Why are we telling Iran they can't have nukes? (page 8)

BrentR

Does one nation have the right to dictate another nations domestic policy?

Which nation are you speaking of?

mavie

BrentR, in general. I don't think it matters which countries are involved.

Thanks for your research and contributions in the thread.

Brother Apostate

Does one nation have the right to dictate another nations domestic policy?

That question ignores the fact that in this world, at this time, military power is the ultimate decider of what is "right" or "a right", as has been said "might makes right". Within that context, then, "rights" are arbitrarily decided by the ruling powers that be, enforced upon the desired nation or people, and convincingly fed to the masses by means of disinformation and miseducation.

BA- Question what you were taught in school.

BrentR

The thread title is "Why are we telling Iran they can't have nukes"?

"We" is 188 nations along with the UN that are all signatories in a treaty (agreement, contract) and the US in only one of those nations.

There is a huge difference in one nation trying to tell another what they can and cannot do vs. making a country comply to a binding contract they agreed to.

stillajwexelder

Can someone provide proof or a source or something that shows Iran wants to make nuclear weapons,

What "proof" would you accept?

stillajwexelder

Does one nation have the right to dictate another nations domestic policy?

No - nor does any group have the right. So suppose some nation does dictate -what do we all do about it. Certain groups are "demanding" Sharia law. Do they have a right to do that?

Sad emo

What would happen if another country told us we couldn't have nukes?

I'm not sure whether anyone answered this yet.

What would the US government say if the UN or another country did say it to them?

stillajwexelder

What would the US government say if the UN (USE THE VETO - so it could not happen)

or another country did say it to them? Go screw yourself?

AlmostAtheist

>>There is a huge difference in one nation trying to tell another what they can and cannot do vs. making a country comply to a binding contract they agreed to.

Agreed. And by signing the NPT, didn't Iran obligate themselves (as a non-nuclear weapons state) not to pursue any such activities?

So while the conversation has swerved into "should we attack Iran if we think they might be making nuclear weapons", the original question is answered in the NPT. They said they wouldn't develop them, and like the 180+ other nations that said the same, they should be expected to abide by it.

>>What "proof" would you accept [that Iran wants to make nuclear weapons]?

What have you got? I know some. They pursued nuclear activities without reporting it, in defiance of the NPT. They did not fully disclose their activities, once they were discovered. They have made "gentleman's agreements" regarding nuclear activities and broken them. There is admittedly some circumstantial evidence like this, but is there anything more substantial? Something that goes beyond what other member states have done? Something worth pulling a trigger on?

Dave

Sad emo

What would the US government say if the UN (USE THE VETO - so it could not happen)

What if they didn't have the veto to call upon?

or another country did say it to them? Go screw yourself?

Then should Iran be allowed to tell the US/UN to go screw themselves?

Why are we telling Iran they can't have nukes?

Share this