NationStates Jolt Archive

So essentially a country disagreeing with you is sufficient grounds to deny them certain technologies to which they are entitled under international law, and threaten them with invasion should they proceed. :rolleyes:

So, France and the US have reasonable grounds to nuke each other for having nuclear weapons, because each thinks the other is a rogue state.

No country need justify to the rest of the world the economic necessity of nuclear power. Since civilian nuclear reactors use enriched uranium fuel, to guarantee energy independence, it makes sense to produce your own enriched uranium fuel. This is not only legal under the NPT, but the IAEA was originally set up to spread this technology to the world. Atoms for peace, etc, etc. It sounds a bit naive half a century later, but it's a UN agency and it's international law.

The only illegal bit is building a nuclear weapon and detonating it. But we don't have the information, even though nuclear inspectors have had fuller cooperation than the US would ever provide. The day Iran verifiably builds a nuclear weapon and puts a crater in one of its deserts, that is the day it will have displayed contempt for international law, and that is the day to discuss action. But until the law is broken, people should STFU with the slander.

And its a funny old world when international law applies only to those who sign up to it. :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164929,00.html

Well people. The Europeans issued a deal to the Iranians regarding civilian nuclear power over military nuclear power.

The result? Iranian rejection of the European proposal.

I don't call this a surprise. I was expecting Iran to reject it though a small part of me was hopeful that they'll take it.

Due to this rejection, Europe now has to follow through on their promise to take this to the United Nations Security Council.

What do you all think?

I think that Iran Government is definitely smart...who'd sign a deal with someone who doesn't put anything useful upon the plate?

Iran just wanted to be sure that USA wouldn't attack it after it gave up its nuclear researches...a pretty reasonable fear and the request was fair...

But since "Europe" is just a bunch of Capital-sold gutless technocrats, many of which are even used as puppet by USA, and they've not the power and the will to stop the big scary US mastiff...well...who'd be so idiot to make a deal with them? :D

Iran is just doing the smartest thing...he keeps building its big torch!

And with a big torch the big scary mastiff will definitely keep away! :D
Jashkar

What will the UN do? Well, if Iraq is any predictor the UN will pass a resolution, then pass 20 or 30 more resolutions, then pass a resolution that will have "grave consequences," then pass some more resolutions, and keep that up until the EU decides to implement the "grave consequences" and invades Iran. :(

Oh...no...not if Iran builds a nuke and a missile which could bring nuclear death to any "sensible" Country...that would stop any invasion count down.

Even the most irascible and violent people tend to turn pretty reasonable when a more cold-blooded person puts a loaded gun in front of their face.
Jashkar

To the rest of the world, i'm not surprised they think that but in reality, we don't have that type of regime in power.
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050801.gif

And its a funny old world when international law applies only to those who sign up to it. :rolleyes:

International law never meant anything to someone holding a very big stick...that's explains how some Countries could invade others being just said "Bad bad bad boy" by Mom UN and how other Countries have UN check even their assholes for WMDs...

UN is just a facade to give an illusion of legal power to those wielding the biggest sticks...it's just like a criminal wearing a police uniform...good surprise effect if you act against the law, sometimes allows you to have meek victims and is a good trick to flee after you've broken law...

UN has never been anything more than that...a police uniform upon a mobster.
Jashkar

Point? We have nuclear weapons and so do countries like Russia and China. Why can't they?

Simple...how could US invade and rob a nuclear weapons-equipped Country?

Things become tricky if you try beating up someone wielding a loaded gun...it's better to call for "sportsmanship" and then kick the guy while your partner holds his arms!

Obviously that wouldn't make sense if you don't think that someone already has a fully-blown plan for invasion with timer ticking...
Jashkar

I am actually sympathetic to Iran in some areas and their track record is better than some of the "allies" of the US , but still some of their beards give me the creeps. Sorry, if this has been posted before.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863049/posts
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

I am actually sympathetic to Iran in some areas and their track record is better than some of the "allies" of the US , but still some of their beards give me the creeps. Sorry, if this has been posted before.Yup..and why do they wear towels on their heads?...Its so weird...

What sort of reigme do you think you have?

How would you define a Right Wing Fundamentalist Reigme?

How would you describe it? Frankly, I can tell you that this country DOES NOT have a fundamentalist regime.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050801.gif

Nice inaccurate Cartoon.

Nice inaccurate Cartoon.Thanks ;)

Yup..and why do they wear towels on their heads?...Its so weird...

ya and all Iranians wear towels on their heads. :rolleyes:

If you are sarcastic, atleast know what you are talking about.

Of course they rejected!

I say that if they make t3h n00ks, they pay for it. A la India and Pakistan. It isn't known if Israel has any n00ks yet, so we can't technically say they violated anything. Of course, I'd rather neither Israel OR Iran get nukes.

ya and all Iranians wear towels on their heads. :rolleyes:

If you are sarcastic, atleast know what you are talking about.you are rite...

most Iranians do not wear that...

the Indians who wear that more often...Isnt it?

If my religion required me to wear something on the top...I would Just Do it..

http://bensisse.free.fr/ToutMatsav/Benny/NIKE_1.jpg

Of course, I'd rather neither Israel OR Iran get nukes.I feel the same way.
I don't see why Israel should have so many extraordinary privileges

How would you describe it? Frankly, I can tell you that this country DOES NOT have a fundamentalist regime.

Well I have described it.

I think we can agree it is Right Wing, and the power in charge of any country is called a Reigme.

And I gave you a link to a lengthy definition of 'fundamentalist' which seems to be pretty close to Bush and co.

Now what do you define as being a right wing fundamentalist reigme?

hehe what are we talking about here?! i give you a proposal if u not think so then i report u to the u.n. and put sanctions in place. thats not a proposal and dont call it that way,so called proposal is a - A BLACKMAIL!!! now lets see what are elements of Blackmail? NOTHING CONCRETE!!!!-maybe some economic incentives?!?! maybe better cooperation?!? u want something BIG and offer something vague in return! hmm..... Satnistic Blackmail should always be rejected i dont see anything weird there maybe i need to watch CNN for 24h/7 day/12 months to see the world trough you brainwashed eyes.

Just to clarify I am not America bashing here. I am Bush bashing.

I think America is a great country and whenever I go there the people i meet are friendly and strike me as having a positive attitude towards life and a strong work ethic which has contributed to making America the place it is today.

I just think they have a crap government.

you are rite...

most Iranians do not wear that...

the Indians who wear that more often...Isnt it?

If my religion required me to wear something on the top...I would Just Do it..


Not exactly. Only the Sikh community of India and certain other communities wear turbans. And some people just wear it on occasions like marriages. Heck I wear turban on my head when I work in my farm and load stuff on my head. :D

Iranians also wear turbans, mostly the moulvis and clerics. The ordinary Persian on the street still retains the Persian identity and not the Arab "towel head" thing.

But we only see the bearded mullahs on the TV who says the customary "Death to America" ! :D

hehe what are we talking about here?! i give you a proposal if u not think so then i report u to the u.n. and put sanctions in place. thats not a proposal and dont call it that way,so called proposal is a - A BLACKMAIL!!! now lets see what are elements of Blackmail? NOTHING CONCRETE!!!!-maybe some economic incentives?!?! maybe better cooperation?!? u want something BIG and offer something vague in return!

I agree.
Jashkar

I just think they have a crap government.
Which they elected, and with choice comes responsibility, and accountability. ;)

Only in a dictatorship can a distinction be made between the actions of the state and its people.

Which they elected, and with choice comes responsibility, and accountability. ;)

Only in a dictatorship can a distinction be made between the actions of the state and its people.

I probably should clarify - the people i know are mostly from the 49% who voted for the other guy

I probably should clarify - the people i know are mostly from the 49% who voted for the other guy

Yeah...but the other guy was an imperialist too...
There's no real choice in their government...every President does his best for the capitalist lobbies...
Jashkar

Yeah...but the other guy was an imperialist too...
There's no real choice in their government...every President does his best for the capitalist lobbies...
Jashkar

So what about the early presidents?

well not many people go to elections today so u cant blame whole nation if something goes wrong. if someone is elected by 60-70% of total population then you can say that.then again maybe that leader has good rhetoric and gives lot of false promices. so its very hard to blame any nation for something.or if foreign politics change 1 minute you hero of the west next u bombed like saddam hussein.

So tell me, what was Charles Ngs cause?
As I said, you don't have to support or even understand the reason, but Charles Ng obviously got some sort of sexual satisfaction out of raping and torturing those women.

But comparing an organisation to one deranged individual is rather stupid.

As I said, you don't have to support or even understand the reason, but Charles Ng obviously got some sort of sexual satisfaction out of raping and torturing those women.

But comparing an organisation to one deranged individual is rather stupid.

Your statement was thet there is a motive every time. I agree - there is a motive. A motive is not the same as a justification - which is why I used Ng for an example.

Your post implied that a motive justifies the crime. When the victims are strangers the motive is irrelevant - just as it was for Ng. Politics is no more a justification for the intentional murder of strangers than deviant sexuality is.