NationStates Jolt Archive

So, will the United Nations step up and take action against Iran? Or will they just ignore the threat?

My bet would be for the latter case.


VIENNA, Austria - Diplomats at the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency debated a draft resolution Thursday that expressed "serious concern" over
Iran's resumption of uranium conversion but left open the possibility of further negotiations.

The resolution, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, said the agency cannot confirm that Tehran has declared all its nuclear materials and activities. But it made no mention of reporting the regime to the
U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose crippling sanctions.

Silly UN, enriching urnanium is for kids!

Many nations in the UN don't see Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions as a threat. They beleive that Iran will act responsibly with nuclear weapons, and if it doesn't it will only harm Israel, possibly the US. I think most of the UN is perfectly willing to sacrifice Israel and want to see the US get hurt.

Many nations in the UN don't see Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions as a threat. They beleive that Iran will act responsibly with nuclear weapons, and if it doesn't it will only harm Israel, possibly the US. I think most of the UN is perfectly willing to sacrifice Israel and want to see the US get hurt.


Well....that sounds like a nice well thought out statement. Way to care for your fellow man. I think the US should just say f$ck the UN since it would never get anything done without US soldiers anyway, and then we'll see how things turn out. It's really not a group of "united nations" anyway, it should be called "the group for people who want to be able to boss the U.S. around and use its money and soldiers for their own good, while stabbing it in the back whenever they can"

All I can say is that if Sweden were declared to be on the "axis of evil" by the US, I'd want our government to convert all the uranium it can get its hands on.

The logic is quite simple:
Iraq - no WMD: invasion and occupation.
North Korea - WMD: no invasion or occupation.

So, if Iran needs nukes to protect its sovereignty, then nukes they would be fools not to get.

Children, the reason the UN isn't doing anything is because... Wait a moment! Germany, France, and the UK have a resolution for the SC?! The UN is going to do something after all!
The reason nothing has been done so far is because no one wanted to sabotage the EU's efforts to negotiate, el Presidente Arbusto included. That's why we haven't had any UN action until TODAY because the Iranians have only just broken the seals.

The threat of MAD seems to be the only effective deterrant to war anyways. Maybe it should become mandatory for every nation to have a whole bunch. Then we'd see world peace because everybody is too scared to go up in a fireball to see them tossed about.

Then a nutjob somewhere will figure its all worth it and start WW3, wiping out all life. Then we will have true world peace. Too bad nobody will be around to enjoy it.

That's why we haven't had any UN action until TODAY because the Iranians have only just broken the seals.

I thuoght Iran pulled out and the UN workers removed the seals? Minor nitpick, I know.

All I can say is that if Sweden were declared to be on the "axis of evil" by the US, I'd want our government to convert all the uranium it can get its hands on.

The logic is quite simple:
Iraq - no WMD: invasion and occupation.
North Korea - WMD: no invasion or occupation.

So, if Iran needs nukes to protect its sovereignty, then nukes they would be fools not to get.
Build any more IKEA stores in Atlanta and I'll start writing the President to do just that!

Build any more IKEA stores in Atlanta and I'll start writing the President to do just that!

Sweden doesn't build IKEA stores. It's a privately owned company. :p

Build any more IKEA stores in Atlanta and I'll start writing the President to do just that!
How about we transplant all those IKEA stores into the desert, which we subsequently turn into one *huge* glass pane :D

All I can say is that if Sweden were declared to be on the "axis of evil" by the US, I'd want our government to convert all the uranium it can get its hands on.

The logic is quite simple:
Iraq - no WMD: invasion and occupation.
North Korea - WMD: no invasion or occupation.

So, if Iran needs nukes to protect its sovereignty, then nukes they would be fools not to get.
Come on, the US' forces are stretched too thin to consider occupying Iran, and even when the US wasn't at war with Iraq we went through the Regan years, the elder Bush's term, and the Clinton years without attacking Iran. What makes you think we'd attack them now?

Build any more IKEA stores in Atlanta and I'll start writing the President to do just that!Hey! Don't diss IKEA! It's the cheapest source of pencils I know! :D

China will veto anything against Iran. They have a shitload of oil contracts with Iran. When the US took over Iraq they declared all existing contracts null and void including China's considerable investments in that country and China obviously doesn't want another US action. China will probably be backed up by Russia who is furbishing Iran with the latest in Russian weaponry.

Come on, the US' forces are stretched too thin to consider occupying Iran, and even when the US wasn't at war with Iraq we went through the Regan years, the elder Bush's term, and the Clinton years without attacking Iran. What makes you think we'd attack them now?

Because the same sort of war drums war were heard before you attacked Iraq. Stretched too thin, perhaps, now. In the future, once most of those people from Europe have been recalled and you've started leaving Iraq, Iran will probably be your next target, even if they stop this uranium enriching programme. The US has had a beef with Iran for a very long time - a strike seems inevitable unless Iran gets a deterrent strong enough to keep you at bay.

Well....that sounds like a nice well thought out statement. Way to care for your fellow man. I think the US should just say f$ck the UN since it would never get anything done without US soldiers anyway, and then we'll see how things turn out. It's really not a group of "united nations" anyway, it should be called "the group for people who want to be able to boss the U.S. around and use its money and soldiers for their own good, while stabbing it in the back whenever they can"


Hmmm amazing... the primitive monkey seems able to communicate on a basic level. The reason the UN is so useless is becuase nations like the US stop anything that they dont want and ignore it when they dont get what THEY want. Since when have US soldiers been used to help anyone but the US in any significant way? America didnt get involved in either of the World Wars until A: The Germans sunk some passager liners, B: Japan bombed the Pearl Harbour to shit. Sure after that you helped the world but not until you wanted to. Korea was more an extension of US foriegn policy during the cold war and gee thats about it in term of large deployments of US troops save the failed campaigns in Vietnam, Afganishtan and Iraq. Look im not overly anti US but it bugs me whenever Americans go on about how great they are and about how much they have helped thier world out of the goodness of thier hearts.

Sure the UN could be doing more but it cant do anything unless its nation members act. Its powerless unless all the nations of the security council agree... which is so rare that the possiblity is normally disregareded. If you want the UN to work better how about abloshing the security council which is just a playground for the great powers to have a go at each other.

Hmm and on this note: "it would never get anything done without US soldiers anyway"
Well how about the UN intervention in east timor? Wait a sec that didnt involve any US troops... it was lead by Australia with help from other nations in the Asia pacific region...

If you ask me the UN would be better off excluding the US and any other power that wants to be the boss kid and concentrate on working with each other.

Because the same sort of war drums war were heard before you attacked Iraq. Stretched too thin, perhaps, now. In the future, once most of those people from Europe have been recalled and you've started leaving Iraq, Iran will probably be your next target, even if they stop this uranium enriching programme. The US has had a beef with Iran for a very long time - a strike seems inevitable unless Iran gets a deterrent strong enough to keep you at bay.
Iran won't be a target because the American people won't be in the mood to fund another war after we're finally out of Iraq. A nuclear Iran will only serve to destabilize the region and make the prospect of an invasion of Israel and a regional nuclear exchange more likely.

Iran won't be a target because the American people won't be in the mood to fund another war after we're finally out of Iraq.

I do not have the same faith in the American public, or that what the American public wants is what happens. They've, like so many other nations' publics in the past, shown to be easily manipulated and distracted.

A nuclear Iran will only serve to destabilize the region and make the prospect of an invasion of Israel and a regional nuclear exchange more likely.

Isreal has nukes, and it hasn't made the region more unstable than it already was. A mutual destruction policy could be worked out there as well. Stupid? Yes. But what choice does Iran have - to trust the US and Israel? Hah!

I do not have the same faith in the American public, or that what the American public wants is what happens. They've, like so many other nations' publics in the past, shown to be easily manipulated and distracted.Yeah, but it won't be possible to get another warmonger into power until this generation of kids is elligible to vote.

Isreal has nukes, and it hasn't made the region more unstable than it already was. A mutual destruction policy could be worked out there as well. Stupid? Yes. But what choice does Iran have - to trust the US and Israel? Hah!Israel also is slightly more trustworthy than Iran. We've seen that Israel won't use it's nukes. I'm not willing to give the Mullahs the benefit of the doubt on the bomb though...

Isreal has nukes, and it hasn't made the region more unstable than it already was. A mutual destruction policy could be worked out there as well. Stupid? Yes. But what choice does Iran have - to trust the US and Israel? Hah!
Israel's nukes stabilize the region. Israel's population and the size of it's military is dwarfed by the unfriendly nation that surround it and have sworn to eradicate it's people. The arab conventional forces balanced against the Israeli nuclear deterant create a stable MAD situation. A nuclear Iran tips that balance in favor of those who hate Israel and would serve to encourage war against Israel.

Hmmm amazing... the primitive monkey seems able to communicate on a basic level. The reason the UN is so useless is becuase nations like the US stop anything that they dont want and ignore it when they dont get what THEY want. Since when have US soldiers been used to help anyone but the US in any significant way? America didnt get involved in either of the World Wars until A: The Germans sunk some passager liners, B: Japan bombed the Pearl Harbour to shit. Sure after that you helped the world but not until you wanted to. Korea was more an extension of US foriegn policy during the cold war and gee thats about it in term of large deployments of US troops save the failed campaigns in Vietnam, Afganishtan and Iraq. Look im not overly anti US but it bugs me whenever Americans go on about how great they are and about how much they have helped thier world out of the goodness of thier hearts.

Sure the UN could be doing more but it cant do anything unless its nation members act. Its powerless unless all the nations of the security council agree... which is so rare that the possiblity is normally disregareded. If you want the UN to work better how about abloshing the security council which is just a playground for the great powers to have a go at each other.

Hmm and on this note: "it would never get anything done without US soldiers anyway"
Well how about the UN intervention in east timor? Wait a sec that didnt involve any US troops... it was lead by Australia with help from other nations in the Asia pacific region...

If you ask me the UN would be better off excluding the US and any other power that wants to be the boss kid and concentrate on working with each other.

I think the key to solving a problem is that countries in the region have an interest in the solution. If you don't have stakeholders involved in solving a problem, nothing will be accomplished. The U.S. doesn't have any business in Timor, whether it is East, West, North, or South. Rwanda and Darfur fall into that same category. Australia stepped up to solve a problem in its area of interest and thats the way it should be done.

A solution to the fecklessness of the UN might be to re-organize it into several regional organizations. The nations in the regions concerned might have a little more interest in the problems and not be hampered by the posturing of nations not directly connected to the troubles. I doubt the UN will work together in its current configuration whether on not the US is involved.

Yeah, but it won't be possible to get another warmonger into power until this generation of kids is elligible to vote.

Bush was reelected (please, no comments on it not "technically" being a "re-election"). So, I really have no faith in the American public not to elect a warmonger. The American public isn't better than any other public, unfortunately.

Israel also is slightly more trustworthy than Iran. We've seen that Israel won't use it's nukes. I'm not willing to give the Mullahs the benefit of the doubt on the bomb though...

That's subjective. We've seen that North Korea won't use its nukes. Yet. I personally don't trust anyone with nukes, but I have a hard time swallowing that Iran should be stopped from having them, while others should be allowed.

Well....that sounds like a nice well thought out statement. Way to care for your fellow man. I think the US should just say f$ck the UN since it would never get anything done without US soldiers anyway, and then we'll see how things turn out. It's really not a group of "united nations" anyway, it should be called "the group for people who want to be able to boss the U.S. around and use its money and soldiers for their own good, while stabbing it in the back whenever they can"

Thats right, there is an international conspiracy from every other country in the world to bring the US down.

The US doesn't contribute that many troops to the UN anyway. They're all off doing their own thing.

Israel's nukes stabilize the region. Israel's population and the size of it's military is dwarfed by the unfriendly nation that surround it and have sworn to eradicate it's people. The arab conventional forces balanced against the Israeli nuclear deterant create a stable MAD situation. A nuclear Iran tips that balance in favor of those who hate Israel and would serve to encourage war against Israel.

MAD is "stable" if both forces can annihilate eachother. A nuclear Iran changes nothing, because Israel still would have its nukes. Iran would not feel as threatened by them - and whether that's a good thing or not is not something I've formed an opinion on, yet.

Bush was reelected (please, no comments on it not "technically" being a "re-election"). So, I really have no faith in the American public not to elect a warmonger. The American public isn't better than any other public, unfortunately.
Well, let's just say that any future president is going to have a difficult time getting congress to allow another action against anyone without a good reason...

That's subjective. We've seen that North Korea won't use its nukes. Yet. I personally don't trust anyone with nukes, but I have a hard time swallowing that Iran should be stopped from having them, while others should be allowed.Bush completely failed on the North Korean issue. To be honest, we don't know how long or even if they have nukes. NK is the kind of nation that would use those nukes to blackmail its neighbors or the US, and that's one very good reason they shouldn't have been allowed to get them in the first place. I don't see why North Korea should be allowed to have them either.
ADDED: Israel hasn't publicly announced it's nuclear program, much less blackmailed anyone...

MAD is "stable" if both forces can annihilate eachother. A nuclear Iran changes nothing, because Israel still would have its nukes. Iran would not feel as threatened by them - and whether that's a good thing or not is not something I've formed an opinion on, yet.
Right now both forces CAN annihilate each other. Israel's a small country. It's neighbors could overrun it with conventional forces. They hold back because Israel can nuke them. If Iran's got nuclear weapons, they may deploy them in a first strike against Israel's nuclear sites and set the stage for a massive invasion and another holocaust.

Right now both forces CAN annihilate each other. Israel's a small country. It's neighbors could overrun it with conventional forces. They hold back because Israel can nuke them. If Iran's got nuclear weapons, they may deploy them in a first strike against Israel's nuclear sites and set the stage for a massive invasion and another holocaust.

And they know Israel as well as the US would nuke them back if they did something like that.

Right now both forces CAN annihilate each other. Israel's a small country. It's neighbors could overrun it with conventional forces. They hold back because Israel can nuke them. If Iran's got nuclear weapons, they may deploy them in a first strike against Israel's nuclear sites and set the stage for a massive invasion and another holocaust.
I don't know where you get this stuff from. Israel occupied its neighbor Lebanon for 20 years, they have occupied a good sized chunk of Syria for almost 40 years! Its other neighbors Jordan and Egypt have long had peace treaties with Israel. Iran could never invade Israel, since if you look at a map it would have to plow through America occupied Iraq, as well as Jordan or Syria to get there. And even if one or more of the neighboring countries did invade Israel it would be old Russian Migs and tanks vs. Brand new western built F-22 fighters and powerful Israeli Merkava tanks.

And they know Israel as well as the US would nuke them back if they did something like that.It only takes one loony that's willing to risk it. Democratically elected representatives tend not to be so loony.

I don't know where you get this stuff from. Israel occupied its neighbor Lebanon for 20 years, they have occupied a good sized chunk of Syria for almost 40 years! Its other neighbors Jordan and Egypt have long had peace treaties with Israel. Iran could never invade Israel, since if you look at a map it would have to plow through America occupied Iraq, as well as Jordan or Syria to get there. And even if one or more of the neighboring countries did invade Israel it would be old Russian Migs and tanks vs. Brand new western built F-22 fighters and powerful Israeli Merkava tanks.Israel has nearly been overrun in the past. Let's be grateful that there isn't enough support or technology in the Arab world for something similar to happen anytime soon...

Well, let's just say that any future president is going to have a difficult time getting congress to allow another action against anyone without a good reason...

The Vietnam war didn't stop the Iraq war, despite it being so clear how false the pretences for the first war were, so I don't think the Iraq war would stop a war on Iran, which has all reason to worry. "Axis of evil" is really hard to forget.

"Bush completely failed on the North Korean issue. To be honest, we don't know how long or even if they have nukes. NK is the kind of nation that would use those nukes to blackmail its neighbors or the US, and that's one very good reason they shouldn't have been allowed to get them in the first place. I don't see why North Korea should be allowed to have them either.

I don't see who gets to decide which country is "allowed" or not, or why.

ADDED: Israel hasn't publicly announced it's nuclear program, much less blackmailed anyone...

Everybody knows they have them. It's the worst kept nuclear secret in the world, with good intent.

It only takes one loony that's willing to risk it. Democratically elected representatives tend not to be so loony.

The lack of democracy didn't seem to have made the Soviet Union more loony.

The lack of democracy didn't seem to have made the Soviet Union more loony.

I don't know, their economic statistics for the Five Year Plans were some of the looniest I've ever seen.

I don't know, their economic statistics for the Five Year Plans were some of the looniest I've ever seen.

We're talking about using nuclear weapons against another nuclear state. MAD was not violated by the USSR, despite them not being a democracy, so I'm not buying the argument that the lack of democracy would mean that a country would be more prone to do it. Stick to context, please.

We're talking about using nuclear weapons against another nuclear state. MAD was not violated by the USSR, despite them not being a democracy, so I'm not buying the argument that the lack of democracy would mean that a country would be more prone to do it. Stick to context, please.

Usually, democracy has nothing to do with their nuclear aggression; the same has been true with China and Pakistan; neither of them have used their weapons against each other or any nation. The tendency to use WMDs of any kind hinges primarily on what the nation has to lose by using them. These nations would lose much more than they would get from using their nuclear weapons; the real concern is them either losing or selling nuclear technology to terrorists and having them use the bombs.

We're talking about using nuclear weapons against another nuclear state. MAD was not violated by the USSR, despite them not being a democracy, so I'm not buying the argument that the lack of democracy would mean that a country would be more prone to do it. Stick to context, please.
China has also had nukes since the 1960s including through the Cultural Revolution period of utter chaos and insanity. Pakistan which hates India as much as Iran hates Israel, has also been hesitant to push the button.

The Vietnam war didn't stop the Iraq war, despite it being so clear how false the pretences for the first war were, so I don't think the Iraq war would stop a war on Iran, which has all reason to worry. "Axis of evil" is really hard to forget.That proves my point, don't it? No war until this generation of kids is elligible to vote...

I don't see who gets to decide which country is "allowed" or not, or why.
Simple, me! I decide that the countries that have nukes currently have shown great responsibility by not using them since WW2. No one else needs any.

Everybody knows they have them. It's the worst kept nuclear secret in the world, with good intent.Yup. But it shows that they're not using it to blackmail anybody, at least not directly... North Korea had no problem with declaring that it had them though...

And they know Israel as well as the US would nuke them back if they did something like that.
Maybe the US would, maybe it wouldn't. Who's to say if our government would be willing to participate in a nuclear war when our nation hasn't been attacked? I personally wouldn't hesitate to nuke Iran if they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, but I am not my government.

The lack of democracy didn't seem to have made the Soviet Union more loony.The USSR wasn't run by fundies...

China has also had nukes since the 1960s including through the Cultural Revolution period of utter chaos and insanity. Pakistan which hates India as much as Iran hates Israel, has also been hesitant to push the button.Pakistan isn't run by fundies...

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. You can't prevent nuclear proliferation. The sooner certain nations can realize this the sooner they can deal with the problem instead of just wishing it would all go away and return to simpler times.

Well....that sounds like a nice well thought out statement. Way to care for your fellow man. I think the US should just say f$ck the UN since it would never get anything done without US soldiers anyway, and then we'll see how things turn out. It's really not a group of "united nations" anyway, it should be called "the group for people who want to be able to boss the U.S. around and use its money and soldiers for their own good, while stabbing it in the back whenever they can"

Feel free to back your words up by signing up so you and your M4 can make it happen. If I have to go the middle east AGAIN I am going to be pretty pissed off.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. You can't prevent nuclear proliferation. The sooner certain nations can realize this the sooner they can deal with the problem instead of just wishing it would all go away and return to simpler times.
You probably can't disarm a nuclear nation, but you can prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons by making the price of developing those weapons too high. One can place heavy sanctions on nations starting to develop nuclear weapons, or one can guarantee that their attempt at creating a nuclear "deterrant" will result in military action against their nation.

That proves my point, don't it? No war until this generation of kids is elligible to vote...

It doesn't, because the young people from that period in time are the ones running the country now.

Simple, me! I decide that the countries that have nukes currently have shown great responsibility by not using them since WW2. No one else needs any.

That's just silly, and no country would agree to it. Pakistan didn't, India didn't. Neither will the future countries bound to get them. You cannot stuff the genie back into its bottle.

Iran also does need them; the threat of aggression by the US is tangible. Iraq is Iran's neighbour.

Yup. But it shows that they're not using it to blackmail anybody, at least not directly... North Korea had no problem with declaring that it had them though...

Doesn't change anything, really. Isreal keeps the an official secret because it would be uncomfortable for its allies if it threw them around, but they have them and have not been, probably on purpose, very good at keeping it a secret.

Isreal has nukes, and it hasn't made the region more unstable than it already was. A mutual destruction policy could be worked out there as well. Stupid? Yes. But what choice does Iran have - to trust the US and Israel? Hah!Exactamente...

Iran has as much rights as Israel.

Iran also does need them; the threat of aggression by the US is tangible. Iraq is Iran's neighbour.

don't forget afghanistan

You probably can't disarm a nuclear nation, but you can prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons by making the price of developing those weapons too high. One can place heavy sanctions on nations starting to develop nuclear weapons, or one can guarantee that their attempt at creating a nuclear "deterrant" will result in military action against their nation.

You really think you can reverse the march of technology through sanctions? It's inevitable, it always has been, this is as silly as the Neanderthals waging war on the Sapiens in order to prevent the use of man-made fire. Maybe it'll slow it down, and cause a lot of wars and tension, but in the end every nation that wants them will possess nuclear weapons.

Exactamente...

Iran has as much rights as Israel.
In that case criminals who threaten your life have as much right to own guns as responsible people who mind their own business, right?

One can place heavy sanctions on nations starting to develop nuclear weapons, or one can guarantee that their attempt at creating a nuclear "deterrant" will result in military action against their nation.to keep things fair the same treatement to all India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Nk, etc.

otherwise you will never get the World to back-up your policy.

In that case criminals who threaten your life have as much right to own guns as responsible people who mind their own business, right?

You should know my answer by now...

In that case criminals who threaten your life have as much right to own guns as responsible people who mind their own business, right?we threatened Iran First..(axis-of-evil tag)

We were criminals with the Iran people...Murder and Torture (read the not-made-in-USA history books)

It doesn't, because the young people from that period in time are the ones running the country now.But it's taken quite some time until the next war, hasn't it? And you don't need the whole generation to RUN the country, you just need a new, inexperienced one to vote a couple nutcases in.

That's just silly, and no country would agree to it. Pakistan didn't, India didn't. Neither will the future countries bound to get them. You cannot stuff the genie back into its bottle.India and Pakistan go on my list of allowables. No new additions. NK should have been prevented from getting it's program running and stuffing that Genie back into it's bottle is what the six party talks are about.

Iran also does need them; the threat of aggression by the US is tangible. Iraq is Iran's neighbour.Muahahahaha! Have you got any idea why things are so bad in Iraq? Because Iran has made no effort to make things worse! Iran is Shia muslim and as you know, Iraq is predominately Shia. The insurgents are predominately Sunni. The Shia have been rather calm. Should the US invade Iran, Iraq is going to require more troops than there currently are to pacify.

Doesn't change anything, really. Isreal keeps the an official secret because it would be uncomfortable for its allies if it threw them around, but they have them and have not been, probably on purpose, very good at keeping it a secret.Yes it does. Israel isn't interested in blackmailing its neighbors unlike what I expect from North Korea.

So, will the United Nations step up and take action against Iran? Or will they just ignore the threat?

My bet would be for the latter case.

lol, the UN

USA should sit this one out... let the UN handle it. Watch them do nothing while Iran stockpiles nuclear weapons, able to crush any democratic movement the Middle East might enjoy.

we threatened Iran First..(axis-of-evil tag)

We were criminals with the Iran people...Murder and Torture (read the not-made-in-USA history books)

AKA the we-hate-America history books

is there any history written without bias?

Watch them do nothing while Iran stockpiles nuclear weapons, able to crush any democratic movement the Middle East might enjoy.

The UN?, the US?

Watch them do nothing while Israel stockpiles nuclear weapons, able to crush any democratic movement the Middle East might enjoy.

But it's taken quite some time until the next war, hasn't it? And you don't need the whole generation to RUN the country, you just need a new, inexperienced one to vote a couple nutcases in.

The US has been in an almost constant state of war with someone or other since the 50's. It is a militaristic nation, so, no, I do not share your belief that it will all of a sudden become pacifist and refuse to attack Iran.

India and Pakistan go on my list of allowables.

Now, see, you do not get to pick who has or hasn't nuclear weapons.

No new additions. NK should have been prevented from getting it's program running and stuffing that Genie back into it's bottle is what the six party talks are about.

They were fruitless for a reason.

Muahahahaha! Have you got any idea why things are so bad in Iraq? Because Iran has made no effort to make things worse! Iran is Shia muslim and as you know, Iraq is predominately Shia. The insurgents are predominately Sunni. The Shia have been rather calm. Should the US invade Iran, Iraq is going to require more troops than there currently are to pacify.

That will no longer be America's problem. Look at PNAC. Iran has serious cause for concern.

Yes it does. Israel isn't interested in blackmailing its neighbors unlike what I expect from North Korea.

Again, so what? Israel has no more right, or not right, to have nukes than North Korea.

we threatened Iran First..(axis-of-evil tag)

We were criminals with the Iran people...Murder and Torture (read the not-made-in-USA history books)AKA the we-hate-America history books.so you think every history book written outside the USA....has anti-US bias?

They were fruitless for a reason.That could well be because... THEY'RE NOT OVER YET!!!

AKA the we-hate-America history books

is there any history written without bias?Um... My American International Politics professor told me the story: Iranian leader wants to nationalize oil, British and American agents murder leader, impose Shah, Americans forget, Iranians don't, Iranians revolt against US puppet, Americans ask "Why do they hate us?"

That could well be because... THEY'RE NOT OVER YET!!!

They're crashing and burning.

The UN?, the US?

Watch them do nothing while Israel stockpiles nuclear weapons, able to crush any democratic movement the Middle East might enjoy.

Israel has them and has not used them (though they fight their own sort of insurgency). I don't know if I trust Iran.

so you think every history book written outside the USA....has anti-US bias?

the point was that America's version of history is not the only version with America-related bias.

ok so I as a liberal minded athesist am not entirely happy with the whole theocracy thing in Iran .... but .... what right do I have to condemn them if thats what they want, by the same token, what can it be other than rabid Islamaphobia that makes certain nations so anti Iran when it comes to Nuclear energy, they claim they only want to build nuclear power staions, every nation has the right to develop nuclear energy, we have seen no evidence that they plan to develop weapons of any kind.

They're crashing and burning.Pah! They've crashed and burned and they're in recess now. You sound like one of the UN bashers concerning the UN...

the point was that America's version of history is not the only version with America-related bias.What do you know about Iranian history besides the revolution?

Pah! They've crashed and burned and they're in recess now. You sound like one of the UN bashers concerning the UN...

I'm just not that optimistic that a deal will be negotiated. Before the turn of the millennium, I really believed we were heading towards a bright future. The last half decade has made me cynical. :\

I'm just not that optimistic that a deal will be negotiated. Before the turn of the millennium, I really believed we were heading towards a bright future. The last half decade has made me cynical. :\Why worry? You live in Sweden. :p

we threatened Iran First..(axis-of-evil tag)

We were criminals with the Iran people...Murder and Torture (read the not-made-in-USA history books)
I know about the Shah, and I know too that the US has pretty much left Iran alone since then. Still Iran's unofficial national motto is "death to America".

The UN?, the US?

Watch them do nothing while Israel stockpiles nuclear weapons, able to crush any democratic movement the Middle East might enjoy.
Israel doesn't threaten it's neighbors. Israel is a democracy, and would probably welcome stable, successful democratic regimes on it's borders.

ok so I as a liberal minded athesist am not entirely happy with the whole theocracy thing in Iran .... but .... what right do I have to condemn them if thats what they want, by the same token, what can it be other than rabid Islamaphobia that makes certain nations so anti Iran when it comes to Nuclear energy, they claim they only want to build nuclear power staions, every nation has the right to develop nuclear energy, we have seen no evidence that they plan to develop weapons of any kind.
It's not islamophobic to state that Iran is an oppressive regime that can't be trusted.

They are a state sponsor of terrorism through Hezbollah. They threaten to destroy Israel and the chant of "death to America" is commonplace over there. They've used the death penalty to punish homosexuality, torture to punish journalists, and children to clear Iraqi mine fields. How do you expect anyone to trust someone like that?

It's not islamophobic to state that Iran is an oppressive regime that can't be trusted.

They are a state sponsor of terrorism through Hezbollah. They threaten to destroy Israel and the chant of "death to America" is commonplace over there. They've used the death penalty to punish homosexuality, torture to punish journalists, and children to clear Iraqi mine fields. How do you expect anyone to trust someone like that?


you've done nothing more than come up with a list of actions rather than a solid reason, the fact is that Iran has a booming population, they have mouting unemployment and are rapidly approaching an enermy crisis, nuclear power will help them. Its not a question of what they may or may not do, because lets face it many countries in the world, no names mentioned, have committed some pretty horrendous stuff in their time.

you've done nothing more than come up with a list of actions rather than a solid reason, the fact is that Iran has a booming population, they have mouting unemployment and are rapidly approaching an enermy crisis, nuclear power will help them. Its not a question of what they may or may not do, because lets face it many countries in the world, no names mentioned, have committed some pretty horrendous stuff in their time.
If they want to meet their energy needs and not be under suspicion of developing a nuclear weapons program they could build thorium reactors, which produce uranium and plutonium isotopes that are usefull for energy, but useless as weapons. India's new reactors will be fueled by thorium. The technology exists. Iran, however, is dead set on enriching uranium and building reactors that produce weapons grade plutonium despite the fact that thorium is 3 times as plentiful as uranium.

So, will the United Nations step up and take action against Iran? Or will they just ignore the threat?

My bet would be for the latter case.


Hey, you can't say the USA is taking strong, resolute action.

Why worry? You live in Sweden. :p

We're not an island... we're a peninsula! ;)

you've done nothing more than come up with a list of actions rather than a solid reason, the fact is that Iran has a booming population, they have mouting unemployment and are rapidly approaching an enermy crisis, nuclear power will help them. Its not a question of what they may or may not do, because lets face it many countries in the world, no names mentioned, have committed some pretty horrendous stuff in their time.

Well, that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. I guess since germany eradicated a million jews, then iran has every right to make the same mistake, huh? It all boils donw to this.....THE WORLD IS NOT FAIR!!!!!! everyone posting that iran has the same rights as israel, BULLSHIT!!!! the western nations don't like countries that sponsor terrorists and kill people for no reason, and we have the money, the military, and the ability to do something about it......whether anyone likes it or not. So keep whining about how the US shouldn't get to choose who has nukes and who doesn't, because life's not fair and we can do something about it whether you like ot or not......what are you going to do, invade us??!! I don't want to walk down the street and have to worry whether some idiot arab with a bomb strapped to his chest is following me like they do in israel, so if we have to carpet bomb the entire fucking region and turn it all to glass to get our point across......so be it!!!! STOP KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE AND CHANTING DEATH TO EVERYONE BUT MUSLIMS AND YOU WON'T GET THE SHIT BOMBED OUT OF YOU!!!!! IS IT THAT FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND, like it or not....that's the way it is and all the posting in the world by you anti-US people isn't going to do a damn thing about it, so argue all you want......cause in the end, my argument is going to happen and yours isn't. I'm usually open to any honest debate, but when people start posting that Iran is on the same plane with Israel, my god!! that person is beyond help and needs to be castrated so they don't pollute the rest of the population.

You know, I wasn't going to rant on this but honestly..

To everyone who says Iran should have nukes, how about this, we give every man woman and child on earth a Nuclear fucking weapon, next time you have an argument with your neighbour, Nuke the fuckers! yay! feel that radioactive goodness he's never gonna spray the hosepipe on your lawn again, Mom said you can't go to the party dressed like that? Mr H Bomb says different Mom. "Mommy I'm pregnent." *Boooooooooooooooom* then when the world is nothing but a chared, glowing radiactive crater you MIGHT think "hmmm maybe we should have not have let them have nukes after all.."

FACT: Ther are ALREADY enough nukes in the world to turn us all into a smoking crator sevreal times over WE DO NOT NEED MORE!, plain Simple. we can not deal with the ones already created but we can stop more being produced. simple fact - ISREAL are NOT Nutjobs, America are NOT nutjobs, China are NOT Nutjobs, Russia are NOT nut jobs, the United Kingdom are NOT Nutjobs. France...well the jurys still out, India are NOT nutjobs. ALL of these nations have "no first use" policy on Nuclear weapons, Pakistan's Nuclear program is india specific (and to be honest I don't think India and pakistan should have nukes either but MAD Keeps them both in check).

NK AND Iran are headed by a madmen who are likely to push the fucking button and/or blackmail the world if they become Nuclear powers - Period. NK are likely to launch cos' they think China is going to back them up, and Iran just don't give a damn as long as they destroy Isreal, Allah will protect them from the infidels.

The ONLY reason, the Middle east hasn't declared open war with Isreal and completely overun and destroyed it is Isreals nuclear weapons, and even IF they don't have them the threat of them having them is enough. if Iran got nukes it would distabolise thate because Iran could launch a first strike an take out Isreal nuke sites while the rest of the middle east over runs them with coventional weapons. "But Isreal tech is so much more advaced" bollocks - it dosn't Matter HOW advanced there military is, the sheer numbers out weighs them. 10 Middle eastern T-90's vs 1 Isreali tank? who do you think comes off best? some have mentioned the F-22, the F-22 is an impresive and excelnt tactical fighter, but if each is outnumbered fifteen to one, its not gonna do much is it?

it throughly amazes me that, the same people who say "well Iran should have nukes cos Isreal got 'em" will no dubt be the EXACT same people that go - "Well...why did we let them have nukes? we should have stopped them" when an Iranian built nuke is detonated by a Hezbollah Terrorist on US soil or Iran nukes Jerusolem (sp?) or maybe even your hometown, "My god why didn't we stop them" this IS your chance to stop them.

Iran sponsors terrorism, Iran has disregard for human life, Iran has NO respect for the international comunity, the United nations and sometimes even its neghbours. Iran has executed (thats right executed) citizens for being gay or writing out against the "State", Iran has executed children and the matra "Death to america" is no doubt learnt and recited every day by school children accross the country. ask yourself are these REALLY the kind of people you think should have Nuclear weapons?

Letting Iran get Nukes is the equivilent of giving a Jack the ripper a Machine gun, putting him in a room full of people and saying "Now Jack please don't kill anyone".

"But we went to war with Iraq over WMDs that he didn't have", you know what? this is a completely different situation. Saddam was very secretive about any program he might have had and ok it turned out (since it hasn't been reported on the news) he didn't actually have any warheads, he had the missiles however. but this is completely different there is CLEAR and present EVIDENCE Iran is developing a nuclear program, as someone posted earlier, if all they want is Energy, why not use thorium?. - they wants Da bomb. same goes for North Korea...and I'm suprised the Six party talks havn't put Thorium reactors on the table as a sub.

"But america shouldn't police the world", you know what? lifes not fair, "I'm sorry son, I don't think your responsable enough to own that 50 caliber Desert Eagle as your a bit mentally unstable and might kill sombody", it is the same thing. I do hope that if any military action is taken that it is done by the UN as a whole.

So, will the United Nations step up and take action against Iran? Or will they just ignore the threat?

My bet would be for the latter case.

Maybe you live in a Universe where the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty says Iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program? Because, in this universe, it is clearly spelled out that a nation may not develop weapons, but is free to pursue peaceful nuclear techology.(see Article IV - http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm)

Or maybe you live in a Universe where Iran says it wants/has nuclear weapons. You should then be aware that while you visit this particular universe, the Islamic Republic of Iran has maintained that it has absolutely no intention of developing nuclear weapons.

Or maybe your universe is the one where the International Atomic Energy Association is NOT monitering the Iranian enrichment process 24 hours a day... because again in this one that is what they are doing - the IAEA is overseeing everything done as Isfahan.

Or maybe you just get a hard on for stirring up conflict and fear, and finding a way, any way to bitch at the UN.

In any case, the evaluation - :rolleyes: .

This is in response to Animarnia's post........... not the one right above mine.

Thank god, somebody else in the world actually understands the big picture. People like you need to stand up and be heard, because it seems like the dumber you are.....the more TV time you get and the higher political office you get into.

Someone correct me if I misunderstood the article I read a couple of days ago on this, but I think the IAEA just finished installing a hardcore surveillance system on one of the Iranian uranium conversion facilities, which is why they removed the seals they've had on the program for the last six months. The whole idea is that Iran agreed to the surveillance and the IAEA agreed to remove the seals.

So what's everyone bitching about? The IAEA will be able to monitor the conversion process and make sure that Iran's not taking the extra step from energy use to weapons-grade.

Someone correct me if I misunderstood the article I read a couple of days ago on this, but I think the IAEA just finished installing a hardcore surveillance system on one of the Iranian uranium conversion facilities, which is why they removed the seals they've had on the program for the last six months. The whole idea is that Iran agreed to the surveillance and the IAEA agreed to remove the seals.

So what's everyone bitching about? The IAEA will be able to monitor the conversion process and make sure that Iran's not taking the extra step from energy use to weapons-grade.

Meanwhile, all Bush seems interested in doing is issuing "stern warnings."

I don't think people really understand what the UN is.

I don't think people really understand what the UN is.

Just to make sure all are on the same page -

The United Nations, or UN, is an international organization established in 1945 and now made up of 191 states. With the exception of the Holy See, the sole permanent observer state, all internationally recognized independent countries are members.

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

Someone correct me if I misunderstood the article I read a couple of days ago on this, but I think the IAEA just finished installing a hardcore surveillance system on one of the Iranian uranium conversion facilities, which is why they removed the seals they've had on the program for the last six months. The whole idea is that Iran agreed to the surveillance and the IAEA agreed to remove the seals.

So what's everyone bitching about? The IAEA will be able to monitor the conversion process and make sure that Iran's not taking the extra step from energy use to weapons-grade.


Are you actually that retarded? You can't see that it will be very easy for Iran to kick out the inspectors down the road (just like Iraq did). What, did you fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I've got some beachfront property to sell you.

Just to make sure all are on the same page -

The United Nations, or UN, is an international organization established in 1945 and now made up of 191 states. With the exception of the Holy See, the sole permanent observer state, all internationally recognized independent countries are members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
Very good. Gold star.

Are you actually that retarded? You can't see that it will be very easy for Iran to kick out the inspectors down the road (just like Iraq did). What, did you fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I've got some beachfront property to sell you.
HA! HA! HA! Iraq stopped the inspections... woo! HA HA HA!

Are you actually that retarded? You can't see that it will be very easy for Iran to kick out the inspectors down the road (just like Iraq did). What, did you fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I've got some beachfront property to sell you.
Watch it with the name-calling, bub. There's no need to be uncivil here.

And what else do you expect the US to do? Attack them? We're a little tied down right now, in case you hadn't noticed, but if you want to handle up on it yourself, by all means, put on your Mr. Fantastic underoos and go take care of the situation.

Watch it with the name-calling, bub. There's no need to be uncivil here.

And what else do you expect the US to do? Attack them? We're a little tied down right now, in case you hadn't noticed, but if you want to handle up on it yourself, by all means, put on your Mr. Fantastic underoos and go take care of the situation.

Point taken....the name calling wasn't needed. My other point still stands though. Yes, we are a little busy......but come on. You ever heard the old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". I'm just saying, for all those times in history where people looked back and said "how did we let this happen" or "if only we had done something earlier". It's an issue, ignoring it, or band-aiding it won't work, History shows us that.

Point taken....the name calling wasn't needed. My other point still stands though. Yes, we are a little busy......but come on. You ever heard the old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". I'm just saying, for all those times in history where people looked back and said "how did we let this happen" or "if only we had done something earlier". It's an issue, ignoring it, or band-aiding it won't work, History shows us that.
We're not a little busy--we're a lot busy, and we don't have the military to do squat about it, so we're going to have to rely on the UN to handle this for the moment. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's simple fact. Bush has broken our military with his little Iraq adventure, even though everyone and their grandmothers were telling him that Iran and North Korea were bigger issues to deal with.

But hey--you're talking tough. What would you suggest we do--specifically? Who would you task with taking care of this delicate situation? Do you want to nuke them and thus set off WWIII? Do you want to try to invade with the military in its current state and wind up not only with a draft, but with the entire Middle East on our asses? What do you want to do?

Watch it with the name-calling, bub. There's no need to be uncivil here.

And what else do you expect the US to do? Attack them? We're a little tied down right now, in case you hadn't noticed, but if you want to handle up on it yourself, by all means, put on your Mr. Fantastic underoos and go take care of the situation.

If the UN can get its act together, then the US won't need to do anything, any military force will be comprised of units from the entire United Nations members. its an idealistic dream I know...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4793986

This is an interesting broadcast on the issue. Click listen. 4 minutes.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4794206 This is a half hour long.

"UN Fiddles While Iran Resumes Uranium Conversion"

As long as a few countries refuse to relinquish their completely unfair veto power, the U.N. will always be seen to "fiddle". People who live in those countries should probably think about the main reason the U.N. has been largely powerless to solve the major problems before blaming the whole organisation.

Say you have two countries in a dispute. 188 countries can vote that the first country is in the wrong. One of the veto possessors can shut down the whole thing by in effect saying "we here in Vetostan don't care what the entire rest of the world thinks or who is really in the wrong, we have decided to be on the first country's side (because we are in bed with them politically due to our own internal situation back home) so we shall veto this resolution". Nothing is ever fixed, 188 nations add yet another black mark to Vetostan's moral record, and the population of Vetostan then bleats "the U.N. is no good, they never accomplish anything, waaaaaah".

Do you see the problem?

We're not a little busy--we're a lot busy, and we don't have the military to do squat about it, so we're going to have to rely on the UN to handle this for the moment. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's simple fact. Bush has broken our military with his little Iraq adventure, even though everyone and their grandmothers were telling him that Iran and North Korea were bigger issues to deal with.

But hey--you're talking tough. What would you suggest we do--specifically? Who would you task with taking care of this delicate situation? Do you want to nuke them and thus set off WWIII? Do you want to try to invade with the military in its current state and wind up not only with a draft, but with the entire Middle East on our asses? What do you want to do?

Okay....lets list this.

1. The military is not quite as sretched as people make it out to be.

2. You don't need a full scale invasion, in fact you don't need any form of invasion. You do what israel did back in the 80's to Iraq (which was very underappreciated in my opinion....Israel tends to get it), you lay down an ultimatum. If you continue enriching uranium, we will simply fly in and bomb the centers off the map, PERIOD!....no questions...no discussion.....be firm! They know that Thorium can do what they want if they are really serious about this research simply for energy.

3. The UN should be composed of troops from multiple nations (this is the ideal, not the reality unfortunately), so any needed troop invasion should not fall completely on our shoulders. I am positive that Israel would be more than willing to dedicate a large portion of resources to the problem.

......To sum up, we can take actions that do not require our military to plan a full scale invasion. We need to use our air superiority to it's fullest. We need to make sure they know that we are not bluffing, and that this is non-negotiable. Am I saying this is easy, HELL no........but nothing worth fighting for ever is.

America are NOT nutjobs...
We sat a Chimp on Charge of the greatest Nuke arsenal...We proved we are nuts.

"UN Fiddles While Iran Resumes Uranium Conversion"

As long as a few countries refuse to relinquish their completely unfair veto power, the U.N. will always be seen to "fiddle". People who live in those countries should probably think about the main reason the U.N. has been largely powerless to solve the major problems before blaming the whole organisation.

Say you have two countries in a dispute. 188 countries can vote that the first country is in the wrong. One of the veto possessors can shut down the whole thing by in effect saying "we here in Vetostan don't care what the entire rest of the world thinks or who is really in the wrong, we have decided to be on the first country's side (because we are in bed with them politically due to our own internal situation back home) so we shall veto this resolution". Nothing is ever fixed, 188 nations add yet another black mark to Vetostan's moral record, and the population of Vetostan then bleats "the U.N. is no good, they never accomplish anything, waaaaaah".

Do you see the problem?


The other large problem is allowing corrupt nations to even be involved. How can you have countries that support terrorism, and have very few REAL political freedoms be on the board of ethics and such...it's a joke. I don't belive China should be were it is. IT'S A COMMUNIST COUNTRY FOR PETE SAKE. They have restrictions on free press and certainly do not serve their citizens in any manner that can be labeled as civil. You can't include nations that are the epitamy of what you are fighting to be involved with your decision making process. Your just spinning your wheels that way, nothing will ever get done.

*sniped
This is in response to Animarnia's post........... not the one right above mine.

.. it seems like the dumber you are..... the higher political office you get into.http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Bush-Quotes-ngin.jpg

We sat a Chimp on Charge of gratest Nuke arsenal...We proved we are nuts.

TWICE! :D but thankfully he can't launch by himself. unlike Iran and everyones favourte man in platform shoes, never trust a man in platform shoes

On a more serious note, I agree that the Veto club is a fundemental flaw to the UN to me it seems like a way of a nation crying "its MY Ball and if I can't score all the goals we're not playing", Technically speakin the PRINCIPLE of Comunism isn't a bad one - Everyone contributes to the good of everyone else, however the implimentation of such hasn't proved sucsessful

We sat a Chimp on Charge of gratest Nuke arsenal...We proved we are nuts.


You know....say what you want. I gurantee the man's IQ test would come out leagues above yours. Not everyone is at home in front of millions of viewers in front of a camera, doesn't count a lick against your intelligence.

I find it kinda ironic that the rush to nuclearization of nations has heated up since the US elected a cowboy for the White House.

*sniped
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Bush-Quotes-ngin.jpg

Read my previous post........the man didn't major in speaking. This damn country is so used to slick talking dishonest politicans, that they can't get used to a man who is down to earth and knows what he is talking about without taking "used car salesman" classes on how to slick talk people. Let me put you in front of a million viewers and see how articulate you are. Doesn't mean your stupid, does it?

I gurantee Bush IQ test would come out leagues above yours.and I "gurantee" you I am ready for a showdown...

loser must eat 4 dozens of Pretzels. :D :cool: :D :D

TWICE! :D but thankfully he can't launch by himself. unlike Iran and everyones favourte man in platform shoes, never trust a man in platform shoes

On a more serious note, I agree that the Veto club is a fundemental flaw to the UN to me it seems like a way of a nation crying "its MY Ball and if I can't score all the goals we're not playing", Technically speakin the PRINCIPLE of Comunism isn't a bad one - Everyone contributes to the good of everyone else, however the implimentation of such hasn't proved sucsessful

I agree with you that the principle isn't a bad idea. The problem is that the whole system relies on everyone sticking to the gameplan, and natural human tendencies towards greed and dishonestly be wiped away......that will never happen, at least not in the forseeable future. As such, we should write off the idea of communism for what it is..... a good ide, but not feasible.

Let me put you in front of a million viewers and see how articulate you are. sure...Put us both(me and the Chimp) in front of a zillion viewers...

I am free on weekends...

Just post the date/time and Network address.

Bring pretzels for the Loser :D :cool: :D :D

I find it kinda ironic that the rush to nuclearization of nations has heated up since the US elected a cowboy for the White House.

G.W. is not and has never been a cowboy. He's a little Ivy League rich kid, the cowboy schtick is just an act to make rednecks think he's "one of them".

"Some people call you the elite - I call you my base". G.W. Bush

Okay....lets list this.

1. The military is not quite as sretched as people make it out to be.

2. You don't need a full scale invasion, in fact you don't need any form of invasion. You do what israel did back in the 80's to Iraq (which was very underappreciated in my opinion....Israel tends to get it), you lay down an ultimatum. If you continue enriching uranium, we will simply fly in and bomb the centers off the map, PERIOD!....no questions...no discussion.....be firm! They know that Thorium can do what they want if they are really serious about this research simply for energy.

3. The UN should be composed of troops from multiple nations (this is the ideal, not the reality unfortunately), so any needed troop invasion should not fall completely on our shoulders. I am positive that Israel would be more than willing to dedicate a large portion of resources to the problem.

......To sum up, we can take actions that do not require our military to plan a full scale invasion. We need to use our air superiority to it's fullest. We need to make sure they know that we are not bluffing, and that this is non-negotiable. Am I saying this is easy, HELL no........but nothing worth fighting for ever is.

Agreed. didn't Clinton do the same in Iraq? my memory fails me but I'm sure he ordered Cruise Missile strikes on some Iraqi facilitys suspected of developing weapons (not WMDs)

Air attacks alone have been shown not to work in the past. To try it again is not only foolish but a waste of spending and time. I mean, unless you want to hit hospitals by accident. We're fairly good at that.
Our military is stretched. How can anyone say that it is not? We are sending reserves to Iraq and they are the ones making up most of the numbers for fatalities.

Whenever I hear about air attacks I'm reminded of this cartoon from a long time ago:
http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/1999/04/05/5tomo/

G.W. is not and has never been a cowboy. He's a little Ivy League rich kid, the cowboy schtick is just an act to make rednecks think he's "one of them".

"Some people call you the elite - I call you my base". G.W. Bush
How about wannabe cowboy? The fact remains that since the US went charging into Iraq on their white horses, countries such as Iran and North Korea (the two other countries on Bush's Axis of Evil list), have decided to proceed with nuclear development programs. I can't say that I blame them since Bush is going around sticking up wanted, dead or alive posters.

Okay....lets list this.

1. The military is not quite as sretched as people make it out to be.

2. You don't need a full scale invasion, in fact you don't need any form of invasion. You do what israel did back in the 80's to Iraq (which was very underappreciated in my opinion....Israel tends to get it), you lay down an ultimatum. If you continue enriching uranium, we will simply fly in and bomb the centers off the map, PERIOD!....no questions...no discussion.....be firm! They know that Thorium can do what they want if they are really serious about this research simply for energy.

3. The UN should be composed of troops from multiple nations (this is the ideal, not the reality unfortunately), so any needed troop invasion should not fall completely on our shoulders. I am positive that Israel would be more than willing to dedicate a large portion of resources to the problem.

......To sum up, we can take actions that do not require our military to plan a full scale invasion. We need to use our air superiority to it's fullest. We need to make sure they know that we are not bluffing, and that this is non-negotiable. Am I saying this is easy, HELL no........but nothing worth fighting for ever is.1. Yeah it is. Our own generals are saying that we're going to have to start drawing down troops in Iraq next year no matter what the situation is like on the ground because we can't sustain the occupation, not without a huge infusion of new people. Not even a draft, if it started this week, would stop that from happening, because those soldiers wouldn't be sufficiently trained in time to take over for the guys who have to leave.

2. Don't you think that Iran has learned the lessons of Iraq's little brush with Israel? Don't you think they've hardened the shit out of their facilities in the intervening years? These people aren't stupid. It'll take nukes--plural--to knock them out completely, and no politician who doesn't have a death wish and want to stay in the US for the rest of his life rather than face potential arrest for war crimes is going to authorize that.

3. Nobody--and I mean nobody, not even Micronesia is going to help us out with any sort of Iran plan, not after the way we told them to bite it on Iraq, and especially not after the way we've completely fucked that situation. Britain? Not a chance in hell. And nobody else offered significant troops for Iraq in the first place. So who's going to do it for Iran, whose military hasn't been degraded by a dozen years of sanctions? Good luck with that one, buddy.

In short, we've got to leave it up to UN inspections because that's all we've got, and the reason that's all we've got is because we're pinned down in an unnecessary war with no real war to extricate ourselves.

1. Yeah it is. Our own generals are saying that we're going to have to start drawing down troops in Iraq next year no matter what the situation is like on the ground because we can't sustain the occupation, not without a huge infusion of new people. Not even a draft, if it started this week, would stop that from happening, because those soldiers wouldn't be sufficiently trained in time to take over for the guys who have to leave.

2. Don't you think that Iran has learned the lessons of Iraq's little brush with Israel? Don't you think they've hardened the shit out of their facilities in the intervening years? These people aren't stupid. It'll take nukes--plural--to knock them out completely, and no politician who doesn't have a death wish and want to stay in the US for the rest of his life rather than face potential arrest for war crimes is going to authorize that.

3. Nobody--and I mean nobody, not even Micronesia is going to help us out with any sort of Iran plan, not after the way we told them to bite it on Iraq, and especially not after the way we've completely fucked that situation. Britain? Not a chance in hell. And nobody else offered significant troops for Iraq in the first place. So who's going to do it for Iran, whose military hasn't been degraded by a dozen years of sanctions? Good luck with that one, buddy.

In short, we've got to leave it up to UN inspections because that's all we've got, and the reason that's all we've got is because we're pinned down in an unnecessary war with no real war to extricate ourselves.


pay attention to what I type......I said the in a dream world we should get help, but I know that would never happen, just making a point. Look.....you can harden factories all you want, a constant air campaign is going to considerably slow down any progress they are making.......it's kind of hard to get scientists to work at a location if they know it's only a matter of time before a 4000 pound bomb lands on their location. Also, I take exception to your statement that we are in an unnecessary war in Iraq. It wouldn't be neccesary if the UN would have down it's job in the first place, it wouldn't be neccesary if 4 planes hadn't been flown into buildings in the US, it wouldn't be neccesary if governments around the world got serious about fighting terrorism, it wouldn't be neccesary if their weren't people around the world who want all of us dead, D E A D!!!!! no matter what the cost, no matter what it takes.........you can't negotiate with people like that, you have no other options but to get them before they get you.

Also, I take exception to your statement that we are in an unnecessary war in Iraq. It wouldn't be neccesary if the UN would have down it's job in the first place, it wouldn't be neccesary if 4 planes hadn't been flown into buildings in the US, it wouldn't be neccesary if governments around the world got serious about fighting terrorism, it wouldn't be neccesary if their weren't people around the world who want all of us dead, D E A D!!!!! no matter what the cost, no matter what it takes.........you can't negotiate with people like that, you have no other options but to get them before they get you.
Take exception all you fucking want--it's still the truth. Iraq had exactly the square-root of jack-fuckall to do with the 9/11 attacks, and has in fact detracted from our abilities to get the people who perpetrated those acts. And the bungle in the desert known as Iraq has only served as a terrific recruiting and training ground for future islamic terrorists. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if you want to stop terrorism, maybe you don't give terrorists a place to train and recruit, but hey, I'm a Democrat. I'm a little spoiled by the competence of the last President from my party. Jeez.

Also, I take exception to your statement that we are in an unnecessary war in Iraq. It wouldn't be neccesary if the UN would have down it's job in the first place, it wouldn't be neccesary if 4 planes hadn't been flown into buildings in the US,
I concur with Nazz....what has Iraq got to do with 9/11?

it wouldn't be neccesary if governments around the world got serious about fighting terrorism,
Get "serious" as in attacking countries such as Iraq? That is about as "serious" as you can get as in "serious" mistake.

it wouldn't be neccesary if their weren't people around the world who want all of us dead, D E A D!!!!!
Who wants us all dead? And when you figure that out, the next question would be, why they want us all dead? Another question that begs an answer, who is this "all" that you speak of?

BTW, have you thought about the possibility that even more people want you dead because of the invasion of Iraq and the killing of tens of thousands of Muslims?

no matter what the cost, no matter what it takes.........you can't negotiate with people like that, you have no other options but to get them before they get you.
And what do these "people" look like?

BTW, where is Bin Laden? Four years and $175 Billion dollars later and you can't find one man. How the hell are you going to find the rest?