Peace Now Illegal

Iran wasn't required to report Natanz under NPT since it wasn't yet provided with nuclear fuel. Natanz has been inspected by the IAEA. What the U.S. claims is that there was another smaller plant before Natanz that was used as an enrichment test facility first and that not reporting this was a violation of NPT. The Arak plant is not required to be inspected under by the IAEA safeguard agreements at all, although it's contended that it could be used for the production of plutonium weapons.

My point is: on what basis does the U.S. put forth the argument that Iran has violated NPT or the IAEA safeguards? It's a problem. Upgrading the IAEA safeguards would be one way of addressing the issue. For example, upgrading safeguards to include inspection of the Arak facility to insure that the plant isn't being used for the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Or, adding safeguards that a plant will be subject to inspections even though it hasn't yet been provided with nuclear fuel.

The IAEA isn't trying to start a war. They are trying the accommodate the concerns expressed by the U.S. and others.

My other point is that no matter how much the IAEA safeguards may be upgraded and followed by Iran, the U.S. will likely not be satisfied by it. The argument can always be made by the U.S. that all of this inspection is moot because Iran can always pull out of NPT and IAEA inspections and quickly produce highly enriched material with the facilities is has already set up and use them for nuclear weapons. I don't see any easy solution to this problem. All of the inspections in the world won't solve a problem of mistrust of another country.

With Iran still part of NPT and IAEA, at least there is still some legal leverage that the U.S. and others can apply.

.

 

.



legal smeegal . what the hell . peace is the only good solution : that is ,
peace with earth and no nuke-waste from power plants : and certainly an absolute intolerance for any one of the 26000 armed nuke warheads in this world . come on ! surrender !

 

The elites are sytematically taking over the Middle East, for reasons have outlines elsewhere. If course Britain, Israel, etc say the same thing. The elites are in control of them all, and they say what they're told to say. Remember when everyone thought Iraq has WMDs? Blatant lie, engineered by the elites, as is this. When people have their heads so far up their asses that they can't see what's happening, even when it's repeated OVER AND OVER again, it makes it all the more easy for people like me to spot the truth. I mean to say, if they had to change their game plan every couple of years, it would be harder. But they don't, because so few people can see past all the brown stuff up there.

 

Shaggie, you are making a lot of sense.

Not that I have any empathy for Iran, but when Shrub sets his sites on a country, they are pretty well screwed. Maybe "America" doesn't want an other war. But Shrub, and his family and his buddies who make MONEY from the War Machine, do.

WHO will be the one to declare war? "Many other nations?" Ha, don't think so. Shrubya will get up there, and put on his "concerned" expression and maybe his "I'm mad, so don't mess with me" expression, mixed with a lot of sneering, and be the one to tell us that the Good Ol USA has just declared war on Iran. We can't even pay for the wars we are involved in now. No, that debt will be blamed on the next Democratic or Independent President, no matter what.

Yes, the fact the Bush is almost always wrong (selfish rich people usually are) helps.

 

Safeguards were upgraded after the first gulf war. It was upgraded in an effort to prevent countries from developing nuclear weapons technology through loopholes while being a member of NPT.

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd15/15iaea.htm

Iran agreed to the upgraded safeguards and was honoring them until the U.S. started talking during the past year about referring Iran to the UN security council based on an argument that it was secretly trying to build weapons but without producing any real evidence for this. Now that Iran has been threatened with sanctions, the situation has deteriorated and Iran is threatening to end its compliance with the IAEA safeguards. North Korea was the first country to pull out of the NPT.

Incidentally, Pakistan, India, Israel, Argentina, and Brazil did not sign on to the upgraded safeguards. The U.S. actually re-instated transfer of dual use technology to Pakistan right after the 911 attack as part of an agreement with Pakistan to cooperate with the U.S. on its war on terror.

One of the problems now is that the U.S. itself and other countries with nuclear weapons have not lived up to NPT. SALT has been scrapped in favor of the strategic defense initiative. Also, the U.S. is now chosen a strategy of pre-emptive strikes as a means of settling security issues as opposed to multilateral talks. The U.S. is also working on a program of tactical nuclear weapons that can penetrate underground facilities. The U.S. has given Israel preferential treatment when it comes to nuclear weapons. All of this has a way of undermining the NPT. Imagine Pakistan and India using this same approach of pre-emptive strikes to settle their security issues. It also has a way of undermining the security of countries that don't possess nuclear weapons but that are members of NPT. It places uncertainty in those countries that they may be a target of a pre-emptive strike and doesn't give them any incentive to stay out of the nuclear arms race.

The U.S. and other countries have violated NPT and safeguards or skirted them through loopholes. NPT and the IAEA safeguards will need to be further upgraded if any real progress is going to be made on non-proliferation. There hasn't been any real progress in all the NPT conferences held since the late 90s. Overall, the nuclear situation is more dangerous now than it ever has been in the history of NPT.

.

 

matthew
i take it that since you're unwilling to go to iraq, you'll be just as unwilling to go to iran?

 

This is a devil's advocate argument,and I'm not impressed. Nobody can pretend that the existance of secret nuclear sites is anything but a sign of deception and dishonesty. We're inspecting the official sites, meanwhile who knows what goes on at secret sites, and you're not the least bit bothered.

Yes, Iran's approach is "if you complain, we won't cooperate". Kind of a catch-22 to accomodate that attitude, yet you seem quite sympathetic. Note that Iran has been reported to the Security Council, which essentially means nothing, not referred to the SC, as part of the latest wobble to accomodate Iran's belligerancy.

In 2002, Bush signed a treaty that will result in a two thirds reduction in strategic nuclear weapons. This is the largest reduction in strategic weapons ever agreed. This is not "real progress"? Again, you seem to be carefully steering the argument away from Iran and bringing us to the usual "blame America". Before long, instead of talking about an Iranian nuclear bomb and how to stop it, we're talking about how the US is opposed to multilateralism. The idea that a theocratic tyranny and long time sponsor of international terror groups like Iran should acquire nuclear weapons is a nightmare. Can't you do more than make excuses and try to divert attention?

Like I said, you hate Bush. You don't have any interest at all in the issue, you just hate Bush.

If the "elites" were behind it, they would have manufactured real evidence instead of the crap they were forced to use, and they would have "found" WMD in Iraq once they got there. It takes nothing to find WMD. Spray paint "Anthrax" on a crate or barrel and take a picture. Done. Your argument is totally devoid of any logic.

 

Fuck it man..... Get me 3 AK47s .. PLENTY OF AMMO .... a couple of rocket launchers.. and let me get some action


DIE MOTHER FUCKERS DIE




LET ME KNOW IF THATS THE KINDA RESPONSE THAT YOU LIKE.. I CAN ALWAYS ALTER IT...

 

What the Bush adminstration did was manufacture crap evidence. They didn't even have the brains to manufacture evidence that looked good.

.

 

Matt, I think you are referring to the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty between the U.S. and Russia. That treaty is less than 500 words and is vague about many issues. It doesn't require destruction of warheads and doesn't define how warheads are to be counted. It also doesn't deal with the issue of MIRVs. It's the type of treaty leaders like because there are many loopholes in the way it can be interpreted. It's a nice piece for White House press releases but many don't consider it real progress.

My previous statements in the thread about NPT and the lack of progress were aimed more at the topic of what to do about developing countries rather than the reduction of warheads between the U.S. and Russia.

.

 

nah..... you know what the story is, just wanted a yes or a no. probably not worth it though, was just browsing through the forums, everyones still debating the issue. for what its worth you might want to have a look through and read through one opinion that suggests that is the value of currency that will ultimately drive the next ten years of war. its on the politics/america attacks forums somewhere, might even be on this thread but i'm too lazy to track it down.