NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/30/UN.iran.nuclear/index.html

Why do I get the feeling that we're coming close to World War III?

Why do I get the feeling that we're coming close to World War III?

:rolleyes:

Even if US invades Iran tomorrow, there won't be a world war.

Hmm, I have to agree. However, it does seem to be coming closer and closer.

Why do I get the feeling that we're coming close to World War III?Ummm, how's that "world war"?

Btw, I believe an Iran war is not possible due to the fact most American soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But if Bush is retarded enough, then war is possible.

So after these 30 days the UN will send a letter that has bad words in it?

So after these 30 days the UN will send a letter that has bad words in it?
Yep.

Like "We'll send Novoga to come get you in your sleep!"

Or "We'll send Novoga to sleep with you... naked." Oooo kinky :D

So after these 30 days the UN will send a letter that has bad words in it?

In RED ink.

This is one of the best responses I've seen-
Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, said in response that Iran had an "inalienable right" to pursue nuclear energy and told reporters, "we are allergic to pressure and intimidation."

So after these 30 days the UN will send a letter that has bad words in it?

Or, you know, crippling sanctions that will probably over time kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

Or, you know, crippling sanctions that will probably over time kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

Doubtful. The US has been sanctioning Iran for 25 years and Cuba for 50.

Sanctions don't work unless EVERYBODY is onboard, and I really doubt Russia will sanction Iran, much less China. (To say nothing of Venezuela).

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/30/UN.iran.nuclear/index.html

Why do I get the feeling that we're coming close to World War III?
Your threads just keep on getting better and better :) Entertaining at least, if only mildly so.

Ummm, how's that "world war"?

Btw, I believe an Iran war is not possible due to the fact most American soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But if Bush is retarded enough, then war is possible.

He's retarded enuf alright, and bellicose.

Ummm, how's that "world war"?

Btw, I believe an Iran war is not possible due to the fact most American soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most American troops are not in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most are not in military theatres.

And if American and iran went to war, I'd be very surprised if others didn't get dragged in, or in the case of some states, dragged themselves in.

Most American troops are not in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most are not in military theatres.

And if American and iran went to war, I'd be very surprised if others didn't get dragged in, or in the case of some states, dragged themselves in.
To the extent of culminating into a world war? Highly unlikely. If anything, a conflict between the US, EU, Russia, Japan and China, and their allies, would be one, but this is even more improbable.

I remember reading in Time, about a year ago, that the DOD had been running a bunch of war game scenarios for an invasion of Iran. Apparently, none of the scenarios ended well for the U.S. Something to think about.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/30/UN.iran.nuclear/index.html

Why do I get the feeling that we're coming close to World War III?

Let us see if the UN has the balls to actually follow through with this.

I remember reading in Time, about a year ago, that the DOD had been running a bunch of war game scenarios for an invasion of Iran. Apparently, none of the scenarios ended well for the U.S. Something to think about.

Well, the Iraq ones didn't go well for the US either, and look how well that turned out. Oh, wait...

Only the most ignorant of fools would not agree that avoiding the proliferation of nuclear arms in the world reduces the probablilty of a nuclear war.

There are plenty of nations which have a vested interest in seeing that Iran does not get nukes - I find it peculiar that anyone would believe that only one of them has the balls enough to do anything about it.

If Iran doesn't comply with the UN's request in thirty days the UN will be forced to write a firm but polite letter informing them that they have another thirty days to comply.

Maybe a new 9/11 (or Pearl Harbour) would help to gather public support in a war against an evil regime (and handy pipeline/ oil-reserve rich nation) that is clearly developing WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and are undoubtably 'linked' with Al-Quieda!!!

I suggest The Statue of Liberty (less asbestos).

This is one of the best responses I've seen-
Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, said in response that Iran had an "inalienable right" to pursue nuclear energy and told reporters, "we are allergic to pressure and intimidation."

Haha the fool now we know their weakness we use it and their economy will collapse as it tries to deal with all the people who are having alergic reactions!:p

Maybe a new 9/11 (or Pearl Harbour) would help to gather public support in a war against an evil regime (and handy pipeline/ oil-reserve rich nation) that is clearly developing WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and are undoubtably 'linked' with Al-Quieda!!!

I suggest The Statue of Liberty (less asbestos).

Do you have something constructive to say or are you going to spout advocation of terrorist activities which is a violation of US Law. Unless your in Britain then I guess it would be a violation of British law too.

Do you have something constructive to say or are you going to spout advocation of terrorist activities which is a violation of US Law. Unless your in Britain then I guess it would be a violation of British law too.
Yay for freedom of speech!
Do you have something constructive to say or can you just going to complain which is annoying?

This reminds me, I read in the paper that Condoleeza Rice gave a press conference about it. The Bush White House is using the same fear-mongering, 9/11 tapping accusation they used against Iraq - "Iran is supporting terrorism," insert everything else said about Iraq.

Do you have something constructive to say or are you going to spout advocation of terrorist activities which is a violation of US Law. Unless your in Britain then I guess it would be a violation of British law too.
He's not advocating terrorist attacks. He doesn't believe in terrorism. He thinks the US government staged 9/11 and expects them to stage another attack. Paranoia is a bitch, ain't it?

He's not advocating terrorist attacks. He doesn't believe in terrorism. He thinks the US government staged 9/11 and expects them to stage another attack. Paranoia is a bitch, ain't it?

I know he believes the Government staged it. I've been debating it with him.

I know he believes the Government staged it. I've been debating it with him.
My bad. I remember now. I gave up on him. One can't argue with a sick mind, and paranoia like that is most certainly a sickness.

My bad. I remember now. I gave up on him. One can't argue with a sick mind, and paranoia like that is most certainly a sickness.

he and mustapha are quite a pair though. I guess that's why i stayed around. Gotta see what they say next ya know?

Anyway, I'm about to leave that thread myself. This is far more important than that thread

Sanctions? Oooooh ...

They'll still have Russia and China. They don't need us.

So after these 30 days the UN will send a letter that has bad words in it?

Nope, in 30 days the UN will send a letter threatening to send a letter with bad words in it.

Nope, in 30 days the UN will send a letter threatening to send a letter with bad words in it.

No, no. That's a few steps down the road. First, they have to send a letter which implies that there will be "very serious consequences" in the next letter, which will turn out to be mildly harsh language. But that is only after the send the letter stating that failure to comply will result in a committee being formed to address Iran's non-compliance. The committee will end up coming out with the harsh language, but it will be edited out in the Security Council because the French threaten to veto it if it contains any bad words. So the letter which is to contain harsh language, will in fact, not have any harsh language at all.

No, no. That's a few steps down the road. First, they have to send a letter which implies that there will be "very serious consequences" in the next letter, which will turn out to be mildly harsh language. But that is only after the send the letter stating that failure to comply will result in a committee being formed to address Iran's non-compliance. The committee will end up coming out with the harsh language, but it will be edited out in the Security Council because the French threaten to veto it if it contains any bad words. So the letter which is to contain harsh language, will in fact, not have any harsh language at all.
It will also be in French.


Sanctions? Oooooh ...

They'll still have Russia and China. They don't need us.

the U.N. Security Council unanimously called on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment within 30 days and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Russia and China are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council as you probably know.

This is 30 days to return to negotiations, not to actually *DO* something.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4861298.stm

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
"I think this does send a very strong signal to Iran that the international community is united and expects Iran to adhere to the just demands... that its nuclear activities be demonstrably for civilian purposes and that there are ways that Iran can have a civil nuclear programme, that's not an issue.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
"The onus is on Iran to show the international community that its programme is entirely for civil purposes and for no other. We have shown very great patience with Iran. They, in turn, have miscalculated. They thought the international community would be divided on this issue but truthfully it has become more and more united."

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang
"We think under the present circumstances there is still room to resolve the Iran nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations. The international community shouldn't give up their efforts. We hope relevant parties should remain restrained and patient, and create a favourable environment for the resolution of the Iran nuclear issue through diplomatic means."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
"Russia believes that there is no other solution to this problem and if we follow this route it must be with the full cooperation of Iran. Only then will it be possible for Iran to make peaceful use of nuclear technology."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
"Iran has to take a choice between isolation brought about by actions of its own and the continuation of enrichment activities on its own soil in violation of the commitments to the international community, or a return to the negotiating table. We all very much hope that Iran will seize the opportunity offered to it to resume the negotiations."

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy
"What are we demanding? What's the path we should follow? It's the complete suspension of nuclear activities in Iran. Nuclear activities for a civilian purpose, of course, are something that we are proposing, we are in agreement - everyone round the table said so. And we also demand that there is a complete suspension of sensitive activities, including research and development."

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
"Those who have used nuclear weapons in the past and by doing so, have created the most heinous of tragedies in the history of the human race, I would say today are claiming to be the champions of disarmament. Iran's drive to have access to peaceful nuclear technology is what is rightfully ours."

...So, Mr Mottaki. If you're only after peaceful nuclear power, why not allow inspections and why break the seals on the centerfuges? Why enrich uranium secretly for 18 years? Why turn down the Russian offer?

The US is crippling itself with debt to occupy Iraq and toss a lot of money at overpriced contracting. Does anyone really think that they can afford to go after a well-armed Middle East state and then occupy it too? If you thought the insurgency was bad in Iraq you haven’t seen anything yet.

Iran isn’t as reliant on foreign weapons and maintenance as Iraq was. They build their own military platforms from reverse engineering American and Russian platforms (or just buy them from the Chinese or North Koreans). Their pilots are also a whole lot better than Iraqi pilots. The US could still bulldoze them, but it would be a lot messier than going after Iraq, whose military was crippled by arms sanctions and relied 100% on foreign arms.

Someone needs to tell Bush to mind his own motherfucking business. There is no concrete proof that Iran has these such weapons, and with military forces somewhat stretched as it is, it isn't a good time to try to occupy a well-armed and self sufficient state.

This 30 day deadline is just a bluff right? What exactly is the UN going to do if (and when) Iran ignores them? :rolleyes:

This 30 day deadline is just a bluff right? What exactly is the UN going to do if (and when) Iran ignores them? :rolleyes:

If? HA! They will indeed ignore the U.N, which Georgie down in Washington will use as a springboard to get public support for the next invasion of a country that doesn't pose a serious threat to anyone at this point.

Ummm, how's that "world war"?

Btw, I believe an Iran war is not possible due to the fact most American soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But if Bush is retarded enough, then war is possible.

You are just parroting a myth put out there by people that know nothing of the US military. Of course the US has enough troops to attack Iran. Who says though that it will be a ground invasion. Most likely an air campaign with some troop insertions such as in Afghanistan. The US would rely on counter-revolutionary forces inside Iran to do the heavy fighting on the ground. This scenerio in my opinion would be most likely. I don't see large movements of US troops leaving the US.

Btw, I believe an Iran war is not possible due to the fact most American soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan..

How is around 10% most?

Someone needs to tell Bush to mind his own motherfucking business. There is no concrete proof that Iran has these such weapons, and with military forces somewhat stretched as it is, it isn't a good time to try to occupy a well-armed and self sufficient state.

Why do you presume the US is the only party interested in preventing nuclear proliferation? Is it just because they are the only ones with the balls enough to take any action at all?

You are just parroting a myth put out there by people that know nothing of the US military. Of course the US has enough troops to attack Iran. Who says though that it will be a ground invasion. Most likely an air campaign with some troop insertions such as in Afghanistan. The US would rely on counter-revolutionary forces inside Iran to do the heavy fighting on the ground. This scenerio in my opinion would be most likely. I don't see large movements of US troops leaving the US.
What makes you so sure it would be the US alone, if at all? Iran does not have ICBM's. Their immediate neighbors and Europe have much more to fear.