Iran

[BHCWarman88]

The problem with the United States attempting to do this BigTex is that we would be the pot calling the kettle black. Europe and the United Nations must accomplish this task through diplomacy if it is to be resolved without war.

but you can't do this though Dipomacy. You think the Talibian Would have Handed Osama Bin Laden over in 2001,eh,no.How about Saddum Hussan giving himself up,eh no.

you think Iran Will give up this Nuclear Program by the Countries Saying "well,we don't want war,please stop...." oh ok, what we gonna do?? Boycott them? Ok go ahead, Iran will get even more mad,and it won't be looking good anyhow Redleg..

[Watchman]

Yeah, and another major war would be such an obviously better alternative...

[Kagemusha]

I dont understand why Russia keeps popping up in this conversation as a possible military ally of Iran. Its true that Russians make harsh statements all the time on their foreign policy.But the truth behind that is that those statements are infact aimed to Russian domestic policy. Its just a way of Russian politics to feed the sense of strength and honor of Russians and get some cheap points in the process. If Russia would really be hostile towards the West it would have escalated already few years back when the Baltic states entered NATO.At the moment there are NATO planes covering for example the Airspace of Estonia,only couple hundred kilometers from St.Petersburg.Back then the West entered really in the area that Russia thinks its part of its sphere of influence.And they didnt reacted anyway in the end.
If Iran would be put on trade embargo or attacked,it would only benefit the Russia,becouse as one of the biggest countries in Oil business the increase of Oil prizes would just increase her profits. If you look at any reacent conflicts,some Russian politics always give very hard statements,but like i sayed in the start of the post,in the end it doesnt have anything to do with her foreign politics.

[Redleg]

but you can't do this though Dipomacy. You think the Talibian Would have Handed Osama Bin Laden over in 2001,eh,no.How about Saddum Hussan giving himself up,eh no.

You might want to study history. The Taliban was given several outs to the problem - they refused to comply or negotate with anyone concerning the issue. A direction Iran is chosing to go at this time, but not all diplomatic recourses have been exhausted at this time.

Same situation with Iraq and Saddam Hussan - 14 times diplomacy was tried to resolve the issue, along with 12 years of conflict over the skies of Iraq. The failure of diplomacy can also be attribute to both sides (the United States, and Iraq). Are you wishing to go down this same path with Iran?

Are you willing to face the consequences of another war in the Middle-East on the resources of the United States. (include young men in that resource).

you think Iran Will give up this Nuclear Program by the Countries Saying "well,we don't want war,please stop...." oh ok, what we gonna do?? Boycott them? Ok go ahead, Iran will get even more mad,and it won't be looking good anyhow Redleg..

Not at all - if Russia does not supply them with the material needed for futher research the cost raises dramaticly for Iran. If the European Union refuses to trade with Iran - the cost becomes high for Iran. Lots of ways to apply pressure without warfare that has not been done.

The United States has a history of conflict with Iran. The United States can not negotate a settlement to the issue because of that conflict. To much "face" would be lost. However Iran can negotate a peaceful solution with Europe and the United Nations if it so wishes. One must allow this process to be attempted.

While I think the UN is a worthless enity - it must be allowed to show wether it has truely become the useless enity I believe it is, or to prove itself still a player on the diplomatic stage of peaceful solutions to crisis.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

if Iran weren't controlled by some scary people looking forward to the return of the twelfth imam I wouldn't be too concerned. Hell, I wouldn't even have a problem with people looking forward to a messianic figure appearing if it weren't that it sounds like a great conflict is needed for the Mehdi to put in an appearance.

I'd say that a nuclear bomb could start such a great conflict.

[BHCWarman88]

*You might want to study history.* The Taliban was given several outs to the problem - they refused to comply or negotate with anyone concerning the issue. A direction Iran is chosing to go at this time, but not all diplomatic recourses have been exhausted at this time.

Same situation with Iraq and Saddam Hussan - 14 times diplomacy was tried to resolve the issue, along with 12 years of conflict over the skies of Iraq. The failure of diplomacy can also be attribute to both sides (the United States, and Iraq). Are you wishing to go down this same path with Iran?

Are you willing to face the consequences of another war in the Middle-East on the resources of the United States. (include young men in that resource)

*actually do*






Ok,if Diplomatic resources won't work,what will we do? Boycott? ok,sounds good.Now,if Boycotting Fails,what then? No other Options,so,War is the only Option after those 2 been exhasuted.


Yes,I would,there would be no Other Options if Boycotting And/Or Diplomatic Resources failed.

[Tribesman]

As to the practicalities of nuking Isreal, think about it, this is the culture that gave us suicide bombers.

I thought that was the Japanese culture , or the Sri Lankan culture .

A country that has as one of its stated aims the destruction of another country is not legitimate.
You mean like N.Korea , China ( up until recently Taiwan) , Turkey , Armenia Azerbaijan , Russia , hey you could even add Britain and the US to the list , or India , Pakistan . Or if you look at political parties stated aims you could add Israel and Palestine
Not to mention that many of those already have nukes , and have several have given nuclear technology to others .


One major problem in gaining consensus for any action is credibility , some silly bugger has been shown to cry wolf when there was none , now they cry wolf again but it falls on slightly jaded ears .
To reinforce their cries they recently issued an intelligence assesment on Iran from a certain Iranian exile group , which was strange as the group is on the proscribed terrorist organisations list and I thought that they didn't deal with terrorists , let alone terrorists that were backed by Saddam .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As to the practicalities of nuking Isreal, think about it, this is the culture that gave us suicide bombers.
I thought that was the Japanese culture , or the Sri Lankan culture .

Japan was different, in that they were flying their planes into ships, the equivelant of a glory charge by a group of Western Knights. Its an extreme example but the thinking is somewhat different. As to Sri-Lanka, while I'm vagely aware of what you're talking about I must confess ignorance as to details. If they were Muslims my point stands. Regardless the Jihad Matyr was my main point and that stands.

[QUOTE=Tribesman]A country that has as one of its stated aims the destruction of another country is not legitimate.
You mean like N.Korea , China ( up until recently Taiwan) , Turkey , Armenia Azerbaijan , Russia , hey you could even add Britain and the US to the list , or India , Pakistan . Or if you look at political parties stated aims you could add Israel and Palestine
Not to mention that many of those already have nukes , and have several have given nuclear technology to others .[QUOTE=Tribesman]

Who have Britain and the US pledged to utterly destroy and drive into the see? As to China and North Korea, they're on my list already. The others, well with the exception of Palastine and Isreal I don't know what you're talking about. India and Pakistan are currently at peace, albeit an uneasy one.

[One major problem in gaining consensus for any action is credibility , some silly bugger has been shown to cry wolf when there was none , now they cry wolf again but it falls on slightly jaded ears .
To reinforce their cries they recently issued an intelligence assesment on Iran from a certain Iranian exile group , which was strange as the group is on the proscribed terrorist organisations list and I thought that they didn't deal with terrorists , let alone terrorists that were backed by Saddam .

Don't get me stated on the way America does buisness. As to crying wolf, just because it had run away by the time we got there doesn't mean it wasn't there and this time we can see the wolf coming. Although I do agree, there is justifiably little confidence these days.