Will america go to war with china or iran [Archive]

rory_20_uk

06-07-2006, 11:48

In a word: no.

Unless they are prepared to be villified by the rest of the world for the rest of eternity (or close) for that, I doubt it.

Let's face it: against China the only thing that would work would be a nuclear strike. Sure the quality of Chinese forces isn't yet up to American, but the quantity is greater, as is the will to loose lives, and the supply lines are massive for America and almost none for China.

So, unless a strike purely of missiles is planned that wouldn't win against a country the size of China (unless nuclear) it would have to be conventional as well. Which would probably require many ships... Going close to massed batteries of ground to ground missiles as well as the world's largest Airforce. Not the best, but numbers would take their toll.

Then there's the economic fall out. Suddenly the Dollar isn't stable. The Far east either dumps it out of fear or protest, causing a run on the dollar.
The massive trade America receives from China dissappears. Who replaces it? Japan or South Korea? When China is fighting the USA? Hardly.

America is finding fighting in Iraq and afghanistan difficult. Would the population accept a far more massive war (bigger than any since WW2) because of a potential economic threat??? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

Mithrandir

06-07-2006, 11:55

China, no. The oil wouldn't pay back the costs of the war ;).

Iran: PLEASE NO! Gasoline is expensive enough as it is...

besides that I'm against war.

cunobelinus

06-07-2006, 11:56

Well i dno just what people have been hinting about i know that it is unluckly but to be honest i wouldnt put anything past bush .Does everyone else think the same or different.Also i think that iran may be chance they go to war with them because they already have threatened them and george bush has said that they will if they dont back down on there nuclear enrichment

AntiochusIII

06-07-2006, 12:32

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-07-2006, 12:36

China apparently will be richer and more powerful that america within 2 to 3 years if they keep making money like they are.

eh, no.

Kagemusha

06-07-2006, 12:38

With China,i dont think there is imminent danger of War.Against Iran,If US is capable of building a strong alliance otherwise it will take long time to deploy enough troops to area. My personal opinion at the moment is that its highly unlikely that there will be a War.But im known to be wrong sometimes so its still a possibility.~;)

Mithrandir

06-07-2006, 13:08

Vs. China they will not be able to pull it off, not military, since China has enough nukes to bomb every single planet in the galaxy to bits, and not economicly, since they're too dependent upon one another.

Iran as new Lebensraum for Bush..hopefuly not.

yesdachi

06-07-2006, 13:51

China – No, any action against China from the US (or vice versa) would be economic. A fist fight with them would really be stupid, plus (regrettably), we are co-dependant on each other right now. And any fighting would be very damaging to both of us. Politically on a global scale, The US is greatly disliked for our policy of butting in but China IMO, is disliked because everyone fears that given the oppertunitythey would devour them like a bowl of chow mein!

Iran – Yes, we are already next door and they seem to pose a threat, chances are we will keep “policing” the neighborhood. I don’t think it will be as ground troop intensive as Iraq has been thou, it would probably be more of a bomb the heck out of them and only touch foot to dirt in key areas. That way we can still spend tons of money on bombs and missiles (keeps the government contracts happy) without endangering lots of soldiers (keeps the public happy).

Where did you pull this notion from?:dizzy2:

China apparently will be richer and more powerful that America within 2 to 3 years

Lemur

06-07-2006, 13:52

I don't see why we have to choose -- we can go to war with both! And then we can "stay the course." That works every time ...

cunobelinus

06-07-2006, 13:54

So china is a no war people think and iran is a possbility as they seem to be thinking about getting ready to go to war after the iraq war has finished.

yesdachi

06-07-2006, 14:10

...after the iraq war has finished.
The Iraq war is gunna finish? :wink:

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-07-2006, 14:13

I've read some things recently that suggest China may want a small regional conflict to show the U.S. who's boss.

I have no idea if that's rubbish or not though, maybe some Chinese politician/high ranking soldiers/civil servants on the board could let us know...

CBR

06-07-2006, 14:21

Invading Iran will be sheer lunacy. 4 times bigger than Iraq and with more than twice the population. USA has lost most of its credibilty because of the invasion of Iraq so not much chance of allies helping out. A US president that isnt the most popular among his own people because of Iraq and a US military already stretched pretty thin.

Even a limited military action like bombing isnt gonna be the greatest thing to do. There are 100k+ US troops in Iraq that can expect even more insurgent attacks, as Iran most likely will do whatever it can to hurt US interests as revenge.

IIRC China will reach USA in something like 30-35 years if their current rate can be sustained. Right now the only likely scenario for a war between USA and China would be over Taiwan, and its not likely for some time as China simply doesnt have the navy or airforce to succeed in invading Taiwan. That might take one or two decades before China will reach that level.

CBR

Redleg

06-07-2006, 15:34

Actually, if you watch the news, the Administration is going to try to pass the Bill on another massive expansion on the military budget with a clear, written purpose of "containing Iran." Clearly it is preparing for the declaration of war. This has been a main issue since the new Iranian President has been elected.

It is actually easy to notice the pattern of encirclement that the USA has been establishing with the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq: all other countries surrounding Iran are US allies.

The goal of the United States since the 1979 invasion of the embassy has been to contain Iran - so don't read to much into the words "containing Iran."

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=120427

WASHINGTON - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that the United States must persevere in Iraq and Afghanistan to contain "the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."
Rumsfeld linked the costly and unpopular US efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan to US concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its regional might, in an interview with the Pentagon's in-house television channel.

He said those who believe that US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly or are taking too long need to understand that "success in Afghanistan and success in Iraq is critical to containing the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."

His comments came amid a sharpening diplomatic confrontation over Iran's nuclear program, which Washington insists is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier refused calls for a halt to its uranium enrichment program and warned Iran could withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The United States, meanwhile, said the UN Security Council would consider a draft resolution that would oblige Iran to comply or face possible military action.

Rumsfeld did not allude to military options in the interview, instead portraying US efforts in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan as a bulwark against Iranian extremism.

"The last thing Iran wants is to have successful regimes, representative systems, free people in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said. "It is harmful to their view of the world, to their extreme view of the world."

"So most people who suggest that the cost is too great or it's taking too long, and we should not stay the course, it seems to me you have to think what it would mean to Iran and how it would advance their cause, and their cause is a cause that is dangerous to the world."

Rumsfeld hailed the end of a four month political impasse over who should be Iraq's next prime minister as "a thrilling accomplishment."

At the same time, he said it was reasonable to expect that insurgents would try to sabotage the seating of a new government under Shiite leader Jawad al-Maliki, who has 30 days to form a cabinet.

"The new ministries named, and then approved by the parliament, will have to begin that difficult task of governing," he said. "It's a difficult assignment and it won't be easy for them."

If Iraq's interior and defense ministers are competent and govern from the center, Rumsfeld said, Iraqi forces will continue to take over responsibility for security.

"As we are able to pass over more responsibility, one would think we would be able to continue reducing down our forces," he said.

Containing Iran does not necessarily equate to invading Iran.

The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.

Lemur

06-07-2006, 15:37

The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.
But Redleg, we're already deep in two countries that border on Iran ... I don't know, maybe we should invade Iran too, just for neatness' sake. You know, have one unified swath of regime-change ...

Mithrandir

06-07-2006, 15:42

Personal note : I think the US has no right whatsoever to tell other countries what to do on it's own.Where did they get the notion from that they're the "world's policeagent", puh-lease.

Like CBR said, there's not enough support fo it anyway, unless ofcourse Bush succeeds in another "Osama is there!...oh wait...You're producing WMD's,let us send in observers....oh,we can send in observers?...it takes too long, we need to take action now or they'll bomb us!"

Besides the above, even if the Us would go in on it's own, they still have troops in Iraq&afghanistan, to send in another time that number would thus double the costs, good luck on the fundings.

Redleg

06-07-2006, 15:51

But Redleg, we're already deep in two countries that border on Iran ... I don't know, maybe we should invade Iran too, just for neatness' sake. You know, have one unified swath of regime-change ...

Are you ready to institute the draft to raise the necessary forces to accomplish such a thing?

Redleg

06-07-2006, 15:55

Personal note : I think the US has no right whatsoever to tell other countries what to do on it's own.Where did they get the notion from that they're the "world's policeagent", puh-lease.

Try reviewing the history of the last 20 odd years - it will give you a clue. Here let me list a few for you.

Bosnia
Kosovo
Somilia
Kuwait

I could list some others - but should provide you a clue. And before you attempt to retort - what nation lead others to do the right thing in Bosnia and Kosovo?

Like CBR said, there's not enough support fo it anyway, unless ofcourse Bush succeeds in another "Osama is there!...oh wait...You're producing WMD's,let us send in observers....oh,we can send in observers?...it takes too long, we need to take action now or they'll bomb us!"

So lets see Iran refuses to allow observers in? And that is the United States fault. Nice spin...not.

Besides the above, even if the Us would go in on it's own, they still have troops in Iraq&afghanistan, to send in another time that number would thus double the costs, good luck on the fundings.

Funding is not the issue - troops would be the major problem.

Lemur

06-07-2006, 15:55

Are you ready to institute the draft to raise the necessary forces to accomplish such a thing?
Anything for neatness. You know that.

Redleg

06-07-2006, 16:00

Anything for neatness. You know that.

President: Congress I want you to pass a measure to initiate a draft of all eligible young men so that I can go to war with Iran. I figure-out with Rumy that it will require about 20 divisions, and we all know how well he plans so this time lets just double it to 40 divisions.

Congress: Mr. President why do you want to invade Iran.

President: Well we have troops in Iraq and Afganstan - and this pesty nation is right in the middle - distrupting our logisticial chain. Oh and they keep wanting to build a nuclear weapon. So for neatness sake we should just go ahead and invade Iran also......:oops:

Lemur

06-07-2006, 16:02

Works for me. Neatness counts!

yesdachi

06-07-2006, 16:11

Neatness is like cleanliness and like the old saying goes, cleanliness is next to godliness. Now see there, God just told us to invade Iran!

Avicenna

06-07-2006, 16:25

Now you Americans are playing Jean of Arc? :inquisitive:

BHCWarman88

06-07-2006, 16:42

Why would we do China,See Nothing Wrong with Them,yet.... Iran and North Korea are the Major Threats for now..

cunobelinus

06-07-2006, 17:02

For one the chinise goverment aint exactly a stable one is it and also if china becomes the richest in the world america are bound to jump to that and see them as a threat and they may end up joining with north korea if the americans start on the koreans.

Also iran is passing weapons over the border to help fight the americans so they are bound to be the next target in george bushes rain of evil

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 17:14

Personal note : I think the US has no right whatsoever to tell other countries what to do on it's own.Where did they get the notion from that they're the "world's policeagent", puh-lease.

.

Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2! We should have just wiped japan out and let you guys rot, no money no nothing. And when the terrorist start blowing stuff up in europe and you beg for help, I hope our government remembers comments like this.

*put on flame suit*

English assassin

06-07-2006, 17:29

And when the terrorist start blowing stuff up in europe and you beg for help, I hope our government remembers comments like this.

What, begging something like "please, Americans, stop funding the IRA to blow up British soldiers and civilians. Please proscribe NORAID"

"XXXX off limeys, hope you rot."

Contrast with: "Please UK, may we use bases in your country to launch a retaliatory F-111 strike against Libya even though other European states won't let the planes through their airspace and you have no way to know you will not be subject to retaliation as a result?"

"Why sure, anything for an ally"

We'll be quits when you let us bomb Boston, not before.

NB lest anyone forgets I hate America and love Satan.

Keba

06-07-2006, 17:37

Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2! We should have just wiped japan out and let you guys rot, no money no nothing.

Actually, you really had no choice ... Germany declared war on you, not the other way around.

Shadow

06-07-2006, 17:37

Seriously i don't see why US can have a ton of nukes while other countries like Iran can have any

Ice

06-07-2006, 17:41

No on both of them. Attacking China would be rediculous for obvious reasons. Attacking Iran isn't feasible right now because we simply do not have a enough troops for the job. We would need a draft and that sure as hell is never going to fly.

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 17:49

Actually, you really had no choice ... Germany declared war on you, not the other way around.

I know but it would not be feasible for any one to invade the US, to many personal fire arms. (don't turn this into a gun thread)

Husar

06-07-2006, 17:51

Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2! We should have just wiped japan out and let you guys rot, no money no nothing. And when the terrorist start blowing stuff up in europe and you beg for help, I hope our government remembers comments like this.
Why should das dritte Reich be attacked by terrorists?:inquisitive:

Concerning China and Iran, I doubt that much will be done. War against China sounds like suicide and war against Iran would mean less troops have to deal with more insurgents per square kilometre/country/region.

Keba

06-07-2006, 17:57

I know but it would not be feasible for any one to invade the US, to many personal fire arms. (don't turn this into a gun thread)

Didn't need to invade ... the Me-263 (or something close to it) could cross the Atlantic and get back again. Americans are a bit skittish when it comes to your cities getting bomber to hell and back ... and the Luftwaffe knew how to drop bombs. By the end of the war, the Germans had fully finished schematics for an intercontinental bomber designed to drop a two-ton dirty bomb.

EDIT: Hmm, I'll stop now or this will get sent to the Monastery ...

rory_20_uk

06-07-2006, 18:33

Caesar, the personal firearms that your country has is nothing compared to the arsenal of weaponry that most countries have. If any were likely to get invaded the locals would get armed as happened in WW2 in the UK.

Your belated help in WW2 was at least part merely the politicians ability to see into the future further that you appear to be able to see into the past. A Nazi Europe bristling with weapons isn't a good thing for America. And better get the Europeans to die on the wire than fight themselves.

And it's extremely complacent to imagine that a country that can invade the USA couldn't deal with some small arms. Such measures as shutting down the gun shops and requiring people to hand in guns would get the majority off the streets.

~:smoking:

Banquo's Ghost

06-07-2006, 18:34

No, to both.

China, for all the reasons stated. Iran, because the next administration will be too bothered getting out of Iraq. And if you get past your 'Bush is evil' rhetoric, you will notice that the President has made a big jump in relations with Iran by offering talks - an offer the Iranians appear to be engaging with (on their own terms, of course, but that would be true of any country). President Bush (and I am no fanboi) is demonstrating some real statesmanship at present regarding Iran, and deserves credit for trying another route from sabre-rattling.

For one the chinise goverment aint exactly a stable one is it and ...

Actually, the Chinese government is one of the most stable around. No pesky elections to concern themselves with every four years. :bounce:

Avicenna

06-07-2006, 18:37

Seriously i don't see why US can have a ton of nukes while other countries like Iran can have any

Because if anyone tries to do anything to America's nukes, they'll regret it big-time. Everyone with nukes won't work either: would you seriously want another African government toppled, and a warlord be left with a whole load of nukes? Personally, I wouldn't.

Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2!

So, you want the Germans to continue sinking merchant ships in the Atlantic (yes, even before war was declared), and you want a loon like Hitler as the European dictator, who also has significant portions of the British and French Empires?

Somehow, I doubt that.

For one the chinise goverment aint exactly a stable one is it

Do you know anything about the Chinese government?

solypsist

06-07-2006, 18:45

america wil go to war with neither.

now, america may attack iran, but it won't be anything even closely resembling the iraq invasion.

as for china, the only possibility of any armed conflict is if china invades taiwan. but i seriously doubt even then that the u.s. would take any military action of any sort against china.

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 18:50

Caesar, the personal firearms that your country has is nothing compared to the arsenal of weaponry that most countries have. If any were likely to get invaded the locals would get armed as happened in WW2 in the UK.

~:smoking:

You know who loaned you many of those personal fire arms The USA! American citizens out of the goodness of their hearts loaned the UK guns. And what do you do after the war....you throw them all in the !@#$%#$ ocean:furious3:

This is getting OT if you wanna start a new thread about it I'll be there.

You do something with those guns when there is an invasion you use them! you don't hand them to the invaders.

Avicenna

06-07-2006, 18:51

as for china, the only possibility of any armed conflict is if china invades taiwan. but i seriously doubt even then that the u.s. would take any military action of any sort against china.

What you should doubt happening is the attack of Taiwan. We're not stupid, you know.

yesdachi

06-07-2006, 19:12

Seriously i don't see why US can have a ton of nukes while other countries like Iran can have any
Because Iran can not be trusted with them, and like it or not the US can. I don’t think that most countries have a problem with the arrangement. IMO the US has been a decent nuke babysitter (no one has used them).

rory_20_uk

06-07-2006, 19:25

Caesar, you speak as though the guns were donated by individual people. That the USA made guns and sold them to the UK is known.

America leaves guns in warzones after they've finished.

Good speech. Nice emotion. Shame about the accuracy.

Iran can't be trusted with nukes. Any evidence for that?

Apparently we think North Korea can be, as can Israel, and Pakistan and India. Seems that "trustworthiness" is basically anyone who'se got them.

~:smoking:

Justiciar

06-07-2006, 19:29

You know who loaned you many of those personal fire arms The USA! American citizens out of the goodness of their hearts loaned the UK guns. And what do you do after the war....you throw them all in the !@#$%#$ ocean
Step down off your high horse and stop playing the victim.

BHCWarman88

06-07-2006, 19:45

how are us Americans being played as the Victim,Just??

Redleg

06-07-2006, 19:51

Apparently we think North Korea can be,

Actually we don't. Kind of a distortion of the truth in this particlur area. North Korea is not trusted, there are continuing talks and posturing by multiple parties.

as can Israel, and Pakistan and India. Seems that "trustworthiness" is basically anyone who'se got them.

~:smoking:

You should of just stuck with these countries. Should we mention France, England, Russia, and China. And I am sure I am leaving one or two out.

Ice

06-07-2006, 19:51

Apparently we think North Korea can be, as can Israel, and Pakistan and India.

~:smoking:

North Korea, no. Pakistan, no. Isreal, yes. India, most likely yes.

It was a mistake letting the first two ever get nukes.

Justiciar

06-07-2006, 19:53

how are us Americans being played as the Victim,Just??
That's how. I wasn't addressing all Americans, I was addressing Ceasar010. Someone says something that suggests the US government has cocked up and such lines as; "The World hates us, but we don't care. They're all jackasses anyway. They don't deserve our help!" come rolling out in their droves. It's BS.

BHCWarman88

06-07-2006, 19:55

Yea. North Korea and Pakistan should never got Nukes in the First Place.you can't trust those nations in the first place,and trust them when they have nukes??meh..

Tachikaze

06-07-2006, 19:58

Seriously i don't see why US can have a ton of nukes while other countries like Iran can [sic?]have any
I don't either (assuming you meant can't).

Tachikaze

06-07-2006, 20:02

Will the US fight a war with China? The US has got to end somehow, someday; that's as good a way as any to commit suicide.

The US will be villified? Since when has that stopped them?

The_Emperor

06-07-2006, 20:04

Because Iran can not be trusted with them, and like it or not the US can. I don’t think that most countries have a problem with the arrangement. IMO the US has been a decent nuke babysitter (no one has used them).

The USA being the only country in the world to have used Nukes gives me pause for thought on the trust issue.

At any rate the USA is currently enjoying the freedom to "upgrade" its nukes to a higher yield while still staying within its treaty restrictions to not make any more missiles. So in that respect them lecturing Iran on acceptable practice is a little funny in my eyes...

But then I'd rather that Nukes would be the first thing in the world to be dis-invented.

As for the original question to war being likely, the answer is no. The US (and Uk as well) are already fully deployed in the world, any further action to topple a regime will only lead to more land needing to be occupied by yet more troops... The only viable way that would work is a draft which would be elective suicide.

Another war might well lose the position of the USA in the world today.

yesdachi

06-07-2006, 20:06

Iran can't be trusted with nukes. Any evidence for that?

Apparently we think North Korea can be, as can Israel, and Pakistan and India. Seems that "trustworthiness" is basically anyone who'se got them.
North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India have also been good at babysitting their nukes, as have China and Russia. Why? Because they have an appreciation for human life and can be trusted to adhere to the idea of mutual destruction being a deterrent to using them or giving them to terrorists to use. IMO Iran is not currently able to respect life enough to appreciate the idea of the mutual destruction deterrent and would be a wildcard whose trustworthiness would be too questionable. The only evidence I have is a vision of the future where New York City has a mushroom cloud over it.

Iran is welcome to ask our permission to join the nuclear club again after they have gone a few days without publicly saying they want to kill everyone, and allowing UN nuke inspectors complete access to their facilities. Until then, perhaps they would like to enjoy this gift basket of cruise missiles as a parting gift. :2thumbsup:

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 20:09

Avicenna

06-07-2006, 20:19

Yea. North Korea and Pakistan should never got Nukes in the First Place.you can't trust those nations in the first place,and trust them when they have nukes??meh..

They didn't 'get' the nukes. They made them.

Anyhow, Pakistan has shown that it's trustworthy to date, and North Korea might not even have nukes. N Korea is also a country, not a nation. Korea as a whole are a single people, so Korea is a nation.

Ice

06-07-2006, 20:23

Will the US fight a war with China? The US has got to end somehow, someday; that's as good a way as any to commit suicide.

The US will be villified? Since when has that stopped them?

Gee, that's logical. :dizzy2:

Mithrandir

06-07-2006, 20:24

I'll won't even go into the rant about WWII,enough has been said to whipe that argument from the table.

Bosnia
Kosovo
Somilia
Kuwait
United Nations.

So lets see Iran refuses to allow observers in? And that is the United States fault. Nice spin...not.
That's not what I said.See my first statement, who does the US think they are to tell a country to let observers in...It's not their job. That's why they gave life to the Security council.

Funding is not the issue - troops would be the major problem.

Both will be an issue I think. If Bush has lost his popularity quite a bit ( as I understood from the news lately), it will be harder for him to accomlpish things, like getting another few billion for another war.

Mithrandir

06-07-2006, 20:28

And as for another thing mentioned : Why shouldn't other countries be allowed to have nukes. Ofcourse I understand the cons, and ofcourse to some degree I agree, however saying "rogue states" shouldn't have them leaves me with a question :

How much of a rogue state is the US, it doesn't abide international law, wether it is environmental, economical or even the most important, in human lives (guantanamo bay anyone?) It starts wars without the consent of the security council and all just to make sure it keeps save itself, suppose the earlier mentioned China did the same...

yesdachi

06-07-2006, 20:31

who does the US think they are to tell a country to let observers in...It's not their job.
One of the countries most at risk from a nuclear Iran.

The US governments “job” is to protect the US from this sort of thing. From my point of view, it is their "job".

Redleg

06-07-2006, 20:40

They didn't 'get' the nukes. They made them.

Anyhow, Pakistan has shown that it's trustworthy to date, and North Korea might not even have nukes. N Korea is also a country, not a nation. Korea as a whole are a single people, so Korea is a nation.

North Korea is a Nation State just like South Korea - which is the same as a country. Nation often refers to several different ideas depending upon how one choses to view the term nation. If you don't believe me look it up in any encloypia or dictionary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

The Korean People is a Nationality - the Nation of Korea no longer exists - it is two seperate nations - North and South.

Mithrandir

06-07-2006, 20:45

One of the countries most at risk from a nuclear Iran.

The US governments “job” is to protect the US from this sort of thing. From my point of view, it is their "job".

How real is the threat Iran will nuke the US...0.
Why are they most at threat? Because the US is the biggest threat to Iran with their interference.

There is also a thing like other countries, respecting them and the people who live in them. It's not only about the US you know...

With your arguments the US would've been bombed by China, Russia and a few other countries if they all behaved like the US.

Redleg

06-07-2006, 20:52

I'll won't even go into the rant about WWII,enough has been said to whipe that argument from the table.

To bad then - especially since I have not mentioned WW2 as a factor. A rant directed at my question in that regards would of been misplaced.

United Nations.

The United Nations assumed the mission in Kosovo after it was begun. Then you might want to check out the Camp David accords and the Washington Accords.

That's not what I said.See my first statement, who does the US think they are to tell a country to let observers in...It's not their job. That's why they gave life to the Security council.

The United States is a permant member of the Security Council and it is doing the action in conjuction with other Members of the Security Council. If your going to claim that is not what you stated - then maybe you should be more accurate with your claims, it seems your forgetting that as a perment member of the Security Council the United States is well within is purview to request that the nation of Iran allow the inspectors in as required alreadly by the Security Council.

Both will be an issue I think. If Bush has lost his popularity quite a bit ( as I understood from the news lately), it will be harder for him to accomlpish things, like getting another few billion for another war.

If you don't have the troops you can't go to war.

Avicenna

06-07-2006, 21:02

North Korea is a Nation State just like South Korea - which is the same as a country. Nation often refers to several different ideas depending upon how one choses to view the term nation. If you don't believe me look it up in any encloypia or dictionary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

The Korean People is a Nationality - the Nation of Korea no longer exists - it is two seperate nations - North and South.

The area occupied by the people who classify themselves as being of the nationality Korean is North Korea and South Korea as a whole. Just because they are not a part of the same country doesn't make them of a different nationality. I'm talking in racial terms: the conquest of Egypt by Britain, for example, doesn't make all Egyptians into British, it just makes them part of the state. Their nationality remains Egyptian. Same as Scotland, Wales and the Northern Irish. They call themselves such, it's less common for a Brit to define themselves as 'British' if asked what nationality they are.

But let's not turn this into an argument about a single word and part disagreed, shall we?

By the way, Redleg: In my knowledge, the Iraq war wasn't ratified by the UN, but then again I don't know much, being a teen.

Mithrandir

06-07-2006, 21:12

To bad then - especially since I have not mentioned WW2 as a factor. A rant directed at my question in that regards would of been misplaced.
Have I stepped on your toes? It was clearly not directed at you, but at ceasar010 ,who made this post :https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1162451&postcount=27

thought it was pretty clear, sorry for the misunderstanding.

The United Nations assumed the mission in Kosovo after it was begun. Then you might want to check out the Camp David accords and the Washington Accords.

The United States is a permant member of the Security Council and it is doing the action in conjuction with other Members of the Security Council. If your going to claim that is not what you stated - then maybe you should be more accurate with your claims, it seems your forgetting that as a perment member of the Security Council the United States is well within is purview to request that the nation of Iran allow the inspectors in as required alreadly by the Security Council.
Yes, indeed they are a member, but that does not give the US the right to act on it's on when it comes to war.

If you don't have the troops you can't go to war. That's also what I agreed to, so good that we understand one another.

:2thumbsup:

yesdachi

06-07-2006, 21:25

How real is the threat Iran will nuke the US...0.
Funny, that’s the same thing everyone would have said a few years ago about the possibility of an attack like the ones that happened on 911. Iran poses a threat if left to their own devices, why should we wait when they can be stopped now, peacefully, if Iran would agree to some reasonable requests.

There is also a thing like other countries, respecting them and the people who live in them. It's not only about the US you know...
How hypocritical is this.:dizzy2: Iran is not big on respecting other countries or the people that live in them, but the US are the bad guys for wanting to reduce the threat they pose. You are right thou, it is not only about the US it is also about any country that Iran decides they want to wipe off the map.

Mithrandir

06-07-2006, 21:35

Funny, that’s the same thing everyone would have said a few years ago about the possibility of an attack like the ones that happened on 911. Iran poses a threat if left to their own devices, why should we wait when they can be stopped now, peacefully, if Iran would agree to some reasonable requests.
That's a silly comparison,that's like saying that a 100 years back people wouldn't have thought it possible to land on the moon.

The attack was carried out by a small group of people,
not by a governement responsible for it's people which would have to face other countries afterward as well.Also Iran are not fnudamentalists willing to sacrifice their own lives for a spiritual cause.

How hypocritical is this.:dizzy2: Iran is not big on respecting other countries or the people that live in them, but the US are the bad guys for wanting to reduce the threat they pose. You are right thou, it is not only about the US it is also about any country that Iran decides they want to wipe off the map.

It would be hypocrital if I was to say the US was wrong, while I did it myself. I did not justify any action from Iran. Please re-read my post if that's not clear.

edit:spelling

makkyo

06-07-2006, 22:29

:idea2: We can always nuke the two, fill the crater with water, and call it Lake Freedom.

Seriously though...
If Iran were to suddenly stop being diplomatic and revert to their threats earlier this year (like threatening the west with 50,000 suicide bombers :dizzy2: ) then we probably go to war. However, this would lead to a draft, because our "peace time" forces are thin enough as it is. Of our 500,000 current servicemen, about 400,000 of those are overseas right now. I have no doubt that the US would win that war.
China, however, is a different story. In North Korea, the Chineese fought the US to a standstill and forced a peace agreement out of it when McArthur was fired for wanting to use Nukes. A concentrated war effort against China would be costly (especially in the very marshy, Vietname-esque terrain). But it can still be done, even without the use of nuclear weapons. But once China has its back against the wall, it would probably use them and that would be the end of the world.
Why would we go to war with China? Because we're tied to Taiwan. It's the next powderkeg. If China wants to invade it, we will invade them back. All that requires is for China to invade, and we have an instant WWIII. But I doubt that the Chineese want that to happen.

rory_20_uk

06-07-2006, 22:40

So we should attack merely when a leader says something which is frankly stupid.

If China invades Taiwan they're crossing a very thin waterway. To flippantly state we'd "invade back" there would need to be a concentration of troops to achieve this. Where would they gather, and where would they attack?

I personally doubt that America would attack China for Taiwan. There is much to loose and little to gain.

~:smoking:

Redleg

06-07-2006, 22:44

Have I stepped on your toes? It was clearly not directed at you, but at ceasar010 ,who made this post :https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1162451&postcount=27

thought it was pretty clear, sorry for the misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding at all - a rant would of been misplaced which is what I stated.

Yes, indeed they are a member, but that does not give the US the right to act on it's on when it comes to war.

I was not speaking of war - I was speaking of the fact that as a member of the security council it is within the purview of the United States to request and yes even demand that Iran answers to the security council about its violation of its Nuclear non-prolifration (SP) treaty that Iran signed. As a member of the security council and the world body of the United Nations the United States has a right to demand action by the world body to prevent futher violations of international treaties by Iran, and yes even to punish Iran as a part of the world community. If your attempting to state that the United States does not have that right within the United Nations Charter then your sadly mistaken.

When it comes to war the United States does have the right to act on its own - the United States has never ceded its right to self-determination to any international organization. War does not require the sanction of the world community - as demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq.

Ask yourself this - is the United Nations a governing body?

Is it better to act within the confines of the world body yes - but don't confuse that with a right. Nation-states serve their own interests. Just like Iran is serving its own interest in pursueing nuclear tech. It seems you agree with that part of the national equation but have a problem with the natural consequences will a nation thumps it nose at the rest of the world.

If the world community will not stand up and be counted to inform Iran that it is violating its own agreed upon conditions - then shame on the world community. Trying to paint the United States as the bad guy in Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons tech - shows a misunderstanding of the international treaties that Iran signed in order to get international help in developing the tech in the first place.

That's also what I agreed to, so good that we understand one another.

:2thumbsup:

:2thumbsup:

BHCWarman88

06-07-2006, 23:09

But Then Again,the United Nations are Wussies Anyhow and the U.N Forces always run away when they get shot at..

Redleg

06-07-2006, 23:26

But Then Again,the United Nations are Wussies Anyhow and the U.N Forces always run away when they get shot at..

Not a fair generalization - most times the United Nations troops are not authorized to engage unless their is a direct threat to them.

Plus the Canadians do a lot more peacekeeping missions then the United States - and from what I know of their missions - they don't run away. They attempt to depart the area without causalities and minimize the loss of property to the innocent civilians.

There is only one instance of a group of peacekeepers that failed in protecting and responding to a direct threat - and most of that blame can be leveled back on the United Nations command authority for that mission and the national authority for those troops.

Careful on generalizations such as this - it leaves a bad taste toward the men and women who do put themselves in harm way to protect others regardless of thier nationality.

Papewaio

06-07-2006, 23:33

Also I do believe we have a mix of ex-peacekeepers, UN and aid agency workers... so it is an unfair swipe at members of the Org.

AntiochusIII

06-08-2006, 00:04

The goal of the United States since the 1979 invasion of the embassy has been to contain Iran - so don't read to much into the words "containing Iran."

Containing Iran does not necessarily equate to invading Iran.

The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.Actually, that was my sarcasm. Apparently I was far too subtle for my own good. :bow:

Yes, I am aware of the United State's long-term policy on that particular "Islamic Revolution." It's only natural after all the histories together, and none of them roses.

Redleg

06-08-2006, 00:22

But Then Again,the United Nations are Wussies Anyhow and the U.N Forces always run away when they get shot at..

Futhermore after more thought and getting more angry at the type of comment this is. I must ask these questions of you from solely a United States forces prospective - and I know other nations have just a great or greater loss from performing their peacekeeping missions - but unfortunately I don't know all of them.

So the Marines that died in Beriut in the 1980's ran away.

Or how about the Rangers, Green Berets, and soldiers from the 10th Mountain that died in Somilia - did they run away?

Such statements like this demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about world events. I would rather see no comment that degrades the fallen members of peacekeeping forces in such a matter - stick with criticising the United Nations as a political body.

I dislike the United Nations because of its incompentency and its political infighting between nations. Its a beuracratic's wet dream of an organization - but to degrade the men and women who perform the dangerous and thankless duty as peacekeepers because of the failure of the political appartus of the United Nations political body - does not set well with me.

To many brave men and women have died to fulfil the obligations of peacekeeping in war torn lands for such a generalization to hold any ground with me.

econ21

06-08-2006, 01:15

There is only one instance of a group of peacekeepers that failed in protecting and responding to a direct threat - and most of that blame can be leveled back on the United Nations command authority for that mission and the national authority for those troops.

Just out of interest, what case are you thinking of here? Srebrenica or something else?

Redleg

06-08-2006, 01:49

Just out of interest, what case are you thinking of here? Srebrenica or something else?

Yep - as this little bit of information from Wikipedia clearly shows why I take that postion. I don't blame the Dutch troops themselves they were thrown to the wolves along with the civilian population in the enclave.

The UN did nothing to protect the Bosniak civilians in Srebrenica. One hundred lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers were denied repeated requests for reinforcements and consequently sidelined to witness what was to follow. Faced with the reality that Srebrenica had fallen under the control of Bosnian Serb forces, thousands of Bosniak residents from Srebrenica fled to the nearby hamlet of Potočari seeking protection within the UN compound. By the evening of July 11, 1995, approximately 20,000 to 25,000 Bosniak refugees were gathered in Potočari. Several thousand had pressed inside the UN compound itself, while the rest were spread throughout the neighboring factories and fields. Though the vast majority were women, children, elderly or disabled, 63 witnesses estimated that there were at least 300 men inside the perimeter of the UN compound and between 600 and 900 men in the crowd outside.

What is terribily wrong is that the Dutch peacekeepers informed the higher authority in both the United Nations about the situation and I am assuming their own command authority (because that is what protocals that I am fimiliar with concerning United States forces on peacekeeping duty) and absolutely nothing was done.

Shadow

06-08-2006, 06:36

Because if anyone tries to do anything to America's nukes, they'll regret it big-time. Everyone with nukes won't work either: would you seriously want another African government toppled, and a warlord be left with a whole load of nukes? Personally, I wouldn't.

No, I wouldn't like it too.

But what rights does US have that allows it to have a military spending both far more proportionately and aggregately then other countries but forid other countries from doing the same (china)

And don't tell me because the US would never use its vast military might with out clearly defined international sanction to do so because we have Iraq

And also what makes people think that an African warlord will have a higher chance of using nukes while US will not? But remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki
(not aiming at you Tiberius)

All this make me doubt whether US military doctrine is as defensive and pacific as it claim and is China and some other present and would be nuclear powers unlike it?

Btw China did have a nuclear-weapons policy that prohibits nuclear use unless in retailiation

Ice

06-08-2006, 06:57

And also what makes people think that an African warlord will have a higher chance of using nukes while US will not?

Look at the way most African countries fight. Look at most Africian countries. You won't have to look deep to find your answer.

Banquo's Ghost

06-08-2006, 07:21

But Then Again,the United Nations are Wussies Anyhow and the U.N Forces always run away when they get shot at..

That's a very harsh comment from a kid whose combat experience amounts to playing a couple of computer games.

:no:

Redleg

06-08-2006, 07:46

But what rights does US have that allows it to have a military spending both far more proportionately and aggregately then other countries but forid other countries from doing the same (china)

The right of an international treaty that Iran signed that stated it would not pursue nuclear weapons technology.

And don't tell me because the US would never use its vast military might with out clearly defined international sanction to do so because we have Iraq

And because the United States does not require by its consitution international sanction - only the permission of Congress. Something that Congress seems to have forgetten.

And also what makes people think that an African warlord will have a higher chance of using nukes while US will not? But remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki
(not aiming at you Tiberius)

You have answered your own question. When was the last time a nuclear weapon was used in anger?

All this make me doubt whether US military doctrine is as defensive and pacific as it claim and is China and some other present and would be nuclear powers unlike it?

The doctrine is based upon securing the interests of the United States.

Btw China did have a nuclear-weapons policy that prohibits nuclear use unless in retailiation

Link - because last I heard they have adopted the same nuclear weapons policy as the United States.

Avicenna

06-08-2006, 07:50

But Then Again,the United Nations are Wussies Anyhow and the U.N Forces always run away when they get shot at..

Unless I'm mistaken, much of the UN forces are Americans.

No, I wouldn't like it too.

But what rights does US have that allows it to have a military spending both far more proportionately and aggregately then other countries but forid other countries from doing the same (china)

They have the military might to back it up, and they'll never play fair. Why do you think they'd risk their position as the sole superpower in the world just to appease the rest of the world?

And don't tell me because the US would never use its vast military might with out clearly defined international sanction to do so because we have Iraq

Didn't I say that Iraq wasn't ratified by the UN on this topic? If I hadn't I'll say it now. And, of course, the fact that the UN is stationed in the USA, most of the UN troops are from America and most of the funds come from America does allow the Americans to do pretty much what they please, wouldn't you say?

And also what makes people think that an African warlord will have a higher chance of using nukes while US will not? But remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki
(not aiming at you Tiberius)

So, using a nuke is bad but the Japanese practically committing genocide in China and perhaps even killing more than the nukes is alright? Also, in these cases, the Japanese leaders wanted the people to fight to the last. That would lead to far more deaths than the nukes.

And about Africa, they've committed genocide there, and are always fighting. The UN doesn't care about what happened, as they showed in Rwanda, so they'd practically be free to use nukes.

All this make me doubt whether US military doctrine is as defensive and pacific as it claim and is China and some other present and would be nuclear powers unlike it?

It is kind of defensive if you look at it this way: they're defending their position as the sole superpower, and follow the Roman motto of 'attack is the best defence'

Btw China did have a nuclear-weapons policy that prohibits nuclear use unless in retailiation

Did I state otherwise?

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-08-2006, 12:57

because our "peace time" forces are thin enough as it is. Of our 500,000 current servicemen, about 400,000 of those are overseas right now.

Fact straightening:

No. active US service people - roughly 1.4 -1.8million (Edited number as sources conflict)
No. reserves - roughly 860,000 - 1.4 million(Edited number as sources conflict)

2nd largest military in the world.

Overseas
Germany - 75,000
S.Korea - 30,000
Japan - 40,000
Italy - 13,000
U.K. - 12,000
Iraq, Afghanistan etc. - c.150,000
total overseas is just over 300,000

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-08-2006, 12:57

duplicate post

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-08-2006, 12:57

duplicate post, no.2

Redleg

06-08-2006, 13:44

Fact straightening:

No. active US service people - roughly 1.8 million
No. reserves - roughly 860 000

2nd largest military in the world.

Overseas
Germany - 75,000
S.Korea - 30,000
Japan - 40,000
Italy - 13,000
U.K. - 12,000
Iraq, Afghanistan etc. - c.150,000
total overseas is just over 300,000

Futher fact straigtening - the total number of 1.8 million reflects all three branches - Navy, Airforce, and Army. Same with the Reserve number.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-08-2006, 13:46

Futher fact straigtening - the total number of 1.8 million reflects all three branches - Navy, Airforce, and Army. Same with the Reserve number.

indeed, I just left it as a whole number as the original poster only mentioned "service people" rather than "x" branch.

Edit: I should also probably mention that those stationed overseas are a mixture of all branches too.

Redleg

06-08-2006, 14:16

indeed, I just left it as a whole number as the original poster only mentioned "service people" rather than "x" branch.

I think the orginial poster was attempting to state only the Army's numbers.

The number of 500,000 almost matches the Active Duty United States Army numbers,

http://www.goarmy.com/about/personnel.jsp

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-08-2006, 14:18

I think the orginial poster was attempting to state only the Army's numbers.

The number of 500,000 almost matches the Active Duty United States Army numbers,

http://www.goarmy.com/about/personnel.jsp

I wasn't sure about that.
If so they were also spinning the numbers over foreign deployments to make it look as if there was a major shortage of army personnel, as if only the army were in those postings.

Edit: and of course those numbers (500,000) igore the army reserves, army national guard, marines, marine reserves etc. who act in similar roles.

Redleg

06-08-2006, 14:29

I wasn't sure about that.
If so they were also spinning the numbers over foreign deployments to make it look as if there was a major shortage of army personnel, as if only the army were in those postings.

Well one should always review with a juidance eye any figure spouted by the government.

But lets look at the current force structure, by Division.

1st Infantry
2nd Infantry
3rd Infantry
4th Infantry
10th Mountain
1st Armor
1st Cav Division
25th Infantry
82 Airborne
101 Air Assualt

Add the Ranger Regiments, Special Forces Groups and Corps and Army Headquarters, and the special commands and units.

http://www.army.mil/organization/activeunits.html

Use a figure of 20,000 per division (which is higher then actual number in the division but will account for some of the other not listed units.)

20,000 X 10 = 200,000 troops assigned to combat divisions.

This will demonstrate why the United States Army is using National Guard Divisions for many of its operations.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-08-2006, 14:43

this is pretty entertaining:
we go from me saying "because our "peace time" forces are thin enough as it is. Of our 500,000 current servicemen, about 400,000 of those are overseas right now" is not accurate to
breakdowns of probable numbers in active service combat divisions.

Anyway, all I was saying is
1. the U.S. has a lot more than 500,000 current service persons.
2. the U.S. has fewer than 400,000 of these stationed overseas.

Reading in to it, assuming that the original poster was only referring to active service army then:
1. if current servicemen means non-reserve, non-national guard army then he is right.
2. However, 400,000 non-reserve, non-national guard army being overseas is even more incorrect due to the heavy involvement of non-army branches in these postings.

Redleg

06-08-2006, 15:29

Reading in to it, assuming that the original poster was only referring to active service army then:
1. if current servicemen means non-reserve, non-national guard army then he is right.
2. However, 400,000 non-reserve, non-national guard army being overseas is even more incorrect due to the heavy involvement of non-army branches in these postings.

That is my take also.

Papewaio

06-09-2006, 01:48

Btw China did have a nuclear-weapons policy that prohibits nuclear use unless in retailiation

It did have, but it now does not. It has stated with reference to Taiwan that it reserves the right to nuke the crap out of it if it declares independence... with total disregard for using nukes as a defensive weapon.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-09-2006, 12:17

B...B...B..B..B..B.B..BUT Taiwan's so pretty.:furious3:
gah

Franconicus

06-09-2006, 13:06

Will america go to war with china or iran?
The clear answer is: Yes/NO Yes/No

Of course they will not attack China; that would be foolish and I doubt that the American people would accept that. No, never.The question is how to attack China indirectly to stop its economical growth. For me it looks like the answer is: cut of their supply of natural resources, esp. of oil. That will end their econ. raise and increase the internal tentions. So how can the US do that?

They already do everything to control the oil regions. Iran is still missing and so it is important for the Us to control that country, at least the oil. If my memory serves the Iran is the most important supplier of China.

So here to the second question. The US will not invade Iran. This would be too costly, too much blood and too much increase of crude oil price. However, Iran is more or less completly surrounded by American military. I assume that the US will do everything to get a change of regime in Iran. So they will support the opposition, challange the regime, maybe a boycott or some bombs on a ractor just to demonstrate the weakness of the government. Maybe they train some revolution forces too. In the end they will try to install another government that needs the support of the US and the US oil industry.

rory_20_uk

06-10-2006, 00:38

China wants resources, and has no hangups as to the nature of the country that provides them.

We in the west may place santions on a country for one act; China will gleefully take up all the slack. With 1/5 the world's population, their economy has a long way to go.

While we have morals and China doesn't have any, curbing China is all but impossible.

~:smoking:

Banquo's Ghost

06-10-2006, 10:45

While we have morals and China doesn't have any, curbing China is all but impossible.

Western capitalism has morals? :jawdrop:

That's the funniest thing I've read for ages. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Mithradates

06-10-2006, 11:13

We have morals in the sense that we wont terrorise are own populace and sensor infromation! at least as much as China.

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 11:21

@Main Topic:

A war with China? No, maybe another 'cold' war.
A war with Iran? Can't. Because once a war is announced against Iran, hell will break loose in Iraq (She3a will help She3a), and you know what happens..

@Tiberius: So, you're basically saying that US has the right to do anything as long as it is to keep itself the super-power in the world, keeping it's people safe?

@Redleg: The whole point is simple, as long as Israel has nukes, Iran should have them too, IMO. (Israel is by far the most successful country in dis-obeying UN decisions, doing whatever they want, and getting out of it through a veto presented by the US, so yes, they're able to use their nukes whenever they want to, and note that the UK had given them their nukes (I'm not sure if the UK gave them Nuclear heads, maybe the material for it)).

Banquo's Ghost

06-10-2006, 11:38

We have morals in the sense that we wont terrorise are own populace and sensor infromation! at least as much as China.

Really? Have you seen the recent slew of anti-terrorism legislation in the US and UK? What about western corporates that avoid (with tacit approval) our 'morals' by accepting China's draconian laws against free speech and selling out dissidents? What about using Chinese slave labour to undercut western labout costs?

They crush the human rights, but our corporations make good money out of exploiting that. Does this make us better than them because we're not the prison guards?

Redleg

06-10-2006, 15:41

@Redleg: The whole point is simple, as long as Israel has nukes, Iran should have them too, IMO. (Israel is by far the most successful country in dis-obeying UN decisions, doing whatever they want, and getting out of it through a veto presented by the US, so yes, they're able to use their nukes whenever they want to, and note that the UK had given them their nukes (I'm not sure if the UK gave them Nuclear heads, maybe the material for it)).

The point is not simple. You wish it to be a simple matter - regardless of the actual situation. If it was such a simple matter, then why is most of Western Europe also against Iran having nuclear weapons?

So is your opinion mean that it is perfectably acceptable to sign a treaty to get what you want and then break it without any consequences happening?

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 16:04

Well I don't have a lot of info on this, but haven't most of the countries that managed to get Nuclear Warheads signed the treaty and still got them?

And eehmm.. War on Iraq, US initiated it, all europe countries were against it (Maybe except a few) and still most of them fought side to side with the US.

I'm sure Iran is more than ready for a war, if that is the whole matter. So I really don't care if US goes to war with it or not.

And, how is the situation complex? Can you clear that for me? Thanks.

Mithradates

06-10-2006, 16:04

How is anti terrorism legistlature a-moral. And as citizen of democraticaly elected government i feel that corporations however ruthless do not represent what our government stands for.

Avicenna

06-10-2006, 20:44

Yes, the American hyper-power can pretty much do what it pleases. I'm not supporting it in any way, but who on earth would oppose them? Nobody wants to be destroyed, and nobody wants a war. So, for now, America does what it wants, within reason, of course.

Redleg

06-10-2006, 23:05

Well I don't have a lot of info on this, but haven't most of the countries that managed to get Nuclear Warheads signed the treaty and still got them?

Two of them yes - Pakistan and India. Then their is North Korea. All other nations alreadly had them, prior to the treaty. North Korea uses their's as a bargaining chip to remain in power, to feed its population, and to heat their homes during the winter. Pakistan and India would require you to look at this site if you are looking for answers.

Home
http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

India
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/index.html

Pakistan
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html

And eehmm.. War on Iraq, US initiated it, all europe countries were against it (Maybe except a few) and still most of them fought side to side with the US.

And the United States is facing the consequences of its decision within the world community. This response does not answer the question that was asked.

So is your opinion mean that it is perfectably acceptable to sign a treaty to get what you want and then break it without any consequences happening?

I'm sure Iran is more than ready for a war, if that is the whole matter. So I really don't care if US goes to war with it or not.

Oh Iran no more wants a war then the west does.

And, how is the situation complex? Can you clear that for me? Thanks.

Politics is the simple answer to the complex situation. There is nothing ever simple about nuclear weapon negotations and the deals that are made between countries. Iran is after something from the world community and is using its pursuit of nuclear technology as a method. Take a good read into the lastest round of talks between Iran and the west.

Pannonian

06-11-2006, 01:49

And the United States is facing the consequences of its decision within the world community. This response does not answer the question that was asked.

So is your opinion mean that it is perfectably acceptable to sign a treaty to get what you want and then break it without any consequences happening?

It seems to be part of the Bush doctrine, that if a treaty does not suit the interests of the US, the US will just ignore it in the knowledge that no-one is in a position to force it to comply. Some of us are of the opinion that treaties should be stuck to, and if the terms aren't ideal, then they should be renegotiated. This kind of thinking is a bit too multilateralist for Neocons and their followers, and you'll find numerous remarks that treaties are "just pieces of paper".

For example, the Russians were rather upset when Bush ignored the various disarmament treaties by approving research into mini-nukes that are supposedly useable without triggering MAD. Their initial position was that they had enough useable nukes left to make mincemeat of America should they try anything funny, and IIRC they've now started renewing their nukes as well.

Oh Iran no more wants a war then the west does.

Politics is the simple answer to the complex situation. There is nothing ever simple about nuclear weapon negotations and the deals that are made between countries. Iran is after something from the world community and is using its pursuit of nuclear technology as a method. Take a good read into the lastest round of talks between Iran and the west.
Bush has firmed up the timeline for negotiation to a matter of weeks not months (despite experts saying that nukes are at least 10 years away), reaffirmed that the US will not even join the table unless Iran first gives up enrichment (what fool starts a bargain by first giving up all his chips?), and has warned there will be consequences unless Iran complies. Bolton has ruled out security guarantees for Iran, and hinted that regime change will be desirable.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3016bd02-f7e9-11da-9481-0000779e2340.html
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-09T153421Z_01_WAT005784_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-BUSH.xml

I know that you are a conservative who is disgruntled with Bush. I regard myself as a internationalist liberal, or at least I used to be, but I find myself growing more and more isolationist in the hope that Britain breaks free from Bush's America. I would like to ask the question, is the Neocon agenda widely known in the US? And if so, does it have much support? Are we likely to see a a change after 2008?

Redleg

06-11-2006, 04:42

It seems to be part of the Bush doctrine, that if a treaty does not suit the interests of the US, the US will just ignore it in the knowledge that no-one is in a position to force it to comply. Some of us are of the opinion that treaties should be stuck to, and if the terms aren't ideal, then they should be renegotiated. This kind of thinking is a bit too multilateralist for Neocons and their followers, and you'll find numerous remarks that treaties are "just pieces of paper".

The question is not about President Bush - but again for those who wish not to address the question directly here is the question again

So is your opinion mean that it is perfectably acceptable to sign a treaty to get what you want and then break it without any consequences happening?

I know that you are a conservative who is disgruntled with Bush. I regard myself as a internationalist liberal, or at least I used to be, but I find myself growing more and more isolationist in the hope that Britain breaks free from Bush's America. I would like to ask the question, is the Neocon agenda widely known in the US? And if so, does it have much support? Are we likely to see a a change after 2008?

Again ask yourself the question above - and answer it from your own views - before attempting to ask me such a question. If you are unwilling to answer a question that asks your personal opinion about a specific thing - you can not expect me to do answer your question on what my opinion is on a specific area.

So is your opinion mean that it is perfectably acceptable to sign a treaty to get what you want and then break it without any consequences happening?

Pannonian

06-11-2006, 07:59

The question is not about President Bush - but again for those who wish not to address the question directly here is the question again

So is your opinion mean that it is perfectably acceptable to sign a treaty to get what you want and then break it without any consequences happening?

Again ask yourself the question above - and answer it from your own views - before attempting to ask me such a question. If you are unwilling to answer a question that asks your personal opinion about a specific thing - you can not expect me to do answer your question on what my opinion is on a specific area.

So is your opinion mean that it is perfectably acceptable to sign a treaty to get what you want and then break it without any consequences happening?
I thought I had already answered that question. When a country signs a treaty, I expect that country to keep to the terms of the treaty, and if they break it, to be punished according to the terms or understanding of the treaty. And if they don't like the terms, they should renegotiate it, not ignore it. That's why I've always been less than impressed with France, whose engagement with the EU is that they do what they like, and they take what they like. That's why I'm also less than impressed with GW Bush, whose approach to international affairs is the same. GHW Bush and Clinton, whatever their morality or details in foreign affairs, at least kept the approach that America keeps the word given by previous administrations.

If you are talking about Iran, then AFAIK Iran has so far kept to the letter of the NPT, even if they are flagrantly flouting its spirit. All their advances so far have been dual use, which they maintain comes under the banner of civilian use that the NPT allows. They have also repeatedly asked for a guarantee that the US will not attack Iran, a not unreasonable request given recent history. Given the Bush doctrine openly advocates regime change in Iraq, Iran and Syria, and Iraq has been done, this is the one demand above all else without which Iran would be foolish to give up their bargaining chips. Iraq complied with UN demands as far as it was able, even disarming many of its most potent weaponry, but was invaded anyway. If Iran complies with the IAEA and gives up the one thing it can threaten the US with, would it happen again?

x-dANGEr

06-11-2006, 11:06

Redleg

06-11-2006, 19:09

I thought I had already answered that question. When a country signs a treaty, I expect that country to keep to the terms of the treaty, and if they break it, to be punished according to the terms or understanding of the treaty. And if they don't like the terms, they should renegotiate it, not ignore it.

So in regards to Iran you must find them at fault for ignoring the treaties in which they signed to gain nuclear technology.

That's why I've always been less than impressed with France, whose engagement with the EU is that they do what they like, and they take what they like. That's why I'm also less than impressed with GW Bush, whose approach to international affairs is the same.

Are you not noticing is that the United States and Bush are facing some of the consequences of not abiding by the agreed upon treaties. Demonstrations against the United States actions is one of those consequences.

It seems though that instead of advocating the same type of demonstration against Iran for violating treaties - some are advocating that Iran actually pursue the development of nuclear weapons in violation of the treaties that were signed by Iran.

GHW Bush and Clinton, whatever their morality or details in foreign affairs, at least kept the approach that America keeps the word given by previous administrations.

Clinton did not abide by the word of previous administrations. Clinton was an extremely popular president because he often abided by the popular opinion when deciding upon a course of action. There were a few instance where he did go against popular opinion and did the right thing for the greater good. I can name two of them off the top of my head - Bosina and Kosovo. He took a lot of criticism for both - but in the end it was the correct and necessary decision.

If you are talking about Iran, then AFAIK Iran has so far kept to the letter of the NPT, even if they are flagrantly flouting its spirit. All their advances so far have been dual use, which they maintain comes under the banner of civilian use that the NPT allows.

Refusing to allow inspections of the facalities is not a flagrantly breaking of the agreements?

They have also repeatedly asked for a guarantee that the US will not attack Iran, a not unreasonable request given recent history. Given the Bush doctrine openly advocates regime change in Iraq, Iran and Syria, and Iraq has been done, this is the one demand above all else without which Iran would be foolish to give up their bargaining chips. Iraq complied with UN demands as far as it was able, even disarming many of its most potent weaponry, but was invaded anyway. If Iran complies with the IAEA and gives up the one thing it can threaten the US with, would it happen again?

Bush doctrine only my rear-end - Regime change of Iran has been the goal of the United States since the overthrow of the Shah. If your going to spout it only as George Bush doctrine - then your sadly mistaken. If your going to claim its a neo-con agenda item only - then your sadly mistake.

Iraq did not comply with UN demands nor sanctions. Care to explain once again 12 years and 14 failed resolutions regrading Iraq.

Are you ignoring that fact that a certain missle that was discovered in the Nov-Dec inspections which were not fulfilled to the complete satification of the United Nations Security Council were found to be in violation.

Now to your question

I know that you are a conservative who is disgruntled with Bush. I regard myself as a internationalist liberal, or at least I used to be, but I find myself growing more and more isolationist in the hope that Britain breaks free from Bush's America. I would like to ask the question, is the Neocon agenda widely known in the US? And if so, does it have much support? Are we likely to see a a change after 2008?

No the neo-con agenda is not widely known in the United States. Most Americans do not subscribe to the thoughts behind the neo-con agenda, and most Americans do not focus their thinking beyond our own borders.

Only way you will see a major change in foreign policy is for the Democratic Party to get their act together and regain both a clear majority in Congress and the Presidential office.

If such a thing happens the more moderate Republicans in Congress will begin to seperate themselves from the far right members and the neo-con agenda will fail.

x-dANGEr

06-12-2006, 00:41

Hmm.. So all those rockets drawn from Iraq were gained through force? (Since Iraq didn't compile according to you)

Redleg

06-12-2006, 01:00

Hmm.. So all those rockets drawn from Iraq were gained through force? (Since Iraq didn't compile according to you)

that is not what was stated.

Go back to the Nov-Jan prior to the invasion, what missles were discovered in Iraq that were in direct violation of the United Nations Resolutions.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/19/sprj.irq.un.missiles/

x-dANGEr

06-12-2006, 10:59

They were discovered, and drawn out, as far as they told in the news.

Redleg

06-12-2006, 13:31

They were discovered, and drawn out, as far as they told in the news.

Again the mere existance of the missiles violated the resolutions.

The statement by Pannonian was this complied with UN demands as far as it was able, even disarming many of its most potent weaponry, but was invaded anyway

The mere existance of the missles disprove this statement. Then there is the Duefler Report which disproved much of the Bush Administrations claims - but did show that Iraq was not in compliance with all of the requirements of the United Nations Resolutions.

rory_20_uk

06-12-2006, 13:38

If being in contravention of a UN resolution resulted in invasion, how many countries in the world would not be invaded?

~:smoking:

Redleg

06-12-2006, 16:03

If being in contravention of a UN resolution resulted in invasion, how many countries in the world would not be invaded?

~:smoking:

Only Security Council resolutions would have to be counted. I know off hand at least 5 nations.

So is your answer here advocating that nations should not be held accountable for the treaties that they willing obligated themselves to and then violate?

Iran has an obligation to fulfil the Nuclear treaties that it signed with the international community - which does indeed include that it submits itself to periodical inspections from the Internation community.

I know the hypocrisy in my postion - I just wonder is some realize the hypocrisy in their statements.

rory_20_uk

06-12-2006, 16:19

The UK shows the best and worst in us.

At its best it is there to prevent conflict, prevent disease and organise humanitarian aid in a "nationless" environment.

At its worst it is a massive horse trading floor where favours are exchanged. The UN is a bunch of diplomats - the hypocrisy is guaranteed.

~:smoking:

AwesomeArcher

06-12-2006, 16:58

I think the answer is no on both counts. If anything it would be a sort of cold war with China, both nations know that any conflict between them could mean a world war 3 and possibly nuclear war. IMO Iran will back down with everybody against them.

x-dANGEr

06-12-2006, 17:24

Only Security Council resolutions would have to be counted. I know off hand at least 5 nations.

So is your answer here advocating that nations should not be held accountable for the treaties that they willing obligated themselves to and then violate?

Iran has an obligation to fulfil the Nuclear treaties that it signed with the international community - which does indeed include that it submits itself to periodical inspections from the Internation community.

I know the hypocrisy in my postion - I just wonder is some realize the hypocrisy in their statements.
I think the main point here is that since all countries do it, why should we only look at Iran?

And back to Iraq: They did compile by letting the UN take the missiles, and their was no need for military intrusion by the US.

Redleg

06-12-2006, 17:39

I think the main point here is that since all countries do it, why should we only look at Iran?

So your willing to apply moral relativity to the equation. To put it in simple language - do you think its perfectably acceptable to violate treaties simply because you can.

And back to Iraq: They did compile by letting the UN take the missiles, and their was no need for military intrusion by the US.

That was not your initial statement.

Hmm.. So all those rockets drawn from Iraq were gained through force? (Since Iraq didn't compile according to you)

Iraq did not comply because the missles were indeed built. They were discovered and Iraq did allow them to be destroyed. In order to be in complaince the missles should of not been built in the first place.

Now simply put you may indeed view the invasion by the United States as illegimate - not a problem, but viewing that Iraq was in complaince does not follow the evidence of the inspections and the Duefler Report.

rory_20_uk

06-12-2006, 18:58

Most countries break rules when they can get away with it.

Guantanamo is to many against
The recent flights of suslects by the CIA
Israel shelling soverign territory, occupied foreign territory etc etc.
And China. Might as well leave it there.

Of course in many cases countries "interperet" what they are doing as perfectly legal. Well, they would!

North Korea has been rattling the sabre on and off for years. Yet pretty much nothing has been done about it. Moral relativity is not in place, pure realism is. No one can take on North Korea as the risks are great and the rewards tiny.

~:smoking:

Redleg

06-12-2006, 19:15

Most countries break rules when they can get away with it.

Guantanamo is to many against
The recent flights of suslects by the CIA
Israel shelling soverign territory, occupied foreign territory etc etc.
And China. Might as well leave it there.

Multiple wrongs do not make it right - however you have not answered the question.

So is your answer here, advocating that nations should not be held accountable for the treaties that they willing obligated themselves to and then violate?

I bolded the part that applies. Your answer not what others are doing or not doing.

Of course in many cases countries "interperet" what they are doing as perfectly legal. Well, they would!

Of course they do - that is why the question was asked of you - not them.

North Korea has been rattling the sabre on and off for years. Yet pretty much nothing has been done about it. Moral relativity is not in place, pure realism is. No one can take on North Korea as the risks are great and the rewards tiny.

~:smoking:

The risk is not to North Korea or any nation that might pursue such an outcome. The Risk to the major population center of South Korea and for that matter now Japan. Different subject entirily from the one that we are discussing here. Realism is that no one considers North Korea a major threat other then to one nation - Iran on the other hand is considered by many a risk because of its stated postion of wanting to destroy Israel and its known state support to international and regional terrorist groups.

More Relativity is indeed in place with some of the responses so far in this thread. Anyone not holding one standard that is applied to all nations - is arguing based upon hypocrisy and moral relativity.

rory_20_uk

06-12-2006, 19:28

Morally, countries should adhere to treaties. But if they do not this should not cause immediate invasion - espeicially as countries can merely choose to withdraw from the treaty.

If Iran chose to withdraw from the treaty, would this then be OK?

North Korea is technically at war with the South. They have kidnapped people, counterfitted money and sold narcotics. Iran may state it wants to end Israel, but so does Palestine, and Hamas is far more active.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

06-12-2006, 19:35

Again the mere existance of the missiles violated the resolutions.

The statement by Pannonian was this complied with UN demands as far as it was able, even disarming many of its most potent weaponry, but was invaded anyway

The mere existance of the missles disprove this statement. Then there is the Duefler Report which disproved much of the Bush Administrations claims - but did show that Iraq was not in compliance with all of the requirements of the United Nations Resolutions.
The missiles you are talking of were only marginally over the limit, with around half the range of a Spitfire (which was considered a short range fighter back in WW2). Something like a range of 120 km when the limit was 100 km. When the UN inspectors took a hard line by refusing to recategorise or blur the line, the missiles were duly destroyed, half of them gone by the time of the invasion.

It's like the insistence that Iraq accounted for all its WMDs instead of 95% of them as given, an impossible task given the limits of bureaucracy. That this requirement was nonsense was shown when, shortly after the war, bio-chemical weapons were found in various parts of the US, stocks that the US government had lost track of.

If the missiles had been stationed on the westernmost border of Iraq to give them the maximum chance of hitting Israel, the only people at risk would have been Syria. Did we invade Iraq to save the people of Syria from the threat of Saddam?

I've tried looking for references to Iran barring the IAEA from inspections, but I've not found anything before this current ruckus. I found a report from Hans Blix from February this year that stated that Iran was, by and large, complying with IAEA requirements, and various intelligence reports in the last 12 months saying that any nuclear weapon would be at least 3 years, more probably 10-20 years away (the most common estimate being 10 years if every effort was put into it and every piece of luck went their way). Have there been any breakthroughs in the last 4 months since Blix's report that require such drastic measures as military action?

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19337405%255E1702,00.html
2 June 2006

The 14-member international commission - set up by Sweden in 2003 to probe ways of reducing the dangers from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons - argued that any negotiations with Iran and North Korea had to consider their security concerns.

"In such states, incentives to acquire nuclear weapons may be reduced by offers of normal relations and assurances that military intervention or subversion aimed at regime change will not be undertaken," the report said.

If the US wishes to enforce the will of the commission, will it also heed the advice given by the commission? A simple guarantee that the US will not invade has been the constant Iranian demand, which should be a given anyway for a sovereign nation.

Redleg

06-12-2006, 19:39

Morally, countries should adhere to treaties. But if they do not this should not cause immediate invasion - espeicially as countries can merely choose to withdraw from the treaty.

I agree - if Iran wishes to withdraw from the treaty then it should do so. However currently Iran is violating the treaty in which it has signed which is indeed one of the many legal justifications for armed conflict between nations.

If Iran chose to withdraw from the treaty, would this then be OK?

Politically it will but them behind the west in the eyes of the world. Iran would have to have solid ground in order to withdraw from the treaty without suffering politicial and economic consequence of such a withdraw.

North Korea is technically at war with the South. They have kidnapped people, counterfitted money and sold narcotics. Iran may state it wants to end Israel, but so does Palestine, and Hamas is far more active.

~:smoking:

You have noted the difference between the two.

Redleg

06-12-2006, 20:02

The missiles you are talking of were only marginally over the limit, with around half the range of a Spitfire (which was considered a short range fighter back in WW2). Something like a range of 120 km when the limit was 100 km. When the UN inspectors took a hard line by refusing to recategorise or blur the line, the missiles were duly destroyed, half of them gone by the time of the invasion.

It's like the insistence that Iraq accounted for all its WMDs instead of 95% of them as given, an impossible task given the limits of bureaucracy. That this requirement was nonsense was shown when, shortly after the war, bio-chemical weapons were found in various parts of the US, stocks that the US government had lost track of.

If the missiles had been stationed on the westernmost border of Iraq to give them the maximum chance of hitting Israel, the only people at risk would have been Syria. Did we invade Iraq to save the people of Syria from the threat of Saddam?

Are you on purpose ignoring the context of the issue of complaince with the United Nations Resolutions to pursue another path in the arguement?

The fact that the missiles existed shows that Iraq was not in complaince with one of the Resolutions - which is the context of the statement. If I want to spin that information more I can refer to other reports that show that Iraq had a systemic approach in attempting to give the illusion that they still retained some capablity, which again is indeed a violation of the resolutions because to comply with the resolution Iraq was to be completely open with all its sources, reports, and sites.

One can argue that even with the infractions of the resolutions that were correctly sited does not justify the United States using military force to remove Saddam's Regime from power. But to claim Iraq was in complaince with the United Nations Resolutions would be an incorrect claim when faced with the facts.

I've tried looking for references to Iran barring the IAEA from inspections, but I've not found anything before this current ruckus. I found a report from Hans Blix from February this year that stated that Iran was, by and large, complying with IAEA requirements, and various intelligence reports in the last 12 months saying that any nuclear weapon would be at least 3 years, more probably 10-20 years away (the most common estimate being 10 years if every effort was put into it and every piece of luck went their way). Have there been any breakthroughs in the last 4 months since Blix's report that require such drastic measures as military action?[quote]

Not that I am aware of - but then I am not arguing in support of military action against Iran. Let them become a nuclear power if they wish, just give them the same message all other nations have about thier nuclear weapons.

You use them - you get a double dose back at you. THen again I would add just for Iran because of their known terrorist links - that if a nuclear weapon is used by a terrorist organization anywhere in the world - Iran gets to suffer the consequences of that attack.

[quote]
If the US wishes to enforce the will of the commission, will it also heed the advice given by the commission? A simple guarantee that the US will not invade has been the constant Iranian demand, which should be a given anyway for a sovereign nation.

Iran and the United States has to settle a 20+ year war of words for that to happen first. Iran is also being asked to do something that is a reasonable demand concerning sovereign nations - If Iran wants the United States to make promises it also has to make several also. Some of which involve not advocating the destruction of another soverign nation.

x-dANGEr

06-12-2006, 23:27

The truth is that my answer isn't applied to the reality. Sure it isn't, but why some countries can do that and others not? If they both signed the same treaty, I only find it fair when they both are having the same sentence for violating them.

And I think it was explained already, Iran may not want to compile since Iraq did as best as it could to compile to the UN, and still got attacked by an illegitimate invasion which somehow got a lot of countries on the way. Now, don't give me the crap that Iraq had violated the treaty, yes it has, but it also has compiled to the UN by performing every action asked of them.

So, now you tell me, why would Iran let inspectors in, since it will be attacked if it does so (But without it's weapons, if any) just like Iraq?

Redleg

06-13-2006, 00:04

The truth is that my answer isn't applied to the reality.

Then the hypocrisy is even worse.

Sure it isn't, but why some countries can do that and others not? If they both signed the same treaty, I only find it fair when they both are having the same sentence for violating them.

The real life is that the enforcement of treaties is based upon the ability and desire of the signator nations to enforce the treaty.

And I think it was explained already, Iran may not want to compile since Iraq did as best as it could to compile to the UN, and still got attacked by an illegitimate invasion which somehow got a lot of countries on the way.

Baised views don't survive contact with reality. The Iraq regime did not do its best to comply with the United Nations Resolutions. The Oil for Food scandel is one of the many areas where Saddam manipulated and violated a specific resolution to meet his own ends. Like I stated before there is some validity in calling the invasion illegitmate but that should not be confused with Iraq's failure to comply with the resolutions, it should not be confused with Saddam's manilupation of the Oil for food program, it should not be confused with Saddam's attempts to protray that Iraq still had an active WMD program. The Duelfer Report confirms all this.

Now, don't give me the crap that Iraq had violated the treaty, yes it has, but it also has compiled to the UN by performing every action asked of them.

Frankly its not crap - but obviousily you don't recongize your own baised views when applying it to the issue under discussion - that being Iran and its nuclear program.

So, now you tell me, why would Iran let inspectors in, since it will be attacked if it does so (But without it's weapons, if any) just like Iraq?

Again who's going to attack, no evidence exists that the United States is mounting an invasion plan for Iran at this time. Are you upset with the political rethoric coming from the United States? Why do you not also show the same emotional appeal arguements against Iran for using the same political rethoric?

Why should the United States promise not to use military force - if Iran will not promise to stop calling for the destruction of Israel?

Pannonian

06-13-2006, 09:12

Are you on purpose ignoring the context of the issue of complaince with the United Nations Resolutions to pursue another path in the arguement?

The fact that the missiles existed shows that Iraq was not in complaince with one of the Resolutions - which is the context of the statement. If I want to spin that information more I can refer to other reports that show that Iraq had a systemic approach in attempting to give the illusion that they still retained some capablity, which again is indeed a violation of the resolutions because to comply with the resolution Iraq was to be completely open with all its sources, reports, and sites.

One can argue that even with the infractions of the resolutions that were correctly sited does not justify the United States using military force to remove Saddam's Regime from power. But to claim Iraq was in complaince with the United Nations Resolutions would be an incorrect claim when faced with the facts.

When someone is in breach of treaty terms, the response is to tell them to do something about it or others will force them to. Those missiles were in breach of the agreement. The Iraqis did something about it. If they were doing something towards complying with the agreement, why apply force? If nothing else, diplomacy is cheaper, and I prefer cheap solutions if they work.

As for giving the illusion that they retained some capability - there were inspections in place that would have destroyed the illusion given a few more months. The inspectors were, according to them, given as much freedom as they desired to inspect. They didn't think that the Iraqi government was blocking them in any significant way. What they wanted was for the inspections to run their course before further action was taken. If the war was to enforce breach of inspections, I would respect the opinions of those inspectors on the matter, and they say that war was unnecessary for the purpose.

Like most British people, I do not mind our army being used to aid humanitarian missions - one of the recruitment hooks is precisely this. But enforcement missions, which Iraq was supposed to be, should have clearcut reasons for enforcement. According to accounts I've read elsewhere, the men currently serving are unhappy because the government did not make sure this was the case before sending them in. They'll do their professional best in the position they're in, but a dominant question is, why the **** are they there in the first place?

As an aside, the army was equally unhappy in Bosnia where there were clearcut reasons for enforcement but they weren't allowed to enforce. Sierra Leone was an example of where the mission was clear and they were given the freedom to carry out that mission. They're justifiably proud of their results.

Not that I am aware of - but then I am not arguing in support of military action against Iran. Let them become a nuclear power if they wish, just give them the same message all other nations have about thier nuclear weapons.

You use them - you get a double dose back at you. THen again I would add just for Iran because of their known terrorist links - that if a nuclear weapon is used by a terrorist organization anywhere in the world - Iran gets to suffer the consequences of that attack.

I have no problem with applying MAD to Iran. If terrorists detonate nukes that are traceable back to Tehran, Tehran gets (at least) double the dose in return. In practice, terrorists are probably more likely to buy weapons from former Soviet states (who are protected by Russia) than receive them from Iran, who know they are under scrutiny.

If the US wants security for itself and its friends, the best thing it can do is make sure that Russia has an inventory of all the nukes owned by the former USSR, and that it has and continues to have control of them. If Iran produces 3 nukes and one of them goes missing, alarm bells will immediately ring. If terrorists buy 3 nukes from the thousands in the former USSR, no-one will notice unless we keep a closer eye on them than we currently are.

Iran and the United States has to settle a 20+ year war of words for that to happen first. Iran is also being asked to do something that is a reasonable demand concerning sovereign nations - If Iran wants the United States to make promises it also has to make several also. Some of which involve not advocating the destruction of another soverign nation.

Fair enough, that's America's foreign policy, and none of our business. Warn us first though, so we have time to get our troops out of Iraq before you do anything. We'll keep our troops in Afghanistan, since that deployment was in reaction to an attack on our ally.

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 09:59

@Redleg: So you think nations should not be held accountable for treaties that they signed if they have no other country to force them to obey it?

Redleg

06-13-2006, 13:42

When someone is in breach of treaty terms, the response is to tell them to do something about it or others will force them to. Those missiles were in breach of the agreement. The Iraqis did something about it. If they were doing something towards complying with the agreement, why apply force? If nothing else, diplomacy is cheaper, and I prefer cheap solutions if they work.

In the case of Iraq then explain 12 years and 14 failed United Nations Resolutions. To claim Iraq was in complaince with the required conditions flies in the face of reality.

One can argue that the United States invasion of Iraq was illegimate but claiming Iraq was in complaince ignores the failure of 12 years of diplomacy, and force that has been applied

As for giving the illusion that they retained some capability - there were inspections in place that would have destroyed the illusion given a few more months. The inspectors were, according to them, given as much freedom as they desired to inspect. They didn't think that the Iraqi government was blocking them in any significant way. What they wanted was for the inspections to run their course before further action was taken. If the war was to enforce breach of inspections, I would respect the opinions of those inspectors on the matter, and they say that war was unnecessary for the purpose.

This is a legimate arguement concerning the United States haste in invading Iraq, which is different from your earlier statements.

Like most British people, I do not mind our army being used to aid humanitarian missions - one of the recruitment hooks is precisely this. But enforcement missions, which Iraq was supposed to be, should have clearcut reasons for enforcement. According to accounts I've read elsewhere, the men currently serving are unhappy because the government did not make sure this was the case before sending them in. They'll do their professional best in the position they're in, but a dominant question is, why the **** are they there in the first place?

I talk with my friends and family that are serving in Iraq. The situation is much the same for them. I don't mind criticism of the United States government, but your earlier posts were denying the facts of Iraq's failures to comply with the resolutions over the last 12 years.

As an aside, the army was equally unhappy in Bosnia where there were clearcut reasons for enforcement but they weren't allowed to enforce. Sierra Leone was an example of where the mission was clear and they were given the freedom to carry out that mission. They're justifiably proud of their results.

Bosnia has run the gambit of proper and improper enforcement.

I have no problem with applying MAD to Iran. If terrorists detonate nukes that are traceable back to Tehran, Tehran gets (at least) double the dose in return. In practice, terrorists are probably more likely to buy weapons from former Soviet states (who are protected by Russia) than receive them from Iran, who know they are under scrutiny.

I agree - if you notice my posts I don't personally have a problem with Iran getting nuclear technology and developing nuclear weapons. What I am discussing in this thread is the hypocrisy and the moral relativity of some statements being made.

If the US wants security for itself and its friends, the best thing it can do is make sure that Russia has an inventory of all the nukes owned by the former USSR, and that it has and continues to have control of them. If Iran produces 3 nukes and one of them goes missing, alarm bells will immediately ring. If terrorists buy 3 nukes from the thousands in the former USSR, no-one will notice unless we keep a closer eye on them than we currently are.

THat is being attempted, I don't know the current status of the attempt but I know from several media sources that it is being attempted.

Fair enough, that's America's foreign policy, and none of our business. Warn us first though, so we have time to get our troops out of Iraq before you do anything. We'll keep our troops in Afghanistan, since that deployment was in reaction to an attack on our ally.

Again where is the proof that the rethoric is more then just rethoric. You act as if the invasion of Iran is a forgone conclusion. If you know anything about military actions - the United States does not have the troops availiable to launch a ground invasion into Iran.

If an airstrike is conducted - it will be done in concert with other Western Nations. To put it simply the United States will not attack Iran without backing from the Western Nations and the Security Council.

Redleg

06-13-2006, 13:48

@Redleg: So you think nations should not be held accountable for treaties that they signed if they have no other country to force them to obey it?

You should have read the statement that stated - the United States is suffering the consequences of its decision to invade Iraq, that consequence is the public protest of the people of the United States and the World Community. That should make clear the answer to your question.

What I am saying is that treaties are enforced by nations that have the means to enforce them. Those without the ability to enforce a treaty relay on public protest to attempt to have other nations comply.

What you don't see in the public media is public protests against Iran for violating its agreed upon treaties in regards to nuclear weapons. Nor do I see it in your writings on the subject.

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 15:30

Because I simply support it. Since right now with Israel having them, and being able to nuke us anytime and get away with it, I think it'd be safer if Iran had them too.

But really, I don't see the US suffering from those protests.. It just goes on threatening countries and veto-ing any UN decisions that may cut one dollar off their ally's banks, Israel.

Pannonian

06-13-2006, 15:55

I agree - if you notice my posts I don't personally have a problem with Iran getting nuclear technology and developing nuclear weapons. What I am discussing in this thread is the hypocrisy and the moral relativity of some statements being made.

I don't see where the moral relativity or hypocrisy is in my position. I just don't want the British army committed unless there is a damn good reason or a damn urgent reason. Afghanistan had a damn good reason, as the Taliban-backed Al-Qaeda had attacked the US. Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone had damn urgent reasons, as ethnic cleansing was ongoing in the first two and children were being systematically targeted by rebels in the third. Enforcing UN restrictions is neither a damn good reason nor a damn urgent reason unless the country in question is threatening another. I couldn't give a monkeys whether or not a country has bio-chemical weapons, unless they were threatening another country with them.

Redleg

06-13-2006, 16:20

I don't see where the moral relativity or hypocrisy is in my position.

Hmm - does this sound familiar

I expect that country to keep to the terms of the treaty, and if they break it, to be punished according to the terms or understanding of the treaty. And if they don't like the terms, they should renegotiate it, not ignore it.

I just don't want the British army committed unless there is a damn good reason or a damn urgent reason.

It seems your nations leadership is also an intergal part of the call for Iran not to be pursueing nuclear weapons. That is an issue to discuss with your nation's leadership - not to place blame on the United States for actions that have not occured.

Afghanistan had a damn good reason, as the Taliban-backed Al-Qaeda had attacked the US. Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone had damn urgent reasons, as ethnic cleansing was ongoing in the first two and children were being systematically targeted by rebels in the third.

Yes indeed.

Enforcing UN restrictions is neither a damn good reason nor a damn urgent reason unless the country in question is threatening another. I couldn't give a monkeys whether or not a country has bio-chemical weapons, unless they were threatening another country with them.

Hmm then you by default must recend your earlier comment about Afganistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone. All those actions were based upon enforcing United Nations Resolutions (well except for one, which was done under the leadership of the United States.).

Or you must support the call for Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons because of its rethoric calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Anyother stance is hypocrisy at its finest.

Redleg

06-13-2006, 16:28

Because I simply support it. Since right now with Israel having them, and being able to nuke us anytime and get away with it, I think it'd be safer if Iran had them too.

Who is Israel going to nuke - Palenstines living amongst Isreal. If Israel uses Nuclear weapons against a Palenstine target not only will they face the condemnation of the world community, a reducation in all support, the state of Israel will suffer the effects of the blast itself.

So in essence are you basing your arguement solely upon emotional appeal?

But really, I don't see the US suffering from those protests.. It just goes on threatening countries and veto-ing any UN decisions that may cut one dollar off their ally's banks, Israel.

You will see the results in the next two cycles of elections. Peaceful protests do not bring immediate change - it is a time consuming process that works in years not days.

Again emotional appeal seems to be the crux of your arguement in this discussion.

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 18:20

Can you clear two definitions please? Hypocrisy?! Moral relativity?!

I'm not surely talking about Palestine alone.. Am talking about all the adjacent countries, I really haven't seen anything from Israel in my whole life except death, blood and wars, why should I trust them? Politics is emotions after all. Emotions do decide people's actions, even if they are based on facts and thought of mentally, because however it revolves it will come back to how someone thinks about someone, as emotions are the starters of wars and peace treaties. For example, if a country wants to conquer another just to gain more economical profits, that is all from greed, and/or hate to that other country (And of course can be for many other reasons, that all come back to emotions).

Avicenna

06-13-2006, 19:07

Politics is emotions after all.

This has to be the org quote of the day.

Redleg

06-13-2006, 20:02

Can you clear two definitions please? Hypocrisy?! Moral relativity?!

A simple google search will provide you with the necessary definitions. Websters is also good.

I'm not surely talking about Palestine alone.. Am talking about all the adjacent countries,

Same issue applies - Israel can not use a nuclear weapon on any of the adjacent countries without suffering relation from several nations, and the effects of the fallout from the actual use of a nuclear device.

I really haven't seen anything from Israel in my whole life except death, blood and wars, why should I trust them?

Why should Israel trust any Palenstine - all Israel has seen from the Palenstine people is blood, death, war, kidnappings, murder, hostage taking - murdering of those same hostages... Etc Etc. If your unwilling to trust them - then the converse is also true they will be unwilling to trust you.

This is where the issue between the United States and Iran exists - neither trusts the other. Iran has done things that leads the United States not to trust them, and conversily the United States has done things that lead Iran not to trust the US.

Politics is emotions after all.

Politics is much more then just emotions.

Emotions do decide people's actions, even if they are based on facts and thought of mentally, because however it revolves it will come back to how someone thinks about someone, as emotions are the starters of wars and peace treaties. For example, if a country wants to conquer another just to gain more economical profits, that is all from greed, and/or hate to that other country (And of course can be for many other reasons, that all come back to emotions).

And when one looks into the rethoric of both the United States and Iran concerning the nuclear weapons issues you find plently of exambles of hypocrisy and moral relativity based solely on the attempts of emotional appeal to point the blame at one side or another. This thread is another prime examble of it also.

Pannonian

06-13-2006, 20:12

Hmm - does this sound familiar

It seems your nations leadership is also an intergal part of the call for Iran not to be pursueing nuclear weapons. That is an issue to discuss with your nation's leadership - not to place blame on the United States for actions that have not occured.

Two foreign secretaries have already said that it's unthinkable to consider military action against Iran over this matter. Both have been repudiated by the PM, whom we consider Bush's lapdog, and who hasn't long before he leaves office anyway.

Yes indeed.

Hmm then you by default must recend your earlier comment about Afganistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone. All those actions were based upon enforcing United Nations Resolutions (well except for one, which was done under the leadership of the United States.).

Or you must support the call for Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons because of its rethoric calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Anyother stance is hypocrisy at its finest.

Did you deliberately ignore my comment about good or urgent reasons? A good reason is retaliation for an attack on an ally. An urgent reason is when something bad is happening, and UN approval is only a matter of time. There was ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo, and we already knew the probable results of that, so immediate action was required without waiting for the UN to catch up. Similarly with Sierra Leone, where the rebels were systematically targeting children and hacking their limbs off to terrorise the population. In that case, the first British troops went in less than a month after our foreign secretary saw what was going on. Taking the example of Sierra Leone (which was a British driven operation), we got wider approval after we used our initiative, and other countries readily took over what we had started.

Tell me, since you seem to think Iran falls in the same category, what is the immediate threat of Iran? What is ongoing that requires such urgent action? Is this not just another case of Iraq, with neocons wanting a grand reshaping of the middle east and just looking for an excuse to start a fight?

There was an article from March 2003 which described the way the neocons manipulate the media to push the population towards war, and warned of neocon writers to look out for. Come 2006, and there was a story by one of these neocon writers about how Iran was forcing Jews to wear distinctive badges, hence associating them with the Nazis, a story that was proved to be utterly without foundation. I have no doubt there will be other stories to come, with as much basis in fact, and people will be rooting for regime change in neo-Nazi Iran. Do as you wish, but warn us first so we can can get our troops out of Iraq before you attack Iran.

Redleg

06-13-2006, 20:59

Two foreign secretaries have already said that it's unthinkable to consider military action against Iran over this matter. Both have been repudiated by the PM, whom we consider Bush's lapdog, and who hasn't long before he leaves office anyway.

blaming Bush for Blairs policies. Now that is a fine examble of hypocrisy and moral relativity. Last I looked Britian was its own soverign nation able to dicate its own national policy.

Did you deliberately ignore my comment about good or urgent reasons?

Your statement was subjective. I could point out Clinton's ordering of bomb strikes in several parts of the world that would either pass or fail this subjective point. Subjective opinions are open to interpation.

A good reason is retaliation for an attack on an ally. An urgent reason is when something bad is happening, and UN approval is only a matter of time.

Thats better, but still not good enough to prevent interpations. The UN approval could fall apart by a simple veto from one of the perment members of the security council - then its not good enough any longer.

There was ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo, and we already knew the probable results of that, so immediate action was required without waiting for the UN to catch up. Similarly with Sierra Leone, where the rebels were systematically targeting children and hacking their limbs off to terrorise the population. In that case, the first British troops went in less than a month after our foreign secretary saw what was going on. Taking the example of Sierra Leone (which was a British driven operation), we got wider approval after we used our initiative, and other countries readily took over what we had started.

Correct, but it seems your forgetting the protests about Kosovo that were going on within both the United States and Britian. Some felt correctly that both leaders where not within thier authority to order such an operation.

Tell me, since you seem to think Iran falls in the same category, what is the immediate threat of Iran? What is ongoing that requires such urgent action?

Your the one arguing that the United States is going to attack Iran - not I. Why don't you answer the questions. I have clearly stated several times that the rethoric is nothing more then political posturing by both sides.

What I have been pointing out is that Iran is indeed in violation of the Nuclear treaties and international agreements that it agreed to when other nations agreed to provide them with material and technology to assist them in their development of nuclear energy.

Is this not just another case of Iraq, with neocons wanting a grand reshaping of the middle east and just looking for an excuse to start a fight?

Same point. Why are you demonstrating a hypocrisy in wanting one nation to always abide by International Agreements, but allow another to get a free pass upon their violation of agreed upon treaties?

To be consistent you should be protesting against the United States actions in Iraq. And protesting about Iran's violation of the Nuclear non-prolifation treaty.

There was an article from March 2003 which described the way the neocons manipulate the media to push the population towards war, and warned of neocon writers to look out for.

So 12 years of failed diplomacy and 14 failed United Nations resolutions are to be ignored because some article about neocons manipulating the media. Frankly that is laughable since the media has been manipulated by many different people and groups from the very beginning of puplished papers. Remember the Maine comes to mind. Yellow Journalism has been alive and well for centuries

Come 2006, and there was a story by one of these neocon writers about how Iran was forcing Jews to wear distinctive badges, hence associating them with the Nazis, a story that was proved to be utterly without foundation. I have no doubt there will be other stories to come, with as much basis in fact, and people will be rooting for regime change in neo-Nazi Iran. Do as you wish, but warn us first so we can can get our troops out of Iraq before you attack Iran.

Again the only individual advocating that the United States will attack Iran is yourself. To bad - inconsistent arguements will lead you astray everytime.

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 21:02

Why should Israel trust any Palenstine - all Israel has seen from the Palenstine people is blood, death, war, kidnappings, murder, hostage taking - murdering of those same hostages... Etc Etc. If your unwilling to trust them - then the converse is also true they will be unwilling to trust you.
And so, I'd work to have weapons that are able to counter my enemies if a war is to happen.

And no, I didn't say that Israel should trust Palestinians, but pardon me, weren't they Isralies those who masscarced Lebanese people in Sabra and Shatela. Aren't those who've done such brutal operations now considered Isralie of all time heroes? Am more than sure that Palestiniean have seen more bad from Isralies that the other way around.

Politics is much more then just emotions.
Then I agree to disagree with you. Politics is emotions after all, as I already said; IMO.

And, what's your definition of hypocrisy?

Redleg

06-13-2006, 21:22

And so, I'd work to have weapons that are able to counter my enemies if a war is to happen.

Then you should expect to have international pressure applied when you violate the treaties that you signed as a nation.

And no, I didn't say that Israel should trust Palestinians, but pardon me, weren't they Isralies those who masscarced Lebanese people in Sabra and Shatela. Aren't those who've done such brutal operations now considered Isralie of all time heroes? Am more than sure that Palestiniean have seen more bad from Isralies that the other way around.

Neither applies to this discussion. But I will state this - I find that both parties in the Israel-Palenstine conflict have committed crimes against each other. The Israeli army with several different masscares and brutality episodes and the Palentine Terror organizations with their terror bombings, kidnappings and murders. So don't believe I think the Israeli's are any better. Both are wrong and both have extremists that will continuing applying violence until both people's have had enough violence.

Then I agree to disagree with you. Politics is emotions after all, as I already said; IMO.

:book:

And, what's your definition of hypocrisy?

In this instance the hypocrisy is criticising the United States violating international agreements but not criticising the fact that Iran is violating International agreements.

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 21:59

Then you should expect to have international pressure applied when you violate the treaties that you signed as a nation.
But, it wasn't known that Israel had Nuclear Heads at the time that treaty was signed.

Neither applies to this discussion. But I will state this - I find that both parties in the Israel-Palenstine conflict have committed crimes against each other. The Israeli army with several different masscares and brutality episodes and the Palentine Terror organizations with their terror bombings, kidnappings and murders. So don't believe I think the Israeli's are any better. Both are wrong and both have extremists that will continuing applying violence until both people's have had enough violence.
But, the world doesn't press over those Israelies that had done those actions, while they make pressure a hobby to those Palestinians.

In this instance the hypocrisy is criticising the United States violating international agreements but not criticising the fact that Iran is violating International agreements.But the scale of 'violation' is quite different in this subject.

Redleg

06-13-2006, 22:23

But, it wasn't known that Israel had Nuclear Heads at the time that treaty was signed.

Then Iran should renegotate or remove itself from the treaties that it has signed versus attempting to build a nuclear device while under the conditions of those treaties.

But, the world doesn't press over those Israelies that had done those actions, while they make pressure a hobby to those Palestinians.

I see about as much reporting on the wrongs of Israeli state as I do the wrongs of the Palestine terror organizations. To claim one is better then the other is an exercise in moral relativity. Both are equally wrong in my opinion.

But the scale of 'violation' is quite different in this subject.

The scale is indeed different - however in regards to Iran's pursuit of building of nuclear weapns - Iran is indeed wrong.

As regards to the United States using political rethoric to protest Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons - the United States doesn't have the moral ground to stand on, but it as a nation can protest Iran's violation of the treaties.

As individuals if we are going to find fault with one nation for violating treaties and conditions of those treaties - we should find fault with every nation that does the same. To do otherwise is hypocritical.

Pointing out other wrongs to justify a wrong is an exercise in moral relativity in my opinion.