Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

[pansari]

Abouzar Jan,

Yes you are correct my friend, the UK will now develop a new version of the Trident Nuclear missile, and with 100% certainty will keep it from the IAEA.

Motori Aziz.

Let us begin firstly with the 3 PILLARS OF THE NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION TREATY.

1. Non-proliferation.
2. DISARMAMENT.
3. Peaceful use of nuclear technology.

Odd that the Five nuclear states (Russia, France, UK, China, and USA) are also the ONLY five members of the United Nations Security Council. Again we have 5 nations in the world dictating what the rest of the world should and shouldn’t do. Here is another example of the hypocritical language of the NPT regarding disarmament of nuclear weapons by the nuclear states.

“Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith”

Ah yes, to negotiate in good faith, meaning that they get special treatment, these are nations which have used the nuclear bomb, we have to show them good faith that they will never use them again, and also will not develop any further more advanced weapons.

With the USA developing new nukes and also the Peacekeeper missile (funny name for nuclear weapon) and also UK development of the new Trident. Do you think that these weapons development constitute disarmament or are reported to the IAEA?

What rule of the IAEA has Iran broken?

Here are some quotes….
“The IAEA, led by Mohamed ElBaradei, has said it has found no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons”

“Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring”

So I ask you, when there is no evidence how can you convict and sanction a nation? Double standard?

Moto Jan, you say why does Iran keep its material underground, the answer is simple. If what happened to Iraq’s power plant taught Iran a lesson, it’s only logical to do such a thing, if they didn’t it would be plain stupid.

People lets not get carried away with the nonsense western media is feeding us the only reason they can’t have Iran as a nuclear power because they might become the main player in the middle east and with the rest of the world addicted to oil, that would be a bad thing.

 

[Motori]

Motori Aziz.

Let us begin firstly with the 3 PILLARS OF THE NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION TREATY.

1. Non-proliferation.
2. DISARMAMENT.
3. Peaceful use of nuclear technology.

The nonproliferation apparently has been working as designed because only one member (N.Korea) has violated the treaty in past 28 years. I don't have any Idea about disarmament being mentioned in any article other wise N5 wouldn't sign the Treaty

Odd that the Five nuclear states (Russia, France, UK, China, and USA) are also the ONLY five members of the United Nations Security Council. Again we have 5 nations in the world dictating what the rest of the world should and shouldn't’t do. Here is another example of the hypocritical language of the NPT regarding disarmament of nuclear weapons by the nuclear states.

AghA Pedram,
Are talking about this issue from moral stand point? Then yes it is Immoral at its highest point for 5 nations to dictate to the rest of the world what to do or not to do. But my good Friend the world has always been that way through out the history and so I've haven't observed any convincing evidence that change is in near future.
Also I thought you mentioned the 5 NWS are also doing something illegal which I trying to tell you and Abouzar that by definition they don't, they have preserved that power exclusively for themselves. Again!! Is this JUSTICE? Of Course not. Are these 5 nation doing anything illegal by IAEA guidelines? Of Course not, they wrote the majority of the rules.

“Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith”

Ah yes, to negotiate in good faith, meaning that they get special treatment, these are nations which have used the nuclear bomb, we have to show them good faith that they will never use them again, and also will not develop any further more advanced weapons.

Pansari jAn,
They did!! 1000s of nuclear warheads were destroyed during 70s and 80s just by negotiation between US and USSR which was encouraged and applaud by majority of the nations in the world.

With the USA developing new nukes and also the Peacekeeper missile (funny name for nuclear weapon) and also UK development of the new Trident. Do you think that these weapons development constitute disarmament or are reported to the IAEA?

What these nations are doing might be immoral with your and my standards but in accordance with IAEA guidelines they are not illegal.
On the other hand if these rules and regulations are all one sided (which they are) and bogus then why Iran insists on hanging around when we could just withdraw and do what ever we want.

What rule of the IAEA has Iran broken?

Here are some quotes….
“The IAEA, led by Mohamed ElBaradei, has said it has found no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons”

“Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring”

So I ask you, when there is no evidence how can you convict and sanction a nation? Double standard?

I presented 5 reasons for sanctions in my post to Abouzar. Did you read them? I would love to see some evidences/reasons from you or anybody else to refute them, that will put a nice big black eye on UNSC face.
I would like to ask my question again which I mentioned in one of my previous posts and I'm hoping you might be able to shed some light on that. We all know Iran does not have Electric Cars and after we start extracting our share of Megatons from Uranium we still will have to import 40% (constant increasing #) of our domestic consumption Gasoline from outside when the whole Iranian Land is sitting on top of a gigantic gas station. Don't you think it was logical and economical to start build a relatively cheap refinery before wrestling with Atom or at least run a parallel program along side of the nuclear one?

Moto Jan, you say why does Iran keep its material underground, the answer is simple. If what happened to Iraq’s power plant taught Iran a lesson, it’s only logical to do such a thing, if they didn’t it would be plain stupid.

Your reasoning and following conclusion don't apply here because all of our Reactors are sitting outside on the OPEN just like the Iraqi Osirak Reactor when destroyed by IDF. So my question still stands, why hide when you have nothing to hide? But hiding and working in underground bunkers will be understandable and logical if we are after nuclear weapons.

People lets not get carried away with the nonsense western media is feeding us the only reason they can’t have Iran as a nuclear power because they might become the main player in the middle east and with the rest of the world addicted to oil, that would be a bad thing.

So you agree with many other people (including me) that IRI is after Thermo-Nuclear Weapon.
Just out of curiosity, how many nations in the middle east will decide to go nuclear after Iran achieves her objectives? If many, then I believe the whole region will fall into MAD theory (Mutually Assured Destruction) basically " You nuke me, I nuke you, we all die".

 

[a123321r]

motori jan the fact that i said if the uk goes ahead with its replacement for trident would be on quotes from the British to begin with.. the following article kinda sums it up:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2359105.ece
Claim: Trident's replacement will breach the Non-Proliferation Treaty requiring signatories including Britain to gradually disarm. It is therefore illegal...

Government says:

Trident 2 will be legal. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognises the legality of possession of nuclear weapons while imposing an obligation to pursue disarmament.

Verdict:

The Attorney General who briefed the Cabinet that the war on Iraq was legal is on shaky ground again - Professor Philippe Sands QC of Matrix Chambers told the defence committee "attempts to justify Trident upgrade or replacement as an insurance against unascertainable future threats would appear to be inconsistent with Article Vl of the NPT." Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, also said in November that it would make it more difficult to stop Iran acquiring the bomb.

btw.. i have to say i do agree with you on most of your points anyway.. and i don't think this should be the main issue for iran esp at this time but I was just trying to point out that not everyone's playing by the rules to begin with but it doesn't seem to cause as much of a problem when it's another country such as the u.k.

 

[Motori]

Abouzar jAn,
I read the article which you posted and I don't see the fight in Commons over making the submarines and and future Hot Tips for them could be considered breaching NPT protocols.
Here is all the 11 articles in the NPT, please read it and tell me if mandatory disarmament or any thing about not producing more Nuclear Weapons for N5 have been mentioned any where in these articles, I'm not saying there isn't any may be the conclusion I'm coming up with differs from the intended context. Click on NPT on the pink screen.

http://disarmament.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf