Netanyahu Spoke Before Congress Today

[Tony Stark]

Iran has to concede. Give up their nuclear program entirely.

They will never do that. A treaty that they and almost every country in the world has signed (but not Israel) gives them the "inalienable right" to a nuclear program.

People like you need to face reality.

 

[Giz]

People like you need to face reality.

As said by chamberlain to Churchill, 1938.

 

[Tony Stark]

As said by chamberlain to Churchill, 1938.

And this addresses the the fact that Iran has the "inalienable right" to a nuclear program, how exactly? You're just going to ignore this reality?

 

[Giz]

And this addresses the the fact that Iran has the "inalienable right" to a nuclear program, how exactly? You're just going to ignore this reality?

God forbid we curtail the inalienable nuclear ambitions of apocalyptic theocratic terrorist sponsors with a penchant for genocidal fantasies.

 

[Tony Stark]

God forbid we curtail the inalienable nuclear ambitions of apocalyptic theocratic terrorist sponsors with a penchant for genocidal fantasies.

So you have nothing. Shocker.

 

[Leumas]

Relations between nations don't work the same way as relations between individual human beings,....

Who executes and carries out these relations... is it not "individual human beings"?

But look at what you, yourself say in continuation.....

and this is especially true for autocratic regimes.

Yes, the more autocratic the representatives of a nation are the more their "individual human being" aspect of their relations and interactions with others becomes.

The interests of leaders and the citizens they lead can diverge quite a bit even in democracies,

Which makes them the more "individual human being" in their interactions and negotiations and dealings with the also "individual human beings" of the other side.

so I think speaking in moral terms about the rights and dignity of autocracies is misleading.

I think you have just proven to yourself that the statement "Relations between nations don't work the same way as relations between individual human beings" is quite misleading in the light of your very own statements above.

Elected (or otherwise in varying degrees) "individual human beings" when negotiating for their nations are still "individual human beings" who carry with them the culture and history of their nation as well as their own biases and preconceptions and when they are negotiating for and on behalf of their nation and themselves they are still "individual human beings" and thus the relations they participate in are just as "individual human being" as any relations.

 

[Leumas]

As it relates to your point, it is interesting to note how Israel, a country so steeped in religious history, can be more cognizant of “reality” and threats posed to world peace, than our own President, whose family history has more of a secular background, to include atheism on his father's part. Therefore, I had no problem with Netanyahu's five second reference to the Bible, which “may” have some basis in history.

The above quote was made in a different thread to which I have already responded in this post.

However, I think it bears more consideration which is better suited to this thread.

The sentiment reflected in the quote is OBVIOSLY shared and supported by the USA Congressmen as evinced by their 8 minutes sonorous standing ovation fellatio while he was entering the congress and even longer but more cacophonous standing ovation sycophantism upon his exit and of course not counting the countless other times where they applauded him "give him a hand" even before he could finish a sentence.

I wonder, would the slightly modified statement below be equally accepted despite it being equally insulting to America, Americans, President, President's Cabinet, President's numerous advisors, Military Generals, and advisors to the generals?

As it relates to your point, it is interesting to note how Syria, a country so steeped in religious history, can be more cognizant of “reality” and threats posed to world peace, than our own President, whose family history has more of a secular background, to include atheism on his father's part. Therefore, I had no problem with Assad's five second reference to the Bible, which “may” have some basis in history.

Notice the last highlight INTENTIONALLY remains to say the Bible and not the Quran as most might WRONGLY think.

 

[Craig B]

And this addresses the the fact that Iran has the "inalienable right" to a nuclear program, how exactly? You're just going to ignore this reality?

The same right to a peaceful one as anyone else. The same prohibition of a military one as anyone else. The point being made is that Israel evidently possesses nuclear weapons. To suggest that Israel should do this with impunity while its neighbours are denied even the right to peaceful nuclear power just won't play in the region.

But Iran must by all means be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. No doubt about that.

 

[Tony Stark]

The same right to a peaceful one as anyone else. The same prohibition of a military one as anyone else. The point being made is that Israel evidently possesses nuclear weapons. To suggest that Israel should do this with impunity while its neighbours are denied even the right to peaceful nuclear power just won't play in the region.

But Iran must by all means be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. No doubt about that.

I agree that we should try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but if they are dead set in favor of it probably the only way to stop them is an all out invasion which would be a disaster of epic proportions. Dwarfing Iraq which was itself one of the worst decisions in American history.

 

[Toontown]

They will never do that. A treaty that they and almost every country in the world has signed (but not Israel) gives them the "inalienable right" to a nuclear program.

People like you need to face reality.

And people like you would do well to face the reality that a country (Iran) which has consistently been in violation of the NPT safeguards agreement, is in fact a serial violator of the treaty.

People like you would also do well to face the reality that a country (Israel) which never signed the NPT, has not violated the NPT.

People like you would also do well to face the reality that the mere flourishing of a pen over a piece of paper, followed by using the paper as ass wipe, gives no nation any inalienable right to anything.

Perhaps if people like you would face the above realities, then those people would find it easier to understand the reality that a serial violator of the NPT (Iran) must come into full compliance with the IAEA, and stay in full compliance with the IAEA for a sufficient amount of time to satisfy the IAEA that said country fully intends to meet it's obligations under the NPT, before said country can rightfully claim to have procured any "inalienable rights" from having dragged pen across paper.

 

[Tony Stark]

And people like you would do well to face the reality that a country (Iran) which has consistently been in violation of the NPT safeguards agreement, is in fact a serial violator of the treaty.

People like you would also do well to face the reality that a country (Israel) which never signed the NPT, has not violated the NPT.

People like you would also do well to face the reality that the mere flourishing of a pen over a piece of paper, followed by using the paper as ass wipe, gives no nation any inalienable right to anything.

Perhaps if people like you would face the above realities, then those people would find it easier to understand the reality that a serial violator of the NPT (Iran) must come into full compliance with the IAEA, and stay in full compliance with the IAEA for a sufficient amount of time to satisfy the IAEA that said country fully intends to meet it's obligations under the NPT, before said country can rightfully claim to have somehow magically procured any "inalienable rights" from having dragged pen across paper.

Obama is trying to make sure that Iran follows the NPT. Bibi and Republicans want to pretend that the NPT and the "inalienable rights" that it protects don't even exist.

And in case you believe otherwise, the NPT absolutely grants countries the right to civilian nuclear programs. Source: I have have read the NPT, unlike Republicans.

 

[theprestige]

And this addresses the the fact that Iran has the "inalienable right" to a nuclear program, how exactly? You're just going to ignore this reality?

As far as I'm concerned, the only right any nation has to a nuclear program is the right of molon labe. Beyond that, it's up to each nation get the best deal it can, whether by goodwill or force of arms, from the rest.

 

[Tony Stark]

As far as I'm concerned, the only right any nation has to a nuclear program is the right of molon labe. Beyond that, it's up to each nation get the best deal it can, whether by goodwill or force of arms, from the rest.

As far as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (a treaty signed by the vast majority of countries including the US and Iran) is concerned, you're factually wrong. Signatories have the "inalienable right" to civilian nuclear programs.

 

[Toontown]

Obama is trying to make sure that Iran follows the NPT. Bibi and Republicans want to pretend that the NPT and the "inalienable rights" that it protects don't even exist.

And in case you believe otherwise, the NPT absolutely grants countries the right to civilian nuclear programs. Source: I have have read the NPT, unlike Republicans.

Looks like someone needs to read it again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-o-beeman/does-iran-have-the-right-_b_4181347.html

"... it has always been the U.S. position that that article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty does not speak about the right of enrichment at all [and] doesn't speak to enrichment, period. It simply says that you have the right to research and development. And many countries such as Japan and Germany have taken that [uranium enrichment] to be a right. But the United States does not take that position. We take the position that we look at each one of these [cases]. And more to the point, the UN Security Council has suspended Iran's enrichment until they meet their international obligations. They didn't say they have suspended their right to enrichment, they have suspended their enrichment, so we do not believe there is an inherent right by anyone to enrichment."

Neither the US nor the UNSC agrees with your reading. Those bodies clearly consider the right to enrichment to be contingent. And those also happen to be the bodies which will be doing the bulk of any enforcement of international law which may or may not occur in the foreseeable future. So their opinion is the one that counts.

 

[Tony Stark]

Looks like someone needs to read it again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-o-beeman/does-iran-have-the-right-_b_4181347.html

"... it has always been the U.S. position that that article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty does not speak about the right of enrichment at all [and] doesn't speak to enrichment, period. It simply says that you have the right to research and development. And many countries such as Japan and Germany have taken that [uranium enrichment] to be a right. But the United States does not take that position. We take the position that we look at each one of these [cases]. And more to the point, the UN Security Council has suspended Iran's enrichment until they meet their international obligations. They didn't say they have suspended their right to enrichment, they have suspended their enrichment, so we do not believe there is an inherent right by anyone to enrichment."

Neither the US nor the UNSC agrees with your reading. Those bodies clearly consider the right to enrichment to be contingent. And those also happen to be the bodies which will be doing the bulk of any enforcement of international law which may or may not occur in the foreseeable future. So their opinion is the one that counts.

Laughably the title of the article which you cite is "Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium? The Answer Is Yes".

You couldn't be more dishonest if you tried.

 

[Toontown]

Laughably the title of the article which you cite is "Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium? The Answer Is Yes".

You couldn't be more dishonest if you tried.

The author of the article is neither the arbiter nor the enforcer of international law.

I honestly quoted the undersecretary of state, who honestly pointed out the obvious fact that the US and the UNSC both consider the right to enrichment to be subject to suspension, contingent upon compliance. Her statement of obvious fact is right there in highlighted black and white.

I also honestly pointed out the reality that the US and the UN have been and are likely to continue to be the primary enforcers of international law, such as it is. As soon as those entities stop bothering to enforce it, you may as well stop bothering to talk about it.

Which makes the opinions of the US and the UN the ones that count, and you just another face in the crowd.

And that's why I was called "dishonest" for my trouble.

 

[Tony Stark]

I honestly quoted the undersecretary of state, who honestly pointed out the obvious fact that the US and the UNSC both consider the right to enrichment to be subject to suspension, contingent upon compliance.

I also honestly pointed out the reality that the US and the UN have been and are likely to continue to be the primary enforcers of international law, such as it is.

Which makes the opinions of US and UN the ones that count, and you just another face in the crowd.

And that's why I was called "dishonest" for my trouble.

"Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium? The Answer Is Yes".

 

[theprestige]

As far as the Non-Proliferation Treaty

Which is not my source of truth for the rights of nations.

(a treaty signed by the vast majority of countries including the US and Iran)

(an appeal to popularity, which I reject)

is concerned, you're factually wrong.

I don't think "factually" means what you think it means. It certainly doesn't serve to legitimately silence dissent from your opinion on this topic.

Signatories have the "inalienable right" to civilian nuclear programs.

If that's the language nations want to use to secure each others' goodwill and cooperation on this matter, more power to them. But the treaty also imposes restrictions and obligations on its signatories. If one of them becomes uncooperative, or loses the goodwill of the others, then we're back to molon labe.

Your appeal to the language of the treaty won't help Iran much at all, if they've squandered the goodwill and cooperation of the other signatories.

 

[Toontown]

"Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium? The Answer Is Yes".

Suspended by the UNSC. Therefore manifestly not "inalienable".

 

[Tony Stark]

Which is not my source of truth for the rights of nations.

Well obviously the Republican version of truth and the actual truth are two very different things.