LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIran suffered foreign-sponsored royalist coup before signing NPT, so is treaty binding? Commonly agreements signed under duress are not seen as binding, is this applicable?
Why or why not?
July 2nd, 2011, 08:55 AM
Iran suffered foreign-sponsored royalist coup before signing NPT, so is treaty binding? Commonly agreements signed under duress are not seen as binding, is this applicable?
Why or why not?
No treaty is ever binding. Iran will follow NPT as long as it believes it to be in its interest.
Not to doubt any one, but most today have an incomplete undertanding of the NPT. The NPT is not only a pledge to refrain from weaponising nuclear technology. It is a reciprocal deal between nuclear and non-nuclear states, with obligations on both sides. Under this treaty, nuclear signatories pledge to stop developing weapons, work to disarm their stockpiles; and share peaceful nuclear technology with the non-nuclear signatories. Countries like France and USA actually promise to help countries like Iran build nuclear reactors both for research and generation. They also promise to supply nuclear fuel if necessary.
A state signs and upholds a treaty when it has something to gain by that. We've not yet got a world authority penning laws individual states must comply with.
NPT is similar to the "Agreed Framework" between USA and North Korea. Under this agreement, NK would scrap its existing nuclear plants (which could provide weapons material) in exchange for non-weaponisable plants built with help from USA. In the meantime, shipments of US oil would compensate for power lost due to frozen reactors. NK did uphold its end of the agreement under strict IAEA supervision. Alas, the US immediately began delaying oil shipments, dragged its feet on plant contruction, and tightened sanctions it had pledged to remove. NK responded by observing that its participation in both the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Agreed framework were harming rather than helping the country, and it should withdraw from both. This was read by Western countries as a threat, equivelent to nuclear blackmail, and so on.
Why Iran remains in NPT, since "partners" like France act contrary to their end of the deal - pulling every trick to hinder Iran's development of peaceful technology. Optimism? Desperation? Maybe it's because this shields any help Iran can get from states like Russia. Maybe the hope is that if nuclear-weapon states keep abusing NPT as a stick to beat developing countries with, those states themselves will find NPT useless and quit it.
Thank you for contributions! Prince will think carefully before responding.
It's preferable that he respond.Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
Very well, if you are insisting.
Prince remembers bad old days of MAD during Cold War. Nuclear threat was many times greater than today. Why is contemporary hysteria so great about selected countries developing A bomb? :?
Sorry I'm not listening to you. Finger should speak for himself.
Or the poster formerly known as.
Finger says hi, wants to know if we can return to topic.
Obviously treaties cannot be renewed every four years reflecting American electoral cycle, when nominal government changes- but when known coup is perpetrated upon some country by outside influences, should obligations assumed by puppet government be honored?
Why do I feel like I'm listening to Elmo, or an immature child who learned to speak by watching elmo? Oh, that's right. It's because you have a jacked up kink for illeism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSYadh2xmcI
Who is Elmo and what is connection to topic?
inow provided a link that gives the context you asked for.
It depends on the circumstances, and as noted in the very first sentence of the very first reply to the question you asked in the OP, no treaty is ever binding.
So treaties simply waste of time, much like arguing with strangers online?
When a person states that treaties are not binding it is not equivalent to a person stating that treaties are a waste of time. If you think the two are equivalent, then one must suspect your ability to be coherent and reasonable is rather lacking.So treaties simply waste of time, much like arguing with strangers online?
If Iran is allowed to produce nuclear weapons the mad Mullahs will fire them off regardless of the consequences. Pakistan is not too far off a mad Mullah take over, the Western World is in grave danger, a pre-emptive strike is the way to go.
The "apostate" government of Saudi Arabia has more to fear than any Western target from Iran acquiring nukes.
Not bloody likely. Ayatollah Khamenei rants against WMD. He explicitly declared chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons prohibited by Islam. Holier-than-thou Iran nags Pakistan over WMD too.
And remember the people of Iran survived chemical warfare against Saddam's secular Iraq. That they refused to stoop so low is righteous in their minds.
I guess it possible Iran's military could rationalise nuclear weapons kept secret from government. But that'd be military prerogative not religious ideology. The "mad Mullahs" would damn them to hell.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. The International Atomic Energy Commission has released a new report, written by Director Yukiya Amano
"The IAEA's conclusion in the report is that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. The report states that Tehran's actions raise "concerns about the possible existence of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. These alleged activities consist of a number of projects and sub-projects, covering nuclear and missile related aspects, run by military related organizations."
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat...ng_nuclear.php
Perhaps Prince should rephrase initial question, "In light of historical facts, should Iran be expected to abide by terms of NPT?"
Perhaps he can avoid scorn and derision for using term "binding", in royal defense, he cites Wikipedia as source of confusion:"A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
Actually, similar calls for "pre-emptive strike" were made at outset of Cold War and rejected, perhaps for the best, but as topic for another thread, agreed? Good to be being back!
Perhaps under circumstances described, if true, wisest course of action would be not to antagonize a nation so equipped? Besides too, dotcomrade, similar claims were made regarding Iraq and were found to be without foundation, if you are remembering...
Peace and prosperity to all!
Expected by whom?
I always found it odd we'd even claim the NPT is still valid after a government has been completely overturned, dismantled by a revolution and replaced as happened in Iran. At a minimum we should make them go through a formal signing process once again.
Or, countries like France and Canada should review their own commitment to the treaty.
It's like playing Russian Roulette multiple times over and over again. The greater the number of separate states with WMD in their hands, the more times we have to roll the dice on a nut job taking power and deciding to use them. History tells us that nut jobs have come into power in the past.
I'm not saying the USA, or Russia, or China, or Israel are necessarily better choices than Brazil, Iran, or Indonesia. I'm just saying it's already too late to prevent those states from getting nuclear weapons, and the fewer the better. Ideally the total number of nuclear armed states would be zero, or perhaps two. (In order to enforce MADD on any would-be newcomers.)
The coup would not have succeeded if the Shaw didn't already have a lot of popularity. All the USA did was tip the scales between two powerful constituencies, one of which had the upper hand before we arrived.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That would be ideal, but it's not a good idea to set a precedent of allowing states to renig on agreements or debts just by changing governments. Then the new government always has a big selling point they can run on: "Choose us and you won't owe X number of billions of dollars to X super power anymore." It would be free money all around.
It's better to assume that all governments gain their authority by some form of consent of the governed, and hold the people themselves responsible, rather than their figure heads.
If coercion does not work, more coercion MUST be the answer. We'll teach those damned wogs to govern themselves yet, and democratically, if they know what's good for them!
The Irony of course is the government they have now is probably much closer to the consent of the governed than it ever was under the Sha we supported during the 1970s.
That would be ideal, but it's not a good idea to set a precedent of allowing states to renig on agreements or debts just by changing governments. Then the new government always has a big selling point they can run on: "Choose us and you won't owe X number of billions of dollars to X super power anymore." It would be free money all around.
It's better to assume that all governments gain their authority by some form of consent of the governed, and hold the people themselves responsible, rather than their figure heads.
"If Iran is allowed to produce nuclear weapons the mad Mullahs will fire them off regardless of the consequences."
That is reckless Fearmongering and Warmongering Propaganda.
The same warmongers that spread the fear and Bullshit about Iraq are returning like warmongering zombies for a sequel in Iran.
Last edited by icewendigo; November 18th, 2011 at 02:54 PM.
Good point. Perhaps if CIA and British had left well enough alone instead of royalist coup, Iran would now be progressive, secular, nonthreatening country. Of course, in region there is one belligerent, nuclear-armed country name starting with I which is NOT perceived as threat, why is this?
It was Cold War politics. We invaded other countries as well when they showed signs of moving in the direction of a command economy instead of a free market.
Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nationalizing the petroleum industry was his only "crime". However it was a big deal. At the time, the field did not belong to Iranian citizens. It belonged to Great Britain. In the process of "nationalizing" the field, he effectively stole a major asset from a foreign power. One does not reasonably expect to do such things without consequences. At the very least, it's a good idea to offer some kind of reasonable compensation.
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist parliamentarian faction. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). [6] Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s, a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism.[7] Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically. [8] Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest , but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott[9] while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government.[10] With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.
And a old ladies life savings belong to the con artist that defrauded it from her.At the time, the field did not belong to Iranian citizens. It belonged to Great Britain.
Its true one should be more suspicious of the criminal opium-trafficking pirate-state imperialist British Empire (or any imperialist criminal organization)One does not reasonably expect to do such things without consequences.
Im just messing around, I get the meaning, such was the situation at the time, the same way slavery was perfectly moral and normal back when it was common place
(oversimplified answer to be taken with a grain of salt)Of course, in region there is one belligerent, nuclear-armed country name starting with I which is NOT perceived as threat, why is this?
Because the media propaganda and corrupt politicians are mostly controlled by zionists (with with money, hierarchy and secrecy being givens in our society, it could be the italian mafia, but it just happens not to be)
If the zionist mafia was replaced by Italian Mafia...
No politicians could critize the italian mafia or italy and hope to get elected, they would be on their hands and knees making speaches in fron of the American Italy Public Affairs Commitee(AIPAC) saying how much more of a friend to Italy the candidate is compared to other candidates, and any criticism of the italian mafia would be labeled anti-italianist racism.
Italy could bomb invade and colonize Greece and be portrayed as the good guys in the media, while the greeks fighting back would be labeled terrorists. In fact Italy could commit war crimes, bomb UN observers into shredded meat, use phosphorus bombs on infants, commit piracy and hijack ships and kill people inside in international waters and would still be the good guys in the mafia controled media. Any country that failed to comply with the Mafia's rule would be labeled part of an axis of evil in the media (specially if it has oil, opium or of strategic importance) and either terrorist camps that need bombing love would be claimed to exist there or it would be said that the population needs to be saved from the evil (non-complying to mafia rule) government.
Italian mafia capos would create the ADL, to hound and defame anyone criticizing the mafia, and pundits would say that greece belonged to the Roman Empire ages ago and so its normal for the italians in the 21st century to take back what was theirs centuries ago.
The head of Don Corleone Bank would be named head of the treasury, and criminal mafia banksters would get billions in bailouts. Billions of taxpayer paid aid would also be sent to italy on a yearly basis.
Also note that countries on the mafia's side (or the US side) would not get negative media coverage and hysteria for the exact same things that would be blamed on the targeted country.
(imo, Who is doing what is tactically important, but the mechanisms and social elements that make it possible are also important otherwise different crooks will replace the previous ones)
Last edited by icewendigo; December 3rd, 2011 at 07:57 AM.
It's not fraud that Great Britain built the largest refinery in the world there. Maybe their ownership of the oil under that refinery was a swindle job, but not the machinery above it.
It's not so much that it was common place as that the transaction that lead to a person owning a slave was legal at the time the transaction was made. To rule now that a previous transaction, which has already been completed, was illegal when it happened is what is known as "retro-active legislation". You don't want the government passing new laws and then say "Oh by the way, you already broke this law, so we're going to penalize you for it."Its true one should be more suspicious of the criminal opium-trafficking pirate-state imperialist British Empire (or any imperialist criminal organization)One does not reasonably expect to do such things without consequences.
Im just messing around , I get the meaning, such was the situation at the time, the same way slavery was perfectly moral and normal back when it was common place.
A just transition from slavery would have been one where all the present owners were compensated, at least for the money they had spent when they entered into the arrangement. Similarly, I wouldn't expect Iran to compensate Britain for the then present value of the oil fields, but they should have refunded them their original purchase price for the land.
At one time, the Italian Mafia was starting to get control of the media. They just didn't win the game. Israel did. They have control of the media now. He who wins the media gets to decide how their story will be told. Even the USA is getting bad press now, because even the USA doesn't own its own media. That's why we're starting to be the "bad guys".(oversimplified answer to be taken with a grain of salt)Of course, in region there is one belligerent, nuclear-armed country name starting with I which is NOT perceived as threat, why is this?
Because the media propaganda and corrupt politicians are mostly controlled by zionists (with with money, hierarchy and secrecy being givens in our society, it could be the italian mafia, but it just happens not to be)
If the zionist mafia was replaced by Italian Mafia...
No politicians could critize the italian mafia or italy and hope to get elected, they would be on their hands and knees making speaches in fron of the American Italy Public Affairs Commitee(AIPAC) saying how much more of a friend to Italy the candidate is compared to other candidates, and any criticism of the italian mafia would be labeled anti-italianist racism.
The mafia started having trouble with their low level operatives getting greedy and deciding to deal drugs. Then they'd get caught and flip on their superiors. It kind of gutted their organization from the inside and they fell from power. The CIA has the sense to keep their role in the drug trade limited to importing the stuff, but not dealing it. Besides that, they can spring their operatives from prison should they get caught anyway.
Last edited by kojax; December 4th, 2011 at 03:07 AM.
| « A still am puzzled by Stalin | Election Maps Show Old Borders » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
