Iran threatens to attack its neighbors

[B. Max]

If they're like this now just wait until they have a few nukes to put on their missiles.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/...3731.shtml?s=ic

[BC_chick]

Skipped an important part there....

if the U.S. attacks its nuclear facilities

It was right there in the first paragraph.

[B. Max]

Skipped an important part there....

if the U.S. attacks its nuclear facilities

It was right there in the first paragraph.

So if Israel does it it will be ok then. I didn't miss it.

[BC_chick]

I didn't miss it.

Your Title was:

Iran threatens to attack its neighbors

In your post you said:

If they're like this now just wait until they have a few nukes to put on their missiles.

When you insert the key phrase:

if the U.S. attacks its nuclear facilities

It makes your whole argument kinda redundant no? Iran threatens to attack its neighbours - with nuclear weapons - if their nuclear facilities are attacked.

Hmmm, okay.

Methinks it had been about 12 hours since an anti-Iran thread and you were getting antsy.

PS - you did miss it. Maybe not in your mind - but for the reader of this thread.

[M.Dancer]

So lets see how this works....So Iran is in violation of the NPT and in order to eliminate their nuclear capability, the US strikes...Iran, being the terrorist nation that they are decide to attack nations not involved....

A good reason to attack before they are nuclear armed and while their impotant scud technology can be safely neutralized

[B. Max]

Methinks it had been about 12 hours since an anti-Iran thread and you were getting antsy.

PS - you did miss it. Maybe not in your mind - but for the reader of this thread.

Take a pill and call the doctor in the morning if you're still like this. The entire point is, Iran threatening its neighbors, I don't care what the reason is.

[BC_chick]

Iran is in violation of the NPT

Technically, the original five nuclear powers are also in violation of it. Aren't they signatories who were supposed to disarm according to the treaty?

[BC_chick]

The entire point is, Iran threatening its neighbors.

The entire point is, you missed a very important part of that threat.

If I said "Canada plans to strike Pakistan" and left out an important conditional such as "if they are caught helping the Taliban" it's not showing too much honesty in my claim, is it?

Or is this the type of pick and choose evidence that started the Iraq war?

[geoffrey]

Aren't they signatories who were supposed to disarm according to the treaty?

They've all disarmed below the requirements of any of the treaties. The NPT wasn't a disarmament talk. The 6th article requires parties to negotiate, but not disarm.

[M.Dancer]

Iran is in violation of the NPT

Technically, the original five nuclear powers are also in violation of it. Aren't they signatories who were supposed to disarm according to the treaty?

I haven't a clue where you dug that up. But technically no, the treaty asks politely that the 5 powers negotiate towards easing tensions and working towards disarmement and this has been decidedly done with the SALT and SALT II treaties.

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

[B. Max]

The entire point is, Iran threatening its neighbors.

The entire point is, you missed a very important part of that threat.

If I said "Canada plans to strike Pakistan" and left out an important conditional such as "if they are caught helping the Taliban" it's not showing too much honesty in my claim, is it?

Or is this the type of pick and choose evidence that started the Iraq war?

M. Dancer got it, the people who wrote the article got it, I got it, but not you.

[M.Dancer]

The entire point is, Iran threatening its neighbors.

The entire point is, you missed a very important part of that threat.

If I said "Canada plans to strike Pakistan" and left out an important conditional such as "if they are caught helping the Taliban" it's not showing too much honesty in my claim, is it?

Or is this the type of pick and choose evidence that started the Iraq war?

Basically they are using a tactic I tried on my daughter. I said if she misbehaved I would spank her brother.

[BC_chick]

Aren't they signatories who were supposed to disarm according to the treaty?

They've all disarmed below the requirements of any of the treaties. The NPT wasn't a disarmament talk. The 6th article requires parties to negotiate, but not disarm.

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.

[BC_chick]

I haven't a clue where you dug that up. But technically no, the treaty asks politely that the 5 powers negotiate towards easing tensions and working towards disarmement and this has been decidedly done with the SALT and SALT II treaties.

I dug it up in wiki, along with footnotes if you wanna pick on using wiki as a source:

As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements [9]. Many states, and the Non-Aligned Movement, now argue this violates Articles I and II of the treaty, and are applying diplomatic pressure to terminate these agreements. They point out that the pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practice handling and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and non-U.S. warplanes have been adapted to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs which must have involved the transfer of some technical nuclear weapons information. NATO believes its "nuclear forces continue to play an essential role in war prevention, but their role is now more fundamentally political" [10].

[geoffrey]

Eh?

[bush_cheney2004]

I dug it up in wiki, along with footnotes if you wanna pick on using wiki as a source:

Here is a better source critical of US and NATO policies for the forward deployed B61 nuclear gravity bombs:

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm

Technically, the US maintains control of the weapons, so an NPT violation is moot. It's the same game that Canada played until 1984, all the while claiming to be "nuclear free".

[BC_chick]

Eh?

Sorry, I'm posting in too many threads at once, I'm going too fast.

I was saying that it's questionable to say they've disarmed, some critics argue otherwise. The same way as Iran can technically squirm out of it too by saying that their program is for peaceful purposes.

IOW - both sides can be found in violation of it, and both sides can be found within their rights... depending on the interpretation thereof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-P...ar:_disarmament

[jbg]

Methinks it had been about 12 hours since an anti-Iran thread and you were getting antsy.

PS - you did miss it. Maybe not in your mind - but for the reader of this thread.

And what do you find to admire about Iran's leadership?

[kuzadd]

Iran is in violation of the NPT

Technically, the original five nuclear powers are also in violation of it. Aren't they signatories who were supposed to disarm according to the treaty?

Is Iran in violation of the non-proliferation treaty?

'"Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968 to limit the spread of nuclear weapons'"

Does that pertain to making nuclear power?

wrt power:Third pillar: peaceful use of nuclear energy

I am not certain, they are in violation?

[buffycat]

Well, at least Iran did sign the NPT.

Unlike one particular little state who actually HAS nukes and the ability to use them - and of course has threatened to.

[Figleaf]

Iran is in violation of the NPT

...

It's not clear that Iran is violating the NPT -- they have not weaponized any nukes, yet.

[jbg]

Well, at least Iran did sign the NPT.

Unlike one particular little state who actually HAS nukes and the ability to use them - and of course has threatened to.

I'm a lot less worried about nukes in Israel's hands than in Iran's hands.

[M.Dancer]

Well, at least Iran did sign the NPT.

Unlike one particular little state who actually HAS nukes and the ability to use them - and of course has threatened to.

That is false.

Israel has never threatened to use weapons that Israel does not acknowledge she possesses.

[BC_chick]

It's not clear that Iran is violating the NPT -- they have not weaponized any nukes, yet.

Yeah, I get there later in the thread.

Both sides open to interpretation whereby they can be within their rights or in violation thereof.

Apparently, to some posters on the thread, that means I support the theocratic regime in Iran.

[M.Dancer]

It's not clear that Iran is violating the NPT -- they have not weaponized any nukes, yet.

Yeah, I get there later in the thread.

Both sides open to interpretation whereby they can be within their rights or in violation thereof.

Apparently, to some posters on the thread, that means I support the theocratic regime in Iran.

You can be in violation of the NPT without weaponizing nukes.

Not allowing inspections is the first way. Conductiong enhancements without authorization is another. Building "secret" facilities to enrich uranium is the last....