Originally posted by no1marauder
You 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 hyst ...[text shortened]... same region, possess? A thousand? A hundred thousand? Six million? Name a number, Mr. Pro-life.
You're drunk again.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe,
How 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.
It is time you and in particular No1 ...[text shortened]... u want Iran to comply with the obligations that flow from the fact that they signed the NPT ?
Judging by the numerous cut and paste posts l have seen from you, l find it hard to believe that you are asking me to research this subject.
l have studied politics and in particular the middle east for almost 20 years both at University and for my own interest.
Rhetoric IS half the problem here.
l am in no way trying to "bash" you for posting here. And l do not speak for No1Marauder.
The Iran situation is not being played on a level playing field. l think No1 has fairly given a few examples (analogies) which sum this up.
Iran lives in probably the most volatile area in the the world. They have nations to the east & north with nukes. To the West is a quagmire of war and international aggression (for right or wrong!)
They have informed in no uncertain terms by the US and European nations that they are not to develop Nukes. The same people telling them this have them themseleves.
Again l will ask you, by what right are the US and other nations allowed to have these weapond and not Iran?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeC'mon, Mr. Peace and Justice for The Whole World, how many of those Iranians are you anxious to see slaughtered? Maybe a million or so would teach 'em not to say bad things about Israel or the US government. Is that a good enough number for you, Ivanhoe, or do you think a higher body count would be necessary to assure sufficient "peace and justice"?
No1: " ... we've come to know and love."
Oh, .... you love me, mousie ? ........ 😳
Originally posted by ivanhoeSimple enough question. If they signed a treaty, they should abide by it, unless the other signitories (sp?) are failing to uphold their end.
It would be interesting and maybe necessary in order to have a clear and fruitfull debate about the Iran question on this forum, if the ones who are interested in understanding and discussing this issue now and in the future would answer the following question. It is a question that is an off-spring of the discussion in the "Iran, Nuclear Energy and Nuclear ...[text shortened]... ?"
You can find the full text of this treaty here: http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm
Originally posted by nook7Nook7: " ... Again l will ask you, by what right are the US and other nations allowed to have these weapond and not Iran?"
Ivanhoe,
Judging by the numerous cut and paste posts l have seen from you, l find it hard to believe that you are asking me to research this subject.
l have studied politics and in particular the middle east for almost 20 years both at University and for my own interest.
Rhetoric IS half the problem here.
l am in no way trying to "bash" you for ...[text shortened]... ou, by what right are the US and other nations allowed to have these weapond and not Iran?
By agreement.
Please read the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons".
You can find the text here:
http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm
You can also find it on a UN site, if you don't trust this source, but the text will not change, believe me.
Originally posted by no1marauder
C'mon, Mr. Peace and Justice for The Whole World, how many of those Iranians are you anxious to see slaughtered? Maybe a million or so would teach 'em not to say bad things about Israel or the US government. Is that a good enough number for you, Ivanhoe, or do you think a higher body count would be necessary to assure sufficient "peace and justice"?
What are you trying to achieve with these irrelevant and insulting questions ? Who is playing games here ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeYOU have said that war with Iran will be justified rather than they be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons. How is it irrelevant to ask how many deaths you would be willing to accept in such a war? I can't think of anything MORE relevant, quite frankly.
What are you trying to achieve with these irrelevant and insulting questions ? Who is playing games here ?
You pose as a champion of peace, yet support war. You are using "peace" as a codeword; what you really mean is a Middle East dominated by governments who are friendly to the US and Israel. Since the people of those countries won't accept such governments, they will be have to be forceably made to. This will mean mass killing on a grand scale for an indefinite period. This is what you are really proposing and all your feigned concern with the NPT is a smokescreen.
So it is YOU who are playing games to try to make mass murder acceptable all the while wrapping yourself in the cloak of "peace" and "pro-life". You are a hypocrite and a fraud, Ivanhoe.
1 edit
Originally posted by nook7It would be nice if the negotiations between the European Three and Iran would end in a situation acceptable to the World Community in general and the major players on the stage in particular. I'm afraid this will not be the case. I'll explain.
l will have a read of this, thanks.
While l am doing so, can you elaborate on your answer. Why do you think Iran should agree to the demands being asked of them by the European nations. Especially given their position in the world at the moment?
Cheers
The Euro Three are offering Iran possibilities to obtain nuclear equipment and installations that will ensure Iran the nuclear energy they want now and in the future, but without the possibilities of being able to produce and develop nuclear weapons. The program of nuclear energy that Iran is developing at the moment, entails the possibilities of obtaining the necessary products for producing nuclear weapons. According to the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" Iran is allowed to participate or develop themselves programs that are aimed at obtaining nuclear energy for peaceful usage, but it forbids Iran and all the other Non-Nuclear Nations to obtain nuclear weapons. That's the heart of the treaty, the non-proliferation, the non-spreading of nuclear arms.
The problem now is that the world community suspects Iran to develop nuclear weapons behind the smokescreen of wanting to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Iran denies this, but then immediately the question arises why they are so hesitant, to say the least, to accept the European offer of giving them programs to produce nuclear energy without the possibilities of being able to produce nuclear weapons . This raises many an eyebrow in the world community.
The geo-political situation is indeed difficult for Iran, but I think an agreement could be reached if Iran would refrain from the possibilities to develop nuclear weapons, improve the human rights situation and implement basic democratic reforms. At the same time ALL the major world powers, the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China, and the regional powers, should give garantees for Irans safety.
Not an easy mission to accomplish.
I wouldn't want to see Iran with nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, the USA has something like 18 Trident submarines, each with 24 missiles and each missile with 8 warheads. One(1) submarine could destroy every major city in North America.
Russia has still a needlessly-large nuclear arsenal, as do France and Great Britain. A fine example to set to the rest of the world indeed-"do what we say, not what we do"
Israel has something like 400 warheads. Why? To kill Arabs, that's why.
No wonder Iran is paranoid.
Unless the so-called "responsible democracies" start to practice what they preach, calls for third-world countries to refrain from weapons development ring hollow.
Originally posted by KneverKnight
I wouldn't want to see Iran with nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, the USA has something like 18 Trident submarines, each with 24 missiles and each missile with 8 warheads. One(1) submarine could destroy every major city in North America.
Russia has still a needlessly-large nuclear arsenal, as do France and Great Britain. A fine example to set to ...[text shortened]... at they preach, calls for third-world countries to refrain from weapons development ring hollow.
It's not just the countries you call the "responsible democracies" that are asking Iran to comply with the NPT. It is the whole world community.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe world community is silent on Israeli nukes, there's the root cause of this problem. If Israel gave up the nukes, there would be justification to invade Iran if Iran was developing nuclear weapons; this smacks of hypocrisy.
It's not just the countries you call the "responsible democracies" that are asking Iran to comply with the NPT. It is the whole world community.