It does not really matter why they abide does it? After all the sanctions can be restored. If the sanctions were enough to change their course, then why do you think they would be crazy enough to nuke Israel, they know there would be nuclear retaliation from Israel and probably the US after all.
Iran nukes
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
Why do you find that amazing? I think they are reasonable and I would like to see Iran not be a pariah state.
Whatever the reason, they are abiding.
Would you prefer them to abide by the treaty or end the treaty and build nukes?
As long as you realize that the UN actions were completely justified by Iran's previous actions and violations of the NPT.
I would love for Iran not to be a pariah state. It would be simple. Comply with the IAEA expectations, stop funding terror groups, stop executing gays, ....
Again, Iran wasn't in violation of the NPT previously.
Your claims are wrong.
They signed on voluntarily to the additional protocols yet didn't ratify them. When the US reneged on agreements around fuel that time (like they appear ready to do again), they signalled they would end their voluntary agreement to the additional protocols. The US and UN SC argued that the voluntary additional protocols weren't voluntary, but their argument was never put to a legal challenge.
I understand that you are a warmonger bent upon supporting US/Israeli actions in the middle east, including supporting Saudi Arabia despite their 9/11 collusions, treatment of women and attacks in Yemen but you really need to stop pushing verifiably false claims so often. Like your claims about Iranian fuel processing, this claim about the additional protocols is just totally wrong.
And yet why do you not demand the same things of Saudi Arabia or Israel?
Your claims that you support human rights and rule of law look ridiculous when you support war crimes from one country/race and demand the rule of law on others.
Seems the UN/IAEA disagree with you. The most recent violations were 2016.
http://www.dw.com/en/un-agency-iaea-reports-iran-has-again-violated-terms-of-nuclear-deal/a-36331576
IAEA reports on Iran violations go back to at least 2003. Undeclared equipment, refusing access to inspectors, undeclared constructions...
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2004-83.pdf
Their nuclear program has been referred to the UNSC on numerous occasions. Do you think UN sanctions were put in place because Iran was following the NPT too well?
Saudi should be and that is the reason why the world won't accept a Saudi nuclear program either. Your fixation on Israel makes you look like a fool though.
p.s. Language lesson. "I would love" means something that I would like to see happen. Unlike you, I realize that I am in no position to "demand" anything of any other country.
And have they not worked to fix all those violations and are they now in violation of the treaty or not?
That means that Iran has been actively working towards not being a pariah state, a situation you should 'love'.
Instead, here you are posting false claims about their uranium supply as if to justify yet another stupid war.
Not currently (except for the dispute whether ballistic missiles are part of the deal).
But you claimed Iran wasn't previously in violation of the NPT. The IAEA and UN Security council disagree with you.
I'm flattered that you think I have the authority to demand anything of Iran or have any bearing on war but you must realize that you are simply being hysterical.
I was mistaken.
Point is that Iran is abiding by the treaty.
They are not a threat to the US or Canada.
Iran already has the ability to launch satellites. This capability goes hand in hand with ICBMs as they are basically rockets. Iran already has the the means of striking Israel with many different missiles, so Israels complaints in this regard are just hot air. Does Iran want the ability to hit the USA? Well it already has that. But it wants to highlight this capability as many countries that have voluntarily dismantled nuclear weapons programs have been subsequently attacked by the USA.
Not a threat right now because their past threat has forced the UN to impose sanctions and stepped up inspections. The actions of the Iranian leadership clearly show they are not deserving of trust on this.
Yep, that last ballistic missile test went well :der:
And it is amazing that you think you are arguing in support of Iran while admitting they could easily enrich uranium to missile grade and admit they are still desperately developing a ballistic missile program. Trump should hire you as a spokesman.
p.s. What happened to franky the defender of human rights? Are you suddenly happy to ignore the human rights abuses in Iran because they don't affect Canada?
Double standard. Why doesn't the barbaric Saudi regime stop funding terrorist groups and beheading gays... I've said many times before but I'll say it again, there is no difference between the Wahhabbi and The Taliban, only the name.
If the Moron and Chief, decertifies the deal with Iran it will lead to certain war and make the world much more dangerous.
Not a double standard from me. I agree that Saudi should be even more of a pariah state. Thankfully they are way behind Iran in terms of nuclear program.
The other difference between Taliban and Wahabbi is oil money.
Iran should do more to respect human rights, agreed. They have been moving more in that direction lately but have very far to go.
But this is about your faking of claims against Iran to support your warmongering, which is the furthest from human rights possible.
