NationStates Jolt Archive

Bushite/UN Deadline ahead..
poll coming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060830/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_analysis_1

Bushite/UN Deadline

You can have it one way or the other. It's either unilateral US neo-conservative, or it's multilateral UN. Not both.

You can have it one way or the other. It's either unilateral US neo-conservative, or it's multilateral UN. Not both.without the pressure from the White House.. the international aproach to Iran would be very different.

nope, Ahmadinijad now has a reputation as a hardliner against america, to lose face now would be political suicide.

Iran has been giving the Western powers the finger for quite some time now. Doesn't seem like they'll stop now.

I say Iran might actually back down though what this means is beyond me but I think its safe to say this will be over before U.N sanctions are imposed

Of course unless both countries completely forget how bloody a war would be and how it would completely fail the U.N’s objective of being sure Iran is using its nuclear programme for peaceful purposes only (though if you ask me Iran can build all the nuclear weapons it God damn pleases)

without the pressure from the White House.. the international aproach to Iran would be very different.
Not really.

The French and the Germans don't want to see Iranian nukes, and have said so for a long time. The Americans made a deal: First the Europeans would try the negotiations and the Americans wouldn't interfere. And if the negotiations break down, sanctions and the like would be pushed for, and the Europeans would support them.

It was a good deal. The only problem is that China, Russia and India couldn't care less about Iranian nukes. They prefer the idea of Iranian oil and gas - and they probably have a point.

But hey, if you prefer to think of Bush and his mates that highly, go ahead. You ceased making sense a long time ago anyways.

They won't back down: They feel like they have the cheese and the knife.

Militarily, they are covered: No one wants Iran to wreck havoc in the Gulf shipping, or actively supporting insurgency efforts in Iraq.

Economically, neither China or Russia want sanctions, and no one really wants that juicy oil to stop flowing.

So why should they stop? Sure, its a gamble.. but its a calculated risk

Iran will not bend over.

And to your poll question, your posts drive me crazy.

(though if you ask me Iran can build all the nuclear weapons it God damn pleases)

Actually, someone to counteract the US's HUGE nuclear weapons program isn't a bad idea... it would prevent the US from ruling the world with n00k pow3r.

Actually, someone to counteract the US's HUGE nuclear weapons program isn't a bad idea... it would prevent the US from ruling the world with n00k pow3r.

Did someone forget about the Russian Federation?

Iran will not bend over.

And to your poll question, your posts drive me crazy.Damn.. I forgot to allow for multiple choice poll.

me bad. :D

Did someone forget about the Russian Federation?
Or indeed all the other nuclear powers.

The issue I have is that it totally screws up the region as a whole. I don't think Iran is likely to give away its nukes to terrorists, or nuke Israel. For all the ideology in the world, pragmatism has to form the basis for a government.

But Iranian nukes would immediately result in Israel confirming its program. Which means that a whole lot of Arab nations respond by getting nukes as well. Egypt? Well, okay. Syria? No, not a good idea. Saudi Arabia? Most definitely not a good idea at all.

And before you know it, the whole Middle East is full of nukes. And somehow I don't think those make a good addition to the world's most volatile region.

Did someone forget about the Russian Federation?

what about it? all there nukes are either "missing" in another countries territory or so tacky there likely to blow up in the silo

the reason Iran is different is because the west will have to be more careful in the middle east think about it not a soul cared about Iran before this so why the sudden interest? (hint it has something to do with Bush constantly mentioning September the 11th)

Or indeed all the other nuclear powers.

The issue I have is that it totally screws up the region as a whole. I don't think Iran is likely to give away its nukes to terrorists, or nuke Israel. For all the ideology in the world, pragmatism has to form the basis for a government.

But Iranian nukes would immediately result in Israel confirming its program. Which means that a whole lot of Arab nations respond by getting nukes as well. Egypt? Well, okay. Syria? No, not a good idea. Saudi Arabia? Most definitely not a good idea at all.

And before you know it, the whole Middle East is full of nukes. And somehow I don't think those make a good addition to the world's most volatile region.

I could not agree more. If the whole region got nukes then Israel would be on the receiving end of a nuclear bomb. Either by one of their neighbors or terrorists.

how can a second-rate enfant provocateur make you crazy?

how can a second-rate enfant provocateur make you crazy?

Because his posts are illogical?:confused:

Because his posts are illogical?:confused:

Are you Dr Spock?

what about it? all there nukes are either "missing" in another countries territory or so tacky there likely to blow up in the silo
That's not actually true. Many of their older warheads are indeed rotting away, and in some of the ex-Soviet Republics one can apparently buy old ones.

But the ones actually deployed in the active nuclear forces are modern, generally well-maintained and have excellent delivery systems. It's the only thing the Russians can spend enough money on.

Either way, there's plenty enough nukes around to blow up the world several times over. So no one has to worry about a nuclear monopoly and ask for even more of them.

If the whole region got nukes then Israel would be on the receiving end of a nuclear bomb.
Or one of the other governments (meaning innocent people in that country). Either way, people will die in horrific numbers.