Will America attack Iran?

[Rogue Ssv]

1. Thank you very much Swift
2. He's not viewing the thread anymore
3. Really? What happened? I never get to watch South Park, too late and too obscene. For my mom anyway
4. OK.
5. Seriously if you want me to shut up with the relatively pointless and frequent posts just tell me. But first respond to my article. I mean well (Maybe Im like Bush-I mean well but do idiotic things. OH NO!!!)

 

[Danoff]

Ok Rogue,

Iran Parliament Eyes Nuke Treaty Pullout
Tells UN leaders US pressure would prompt such action

Tehran, Iran The Iranian parliament threatened yesterday to force the government to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if the US continues pressuring Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment. In a letter to UN Seceratary General Kofi Annan read on state-run radio, the lawmakers said they would consider withdrawal if 'the UN Seceretary General and other members of the UN fail in their crucial responsibility to resolve differences peacefully'.
The legislators said they would have no choice but to 'review Article 10 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty'. The article allows signatories to pull out of the treaty if they decide that events have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. A withdrawing nation must give treaty signers and the UN 3 months notice and detail the events that have forced the decision.
North Korea withdrew from the treaty in '03 for exactly the same reason.

''This is a typical Iranian threat. It shows that they remain desperate to conceal that their nuclear program is in fact a weapons program'' --John Bolton, US Ambassador to the UN...

What difference does this make? They're violating the treaty as it is. Pulling out of the treaty just means admitting even more obviously than they already have that they're going to violate the terms of the treaty they agreed to.

 

[Swift]

1. Thank you very much Swift
2. He's not viewing the thread anymore
3. Really? What happened? I never get to watch South Park, too late and too obscene. For my mom anyway
4. OK.
5. Seriously if you want me to shut up with the relatively pointless and frequent posts just tell me. But first respond to my article. I mean well (Maybe Im like Bush-I mean well but do idiotic things. OH NO!!!)

Ok Rogue, fix that sig before you post again. OK?

About your article. The last thing we need is another situation like North Korea. That guy is seriously scary and I believe Iran has the same potential. I'd rather have a nation with nuclear arms in the UN and in the treaty then have one outside of it.

Ok Rogue,



What difference does this make? They're violating the treaty as it is. Pulling out of the treaty just means admitting even more obviously than they already have that they're going to violate the terms of the treaty they agreed to.

Good point, it makes you wonder if ANY UN treaty holds any water in these times!

 

[Rogue Ssv]

Hmm... Swift's right but what makes you think Iran's just gonna blow us up? I doubt Iran would do that, and even so we could just blow them up if they try anything.
And what evidence do you have that theyre violating the treaty? The treaty says clearly 'Its illegal if you use it for aggressive purposes i.e. blowing people up.'' And we havent found any evidence of that at all.

@Swifts post below me: once again I violate my own rules and make ASSumptions. Hehe oops . Well, this reshapes the whole issue for me... now I'm taking Iran half seriously!

 

[Swift]

Hmm... Swift's right but what makes you think Iran's just gonna blow us up? I doubt Iran would do that, and even so we could just blow them up if they try anything.

They've already stated that their first target would be Israel. Since Israel is our ally, that wouldn't be too good.

I also doubt he would go full nuclear, but people like that just want to have their finger on the button.

 

[Famine]

Hmm... Swift's right but what makes you think Iran's just gonna blow us up? I doubt Iran would do that, and even so we could just blow them up if they try anything.

They won't. They'll launch against Israel.

 

[Danoff]

The treaty says clearly 'Its illegal if you use it for aggressive purposes i.e. blowing people up.'' And we havent found any evidence of that at all.

That's not what the treaty says.

Here's the thing...

America - and the majority of the world's other countries - signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This includes Iran. The agreement is that signatory countries without nuclear weapons agree not to develop them. Developing them is in breach of their agreement. Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea (the latter having withdrawn) are not signatories and so can develop them if they wish - and have. Preventing Iran from going nuclear is merely an enforcement of this treaty which, I'll stress again, Iran already agreed to abide by.

America is allowed to have them because they have signed the treaty. Iran is NOT allowed to have them because they have signed the same treaty.


I would add at this point that I do not think we have requisite evidence for Iranian non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet. I also think that nuclear energy is the BEST way of getting massive-scale energy/electricity and all countries should be allowed, under strict IAEA supervision, to develop it - but the line is very, very thin indeed, and sabre-rattling with highly aggressive statements and posture toward neighbouring nations is not helpful to the Iranian case.

There's a big difference between "developing" and "blowing people up".

 

[Rogue Ssv]

I know, and I said that they can have uranium and process it for peaceful purposes to generate energy, not blow people up.

PS Who's Jack Bauer? Ill take him! I dont get the bumper sticker one tho...

 

[Danoff]

I know, and I said that they can have uranium and process it for peaceful purposes to generate energy, not blow people up.

Blowing people up is not a condition of the treaty. All they'd have to do is reprocess their uranium and they'd have "developed" weapons grade material.


Let me be specific.

Killing people is not necessary to violate the treaty.
Possession of nuclear weapons is not necessary to violate the treaty.
Development of nuclear weapons violates the treaty.


That they're considering pulling out of the treaty is an indication that they'd like to develop nuclear weapons. But we kenw that anyway, so what's new?

 

[Keef]

Not even Chuck Norris can handle Jack Bauer, alright? Now upload the skematic to my PDA, STAT!

And danoff, that they have done, I, and everyone else, believes. Which means they've violated the treaty.

 

[TurboSmoke]

Turbosmoke, why didn't you respond to my reply about lives?

yes, you are right a life is a life, equal in every respect regardless of nationality wealth or status, the weakest Brazilian, one-legged, orhaned child-prostitute has the same worth as the leaders of big business or politics.

i steamrollered your post with numbers of civilian dead. My point, i admit, was irrelevant to your post but was used more of a back up to counter the so called justified retaliation to 9/11. Even if this wasnt a political message at the time it is something that the people of America will take to thier hearts as some kind of compensation for the lives lost in 9/11. In a way i dont want to take that away from them but in a country that i supposed to be Christian, led by a Christian government i find it somewhat hypocritical.

I have never heard anyone who supports military action in the Middle East say that the force used was excessive despite the statistics.

There is something indignant about quoting a body count during war...sorry.

 

[TurboSmoke]

Doesn't apply.

I think it does, the devastation of a country can be measured by the number of people killed. This effects the country politically and ecominically on a massive scale.

A bit melodramatic?

Perhaps from where you are sitting..

Let's face it. Afghanistan was a sparsely populated anarchistic state. It was really more of a name for a region of land than a nation. I take it back though, they had both rocks and sand.

Can i ask, why are you so preoccupied with the geological make-up of the Middle East? Rocks and sand...sounds like Phoenix, Arizona to me...apart from the pollution in Phoenix.

Again, dont judge the people by thier rulers, and certainly dont judge them by geology of thier back yard.

Oh I see, so the Taliban are just like a government democratically elected by individuals with rights. That makes a lot of sense....

one thing i can say about the Taliban, they were their own people, not foreign occupying force. They spoke the same language and came from the same cities. What make tyou so sure that people want an American version of democracy?

 

[TurboSmoke]

They won't. They'll launch against Israel.

yep...

an my view, and some may be offended, is that we shouldnt go to war over Israel under any circumstances. We (Briatin) owe Israel nothing. Many British lost thier lives to save the Jews when the rest of the world stood by and watched.

No, i wouldnt be bothered if Israel is the target of Iran. I am bothered that the US will interviene and drag its allies with it.

 

[Keef]

If yo're worried about Iran attacking Isreal, shouldn't you tell Isreal to either get get the hell out or attack Iran first? Are they trying some diplomacy? I don't think it would work, though, since they are the target. If Israel or someone else took care of it the U.S. wouldn't have to get involved and "drag everyone down with 'em". Everybody could drag themselves down.
All I hope is that if Ira is crazy enough to launch something, be it a scud or a nuke, that they wait until we have our fleet of laser-equiped 747s designed to shoot down missiles from ranges over 250 miles away. That'll come in 2008 or so.

 

[Danoff]

Can i ask, why are you so preoccupied with the geological make-up of the Middle East? Rocks and sand...sounds like Phoenix, Arizona to me...apart from the pollution in Phoenix.

You missed the point, bigtime.

one thing i can say about the Taliban, they were their own people, not foreign occupying force. They spoke the same language and came from the same cities. What make tyou so sure that people want an American version of democracy?

Yea, Hitler was a local too.

 

[ledhed]

Sure lets let Isreal or any other country for that matter get attacked . Especially the countries that are Nuke capable . I am sure Britain and the rest of the world will apppreciate the big cloud of radioactive dust that used to be Iran when it settles on their food and water supply ...nothing like having the radioactive remains of millions of people in your soup .
Letting Iran play with nuclear weapons is not a very smart Idea . There are enough nukes in the world as it is . I for one would much rather see a few hundred tactical air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilitys then a full scale nuclear attack that would turn both the Area around Isreal and Iran into one big sheet of glass .
But I have been tested recently for sanity and passed ..so some may not aggree.
Some may actually even think the country and people of israel may even just sit back and watch given their history . I do not . And when Israel defends itself again from another " Muslim " threat or attack...I am sure that wont just make the looney fanatical types just plain "good to go" with GOD .
I can see all those spontaneously combusting Al Queda heads ...just drooling in anticipation of the final straw that unites the Muslim world in glorious Jihad.

Your soooo right... Turbo smoke dude ..I see you have a well thought out plan for the population controll problem that earth is experiancing .

 

[TurboSmoke]

Letting Iran play with nuclear weapons is not a very smart Idea . .

you'll have to provide proof of that...

a 'hunch' isnt a good enough excuse to initiate an air strike.

You missed the point, bigtime.

obviously.

okay, you explain your point and why rocks and sand are so central to it.

Turbosmoke: Double posting is bad 👎 use the edit button

^^ Sorry, i didnt realise i was doing double posts...i'll try and be more considerate...

 

[Danoff]

obviously.
okay, you explain your point and why rocks and sand are so central to it.

There is little in Afghanistan. Low population, almost no government or law, few crops, few natural resources - the perfect place for terrorists to conduct their activities. As I said earlier, Afghanistan is more of a name for a region of land than it is for a nation. Which is why rocks and sand are central to the discussion - because that's a major portion of the "nation's" identity.

 

[TurboSmoke]

There is little in Afghanistan. Low population, almost no government or law, few crops, few natural resources - the perfect place for terrorists to conduct their activities. As I said earlier, Afghanistan is more of a name for a region of land than it is for a nation. Which is why rocks and sand are central to the discussion - because that's a major portion of the "nation's" identity.

i see even you are having a wry smile to yourself over this one...nice try. Try looking up Afghanistan...it is a country, honestly.
Also, you'll find that most countries in the middle east suffer from the same rock and sand problem. Even Aus and the US have thier fair share. I wish Scotland had more sand and less mud but thats all there is here, mud, mountains and whisky.

 

[Kylehnat]

Also, you'll find that most countries in the middle east suffer from the same rock and sand problem. Even Aus and the US have thier fair share. I wish Scotland had more sand and less mud but thats all there is here, mud, mountains and whisky.

You're still missing danoff's point, but I'll indulge you. Yes, there is plenty of sand in the United States. Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Palm Springs are all thriving cities in the middle of the desert, with oppressive summertime heat, and very little precipitation. In many other places in the world, this type of land would be an unihabitable wasteland. However, this is, and always has been, a rich nation. We can build wonderful, fully-functioning metropolises in the most forboding of places. Why? Because we can build infrastructure. Water, electricity, food, roads, irrigation, sewer...it's all available and readily accessible. The same is not true in Afghanistan, and the Middle East in general. Most (if not all) major cities are situated on rivers, lakes, and ocean shores. Anyone who lives away from cities does so at their own risk, as the basic necessities of life are not always available in rural areas.

Someone ventured to the eastern side of the Mojave and said "hey, we could put casinos out here!" The once desolate sand became something else. The sand and rocks of Afghanistan have little hope of ever becoming anything more than a symbol of how desperate the country, and indeed the whole region, actually is.

 

[ledhed]

you'll have to provide proof of that...

a 'hunch' isnt a good enough excuse to initiate an air strike.



obviously.

okay, you explain your point and why rocks and sand are so central to it.

Turbosmoke: Double posting is bad 👎 use the edit button

^^ Sorry, i didnt realise i was doing double posts...i'll try and be more considerate...

The president of Iran is all the proof a SANE person needs...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/
http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/iran_responses.htm
http://www.isn.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=13300
http://www.ihr.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article359954.ece

Iranian President insists 'Israel cannot continue to live'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.


"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

In a speech given on 14 December 2005 in the city of Zahedan, and carried live on Iranian television, Ahmadinejad reportedly made the following comments:

According to the Iran's official news agency:

"If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions. [...] The same European countries have imposed the illegally-established Zionist regime on the oppressed nation of Palestine. If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision."

About the sanest thing this man has said IMO .

Iran is much to radical and unpredictable..not to mention unstable politically
and led by a maniac and a theocracy with near stone age beliefs..from a " western stanpoint at any rate " .

Put that together with their stated public intentions reguarding other countries and their desire to controll the area they inhabit ..not just the country of iran but the surrounding area by some in thier government..and did i mention they commited an act of war against the US when they invaded our embassy and held hostages for years ?
Dead Iranians will litter the atmosphere if they insist on attaining nuclear capability..its bad enough North Korea has them ..adding one more unpredictable and unstable bunch of fanatic nitwits to the round table is unacceptable and suicidal . It cannot be allowed to happen .

If the dudes so loving of the Palestinian position let him get involved in the peace proccess instead of the death proccess .

And I must add how pleased I am so see the thought proccess that exclaims that " everyone else has nukes why not Iran ? " expressed...it only serves to prove DARWIN right.....

Sure ..lets just give out MORE nukes ..lets make it all equal..lets give everyone in the world a nuke . ITS ONLY FAIR .
After all X- Y Z has them ...why not A - B _C ?

Since we recognised that a nuclear confrontation would be a very bad thing and could result in the EARTH no longer existing as an inhabited planet..most sane individuals and governments have been working to REDUCE the amount of nukes in the world by those who have them and work against any more proliferation. The more Nukes held by the more nations the greater the chances of them actually being USED .

But lets save trees and worry about the damm ozone layer and global warming..and BTW ..LETS LET IRAN HAVE A FEW NUKES TO LOB AROUND ..ITS ONLY FAIR .


WTF IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN PATTERNS ? I am Just a bit curiouse .

Go ahead and justify it ...or try .

Prove that turbo .

 

[TurboSmoke]

You're still missing danoff's point, but I'll indulge you. Yes, there is plenty of sand in the United States. Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Palm Springs are all thriving cities in the middle of the desert, with oppressive summertime heat, and very little precipitation. In many other places in the world, this type of land would be an unihabitable wasteland. However, this is, and always has been, a rich nation. We can build wonderful, fully-functioning metropolises in the most forboding of places. Why? Because we can build infrastructure. Water, electricity, food, roads, irrigation, sewer...it's all available and readily accessible. The same is not true in Afghanistan, and the Middle East in general. Most (if not all) major cities are situated on rivers, lakes, and ocean shores. Anyone who lives away from cities does so at their own risk, as the basic necessities of life are not always available in rural areas.

Someone ventured to the eastern side of the Mojave and said "hey, we could put casinos out here!" The once desolate sand became something else. The sand and rocks of Afghanistan have little hope of ever becoming anything more than a symbol of how desperate the country, and indeed the whole region, actually is.

nope, i havent missed dans point at all. I was digging for more information. Thanks. Basically the rocks and sand argument came up when discussing the devastation of Afghanistan. i.e. the killing of the civilian peoples and the 'carpet bombing' (yes i watched the news reports from reuters live) thier infastucture. This was okay because few lives were lost in the grand scheme of things and the people didnt have anything worth living for. No governemt, no cities, just sand and rocks. This brings us back to the old chestnut about whether one live is worth more than another. Clearly it is in some peoples view.

The 'uninhabitale' wasteland as you put it is all these people have. Its home. This doesnt justify the right of the west as a civilised society to take it away from them.

Note to dan: Hitler was Austrian, not German. (not a local boy).

Dont read too much into the Phoenix/LV analogy. The fact that LV exists is more a testament to a great feat of civil engineering than anything else.

 

[TurboSmoke]

The president of Iran is all the proof a SANE person needs...

what has sanity got to do with it? some world leaders can barely construct a coherent sentence and the least said about Reagan's psychiatric assessment the better.

Also none of the sources you cite have proof either. Pure conjecture.

About the sanest thing this man has said IMO .

Iran is much to radical and unpredictable..not to mention unstable politically
and led by a maniac and a theocracy with near stone age beliefs..from a " western stanpoint at any rate " .

And what are you doing to help them out of thier stone age belief system? Opposing technological advancement. Opposing diplomatic discussion. Swallowing the view expressed on western media sources.

and did i mention they commited an act of war against the US when they invaded our embassy and held hostages for years ?

That is old. You should have dealt with it properly then. If you think you did then why use it as an excuse now?

Dead Iranians will litter the atmosphere if they insist on attaining nuclear capability..its bad enough North Korea has them ..adding one more unpredictable and unstable bunch of fanatic nitwits to the round table is unacceptable and suicidal . It cannot be allowed to happen .

more unsubstantiated rubbish.

If the dudes so loving of the Palestinian position let him get involved in the peace proccess instead of the death proccess .

i was unaware of any American involvement on the pro-Palestinian side.

And I must add how pleased I am so see the thought proccess that exclaims that " everyone else has nukes why not Iran ? " expressed...it only serves to prove DARWIN right.....
Sure ..lets just give out MORE nukes ..lets make it all equal..lets give everyone in the world a nuke . ITS ONLY FAIR .
After all X- Y Z has them ...why not A - B _C ?

We are talking about nuclear energy. Not nukes. But answer me this, what gives the right of America to have nukes? They are unstable politically. They have waged illegal war after war in the past 50 years.

Since we recognised that a nuclear confrontation would be a very bad thing and could result in the EARTH no longer existing as an inhabited planet..most sane individuals and governments have been working to REDUCE the amount of nukes in the world by those who have them and work against any more proliferation. The more Nukes held by the more nations the greater the chances of them actually being USED .

again, its nulcear energy. Until Iran expressly tells us otherwise then that is the official line.

But lets save trees and worry about the damm ozone layer and global warming..and BTW ..LETS LET IRAN HAVE A FEW NUKES TO LOB AROUND ..ITS ONLY FAIR .

see above...you're still ranting.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN PATTERNS ? I am Just a bit curiouse .

Go ahead and justify it ...or try .

Prove that turbo .

thats funny....prove what btw?
its you thats got the accusations to prove, not me.

 

[TurboSmoke]

But all you ever hear is the bad, I can't tell you the last time someone said something good about America. Even during the tsunami we didn't come fast enough or send enough money....however during Katrina we were given very little. I don't understand.

As a civilised member of the international community, every first world country has a moral obligation to provide help in a disaster situation. Same goes for most of Europe etc. I personally appreciate the help that the US gives in financial terms to countries such as Indonesia (the country with the largest muslim population in the world) when disaster strikes.

America gives a lot, it is appreciated. The UK gives a lot for a small country. Sometimes its difficult to express that appreciation when the said benefactor is fresh from bombing another country into destuction.

Now, you said that you cant remember the last time someone said something good about America. You are going to have to help me out here. Are we talking the US administration, the US people or the rocks and sand? From my experience they do not all stand for the same ideals.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

And now you triple post?
Well if I have anything else worthwile to say after ive researched a bit, ill be back

 

[TurboSmoke]

And now you triple post?

damn sorry...its gonna take me a while to get into this new routine of answering everyones post in one post.

even if i edit it now there will still be 3 posts..

 

[Rogue Ssv]

Yeh, I know what you mean. Helps to have 2 browser windows, one on the thread and one on the post/edit thing, and to know how to make the quote box

 

[Famine]

We are talking about nuclear energy. Not nukes. But answer me this, what gives the right of America to have nukes?

NPT - all the signatory countries agreed that those that had nukes could keep them and those that didn't have them couldn't develop them. All of them. The treaty was negotiated and ratified - it's not a case of the US saying "We've got nukes and we aren't giving them up.". They have the right to have nukes because it has been almost-globally agreed.

Sure ..lets just give out MORE nukes ..lets make it all equal..lets give everyone in the world a nuke . ITS ONLY FAIR .

You'll appreciate this:

"The Latest Model" - David Firth (language content warning)

 

[Danoff]

nope, i havent missed dans point at all. I was digging for more information. Thanks. Basically the rocks and sand argument came up when discussing the devastation of Afghanistan. i.e. the killing of the civilian peoples and the 'carpet bombing' (yes i watched the news reports from reuters live) thier infastucture. This was okay because few lives were lost in the grand scheme of things and the people didnt have anything worth living for. No governemt, no cities, just sand and rocks. This brings us back to the old chestnut about whether one live is worth more than another. Clearly it is in some peoples view.

Not my point at all, you have completely missed it and I'm tired of trying to explain it.

The 'uninhabitale' wasteland as you put it is all these people have. Its home. This doesnt justify the right of the west as a civilised society to take it away from them.

Oh how awful of us to remove their brutal oppressive pseudo-government. It just isn't right for us to free them from their bonds.

Note to dan: Hitler was Austrian, not German. (not a local boy).

Holy crap this is splitting hairs. Do you have any idea how close to Germany he was born? You could probably see Germany from his home town. It's true he was born outside of Germany, but you can't get any closer to Germany and be outside of it than he was... and he was in Germany not long after he was born. And then out again, and then in again.

Point is he was very much a local boy. He spoke the language, knew the customs.

Look if this is the kind of response I can expect from you do us both a favor and stop wasting our time.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Oh how awful of us to remove their brutal oppressive pseudo-government. It just isn't right for us to free them from their bonds.

Why Iran and not Rwanda or Sudan?