Stop Press - US and UK have Uranium Enrichment Plants

Dear all,

I am not sure if this has escaped everyones notice but both the US and the UK have both Uranium Enrichment programs AND Nuclear Weapons Development programs. Furthermore they have deployed Nuclear Weapons systems ready to strike anywhere in the world at short notice (much less than 45 minutes).

When you couple this with the illegal invasions of not one but two soveriegn nations in the last 5 years and the threatening of several others is it any surprise that a nation like Iran which has been illegally invaded twice from the west in the last 30 years, has sought the means to prevent it happening again?

Cheers

S

[edit on 4-2-2006 by Sandman210372]

[edit on 4-2-2006 by John bull 1]

Ok, let me explain these simple points to you to end this pointless thread.

One, Under US law the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were perfectly legal.

Two, the US and UK being members of the Security Council are allowed to have Nuclear Weapons, and have been allowed since the UN was created.

Three, Iran is a signatory of the NTP.

Four, What invasion of Iran are you referring to.

Five, continue sipping your coolaid.

They both had these nuclear weapons systems well before the creation of the NPT. Iran has not, though theres no proof that they have nukes yet, just signs that they are working toward it. The only official threats being made as of yet toward Iran are to the UNSC and toward sanctions. When was Iran invaded twice Illegally from the west? There was an Iran-Iraq war. The only times I can think of Iran being invaded is by the Mongols and not sure about this but did the Crusaders make it into Persia? This is an obviously politically motivated thread, so take it to PTS.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the US and UK being members of the Security Council are allowed to have Nuclear Weapons, and have been allowed since the UN was created.

I'm sorry but that is one the funniest things I have ever read, the fact that certain countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, whilst others are not

Doesn't that not strike you as slightly hypocritical WestPoint23?

[edit on 4/2/06 by eternally_damaged]

No it does not, when the original laws were written only the five members of the Security Council had Nuclear Weapons. So the UN decided that to keep nuclear weapons from spreading they would allow the five members of the Security Council to have them and everyone else would sign the NPT. Iran is a signatory of the NPT. Obviously today there are several other countries which are not a signatory of the NPT that have nuclear weapons.


[edit on 4-2-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Sandman210372
I am not sure if this has escaped everyones notice but both the US and the UK have both Uranium Enrichment programs AND Nuclear Weapons Development programs. Furthermore they have deployed Nuclear Weapons systems ready to strike anywhere in the world at short notice (much less than 45 minutes).

And? So?
Because of this, your stipulating that Iran should also have the right to do so? Afraid not. I would suggest a class in International Studies 101, ASAP.

When you couple this with the illegal invasions of not one but two soveriegn nations in the last 5 years and the threatening of several others...

And? So? Try balance of power explanations.

...is it any surprise that a nation like Iran which has been illegally invaded twice from the west in the last 30 years, has sought the means to prevent it happening again?

Really? Invaded twice by the West in 30 years?
According to the History of Iran, apparently you need to explain your assertion?
Furthermore, that being said, the last time Iran was invaded by the West was during WWII, by the British and Russians, in August of 1941, far from that 30 year assertion you have made.
History of Iran: Reza Shah Pahlavi
History of Iran





seekerof

[edit on 4-2-2006 by Seekerof]

PLEASE The simple fact that Iran isn't going to have a nuclear capability is that:
1. It's threatening Israel.
2. It's supporting Hamas and other Islamic terrorists.
3. It's President needs psychiatric help.
Eat my words

The US invented the Nuclear weapon to END wars. Iran is developing one to START wars. See the difference!

Train

One, Under US law the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were perfectly legal.

Which laws would those be? The ones crafted therafter the war, or the international legality that was disregarded therein? The legality of this war does not substantiate the ethical justification; by simple election of legality, we do not see the ethical discourse that were to follow regarding the geopolitical unrest that was to come thereby, or the utter renunciation of an international communities opinion.

And? So?
Because of this, your stipulating that Iran should also have the right to do so? Afraid not. I would suggest a class in International Studies 101, ASAP.

I've taken numerous classes as i'm also centrified in this area of studies, and I still don't understand the point of you asking a member to take a class which can range between 4-6 hundred dollars these days, exclusive of text book prices, to somehow decry his argument, do you?

Luxifero

Originally posted by BigTrain
The US invented the Nuclear weapon to END wars. Iran is developing one to START wars. See the difference!

Train

Why would we want to start a war?, oh never mind I'm guessing you think Ahmadinejad is in charge of the army now correct?.

Originally posted by eternally_damaged

I'm sorry but that is one the funniest things I have ever read, the fact that certain countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, whilst others are not

See but the US and UK are allowed to have these weapons under International law in the NPT, along with France China and Russia. Other countries like Iran which signed the NPT are banned from developing buying or having Nuclear weapons. Iran did not have to sign it other countries didnt and went on to develop nuclear weapons like Israel and broke no international treaty.

Iran is even allowed to leave the NPT if it determines its in its countries security interest but they have to give memeber nations 6 months notice before hand.

eternally_damaged that concept might sound funny too you but the leaders of most countries on the planet decided that Nuclear weapon prolifiration was a bad thing and signed up to agree to this treaty including Iran

My argument to you ShadowXIX is that the US are "allowed" to harvest nuclear weopons, as long as they follow the international laws agreed by the UN - but remember the US haven't really got a clean record of listening to the will of the UN, they tend to make up their own mind regardless of what the UN or the rest of the world thinks of it.

Is there a degree of difference between Iran, The US and the UK?

And is the a differece between Blair, Bush, and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad?

For me there is.

For others like Sandman210372. The US is the greater Evil, And "Iran" is seeking to protect itself. From a US illegal invasion.

And any arguement to convince them otherwise is worthless.

Thankfully the EU is not as ignorent of World events. As some of the members here can be. (Including Me.)

They realize that Mahmoud is a Madman. Thinking he is the "messenger" for the upcoming Savior of the World. And the capture\destruction of Isreal. Will bring about the return of the 12th Iman.

Hitler wanted to remove the Jews from Aryan lands. And threatens them Daily. While the Rest of the world Slept.

Mahmoud Wants to Wipe the Jews from Islam lands. And threatens them daily. While The West\East is only partly asleep this time.

Thats not how it works the NPT has nothing to do with other laws or teaties of the UN. Each teaty unless stated otherwise is a stand alone agreement to the parties that signed it.

Come on you didn't you really think thats how the NPT worked?

Perhaps you should read it over

www.un.org...

[edit on 4-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by BigTrain
The US invented the Nuclear weapon to END wars. Iran is developing one to START wars. See the difference!

Train

That doesn't make sence. Who started the the war in IRAQ and Afghanistan?

Which laws would those be? The ones crafted therafter the war, or the international legality that was disregarded therein?

No, the ones crafted 219 years ago, the ones that are collectively called the US Constitution. After all the US is a sovereign nation, correct? The UN is not a world government, correct?

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Notice how the UN is not the Commander in Chief.

The Congress shall have power to To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Notice how the UN is not designated to declare war.

My argument to you ShadowXIX is that the US are "allowed" to harvest nuclear weopons, as long as they follow the international laws agreed by the UN

Afraid not, these are the only requirements they have to follow.

First pillar: non-proliferation

Five states are permitted by the NPT to own nuclear weapons: France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights assumed by Russia), United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968). These were the only states possessing such weapons at the time the treaty was opened to signature, and are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These 5 Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) agree not to transfer nuclear weapons technology to other states, and the non-NWS state parties agree not to seek to develop nuclear weapons.

The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

That doesn't make sence. Who started the the war in IRAQ and Afghanistan?

What he meant is that when we invented the Atomic Bomb in 1945 we invented it to end WWII, we didn’t invent that weapon to be used for starting wars.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by WestPoint23]

Look at the all current fuss about stupid cartoons and you will surely see why radlical countries like Iran cannot have nukes. NEVER!
And don't talk about the rights to have them or so. Iran will simply NEVER be allowed to own nukes, because US (and IMO whole West) doesn't trust them. Period.

WP,

To save yourself further embarrassment you might want to read up on your Constitution and the US's responsiblities under the UN Charter and the myriad of international treaties to which the US is a signatory.

It is as simple as this, if you fail to adhere to any of the above then it is illegal.

Therefore since the US has done this their actions are illegal.

International Law 101 for Seeker.

Cheers

S

Originally posted by longbow
Look at the all current fuss about stupid cartoons and you will surely see why radlical countries like Iran cannot have nukes. NEVER!
And don't talk about the rights to have them or so. Iran will simply NEVER be allowed to own nukes, because US (and IMO whole West) doesn't trust them. Period.

oh my god dude come on please tell me that was a joke, when did you start seeing iranians burn danish embassys in Iran or any other place on earth?.

To save yourself further embarrassment you might want to read up on your Constitution and the US's responsiblities under the UN Charter and the myriad of international treaties to which the US is a signatory.

I am well aware of the responsibilities of the US under the UN charter. Yes the US has ratified the UN charter, that does not mean however that our own laws are discarded. Once again the UN is not a world government.

It is as simple as this, if you fail to adhere to any of the above then it is illegal.

Therefore since the US has done this their actions are illegal.

Which is why I specifically emphasized in my very first post that under US law our actions were legal. You seem incapable of comprehending the difference between international law and domestic law.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by WestPoint23]