WMD nonproliferation

[The Mugger]

This thread was in no way started to demonize the US for perfecting its nuclear arsenal. A nuclear world without a nuclear US would be quite a scary place. I am allowed to pine for a nuke free world though, am I not?

Actually this is about the sanist thing anyone has said on this thread. I too join you in the wish these weapons are no more, unfortunately I would also have to believe in Santa Claus.

 

[*d*]

You really are a piece of work are you so anal that you must have precise language - grow the f up. OTB is right about how you debate. I have never seen such a pathetic performance in a debate in my life. OK you anally go after "best efforts" but please explain the difference in that and "in good faith". There is not much difference between the two in my book - and clearly the Moscow Treaty and the Start treaties worked on by the most recent US government counts as "good faith"

Please re-read the link I provided before

http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm

Is this really the best you can argue about, sentence structure and wording. Go away *d* you have a vastly inferior knowledge of the subject and your points of view have motivations not dealing in legal principles or reality. Maybe it's time you come out and be clear on your motivations - or are those motivations so disgusting that you can't own them.


P.S. I don't know if you somehow think (like a child) that who post last post bests but I do know that you know your argument is wrong when you had an answer, including China, for my previous post except for Iran. You claimed that Iran would be happy with my interpretation and your right (finally) they would be but that is what worries everyone else. With that comment you acknowledge how stupid your argument is because if Iran followed your interpretation, the very moment they build a bomb they would have to disarm.

Now be a good little fellow and go away. Speak if you must but nothing will change thew fact that you are dead wrong on the NPT and Article 6.

What did that ditsy broad from England say - "YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK --- Goodbye

I realize you are only arguing now so as not to loss face. Its easy to tell because you're shouting more insults and your replies are more useless. You ask, what's the difference between 'best effort' and 'in good faith'? lol As if that's a significant question. Let's simplify this and most likely end it.
When this thread started, I centred out that your statement, as follows, was wrong.

a)the Americans signed the NPT promising not to help others build nukes with no restriction on their ability to develop the technology.

Well it seems to me that doing something in good faith is a restriction, isn't it? Negotiating in good faith is a term for setting a good example. Expanding nuke technology is not disarmament and during negotiations is in no way a good example. Plus, as you claim, that the rest of the treaty is a promise, then article VI must also be a promise in good faith. We can argue all day on the idea that the US is or is not living up to article VI. But the fact still remains that all nuclear states are restricted to uphold their promises to the treaty including article VI. They committed themselves to the objectives of the treaty and therefore are not free to do as they please if they want to remain part of the agreement. And that my good buddy is a restriction, proving your above statement wrong.
As for Iran being happy with your interpretation of the NPT??? Iran is not happy. They see excess restrictions. They may soon face the UNSC for what the IAEA calls NPT noncompliance. And if they ever achieved a bomb, my god, the IAEA would be jumping down Iran's throat; again proving the restrictive clout of the NPT.

 

[*d*]

It is neither illegal nor immoral for Isreal to possess nukes.

That's your opinion.

It might be "illegal" if a world court were to say so and yet from where would that court get it's authority?

Through agreements they signed -such as the UN charter.

For the very same reason it is not illegal or immoral for the US to pre-emptively strike an enemy (even if there is "world" "laws" against it).

You're saying that might makes right is the only ultimate law. Makes for a safe world doesn't it? Laws and charters can be ignored, but make sure you're not surprised by the the conflict it ensues.

 

[*d*]

This thread was in no way started to demonize the US for perfecting its nuclear arsenal. A nuclear world without a nuclear US would be quite a scary place. I am allowed to pine for a nuke free world though, am I not?

That said this thread was started to satirize the rhetoric. The US can try and prevent Iran from obtaining nukes any which way it chooses. However to sanctimoniously moralize the issue and demand the adherence to "treaties" is rather amusing and thus certainly open to satire.

It is a mockery to say do as I say and not as I do because I have a "right" and you do not. That said, all is fair in love and war, and if I wanted to win I would do the same thing; only hopefully, more craftily. Well anyone can dream can't they?

Ignore the agreements and expect conflict. And here I thought peace was the better avenue to take.

 

[tompeepin]

... You're saying that might makes right is the only ultimate law. Makes for a safe world doesn't it? ...

There is being theoretical and there is being pragmatic. In theory I am for humanism. Pragmatically I understand that unless you are able to enforce (by coercion or violence) a law that you write, it is not worth the paper that it is written on. So yes at the end of the day might makes right. It is the law of nature.

Why would it be anymore or less immoral for Isreal or Iran to possess nukes than for anyone else, or more immoral than the US not adhering the to treaties (agreements) that it signs? I bet there is plenty of rationalizing to be done by all side on this issue. But what are we left with at the end of the day?

Morality is such an interesting concept, especially in context of human history.

... Laws and charters can be ignored, but make sure you're not surprised by the the conflict it ensues.

Thankfully most understand that usually cooperation and compromise is in the mutual best interest. However usually it takes a sword above each's head to come to that conclusion. Again, this is human nature, it seems.

 

[rogerstaubach]

This thread was in no way started to demonize the US
That said this thread was started to satirize the rhetoric.

Oh, so it's the sanctimonious rhetoric that you find so objectionable. And your purpose is to engage in intelligent satire and mockery to reveal the stench of hypocracy(?) and to enlighten the uninformed masses with truth, justice and the TomPeepin way.

Or maybe you just like to mock because you do.

 

[tompeepin]

Oh, so it's the sanctimonious rhetoric that you find so objectionable. ...

Yes indeed. And the bad-faith ... and the jingoism ... and ... hehehe

...Or maybe you just like to mock because you do.

Only where rabid RIFT wackos are concerned. Unfortunately they get there and do it to themselves before I get the chance.

The McCarthy comparison in another thread is very apt.

 

[rogerstaubach]

Yes indeed. And the bad-faith ... and the jingoism ... and ... hehehe

Basically a self-justifiable, humanistically-correct mockery. "I can mock because I am!"