NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and gentlemen,

Iran is now threatening to block nuclear inspections if the situtation goes to the United Nations Security Council.

Also yesterday, the Foreign Ministers of France, Britain and Germany believe that it should be sent to the UNSC and a German official believes that negotiations have reached a dead end.

In a bold move however, they have told the UN that they are serious about Negotiations.

Only time will tell on this issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/iran.nuclear/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181543,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10803220/

My opinions on this are mixed. Iran is violating the NPT and have yet to pull out of it. Because of this, they need to be punished for what they are doing. It should be in the UNSC and let them deal with it.

I do not believe Iran is acting in good faith if they are serious about negotiations. If they were serious, they would be willing to compromise and so far, they have showed no inclination to do so.

What do you think?

Ladies and gentlemen,

Iran is now threatening to block nuclear inspections if the situtation goes to the United States Security Council.

Also yesterday, the Foreign Ministers of France, Britain and Germany believe that it should be sent to the UNSC and a German official believes that negotiations have reached a dead end.

In a bold move however, they have told the UN that they are serious about Negotiations.

Only time will tell on this issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/iran.nuclear/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181543,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10803220/

My opinions on this are mixed. Iran is violating the NPT and have yet to pull out of it. Because of this, they need to be punished for what they are doing. It should be in the UNSC and let them deal with it.

I do not believe Iran is acting in good faith if they are serious about negotiations. If they were serious, they would be willing to compromise and so far, they have showed no inclination to do so.

What do you think?

Any 'committment' to negociations should be treated as a delaying tactic while they work hell for leather on their nuclear project.

Question is, what do you do about it and why?

To misquote the corsair in Return of the King:

Invaded? By you and whose army?

See, if someone had *first* bothered to go after the country that *is* actually doing nuclear research, instead of faking evidence in order to invade another country... then the US wouldn't face a potential nuclear power with all its forces tied up in a country that wasn't a threat in the first place.

I think that we need to invade Iran. It's only fair. Why should Iran get away with it if we didn't let Iraq? Iran has ties to terrorists and has WMDs. We have to invade Iran. Like I said, it's only fair. We wouldn't want to look like hypocrites.

Iran is now threatening to block nuclear inspections if the situtation goes to the United States Security Council.:D

I think that we need to invade Iran. It's only fair. Why should Iran get away with it if we didn't let Iraq? Iran has ties to terrorists and has WMDs. We have to invade Iran. Like I said, it's only fair. We wouldn't want to look like hypocrites.

Yeah, I mean honestly...If you really want to turn continental Europe and the USA against eachother, totally alienate the Islamic world, and ensure American dominance throughout the 21st century, Don't settle for a job only half-done - do it correctly and stop making bullshit justifications that everyone sees straight through anyway. Let's have a WW3. I'm bored, and the economy could use a kick in the butt.

Security council won't do much. Considering oil is being pumped just about at full capacity right now, sanctions on Iranian oil would hurt everyone's economy. Sanctions that exclude Iranian oil wouldn't hurt Iran much. They don't really export much else.

Ahmenijad would use any sanctions to show his people how "hatefull and corrupt" the west is.

I don't think this issue will be solved through peacefull means. On the bright side, Israel's military has been ordered to make plans to attack Iran.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200601131006.htm

Yeah, I mean honestly...If you really want to turn continental Europe and the USA against eachother, totally alienate the Islamic world, and ensure American dominance throughout the 21st century, Don't settle for a job only half-done - do it correctly and stop making bullshit justifications that everyone sees straight through anyway. Let's have a WW3. I'm bored, and the economy could use a kick in the butt.

I'm bored, too. I'll provide alcahol, courtesy of the local convenience store's broken window. Shooting random enemies is fun in itself, but shooting them while drunk? Well, that's a party if I ever saw one.

True, Kanabia.
Why don't we invade both Iran and the USA? Kill two threats to world peace with one stone!

Iraq II:This time there's a 'N'

Security council won't do much. Considering oil is being pumped just about at full capacity right now, sanctions on Iranian oil would hurt everyone's economy. Sanctions that exclude Iranian oil wouldn't hurt Iran much. They don't really export much else.

Ahmenijad would use any sanctions to show his people how "hatefull and corrupt" the west is.

I don't think this issue will be solved through peacefull means. On the bright side, Israel's military has been ordered to make plans to attack Iran.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200601131006.htm
I have doubts about military means solving the issue, assuming that solving means "stopping an Iranian nuclear program."

I have doubts about military means solving the issue, assuming that solving means "stopping an Iranian nuclear program."
Bombing could set them back several years in their quest for nukes. It could, by bombing government buildings in Tehran and the cleric's offices in Qom also decapitate their government and kill many of the religious leaders that wield the real power over there. Regime change without invasion might be possible.

I'm bored, too. I'll provide alcahol, courtesy of the local convenience store's broken window. Shooting random enemies is fun in itself, but shooting them while drunk? Well, that's a party if I ever saw one.

Riding on the back of a cruise missile while drunk > all.

True, Kanabia.
Why don't we invade both Iran and the USA? Kill two threats to world peace with one stone!

Well, you see, no real need for invading the US of A. Once they have finished with the rest of the world, they'll need someone else to fight, and disintergrate into several bickering factions anyway.

Riding on the back of a cruise missile while drunk > all.

I dunno, man. Riding a nuclear bomb 1,000+ metres to the ground is pretty fun, too.

Bombing could set them back several years in their quest for nukes. It could, by bombing government buildings in Tehran and the cleric's offices in Qom also decapitate their government and kill many of the religious leaders that wield the real power over there. Regime change without invasion might be possible.

If a foreign nation bombed the US congress while in session, we would call that "state sponsored terrorism".

I dunno, man. Riding a nuclear bomb 1,000+ metres to the ground is pretty fun, too.

Cruise missiles can have nuclear warheads. And they go faster. :p

Freakin' America. We all know its there fault since they created Nukes. And they start wars here and there with stupid excuses.

Cruise missiles can have nuclear warheads. And they go faster. :p

True, true. Riding on a cruise missle while drunk is pretty difficult to top.

Wouldn't you know--Thomas Friedman is worried about the situation as well, and he's saying it's time for China, Russia and India to step up. Sorry, no link, because it's behind the Times Select wall and I'm accessing via Proquest:
Last September, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick gave a speech to the National Committee on United States-China Relations in which he repeatedly urged China to become a responsible ''stakeholder'' in the international system. It turns out that there is no word in Chinese for ''stakeholder,'' and the initial Chinese reaction was puzzlement and reaching for a dictionary. Did Mr. Zoellick mean ''steak holder?'' After all, he was speaking at a dinner. Maybe this was some Texas slang for telling China it had to buy more U.S. beef? Well, eventually the Chinese got a correct interpretation.

At the time, I thought Mr. Zoellick was raising an important point, but I now believe it is an urgent point. Why? Because Iran is determined to build a nuclear bomb, and the only nations with the clout to stop it -- by diplomatic means -- are China, Russia and India. Let's hope they act, because if Iran goes nuclear, the international order that has evolved since the cold war ended could unravel.

Iran decided this week to defy the U.S., Europe and the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency -- by removing the I.A.E.A. seals at three Iranian nuclear sites -- so Tehran can resume uranium enrichment, a key step in making a bomb.

The I.A.E.A. seals were put in place two and a half years ago, after the U.N. agency found that Iran was in breach of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran could have been referred to the Security Council then for sanctions. But instead, in return for keeping the seals on Iran's facilities, the Europeans tried to negotiate an end to the crisis.

Why has this now become a stakeholder test for China, Russia and India? Because if the Iranian mullahs -- who are now awash in petro-dollars -- know one thing, it is how to read power and weakness. The Iranians know that the U.S. has already put all the sanctions on Iran that it can. They seriously doubt that the Europeans will ever impose sanctions. And -- this is the key -- even if the Security Council censures Iran, and Europe miraculously joins the U.S. in imposing sanctions, the Iranians assume that China, Russia and India (that's half the world) will never follow.

Iran will back down only if China, Russia and India make it clear that they are not only willing to let Iran's case be taken up by the Security Council -- a step sought by the U.S. and Europe -- but that they will also join in stringent economic sanctions. Western threats, which Iran's radical president dismissed with the back of his hand yesterday as some little ''fuss,'' are no longer credible.

Communist Russia and China opposed the U.S. during the cold war, and socialist India was neutral. But since the end of the cold war, all three countries have embraced capitalism and become huge players -- and beneficiaries -- in today's global economy, with Russia providing oil and gas, China manufacturing and India software. All three now have a huge stake in the stability of the international system.

But these countries have basically been cruising along as free riders on a stable international order, which has been maintained largely by the U.S., with help from the E.U., NATO and Japan. Both Russia and China have actually used their clout at times to protect international bad actors -- like Iran, Sudan and North Korea -- out of a narrow economic self-interest and a kind of residual third-world, gotta-counter-the-Americans reflex.

But if Iran defies the U.N. and goes nuclear, it will give an already nasty regime a shield behind which to make even more trouble -- from Iraq to Israel and Europe. It would also be likely to lead to the end of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to a possible military strike against Iran by Israel or America -- which would surely disrupt the Persian Gulf oil supplies that India and China depend upon -- and to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The Sunni Arabs may tolerate the Jews' having a bomb, but not the Shiite Persians' having one. The Arabs would want their own bomb. And Russia would have an unstable, nuclear-armed Iran on its border.

In fairness, India, China and Russia have taken small steps to defuse the crisis and signal Iran that they don't approve of its actions and may let it be hauled before the Security Council.

That helped keep Iran on the fence -- for a while. But now Iran has gotten off the fence, and so must Russia, China and India. For their own sakes, if not ours, these emerging big three have got to become the Axis of Order. The old cops on the beat can't deal with the Axis of Evil alone anymore. Pay attention to how this one ends, folks. The structure of the whole post-cold-war world is at stake.

:D

I suggest u change it before I go to the mods.

Security council won't do much. Considering oil is being pumped just about at full capacity right now, sanctions on Iranian oil would hurt everyone's economy. Sanctions that exclude Iranian oil wouldn't hurt Iran much. They don't really export much else.

Ahmenijad would use any sanctions to show his people how "hatefull and corrupt" the west is.

I don't think this issue will be solved through peacefull means. On the bright side, Israel's military has been ordered to make plans to attack Iran.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200601131006.htm

SWEET! Warm up the missile silos boys. We're going to have ourselves a bbq.

Freakin' America. We all know its there fault since they created Nukes. And they start wars here and there with stupid excuses.
Yeah, don't you wish Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan had won the nuclear race?

Bombing could set them back several years in their quest for nukes. It could, by bombing government buildings in Tehran and the cleric's offices in Qom also decapitate their government and kill many of the religious leaders that wield the real power over there. Regime change without invasion might be possible.

Now there's an idea.

I suggest u change it before I go to the mods.
Over what? Look at your original post.

If a foreign nation bombed the US congress while in session, we would call that "state sponsored terrorism".

If a foreign nation bombed the US Congress, there'll be nothing left of that foreign nation.

Now there's an idea.
I can't take credit for it. Whispering Legs, or Sierra BHP or Deep Kimchi or whatever he's called now suggested it to me on another thread. I just think it's a nifty idea.

Yeah, don't you wish Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan had won the nuclear race?

...... I suppose your right but it doesn't help with America throwing its power around. War was better when it was fought with swords and killing of civilians = bad. (No Im not a hippie. Hippie's should be loaded into missiles and fired at the moon... or the sun.)

Freakin' America. We all know its there fault since they created Nukes. And they start wars here and there with stupid excuses.

Actually, blame the Germans and their discoveries prior to World War II.

If a foreign nation bombed the US congress while in session, we would call that "state sponsored terrorism".
Maybe, but think about it. When people remember 9/11, they usually don't dwell on the pentagon being hit, but rather on the twin towers. Most people, I think, would agree that an enemy's government is a legitimate target in a war. Most people would also agree, I think, that an enemy's civilian population isn't.

Over what? Look at your original post.

ACK!!! Never type without a cup of coffee in you. I'll fix that.

If a foreign nation bombed the US Congress, there'll be nothing left of that foreign nation.

And so? The inability of Iran to retaliate does nothing to justify such an act.

Furthermore, how do you hope to win over the Iranian populace (not to mention the entire Islamic world) when you've just gone and targeted all of their religious leaders?

...... I suppose your right but it doesn't help with America throwing its power around. War was better when it was fought with swords and killing of civilians = bad. (No Im not a hippie. Hippie's should be loaded into missiles and fired at the moon... or the sun.)
When war was fought with swords the civilian population was the spoils of victory. Women and girls to rape, private property to plunder, slaves for the taking. Trust me, war is alot more humane nowadays.

Hmm, the United States, wioth the political ingrate of time as its head, and the least prescient cabinet I have ever had the misfortue to observe, objects to the presence of Nucleur Weaponry in an overtly militant state presided over by an essentially self-appointed incompetant. One does wonder quite how the Arabic world percieves even a smidgeon of hypocrisy in the Wester World, does one not?

Maybe, but think about it. When people remember 9/11, they usually don't dwell on the pentagon being hit, but rather on the twin towers. Most people, I think, would agree that an enemy's government is a legitimate target in a war. Most people would also agree, I think, that an enemy's civilian population isn't.

Agreed.

If a foreign nation bombed the US congress while in session, we would call that "state sponsored terrorism".

No we wouldn't. It'd be a military attack if it was carried out by members of said nations armed forces. However if the government hired terrorists to carry out the attack then yes it would be state sponsored terrorism.

Hmm, the United States, wioth the political ingrate of time as its head, and the least prescient cabinet I have ever had the misfortue to observe, objects to the presence of Nucleur Weaponry in an overtly militant state presided over by an essentially self-appointed incompetant. One does wonder quite how the Arabic world percieves even a smidgeon of hypocrisy in the Wester World, does one not?

Britain, France, and Germany objects to the presence of Nuclear Weaponry in a militant State.

Don't try to make this to be an act of the US only.

Maybe, but think about it. When people remember 9/11, they usually don't dwell on the pentagon being hit, but rather on the twin towers. Most people, I think, would agree that an enemy's government is a legitimate target in a war. Most people would also agree, I think, that an enemy's civilian population isn't.
And most people in the US can't separate a terrorist attack from an act of war.

No we wouldn't. It'd be a military attack if it was carried out by members of said nations armed forces. However if the government hired terrorists to carry out the attack then yes it would be state sponsored terrorism.

I concede that on a technicality, but I maintain that civilians (particularly religious leaders) are not a legitimate military target - even if they are involved in the Government.

Besides, we all know the US would never do such a thing, they like their show-trials, after all. ;) :p

And so? The inability of Iran to retaliate does nothing to justify such an act.

Furthermore, how do you hope to win over the Iranian populace (not to mention the entire Islamic world) when you've just gone and targeted all of their religious leaders?

Incase you have not followed the news, they do want reforms in there nation and free elections that DO NOT bar people from running.

The only hope for this situation is if the Euros, Israelis and the Americans put aside their differences from Iraq, stand together, unite up against Iran, and solve the situation as allies, whether it be through war or peace.

After all, like they say, "We are only as weak as we are divided or as strong as we are united"

And most people in the US can't separate a terrorist attack from an act of war.
Why do you say that?

And most people in the US can't separate a terrorist attack from an act of war.

Actually, any attack is an act of war be it done by terrorism or a foreign military.

I concede that on a technicality, but I maintain that civilians (particularly religious leaders) are not a legitimate military target - even if they are involved in the Government.

Besides, we all know the US would never do such a thing, they like their show-trials, after all. ;) :p
I disagree with you. I think targeted killings of an enemy's leaders, even if they happen to be clerics, is a more humane alternative to mass invasion and the associated civilian casualties.

BTW, what show trials?

To misquote the corsair in Return of the King:



See, if someone had *first* bothered to go after the country that *is* actually doing nuclear research, instead of faking evidence in order to invade another country... then the US wouldn't face a potential nuclear power with all its forces tied up in a country that wasn't a threat in the first place.

Hey, but at least we have a lovely piece of land to invade from, two actually considering they also share a border with Afghanistan. What more could you ask for?

Seeing a pattern emerging? It's like a game of America: Total War now with the expansion pack "UN Invasion." :D

The only hope for this situation is if the Euros, Israelis and the Americans put aside their differences from Iraq, stand together, unite up against Iran, and solve the situation as allies, whether it be through war or peace.

After all, like they say, "We are only as weak as we are divided or as strong as we are united"Or if, as Friedman posited, China, India and Russia stand together and tell Iran that it won't be tolerated. Iran, with good reason, obviously doesn't think the west can stop it anymore, so it's up to the other powers to step up.

When war was fought with swords the civilian population was the spoils of victory. Women and girls to rape, private property to plunder, slaves for the taking. Trust me, war is alot more humane nowadays.

....Shut up and stop proving me wrong :(

Britain, France, and Germany objects to the presence of Nuclear Weaponry in a militant State.

Don't try to make this to be an act of the US only.

The majority of the UK were inclined to allow Iraq to remain un-occupied, as was the remainder of Europe, and for the most part, all anti-arabic action is conducted as the US as a principal protagonist.

Had we, the United Kingdm, not been led into that fallacy of a war by that most deplorable of murderers, 7/7 would not have occurred, since we do not supply the predominance of Israel's arms, nor its diplomatic potency. Europe operates ostensibly through economic and diplomatic means, any invasion of Iran will be incited, instigated and prosecuted by the USA, with our illustriously incompetant Labour administration in tow.

Or if, as Friedman posited, China, India and Russia stand together and tell Iran that it won't be tolerated. Iran, with good reason, obviously doesn't think the west can stop it anymore, so it's up to the other powers to step up.

Obviously, that would be VERY helpful, but in my opinion China and Russia cant be held to these expectations, they dont seem to care about whats going on in other countries especially when they are proffiting off of them (Russia). India, however, I'm not sure about.

I think it would be more likely to have a strong Western opposition to Iran than a strong Eastern one...although I'm of course still hoping that we can have both.

....Shut up and stop proving me wrong :(
I'm not actually proving you wrong. I'm only correcting mistakes like the one I quoted above.

just to point out, that nobody really complained when Israil became a nuclear power decades ago, and they also seemed to have 'terrorist' links and bombers ect back then.
so is Iran only really different because nobody's tried genocide on them and america doesn't support them?

just to point out, that nobody really complained when Israil became a nuclear power decades ago, and they also seemed to have 'terrorist' links and bombers ect back then.
so is Iran only really different because nobody's tried genocide on them and america doesn't support them?

Or....Israel is a stable country, not a insane muslim dictatorship. Israel is also western, pro America and not threatening to wipe other nations of the face of the earth.

Also, what is this Israeli terrorism?

The majority of the UK were inclined to allow Iraq to remain un-occupied, as was the remainder of Europe, and for the most part, all anti-arabic action is conducted as the US as a principal protagonist.

Had we, the United Kingdm, not been led into that fallacy of a war by that most deplorable of murderers, 7/7 would not have occurred, since we do not supply the predominance of Israel's arms, nor its diplomatic potency. Europe operates ostensibly through economic and diplomatic means, any invasion of Iran will be incited, instigated and prosecuted by the USA, with our illustriously incompetant Labour administration in tow.

I hope, for my view of Europe's sake, that not all Europeans think like that.

just to point out, that nobody really complained when Israil became a nuclear power decades ago, and they also seemed to have 'terrorist' links and bombers ect back then.
so is Iran only really different because nobody's tried genocide on them and america doesn't support them?
Israel also never threatened to wipe another nation off the map. Israel had a legitimate need for nuclear weapons because all of it's neighbors had declared war on them and in fact attempted to destroy them on several occasions.

Iran had nothing to fear. Nobody was threatening to invade Iran. Nobody ever said that Iran should be wiped off the earth. Nobody chants "Death to Iran". Only it's quest for Nuclear weapons puts it in danger.

*snip*

Governments will do what they want. Obviously, the British, French, and German governments want this refered to the UNSC. When France says something to the UNSC, I stand up and take notice.

Now, can u get past your dribble and tell me why this shouldn't be refered to the UNSC?

from what i understand there was jewish terrorists operating after ww2 with the goal forcing a jewish state to be established(ie Israil) , but I may be mistaken.

Obviously, that would be VERY helpful, but in my opinion China and Russia cant be held to these expectations, they dont seem to care about whats going on in other countries especially when they are proffiting off of them (Russia). India, however, I'm not sure about.

I think it would be more likely to have a strong Western opposition to Iran than a strong Eastern one...although I'm of course still hoping that we can have both.
Except that the west doesn't have the resources necessary to force Iran to back down, and Iran knows it. In fact, I'd bet that Iran is counting on China to back them up because they supply so much oil to China now. The eastern powers have to step up now in favor of stability, or we'll have lots of turmoil as a result.

I'm not actually proving you wrong. I'm only correcting mistakes like the one I quoted above.

:( There you go again....

I concede that on a technicality, but I maintain that civilians (particularly religious leaders) are not a legitimate military target - even if they are involved in the Government.

Besides, we all know the US would never do such a thing, they like their show-trials, after all. ;) :p

Well civilians working in government offices aren't legitimate targets. But the Ministers and Head of State is.
Maybe we should bring back the rule where you can only kill people of your own rank(a private can't kill an enemy general, etc). So to kill the government the US would have to attack with their own government.

from what i understand there was jewish terrorists operating after ww2 with the goal forcing a jewish state to be established(ie Israil) , but I may be mistaken.
Yeah. I think they blew up a hotel housing British collonial officials or something.

:( There you go again....
No I don't. I haven't gone anywhere.

I disagree with you. I think targeted killings of an enemy's leaders, even if they happen to be clerics, is a more humane alternative to mass invasion and the associated civilian casualties.

Perhaps. Though it is by no means the only alternative.

BTW, what show trials?

Nuremburg, for one. The majority of the accused were certainly guilty of the crimes they were faced with. However, even those that were not involved in the holocaust were found guilty anyway. Many German generals surviving after the war were put behind bars regardless of their actual involvement in the atrocities. They were mostly for propaganda reasons than anything else. There was little or no real chance for defence on their part.

Same with Saddam. It's pretty obvious that he has zero chance of being found not guilty. The trial is mostly there for propaganda. Not that I think he should be, of course. Just sayin'.

What do you think?like I said several times ago..
The Road to Teheran Goes tru Beijing.

Well civilians working in government offices aren't legitimate targets. But the Ministers and Head of State is.
Maybe we should bring back the rule where you can only kill people of your own rank(a private can't kill an enemy general, etc). So to kill the government the US would have to attack with their own government.
Some of our politician's names sound like they're preparing to do just that, but armed only with their genetalia. Dick Armey, and Dick Luger come to mind.

I hope, for my view of Europe's sake, that not all Europeans think like that.

Whyever not, shockingly enough, as the origin of academia and philosophy, the intelligensia of Europe percieves affairs with a clarity and amorality entirely alien to a nation born from the crucible of war, and ever bathed in it in its quest to procure justification and respect.

Personally, the entire world would resolve a great proportion of its issues were the USA to be subject to utter ostracism or anhillation, since the remainder of the globe is scientifically proven to be caoable of being a self-sufficient modern unit wherein pollution would drop exponentially, as would terrorism.

Perhaps. Though it is by no means the only alternative.



Nuremburg, for one. The majority of the accused were certainly guilty of the crimes they were faced with. However, even those that were not involved in the holocaust were found guilty anyway. Many German generals surviving after the war were put behind bars regardless of their actual involvement in the atrocities. They were mostly for propaganda reasons than anything else. There was little or no real chance for defence on their part.

Same with Saddam. It's pretty obvious that he has zero chance of being found not guilty. The trial is mostly there for propaganda. Not that I think he should be, of course. Just sayin'.
Can't comment on Nuremburg. Saddam's getting the fairest trial possible. It looks bad for him, but not because of the way the trial is structured, just because there is so much well publicized evidence against him.

No I don't. I haven't gone anywhere.

Your making me depressed and giving me low self-esteem. I'm losing confidence in my ability to be smart and stuff....

like I said several times ago..
The Road to Teheran Goes tru Beijing.

Scared of another power that might dare to oppose the hegemony of the land of the free?

Your making me depressed and giving me low self-esteem. I'm losing confidence in my ability to be smart and stuff....
Well, have an organic, soy protein enriched cookie loaded with good Omega 3 fatty acids. It's brain food.

*hands Kinwara a cookie*

Whyever not, shockingly enough, as the origin of academia and philosophy, the intelligensia of Europe percieves affairs with a clarity and amorality entirely alien to a nation born from the crucible of war, and ever bathed in it in its quest to procure justification and respect.

Oh My God! No wonder Europe is in trouble.

Personally, the entire world would resolve a great proportion of its issues were the USA to be subject to utter ostracism or anhillation, since the remainder of the globe is scientifically proven to be caoable of being a self-sufficient modern unit wherein pollution would drop exponentially, as would terrorism.

*dies of laughter* Tell me then why those that have signed onto Kyoto had an increase in what Kyoto was supposed to decrease and the US (non ratifactor) didn't?

like I said several times ago..
The Road to Teheran Goes tru Beijing.

Scared of another power that might dare to oppose the hegemony of the land of the free?

OMG! 2 Nations Triple Posting.

Can't comment on Nuremburg. Saddam's getting the fairest trial possible. It looks bad for him, but not because of the way the trial is structured, just because there is so much well publicized evidence against him.

He was a ruthless backstabbing dictator. What further proof did we need of his guilt anyway? :p

No, it's not because of the way the trial is structured, that's true. But it is serving as propaganda, intentionally or not.

Surely killing off the Iranian government would deny the US the opportunity to do the same in the future?

Can't comment on Nuremburg. Saddam's getting the fairest trial possible. It looks bad for him, but not because of the way the trial is structured, just because there is so much well publicized evidence against him.

I've watched some of the trial on BBC News, and frankly, that is not a show trial, he is guilty as hell of an awful lot of offences, and the prosecution have played him impeccably.

*throws cookie away*

Errr.... Ill eat it later.

Scared of another power that might dare to oppose the hegemony of the land of the free?what Land of the Free?

what Land of the Free?

What country attests to being the land of the free? Possibly the USA? Just possibly.:rolleyes:

Obviously, that would be VERY helpful, but in my opinion China and Russia cant be held to these expectations, they dont seem to care about whats going on in other countries especially when they are proffiting off of them (Russia). India, however, I'm not sure about.

India does not desire another nuke power in the neighborhood. It also has a lot of interests in exposing the nuke trail from China to Pakistani to Iran (China being the mother of all proliferation).

We voted against Iran in the last resolution and we will be voting against them in future resolutions on this matter.

Russia can be bought. It is the Chinese who will be obstructionist since it is their proliferation track that is at risk of being exposed here.

The Chinese strategy is to create a lot of potential conflict zones to tie up the US without getting into a direct confrontation / even cold war that would be disastrous for their quest for economic might and the sole Asian hegemon position.

What country attests to being the land of the free? Possibly the USA? Just possibly.:rolleyes:

Perhaps he was beeing sarcastic about the "freedom" of US? Just possibly? :rolleyes:

well i think an occupation of iran would be much worse than the current iraqi one - more like vietnam and fail horribly. i really hope by the time yanks wish to do this we have got rid of the labour party in the uk and stop following bush blindly

I hope, for my view of Europe's sake, that not all Europeans think like that.

They dont. Hell, no two of us agree on anything, thats why its so much fun having political discussions in the pub :P


And I would say that Russia will eventually come onto the side of the west. Economically it is in their interests to do so.

Say what you will, but it's not an imminent threat, not to Israel, not to the US, not to anyone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606356.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html

EDIT: I don't think anyone bothered with the links, so I'll say it loudly:

Iran won't have the Bomb for another ten years!

meh, what the hell.
Let them have their nukes.
Why should Isreal have all the fun?
Remember when people were saying
America shouldnt be the only one with
nukes, at the start of the Cold War.
When your kid gets a new PSP, every kid
on the block wants one! It just happens!

Last time I checked, PSP's were more likely to implode in on themselves than explode, leveling entire cities in a single blast.

I suggest u change it before I go to the mods.
Whoa. Corny actually pulling the nuclear option?
Usually he argues in a more fun fashion.
This is kind of depressing. :(

Now there's an idea.
That ALREADY WAS the idea.
I think you might've missed something. You'd think you would've admitted as much from all the right-wing source material you "use".

What country attests to being the land of the free? Possibly the USA? Just possibly.:rolleyes:
USA a free country? Hmm let's see.

-Secret wiretapping
-Patriot Act
-Ban on gay marriage
-Stripping abortion rights
-Gitmo
-Border crossing requires passport
-the screwed up "no fly" list
-and many more

Yep, I can call that a free country.

EDIT: I don't think anyone bothered with the links, so I'll say it loudly:

Iran won't have the Bomb for another ten years!
ahhhh... it's funny how American right-wingers get paranoid so easily. :p

My views on this: Iran as a country fully has the right to develop nuclear weapons.

However, they are a member of the IAEA(or whatever its called), and have promised not to create nuclear weapons through this.

If Iran pulls out of the IAEA, then it can develop nukes, and face the political-economical consequences. If it refuses to comply with IAEA, there is no room for pussy footing.

Afghanistan should be a major staging ground. Have all willing nations(US, Europe, etc) place land and air forces in afghanistan. If Iran refuses to comply with anything, it gets a two day ultimatum. If it doesn't comply, invasion time.

Ground forces from the coalition rush into the nation. There will of course be large scale aerial bombardment, etc, but I don't believe in an iraq-style, lightning strike... the kind that comes after months of letting the enemy prepare its forces. Cluster-bomb and artillery the bases, bomb the airfields and bases, and invade the bases.

*Important*

CAPTURE the nuclear sites. Use special forces. Capture all known nuclear sites.

Don't go into the cities. Bomb enemy forces in cities, feul dumps, etc, but don't go in. Make the enemy engage us on the deserts and the fields.

We will thouroughly search the nuclear sites. Once we pull out all possible information regarding what they were doing(and planning on doing), we destroy them, making sure they are completely obliterated, with controlled explosives.

We then mop up the regular army, try to kill or capture the heads of state(excluding the religous), and then try to force the Iranians into a resolution of the war. One that simply states that both sides will stop fighting. However, the catch-all would be that Iran must stay in the IAEA, and fully follow its imperatives, otherwise the US has the right to nuke Iran.

No bullshit. Negotiate, fine. But fuck up, and get fucked up. No fucking pussy footing.

My views on this: Iran as a country fully has the right to develop nuclear weapons.

However, they are a member of the IAEA(or whatever its called), and have promised not to create nuclear weapons through this.

If Iran pulls out of the IAEA, then it can develop nukes, and face the political-economical consequences. If it refuses to comply with IAEA, there is no room for pussy footing.

Afghanistan should be a major staging ground. Have all willing nations(US, Europe, etc) place land and air forces in afghanistan. If Iran refuses to comply with anything, it gets a two day ultimatum. If it doesn't comply, invasion time.

Ground forces from the coalition rush into the nation. There will of course be large scale aerial bombardment, etc, but I don't believe in an iraq-style, lightning strike... the kind that comes after months of letting the enemy prepare its forces. Cluster-bomb and artillery the bases, bomb the airfields and bases, and invade the bases.

*Important*

CAPTURE the nuclear sites. Use special forces. Capture all known nuclear sites.

Don't go into the cities. Bomb enemy forces in cities, feul dumps, etc, but don't go in. Make the enemy engage us on the deserts and the fields.

We will thouroughly search the nuclear sites. Once we pull out all possible information regarding what they were doing(and planning on doing), we destroy them, making sure they are completely obliterated, with controlled explosives.

We then mop up the regular army, try to kill or capture the heads of state(excluding the religous), and then try to force the Iranians into a resolution of the war. One that simply states that both sides will stop fighting. However, the catch-all would be that Iran must stay in the IAEA, and fully follow its imperatives, otherwise the US has the right to nuke Iran.

No bullshit. Negotiate, fine. But fuck up, and get fucked up. No fucking pussy footing.Who's this we you keep talking about?

We as in those who wish to enforce the policies of the UN.

More specifically the west.

More specifically the US(because I live there).

ahhhh... it's funny how American right-wingers get paranoid so easily. :p

Remember - it's only OK for one country lead by a religious nut to have nukes!

I think that we need to invade Iran. It's only fair. Why should Iran get away with it if we didn't let Iraq? Iran has ties to terrorists and has WMDs. We have to invade Iran. Like I said, it's only fair. We wouldn't want to look like hypocrites.
Yeah, why bother with the UN Security Council? Fair is fair.

Bombs away.

What is another 100,000 innocent civilian lives in all of this?

Another 3 or 4 Hundred Billion and a Draft otta do it?

Yeah Bush....4 more wars!!

Iran had nothing to fear. Nobody was threatening to invade Iran. Nobody ever said that Iran should be wiped off the earth. Nobody chants "Death to Iran". Only it's quest for Nuclear weapons puts it in danger.

"Axis of Evil" anyone? If I were Iran, I'd get nukes and get them fast. The US has been out to get them for quite some time, oh, like the last half century... North Korea got the message. Iran is getting it, too.

We as in those who wish to enforce the policies of the UN.

More specifically the west.

More specifically the US(because I live there).

We as in those who wish to enforce the policies of the UN.

More specifically the west.

More specifically the US(because I live there).
That's who I figured you were talking about. So I ask you more specifically--what army are you planning to use in this glorious little war you're describing? Because it surely won't be the US army, since it's currently tied up in Iraq and won't be leaving or ready for another deployment any time soon.

That's who I figured you were talking about. So I ask you more specifically--what army are you planning to use in this glorious little war you're describing? Because it surely won't be the US army, since it's currently tied up in Iraq and won't be leaving or ready for another deployment any time soon.

Did you even read my post?

"Afghanistan should be a major staging ground. Have all willing nations(US, Europe, etc) place land and air forces in afghanistan. If Iran refuses to comply with anything, it gets a two day ultimatum. If it doesn't comply, invasion time."

The majority force, as usual, would probably be the US. However, allied forces would supplement.

I also think we should pull out of iraq, right now. So that changes things some.

However, I can see compromise. Bring up as many national guard and marine units as we can get from the continental US. Divert forces from iraq, in lower danger areas.

We only would need, maybe, 100,000 troops for this. There is a difference between iraq and iran. We wouldn't be staying in Iran. These guys would be tasked with going in, obliterating the Iranian military, and pretty quickly after, coming back home.

Coming from a national guard member, I see little problem calling up active NG units for things like this. The actual invasion would last at most a couple weeks. The waiting would be long, but not dangerous. Little different than waiting at home.

Again, thats 100,000 troops, not 100k US troops. If britain, france, and germany all contributed one division of men, that would take care of about half of it. We could muster up 50k troops to fight, especially since armour would be the most needed in Iran, while infantry and Mech. Infantry are more needed in Iraq.

Did you even read my post?
I did, as I read the one that this quote came from. Neither of them were based in anything resembling reality. I'll put this as simply as I can--the US doesn't have the troops necessary for what you describe, especially not in a situation that requires rapid mobilization. It really is that simple.

I did, as I read the one that this quote came from. Neither of them were based in anything resembling reality. I'll put this as simply as I can--the US doesn't have the troops necessary for what you describe, especially not in a situation that requires rapid mobilization. It really is that simple.

If you read it, you havn't pulled meaning from it.

I am saying we should start basing a large number of forces in afghanistan.

This isn't going to be rapid. Its going to be as soon as we can, though without a rush.

I told you how it would be possible.

The US could move three divisions to afghanistan, especially armoured ones. These can be taken from national guard if needed. The 40th Mechanized doesn't seem to be doing much, except sending a few battalions and helicopters to iraq. We could use our armoured force in Iran.

If you read it, you havn't pulled meaning from it.

I am saying we should start basing a large number of forces in afghanistan.

This isn't going to be rapid. Its going to be as soon as we can, though without a rush.

I told you how it would be possible.

The US could move three divisions to afghanistan, especially armoured ones. These can be taken from national guard if needed. The 40th Mechanized doesn't seem to be doing much, except sending a few battalions and helicopters to iraq. We could use our armoured force in Iran.
I have pulled meaning from it, Chellis. What you're neglecting to note is that we don't have three armoured divisions to send to Afghanistan right now for a new front, especially when you factor in that lots of the folks in Iraq need to be rotated out, and that it's possible that those Guard units you're so ready to activate may be needed at home for natural disasters and the like--that's their primary duty, after all.

I have pulled meaning from it, Chellis. What you're neglecting to note is that we don't have three armoured divisions to send to Afghanistan right now for a new front, especially when you factor in that lots of the folks in Iraq need to be rotated out, and that it's possible that those Guard units you're so ready to activate may be needed at home for natural disasters and the like--that's their primary duty, after all.

We don't need tanks for natural disasters.

Oversimplication, but still. We have reserve national guardsmen, etc, who can help take care of natural disasters. 3 divisions is hardly going to throw out our army.

There are 18 army divisions and ten national guard divisions.

The 7th Infantry active components aren't doing anything atm.

The vast majority of the 40th division, and the 42nd division, aren't doing anything with their active components.

Various units from other divisions can be brought too.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/boots-guard.htm

Orange ones are ones not doing anything atm.

Sounds to me like you're spreading yourselves rather thin if you're committing a national guard to a foreign war. Who steps in after the reservists? army cadets?


Boy scouts?






Oh, I forgot park rangers. park rangers, then boy scouts.

Sounds to me like you're spreading yourselves rather thin if you're committing a national guard to a foreign war. Who steps in after the reservists? army cadets?


Boy scouts?






Oh, I forgot park rangers. park rangers, then boy scouts.

Who said anything about reservists?

There are active components to the national guard, and reserve ones. I am talking about sending the active components, and having the reserves here for riots, natural disasters, etc.

I thought thats what the national guard was supposed to be for.

Not to be sent overseas.

What's up with that?

I'm bored, too. I'll provide alcahol, courtesy of the local convenience store's broken window. Shooting random enemies is fun in itself, but shooting them while drunk? Well, that's a party if I ever saw one.


You were in Desert Storm?

I thought thats what the national guard was supposed to be for.

Not to be sent overseas.

What's up with that?

Nah that was original intention. But that has long since been changed since they restructured the armed forces. When you sign up you know that guard duty could equal being called up.

I think that we need to invade Iran. It's only fair. Why should Iran get away with it if we didn't let Iraq? Iran has ties to terrorists and has WMDs.
Just like the USA, then :)

We as in those who wish to enforce the policies of the UN.

More specifically the west.

More specifically the US(because I live there).
The USA has no wish to enforce the policies of the UN, except where UN decisions go along with what the US government wants anyway. For example, prior to invading Iraq, Pres. Bush made it very clear that he would act with or without Security Council approval; that the UN and other countries can either "catch up" with the US agenda or be regarded as part of the problem. It is a rogue state which treats international law and the international community with contempt, but, sadly, has the power to get away with it.

I did, as I read the one that this quote came from. Neither of them were based in anything resembling reality. I'll put this as simply as I can--the US doesn't have the troops necessary for what you describe, especially not in a situation that requires rapid mobilization. It really is that simple.

And I guess your not understanding that we have more than 1 branch of the service. We have an Air Force that can bomb from up high and we have a navy that can shell and send missiles and bombs from the sea. We have Iran basically surrounded so what is this crap your talking about?

Sounds to me like you're spreading yourselves rather thin if you're committing a national guard to a foreign war. Who steps in after the reservists? army cadets?


Boy scouts?






Oh, I forgot park rangers. park rangers, then boy scouts.

Ummm Bobs Own Pipe, I guess your not up on how things are structured. The National Guard ARE NOT reserves.

Britians just about to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, cause pretty soon well all be screwed by a shortage of fossil fuels (and cause they make more money for provate interests that wind and tidal power). If we're doing it, then why shouldn't Iran?

And before any Fox News watching hick claims that Iran is sponsoring terrorists, take a good look at your own country's "foreign interests":sniper:

See, if someone had *first* bothered to go after the country that *is* actually doing nuclear research, instead of faking evidence in order to invade another country... then the US wouldn't face a potential nuclear power with all its forces tied up in a country that wasn't a threat in the first place.
Quoted for truth!

Britians just about to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, cause pretty soon well all be screwed by a shortage of fossil fuels (and cause they make more money for provate interests that wind and tidal power). If we're doing it, then why shouldn't Iran?

And before any Fox News watching hick claims that Iran is sponsoring terrorists, take a good look at your own country's "foreign interests":sniper:

And before you decide to go through fantasy one more time, Iran really is a state sponser of terror as is Syria.

You were in Desert Storm?
Classic.

So "Three Kings" was a documentary afterall.

Britians just about to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, cause pretty soon well all be screwed by a shortage of fossil fuels (and cause they make more money for provate interests that wind and tidal power). If we're doing it, then why shouldn't Iran?

And before any Fox News watching hick claims that Iran is sponsoring terrorists, take a good look at your own country's "foreign interests":sniper:

Friend, in fairness, do you really believe Iran's looking for nuclear power stations rather than nuclear weapons? I think you're being a little naive.

Classic.

So "Three Kings" was a documentary afterall.

Sarcasm is not your thing is it?

Sarcasm is not your thing is it?
I'm in good company.

"Axis of Evil" anyone? If I were Iran, I'd get nukes and get them fast. The US has been out to get them for quite some time, oh, like the last half century... North Korea got the message. Iran is getting it, too.
"Axis of evil" isn't a threat. It's more of a childish insult akin to "You're bad people and I don't like you". Iran started work on this project long before the "Axis of evil" speech.

Elgesh']Friend, in fairness, do you really believe Iran's looking for nuclear power stations rather than nuclear weapons? I think you're being a little naive.
Well, I don't know. Did you really believe the Iraqi people would welcome us by throwing rose petals and Iraq was a serious threat to the world? If so, I have some breaking news that Fidel Castro has just acquired some magic beans and is planning to use them to amass an army of giants to overrun the USA.

Well, I don't know. Did you really believe the Iraqi people would welcome us by throwing rose petals and Iraq was a serious threat to the world? If so, I have some breaking news that Fidel Castro has just acquired some magic beans and is planning to use them to amass an army of giants to overrun the USA.

No, I didn't think "we'd" be welcomed in Iraq, nor did I imagine they were a serious global threat. I'm not disagreeing with Iran's logic in acquiring nuclear weaponry either - were I them, I'd do the same, follow the Pakistan route. It's on the US' dangerous-folk list, has trained and sheltered terrorists in the past, is a military dictatorship with links to al-Quaeda but gets left alone more than it would did it not have nuclear weapons.

I'm just saying it's pretty daft to pretend they want nuclear material for their energy requirements; head in the sand time.

Elgesh']No, I didn't think "we'd" be welcomed in Iraq, nor did I imagine they were a serious global threat. I'm not disagreeing with Iran's logic in acquiring nuclear weaponry either - were I them, I'd do the same, follow the Pakistan route. It's on the US' dangerous-folk list, has trained and sheltered terrorists in the past, is a military dictatorship with links to al-Quaeda but gets left alone more than it would did it not have nuclear weapons.

I'm just saying it's pretty daft to pretend they want nuclear material for their energy requirements; head in the sand time.
Pakistan has terrorist ties written all over its face, yet we are all chummy with them.

Pakistan has terrorist ties written all over its face, yet we are all chummy with them.

Unfortunately, Pakistan already has a nuke. However, if they didn't I''d be all for taking them to task...they're no better than Iran when it comes to terrorism.

Well, I don't know. Did you really believe the Iraqi people would welcome us by throwing rose petals and Iraq was a serious threat to the world? If so, I have some breaking news that Fidel Castro has just acquired some magic beans and is planning to use them to amass an army of giants to overrun the USA.

Seriously?:eek:

Along with the giant hamsters Osama's importing, and the brainwashing the evil Koran is perpertrating?:eek:

Pakistan has terrorist ties written all over its face, yet we are all chummy with them.
That's my point exactly. They have nuclear weapons and a similarly armed, antagonistic neighbour, they have terrorist ties, but get left alone. Were I an Iranian, I'd want to be in the same position! :)

Personally, I haven't seen any evidence that Iran is engaging in nuclear weapon development. They have repeatedly sense they are developing nuclear power. Which they have a right to do.

I think that any attack on Iran without hard evidence that they are specifically developing a nuclear weapon- evidence that will stand up to international scrutiny- would be a mistake. Personally, I wouldn't blame Iran for retaliating if it's soveregnty were violated.

You need proof first!

Personally, I haven't seen any evidence that Iran is engaging in nuclear weapon development. They have repeatedly sense they are developing nuclear power. Which they have a right to do.

I think that any attack on Iran without hard evidence that they are specifically developing a nuclear weapon- evidence that will stand up to international scrutiny- would be a mistake. Personally, I wouldn't blame Iran for retaliating if it's soveregnty were violated.

You need proof first!

And you cannot get proof if they do not cooperate. HMMMMM!!!!

I believe it would be a good thing if Iran had the nuclear weapon.
Israel has it. It would create a MAD situation and would prevent war.
However, I understand it is not in the interest of the western world who would loose it's power and relevance in the region.

Frankly we've got noone to blame but oursleves.

When Iran was Socialist a combination of US and UK actions resulted in a murderous dictator, followed by a radical theocracy.

And then, just when reformists seemed likely to gain power, the Shrub accused Iran of being evil and ordered them to change their ways, leading to the majority of voters supporting fundamentalist candidates in defiance.

I think the best solution would be for the US to apologise for the 'axis of evil' grouping and promise not to invade or attempt violent regime change, and for Iran to be allowed to build nuclear powerstations but with UN supervisors in all of them in return for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons.

I believe it would be a good thing if Iran had the nuclear weapon.
Israel has it. It would create a MAD situation and would prevent war.
However, I understand it is not in the interest of the western world who would loose it's power and relevance in the region.

Actually, that isn't the reason Psylos despite what the media is reporting. Since Iran is a state sponser of terrorism, what is to prevent them from getting a bomb to Hamas or any other terror group?

Actually, that isn't the reason Psylos despite what the media is reporting. Since Iran is a state sponser of terrorism, what is to prevent them from getting a bomb to Hamas or any other terror group?
As are the Saudis, whom we keep giving concessions to as far as their "humane" practices. Doesn't seem like we're going to do much about them.
Remember, HOW many of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis?

EDIT:
It's sponsor,
not
sponser.

We should just nuke every country that has a nuke, or we think has a nuke and is Muslim and/or Communist

We should just nuke every country that has a nuke, or we think has a nuke and is Muslim and/or Communist

The only problem being most of Europe would respond, global nucleur winter would ensue, and nations such as North Korea would fight back. However, why not, American myopia had led the world thus far, why cease now?:rolleyes:

The only problem being most of Europe would respond, global nucleur winter would ensue, and nations such as North Korea would fight back. However, why not, American myopia had led the world thus far, why cease now?:rolleyes:
I do hope you sensed I wasn't serious

I do hope you sensed I wasn't serious

Just possibly, however my previous experience implies that certain posters percieve irony as a form of corrosion, therefore I made the post anyway.

I believe it would be a good thing if Iran had the nuclear weapon.
Israel has it. It would create a MAD situation and would prevent war.

Pakistan has it and India has it and it did not prevent the Kargil war in 1999. In 2002 too, it was the US that prevented another war, not the nukes.

MAD cannot work in cases of plausible deniability. Allowing a terrorist sponsor nation like Pakistan to have nukes resulted in an increase of its belligerence and ratcheting up of brazen terrorist attacks on India.

The same would happen to Israel.

As are the Saudis, whom we keep giving concessions to as far as their "humane" practices. Doesn't seem like we're going to do much about them.
Remember, HOW many of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis?

EDIT:
It's sponsor,
not
sponser.
As I understand it, there's a lot more nuclear material unaccounted for from the former Soviet Republics that's a greater danger than anything Iran would be able to produce years from now--that's a more immediate danger in my book.

As I understand it, there's a lot more nuclear material unaccounted for from the former Soviet Republics that's a greater danger than anything Iran would be able to produce years from now--that's a more immediate danger in my book.
Agreed. *bows*
I thought that just about immediately after the Union began to collapse.
My post was something that i think Corny needs to address a little more seriously as far as who a "sponsor" is, and what evidence qualifies it.

Well, to my point of view
Everything is f#$% up, you insist in war to islamic people, hmmm pretty lame, they aren't angels so...
You only want to control all and everything, being world police and stuff...seems right.
Maybe being in a cool navy and air force could impress chicks and that...
But diplomacy is for suckers...yeah yeah lets invade kill some people, steal some oil, after all who can threaten us, lets keep wasting the planet, polluting to an extreme we are the mighty, the USA!

.....pretty lame

*bites a cookie*
*plays bass*
*expects world ends soon*

"Axis of evil" isn't a threat. It's more of a childish insult akin to "You're bad people and I don't like you".

The US is not known for being a peace-loving nation - it can't seem to go half a decade without starting a war, or attacking some other countries or not so clandestinely meddling in their internal affairs in a way to foster its own hegemony on them. Look at who it is coming from, and look what has already happened to a country on that list that also happened to be much less of a threat than Iran. The US are not nice guys. When it targets you in such a way, you had better prepare for them showing the aggression they are anything but reluctant to turn to.

Iran started work on this project long before the "Axis of evil" speech.

Of course they did - the US meddled in their affairs a long time before that. What "axis of evil" did was show them how desperately they need to develop nukes to protect themselves from US aggression. I can't blame them in any way, as I would be urging my country to do the same thing.

And the really sad part about all of this is that there was no reason to include Iran into this demented rhetoric - it was seen by many as in the process of secularisation and it was making progress. Progress that could be nothing else but harmed by threats coming from such a belligerent power.

like I said several times ago..
The Road to Teheran Goes tru Beijing.

The road to Teheran goes thru Moscow not Beijing.

India does not desire another nuke power in the neighborhood. It also has a lot of interests in exposing the nuke trail from China to Pakistani to Iran (China being the mother of all proliferation).

We voted against Iran in the last resolution and we will be voting against them in future resolutions on this matter.

Russia can be bought. It is the Chinese who will be obstructionist since it is their proliferation track that is at risk of being exposed here.

The Chinese strategy is to create a lot of potential conflict zones to tie up the US without getting into a direct confrontation / even cold war that would be disastrous for their quest for economic might and the sole Asian hegemon position.

You can also follow a different Trail that goes from Russia to India, and another that goes from Russia to Iran, most missile Technology in Iran is Russian, including there Air Defense systems which contain a good sized family of S300s, all manned by Russian Troops.

The road to Teheran goes thru Moscow not Beijing.


No, Beijing. It is with the Chinese that the IRanians have signed huge oil deals. China needs oil to fuel its growing economy, and they won't allow the flow of oil to be disrupted easily. Not that I am saying that China would enter a war to save the asses of the Iranians, but they will difficult action as much as possible.

I have a question for all those that are for military action on Iran:
a) In case of a land attack on Iran, are you ready for getting drafted, as the US does not have the sufficient manpower to control a country that is 3 times larger than Iraq?)
b) In case of attacks on Iran be limited to air strikes, do you think the US should use nuclear weapons against Iranian bunkers that are impervious to conventional weapons?

And you cannot get proof if they do not cooperate. HMMMMM!!!!

Exactly. Which is why alienating the entire nation is an act of idiocy.

Exactly. Which is why alienating the entire nation is an act of idiocy.

Well, nobody ever went broke betting on idiocy in politics. Heck, you, the Maharajah of Lunaticity should know this.