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

by mavie 131 Replies latest jw friends

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    Then should Iran be allowed to tell the US/UN to go screw themselves? ABSOLUTELY - just like Saddam did

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    and Hitler did to Chamberlain (sort of)

  • BrentR
    BrentR

    Only if they want to face the consequences of doing so. If you violate a contract there are ramifications to doing so. Try not paying your mortgage or rent for a month and see how smooth that goes.

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate

    http://fatafeet.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/WindowsLiveWriter/IseeDeadPeople_46/Movie_i_see_dead_people7694721.jpg

    "I see Idealists"

    BA- Realist.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

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

    They do so the question is irrelevant

  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist

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

    >> They do so the question is irrelevant

    Academic, but I wouldn't agree irrelevant. I think the spirit of it can be answered by remembering that Bush told the UN America was prepared to act unilaterally on Iraq.

    Dave

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

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

    They do so the question is irrelevant

    I understand that Stilla - but I'm trying to take this from the position Iran is currently in - they don't have a veto, so it's a kind of 'if the US was in Iran's place' kind of scenario I'm trying to get at here. I don't know if you checked my previous posts but I agree with you that Iran should be allowed nuclear technology - so this is more for others thought really.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    Academic, but I wouldn't agree irrelevant. I think the spirit of it can be answered by remembering that Bush told the UN America was prepared to act unilaterally on Iraq.

    Agreed - they got frustrated at Saddam ignoring 13 UN resolutions and nothing getting done (even though the Israelsi have ignored 66)

    The UN is irrelevant

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    I understand that Stilla - but I'm trying to take this from the position Iran is currently in - they don't have a veto, so it's a kind of 'if the US was in Iran's place' kind of scenario I'm trying to get at here. I don't know if you checked my previous posts but I agree with you that Iran should be allowed nuclear technology - so this is more for others thought really.

    If I were in Irans place I would basically do what they are doing. However, I would get the Ayatollah to reign in Amadickhead. His rhetoric is not helping. I would be much more cautious and try to do a lot more behind the scenes quitely. Everything in life comes down to accident of birth. If I was born Muslim I would think differently than I do now - I am sure. Accident of birth - sure is a bummer isnt it?

  • mavie
    mavie

    BrentR, thanks for the links to the NPT. If Iran has signed the treaty and still persists in developing a nuclear weapon, *the UN* should take action. However, it might be hard to convince Iran to follow international law when they perceive the USA to have broken international law themselves.

    Also, the veracity of Iran blocking IAEA inspectors is somewhat suspect. I'm not convinced that they are actively blocking inspections.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit