Printable View
Fact straightening:Quote:
Originally Posted by makkyo
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
duplicate post
duplicate post, no.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
Futher fact straigtening - the total number of 1.8 million reflects all three branches - Navy, Airforce, and Army. Same with the Reserve number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
I think the orginial poster was attempting to state only the Army's numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Well one should always review with a juidance eye any figure spouted by the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
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.
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.
That is my take also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
B...B...B..B..B..B.B..BUT Taiwan's so pretty.:furious3:
gah
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.
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:
Western capitalism has morals? :jawdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
That's the funniest thing I've read for ages. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
We have morals in the sense that we wont terrorise are own populace and sensor infromation! at least as much as China.
@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)).
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithradates
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
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 the United States is facing the consequences of its decision within the world community. This response does not answer the question that was asked.Quote:
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.
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?
Oh Iran no more wants a war then the west does.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
And, how is the situation complex? Can you clear that for me? Thanks.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
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.Quote:
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.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3016bd02-f7...0779e2340.html
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...-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?
The question is not about President Bush - but again for those who wish not to address the question directly here is the question againQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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?
YOu covered some good points round their. Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So in regards to Iran you must find them at fault for ignoring the treaties in which they signed to gain nuclear technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
[quotee]
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. [/quote]
Refusing to allow inspections of the facalities is not a flagrantly breaking of the agreements?
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.Quote:
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?
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
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
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/...q.un.missiles/
They were discovered, and drawn out, as far as they told in the news.
Again the mere existance of the missiles violated the resolutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.
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:
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.
I think the main point here is that since all countries do it, why should we only look at Iran?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
That was not your initial statement.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by you
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.
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:
Multiple wrongs do not make it right - however you have not answered the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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 they do - that is why the question was asked of you - not them.Quote:
Of course in many cases countries "interperet" what they are doing as perfectly legal. Well, they would!
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.Quote:
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:
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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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?
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.Quote:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...5E1702,00.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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.Quote:
If Iran chose to withdraw from the treaty, would this then be OK?
You have noted the difference between the two.Quote:
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:
Are you on purpose ignoring the context of the issue of complaince with the United Nations Resolutions to pursue another path in the arguement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.
[quote]
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.
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.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.
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?
Then the hypocrisy is even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
The real life is that the enforcement of treaties is based upon the ability and desire of the signator nations to enforce the treaty.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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?
Why should the United States promise not to use military force - if Iran will not promise to stop calling for the destruction of Israel?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
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.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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
@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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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
This is a legimate arguement concerning the United States haste in invading Iraq, which is different from your earlier statements.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
Bosnia has run the gambit of proper and improper enforcement.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Hmm - does this sound familiarQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Quote:
Originally Posted by you
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.Quote:
I just don't want the British army committed unless there is a damn good reason or a damn urgent reason.
Yes indeed.Quote:
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.
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.).Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
So in essence are you basing your arguement solely upon emotional appeal?
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.Quote:
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.
Again emotional appeal seems to be the crux of your arguement in this discussion.
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).
This has to be the org quote of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
A simple google search will provide you with the necessary definitions. Websters is also good.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
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.Quote:
I'm not surely talking about Palestine alone.. Am talking about all the adjacent countries,
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.Quote:
I really haven't seen anything from Israel in my whole life except death, blood and wars, why should I trust them?
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 much more then just emotions.Quote:
Politics is emotions after all.
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.Quote:
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Did you deliberately ignore my comment about good or urgent reasons?
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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?Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
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.
And so, I'd work to have weapons that are able to counter my enemies if a war is to happen.Quote:
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 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.
Then I agree to disagree with you. Politics is emotions after all, as I already said; IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
And, what's your definition of hypocrisy?
Then you should expect to have international pressure applied when you violate the treaties that you signed as a nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
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.Quote:
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.
:book:Quote:
Then I agree to disagree with you. Politics is emotions after all, as I already said; IMO.
In this instance the hypocrisy is criticising the United States violating international agreements but not criticising the fact that Iran is violating International agreements.Quote:
And, what's your definition of hypocrisy?
But, it wasn't known that Israel had Nuclear Heads at the time that treaty was signed.Quote:
Then you should expect to have international pressure applied when you violate the treaties that you signed as a nation.
But, the world doesn't press over those Israelies that had done those actions, while they make pressure a hobby to those Palestinians.Quote:
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 scale of 'violation' is quite different in this subject.Quote:
In this instance the hypocrisy is criticising the United States violating international agreements but not criticising the fact that Iran is violating International agreements.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
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.Quote:
But, the world doesn't press over those Israelies that had done those actions, while they make pressure a hobby to those Palestinians.
The scale is indeed different - however in regards to Iran's pursuit of building of nuclear weapns - Iran is indeed wrong.Quote:
But the scale of 'violation' is quite different in this subject.
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.
But wrongs are their through other wrongs, so basically wrongs are justified by wrongs, and nothing other than that.
Fair enough, as I really don't see the whole picture (Can't see your news or anything, I just said that line because of the images I make out of those whom I talk to)Quote:
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.
All in all, it's good to see some agreement starting to take place between us two ~:)
And ehmm.. I apologize to everyone who found it annoying from me to compare and relate everything back to Israel. It just has been a little too hot the last couple of days, and the comments some people post are simply irritating. Sorry.