We are justified in actions against Iran because they are violating the Nuclear NPT?

[Reason]

@ this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/114762-sanctions-against-iran.html

What do you think is the best response to this post?

Here is some info on the NPT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran


Well they are violating the nuclear non proliferation treaty which they signed.

Still, treaty or no, nations either act in the world to effect the type of world they want or they will be acted upon.

There has never really been such a thing as isolationism ever since we jumped down from the trees and started throwing rocks at each other.

[specsaregood]

Uhm, they aren't violating the NPT and they have passed every single inspection of their facilities. That's the whole problem with this stupid rhetoric against them.

[Reason]

Uhm, they aren't violating the NPT and they have passed every single inspection of their facilities. That's the whole problem with this stupid rhetoric against them.

What about this?

Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) is a party to the NPT, but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei) reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-IAEA-GOV.2F2003.2F75-15) After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-51) the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-IAEA-GOV.2F2005.2F77-16) This was reported to the UN Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council) in 2006,[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-52) after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-53) Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-54)

[Liberty Star]

Int treaties are great but this would be wrong time for US to bomb Iran or Israel or any other country just because they have some undeclared nuke power plants. We're already tied up on two major war fronts, lets wait till eceonomy recovers.

[specsaregood]

What about this?

Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) is a party to the NPT, but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei) reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-IAEA-GOV.2F2003.2F75-15) After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-51) the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-IAEA-GOV.2F2005.2F77-16) This was reported to the UN Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council) in 2006,[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-52) after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-53) Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#cite_note-54)

Sounds like somebody was looking for some technicality to bust their balls over.
I mean come on, "but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement" that is a pretty darn lame accusation in the scheme of things. It certainly doesn't indicate that they plan to develop nuclear weapons or disseminate nuclear weapons, let alone use them.

In the end, the only way the US and the UN will have any credibility on the subject is to force Israel to come clean about the nukes we gave them and become a part of the NPT. And let's ignore the possibility that the US violated the NPT in regards to Israel.

Israel has nukes, but we want to screw with Iran over some nuclear power plants? What is going on here?

[Reason]

Sounds like somebody was looking for some technicality to bust their balls over.
I mean come on, "but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement" that is a pretty darn lame accusation in the scheme of things. It certainly doesn't indicate that they plan to develop nuclear weapons or disseminate nuclear weapons, let alone use them.

In the end, the only way the US and the UN will have any credibility on the subject is to force Israel to come clean about the nukes we gave them and become a part of the NPT. And let's ignore the possibility that the US violated the NPT in regards to Israel.

Israel has nukes, but we want to screw with Iran over some nuclear power plants? What is going on here?

I'm playing devil's advocate here to strengthen my ability to counter these arguments in the future.

So what would we say when it's instantly mentioned that Israel is not a signatory to the treaty?

[specsaregood]

So what would we say when it's instantly mentioned that Israel is not a signatory to the treaty?

Well cutting off military aid/money to them until they are a signatory sounds like a good idea? Rather than pressuring a country that is a signatory and gets no military aid or money from us, and hasn't attacked another country in most of our lifetimes.

[Reason]

Well cutting off military aid/money to them until they are a signatory sounds like a good idea? Rather than pressuring a country that is a signatory and gets no military aid or money from us, and hasn't attacked another country in most of our lifetimes.

Indeed.

Didn't you hear tho? If you want to cut off aid to Israel that means you're anti-semitic lol /facepalm

btw

Anyone reading this here should feel free to join in at this forum thread as well,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/114762-sanctions-against-iran.html

[specsaregood]

Indeed.
Didn't you hear tho? If you want to cut off aid to Israel that means you're anti-semitic lol /facepalm

Well my real point is this.
We have no real position to bargain from in regards to Iran. We can either threaten war or try to make the situation over there more peaceful. We can't take anything away from them. Israel on the other hand, needs our military and takes billions of dollars in military aid every year, these are big ass chips to have at the table. If we wanted to, we could force Israel to come clean about their nuclear weapons. Them opening up about their own nuclear program, signing the NPT and being a better "world citizen" certainly shouldn't hurt the atmospher over there. As it is, they only look like a duplicitous liar, everybody knows they have nukes.

[Anti Federalist]

Justified or not, it makes no difference.

We're broke and can't afford it in any case.