4 ms·

If nukes are the problem, why is Israel not sanctioned to hell and back? Have nukes, refuse to sign NPT. Because nukes aren't the problem. Protecting US intere

by madaxe 13y ago

If nukes are the problem, why is Israel not sanctioned to hell and back? Have nukes, refuse to sign NPT. Because nukes aren't the problem. Protecting US interests by destabilising Iran is the problem.

tome 13y ago
Israel is not in breach of international law with its nuke program exactly because it is a non-signatory to the NPT. Iran is a signatory and it has obligations under that treaty that it is not fulfilling. And being vigilant on Iran is not just protecting US interests. It's protecting anyone who believes in freedom and liberal values. If Iran had nuclear weapons then it would be the second most awful world power to have them. It would be much worse in practice than NK having them though, because it actively sponsors terrorism around the world.
- djKianoosh 13y ago
  what good is that treaty if both those knuckleheaded countries can dance around it like this?
- 3327 13y ago
  How do you know they would be the second most awful people to have them ? You are led to believe they are awful and if they have them they will use. What if they are not? What fact do you have? I have no agenda I am nor pro Iran nor against, because I simply do not have enough facts or knowledge. I hear from the media they are terrible and almost as bad as North Korea... But what if they are not right? Can a US publication come out and say: "Hey Iranian leaders might feel they need nuclear weapons because otherwise they are helpless against an invasion by supreme powers just the Iraq and other nations were". Can a US news outlet make such a claim? Maybe some editorials here and there but the reality is present media is not entirely different than cold war Soviet media. Besides the obvious differences that you and I can both see, differences on agenda setting are not that great when it comes to SPECIFIC issues like Iran. What would have happened if Iran was left alone? Who knows. What if US policy was to say: fine go make nukes but know the obvious, if you do anything stupid WW3 will be fought over the middleeast (and probably will be the case regardless or somewhere in Asia). >Iran is a signatory and it has obligations under that treaty that it is not fulfilling. This point I completely agree with. IF they are a signatory they are obliged...However, does the US adhere to every deal they signed ? Does any nation ? We bend our own constitution when we see fit. We detain people for infinity without charging them in black prisons. We fly an army of killer robots over any nation we please as long as they do not have the might or spine to respond and our tied to our foreign aid lifeline - where 1/7 people killed are children and 50% are innocent (according to a recent report also covered 2 days ago here on HN). So who are we to tell them about obligations and sticking to the rules?
  - tome 13y ago
    > How do you know they would be the second most awful people to have them ? You are led to believe they are awful and if they have them they will use. What if they are not? What fact do you have? These are very worthwhile questions. I've spent a lot of time investigating this subject and have come to certain conclusions. It would be foolish for anyone to believe me just because I've made these assertions on a forum on the internet, so I would encourage anyone interested to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

by madaxe 13y ago

tome 13y ago

Israel is not in breach of international law with its nuke program exactly because it is a non-signatory to the NPT. Iran is a signatory and it has obligations under that treaty that it is not fulfilling. And being vigilant on Iran is not just protecting US interests. It's protecting anyone who believes in freedom and liberal values. If Iran had nuclear weapons then it would be the second most awful world power to have them. It would be much worse in practice than NK having them though, because it actively sponsors terrorism around the world.

djKianoosh 13y ago
what good is that treaty if both those knuckleheaded countries can dance around it like this?
3327 13y ago
How do you know they would be the second most awful people to have them ? You are led to believe they are awful and if they have them they will use. What if they are not? What fact do you have? I have no agenda I am nor pro Iran nor against, because I simply do not have enough facts or knowledge. I hear from the media they are terrible and almost as bad as North Korea... But what if they are not right? Can a US publication come out and say: "Hey Iranian leaders might feel they need nuclear weapons because otherwise they are helpless against an invasion by supreme powers just the Iraq and other nations were". Can a US news outlet make such a claim? Maybe some editorials here and there but the reality is present media is not entirely different than cold war Soviet media. Besides the obvious differences that you and I can both see, differences on agenda setting are not that great when it comes to SPECIFIC issues like Iran. What would have happened if Iran was left alone? Who knows. What if US policy was to say: fine go make nukes but know the obvious, if you do anything stupid WW3 will be fought over the middleeast (and probably will be the case regardless or somewhere in Asia). >Iran is a signatory and it has obligations under that treaty that it is not fulfilling. This point I completely agree with. IF they are a signatory they are obliged...However, does the US adhere to every deal they signed ? Does any nation ? We bend our own constitution when we see fit. We detain people for infinity without charging them in black prisons. We fly an army of killer robots over any nation we please as long as they do not have the might or spine to respond and our tied to our foreign aid lifeline - where 1/7 people killed are children and 50% are innocent (according to a recent report also covered 2 days ago here on HN). So who are we to tell them about obligations and sticking to the rules?
- tome 13y ago
  > How do you know they would be the second most awful people to have them ? You are led to believe they are awful and if they have them they will use. What if they are not? What fact do you have? These are very worthwhile questions. I've spent a lot of time investigating this subject and have come to certain conclusions. It would be foolish for anyone to believe me just because I've made these assertions on a forum on the internet, so I would encourage anyone interested to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.