Why should any nation follow the United Nations?

by Jourles 6 Replies latest members politics

  • Jourles
    Jourles

    Given the recent drama over the USA and Iran, how do you feel about sovereign nations acquiring nuclear technolgy for civilian purposes? If all signatory nations are allowed by the United Nations to produce nuclear power for "peaceful purposes," shouldn't Iran be able to develop such technology without hinderance from other countries? Afterall, the UN Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty makes it clear in Article IV:

    1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

    2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

    Obviously, the United States is foaming at the mouth by stating that Iran should not be able to develop nuclear tech. They say that Iran will most definitely use the tech for producing WMD's, while Iran insists that it is for peaceful purposes. Who should we believe? Should we believe the country who definitively stated that Iraq possessed WMD's and subverted the UN by invading Iraq even though the UN didn't approve of it? Why is the USA not allowing Iran its "inalienable right" to produce nuclear power?

    Of course Iran is going to stand defiantly against the USA. The US government is the one denying Iran's "inalienable right" under the NPT. Wouldn't you do the same? Or would you just sit there and take it up the @$$ from a bullying nation?

    Come to think of it, if the US gets their way with Iran, what do we need the UN for anyway? The UN backed down over the US invasion of Iraq even though it was voted against. Russia and China are backing Iran - why are they not afraid? Shouldn't we just get rid of the UN and let the USA police the entire world as they see fit? Isn't that what they are doing anyway?

    Flame on folks, flame on!

    (for the record, I have no interest either way if Iran gets nuclear tech or not. This is just another one of those let's look at both sides of the coin threads)

  • Jourles
    Jourles

    Wow. Do I know how to kill a thread before it gets started or what?

    Is this topic just too stupid to discuss? Or is it too painfully obvious? I must be doing something wrong. All I was trying to do was spark a debate on the blatant bullying by the US over Iran and if we needed the UN as a mediator any longer seeing as the US is doing a fine job by themselves on the world scene...

    Oh well. If it's too dumb, just let it die.

  • JH
    JH

    It's not dumb at all. Probably my answer will be though...lol

    The world is constantly changing, and other countries are getting nuclear technology.

    Canada has nuclear power but doesn't want nuclear weapons.

    Iran wants nuclear power and probably would want nuclear weapons because they want to impose themselves in their part of the world. They see the US in Iraq and in Afghanistan, on each side of their country. They must wonder if they will be attacked next, so it's to their advantage to have nuclear weapons. They also hate Israel...

    As far as following the UN, well I don't see the UN as very strong and respected anymore. When it's not China or Russia vetoing something, it's the US.

    After the World wars, the UN was implemented to try to stop future wars, so it can still be useful, but it's not working too well.

  • jayhawk1
    jayhawk1

    The UN might not have stopped war from happening, but I believe it has kept World Wide War from happening. Diplomacy has its purpose, even if nothing is really accomplished, it has kept countries who don't like each other from involving other countries in their wars.

    Think about World War One for a minute. If you look at the history prior to it, it could be argued World War One started in 1912. After that mini war died off in the Balkans, both sides started pacts with other nations that if attacked, that nation would be obligated to declare war too. That would still happen today if it wasn't for the constant annoying diplomacy that happens within the UN. And really it is the constant pressure of other nations that keeps the US from doing something stupid like starting a war with Iran.

  • read good books
    read good books

    It's an excellent topic, I guess I am left wondering is the U.N. really an independent entity or just another tool of the powerful world elititists. Could the U.N. supplant the U.S. as the next global world power?

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    Jourles - all that would be fine and dandy - IF the president of Iran hadn't openly and in public forum stated his anti-Jewish position, even using the threat that that Isreal must be destroyed.

    That attitude must be considered here, IMO.

    Edited to add: I tried to post BBC article with his comments - kept getting an error message.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/4378948.stm

    Jeff

  • Jourles
    Jourles

    sorry, i thought this topic died a while back...

    all that would be fine and dandy - IF the president of Iran hadn't openly and in public forum stated his anti-Jewish position, even using the threat that that Isreal must be destroyed.

    Leaders from various countries have always issued threats towards other countries. In the case of the USA, we hit first and make up excuses along the way or later. For all we know, Iran could simply be making these threats to provoke the USA to see how far we want to take matters. The USA appears to want a diplomatic solution with North Korea - why not give Iran the same respect? But no. Military action is still on the table.

    We all know that if Iran openly attacks Israel, the USA will retaliate against Iran. It is a given. If Iran uses a nuke against Israel, the USA will likely use a nuke against Iran. So who's the winner in that situation? Iran wouldn't be in a position to say, "We won!", would they?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit