America's one-eyed view of war:

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Contrary to popular belief, Iran's nuclear programme is not illegal under international law - it simply comes down to the fact that we don't like them.

[Ban Hammer 13,133]

Contrary to popular belief, Iran's nuclear programme is not illegal under international law - it simply comes down to the fact that we don't like them.

bzzzzzzzzzz........wrong.

link

Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan were the only states that were not members of the NPT.

link

These 5 Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" technology to other states, and non-NWS parties agree not to seek or develop nuclear weapons.

Edited August 21, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From the same source.

Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment programme, for its civilian nuclear energy programme, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the NPT. It has been accused of re-activating this programme by the United States and the European Union to covertly develop an independent nuclear weapons programme, in violation of the NPT . There has been some concern over the possibility of a nuclear armed Iranian state, with specific anxieties raised after controversial remarks made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about the state of Israel[13]. Iran remains under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, who have currently presented no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme .

Accused as we know, is not proof.

In any case, were not the US and Soviet Union in violation of the NPT all through the 1970s?

Edited August 21, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,133]

From the same source.

Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment programme, for its civilian nuclear energy programme, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the NPT. It has been accused of re-activating this programme by the United States and the European Union to covertly develop an independent nuclear weapons programme, in violation of the NPT . There has been some concern over the possibility of a nuclear armed Iranian state, with specific anxieties raised after controversial remarks made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about the state of Israel[13]. Iran remains under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, who have currently presented no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme .

Accused as we know, is not proof.

In any case, were not the US and Soviet Union in violation of the NPT all through the 1970s?

this is not about the us and soviet union. stay on topic.

and yes iran is accused of such and the above treaty states how any nuclear energy program is to be monitored. from the first link in my previous post:

They are required also to accept safeguards to detect diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities, such as power generation, to the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This must be done in accordance with an individual safeguards agreement, concluded between each non-nuclear-weapon State Party and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under these agreements, all nuclear materials in peaceful civil facilities under the jurisdiction of the state must be declared to the IAEA, whose inspectors have routine access to the facilities for periodic monitoring and inspections.

[mawilson 2,133]

Contrary to popular belief, Iran's nuclear programme is not illegal under international law - it simply comes down to the fact that we don't like them.

Are we supposed to like everyone? Is it wrong to favour one country over another, i.e. Israel over Iran?

[Fuzzness 2]

From the same source.

Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment programme, for its civilian nuclear energy programme, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the NPT. It has been accused of re-activating this programme by the United States and the European Union to covertly develop an independent nuclear weapons programme, in violation of the NPT . There has been some concern over the possibility of a nuclear armed Iranian state, with specific anxieties raised after controversial remarks made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about the state of Israel[13]. Iran remains under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, who have currently presented no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme .

Accused as we know, is not proof.

In any case, were not the US and Soviet Union in violation of the NPT all through the 1970s?

this is not about the us and soviet union. stay on topic.

actually, Iran's nuclear capabilities is also not on topic. but in light of the current conversation, i'd say that the US and Soviet violations of the NPT are very relevant.

[Ban Hammer 13,133]

actually, Iran's nuclear capabilities is also not on topic. but in light of the current conversation, i'd say that the US and Soviet violations of the NPT are very relevant.

when he starts off with iran and then tries to switch it to the usa and soviet union, yes that's off the topic he started. are we going to discuss iran's nuclear program or everyones?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Contrary to popular belief, Iran's nuclear programme is not illegal under international law - it simply comes down to the fact that we don't like them.

Are we supposed to like everyone? Is it wrong to favour one country over another, i.e. Israel over Iran?

No but we should at least be honest about it.

[Fuzzness 2]

actually, Iran's nuclear capabilities is also not on topic. but in light of the current conversation, i'd say that the US and Soviet violations of the NPT are very relevant.

when he starts off with iran and then tries to switch it to the usa and soviet union, yes that's off the topic he started. are we going to discuss iran's nuclear program or everyones?

He didnt try to switch it, he was just making a point. and a damn good one too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

actually, Iran's nuclear capabilities is also not on topic. but in light of the current conversation, i'd say that the US and Soviet violations of the NPT are very relevant.

when he starts off with iran and then tries to switch it to the usa and soviet union, yes that's off the topic he started. are we going to discuss iran's nuclear program or everyones?

I made a general point about the NPT. Either it applies evenly to everyone or what's the point?

Not to mention the irony of a country who has historically been in violation of the treaty is now one of the loudest voices condemning Iran for its 'alleged' breaches (of which proof has yet to materialise).

It’s a bit like condemning the human rights violations of other countries while maintaining and operating Guantanamo Bay ;-)

[Ban Hammer 13,133]

actually, Iran's nuclear capabilities is also not on topic. but in light of the current conversation, i'd say that the US and Soviet violations of the NPT are very relevant.

when he starts off with iran and then tries to switch it to the usa and soviet union, yes that's off the topic he started. are we going to discuss iran's nuclear program or everyones?

I made a general point about the NPT. Either it applies evenly to everyone or what's the point?

Not to mention the irony of a country who has historically been in violation of the treaty is now one of the loudest voices condemning Iran for its 'alleged' breaches (of which proof has yet to materialise).

It’s a bit like condemning the human rights violations of other countries while maintaining and operating Guantanamo Bay ;-)

it's kinda hard to have the proof when iran won't let the inspectors do their job, eh?

[mawilson 2,133]

I made a general point about the NPT. Either it applies evenly to everyone or what's the point?

The point is, we don't want them to have nukes.

We like the current balance of power in the Middle East, and we don't want things to get out of hand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I made a general point about the NPT. Either it applies evenly to everyone or what's the point?

The point is, we don't want them to have nukes.

We like the current balance of power in the Middle East, and we don't want things to get out of hand.

From our point of view certainly.

I do wonder, however that with all the people in the US who find gun ownership a deterrant to criminals its strange that they don't apply that same argument to nuclear weapons.

The US et al adopt a very different diplomatic approach to countries with nukes than without, so I can certainly see why countries without would see them as a means to ensuring their own survival.

[Scott & Lai 12]

I made a general point about the NPT. Either it applies evenly to everyone or what's the point?

The point is, we don't want them to have nukes.

We like the current balance of power in the Middle East, and we don't want things to get out of hand.

From our point of view certainly.

I do wonder, however that with all the people in the US who find gun ownership a deterrant to criminals its strange that they don't apply that same argument to nuclear weapons.

Simple. I want decent, law-abiding citizens to be able to have guns for protection, but I don't want gang-members or other criminals/predators to have them. I'm fine with peaceful, free nations having nukes for self-defence, but I don't want agressor/terrorist/tyrannical states who may use nukes for conquest to have them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I made a general point about the NPT. Either it applies evenly to everyone or what's the point?

The point is, we don't want them to have nukes.

We like the current balance of power in the Middle East, and we don't want things to get out of hand.

From our point of view certainly.

I do wonder, however that with all the people in the US who find gun ownership a deterrant to criminals its strange that they don't apply that same argument to nuclear weapons.

Simple. I want decent, law-abiding citizens to be able to have guns for protection, but I don't want gang-members or other criminals/predators to have them. I'm fine with peaceful, free nations having nukes for self-defence, but I don't want agressor/terrorist/tyrannical states who may use nukes for conquest to have them.

I don't disagree that Iran's government is less than desirable, but where is Iran's history of conquest?

Conversely, Pakistan is a military dictatorship (and a nuclear power). Yet noone apparently cares that Al Qaeda seems to have a significant prescence there.

No talk of imminent invasion on that front is there?

Would we be in Iraq now if Saddam had possessed nuclear weapons? Its rather doubtful IMO.