not arguing whether they have the 'right' to them. Why? because they don't give a shit what we think. Unless things change real quick, the years of US military and economic total-supremacy are almost up, and with it, our ability to control other countries' actions. China, russia, and europe are continuing to organize themselves more and more efficiently, and if we continue to antagonize the middle eastern region, it's more likely to seek alliance with them AGAINST us in the future, because as much as they might hate 'western europe', we've given them plenty of reason to hate us even more. The tighter we squeeze, the more reason they have to flout us.

2. They are a sovereign nation just as we are. They are seeking power balance in the global political arena, and I can't fault them for that. If we're not going to follow our own rules, we have no legitimacy in their eyes. S