Good for the EU and Russia. The US is trying hard to pick a fight with Iran it can't win, and the rest of the world has finally had enough.
I assume that last comment is in reference to appeasement. No sucessful military action is possible against Iran. Its nuclear facilities are spread out over a wide area and underground so you cant effectivly bomb them. Invasion if even contemplated is also impossible due to the size of the iranian army. Also this whole situation stinks. It is a case of do what we say but not as we do.
What's the difference between the Iranian president and George W. Bush? Hmm, well one is a nutter who believes he's on a mission from God and has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. The other one? Well, I don't know very much about the Iranian president Sam
why can't they just say, "ok nuclear power for the people but we want the UN to have heavy oversight just to make sure its just electricity". I mean if it could give my people a better life i'd want it. It just needs to have the right controls governing it. It's just causing more trouble telling them what they can and can't do. They have alot of power with there natural resources.
Sure it is; absolute victory is incredibly easy to achieve these days using weapons of mass destruction, but obviously those come at enormous cost in both human life and diplomatic standings with the rest of the world. Iran's army may be big, but military action will, eventually, work. The situation faced in World War II was much more dire; its not impossible, it will just be objected to due to the reports of war deaths that the general public is oh-so-sensitive to. Indeed. You cant debate whilst the other side acts forever though. If the rest of the world lets Iran get away with creating nuclear weapons technology (if they are indeed up to it, and I would be incredibly surprised if they werent), Iran will, slowly but surely, push forwards a little more to get more of what they want. If the same deadlock continues with the members of the United Nations, Iran will likely keep doing what the rest of the world prefers it not meddle in. Is the UN going to prove useful or not? Nations may be "allies" but the UN is proving rather useless in regards to enforcing any sort of international response.
That isnt exactly what I meant, but in this case Im in preference of the USA's position of not allowing them to develop nuclear technology. As for your last comment, if youre going to invoke religious patronage at least do it properly.
However you ar not just fighting the army you will be fighting the entire population. There is not excuse for this one no depoising of a despotic leader. The leader of Iran is democratically elected a war would not be easy. Also as Iraq, Veitnam to name two shows military action does not eventually work. Infact very few wars since World War Two have been resolved by military might most are resolved by diplomacy. The naive view that military might works does not hold in this day and age. Can you deny a country nuclear power and the ability to create it without having to rely on other countries? I do not beleive you can and indeed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty states that you can enrich uranium for fuel usage. The issue of nuclear weapons is one that the US and the International comunity cannot preach to other countries about. When India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons and almost alialated each other the US didnt call for sanctions on either country. When you have a pretty hostile country next to you which has nuclear weapons (namely Isreal) which had help from the UK and France to develop its weapons its not surprising really that Iran wants. Basically when the US and other countries say Iran cannot enrich Uranium they are being very hypocritical and so I cannot blame Iran saying get lost. I am not saying I condone Iran developing Nuclear weapons (which they probably are trying to) but I can see exactly where they are coming from.
Technically so was Hitler Ultimately what it comes down to is Iran going to be fully compliant with the overseers of non-proliferation once those overseers can finally form a unified opinion on the subject? Problem is I dont see the prerequisite unification of wills ever occuring, one way or the other
Hitler broke treaties though rotoseqence, he built up armies illegally and stopped paying war reperations. Hitler had war intended for sure, Iran, they are not breaking any rules. Iran is persuing a legal nuclear program, they're acting perfectly within their rights under all international treaties. In essence, they have done, and are doing, nothing wrong. I've said before and I'll say again, that I'm fine with America going into Iran, it'd get slaughtered(even if the US won, it'd be at a cost of tens of thousands of US troops easily, that'd be before the rebellion movements kicked off too). What I'm not fine with is the US trying to drag the rest of the world into it. Iran have done nothing wrong, if they want to develop nuclear technology thats they're perogative as a sovereign nation. This is simply another case of US war mongering. Europe isn't behind it, Russia isn't behind it, China isn't behind it. In short, no-one but the US and it's supplementary state(Israel) are. I'd be a shame for the Iranians if they got invaded, but I guess at least it'd teach the US a lesson they'd not forget for a long long time, and it's a lesson they could do with learning. edit: Oh and Roto, this isn't appeasement. Appeasement would imply that people in Europe are actually concerned about a war with Iran, we're not. Unlike Fox "news" viewers, most people in Europe don't actually think Iran is any threat to us.
Who has Iran invaded? Appeasement was when the Allies did not attack Germany when it took back the Rhineland and then invaded Czehoslovacia(sp?). So a parrallel bettween Germany in the 1930s and Iran is totally void. When Iran invades another nation and then nothing is done then and only then is the parrallel valid. I shall state again Iran has not broken any terms of the NPT! There has been no evidence that it has a nuclear weapons program (though I wouldnt be surprised if it does). Infact Ali Khamenei the Supreme Ruler of Iran has issued a fatwah (a legally binding desision much like a Presidental order in the states) outlawing the production, stockpiling and use of Nuclear weapons. However the validity is in question. The overseer of the NPT is the IAEA NOT the UN and as stated above they have not found any evidence of a nuclear weapons program and so in their opinion the NPT has not been broken, thus your argument is infact false. Infact NATO is in technical violation the the NPT in the nuclear weapons sharing scheme. Specifically the US is in break of articles I and II by providing 180 B61 warheads for use to its allies. This includes Turkey which lets remind ourselves isnt the most modern thinking of countries and infact exiled a democratically elected MP for wearing a headscarf.
Yeah, for some strange reason people kind of frown on turning an entire country into a radioactive glass slab. I remember when the US sounded that confident about Afghanistan and Iraq (And Vietnam. And Korea). Give me a break of the jingoism already, Roto. And as to war deaths, sensitivity is better than psychopathic indifference. Funny, for a moment I thought you were talking about the US, not Iran. I mean, do NOT get me started on Iran. There was a perfectly peaceful, democratically elected government in Iran until the CIA (with some help from the UK) took it down in 1953 because its president was talking about nationalising its oil (which basically meant that US and UK oil companies would miss out). The US then put the Shah in power and thus one of the most viciously oppressive regimes ever. The CIA trained the state police and made choice instructional films for it such as "how to torture female interrogation subjects". Of course, a backlash was inevitable and this is how we ended up with the post-ayatollah fundamentalist regime that still (rather understandably) carries a chip on its shoulder about the West. Learn some history, then join this discussion again.
I sense a wee bit of sensetivity in the issue... That was kinda my point. As for the rest, I dont really have anything to contribute because I havent kept up on world events or the forum attitudes. I havent really been around for almost two months; lay off the edginess and dont bite my head off please.
Sorry for sounding edgy. But I really am getting annoyed with people making glib judgements about going to war, speaking lightly of people dying in war, and assuming that the Middle East is just full of bad guys with a totally irrational hatred of the West, without really trying to understand or think about how the current situation came about in the first place. On this forum it may be just a rant, but it is basically such judgemental ignorance that allows our governments to get away with creating this mess, involving us and other innocent civilians in wars for their own economical benefit, and eroding our civil liberties. Just set your brain to stunned and buy into their spin. After all, it is not as if being a voter in a democracy comes with any responsibility. It is not as if people have died to give you that privilege. War is bad. People dying and suffering is bad, even if they are foreigners on the other side of the globe. If you decide we should take away a foreign country's rights and plunge us into yet another bloody, drawn out conflict, perhaps you ought to make it an informed opinion, you know, just out of basic respect for the thousands of innocent humans that would suffer and die because of it.
