It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
the NPT regime must "under no conditions" be violated.
( AFP)
Originally posted by Phoenix
In a short term myopic kind of way it can be said to harm credibility of both the EU and the USA.
The EU dickered around for two years and came up empty handed - so much for multi-lateralism
Originally posted by Phoenix
The Bush administration has not changed its stance about Irans true intent, so policy wise they're ok
Originally posted by Phoenix
the credibility issue will be the lack of action possible under the current political climate which dictates a damned if you do, damned if you don't mentality.
Originally posted by Phoenix
Long run loss of face or credibility will be born by Russia and China due to their claims backing the ludicris claim of Iran having peaceful intent for power generation.
Originally posted by Phoenix
One day the Iranians will conduct a test so that its foreign policy can be backed by the implicit threat of annihilation to its neighbours (democratic Iraq for example).
Originally posted by Phoenix
Only then will people wake up to the true threat at hand, absolving the Bush administration and EU efforts. That absolution will be meaningless though - it'll be too late to do anything short of full scale war.
Originally posted by subz
Typical, I bet you would of liked to see more unilateralism and invasions from the get go? You do realize that there is no evidence of a Iranian nuclear weapons programme don't you? Not even fabricated evidence as used to justify the Iraq WMD case. Maybe that's why they "dickered" around for a few years, they are fishing for evidence and they arent finding it.
With respect to preemption, the National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by U.S. President George W. Bush itself does not necessarily significantly challenge prevailing international law. It rests upon a standard doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, and explores the question of when an attack is imminent. On its face it does not seek to overturn the rule, but to explore how the rule and its underlying purpose could be applied in particular situations not existing in the past.
posted by subz
Yeah they wont drop those "strong beliefs" that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme will they. I could strongly believe that George Bush was made from lesser parts of chimpanzees at a secret Haliburton lab in Virginia, doesn't make it right does it? It makes it less right to spout off my strong belief and try to fob it off as unequivocal fact. An unequivocal fact that sanctions would be based on? Forget it
originally posted by subz
Oh yeah, the current political climate of not getting to invade who you want, when you want. What a shame. That international law is a complete pain in the ass when your foreign policy is illegal.
originally posted by subz
Well I suppose they could wait 8 years then just carry on as normal and reward them with more weapons and jets. Hey, at least the Iranians are a part of the NPT, what's the U.S excuse over Pakistan and India?
On several occasions, under the authority of amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Pakistan, cutting off economic and military aid as a result of its pursuit of nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. suspended sanctions each time developments in Afghanistan made Pakistan a strategically important "frontline state," such as the 1981 Soviet occupation and in the war on terrorism.
In the past, China played a major role in the development of Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls in western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and technology elsewhere. According to a 2001 Department of Defense report, China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear facilities.
In the 1990s, China designed and supplied the heavy water Khusab reactor, which plays a key role in Pakistan's production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation also contributed to Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges.
According to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, China is also reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads, which is relatively sophisticated in design and lighter than U.S. and Soviet designed first generation warheads.
China also provided technical and material support in the completion of the Chasma nuclear power reactor and plutonium reprocessing facility, which was built in the mid 1990s. The project had been initiated as a cooperative program with France, but Pakistan's failure to sign the NPT and unwillingness to accept IAEA safeguards on its entire nuclear program caused France to terminate assistance.
According to the Defense Department report cited above, Pakistan has also acquired nuclear related and dual-use and equipment and materials from the Former Soviet Union and Western Europe.
India's nuclear weapons program was started at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Trombay. In the mid-1950s India acquired dual-use technologies under the "Atoms for Peace" non-proliferation program, which aimed to encourage the civil use of nuclear technologies in exchange for assurances that they would not be used for military purposes. There was little evidence in the 1950s that India had any interest in a nuclear weapons program, according to Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1). Under the "Atoms for Peace" program, India acquired a Cirus 40 MWt heavy-water-moderated research reactor from Canada and purchased from the U.S. the heavy water required for its operation. In 1964, India commissioned a reprocessing facility at Trombay, which was used to separate out the plutonium produced by the Cirus research reactor. This plutonium was used in India's first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, described by the Indian government as a "peaceful nuclear explosion."
orginally posted by subz
Much like the US over the past 50 years? Yeah I can see why the Americans wouldn't want to see their whipping boy with a 12-gauge.
The current climate of invasions of ones rivals was initiated by Washington with the invasion of Afghanistan. If that climate wasn't created we wouldn't see nations scrambling to protect themselves. North Korea is another prime example.
Originally posted by Phoenix
As I've tried to say earlier - The only way some are to believe Iran is weaponizing its nuclear progam - is when one blows up in your face.
Originally posted by Phoenix
Short of that if Iran were to declare its weaponization some would defend that as its right just as they defend the so-called power program.
Originally posted by Phoenix
The Iraqi situation has nothing at all to do with this post, for the record though, There is no dispute they had them and used them. The Darfur report concludes Iraq had viable programs that also could have been reconstituted quickly had Saddam remained in power. Given all the time for diplomatic machinations that took place before the invasion Saddam had plenty of time to dispose of what he had - to say there absolutely was no WMD in Iraq is to spin the information easily available. All that can be truthfully said is that significant amounts of WMD were not found in the latter part of 2003 or so, but thats inconclusive about the time before that.
Originally posted by Phoenix
Fishing for evidence is not the issue when Iran has been reported to the security council for NPT non-compliance at this time by the IAEA.
Originally posted by Phoenix
The issue is that beneficiaries of Irans nuclear program may veto any action decided to further their own interests.
Originally posted by Phoenix
I scoff at todays version of multi-lateralism because it can't be said to work.
Gulf war - inconclusive because kowtowing to allies regarding regime overthrow.
Bosnia - nothing but a big mess for years.
Lebanon - UN, US forces run out by Iranian and Syrian supported thugs.
Somalia - just a huge horror house.
I could keep going but I've shown what I mean........................
Originally posted by Phoenix
Multi-Lateralism is nice concept in a utopian sense, unfortunately this is not utopia and even Hitler and Stalin had stauch allies right up to the bitter end.
Originally posted by Phoenix
Under International law it has been interpreted that a country has the right to defend itself even if that means pre-emptive action is required - some give it a snide connatation by using the word unilateralism as a negative.
With respect to preemption, the National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by U.S. President George W. Bush itself does not necessarily significantly challenge prevailing international law. It rests upon a standard doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, and explores the question of when an attack is imminent. On its face it does not seek to overturn the rule, but to explore how the rule and its underlying purpose could be applied in particular situations not existing in the past.
Pre-emptive War and International Law
Originally posted by Phoenix
I too could claim that most if not all of Irans leadership are made of the lesser parts of sheep dung irradiated and spun at Natanz
Originally posted by Phoenix
nevertheless spouting off claims of a need for nuclear energy in a country swimming in natural gas strains credibility.
Nuclear = $2000 per generated kilowatt of capacity.
Natural Gas = $250 per generated kilowatt of capacity.
That extra $1750 adds up to $1,750,000,000 per megawatt of capacity that surely would do much better for the Iranian people were it spent on something more worthy.
Originally posted by Phoenix
I believe I've already answered that question above.
Originally posted by Phoenix
For thought though lets not forget to mention Irans current government is the one that invaded sovereign territory when it took over our embassy in Tehran, I suppose that conformed to international law?
Originally posted by Phoenix
unless I'm mistaken that usually is construed as an act of war.
Originally posted by Phoenix
Iran also conforms to international law when providing men, military material and support for Hezzbollah?
Originally posted by Phoenix
Iran certainly conformed to international law when it allowed the 911 hijackers to travel through its territory without getting passport stamps which would have flagged them for further security checks elsewhere?
Originally posted by Phoenix
Its really conforming to international law when providing money, support and bomb making material for the Iraqi theatre - isn't it?
Originally posted by Phoenix
In the case of Pakistan, ever hear of this little thing called the "cold war"
Originally posted by Phoenix
Yup - which in this case has more than probably ensured your freedom such as it is. Or do you prefer Russian or Chinese as a primary language?
Originally posted by Phoenix
subz I wish to see your opinion but I obviously don't share your world view on the US's motives.
Originally posted by Phoenix
Sanctions are made to be broken and don't work, usually harming civilians caught up in disputes. The UN is nothing but a corrupt do nothing organization rife with anti-western political hackism.
Originally posted by Phoenix
Trusting an Iranian government already steeped in terrorism is playing Russian roulette with to many lives. Doesn't seem a good option based on history.
Originally posted by Phoenix
So whats left?
Either the Iranians overplay their hand by detonating a nuclear weapon on another countries territory (ah la Rafsenjani) or allow others to place one of their weapons in a city near you.
Originally posted by Phoenix
The Iranians use a small arsenal to bolster military invasion of its neighbors or influence policy in an unacceptable fashion without using them. (forcing theocracy)
Originally posted by Phoenix
Certain western countries find either of the above scenarios to much to brook and carry out pin-point strikes to neutralize Irans capability.
Originally posted by Phoenix
I am not promoting this as policy - I only argue this position because I firmly believe history and events dictate that sooner or later these things will come to pass whether we like it or not.
Originally posted by Phoenix
Right wrong or otherwise, liberal, conservative or centrist, conspirationist or debunker, US and Isreal hater, US and Isreal lover, Bush hater or Bush lover.
It doesn't matter this is going to hit the fan - only question is when?