Does Iran "act" as if it is guilty?

[more_or_less]

@Phaedrus

It’s a tough situation; I really don’t want to see Iran obtain nuclear weapons. They simply aren’t responsible enough to be trusted with them. The problem is that neither are we. No one is! In a better world there wouldn’t be any nuclear weapons. But in reality, can we ban fire? On one level nuclear weapons are an application of technology, but underlying it is a principle of physics. Who are we to attempt to prevent others from exploiting the fundamental mechanisms of the universe? Again, it’s like trying to make it illegal for them to use fire.

This won’t come down to ideals, it will be determined by cold pragmatism. Attacking Iran seems like insanity to me…nearly as insane as Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. A war would be in neither countries best interest, but fear of and threats of war are very useful for both. Bush needs to keep pounding the drums for further wars to cover up the atrocities he’s committing at home and abroad. The constant threat of terrorism is needed to justify the draconian measures of the Patriot Act and his Stasi-like domestic spying program. Likewise, Iran needs a “Great Satan”, a threat from the outside to distract the people from oppression from within.

A few months ago I’d say war was very unlikely. But now it’s unclear. Bush would like to attack Iran, that’s beyond any doubt. How far will he be allowed to go? Is there any limit to the apathy of his subjects? Is there any line that this country will not allow him to cross?

I appreciate where you are coming from, but it is a longs ways between “war” and “military strikes” imho.

Iran can still save itself from any overt hostilities by coming into full NPT compliance, imho.

[xzc]

Why can Iran violate international treaties with regards to nuclear materials?

Because it will soon have a nuke, and nuke countries are exempt from those laws.

Why can it? Because it’s within it’s power to do so.

Understand that I’m not disagreeing with an invasion of Iran, or the rest of the middle east. I’m only saying that we should be honest about it. Fact is we don’t like them; we think their customs and even them stupid and dangerous; we want them to be under our control instead of being autonomous (sovereign), but at the same time we want the support of the liberal idiots living in happy land; so we pass ridiculous laws Iran will undoubtedly break. Their sovereignty, their autonomy, their morals, their customs depend on them going nuclear - i.e. being on the same playing field as those threatening their sovereignty. They better go nuclear if they want to manage their own country. The law prohibiting them from going nuclear stands in direct conflict with their sovereignty.

[Wobbly]

@more or less

I’ve no contradiction and you are making semantic equivocations. I’ve already adjusted the question for you, and you are still dodging it.

No, you have continually asserted that Iran has acted “illegally”, the last time you mentioned the argument you used the exact word “illegally”

Why does Iran get a free pass with international treaty violations?

Now this is a proper question, but we have to look to the foreign policy of the western powers, and there work within the U.N. to find out what action they are going to take. They have put economic sanctions on Iran, and they are going to discuss putting more on next week. With America worn thin in Iraq and the “war on terrorism”, it’s probably going to require a dramatic incident for any military action to be involved. Anyway, at this point it seems that increased sanctions is going to be the next move.

Replace “illegal” in the first post with the words to the effect of “treaty non-compliance” if that’ll make you happy.

I don’t know if it makes me happy, but it sure makes the question far more intelligible.

You probably have as of yet to realize that, based on you “argument,” there is then no such thing as “war crimes” and apparently the USA does no have to follow the Geneva Conventions? Apparently you’ve solved the “torture problem” by fiat. Somebody should get Rummy and Gonzales on the phone STAT.

I believe America as well as the majority of other countries have an enduring interest in classifying certain heinous acts as “war crimes” and making them illegal, and doing the same with torture. This does not mean that any of these countries “have to” follow these rules and laws, it simply means that it is in there best interest to follow the laws themselves and try to enforce them internationally. I may even support the creation of an independent international government with the means to enforce them, but until such an institution is created, and states are no longer the dominate actors in international relations, matters of “legal” and “illegal” will only be relevant to states that make them relevant. They, as arguments, for or against certain behaviors, will only be rhetoric and rallying cries of the states who claim them.

The USA follows the Geneva convention ect. because it’s citizenry believe in there moral precepts, and because it would hurt us internationally if we did not. I, for example, can very well call it illegal for the United States because it by definition is, according to our legal codes. A self imposed illegality that is shared by many nations.