Right off the bat the US didn't sign the first one on the list.
They can't break what they didn't sign.
Ed Ofama... On Iran
- Thread starter Darth Rotor
- Start date
Right off the bat the US didn't sign the first one on the list.
They can't break what they didn't sign.
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
Iran under the rule of the Shah, ratified the agreement in 1970. Since then the government was overthrown in a revolution.
I don't imagine that the United States after it overthrew Great Britain honored every treaty that had been written before it gained its independence.
They've agreed to uphold it since then. They've agreed to inspections and collaboration with the IAEA.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
cambion
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 386
That's not Iran's argument, that's yours. They say they are in compliance with their NPT obligations. Others may disagree, but that's not what you said. You said that the U.S. is trying to tell them they can't have nukes (implying they want nukes).
So, you didn't answer my question: why are you saying they should have something they insist they don't want?
Ahmadinejad said:
nice dodge...gee, no one noticed......
You said they broke treaties. How can they break treaties they didn't sign?
cambion
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 386
Indeed. I browsed through, and apparently that website considers treaties that they personally support, but the U.S. didn't sign, as well as treaties that the U.S. signed but never ratified, to count as "broken."
Though I am in complete agreement that the U.S. should sign some of those. The landmine ban? Get on that, U.S.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
bikerdruid
Philosopher
really?
list those that the u.s. did not sign.
btw...do you deny that the u.s. has a history of breaking treaties?
Last edited:
bikerdruid
Philosopher
that's one in 37.....keep going....
do you deny that the u.s. has a history of breaking treaties?
Last edited:
Ok, the next one on the list, they didn't sign that one either.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
on the list, the us. is named as a holdout on #2.
still 35 left.
so the u.s. has broken 35 international treaties?
You've been shown wrong on the first ones, why should anyone care to continue? Your contention is faulty.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
so we both accept that the u.s. has broken 35 international treaties.
btw, it has honoured even fewer treaties with it's own citizens.
the u.s. exists in a reality where treaties are made to be broken.
iran has not honoured a treatiy that was signed by a deposed government many years ago.
what is america's excuse?
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
The subject of the thread is nukes.
My initial point had less to do with what Iran wanted, than my opinion of the arrogance of nations that have and use "something" but wish to deny that same "something" to other nations. I specifically used the broader, indefinite term "something" because I was trying to address a general point.
And yes, Iran is claiming that they are in compliance. Though I would certainly understand if they weren't.
No, you can easily google those treaties and find most of these threaties haven't been signed or ratified by the US, and even if they did, how can you prove they broke those they did sign?
Your entire argument is based on a faulty premise and is just a big tu quoque.
cambion
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 386
Then let's stick to nukes, not "something." I already showed why your argument is essentially a straw man in relation to this discussion.
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
Because nobody ... and I mean nobody could either conduct the investigation or hold the United States accountable even if the investigation revealed they did break a treaty.
Again ... arrogance. The United States Über Alles.