NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran_7;_ylt=AtwIdWY.HoD_qh27SQTafkdSw60A

VIENNA, Austria - A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.

Looks like that kid who started the "I want to go to war with Iran" thread, got his wish.


*Starts the drums of war*

So let's just bomb them already. What are we waiting for? We know where their president works during the day and sleeps at night. We know where the offices of the members of the Guardian council are. Let's just bomb them in such a way as to decapitate their government.

So let's just bomb them already. What are we waiting for? We know where their president works during the day and sleeps at night. We know where the offices of the members of the Guardian council are. Let's just bomb them in such a way as to decapitate their government.

Whether or not your be sarcastic, I am so with you. We are just stalling and picking our asses while this guy builds up his program to bomb the shit out of someone...probably Israel.

Whether or not your be sarcastic, I am so with you. We are just stalling and picking our asses while this guy builds up his program to bomb the shit out of someone...probably Israel.
I'm not being sarcastic. Something needs to be done, and it's probably better to do it before they develop nuclear weapons.

I'm not being sarcastic. Something needs to be done, and it's probably better to do it before they develop nuclear weapons.

Agreed...and also, we need find another source of energy...the arabs have us by the balls which makes any action against another arab country...sticky, to say the least.

Fortunately, Iranians are Shi'ites (whom the rest of the Sunni Middle-east hate) and are Persian in ethnicity, not Arab. :)

Agreed...and also, we need find another source of energy...the arabs have us by the balls which makes any action against another arab country...sticky, to say the least.
Iranians aren't arabs. They're persian, but still if we move against them most of the middle east will hate us just a little more.

Just out of pure curiosty, where is the justification that war with Iran is A-OK because they want to create nuclear weapons? Many nations already are nuclear capable yet no declaration of war has been announced against them. I just find this quite perplexing.

I voted war, but it won't be a full blown war. My guess is strategic strikes to cripple the program by either the US or Israel (most likely Israel.)

Just out of pure curiosty, where is the justification that war with Iran is A-OK because they want to create nuclear weapons? Many nations already are nuclear capable yet no declaration of war has been announced against them. I just find this quite perplexing.

Mabe because they are a fundemantlist islam rogue regime who threatend to wipe another nation of the face of the map, for starters?

Déjà vu. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466264)

Iranians aren't arabs. They're persian, but still if we move against them most of the middle east will hate us just a little more.

Agreed...and also, we need find another source of energy...the middle east has us by the balls which makes any action against another middle easterncountry...sticky, to say the least.

Better? :p

Yes. Because they have promised to wipe Israel off the map. Such would cause a nuclear war, considering the MAD idea, and considering that Israel has nuclear weapons, if the Iranian radicals launch, then the Israelis launch, and the entire Middle-east is a nuclear-wasteland, if not more land.

Iran has refused to cooperate, and now Iran deserves to be punished. I'd support whatever the nations involved in the negotiations deem necessary to stop Iran's nuclear program...even full blown war if it need be.

Just out of pure curiosty, where is the justification that war with Iran is A-OK because they want to create nuclear weapons? Many nations already are nuclear capable yet no declaration of war has been announced against them. I just find this quite perplexing.
Who cares about justification? They're a potential threat to the US and it's allies, and they are likely to destabilize the region with their nuclear weapons. We don't need to justify attacking them to anyone.

Just out of pure curiosty, where is the justification that war with Iran is A-OK because they want to create nuclear weapons? Many nations already are nuclear capable yet no declaration of war has been announced against them. I just find this quite perplexing.
If it's ok with you that they are probably going to use those weapons to attack another country, then it's not ok to invade them. For the rest of us, it's ok.

Actually, we do need to justify a war. It's just that this war is justified.

Just out of pure curiosty, where is the justification that war with Iran is A-OK because they want to create nuclear weapons? Many nations already are nuclear capable yet no declaration of war has been announced against them. I just find this quite perplexing.

And do you have a better excuse for utterly vaporizing a nation of the face of the earth and installing a proxy-regime where the new parking-lot will be?

Just out of pure curiosty, where is the justification that war with Iran is A-OK because they want to create nuclear weapons? Many nations already are nuclear capable yet no declaration of war has been announced against them. I just find this quite perplexing.
There's nothing fair about international politics. If you have a major advantage over somebody else, it works for you to preserve the status quo. Particularly if the other party involved is unstable and potentially dangerous.

So..theres a Isarel vs Iran conflict is in the mist?

Who cares about justification? They're a potential threat to the US and it's allies, and they are likely to destabilize the region with their nuclear weapons. We don't need to justify attacking them to anyone.

Petty wars of agression by belligerent states in self-interest. Oh, how we've missed you 20th century and your lack of pretence...

Actually, we do need to justify a war. It's just that this war is justified.
Does anyone actually have where in the NPT it justifies military action against non-compliance? They may be defying international law, but unless there's an SC mandate, any invasion would be too.

Does anyone actually have where in the NPT it justifies military action against non-compliance? They may be defying international law, but unless there's an SC mandate, any invasion would be too.
It doesn't say it in that treaty, but it is justified when you threaten to nuke a nation.

Petty wars of agression by belligerent states in self-interest. Oh, how we've missed you 20th century and your lack of pretence...
Self-interest is the only kind. It's what motivates every single nation. If we see a nation as a threat to us and we can act against them, then we will.

Petty wars of agression by belligerent states in self-interest. Oh, how we've missed you 20th century and your lack of pretence...

Fass, I would really like to know what you think about this "conflict", are you for UN action against Iran, based on the light of new events?

Who cares about justification? They're a potential threat to the US and it's allies, and they are likely to destabilize the region with their nuclear weapons. We don't need to justify attacking them to anyone.

Excuse my naivity, but how is Iran a threat to the US and her allies?

Plus I doubt even the Iranian government would launch a nuclear strike against anyone, in my opinion they should have nuclear weapons.
They are surrounded by nuclear states (India, Pakistan, Isreal) and not to menion their proximity to Iraq and Afghanistan. It is natural for them to want some safe guard in the unstable middle east.

Excuse my naivity, but how is Iran a threat to the US and her allies?

Plus I doubt even the Iranian government would launch a nuclear strike against anyone, in my opinion they should have nuclear weapons.
They are surrounded by nuclear states (India, Pakistan, Isreal) and not to menion their proximity to Iraq and Afghanistan. It is natural for them to want some safe guard in the unstable middle east.
Neither India nor Pakistan are a threat to Iran. India is even friendly with Iran.

Iran's nuclear weapons will be a threat against Israel, will make striking against Iran for it's sponsorship of Hezbollah more complicated, and will make the Saudis and other Sunni-majority nations in the region develop nuclear ambitions. Sorry, it can't be allowed.

Just out of pure curiosty, where is the justification that war with Iran is A-OK because they want to create nuclear weapons? Many nations already are nuclear capable yet no declaration of war has been announced against them. I just find this quite perplexing.

i think it has more to do with the fact that iran is a brutal theocracy and their leader has made hinted towards threats of wiping a whole country off the map, and have also threatened our forces in the region.

It doesn't say it in that treaty, but it is justified when you threaten to nuke a nation.
Why? The US is the only violating international law. "I'm scared of them" just doesn't cut it.

Plus I doubt even the Iranian government would launch a nuclear strike against anyone.

The Iranian President thinks differently. He called for Israel to wiped of the map. Not too much doubt there...:rolleyes:

So let's just bomb them already. What are we waiting for? We know where their president works during the day and sleeps at night. We know where the offices of the members of the Guardian council are. Let's just bomb them in such a way as to decapitate their government.
I aggree 100%.

The Iranian President thinks differently. He called for Israel to wiped of the map. Not too much doubt there...
Right...because propagandous hyperbole always equates to international action.

The fact is, that was just the same as George Bush arguing for capital gains tax cuts. It's designed to win political favour. Politicians don't like nuclear war in practice: it tends to
1. kill them
2. kill the people who vote for them.

The Iranian President thinks differently. He called for Israel to wiped of the map. Not too much doubt there...:rolleyes:

Even he's not a complete idiot. Iran would get wiped out in the process. Then he would have no country.

Empty threat.

Right...because propagandous hyperbole always equates to international action.

The fact is, that was just the same as George Bush arguing for capital gains tax cuts. It's designed to win political favour. Politicians don't like nuclear war in practice: it tends to
1. kill them
2. kill the people who vote for them.

i'd rather not take the chance, and we can prevent such acts in relatively short order.

Fass, I would really like to know what you think about this "conflict", are you for UN action against Iran, based on the light of new events?

There is no proof that Iran has done anything to warrant invasion, so far. You'd think Iraq would have been a lesson...

But "hinting towards" and "actually comitting" to launch WMDs are different. If Iran actually did launch a weapon with a nuclear warhead, then there is justification for war. But just taking their word that they will? Anyone see a little irony here?

i'd rather not take the chance, and we can prevent such acts in relatively short order.
How can you possibly 'prevent such acts'? If you're saying you should covertly dismantle their nuclear weapons, or establish an orbital platform capable of blowing their nukes out of the sky, then fine, but war's only like to exacerbate what you're suggesting is a 'chance'.

There is no proof that Iran has done anything to warrant invasion, so far. You'd think Iraq would have been a lesson...

But the UN has just gotten proof that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons. Dont you think it would be preferable to act sooner rather than later when Israel might have already become a causulty?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran_7;_ylt=AtwIdWY.HoD_qh27SQTafkdSw60A

VIENNA, Austria - A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.

Looks like that kid who started the "I want to go to war with Iran" thread, got his wish.


*Starts the drums of war*
That doesn't mean they WILL go to war. Peaceful negotiation would work. You may call me a liberal freak, but I think Iran would feel a lot safer if America gave up their nuclear weapons, like was promised in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If it comes to the point were it would be necessary to take action, we could just bomb the most important government facilities and not kill any civilians. Plus, many people here are acting like Muslims are evil people out to conquer the world, which is a gross generalization based on very few people.

Plus, we always have Patriot missiles.

Self-interest is the only kind. It's what motivates every single nation. If we see a nation as a threat to us and we can act against them, then we will.

It's just the lack of pretence that I find refreshing. None of that "we are the good guys, you should be on our side, because we are good!" crap you get to hear so often, otherwise. You want to go to war to strengthen your hegemony.

Plus, we always have Patriot missles.

I WAS about to call you a liberal freak until I read that. ;)

That doesn't mean they WILL go to war. Peaceful negotiation would work. You may call me a liberal freak, but I think Iran would feel a lot safer if America gave up their nuclear weapons, like was promised in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
That wasn't promised in NPT. Negotiation to a new disarmament accord was promised, and to my knowledge no nuclear state has yet negotiated full disarmament. America certainly hasn't.

If it comes to the point were it would be necessary to take action, we could just bomb the most important government facilities and not kill any civilians.
Yeah, because that always works.:rolleyes:

Besides, if they really have nuclear capabilities, then:
a) bombing them isn't exactly lessening the risk
b) it doesn't remove the actual threat (the bombs), only the perceived threat (the people).

Plus, many people here are acting like Muslims are evil people out to conquer the world, which is a gross generalization based on very few people.
That's a straw man: no one's saying that here. They're discussing the legitimacy of an invasion based on nuclear capability, not religious preference.

*shrug* I'm still less worried about Iran having nukes than I am the US having them.

But the UN has just gotten proof that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons. Dont you think it would be preferable to act sooner rather than later when Israel might have already become a causulty?

All of a sudden the papers that a mere year ago were not what they are claimed to be today are what they are claimed to be? How convenient.

Iran wouldn't attack Israel, because Iran is not stupid. I don't buy the fear mongering. We have as much to fear from Iran as we have from the US - who also all the time likes to wave their dick around and "reserve the right to use nuclear weapons." Meh.

Stop it with the pretence. Iran is going to be attacked like the US has been planning for years, just like Iraq was. I hope this time we are spared the bullshit excuses that make it sound like something noble.

*shrug* I'm still less worried about Iran having nukes than I am the US having them.

Come back when you have something smart and a little less "flame America-y" to say.

That's a straw man: no one's saying that here. They're discussing the legitimacy of an invasion based on nuclear capability, not religious preference.
It is implied in many places. Reread page 1.

Also, in this case removing the perceived threat, or people who want to bomb Israel, will remove the actual threat, because the perceived threat USES the actual threat, and nobobdy else would use them.

Come back when you have something smart and a little less "flame America-y" to say.
Come back when you're at least as clever as Don Adams.

What I really hate about this is the way the UN has become some sort of pathetic, crack-riddled fuck-buddy for the US. They refuse to recognise the ICJ, they violate the UN charter repeatedly, they ignore all kinds of conventions.

Then, the UN mentions 80,000 barrels of anthrax or whatever and suddenly it's all "Le's talk! See what my gal said? Damn straight!"

Later, George Bush is lying in bed, smoking a cigar, and Kofi Annan pipes out, "Hey, about these Millennium Development Goals..."

"Sure hun, maybe some other time, gotta run."

And nothing. Then there's another UN report, and you can bet they'll be slobbering all over it again. Fucking pathetic.

All of a sudden the papers that a mere year ago were not what they are claimed to be today are what they are claimed to be? How convenient.

Iran wouldn't attack Israel, because Iran is not stupid. I don't buy the fear mongering. We has as much to fear from Iran as we have from the US - who also all the time likes to wave their dick around and "reserve the right to use nuclear weapons." Meh.

Stop it with the pretence. Iran is going to be attacked like the US has been planning for years, just like Iraq was. I hope this time we are spared the bullshit excuses that make it sound like something noble.
This time though the EU, and France, the UK and Germany in particular, are also pushing for tougher measures against Iran, although I doubt they would sanction an outright invasion of it. Whether its a matter of practicality or not, the circumstances are different to Iraq, even if slightly.

I guess my hope for peace is shattered :(

*continues to pray for peace*

What I really hate about this is the way the UN has become some sort of pathetic, crack-riddled fuck-buddy for the US. They refuse to recognise the ICJ, they violate the UN charter repeatedly, they ignore all kinds of conventions.

Then, the UN mentions 80,000 barrels of anthrax or whatever and suddenly it's all "Le's talk! See what my gal said? Damn straight!"

Later, George Bush is lying in bed, smoking a cigar, and Kofi Annan pipes out, "Hey, about these Millennium Development Goals..."

"Sure hun, maybe some other time, gotta run."

And nothing. Then there's another UN report, and you can bet they'll be slobbering all over it again. Fucking pathetic.

Uh...I dont know what your talking about. The UN hasnt exactly been pro Bush lately...they dont like what Bush has been doing...mostly in Iraq, but like Europa Maxima said, this situation with Iran is different.

Lets go get em:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

This time though the EU, and France, the UK and Germany in particular, are also pushing for tougher measures against Iran, although I doubt they would sanction an outright invasion of it. Whether its a matter of practicality or not, the circumstances are different to Iraq, even if slightly.

Exactly, its not us being the lone ranger again, (regardless of if we are right about Iraq) this is about a joint American-European-UN-Israel operation against Iran, a fundemantlist islamic terrorist rouge regime.

This time though the EU, and France, the UK and Germany in particular, are also pushing for tougher measures against Iran, although I doubt they would sanction an outright invasion of it. Whether its a matter of practicality or not, the circumstances are different to Iraq, even if slightly.

Such luck I despise European foreign policies, as well. :)

Lets go get em:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

you scare me.

Uh...I dont know what your talking about. The UN hasnt exactly been pro Bush lately...they dont like what Bush has been doing...mostly in Iraq, but like Europa Maxima said, this situation with Iran is different.
Clearly you don't. My point is the current US foreign policy is of open hostility to the UN: for example, sending as their ambassador someone who has stated "there is no United Nations". I'm not saying the UN is pro-Bush; I'm saying Bush is anti-UN...except whenever they mention something which America could use to further its agenda in the Middle East. This is an exact example of what I'm talking about:

The US violates the NPT by denying Iran nuclear technology;
Then it uses IAEA reports and the NPT to justify hostility.

That sort of double-faced approach doesn't sit well with me.

Such luck I despise European foreign policies, as well. :)
Well its not as if the EU is war-mongering, but its definitely calling for some action to be taken. The nation I am a bit curious about is Russia. I wonder which avenue it will elect to take. It conveniently lowered the level of support it offered to Iran when the anti-Israeli statements were made.

Clearly you don't. My point is the current US foreign policy is of open hostility to the UN: for example, sending as their ambassador someone who has stated "there is no United Nations". I'm not saying the UN is pro-Bush; I'm saying Bush is anti-UN...except whenever they mention something which America could use to further its agenda in the Middle East. This is an exact example of what I'm talking about:

The US violates the NPT by denying Iran nuclear technology;
Then it uses IAEA reports and the NPT to justify hostility.

That sort of double-faced approach doesn't sit well with me.

America and the UN have clashed over Iraq, so obviously the UN isnt winning any popularity contensts in the White house, HOWEVER, this is a very, very important situation, and the best way to resolve things over, is for America and the UN to work together, regardless of what happend over in Iraq. Its in everyones best interest. Except maybe Irans, but oh well, fuck em.

Come back when you have something smart and a little less "flame America-y" to say.

America has proven it will use nuclear armaments. Nobody can say that about Iran.

Hence, I am less worried about Iran.

Also, it's my country, I can flame it if I want to.

America and the UN have clashed over Iraq, so obviously the UN isnt winning any popularity contensts in the White house, HOWEVER, this is a very, very important situation, and the best way to resolve things over, is for America and the UN to work together, regardless of what happend over in Iraq. Its in everyones best interest. Except maybe Irans, but oh well, fuck em.
The best way to resolve any important situations is for America and the UN to work together. Newsflash: America is in the UN.

However, your last line makes me think maybe you're trolling on this, so I'll drop it.

Well its not as if the EU is war-mongering, but its definitely calling for some action to be taken. The nation I am a bit curious about is Russia. I wonder which avenue it will elect to take. It conveniently lowered the level of support it offered to Iran when the anti-Israeli statements were made.

Yeah, well here is what I have found in the article I was reading about what Russia is up to.

Vladimir Putin expressed such a necessity when he told his government:
"If anyone intends to use weapons of mass destruction against our country, we will respond with preventive measures adequate to the threat - wherever there are terrorists, or organizers of the crime, or their ideological or financial sponsors are. I underline, no matter where they are."

Guess they can relate...what with the Chechneyans and all.

Edit: Forgot the source http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622519702&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

you scare me.
I get that alot, I dont know why.

Yeah, well here is what I have found in the article I was reading about what Russia is up to.

Vladimir Putin expressed such a necessity when he told his government:
"If anyone intends to use weapons of mass destruction against our country, we will respond with preventive measures adequate to the threat - wherever there are terrorists, or organizers of the crime, or their ideological or financial sponsors are. I underline, no matter where they are."

Guess they can relate...what with the Chechneyans and all.
Why would Iran use WMD against Russia, one of its key suppliers of nuclear materials? The wording is very ambiguous. Russia states no real commitment to nuclear disarmament in Iran. All its saying is that it will protect its own interests.

Chechnyans btw ;) I wonder why people find this word so difficult.

The best way to resolve any important situations is for America and the UN to work together. Newsflash: America is in the UN.

However, your last line makes me think maybe you're trolling on this, so I'll drop it.

Thats not my point...We have BEEN in the UN but have hardly been working together now have we.:rolleyes:

The best way to resolve any important situations is for America and the UN to work together. Newsflash: America is in the UN.

However, your last line makes me think maybe you're trolling on this, so I'll drop it.

I am not trolling. I will say it again, Fuck Iran. If they want to wipe out Israel, promote Nazism, and say the holocaust never happend, then fuck em, they will get whats coming to them. While I am not Israeli, I am Jewish and do take offense to this piece of shit saying that kind of stuff.

Thats not my point...We have BEEN in the UN but have hardly been working together now have we.:rolleyes:
You are still signatories to the UN charter. You should abide by it, or withdraw.

You are still signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. You should abide by it, or withdraw.

Yeah, well here is what I have found in the article I was reading about what Russia is up to.

Vladimir Putin expressed such a necessity when he told his government:
"If anyone intends to use weapons of mass destruction against our country, we will respond with preventive measures adequate to the threat - wherever there are terrorists, or organizers of the crime, or their ideological or financial sponsors are. I underline, no matter where they are."

Guess they can relate...what with the Chechneyans and all.

Edit: Forgot the source http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622519702&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

In that case, why haven't they attacked Chechneya with wmd? They obviously posed a massive threat from them because they are muslim extremists :rolleyes:

As to Iran, there was no doubt it was for nuclear weapons and now it has been confirmed. Ok UN, now what the hell are you going to do?

I guess my hope for peace is shattered :(

*continues to pray for peace*

You know that moment it took you to write that post? THAT was peace. There where no artillery shells pounding your backyard, no gun fights in the streets, no threat on your life, nothing. Just a quiet little moment on your computer. That's the closest thing to peace this world will ever know and you take it for granted. Even as you "pray for peace" you couldn't give a fuck that you have it.

There has never been a moment in this world where there was no bloodshed somewhere in it. As I'm typing this, someone in Africa just got shot; it doesn't affect me or you in any way shape or form. That's the way things have worked since the beginning of time. You think the Japanese gave a flying fuck when Julius Caesar invaded Gaul? No one “prayed for peace” because on a rice patty somewhere they had it, the exact same way you have it now.

I am not trolling. I will say it again, Fuck Iran. If they want to wipe out Israel, promote Nazism, and say the holocaust never happend, then fuck em, they will get whats coming to them. While I am not Israeli, I am Jewish and do take offense to this piece of shit saying that kind of stuff.
Are you advocating we bomb David Duke, then?

I take offence to those comments, but I equally take offence at the idea that not liking someone's opinion and there expression thereof is a legitimate justification for war. I thought the US had something about that in its constitution...

You are still signatories to the UN charter. You should abide by it, or withdraw.

There goes the UN into the trash heap.

You are still signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. You should abide by it, or withdraw.

We have. Iran has not.

You are still signatories to the UN charter. You should abide by it, or withdraw.

You are still signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. You should abide by it, or withdraw.

First of all, relax. If you want, make your own thread about America being above the law. This is about Iran, stop trying to diver the attention away from the topic at hand.

You know that moment it took you to write that post? THAT was peace. There where no artillery shells pounding your backyard, no gun fights in the streets, no threat on your life, nothing. Just a quiet little moment on your computer. That's the closest thing to peace this world will ever know and you take it for granted. Even as you "pray for peace" you couldn't give a fuck that you have it.

There has never been a moment in this world where there was no bloodshed somewhere in it. As I'm typing this, someone in Africa just got shot; it doesn't affect me or you in any way shape or form. That's the way things have worked since the beginning of time. You think the Japanese gave a flying fuck when Julius Caesar invaded Gaul? No one “prayed for peace” because on a rice patty somewhere they had it, the exact same way you have it now.

So much hatred. You do know there are many different levels of peace right?

Are you advocating we bomb David Duke, then?

I take offence to those comments, but I equally take offence at the idea that not liking someone's opinion and there expression thereof is a legitimate justification for war. I thought the US had something about that in its constitution...

*GETTING ANGRY :mad: * YES! We do, but it does not say in our constitution that you are allowed to threaten a country's existance with nuclear weapons!!!!

There goes the UN into the trash heap.
What does that even mean?

We have. Iran has not.
No you have not. You have refused to cooperate in the provision of peaceful uses of nuclear technology for Iran; that violates Articles IV and V of the NPT.

In that case, why haven't they attacked Chechneya with wmd? They obviously posed a massive threat from them because they are muslim extremists :rolleyes:
Chechnya. Its spellt Chechnya. I just corrected him.

Are you advocating we bomb David Duke, then?

I take offence to those comments, but I equally take offence at the idea that not liking someone's opinion and there expression thereof is a legitimate justification for war. I thought the US had something about that in its constitution...

David Duke has been arrested and is sitting in an Austrian prison, by the way. So I guess hes out of the picture.

In that case, why haven't they attacked Chechneya with wmd? They obviously posed a massive threat from them because they are muslim extremists :rolleyes:

As to Iran, there was no doubt it was for nuclear weapons and now it has been confirmed. Ok UN, now what the hell are you going to do?

I dont know, I'm an American, not a Russian, lol. I dont know how they think over there, all I'm happy about is that they arnt siding WITH Iran, something that I suspected them of doing for a while.

So much hatred. You do know there are many different levels of peace right?

Certainly, yet the important ones are taken for granted and the unobtainable ones are obsessed over. I can’t take that seriously.

Chechnya. Its spellt Chechnya. I just corrected him.

Lol, you just cant win with this crowd, huh?

I wonder how many lives could have been spared if only early European firearms woulda been outlawed.

What does that even mean?

You know how many nations (including the US) have violated the UN Charter? Have you actually read the consequences of violating it? They are spelled out in the Charter.

No you have not. You have refused to cooperate in the provision of peaceful uses of nuclear technology for Iran; that violates Articles IV and V of the NPT.

I believe this has just been answered. Peaceful purposes are fine. Even the current administration said that. However, they don't want it for peaceful purposes. They want the nuclear bomb. Guess what? *points to the topic of the thread* I was right.

I wonder how many lives could have been spared if only early European firearms woulda been outlawed.

Not a single one because last time I checked, Mary J was illegal, but somehow, 98% of the American teenage population has tried it.

First of all, relax. If you want, make your own thread about America being above the law. This is about Iran, stop trying to diver the attention away from the topic at hand.
I'm perfectly relaxed. And given that the topic is "does violation of international law justify military action", then the fact that the US is violating international law seems relevant.

*GETTING ANGRY :mad: * YES! We do, but it does not say in our constitution that you are allowed to threaten a country's existance with nuclear weapons!!!!
That wasn't what you were saying: you were suggesting convening a revisionist conference was justification for a military strike.

Saying "Israel should be nuked" is protected under the First Amendment (obviously, this doesn't apply to foreign leaders, but still).

Actually threatening Israel with nuclear weapons is illegal.

There is a clear difference.

I'm perfectly relaxed. And given that the topic is "does violation of international law justify military action", then the fact that the US is violating international law seems relevant.


That wasn't what you were saying: you were suggesting convening a revisionist conference was justification for a military strike.

Saying "Israel should be nuked" is protected under the First Amendment (obviously, this doesn't apply to foreign leaders, but still).

Actually threatening Israel with nuclear weapons is illegal.

There is a clear difference.

Dude...I just want to know, whats cloud 9 like?

Also, is it filled with BLIND people!? The topic of the read was..."Iran officially going for Nukes"!!! You know how I know, cuz I made it!

You know that moment it took you to write that post? THAT was peace. There where no artillery shells pounding your backyard, no gun fights in the streets, no threat on your life, nothing. Just a quiet little moment on your computer. That's the closest thing to peace this world will ever know and you take it for granted. Even as you "pray for peace" you couldn't give a fuck that you have it.

There has never been a moment in this world where there was no bloodshed somewhere in it. As I'm typing this, someone in Africa just got shot; it doesn't affect me or you in any way shape or form. That's the way things have worked since the beginning of time. You think the Japanese gave a flying fuck when Julius Caesar invaded Gaul? No one “prayed for peace” because on a rice patty somewhere they had it, the exact same way you have it now.

IIRC, WesternPA lives in a country currently at war. He doesn't have peace - he has just been spared the direct consequences of the actions of his government and military. As 9/11 showed us, though, that doesn't last.

You know how many nations (including the US) have violated the UN Charter? Have you actually read the consequences of violating it? They are spelled out in the Charter.
What does that justify? "Oh, they did it too, so it's ok"? Grow up.

I believe this has just been answered. Peaceful purposes are fine. Even the current administration said that. However, they don't want it for peaceful purposes. They want the nuclear bomb. Guess what? *points to the topic of the thread* I was right.
If peaceful purposes are fine, then why has the US repeatedly refused to share nuclear technology with Iran? It is obliged to, without prejudice, share the benefits of nuclear technology of peaceful application, yet it has distinctly displayed such prejudice. That is illegal, and even the Bush administration isn't denying it.

Not a single one because last time I checked, Mary J was illegal, but somehow, 98% of the American teenage population has tried it.

True, so why do people think that nuclear weapons ownership/development can be outlawed by the "responsible" nations? Technology goes forward, not backward.

I think this whole non-proliferation thing is as futile as the war on drugs.

What does that justify? "Oh, they did it too, so it's ok"? Grow up.


If peaceful purposes are fine, then why has the US repeatedly refused to share nuclear technology with Iran? It is obliged to, without prejudice, share the benefits of nuclear technology of peaceful application, yet it has distinctly displayed such prejudice. That is illegal, and even the Bush administration isn't denying it.

Becauase it is a muslim fundemantalist terrorist rogue regime. They are not exactly the most friendly people in the world. Jesus, are you one of those people that thinks Osama just needs more hugs?

What does that justify? "Oh, they did it too, so it's ok"? Grow up.

If the UN had any balls, they would punish those nations that have violated the charter. That's what I'm saying. There is a set protocal for bringing such a thing about in the UN. I have to ask why it has never been enforced. I'm not excusing anything 2 wrongs don't make a right. However, the UN has never really punished a wrong in accordence with the UN! Yes they have passed sanctions but to actually suspend a member state? No, I don't believe it has ever been done. Nor kicking out a nation. That's another consequence for violating the Charter.

If peaceful purposes are fine, then why has the US repeatedly refused to share nuclear technology with Iran? It is obliged to, without prejudice, share the benefits of nuclear technology of peaceful application, yet it has distinctly displayed such prejudice. That is illegal, and even the Bush administration isn't denying it.

Could it be perhaps that we have labeled Iran a state sponser of terrorism?

America has proven it will use nuclear armaments. Nobody can say that about Iran. Hence, I am less worried about Iran.
Also, it's my country, I can flame it if I want to.

Where would you rather live?

At least you can flame the US...in Iran, you'd be shot or stoned to death by some cleric.

Could it be perhaps that we have labeled Iran a state sponser of terrorism?

I have been trying to tell him that...its bouncing off of him like bullets do to 50 cent.

Becauase it is a muslim fundemantalist terrorist rogue regime. They are not exactly the most friendly people in the world. Jesus, are you one of those people that thinks Osama just needs more hugs?
What part of "without discrimination" don't you understand? If you think people should discriminate who they share any nuclear technology with - a perfectly reasonable position - then fine, but it violates NPT, and you should withdraw - you don't have to give notice. India's not a signatory, incidentally, so it's not like there's just 'rogue nations' opposing it. You are, in many ways, agreeing with me.

And no, I think Osama needs a trial.

What part of "without discrimination" don't you understand? If you think people should discriminate who they share any nuclear technology with - a perfectly reasonable position - then fine, but it violates NPT, and you should withdraw - you don't have to give notice. India's not a signatory, incidentally, so it's not like there's just 'rogue nations' opposing it. You are, in many ways, agreeing with me.

And no, I think Osama needs a trial.

I think you are allowed to discriminate based on who gets nukes and who doesnt if the person who is trying to get them falls into, A) fundemental muslim extreamist, B) Leader of a rougue state, C) a leader who has called for the destruction of another country, or D) ALL OF THE SMURFIN ABOVE.

If the UN had any balls, they would punish those nations that have violated the charter. That's what I'm saying. There is a set protocal for bringing such a thing about in the UN. I have to ask why it has never been enforced. I'm not excusing anything 2 wrongs don't make a right. However, the UN has never really punished a wrong in accordence with the UN! Yes they have passed sanctions but to actually suspend a member state? No, I don't believe it has ever been done. Nor kicking out a nation. That's another consequence for violating the Charter.
Is it? Where does it say that?

And what should the UN do? Sanction the US? Authorise military action? Or simply get huffy. It should do whatever one does when laws are broken: hold a trial. And the US doesn't recognise the ICJ. So, shrug.

Could it be perhaps that we have labeled Iran a state sponser of terrorism?
As I've been saying, however legitimate a reason that is, it's an illegal one. All you have to do is admit it.

http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html

The text of the NPT.

One thing I noticed, no one is obligated to share technology for peaceful purposes.

Is it? Where does it say that?

And what should the UN do? Sanction the US? Authorise military action? Or simply get huffy. It should do whatever one does when laws are broken: hold a trial. And the US doesn't recognise the ICJ. So, shrug.


As I've been saying, however legitimate a reason that is, it's an illegal one. All you have to do is admit it.

I think you just need to face some facts here, America is above the law (:p ) and Iran isnt. Whether or not you and whoever else lives under that rock with you likes that, thats just the way it is.

Iran is not 'officially' using it's nuclear program for weapons it is for research and electricity.

The amount of uranium and other elements they can enrich is relatively minor, enough for a deterent nuclear force at best. They simply are not 'an offesnive power, they do not have the scope to realistically be one. The nuclear threat is a slight redundancy if the US and russia were able to ofset one anohter or develope anti nuke defences what is the issue. War with Iran is just a huge resource drain. What largely matters if the NPT, but the thing is many states have tested their own weapons, technically Iran should be just as intitled in a fair world.

War with Iran is just a huge waste of money. What should be done is integrating ecomics with Iran so that the cultural gap can be shortened.

War mongering in Iraq and Afghanastan has just created a state of insecurity hindering development and prosperity. Loss of wealth creation and mass destruction of war benifits no one in the end.

http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html

The text of the NPT.

One thing I noticed, no one is obligated to share technology for peaceful purposes.
Article IV?

All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Is it? Where does it say that?

In the UN Charter. I do not remember where precisely.

And what should the UN do? Sanction the US? Authorise military action? Or simply get huffy. It should do whatever one does when laws are broken: hold a trial. And the US doesn't recognise the ICJ. So, shrug.

Sanctions can only come from the United Nations Security Council. There are 5 veto powers which the US is one of those. If a veto powered nation says no, the measure fails regardless of how many votes it gets.

As for the ICJ, that is part of the United Nations Charter. You are refering to the ICC which is a seperate court that we do not recognize.

As I've been saying, however legitimate a reason that is, it's an illegal one. All you have to do is admit it.

Admit what? That we are not obligated to hand over tech for peaceful purposes?

Article IV?

Notice the key words "the right to participate in". It does not make it mandatory.

In the UN Charter. I do not remember where precisely.
This (http://uncharter.org/) will help you find it.

Sanctions can only come from the United Nations Security Council. There are 5 veto powers which the US is one of those. If a veto powered nation says no, the measure fails regardless of how many votes it gets.
That was my point.

As for the ICJ, that is part of the United Nations Charter. You are refering to the ICC which is a seperate court that we do not recognize.
Erm...oops. Sorry, got the two crossed over.

Admit what? That we are not obligated to hand over tech for peaceful purposes?
Yes. You. Are.

Notice the key words "the right to participate in". It does not make it mandatory.
'to facitilitate' is what I'm referencing.

This (http://uncharter.org/) will help you find it.

Thanks for the link. Now why don't you find it since I'm actually leaving to go bowling with the university's bowling club that I'm treasurer for.

That was my point.

That the US will not have sanctions against it?

Erm...oops. Sorry, got the two crossed over.

Its ok :)

Yes. You. Are.

No no we're not.

'to facitilitate' is what I'm referencing.

Still does not make it madatory.

Golgothastan,

I cannot believe that you actually think that Iran is going to use any nuclear technology for a peaceful end. As you've stated before, the US is technically required to share nuclear technology with other countries for peaceful purposes. Iran has refused an option that would allow for their uranium enrichment to take place in Russia. That's basically suspicious in my frame of mind. I don't know about you, but I know for a fact that the Iranians in control of the country are out of their freaking minds. Why and how? Well, my uncle was a member of the CIA, and he was in Tehran for the 1st take-over of the embassy...ie, the one that invovled him shooting down a stairwell as people were coming up...luckily he was not involved in the second one where they actually took hostages. His good friend, [name redacted], cannot return to his homeland...because he'd be shot on sight (He was the Chief of Security for the Shah).

Now, how do I know that Iran would be irresponsible with Nukes? Well, they're not that responsible with other weapons...they support physically and financially Hezbollah and provide funds to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It doesn't matter how many bombs they got...two is enough to turn much of Israel into a parking lot. They have worked with North Korea and China on missile technology in order to get the capability to send warheads into Israel. Their president has come out numerous times and said that the Holocaust is fraud...in Austria that carries a 10-year prison sentence. They wouldn't even need to send it in that way. They load it on a ship, and send that ship into Tel Aviv or Haifa. Game over, Hezbollah claims responsibility, and a couple of million people are dead or dying.

Now, am I saying that the US should utilize nuclear weapons? No. I am a Marine, and I hate nukes. I don't think that anyone should have them, but there are people out there that would love to see us as a parking lot, and so they're kept around, sitting there collecting dust. Rational State Actors would never use them, because they do not want to be the rulers of a parking lot. However, in Iran, with their warped view of Islam, they would die a glorious death...go to the land of milk and honey and 72 dark haired virgins (and anyone who's ever been with a virgin is like, "Eh, I dunno..."!). And the beauty of it is that they can just hand it off to someone like Osama Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Al-Zaqawri (sp?) or someone even more off the deep end. Did you know that the bomber that drove the truck into the Khobar Towers was Iranian?

On another note, you say that the UN would not fail without the US there. I beg to differ. The going quote is "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it"...and it applies. The US failed to join the League of Nations, and it brought us Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan, and a Fascist Italy. If we withdrew from the UN, what would happen then? Iran, North Korea, and China are all dangers to the US, in varying degrees of latitude, hostility and capability.

In summary, Iran having nukes is just simply not the answer. The ultimate goal is for no one to have nuclear weapons, because they are horrible weapons that should all be destroyed. But right now, we are not there yet, so get the hell off your high horse and get with the freaking program.

Respectfully,
Virginian Tulane

Golgothastan,

I cannot believe that you actually think that Iran is going to use any nuclear technology for a peaceful end. As you've stated before, the US is technically required to share nuclear technology with other countries for peaceful purposes. Iran has refused an option that would allow for their uranium enrichment to take place in Russia. That's basically suspicious in my frame of mind. I don't know about you, but I know for a fact that the Iranians in control of the country are out of their freaking minds. Why and how? Well, my uncle was a member of the CIA, and he was in Tehran for the 1st take-over of the embassy...ie, the one that invovled him shooting down a stairwell as people were coming up...luckily he was not involved in the second one where they actually took hostages. His good friend, [name redacted], cannot return to his homeland...because he'd be shot on sight (He was the Chief of Security for the Shah).

Now, how do I know that Iran would be irresponsible with Nukes? Well, they're not that responsible with other weapons...they support physically and financially Hezbollah and provide funds to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It doesn't matter how many bombs they got...two is enough to turn much of Israel into a parking lot. They have worked with North Korea and China on missile technology in order to get the capability to send warheads into Israel. Their president has come out numerous times and said that the Holocaust is fraud...in Austria that carries a 10-year prison sentence. They wouldn't even need to send it in that way. They load it on a ship, and send that ship into Tel Aviv or Haifa. Game over, Hezbollah claims responsibility, and a couple of million people are dead or dying.

Now, am I saying that the US should utilize nuclear weapons? No. I am a Marine, and I hate nukes. I don't think that anyone should have them, but there are people out there that would love to see us as a parking lot, and so they're kept around, sitting there collecting dust. Rational State Actors would never use them, because they do not want to be the rulers of a parking lot. However, in Iran, with their warped view of Islam, they would die a glorious death...go to the land of milk and honey and 72 dark haired virgins (and anyone who's ever been with a virgin is like, "Eh, I dunno..."!). And the beauty of it is that they can just hand it off to someone like Osama Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Al-Zaqawri (sp?) or someone even more off the deep end. Did you know that the bomber that drove the truck into the Khobar Towers was Iranian?

On another note, you say that the UN would not fail without the US there. I beg to differ. The going quote is "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it"...and it applies. The US failed to join the League of Nations, and it brought us Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan, and a Fascist Italy. If we withdrew from the UN, what would happen then? Iran, North Korea, and China are all dangers to the US, in varying degrees of latitude, hostility and capability.

In summary, Iran having nukes is just simply not the answer. The ultimate goal is for no one to have nuclear weapons, because they are horrible weapons that should all be destroyed. But right now, we are not there yet, so get the hell off your high horse and get with the freaking program.

Respectfully,
Virginian Tulane

You are wasting your energy, friend. I don't know how that took to write up, but it looks like a couple minutes of your life down the toilet.

The fact is that there are people on this board who are not only non-chalant about nuclear proliferation, but they actually seem to be in favor of it. Don't even begin to ask me why. I could name a few posters here who would most likely take a perverse pleasure in seeing Isreal or America nuked, though.

You are still signatories to the UN charter. You should abide by it, or withdraw.

Believe me, the day we withdraw from the UN, kick it to Brussels, and turn the building into a Mega-Walmart will be one of the greatest days in the history of the nation.

Believe me, the day we withdraw from the UN, kick it to Brussels, and turn the building into a Mega-Walmart will be one of the greatest days in the history of the nation.

Ehh...hrm.

Ehh...hrm.
lol can't figure out what he/she meant :p Sounded a bit retarded.

lol can't figure out what he/she meant :p Sounded a bit retarded.

Yeah I'm still running it through my translator....I'v used it on German, French and Russian...but it doesnt seem to work on retard.

The best way to resolve any important situations is for America and the UN to work together. Newsflash: America is in the UN.

However, your last line makes me think maybe you're trolling on this, so I'll drop it.

I think that is what he is saying.

I get that alot, I dont know why.

Maybe it is how you come across. If you don't come across as such a gung ho person (I see enough of this in school) maybe you wouldn't scare to many people. I mean, I think your insane because of how you are posting.

You know that moment it took you to write that post? THAT was peace. There where no artillery shells pounding your backyard, no gun fights in the streets, no threat on your life, nothing. Just a quiet little moment on your computer. That's the closest thing to peace this world will ever know and you take it for granted. Even as you "pray for peace" you couldn't give a fuck that you have it.

No need to get huffy Ekland. Also no need to talk down to me. I do care that I have peace and I hope that where there is trouble that peace will rain. What did I do to you to make you so angry with me :(

There has never been a moment in this world where there was no bloodshed somewhere in it. As I'm typing this, someone in Africa just got shot; it doesn't affect me or you in any way shape or form. That's the way things have worked since the beginning of time. You think the Japanese gave a flying fuck when Julius Caesar invaded Gaul? No one “prayed for peace” because on a rice patty somewhere they had it, the exact same way you have it now.

Well I care about peace and I pray for world peace.

No need to get huffy Ekland. Also no need to talk down to me. I do care that I have peace and I hope that where there is trouble that peace will rain. What did I do to you to make you so angry with me :(

Wow you're sensitive :p

Yeah I'm still running it through my translator....I'v used it on German, French and Russian...but it doesnt seem to work on retard.
Heh maybe they'll include it in their next version.

IIRC, WesternPA lives in a country currently at war. He doesn't have peace - he has just been spared the direct consequences of the actions of his government and military. As 9/11 showed us, though, that doesn't last.

I'm a girl! I continue to pray that peace will reign whereever we are fighting and that peace will prevail in this case.

I'm a girl! I continue to pray that peace will reign whereever we are fighting and that peace will prevail in this case.
Are you a hippy by the way? :p

Wow you're sensitive :p

Just emotional right now and when I get emotional, I get sensitive. I can't help it.

Are you a hippy by the way? :p

uh... no. Whatever a hippy is.

Just emotional right now and when I get emotional, I get sensitive. I can't help it.
Don't take things said on the forums too personally...people here are debating mostly, so things said aren't (usually) directed at a personal level.

uh... no. Whatever a hippy is.
You mean you honestly don't know? :confused: Where are you from?

Just out of pure curiosty, where is the justification that war with Iran is A-OK because they want to create nuclear weapons? Many nations already are nuclear capable yet no declaration of war has been announced against them. I just find this quite perplexing.
I agree with you. In all honesty, after what the US did to Iraq, I really don't blame the Iranians from wanting to protect their country, especially since Bush declared Iran as one of the "Axis of Evil".

Don't take things said on the forums too personally...people here are debating mostly, so things said aren't (usually) directed at a personal level.

Thank you for the tip :)

You mean you honestly don't know? :confused: Where are you from?

the US!

Thank you for the tip :)
Just trying to save you from being needlessly upset. :)

the US!
And you honestly don't know what a hippy is? Well, look it up on www.wikipedia.org or google it.

Just trying to save you from being needlessly upset. :)

Giggling

Thanks :)

And you honestly don't know what a hippy is? Well, look it up on www.wikipedia.org or google it.

Sorry but yea I really don't know. Thanks for the website.

And you honestly don't know what a hippy is? Well, look it up on www.wikipedia.org or google it.
Long haired freaky people need not apply?

And you honestly don't know what a hippy is? Well, look it up on www.wikipedia.org or google it.

if there's only one piece of advice i could give anyone, it would be 'wikipedia it'. kindof like 'google it', but not.

for instance, when questioning if iran really wants nuclear weapons, i would say "Wikipedia North Korea". Maybe you'll get something about the US being too scared of invading a country that can really defend itself. Or at least, if not scared, then not stupid enough.

not that i've looked. but it's wikipedia; EVERYthing is in wikipedia. i love you wikipedia.

I'm never much for attacking a country for trying to protect themselves, but that isn't what Iran seems to be doing. Their theocratic dictator has already said he'll wipe out Isreal, and he has NO ONE to tell him not to. He will do what he wants, and if he gains nukes; Isreal is a goner.

I don't know what, but SOMETHING has to be done. And I'm as much a dove as anyone.

Long haired freaky people need not apply?
Not all of those are hippies ;)

Who cares about justification? They're a potential threat to the US and it's allies, and they are likely to destabilize the region with their nuclear weapons. We don't need to justify attacking them to anyone.

Remind me to do as you do: Shoot my neighbor if I find evidence he wants to buy a gun. :rolleyes:

Meh, after what has happened in Iraq with the insurgency, and Iran being a terrorist safe haven anyway..Attacking them would be like running into a hornets nest and sinking your teeth into the side of it, not a good idea to say the least.
I think that we should economically sanction them into submission.
when I want to find out something about a nation, I turn to the CIA-World Factbook. here's Irans link: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
In it it said "the people are continually increasingly dissatisfied" thus, if we cut off all trade with Iran, they'll internally kill themselves. No Western lives lost.

Meh, after what has happened in Iraq with the insurgency, and Iran being a terrorist safe haven anyway..Attacking them would be like running into a hornets nest and sinking your teeth into the side of it, not a good idea to say the least.
I think that we should economically sanction them into submission.
when I want to find out something about a nation, I turn to the CIA-World Factbook. here's Irans link: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
In it it said "the people are continually increasingly dissatisfied" thus, if we cut off all trade with Iran, they'll internally kill themselves. No Western lives lost.

Good point. We should cripple them economically... but the whole oil deal becomes an issue. I agree with you that the US acting unilaterally on Iran would be a problem, but with the support of the UN things might go a bit more smoothly.

Good point. We should cripple them economically... but the whole oil deal becomes an issue. I agree with you that the US acting unilaterally on Iran would be a problem, but with the support of the UN things might go a bit more smoothly.

The problem with the information this is based on is that it comes from the CIA. Now, think about that, how many times has the CIA been wrong in the recent past that we know of? Now consider the fact that the CIA is biased towards displaying America and American foreign policy in a positive light. More than just a little bias there. (Go on ahead and look up Nicaragua: they show the first free and democratic elections as occuring four years after the first free elections actually occured: according to the CIA, a free election is only a free election if Right-wingers win the election.)

Just out of pure curiosty, where is the justification that war with Iran is A-OK because they want to create nuclear weapons? Many nations already are nuclear capable yet no declaration of war has been announced against them. I just find this quite perplexing.

The President wants the distruction of Israel. They think of the USA as the Great Satan. They are a theocracy, theocracy plus nukes equals bad stuff. They signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Truth is if it was Luxemburg most people would simply be curious as to why they wanted nukes. Iran however is big powerfull and scares the shit out of nearly everyone when its sugested they may get nukes. Honestly this is a real rock vs hard place situation for western democracies.

Saying "Israel should be nuked" is protected under the First Amendment (obviously, this doesn't apply to foreign leaders, but still).

Actually threatening Israel with nuclear weapons is illegal.

There is a clear difference.

Actually, incitement to violence is illegal under the constitution, and like you said in this matter it doesn't matter anyhow.

I just felt like putting the acid gun guy at the end :gundge:

In that case, why haven't they attacked Chechneya with wmd? They obviously posed a massive threat from them because they are muslim extremists :rolleyes:

As to Iran, there was no doubt it was for nuclear weapons and now it has been confirmed. Ok UN, now what the hell are you going to do?
1) The Chechen separatists have not attacked us with WMDs, nor intend to do such a monstrous thing (at least I hope so). BTW, it is 'Chechnya', which is inhabited mostly by 'Chechens'.

2) The UN cannot do anything unless it is asked to, it does not act on its own accord. Hey Washington, ask something!

Actually, incitement to violence is illegal under the constitution, and like you said in this matter it doesn't matter anyhow.

...
Only if the words pass the 'imminent lawless action' test. But yes, it is completely irrelevant here. ;)

Only if the words pass the 'imminent lawless action' test. But yes, it is completely irrelevant here. ;)

So its legal to call for the extinction of the stinky Tasmanians, so long as you say "sometime"?

So its legal to call for the extinction of the stinky Tasmanians, so long as you say "sometime"?
It is a bit more nuanced.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=444

'...the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.'

Some consequences of an attack on Iran:
- Shahab missiles flying around with their 2k range. Well, they shouldnt be much of a threat, just a big, bulkier Scud, and we all know how mean those are :p
- 10000 Iranian Republican guards infiltrating Iraq and mounting a resistance there. They should find plenty of cover amongst religious shiites. After all, they are shiites too.
- Skyrocketing oil prices! nhamies!

Now, since most people here will likely have the lucidity NOT to ask for a ground invasion, tell me this:

Considering that some Iranian bunkers were nuclear research is done are impervious to conventional strikes, do you defend the usage of tactical nuclear bunker busters against Iran, to prevent them from having nuclear weapons? I think its kinda of a deadly irony. Nuke.. to prevent nukes!

...
- Skyrocketing oil prices! nhamies!
...
Mr Putin's gonna like it. :)

I'm a girl!

Pfft. There are no girls on the Internet.

Whether or not your be sarcastic, I am so with you. We are just stalling and picking our asses while this guy builds up his program to bomb the shit out of someone...probably Israel.
There's your answer: just unleash Israel. They'll not only know more about how to go about it, they'll take care of it with the least muss and fuss. Problem solved. :D

Actually, incitement to violence is illegal under the constitution, and like you said in this matter it doesn't matter anyhow.

I just felt like putting the acid gun guy at the end :gundge:
The incitement to violence clause applies only internally. :p

Pfft. There are no girls on the Internet.
G'mornin' Mr. Fass! I trust you're well today? :)

G'mornin' Mr. Fass! I trust you're well today? :)

I'm nice and sated, as it's my lunch break. I'll be leaving right about... now. Lectures to attend. :\

Haha this thread is hilarious! It confirms every prejudice I ever had about the USA. It really is a belligerent war mongering nation thats a threat to humanity! The USSR should have nuked your stupid arses while it had the chance.

Iran wouldn't attack Israel, because Iran is not stupid. I don't buy the fear mongering.

Finally, a voice of reason.

Iran is not going to start a nuclear war with a nuclear power (Israel). For goodness' sake, use your brains, instead of soaking in and parroting scaremongering propaganda.

Haha this thread is hilarious! It confirms every prejudice I ever had about the USA. It really is a belligerent war mongering nation thats a threat to humanity! The USSR should have nuked your stupid arses while it had the chance.
My God... why such a pronounced death wish? What's happened?

So is the right to bear arms purely for Americans? Are no other countries allowed to protect their own national security?

Whether or not your be sarcastic, I am so with you. We are just stalling and picking our asses while this guy builds up his program to bomb the shit out of someone...probably Israel.

Will you please just stop sowing the wind? You will just reap storms if you do not.

No: non-American from England UK

We got a document that is purported to contain information how to cast/mold hemi-spheres from uranium for nukes. If that is the case Iran is violating article 2 of the NPT which stipulates that non-nuke countries do not seek/receive outside assistance in development of nukes. That document (if it contains these nuke development plans) on it's own would be enough to merit a referral to the UN security council.
Thus the question is why didn't the IAEA do it when they got their hands on the document. There is only one answer possible, seeing that this hype of Iranian nukes has been going on for several years now, what is in the document isn't what is claimed.
However due to Iran refusing the IAEA to look into this document to see if it really isn't about nuke building the only thing possible is to conclude that it is.

About the CIA laptop. I'd trust it about as much as the chance that I would ever get acces to it. The scenario is just a tad to much like the one they used on Iraq where the INC and Curveball gave bullshit information about the Iraq WMD program.

That said Iran would be stupid to not try and see if it can develop a nuke. It has two very telling examples in the 'axis of evil'. One is N-Korea, which experienced a total reversal of rhetoric against it less then 48 hours after it detonated a nuke, the other is Iraq which got invaded because it didn't have the WMD it was supposed to have.
Note that this kind of thinking has been spreading to the point where politicians in Germany have suggested that it might need nukes.

But the question is what is the security council going to do about it?
From my point of view they can't do a lot. At most it will be some statement of disaproval. Sanctions & surgical strikes will not be effective and no one is going for a full scale invasion.
Economic sanctions. The current president is a populist (as can be seen in his appeals to the average joe in the islamic countries, like when he says Israel should not exist), he'd ride the sanctions into a president for life position. The sanctions would be at most just as effective as those the US has instituted against Cuba and more likely a lot less, due to Iran already having economic sanctions against it and it has something the world needs (oil).
Sanction surgical strikes. On what? Don't forget we are talking about a country here that if it has a nuke research program has managed to hide so effectively that there are just 2 pieces (and one iffy at that) of circumstantial evidence to it's possible existence available.

So is the right to bear arms purely for Americans? Are no other countries allowed to protect their own national security?

That right is a protected right of the American people, that a well-trained and equiped Militia is the cornerstone of the defense of the American nation...to protect it from foreign invasion. We don't give every single American citizen a nuclear weapon.

1) The Chechen separatists have not attacked us with WMDs, nor intend to do such a monstrous thing (at least I hope so). BTW, it is 'Chechnya', which is inhabited mostly by 'Chechens'.

I was being sarcastic.

2) The UN cannot do anything unless it is asked to, it does not act on its own accord. Hey Washington, ask something!

In March, it is going to the UN SC.

Finally, a voice of reason.

Iran is not going to start a nuclear war with a nuclear power (Israel). For goodness' sake, use your brains, instead of soaking in and parroting scaremongering propaganda.

You're right...Iran won't DIRECTLY start a war with Israel...it'll send it in on a ship and then after the bombs go off, Syria will invade, using the chemical weapons that they were given by Saddam Hussein.

That right is a protected right of the American people, that a well-trained and equiped Militia is the cornerstone of the defense of the American nation...to protect it from foreign invasion. We don't give every single American citizen a nuclear weapon.

So are Iran (or Iraq or North Korea or Afghanistan) not allowed to defend themselves from foreign invasion by any means necessary?

So is the right to bear arms purely for Americans? Are no other countries allowed to protect their own national security?

You wanna know why Americans like acting unilaterally on things of importance? This is why. You honestly see no difference between America and Iran?

Haha this thread is hilarious! It confirms every prejudice I ever had about the USA. It really is a belligerent war mongering nation thats a threat to humanity! The USSR should have nuked your stupid arses while it had the chance.

Uh? I guess you really need to get out more since it isn't just us in this case. its also France, Russia, Britain and China who voted to refer this to the UNSC.

So are Iran (or Iraq or North Korea or Afghanistan) not allowed to defend themselves from foreign invasion by any means necessary?
No, of course not. America is special, remember? They're not like other countries.

Regardless though, I don't want Iran to have the Bomb because then Israel will openly say they have it (they'll be obliged to), and that will require Egypt and the Saudis to have it. The Yankees are in Iraq already, and if the Iraqis ask nicely, they'll give 'em some (worked with Germany), the Turks will want it, and it'll be a lot less pleasant in the Middle East.
I don't really have a problem with Iran in particular.

So is the right to bear arms purely for Americans? Are no other countries allowed to protect their own national security?

Not when it violates international treaties.

So are Iran (or Iraq or North Korea or Afghanistan) not allowed to defend themselves from foreign invasion by any means necessary?

Oh, sure they are...but they (hopefully by now) realize that if they so much as take a potshot at a US Soldier or Marine, they're going to get a 1000lb bomb coming through their window.

Also, did you even READ the freaking thread? I've made my position on Nuclear Weapons quite clear.

Finally, a voice of reason.

Iran is not going to start a nuclear war with a nuclear power (Israel). For goodness' sake, use your brains, instead of soaking in and parroting scaremongering propaganda.

Of course Iran itself won't nuke Isreal. On the other hand, the scenario that Hamas "somehow" happens upon a nuclear warhead is quite plausible, and you know it.

Haha this thread is hilarious! It confirms every prejudice I ever had about the USA. It really is a belligerent war mongering nation thats a threat to humanity! The USSR should have nuked your stupid arses while it had the chance.
Your concept of both "war mongering" and "theat to humanity" are obviously considerably different from mine.

So are Iran (or Iraq or North Korea or Afghanistan) not allowed to defend themselves from foreign invasion by any means necessary?

Not when it violates International Treaties.

Not when it violates International Treaties.

And the US has never violated an International Treaty?

And the US has never violated an International Treaty?

Usually ones that we are going to violate don't get passed by the Senate, and that means that they're null and void.

And the US has never violated an International Treaty?

Name 1 treaty we have violated!

a keen analysis:


www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/political.php

I'd say probably yes. Since the US pretty much sucked Iraq dry by now, they'll just move over to Iran which is conveniently placed next door. Not much effort there.

I'd say probably yes. Since the US pretty much sucked Iraq dry by now, they'll just move over to Iran which is conveniently placed next door. Not much effort there.

Sucked Iraq dry? Dry of what?

I'd say probably yes. Since the US pretty much sucked Iraq dry by now, they'll just move over to Iran which is conveniently placed next door. Not much effort there.
You are mistaken.

Usually ones that we are going to violate don't get passed by the Senate, and that means that they're null and void.

So if Iran say didn't sign up to any international treaties there wouldn't be a problem?

So are Iran (or Iraq or North Korea or Afghanistan) not allowed to defend themselves from foreign invasion by any means necessary?
Hm... do you want nuclear deterrents for all the countries of the world? BTW, according to international law, among thee countries listed above only North Korea can develop nuclear weapons. Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan are all NPT members, having joined the treaty as non-nuclear states.

So if Iran say didn't sign up to any international treaties there wouldn't be a problem?

Nope it wouldn't be. Since they are not a party to it, they are not bound by its protocals.

Name 1 treaty we have violated!

Geneva Convention

Geneva Convention

Which one?

So if Iran say didn't sign up to any international treaties there wouldn't be a problem?
Legally, yes. But who would engage in peaceful nuclear cooperation with a non-NPT theocracy? Call me naive, but it is over the top even for us Russians.

So let's just bomb them already. What are we waiting for? We know where their president works during the day and sleeps at night. We know where the offices of the members of the Guardian council are. Let's just bomb them in such a way as to decapitate their government.

No, I say we do this the way that critics of the US say we should have done it before.

We take it to the Security Council.

We let the Europeans take the lead - entirely.

We wait until Iran nukes something or threatens Persian Gulf oil resources and makes inordinate demands that Europe take back all of the Jews in Israel (as they have been loudly proclaiming of late).

After Iran sets off a few nukes, in Israel, in the Persian Gulf, and perhaps on a few southern European cities, we then humbly ask the EU and UN if the US may be permitted to help out with some humanitarian assistance, and refuse to use any of our military in any way to help anyone for combat purposes.

See how they like it then. How good an idea replicating Chamberlain works for them.

No, I say we do this the way that critics of the US say we should have done it before.

We take it to the Security Council.

We let the Europeans take the lead - entirely.

We wait until Iran nukes something or threatens Persian Gulf oil resources and makes inordinate demands that Europe take back all of the Jews in Israel (as they have been loudly proclaiming of late).

After Iran sets off a few nukes, in Israel, in the Persian Gulf, and perhaps on a few southern European cities, we then humbly ask the EU and UN if the US may be permitted to help out with some humanitarian assistance, and refuse to use any of our military in any way to help anyone for combat purposes.

See how they like it then. How good an idea replicating Chamberlain works for them.

Oh man! That's great! ROTFLMFAO!

See how they like it then. How good an idea replicating Chamberlain works for them.
I wonder whether you heard about this whole Security Council thing they have...but then, Europe acting on a matter of security wouldn't fit into your world view, would it. :rolleyes:

I wonder whether you heard about this whole Security Council thing they have...but then, Europe acting on a matter of security wouldn't fit into your world view, would it. :rolleyes:
Deep Kimchi's question is, I think: 'Can (and will) Europe do it alone (after the UN Resolution authorizing the use off military power against nuclear Iran), without any American military assistance?'

I wonder whether you heard about this whole Security Council thing they have...but then, Europe acting on a matter of security wouldn't fit into your world view, would it. :rolleyes:
Yes I have.

It's going to go to the Security Council, and there will be no military action taken or threatened. Sanctions perhaps.

Then Iran will keep doing what it's doing, and eventually use a nuke to enact what they have openly stated should be done - wipe Israel off the map. This will be preceded by a demand to Europe that they take back all the Jews - which they have also already stated. If Europe doesn't take the Jews back, Iranian missiles are not only sufficient to reach and destroy most of Israel, but punitive strikes could strike half of Europe.

I foresee that if Israel is nuked, Europe will still be unwilling to invade Iran or punish them. I also foresee that if Iran threatens Persian Gulf oil, Europe will grovel and beg rather than fight.

No nation other than the US has the ability to credibly and quickly project massive combat power sufficient to invade Iran or subdue Iran, short of using nuclear weapons.

Iran's nuclear weapons will be a threat against Israel,

Iran's leadership knows that if it nukes Israel, it will be destroyed in turn, and we all know that leaders don't like to be the ones martyred.

It has been saying stuff against Israel like wanting it to cease to exist for 20 odd years, but they know they can do nothing of the sort.

Not to mention that nuking Israel would be the nuking of the West Bank and Gaza where the Palestinians want their state.

The Arab nations would not take too kindly to seeing Palestinians vapourised along with Israel.


will make striking against Iran for it's sponsorship of Hezbollah more complicated,

A vast proportion of Lebanese people see Hezbollah as freedom fighters for fighting the Israeli occupation of Lebanon.

and will make the Saudis and other Sunni-majority nations in the region develop nuclear ambitions.

They will start developing them anyway sooner or later. They saw what happened to Iraq, they'll want a deterrent to stave off attack.


Sorry, it can't be allowed.

Who are you to say? Who are you to decide? Who are you to condemn Iranians to be maimed and killed by bombs and gunfire? Who are you to advocate the deaths of Iranians?
Who are you to do this so care-free without realisation of consequences, who cares not for Iranian lives in this display of advocate of violence and death against Iranians?

Just another war monger, who wants to sit and eat popcorn while the bombs fall, because you won't want to find yourself taking part in what you advocate, and be in the front lines.

You're nice and safe, shrilly advocating war and death but wishing no physical part of the frontline and warzone and bloodbath you wish to send people to.

Because when the bullets fly, and the bombs fall, and burn, and decapitate and blow off limbs and orphan and destroy families....you won't want to see that, smell the blood, hear the screams....

No, you will be nice and safe at home, safe from the horror you advocate.

Just another war monger, who wants to sit and eat popcorn while the bombs fall, because you won't want to find yourself taking part in what you advocate, and be in the front lines.

You're nice and safe, shrilly advocating war and death but wishing no physical part of the frontline and warzone and bloodbath you wish to send people to.

Because when the bullets fly, and the bombs fall, and burn, and decapitate and blow off limbs and orphan and destroy families....you won't want to see that, smell the blood, hear the screams....

No, you will be nice and safe at home, safe from the horror you advocate.

Nope, I've been in combat in Iraq, been shot at, killed people, etc. Seen the "horror" of war. The smell you're talking about is blood, vomit, and feces, along with burning tires, burning bodies (smells like burning sardines), etc.

We condemn them to death because with nuclear weapons and their attitude towards the West, they constitute a threat that cannot be tolerated.

Deep Kimchi's question is, I think: 'Can (and will) Europe do it alone (after the UN Resolution authorizing the use off military power against nuclear Iran), without any American military assistance?'
Not exactly what he asked, but fair enough. :p
But he knows just as well as we do that Europe is only capable of military action in Iran in the framework of NATO and with its support. I don't think anything more than small strikes could actually be done without the Americans - it's what happens if you spend all your money on different things.

It's going to go to the Security Council, and there will be no military action taken or threatened. Sanctions perhaps.
The deal the EU had with the US from Day One was for the negotiations to be tried without US interference, and if they failed, there would be "other measures" taken.
France will be in, you can count on that, as will Britain. Germany won't, but not for malicious reasons, and they will support it diplomatically.

Then Iran will keep doing what it's doing, and eventually use a nuke to enact what they have openly stated should be done - wipe Israel off the map. This will be preceded by a demand to Europe that they take back all the Jews - which they have also already stated. If Europe doesn't take the Jews back, Iranian missiles are not only sufficient to reach and destroy most of Israel, but punitive strikes could strike half of Europe.
All true, except that you are using statements made by the President of Iran, taken out of context and translated from Farsi, then interpret them to mean certain things, instead of official Iranian policy.

I foresee that if Israel is nuked, Europe will still be unwilling to invade Iran or punish them. I also foresee that if Iran threatens Persian Gulf oil, Europe will grovel and beg rather than fight.
Yeah, you go ahead and predict. :rolleyes:

No nation other than the US has the ability to credibly and quickly project massive combat power sufficient to invade Iran or subdue Iran, short of using nuclear weapons.
So much is true. That's mainly due to the fact that we are Allies, remember that? Yeah, those were the days.

And I just want everyone to keep in mind that we have all the time in the world. The CIA says that the Iranians will need at least another decade to actually have a bomb, so there is no need to rush - and strictly speaking, Iran hasn't done anything illegal so far either.

Ok I have had enough of this crap.

1) The USA is not as dependent on Arab oil as people think. In reality, the USA get more oil from the Gulf of Mexico, Canada, Mexico, and Alaska than All the Arab countries combined. The total import of Arab oil is only about 20% of the US total. So anyone who says we did Iraq and might do Iran just for oil is a liberal idiot.

2) Why the hell should the USA give a crap what the UN thinks. What's the UN gonna if the USA does what it wants? Invade the US? Kick em out? PLEASE:headbang: The last time I checked the USA pays most of the UN dues doesn't it. I think somewhere around 40% of the money going into it (I don't recall the actual percentage, but my point still stands). Also, the UN couldn't defend / attack / anyone without the US. Perfect example would include Desert Storm / Bosnia / the entire continent of Europe during the cold war. If the UN has a prob, then ain't that just tough luck. Besides, the UN needs the US and they know it. I'm shocked the US hasn't pulled out of this worthless organization.

3) Here's a situation to ponder for you hippie peaceniks or worthless liberals who don't think Iran has any threat value to the US. Ever heard the term Suitcase Nuke? Or ever see the movie Clear and Present Danger where a nuke is hidden in a vending machine and NOONE knows until BOOM. With the open borders in Europe and porous borders of the US how easy would it be to smuggle a nuke into any any of these countries. Or better yet. We already know Iran hates Israel. What if they smuggled a lil nuke into the port of Haifa and blew that city up. Right now the US gov't even admits it only does security checks on 5% of incoming cargo containers by sea. THAT's 1 in 20!!! It would be so simple to do I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet. And anyone who thinks that Iran wouldn't hesitate to give any nukes they develop to terrorists like Al-Qaeda / Hamas / Hezbollah / Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade / etc has seriously got their head up their ass. Thats why we went into Iraq, for the same reason. Saddam would have been more than happy to do the same given the chance.

4) The Iranian gov't, just like the Saddam Regime and the current terrorists in Iraq and Palestine have absolutely no problem dying for their cause. So if threatening them with force doesn't do it, then step 2 would naturally have to be to use force to accomplish the goals.

5) See if anyone knows who said this quote:

"War is a continuation of politics by other means"

I'm a little concerned that this is going to be :headbang: , but that's ok, I'm gonna give it a shot anyways. Ignoring that Iran has other problems, ignoring their support of the different terrorist organizations, even ignoring nasty labels like "fundamentalist," their president wants a war. Here's why.

1.Israel has nukes.
2.Iran is shooting for nukes.
3.Iran has called for the unilateral destruction of Israel.
4. #3 is not rhetoric, because, even if the Iranian president is not a "fundamentalist," he's very outspoken and faithful to his religion, which is Twelver Shiism. What does this mean? It's a very Apocalyptic religion, where the last descendant of Muhammed is slated to reappear during a time of great chaos and destruction. The Iranian president is on record saying that he's douing his part to help this along. I assume that can only mean he is purposefully starting a war in the hopes that the resulting chaos will cause a (rationally speaking) fictional character to come walking out of the desert, where he is supposed to have been living for the last 1000 years, and lead the Muslims to glory, apparently to conquer the world.
5.US is allies with Israel, for better or worse. If the US withdraws that support, Isareal collapses under the weight of every single Mulslim fundie taking that as carte blanche to run in and destroy as many "Zionist pigs" in the name of Allah as they can.

These five points of logic indicate that we're slated for another world war, folks. Iran hits Israel, US hits Iran, other Islamic states(because that's what they are, each and every one of them is a theocracy, now that Saddam's gone) retaliate, US's allies get in on the puicture, and that ought to be enough to qualify the whole mess as a World War. Right?

And anybody who says that the politicians don't want war, that it's bad to get their constituents killed, etc...: War is great for patriotism levels. And most Iranians are Shiite Muslim. The president of Iran has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by getting his people to unite again "Western decadence." Wartime does wonderful things for religiously active political conservatives.:rolleyes:

There will be an Iran war. However, it will not have anything to do with nukes. As before, that's just an excuse.

The real reason why the US wants a war with Iran is to save its economy from spiralling inflation.

Please read the following article from Asia Times:

http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HA31Dj01.html (The Greenspan Legacy)

If you look at the chart of M3 (annual broad money supply) growth compared with CPI (consumer price index) in this article, one thing becomes clear. The US government has been printing lots and lots of paper money it doesn't really have. This has been necessary thanks to oil price vagaries following the Iraq war, and has redoubled after Katrina.

What happens when you print too much paper money without the real value to back it up? Inflation (too much money chasing too few goods and services). Eventually, it comes back around to wallop you in the head, and you wind up paying $7.00 per gallon at the gas pump. Printing dollar bills is only a temporary stopgap measure to delay this. It'll catch up with you eventually.

So why an Iran war?

The US government has lots of printed paper money lying around without the real value to back it up. What do you do when you have too much of something? Try to create a demand for it globally.

How do you create a demand for dollars overseas? By doing something that will raise the price of oil globally. Because, thanks to that little agreement between Ibn Saud and Franklin D. Roosevelt some 70 years ago, the value of the dollar is directly linked to the value of oil. Apart from Iran, which trades oil in Euros, every major oil supplier trades in dollars.

A war against Iran will drive up the global price of oil--and increase the global demand for dollars-- giving the tons of paper money printed by the US government a value that it didn't previously have.

The US NEEDS this war in order to protect its economy from terrible inflation. China will be happy with a war, because they have huge amounts of dollars in their foreign exchange reserves, which will be worth more if the global demand for dollars increases. Russia will be delighted because they are one of the largest suppliers of oil, they'd love to be selling the stuff at $200 a barrel. The UK will be content to go along because, as always, it is subsidized by the US.

Only France might have a problem with a regime change in Iran that causes Iranian oil to be traded in dollars instead of Euros afterwards. However, I don't think they'll veto. They've already put their foot too far in it now.

Iran's leadership knows that if it nukes Israel, it will be destroyed in turn, and we all know that leaders don't like to be the ones martyred..

True, but you're ignoring the fact that the Iranians have been sponosoring terrorism, and they will not think twice about handing off the material or a bomb to any terrorist group willing to buy it from them.

It has been saying stuff against Israel like wanting it to cease to exist for 20 odd years, but they know they can do nothing of the sort..

So has every other state in the region...since Israel was created. And they could, if they possessed the right technology. Conventionally, they cannot. Israel has a far superior military (now going without US support essentially). They proved it in the first war, back in 1946, then again in the 1967 and 1972 wars. Each time they kicked ass and took names.

Not to mention that nuking Israel would be the nuking of the West Bank and Gaza where the Palestinians want their state..

The Iranians, NOR ANY OTHER ARABS for that matter, would care. No one in the region cares about the Palestinians. They use the Palestinians as leverage to keep hammering Israel.

The Arab nations would not take too kindly to seeing Palestinians vapourised along with Israel..

Again, they wouldn't care. It would be a massive weight off of their shoulders if the Palestinans disappeared.

A vast proportion of Lebanese people see Hezbollah as freedom fighters for fighting the Israeli occupation of Lebanon..

True. HOWEVER, the Lebanese people also want to get rid of Syria...more so than Israel. The Enemy of mine Enemy is my Friend, methinks.

They will start developing them anyway sooner or later. They saw what happened to Iraq, they'll want a deterrent to stave off attack..

No one in the region will want to, not with the bulk of the US military right in their back yard with a whole lotta guns.

Who are you to say? Who are you to decide? Who are you to condemn Iranians to be maimed and killed by bombs and gunfire? Who are you to advocate the deaths of Iranians?
Who are you to do this so care-free without realisation of consequences, who cares not for Iranian lives in this display of advocate of violence and death against Iranians?

Just another war monger, who wants to sit and eat popcorn while the bombs fall, because you won't want to find yourself taking part in what you advocate, and be in the front lines.

You're nice and safe, shrilly advocating war and death but wishing no physical part of the frontline and warzone and bloodbath you wish to send people to.

Because when the bullets fly, and the bombs fall, and burn, and decapitate and blow off limbs and orphan and destroy families....you won't want to see that, smell the blood, hear the screams.

No, you will be nice and safe at home, safe from the horror you advocate.

Neither I nor anyone else is advocating that we kill all the Iranians. Its their leaders and their politicians that we have a problem with. That's why we put so much effort into making sure that we avoid civilian casualties as best we can. However, in war, people make mistakes, bombs go off course, and rounds travel farther than they're supposed to. That's why its WAR. It ain't supposed to win beauty contests.

As I'm sure that YOU'VE seen the bombs fall, and buildings burn, and bodies flying...go to hell in a handbasket and burn with Uday and Qusay while you're there.

5) See if anyone knows who said this quote:

"War is a continuation of politics by other means"

I believe it was General Clausewitz

*snip

Ok now do you have a real reason?

Ok I have had enough of this crap.


3) Here's a situation to ponder for you hippie peaceniks or worthless liberals who don't think Iran has any threat value to the US. Ever heard the term Suitcase Nuke? Or ever see the movie Clear and Present Danger where a nuke is hidden in a vending machine and NOONE knows until BOOM. With the open borders in Europe and porous borders of the US how easy would it be to smuggle a nuke into any any of these countries. Or better yet. We already know Iran hates Israel. What if they smuggled a lil nuke into the port of Haifa and blew that city up. Right now the US gov't even admits it only does security checks on 5% of incoming cargo containers by sea. THAT's 1 in 20!!! It would be so simple to do I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet. And anyone who thinks that Iran wouldn't hesitate to give any nukes they develop to terrorists like Al-Qaeda / Hamas / Hezbollah / Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade / etc has seriously got their head up their ass. Thats why we went into Iraq, for the same reason. Saddam would have been more than happy to do the same given the chance.


Hate to point this out, old boy, but explosives are a good time. You do realize that that was all just Hollywood hyperbole, right? Look up what it takes to actually manufacture a nuclear weapon. There's no way you can hide a nuke that would do any real damage inside a vending machine, certainly not one that worked, and it definitely wouldn't go off. Nuclear weapons need some serious velocity to propel the plutonium into the U-235 fast enough to actually begin a reaction big enough to go critical. As far as the legendary "suicase nukes" go, the best you can hope for there is a dirty bomb., and those don't give off mushroom clouds either. It just results in people getting cancer from living near where the blast goes off- and this is America. Everything gives you cancer anyways.

As far as Saddam goes, I still don't know why we removed him. He was awful to his people, but he wasn';t religiously motivated at all. He definitely wouldn't suppiort suicide bombers, because he ran the only really secularist regime over there. The reason his sunni minority party, the Baathists, kept the Shiites downtrodden and oppressed was, get this. they were crazy suicide bombing extremists. No, really, I mean it. The vast majority of the Iraqi people are actually suicide bombing hatemongering psychopaths who- oh, wait. We're seeing that for ourselves right now, anyways.

Other than those three points, you're absolutely correct, and that mmeans I agree with you about %60, total.

I believe it was General Clausewitz
Yeah, good old misinterpreted Clausewitz. Silly Anglos with their deficient language. ;)

One of the main sources of confusion about Clausewitz's approach lies in his dialectical method of presentation. For example, Clausewitz's famous line that "War is merely a continuation of politics," while accurate as far as it goes, was not intended as a statement of fact. It is the antithesis in a dialectical argument whose thesis is the point—made earlier in the analysis—that "war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale." His synthesis, which resolves the deficiencies of these two bold statements, says that war is neither "nothing but" an act of brute force nor "merely" a rational act of politics or policy. This synthesis lies in his "fascinating trinity" [wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit]: a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation.

Yeah, good old misinterpreted Clausewitz. Silly Anglos with their deficient language. ;)

What's funny is, I got the name from a David Weber book about Honor Harrington. The book is called The Honor of the Queen

Hate to point this out, old boy, but explosives are a good time. You do realize that that was all just Hollywood hyperbole, right? Look up what it takes to actually manufacture a nuclear weapon. There's no way you can hide a nuke that would do any real damage inside a vending machine, certainly not one that worked, and it definitely wouldn't go off. Nuclear weapons need some serious velocity to propel the plutonium into the U-235 fast enough to actually begin a reaction big enough to go critical. As far as the legendary "suicase nukes" go, the best you can hope for there is a dirty bomb., and those don't give off mushroom clouds either. It just results in people getting cancer from living near where the blast goes off- and this is America. Everything gives you cancer anyways.

As far as Saddam goes, I still don't know why we removed him. He was awful to his people, but he wasn';t religiously motivated at all. He definitely wouldn't suppiort suicide bombers, because he ran the only really secularist regime over there. The reason his sunni minority party, the Baathists, kept the Shiites downtrodden and oppressed was, get this. they were crazy suicide bombing extremists. No, really, I mean it. The vast majority of the Iraqi people are actually suicide bombing hatemongering psychopaths who- oh, wait. We're seeing that for ourselves right now, anyways.

Other than those three points, you're absolutely correct, and that mmeans I agree with you about %60, total.


If you're a technologically advanced nation that has the ability to test hundreds of nuclear designs in real detonations (like the US and USSR), you can certainly build a potent device that would easily fit inside a vending machine - even a vending machine that could vend a few cans to fool people.

The W-85 warhead, with neat features like variable yield from 20 to 120 kilotons, would easily fit inside a vending machine - and that isn't a suitcase nuke. It's a missile warhead. Of course, this is without the re-entry vehicle, so it's actually quite small.

Not that most initial nuclear states or terrorist groups could build such a sophisticated weapon on the first try - even if they had access to the design. But it's an engineering problem - it's only a matter of time. And the best part is that anyone starting on such a project KNOWS for sure that it is possible.

Precious oil reserves and oil around the world are depleting. Nuclear is an alternative source of energy for the future of all nations, which also includes Arab nations. However I hope that the UN will have tighter regulations on nations resorting for nuclear energy, especially countries like Iran who just want to bomb other sovereign nations like Israel. Religious fundamentalism and extremism must stop in the Islamic world! What happen to the glory day of Islamic civilization, where they excel in the arts, science, medicine, architecture, trade, sea navigation and etc. I believe the Shahs were good for Iran but it’s the masses of illiterate, uneducated, stupid, recalcitrant citizen who did not know the value of good progressive development of Iran at that time. I also blame the religious clerics who are making religious edicts (fatwa) which are ridiculous and darn right stupid. It is their own clerics that are making the name of Islam bad and is stinking up the whole world! Maybe the Arab world is in a phase of the ‘dark ages’ just like what happen to Europe centuries ago. If America were to attack Iran, I believe they deserve it though I think the Iraq war was unlawful and totally wrong. Saddam was the only man who could control all these fanatics although he was down right cruel and killed many people. But if you look back at history, I feel that some of them deserve it. In certain parts of Arabia, you need to rule these unruly people with an iron fist. That’s the only law they know and recognize.

I understand that you could fit the warhead inside the machine, the problem would be getting the trigger propelled into the mass fast enough to actually set it off. Usually in nuclear weapons, this is accomplished by inpact with the ground- there's a whole lot of force to be generated when something hits the ground from 40,000 feet.

However, now that I look at the problem closer, you're right. It is an engineering problem, and that means it can probably be solved. I can't do it, but then, I'm not in a position where I have to, either.

But surely you concede my point about Saddam?

I understand that you could fit the warhead inside the machine, the problem would be getting the trigger propelled into the mass fast enough to actually set it off. Usually in nuclear weapons, this is accomplished by inpact with the ground- there's a whole lot of force to be generated when something hits the ground from 40,000 feet.

However, now that I look at the problem closer, you're right. It is an engineering problem, and that means it can probably be solved. I can't do it, but then, I'm not in a position where I have to, either.

But surely you concede my point about Saddam?


No implosion device relies on impact to detonate.

The W-85 has been tested in a stationary position. Works quite well.

I don't believe for a second that Saddam actually had a working device (otherwise, he would have tested it). And, even if his people built one, it would be fairly simple, and probably similar to the HEU devices built by the US shortly before the US transitioned to thermonuclear weapons.

Weapons, in short, very similar to the ones detonated by Pakistan.

Given time, I'm sure Saddam would have acquired them, and even then I'm not sure he would bother with a vending machine. A missile is a nice phallic symbol, and looks good in parades.

US think-tank exercises run by Sam Gardiner have Iranians or North Koreas putting nuclear weapons aboard commercial vessels and detonating them in US harbors. Simple, easy, and long before Customs searches the ship.... BOOM. No missile to intercept, etc. And unless the attacker admits the attack, it's rather hard to prove who did it - proof to the satisfaction of the international community, who will demand rock solid proof before the US retaliates in any form or fashion.

The US might be stuck taking a few nuclear hits and losing 3 to 5 million people before the international community says, "ok, we accept your evidence that Iran did it".

Ok then how about this scenario. Iran gives the terrorists a warhead. The warhead is then loaded into a private long range PRIVATE jet and then flown to a major US or EU city. The pilot then kamikaze's into the biggest target they can find in that city. that would provide the force necessary wouldn't it?

Ok then how about this scenario. Iran gives the terrorists a warhead. The warhead is then loaded into a private long range PRIVATE jet and then flown to a major US or EU city. The pilot then kamikaze's into the biggest target they can find in that city. that would provide the force necessary wouldn't it?

Modern thermonuclear weapon designs rely on explosives, not impact, to detonate.

No implosion device relies on impact to detonate.

The W-85 has been tested in a stationary position. Works quite well.

I don't believe for a second that Saddam actually had a working device (otherwise, he would have tested it). And, even if his people built one, it would be fairly simple, and probably similar to the HEU devices built by the US shortly before the US transitioned to thermonuclear weapons.

Weapons, in short, very similar to the ones detonated by Pakistan.

Given time, I'm sure Saddam would have acquired them, and even then I'm not sure he would bother with a vending machine. A missile is a nice phallic symbol, and looks good in parades.

US think-tank exercises run by Sam Gardiner have Iranians or North Koreas putting nuclear weapons aboard commercial vessels and detonating them in US harbors. Simple, easy, and long before Customs searches the ship.... BOOM. No missile to intercept, etc. And unless the attacker admits the attack, it's rather hard to prove who did it - proof to the satisfaction of the international community, who will demand rock solid proof before the US retaliates in any form or fashion.

The US might be stuck taking a few nuclear hits and losing 3 to 5 million people before the international community says, "ok, we accept your evidence that Iran did it".

I really don't think Saddam would hasve done much to the US. He was an awful person and a terrible dictator, but wars against the US didn't really work well for him. He might even have learned his lesson during Desert Sorm. Besides, he was our man. We put him in. I still think his removal was more because we couldn't predict him any more.

Nukes weren't Saddam's thing at all. He was using poison gasses, yes, but while those are horrifically destructive on a personal level, they don't have the kind of lasting effects, including landscaping, that nuclear weapons do. I really dohn't think he was going to attack either the US, Israel, or any other US ally. He mostly wanted weapons to oppress his populace- and since when is being a bad ruler punishable by anybody but your own people? If his constituents didn't like it, they should have held a revolution. It worked for the US!:D

Anyways. I think our biggest problem here isn't Saddam, or even Iran. Sure, Twelver Shiites are lunatics, in large part. Sure, Saddam is out of power. But what about the schools that are educating the psychopaths in the first place? To mold a nation's children is to mold the nation. And these children are not being educated in public schools. They're going to private schools, ones without running water, or furniture. They don't learn politics, science, or literature there. Well, a little literature- if you count the Koran. Ladies and gentlemen, the big problem is the private schools being funded in other countries by the Saudi Arabians. These schools are the source of the hatred towards the West. Don't believe me? Find facts on the schools, and prove that they aren't the awful places that I claim.

Iran has refused to cooperate, and now Iran deserves to be punished. I'd support whatever the nations involved in the negotiations deem necessary to stop Iran's nuclear program...even full blown war if it need be.

why should iran cooperate? after all, israel, india, north korea, and pakistan did not cooperate, and they have autonomy over their own political decisions as a result.

the US cannot police the entire world, nor should it.

the US cannot police the entire world, nor should it.

Ummm.... this is a UN Security Council matter.

Four other major nations have referred this to the Security Council as well.

Are you going to say not only that the US should not police the world, but no one should?

why should iran cooperate? after all, israel, india, north korea, and pakistan did not cooperate, and they have autonomy over their own political decisions as a result.

the US cannot police the entire world, nor should it.

North Korea pulled out of the Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran has not. Therefor, Iran must cooperate with the IAEA and prove that it was only for peaceful purposes. I guess that theory is out the window now based on the fact that the UN believes they are going after nukes thanks to Iran obtaining a document on how to make them from the black market.

Come to think of it, they are not letting the IAEA look at it.

So let's just bomb them already. What are we waiting for? We know where their president works during the day and sleeps at night. We know where the offices of the members of the Guardian council are. Let's just bomb them in such a way as to decapitate their government.

perhaps you are unaware of the allies behind iran; namely, china and russia. collectively, those two nations could successfully oppose US operations in iran, if they so choose.

and of course, why wouldn't russia and china intervene? the oil is in THEIR neighborhood after all. it makes sense that they would be politically motivated to protect the industrial interests of asia in the face of US global imperialism.

no, the US must tread very carefully here indeed -- something i feel bush junior is not capable of. sorry for ending that sentence with a preposition, but it seemed appropriate, considering the topic of discussion.

perhaps you are unaware of the allies behind iran; namely, china and russia. collectively, those two nations could successfully oppose US operations in iran, if they so choose.

and of course, why wouldn't russia and china intervene? the oil is in THEIR neighborhood after all. it makes sense that they would be politically motivated to protect the industrial interests of asia in the face of US global imperialism.

no, the US must tread very carefully here indeed -- something i feel bush junior is not capable of. sorry for ending that sentence with a preposition, but it seemed appropriate, considering the topic of discussion.

Of course, China and Russia supported the measure to refer this problem to the United Nations Security Council.

North Korea pulled out of the Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran has not. Therefor, Iran must cooperate with the IAEA...so there is the solution.. Iran should pull out.. just like Korea and Israel did..

End of the problem..

so there is the solution.. Iran should pull out.. like Koread and Israel did..

End of the problem..

Agreed. But then, the UN will still take this up anyway.

Ummm.... this is a UN Security Council matter.

Four other major nations have referred this to the Security Council as well.

Are you going to say not only that the US should not police the world, but no one should?

might does not make right, you know. there are other means by which this conflict can be resolved, but it involves adjustments to western standard of living comfort levels.

as for the UN security council, the US has already made it clear that it only heeds this body when it suits US policy. for instance, the US violated the UN security council when it decided to invade iraq.

as for policing: that will cease to be necessary when all are treated as collective equals. it is power imbalance that makes policing necessary -- and truly it is completely unnecessary.

Agreed. But then, the UN will still take this up anyway.Riiigth...You mean like the UN did take it up for Israel and Korea? :rolleyes:

And just when did this happen? Because sure as hell i missed it... twice.

Ummm.... this is a UN Security Council matter.

Four other major nations have referred this to the Security Council as well.

Are you going to say not only that the US should not police the world, but no one should?

You do realise that Team America was satire rather than a political manifesto

Haha this thread is hilarious! It confirms every prejudice I ever had about the USA. It really is a belligerent war mongering nation thats a threat to humanity! The USSR should have nuked your stupid arses while it had the chance.



If the USSR would have nuked America and Western Europe, it would have been only to 1) take out the democratic threat, and 2) spread Communism. So, basically, if Russia would have attacked the U.S., and be successful, you wouldn't have the right to say that.

Of course, China and Russia supported the measure to refer this problem to the United Nations Security Council.

this is a political game, don't you see?

iran knows that US wants its oil. take a look at a map, and see where iran is situation (right between iraq and afganistan). asia also wants control of these oil reserves, and oil pipeline right-of-way.

so what to do? the US has already invaded two countries surrounding iran; it doesn't take a genious to see what might happen next.

enter the nuclear wildcard.

if north korea can make the US dance on a pinhead, perhaps iran can too.

now russia and china, iran's tacit backers, must play the political game of lip service, even though they have a pretty good idea of the end game result. they will back the UN security council as long as it serves their interests, and when they pull out, they will cite the US initiative during the second iraq war as their justification.

now russia and china will appear squeaky clean, while the US looks like dirt. and still the question of iran...

do you see how this works?

the US needs to back off now, drive fewer SUV's, promote renewable energy generation (or at least start backing fast neutron reactors so that nuclear fuel is better utilized), be content with canada's tarsands and oil permanently in the $60 to $100 a barrel range.

if say, germany was playing the same imperialist tactics that the US has been doing, how would your perception change? thought provoking question. how is annexing afganistan and iraq any different than annexing austria and the czech republic?

If the USSR would have nuked America and Western Europe, it would have been only to 1) take out the democratic threat, and 2) spread Communism. So, basically, if Russia would have attacked the U.S., and be successful, you wouldn't have the right to say that.

He probably wouldn't be around anyway since the US and other nuclear powers would've launched their nukes too.

this is a political game, don't you see?

Yes I see. I happen to study politics.

iran knows that US wants its oil. take a look at a map, and see where iran is situation (right between iraq and afganistan). asia also wants control of these oil reserves, and oil pipeline right-of-way.

Go get a new line. This is getting old.

so what to do? the US has already invaded two countries surrounding iran; it doesn't take a genious to see what might happen next.

Iran made itself a threat.

enter the nuclear wildcard.

1st intelligent thing so far. Don't disappoint me now.

if north korea can make the US dance on a pinhead, perhaps iran can too.

Intelligent but I guess you left out the fact that there are 6 party talks going on with N.K.?

now russia and china, iran's tacit backers, must play the political game of lip service, even though they have a pretty good idea of the end game result. they will back the UN security council as long as it serves their interests, and when they pull out, they will cite the US initiative during the second iraq war as their justification.

Who will pull out of what?

now russia and china will appear squeaky clean, while the US looks like dirt. and still the question of iran...

Good luck.

do you see how this works?

Not as clear cut as your trying to make it out to believe.

the US needs to back off now, drive fewer SUV's, promote renewable energy generation (or at least start backing fast neutron reactors so that nuclear fuel is better utilized), be content with canada's tarsands and oil permanently in the $60 to $100 a barrel range.

We're researching alternate fuel sources for cars and power.

if say, germany was playing the same imperialist tactics that the US has been doing, how would your perception change? thought provoking question. how is annexing afganistan and iraq any different than annexing austria and the czech republic?

We did not annex Iraq or Afghanistan. I suggest you actualy read what an annexation.

Ok now do you have a real reason?

Many. But I doubt I could simplify them any further than I have in my initial post. So sorry it was hard for you to understand.

Legally, yes. But who would engage in peaceful nuclear cooperation with a non-NPT theocracy? Call me naive, but it is over the top even for us Russians.then why the Hell do you keep doing it? Mr Putin? :-) Yes I.. know you do not speak for Russia.
Why does Russia keeps "cooperating" with Iran?

Many. But I doubt I could simplify them any further than I have in my initial post. So sorry it was hard for you to understand.

I understood you just fine. However, what you posted is wrong so I'm waiting on a real reason.

Finally, a voice of reason.

Iran is not going to start a nuclear war with a nuclear power (Israel). For goodness' sake, use your brains, instead of soaking in and parroting scaremongering propaganda.

Playing to a culture that revels in the glorification of suicide bombers, Iran has already publically declared that they would happily destroy Israel and accept their own destruction for the greater cause of the so-called Islamic Empire.

Check and mate.

As for the rest of you bastards harking about the U.N. Charter, NPT, etc, you obviously know nothing about it or the history of its enforcement. The U.S. by right, has the right to expel virtually every nation on this planet for previous violations as it has been the Charter's primary enforcer since Day 1.

As it stands, it is a relic of history and the U.N. should be disbanded, I see no evidence convincing enough as to why the U.S. can not form coalitions on a nation-by-nation basis. The U.N. is a redundant organization, remember, the U.N. is not a place for peace, it is merely another theatre of war.

then why the Hell do you keep doing it? Mr Putin? :-) Yes I.. know you do not speak for Russia.
Why does Russia keeps "cooperating" with Iran?
1) Because Iran is a NPT member.
2) Because we're greedy. :D

1) Because Iran is a NPT member.
2) Because we're greedy. :Dthe NPT is a useless piece of crap.. any Country -like N-Korea , Israel, India, Pakistan- can pull-out anytime.. or simply not bother signing that useless piece of paper.

the NPT is a useless piece of crap.. any Country like N-Korea , Israel, India, Pakistan.. can pull-out anytime.. or simply not bother signing that useless piece of paper.

N. Korea have already pulled out of it.

the NPT is a useless piece of crap.. any Country -like N-Korea , Israel, India, Pakistan- can pull-out anytime.. or simply not bother signing that useless piece of paper.
If this international treaty is a useless piece of paper, why not all the other ones?

Everyone's trying to make the big purchase before the american armed forces set up a new base in the gulf.

Everyone's trying to make the big purchase before the american armed forces set up a new base in the gulf.

Even though, they are in complete violation of the NPT?

Hi,

Personally I am horrified by this whole concept. I am a dual national american/ english and have a great deal of respect for americans and the what america is based on. However, every time i visit my american family I am always deeply upset by the basically nationalistic propaganda that everyone subconciously recites. The TV is full of right wing nonsense that even to someone used to english media (which is not that liberal!) seems extreme. one thing i ahve found useful is independent news websites, also check lots of different countries news, it varies significantly.

right, firsly I dont understand what right america has to say what other countires or people may do. America was formed on the ideals of democracy so it may feel that all other countries must want it to. The american way of life may be good to you but how do you know that these 'oppressed people' want 'liberating'. These people are your equals and They may like there own ways of life and your goverment needs to learn to respect that

as for nuclear weapons. America has nuclear weapons and I genuinly believe that of all the countries in the world they are the most likely to use them. I am sure if america was in irans position it would be doing much the same thing and find it outrageous that they were being stopped. In the end, nuclear weapons are there as a threat. i think nuclear countries do not want other nations to develop weapons as they will no longer have an advantage over them. If you nuke a country with a nuke you get nuked back.

I understood you just fine. However, what you posted is wrong so I'm waiting on a real reason.


Bravo! If you understood, you've made the first great intellectual leap already. Now go on. Try to explain why what I posted is wrong. You can do it.

You may be a Republican, so let me try to make this as easy for you as I can. Which of the following stages of my reasoning can you point to as flawed?

a) The US Treasury prints paper money in excess of the sum total of goods and services produced in the United States. Don't take my word for this one, I've provided a reference: http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HA31Dj01.html
Maybe you have a better one to contradict what it says?

b) When you have too much of something, it's value goes down. Surely, as a student of Politics, you've bumped into a little thing called Economics now and then. Supply and Demand is about as basic as economics gets.

c) The paper money printed by the US Treasury is too much to be justified by the goods and services actually produced in the United States, leaving the US economy in danger of inflation. Again, Economics 101.

d) The only way to make the paper money worth more, is to raise its value on the international market, by increasing other countries' demand for it. Ok so far?

e) All major oil suppliers fix oil prices in US dollars, so that oil prices go up and down as the dollar gets stronger or weaker, and other countries need to have dollars to buy oil with. The only exception is Iran which does this with Euros instead of dollars. Look this up, it should be easy enough. (Hint: Saddam's Iraq was another country that traded oil in Euros instead of dollars).

f) Therefore, if you do something that makes the price of oil go up, other countries will need more dollars to buy oil with, and the dollar will increase in value. Simple enough?

g) The surest way to make the price of oil go up is to go to war against a nation that is a major oil producer, disrupting the supply of oil. This raises the price of oil... increases other countries' demand for the US dollar... raises the value of the US dollar... and saves the US economy from inflation. This way, you also get to try and effect regime change in Iran, so that they get with the program and start trading their oil in dollars instead of Euros.

There's all my ducks in a neat row. Let's see you pop one.

Even though, they are in complete violation of the NPT?

To maniacs like the people running Iran and North Korea, "treaty" is just another word for "technology gap". they're perfectly fine with not having nukes until it becomes apparant that they can get them on the cheap.

this will be my last response on this thread, no doubt to the collective relief of you all.

> Go get a new line. This is getting old.

well, it's the truth. but i do agree that it's getting old.

> Iran made itself a threat.

is the specter of being invaded by a superior force any less of a threat? threats breed threats -- it's human nature.

> Intelligent but I guess you left out the fact that there are
> 6 party talks going on with N.K.?

exactly! N.K.'s is getting attention and 'relief', no? all it had to do was fire a missile over one of the US' favorite client states (japan), and talk about nuclear weapons. iran is now doing the same thing with israel, another US client state.

> Who will pull out of what?

the asia alliance (china, russia, maybe india) will pull out of the farce that is the UN security council when it no longer serves their best interests to uphold it. and they will no doubt cite the US' perogative in iraq as their justification for doing so.

russia has its intrigues, but china will prevail in this one, just watch. they are capitalists, and they are also patient. they know how to make plans, and then execute those plans over several decades. china does not react; china engages in economic warfare on its own terms.

in fact, all china needs to do to cripple the US right now, is sell their horde of US denominated treasuries and diversify into gold. check and mate, to quote someone else who posted this board today. china holds the economic trump card, china desires to be the next world superpower, and china is making very intelligent plans towards that end.

be very careful, bush junior.

> Not as clear cut as your trying to make it out to believe.

nothing ever is. and no doubt for all my 'cleverness' i'm out to lunch on some points. actually, none of this really matters, considering the 'big picture', but for now, we 'enjoy' this new drama. thus we talk about it.

> We're researching alternate fuel sources for cars and power.

too little. in fact, fast neutron reactors would allow us to burn 99.8% of our nuclear fuel instead of the 6% we currently use before discarding the energy rich 'waste'. all that is required is the political will to make this happen, but that will not occure as long as cheap oil remains to be exploited.

green technologies such as solar, wind, tidal, etc are good, but they cannot source the energy demands of the entire planet at present. it is doubtful that oil can either. nuclear power is most likely the correct path here, but there is far too much fear at various levels for that to become a viable political alternative in the near future. not without some unbiased education first at least.

> We did not annex Iraq or Afghanistan. I suggest you actualy read
> what an annexation.[/QUOTE]

semantics. you know what i mean. the US is being a bully, and now it is starting to run into some resistance. it should not be surprising in the least.

...and now, on to more serene activities. :)

If this international treaty is a useless piece of paper, why not all the other ones?if the other Treaties do function the same way as the NPT.. then they are garbage too.
Treaties have to be applied equally to all Nations... Not with the White House asking especial exceptions for his "special" friends or Gay Lovers..

if the other Treaties do function the same way as the NPT.. then they are garbage too.
Treaties have to be applied equally to all Nations... Not with the White House asking especial exceptions for his "special" friends or Gay Lovers..
Erm... what's your problem with the functioning of the NPT, exactly?

Erm... what's your problem with the functioning of the NPT, exactly?I going AFK.. But I will be back..

*snip*

So according to you, we should ignore the NPT and allow everyone to have nukes?

actually i think if no one had nukes it would be alot better but thats unfortunatly not going to happen!

Here, OceanDrive3, I'll use the Quote Function.

if the other Treaties do function the same way as the NPT.. then they are garbage too.
Treaties have to be applied equally to all Nations... Not with the White House asking especial exceptions for his "special" friends or Gay Lovers..

Are you a homophobe, or do you just like to use the word "Gay" whenever you want to slur someone?

Bravo! If you understood, you've made the first great intellectual leap already. Now go on. Try to explain why what I posted is wrong. You can do it.

talking down to people does not make you more intelligent.

You may be a Republican, so let me try to make this as easy for you as I can. Which of the following stages of my reasoning can you point to as flawed?

The fact that it is only about oil. That is flawed. Proven to be flawed countless times as well. But since you may be a democrat or an european, it is something that you cannot wrap your mind around.

a) The US Treasury prints paper money in excess of the sum total of goods and services produced in the United States. Don't take my word for this one, I've provided a reference: http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HA31Dj01.html
Maybe you have a better one to contradict what it says?

Is that the only link you got? From Asia? Please!

b) When you have too much of something, it's value goes down. Surely, as a student of Politics, you've bumped into a little thing called Economics now and then. Supply and Demand is about as basic as economics gets.

Yep. Hence why oil prices go up and down. It depends upon supply and demand. That is why prices of things go up and down. If someone has a monopoly on something, they charge as high a price they can get away with because they are the only ones around. When competition catches up, the prices go down because there is more than one person producing an item. Supply and Demand. Now that we have gone through an econ lesson, can we get back to talking about Iran violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty now?

e) All major oil suppliers fix oil prices in US dollars, so that oil prices go up and down as the dollar gets stronger or weaker, and other countries need to have dollars to buy oil with. The only exception is Iran which does this with Euros instead of dollars. Look this up, it should be easy enough. (Hint: Saddam's Iraq was another country that traded oil in Euros instead of dollars).

Again, I don't really care as it is not proving your point that this is all about oil. Nor does it prove to reason why Iran should have nuclear bombs when they are forbidden by TREATY to have.

f) Therefore, if you do something that makes the price of oil go up, other countries will need more dollars to buy oil with, and the dollar will increase in value. Simple enough?

I think your grasping at straws!

g) The surest way to make the price of oil go up is to go to war against a nation that is a major oil producer, disrupting the supply of oil. This raises the price of oil... increases other countries' demand for the US dollar... raises the value of the US dollar... and saves the US economy from inflation. This way, you also get to try and effect regime change in Iran, so that they get with the program and start trading their oil in dollars instead of Euros.

And why do we want the price of oil to go up? Oh wait, we don't. Why? because it'll prevent people from traveling, tourism goes down, layoffs will ensue because no one is traveling! This will goes the economy to go down because no one is going out and buy things because they are wasting their money on gas. Guess what? What about alternative energy sources? Seems to me you are forgetting that variable! I also guess you are forgetting the fact that only 20% of our oil comes from this reason and NONE comes to us via Iran. I guess you forgot that little tidbit as well.

There's all my ducks in a neat row. Let's see you pop one.

So how does this prove that Iran is in the right of violatin the NPT?

Anyone else really, REALLY bored of the constant 'new' threads on Iran yet?

Anyone else really, REALLY bored of the constant 'new' threads on Iran yet?
Yes. I think it will be much more exciting once the war starts.

Anyone else really, REALLY bored of the constant 'new' threads on Iran yet?

There's more threads on Iran? Goodie goodie gum drops.

Yes I'm getting bored of this issue.

Yes. I think it will be much more exciting once the war starts.
At least we'll know who's correct then :D

*stamps foot impatiently*
I wanna know now

Iran has refused to cooperate, and now Iran deserves to be punished. I'd support whatever the nations involved in the negotiations deem necessary to stop Iran's nuclear program...even full blown war if it need be.


Why don't we just poison their water????...............Woops....They don't have any.

Maybe we could develope a method to take the hydro out of their hydrocarbons and leave them with the less valuable commodity...Carbon....

They could corner the world market for carbonblack.................

Damn....its just one problem after another..........

Maybe we could blow the sand away and leave the people intact?????

I hope that we............we being the white anglo-saxon protestants from Mass transplanted to Texas............don't be as foolish as last time..............

These idiots will make the "Celts" roll in their graves yet.

Are you aware that Russia under the big "K" had more freedoms than the Americans of today??? It is "1984" all over again..........

Screw it...........I am going to the sand pile and cover my head.............. Either that or call Pat Robertson and see who he is pissed off at today.

Jack Straw said military action of any sort against Iran is absolutely out of the question. So there. Take a cold shower and have a lie down.

Jack Straw said military action of any sort against Iran is absolutely out of the question. So there. Take a cold shower and have a lie down.

He's saying that now. What about later?

Jack Straw said military action of any sort against Iran is absolutely out of the question. So there. Take a cold shower and have a lie down.
Which goes along with my prediction that everything will roll along the diplomatic path until Iran makes a real threat or uses one.

Which goes along with my prediction that everything will roll along the diplomatic path until Iran makes a real threat or uses one.

Well, Iran makes 'threats' all the time... it just doesn't do anything to back it up.

I pity the Iranian people themselves, they'll bear the brunt of any full scale action- provoking a nuclear conflict wasn't exactly one of the President's election pledges. Its only been 5 months- they've got, what? another 3-3.5 years left?!

Ouch.

Well, Iran makes 'threats' all the time... it just doesn't do anything to back it up.

Unless you count building over 100 intermediate range (2000km) ballistic missiles, or enriching uranium and getting caught at it.

I pity the Iranian people themselves, they'll bear the brunt of any full scale action- provoking a nuclear conflict wasn't exactly one of the President's election pledges. Its only been 5 months- they've got, what? another 3-3.5 years left?!

Ouch.
Well, war is usually started by governments, not the people. And war is usually hard on the people, not the government. Which is why governments think it's easy.

If I lived in Iran now, I would consider being a refugee right about now.