Thread: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warn

Originally Posted by Simpleχity

Then I'll clarify. You're always looking for loopholes/dodges when the subject of the IAEA inspecting suspect Iranian military sites comes up.

I'm not looking for loopholes. And I don't suspect that when we begin a sanctions program on SA, and the IAEA inspectors go in, they will be given permission to enter and inspect their military bases, which position I will support, and you can be here to remind me of that.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Anyway, when did I say I was supportive of sanctions on Iran, hmm?

You said: "As signers of the NPT, I guess our first step will be a rigorous sanctions program."
So you support sanctions on Saudi Arabia but not on Iran? Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by OrphanSlug

Just being honest here with you on this, if we were really paying attention to the point of the NPT then Israel would be a spotlight just as much as India would (India never even signed it, using the best argument to date as to why.)

I know man, and I agree with you. My point for mentioning NPT was to pre-emptively point out that there will be a double standard on the seriousness we place upon NPT signatories when it comes to SA, wait and see.

Originally Posted by Apocalypse

You said: "As signers of the NPT, I guess our first step will be a rigorous sanctions program."
So you support sanctions on Saudi Arabia but not on Iran? Ridiculous.

Nope, I support sanctions on neither. Look here dude, you're not the clever one you think you are, you may be coy though! My statement is to point out the hypocrisy that most certainly will exist with regards to our alleged importance of the NPT,

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Nope, I support sanctions on neither. Look here dude, you're not the clever one you think you are, you may be coy though! My statement is to point out the hypocrisy that most certainly will exist with regards to our alleged importance of the NPT,

Well in your statement you yourself engage in hypocrisy since you appear to have no problem at all to argue for sanctions against Saudi Arabia while being strongly against any action taken against Iran due to its violations. Exhibit A:

Originally Posted by Montecresto

We have a sanctions program on Iran presently on suspicions of a weapons program. If Saudi Arabia goes nuclear, why wouldn't we have a sanctions program on them?

If you don't support sanctions on Saudi Arabia you wouldn't make that question. Even if your claim is that there should be sanctions on Saudi Arabia if only because there are sanctions on Iran, well then considering you claim you support neither then that will simply be a "two wrongs make a right" approach.

As to your remark regarding my intelligence I find it irrelevant since as you probably know I don't hold you to a high regard at all. In fact if I had to form a list of the members on these boards based on their intelligence your name will probably not show up due to the 5000 characters rule.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

I'm not looking for loopholes.

You do look for loopholes.

Despite the fact the the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) manages Iran's nuclear programs, you maintain that all Iranian military facilities should be off-limits to IAEA inspections.

Allowing military facilities to be sanctuaries is a guarantor of failure. Something you don't quite appreciate although the Saudi minister is quite clear...

A "watertight" agreement is required to prevent widespread ME nuclear proliferation.

Originally Posted by Apocalypse

Well in your statement you yourself engage in hypocrisy since you appear to have no problem at all to argue for sanctions against Saudi Arabia while being strongly against any action taken against Iran due to its violations. Exhibit A:



If you don't support sanctions on Saudi Arabia you wouldn't make that question. Even if your claim is that there should be sanctions on Saudi Arabia if only because there are sanctions on Iran, well then considering you claim you support neither then that will simply be a "two wrongs make a right" approach.

As to your remark regarding my intelligence I find it irrelevant since as you probably know I don't hold you to a high regard at all. In fact if I had to form a list of the members on these boards based on their intelligence your name will probably not show up due to the 5000 characters rule.

But I'm not arguing "for" sanctions on Saudi Arabia, I'm pre-emptively pointing out the US hypocrisy with NPT which will follow. otherwise lol, why would you even engage somebody you think would be eliminated of mention by the 5K rule. What a joke, find somebody else to troll your **** on.

Originally Posted by Simpleχity

You do look for loopholes.

Despite the fact the the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) manages Iran's nuclear programs, you maintain that all Iranian military facilities should be off-limits to IAEA inspections.

Allowing military facilities to be sanctuaries is a guarantor of failure. Something you don't quite appreciate although the Saudi minister is quite clear...

A "watertight" agreement is required to prevent widespread ME nuclear proliferation.

What loopholes have I looked for, hmm? I've argued that it's not reasonable to think Iran would accept inspections of their military infrastructure, and if SA goes nuclear and we do the same to them that we're doing to Iran, I'll be arguing that it's not reasonable to expect that they'd allow inspections of their military infrastructure either. That's just not going to happen, anywhere. Such would completely compromise a countries national security, and you know this!

Originally Posted by Montecresto

But I'm not arguing "for" sanctions on Saudi Arabia, I'm pre-emptively pointing out the US hypocrisy with NPT which will follow.

Y'know why it isn't US hypocrisy though?
Because Saudi leaders aren't calling "death to America". So it ain't a US concern if Saudi Arabia violates the NPT to gain nuclear weapons, and as such the US may not be the one to lead a call for sanctions against the Saudis. Simple, really.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

I know man, and I agree with you. My point for mentioning NPT was to pre-emptively point out that there will be a double standard on the seriousness we place upon NPT signatories when it comes to SA, wait and see.

My main issue is the double standard already exists in similar context.

Because the US supports Israel, we turn our heads to their clear ambitions and the fact that they never signed the agreement (and probable existing stockpile of arms of this class, the US either gave them or helped them with in some other way.) Because we trade with India, we turn our heads to the fact that they actually have nukes and also never signed the agreement. Also and led by the US, India has international agreements to import both domestic energy use and military grade use uranium fuel all under "international safeguards" all with the stipulation that India *does not* have to abandon its nuclear weapons program. It is a subset of the "Additional Protocol" policy.

Besides, the NPT itself at this stage by default requires only that internationally traded nuclear material and technology is safeguarded and subject to "international inspection." If the other provisions of the NPT were used there would be far less existing nuclear stockpiles. India specifically agreed to the inspection, but intelligently declined to disarm and join the NPT as a "non-weapon" state using the argument of the have and have not clubs.

Just because Saudi Arabia *did* sign the agreement does not mean we will all of a sudden then be hypocrites, my point is we past that status a long way back. Depending upon who we are talking about here sanctions comes down to foreign policy intentions of key players, not NPT intentions. Which is why Iran having nukes presents a problem, but if Saudi Arabia ever obtained them you could bet the US not only helped them but designed similar policy to allow it to happen despite NPT intentions. At the end of the day odds are Saudi Arabia would simply switch from a "non-weapon" state to "recognized nuclear weapon state" with US help.

Making the NPT a generally useless agreement, subject to political intentions from the key players at the UN. Ending the debate on the UN as a useless organization.