Originally posted by Ivanhoe
If the world leaders would copy your stance on this issue, being: there are parties, in your view, who are not keeping their promises, therefore nobody is obliged to keep theirs then, together with the examples Nyxie showed us, your "principle" would cause chaos, conflict and war all over the world.
Yep. That sounds like my planet alright. Sounds like the last 500 years or so at least.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "my policy proposal would eventually lead to the abolition of nuclear weapons as envisioned by the NPT."
Let's see: my policy proposal would eventually lead to the abolition of nuclear weapons as envisioned by the NPT. Your policy proposal, has you have already stated, will most likely lead to war with Iran. Who's proposal is most in accord with the spirit of the NPT?
I never denied that "something" was done concerning nuclear weapons s ...[text shortened]... o continue to violate the treaty? It's time to paint, if they want the 1000 bucks, Ivanhoe.
I don't understand. Do you think that the advice to the "weaker" nations to not comply with the demands of the NPT, because they are being cheated by the Nuclear powers will eventually lead to the abolition of nuclear weapons ?
Not complying with the rules, agreements of the NPT, will eventually lead to the goals set by the same NPT ?
Could you please make me understand this reasoning ?
Maybe I do not have a clear idea of exactly what your policy proposal entails ? Could you elaborate on this, please ?
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "I simply state that the nuclear powers are in breach of Article VI as they have never attempted to negotiate in good faith "complete [nuclear] disarmament" as required by the NPT."
Let's see: my policy proposal would eventually lead to the abolition of nuclear weapons as envisioned by the NPT. Your policy proposal, has you have already stated, will most likely lead to war with Iran. Who's proposal is most ...[text shortened]... ty? It's time to paint, if they want the 1000 bucks, Ivanhoe.
Don't you think that a series of steps is necessary to even begin to talk about such (final) negotiations ? Your reasoning is not from this world, not realistic.
If your reasoning is so realistic and to the point, then why doesn't Iran take the stance you are presenting here and take their, in your and their eyes, just and noble case to the Security Council ?
The idea behind treaties is to get ALL the parties involved to comply. That may take a little while. You must be a very impatient man no1. You want paradise on earth to be proclaimed NOW. If you dont get what you want you start complaining about the unfairness of the world and start tearing up all the treaties that have not yet showed their total effectiveness yet.
A wiser course of action seems to me to work on the situation that ALL participants are willing to comply. First of all a process of trust building is necessary. A policy, I'm happy to say, that is adopted by many countries, but not all of them I'm afraid.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHere's my proposal has presented in the other thread:
No1: "my policy proposal would eventually lead to the abolition of nuclear weapons as envisioned by the NPT."
I don't understand. Do you think that the advice to the "weaker" nations to not comply with the demands of the NPT, because they are being cheated by the Nuclear powers will eventually lead to the abolition of nuclear weapons ?
Not comply ...[text shortened]... lear idea of exactly what your policy proposal entails ? Could you elaborate on this, please ?
The international community, has stated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would like a complete and total disarmament of ALL nuclear weapons. Perhaps their time would be better spent developing a comprehensive approach to reaching the goal of completely doing away with such weapons than in harassing a peaceful country that doesn't have any. Perhaps the international community should be trying to remove the foreign troops from Iraq which directly threaten Iran. Perhaps the international community should enforce Resolution 242 which requires Israeli withdrawal from territories illegally seized in 1967. Perhaps if all these things were done, Iran and other Middle Eastern states wouldn't have to fear being attacked and wouldn't have any interest in such weapons (again assuming that Iran does have such an interest).
Clear enough?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeAs usual, you're being disingenous. Who, pray tell, are the veto wielding members of the Security Council? Let's see: the very nuclear powers that are in violation of Article 6 of the NPT! So how far would they get?
No1: "I simply state that the nuclear powers are in breach of Article VI as they have never attempted to negotiate in good faith "complete [nuclear] disarmament" as required by the NPT."
Don't you think that a series of steps is nec ...[text shortened]... d their eyes, just and noble case to the Security Council ?
It's been 35 years; if the nuclear powers EVER intended to relinquish their nuclear weapons they wouldn't have over 20,000 right now. If they want to finally start abiding by the NPT, I'm all for it; but until they paint the house they shouldn't get the 1000 bucks. You know and I know that what's going on has absolutely nothing to do with the NPT and everything to do with the US and Israeli governments wanting to overthrow the Iranian government by war if necessary. Stop playing games.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder.... and what do you think all these diplomats are doing that are engaged in disarmament and peace talks ?
Here's my proposal has presented in the other thread:
The international community, has stated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would like a complete and total disarmament of ALL nuclear weapons. Perhaps their time ...[text shortened]... at Iran does have such an interest).
Clear enough?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " As usual, you're being disingenous"
As usual, you're being disingenous. Who, pray tell, are the veto wielding members of the Security Council? Let's see: the very nuclear powers that are in violation of Article 6 of the NPT! So how far would they get?
...[text shortened]... ow the Iranian government by war if necessary. Stop playing games.
Until now I have not reacted to your insults. Now I am.
We'd better agree to disagree.
Ivanhoe,
Why is it that the U.S and other members of the UN security council are allowed to have Nuclear weapons and other countries (notable exceptions being India , Pakistan and Israel)are persuaded (by force usually/eventually) from being allowed to have them?
What gives them the right to have this power?
Who have been the greatest exponents of using nuclear and chemical weapons technology on others?
Is it hypocritical for me if l am a nation that has used WMD on others (never when l have been invaded mind you) to tell you, you are not allowed to develop such technology for your own defence?
Just wondering,
Martin
Originally posted by nook7
Ivanhoe,
Why is it that the U.S and other members of the UN security council are allowed to have Nuclear weapons and other countries (notable exceptions being India , Pakistan and Israel)are persuaded (by force usually/eventually) from being allowed to have them?
What gives them the right to have this power?
Who have been the greatest exponents of usi ...[text shortened]... are not allowed to develop such technology for your own defence?
Just wondering,
Martin
I could answer you with a counter question.
Why were all those countries that signed the NPT so stupid to do so ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you don't want to be accused of being disingenous, don't suggest that Iran should take a complaint about the nuclear powers not abiding by the NPT to an agency where those same countries wield an absolute veto. As an insult, correcting being told that you're being "disingenous" isn't in the same league as saying someone should be the "Iranian Secretary of State" but go pout if you must.
No1: " As usual, you're being disingenous"
Until now I have not reacted to your insults. Now I am.
We'd better agree to disagree.
BTW, I'm not overly impatient but 35 years IS a long time to wait for the house to be painted if you want the other guys to pony up their 1000 bucks.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell,
I could answer you with a counter question.
Why were all those countries that signed the NPT so stupid to do so ?
Some people are stupid, some have good intentions, some have good intentions that they have no intention of honouring. And others are just plain bad!
So how about you answer my questions.
Cheers
Originally posted by no1marauder
If you don't want to be accused of being disingenous, don't suggest that Iran should take a complaint about the nuclear powers not abiding by the NPT to an agency where those same countries wield an absolute veto. As an insult, correcting being told that you're being "disingenous" isn't in the same league as saying someone should be the "Ir ...[text shortened]... time to wait for the house to be painted if you want the other guys to pony up their 1000 bucks.
Stop hitting the bottle. You're at it again .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are again being a hypocrite accusing other of using insults when that is one of your standard tactics. Others are: massive amounts of cutting and pasting, repeatedly asking questions but refusing to answer them, quoting other people out of context or selectively, etc. etc. You try to act reasonable, but your colors usually show as in your hysterical outburst in the other thread that war with Iran WILL be necessary to prevent another "Shoa" whatever that is. The bloodlust seems to be going up again in you, Ivanhoe, how many Iranians would you be willing to have killed to not "allow" them to have a weapon that other countries, including in the same region, possess? A thousand? A hundred thousand? Six million? Name a number, Mr. Pro-life.
Stop hitting the bottle. You're at it again .....
1 edit
Originally posted by nook7How about you studying, exploring and examining as a real freethinker what the real situation is and start from there instead of asking me all kinds of superflous rhetorical questions, inspired by moral indignation, that, again, point in the direction that the world is so unfair and unjust ? I agree with you on that.
Well,
Some people are stupid, some have good intentions, some have good intentions that they have no intention of honouring. And others are just plain bad!
So how about you answer my questions.
Cheers
It is time you and in particular No1 realise that nobody has a magic formula to establish peace and justice in the world. Reaching peace and justice is the most difficult job there is and it is the easiest job to criticise and bash those that are willing to do the job.
How about returning to the subject of this thread ?
Do you want Iran to comply with the obligations that flow from the fact that they signed the NPT ?