Iran takes one more BIG step...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


isn't the standard enforcment mechanism that other countries then use the treaty abandonment as diplomatic cover for their aggression against the offending treaty renouncer?

Depends on the type of treaty. Pull out of a peace treaty, you give other countries issues. BUt give up a self-impossed limit on your soverignty? What is the basis for the aggression by another party?

[notyoueither]

'Seeking to Make other Countries Cease to Exist' for $100 dollars, Alex.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
'Seeking to Make other Countries Cease to Exist' for $100 dollars, Alex.

[notyoueither]

Good comeback.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Good comeback.

Your comments aren't worth any comback. sums everything up nicely.

[notyoueither]

You asked 'what is the basis for the aggression by another party?'

I answered you.

Not my fault you want to ignore the little things, like a sustained commitment by the Iranian leadership to wiping another state off the face of the map.

Don't ask questions that you won't like the answers to.

[notyoueither]

Not to mention there has been a long running state of antagonism between Iran and the US.

Iran's problem is that they are not a pet state of China or Russia.

You can get away with a lot when you are Ho, or Kim, and you have Moscow and Beijing to step in for you.

When you prefer to go it alone, and declare yourself hostile to the US, and develop nuclear weapons that violate international agreements, and you threaten a client state of the US with annihilation, don't be surprised you wake up one morning to the air raids that usher your country back to the Stone Age.

You have to ask what the basis of the aggression would be?

Are you really that clueless?

[GePap]

No, Just better informed than you.

Its a wonder what better information does for creating informed opinions on a subject.

[notyoueither]

GePap, I hate to break this to you, but the voices in your head don't count as good sources of information.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
GePap, I hate to break this to you, but the voices in your head don't count as good sources of information.

That's why I prefer reputable newspapers, and books by historians, political scientists, and such. If there was such a thing as God, only it would know what you rely on.

[notyoueither]

So what does your Big Picture Book-o'-History tell you frequently happens when national leaders go out of their way to antagonise other nations?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So what does your Big Picture Book-o'-History tell you frequently happens when national leaders go out of their way to antagonise other nations?

maybe historically it's different when it's little countries that go out of their way to antagonise countries that see themselves as a world hegemon? I'll bet in those cases the little countires have historically been able to get away with just about anything! nobody likes an unfair fight.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So what does your Big Picture Book-o'-History tell you frequently happens when national leaders go out of their way to antagonise other nations?

That history doesn;t work that way. That it is situation specific.

I know that might be too hard for you to comprehend. That the world is not a comic book, or a script written by some Hollywood writer, but actually a complex series of interrelated events that change quickly.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

You always have the right to leave a treaty. There is nothing in international law theory that would make a state bound to an agreement it no longer wished to be part of. There is no authority above a soverign state unless that state agrees to have someone over them. Nothing.

no thats wrong. if the treaty is a codefication of an international custom, it is irrelevant whether the country is part of the treaty or not if they did not deposit a protest at the instant the custom emerged.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Iran is openly supporting terrorists groups internationally, and they are telling the international community to go **** off on the NPT.

Two things that would get them into hot water, if not the bombing sites of the USAF, I would think.

when India and Pakistan said **** off to the NPT did you advise bombing them to the ground too?

that part of the argument is very VERY weak.