Will america go to war with china or iran

[Papewaio]

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]

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

[Franconicus]

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]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

Western capitalism has morals?

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

[Mithradates]

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

[x-dANGEr]

@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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-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?

[Redleg]

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]

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]

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?

YOu covered some good points round their. Agreed.

[Redleg]

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.


[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?

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]

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

[Redleg]

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/...q.un.missiles/

[x-dANGEr]

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

[Redleg]

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]

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

[Redleg]

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

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]

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.

[AwesomeArcher]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

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.