TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Would you support going to war with Iran?
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Purple No, its more like an hour drive from city or so in most cases.. and if US air strikes nuclear facilities in Iran, the radiation leak WILL affect the civilians in the city and hour away from it..Chernobyl effected whole of Europe...

Yep in most cases but 3 Mile Island is only about 12 miles away from Harrisburg.

quote:

Yes.. I think that way.. that the insurgents will lay down their weapons and stop this bloodshed once the US leaves, they will embrace UN cos they have nothing against them.. US has invaded Iraq before and Iraqies see US as their Enemy and not UN... they will welcome UN forces and throw stones at leaving US forces.. thats what will happen.. US is seen like Nazi Germany in Iraq and UN will be seen like the liberators from Nazi Germans and not as the occupiers.. dont forget Iraq too is a member of UN and UN supported Iraq all the time.. Yes once US withdraws, their will be a steep/deep fall in insurgency and bloodshed that we see currently in Iraq. You will not have Tibet style peace and calm.. but it will hell lot more calm, peaceful and worry free life that Iraqies will get once the US forces leave and hands over the guardian thing to UN. Why will it happen? Cos history has it.. give me one example where UN failed to maintain peace..

You still havn't provided me with any source that suggests UN members will muster a peacekeeping force sizable enough to patrol all of Iraq. 150,000 US troops isn't even enough. Your excuse for this is the US is shit. Great excuse. So the UN will do any better? Are you insane? Suggestion, take a course on international relations, diplomacy, and history. You have a serious misunderstanding about diplomacy, international relations, and the realities of current senario. Please stop basing these arguements on emotion and base them on something I can verify.

You do realize the insurgency doesn't just fight against coalition forces right? The insurgency is fighting amongst themselves. Your arguements are based on your irrational hatred of america. Listen, I disagree with the war too, but you take it to an entire new level. That is where your argument falls apart. The insurgents are not fighting the american troops because they hate america though for a minority of fighters such as al-qaida, this may be true. The main reason insurgents fight the US is because of the occupation.

Another assumption you make is the insurgency is one uniform body. So if America withdraws, they lay their arms down? Have you really researched who the insurgency really is? There are over a dozen different groups, each with their own agendas. And many of the these groups are not only fighting the US, but they're fighting each other. The Mahdi Army is fighting the Badr Brigade in the south, and both are Shiite! The Sunnis and SHiites are routinely scuffling against each other. The government can't function because the differences are so great, they don't want to even deal with other. And here you are saying the UN will make these groups just lay down their arms and sing "kum ba ya." Give me a break.

The UN is the main organization that imposed an economic embargo against the country after the Gulf War. They will be viewed by these same insurgents exactly as they viewed the americans. As foreign occupiers. Havnt you forgotten that the UN envoy to Iraq was killed by a truck bomb in 2003? UN Headquarters destroyed? Here are the articles...

UN envoy to Iraq killed by trcuk bomb
Un Headquarters Bombed

Your notion that a UN replacement of the american occupation will cause the insurgents to stop their operations is a distorted view. These groups are vying for power, not just trying to expel the occupation. Right now, the power is the occupation, so they are likewise going to fight it. When the power is gone, as in withdrawal, they won't lay down their weapons, they will turn on each other fight for the power. I can't believe you actually think the insurgents are some sort of freedom fighters or something trying to liberate their country. They are fighting for power. The occupation not lasting is a given. They know it, the US knows it. The insurgents ultimate goal is to position themselves with the highest possible power they can grab out of this power vaccum that will come one day.

You want an example of a failed UN peacekeeping mission? That's the completely wrong question to ask. I'm going to ask you, when has the UN sent in more than 100,000 peacekeepers into any mission? Because to replace the american occupation and to truelly keep the peace, you're going to need a lot more troops than Lebanon, Sudan, or Kosovo needs to keep their peace. Additionally, the local population wants these troops in their country. Iraqi's after the american withdrawal won't be throwing celebrations when another foreign force moves in to fill that void.

quote:

Originally posted by Purple Yes.. I think that way.. that the insurgents will lay down their weapons and stop this bloodshed once the US leaves, they will embrace UN cos they have nothing against them.. US has invaded Iraq before and Iraqies see US as their Enemy and not UN... they will welcome UN forces and throw stones at leaving US forces.. thats what will happen.. US is seen like Nazi Germany in Iraq and UN will be seen like the liberators from Nazi Germans and not as the occupiers.. dont forget Iraq too is a member of UN and UN supported Iraq all the time.. Yes once US withdraws, their will be a steep/deep fall in insurgency and bloodshed that we see currently in Iraq. You will not have Tibet style peace and calm.. but it will hell lot more calm, peaceful and worry free life that Iraqies will get once the US forces leave and hands over the guardian thing to UN. Why will it happen? Cos history has it.. give me one example where UN failed to maintain peace..

The insurgents will stop the bloodshed between whom ? The Shia and Sunnis ? Will the UN be able to quell the sectarian violence ? What is the basis of this bloodshed, to begin with ? The US invasion has acted as a trigger, but the sectarian violence certainly has got much less to do with the presence of the US forces in Iraq. Do you think the Sunni militia and Al Qaeda will respect a UN presence ? They are killing the Shias. The enmity goes back to antiquity, and that coupled with Saddam Hussein's tyranny is the real reason behind this.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Negative. >Meet GRU-28< >>Source<< That would depend on how close they've created the facility to their urban centers. Frankly, I can't see a nuclear facility being built downtown, can you? And since they wouldn't be using a nuclear device, casualties should be minimal in comparison. As above, not necessarily.

Sounds like my numbers were a bit off. It's been a while since I read this [url=http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/wp31.pdf] Fire in the Hole{/url]

Take a look at Figure 4 which shows the yeild needed to penetrate 20 meters of granite, not hard to find in a country full of mountains like Iran.

Then compare that to figures 6 and 7 which will let you know the expected 100% fatality area. These facilities are quite often located near populated areas specifically so that thier destruction would cause mass civilian casualties.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Erm no, I really don't think I do need to watch "Weaponology" on the "Military Channel"! Actually, the fact that there is a program called 'weaponology' and a channel called the 'military channel' worries me slightly less than the fact that people actually subscribe to it!!! Did you have to pay extra to watch the start of the Iraq war?!? I can just see it now, them advertising it through Feb and March - "Make sure you don't miss Saddam's deadline too! For only $9.99 you can watch the Iraq War live only on pay-per-view (all major credit cards accepted)"

One of the video's I've seen lately talked about the fetish type nature that weapons have taken in the US culture, "Weaponology" certainly seems to be a part of that.

To be honest I don't trust the amount of talk that military tech gets in western circles. I have a feeling that it is part of the propoganda. Really if this shit were so good how come there have been so many casualties from road side bombs? Or what about the more telling number of US limbs that have been left in Iraq as thier owners are flown to hospitals back home?

It makes me think of the majenault line, damn that french tech was impressive, to bad it was ready to win the war of the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Then suggesting the UN strike the US, are you that dumb?

Good point, everyone knows that sanctions should be applied before any UN military response to a country that invades and occupies another soverign nation.

I say we begin with oil. I'll just run over to Alberta and turn off the taps. I'm sure that Chavez will follow suit with his OPEC buddies, then we can get China to block oil out of Saudi.

If you're in the US I'd stock up on food, water, and cash because it's going to be tough to drive to work or cosco without oil.



(some times you gota stir the pot)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Aye I was just takin the piss. I gathered what it was, but still find the images it congured up of gun crazed yanks all sat round the TV whooping to wars like they were football matches mildly amusing (and probably quite close to the bone for a lot of Americans!) If there were a 24hr live war channel offering subscriptions, I honestly believe it'd attract quite few subscribers over there!!

The main reason us North Americans "love" war is because it's such a drole foreign passtime.

This will likely change when the next war breaks out on this continent. It's not as much fun to see your car go up in flames light by your neibour as it is to watch someone elses a world away.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The ONLY difference for Iraq if the coalition had a UN mandate would be legitimacy in their actions. It would still be America and the countries in Iraq that were fighting and mounting the same operations they are today. Even if France, Russia and China had agreed to back the UN mandate, they would not be required to send in troops. It would just have legitimised America action (which would be no different with or without that mandate)

Wait, wait, wait. This sounds far to democratic.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The ONLY difference for Iraq if the coalition had a UN mandate would be legitimacy in their actions. It would still be America and the countries in Iraq that were fighting and mounting the same operations they are today. Even if France, Russia and China had agreed to back the UN mandate, they would not be required to send in troops. It would just have legitimised America action (which would be no different with or without that mandate)

Entirely +1.

This is what the UN does.

{{{ Peacekeeping, as defined by the United Nations, is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace."[1]. Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. }}}

Purple thinks the UN can stop a conflict when in reality, it is the combatants themselves who have to stop before the UN can do anything to help. As we've seen, the Iraqi insurgency is made up of a lot of combatants who have no aims of stopping their operations even if US troops withdraw. The conflict has the play out.

I found this map and thought I would share it with you guys.Notice how almost all of the facilities are near cities and not in the middle of nowhere.If there is ever going to be a attack on those sites there will be lots of casualties.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer I found this map and thought I would share it with you guys.Notice how almost all of the facilities are near cities and not in the middle of nowhere.If there is ever going to be a attack on those sites there will be lots of casualties.

Lets hope both sides come to their senses right? Admadinijad needs to go. When are the Iranians having another election? Does it really matter? Last election the Guardian Council excluded hundreds of candidates. I don't think the country can continue quickly with nuclear development with such a stagnant economy. Foreigners just need to continue pressuring Iran to come to some sort of rationality. But the US also needs to withdraw 1 of its aircraft carriers from the Persian Gulf. What incentive would Iran have to stop nuclear development if there are not just one, but two giant aircraft carriers just off your shore from a country they consider "that great satan"? Not much of any.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Lets hope both sides come to their senses right? Admadinijad needs to go. When are the Iranians having another election? Does it really matter?

Not really,Even if Ahmadinegad goes,not much will change,since he has no power or say in all this,he is like a puppet really,it is the religious leader(Ayatollah khamanaie) who has the true power,so dont let the media fool you of thinking that Ahmadinigad is the mastermind of all this.

quote:

But the US also needs to withdraw 1 of its aircraft carriers from the Persian Gulf. What incentive would Iran have to stop nuclear development if there are not just one, but two giant aircraft carriers just off your shore from a country they consider "that great satan"? Not much of any.

Iam glad that you are finally begining to see the other side of this issue and how the Iranians feel about having all the American troops surrounding them.To be honest for Bush and coming and labeling the revolutionary guards of Iran as terrorists didnt help the situation at all.
Once this fuckin Admin leaves office perhaps there could be a chance in negotiations between the two countries,that is if Bush doesnt attack them before he leaves.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/iran/nucsites.htm

i don't know about the previous map, but this seems a tad more reasonable for a nuclear-developing country.

continue

Thanks ResonantDrag,I was looking for something like that with some detail.

Even on your map most of hte facilities are near populated areas.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Thanks ResonantDrag,I was looking for something like that with some detail. Even on your map most of hte facilities are near populated areas.

i ain't arguing shit..

the Tehran test reactor is in the middle of the southwest suburbs of Tehran. ooo, i'm gonna google earth these bad boys.

btw, you seem to be in better spirits than usual

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Even on your map most of hte facilities are near populated areas.

You'll notice that two the facilities are location 100 miles outside any city / town and not...

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer ...near cities or towns with many people living in them.

Now unless you're going to give me some line about the facilities 'being nuclear' and '100 miles not that far for a nuclear facility' let me hit you on the forehead now...

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag the Tehran test reactor is in the middle of the southwest suburbs of Tehran. ooo, i'm gonna google earth these bad boys.

Awesome!!!cant wait to see them

quote:

btw, you seem to be in better spirits than usual

Iam always in good spirit.

Firestarter there is something that you are failing to see here,and that is the fact that if the U.S attacks Iran they wont be just going after their nuclear facilities,infact they are going to hit evcery military compouds in Iran.Iam sure like always they ll have a good excuse such as: "those sites were hit because they were sponsoring terrorism" etc etc.

Once that happens,what do you think Iran is gonna do?open its borders and let the American troops walk in?as much as the neocons would love to see that the reality is much diiferent and instead we will have a full on war.

Even if lets say they just go after Irans nukes,Iran will retaliate no matter what.

The outcome of any sort of Military action against Iran will have a negative results and its impact will be felt around the world for a long time.

on that new version of google earth, all you have to do is search for "Tehran Nuclear Research Center". imagine that

35 44'17.16"N 51 23'18.78"E

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Firestarter there is something that you are failing to see here,and that is the fact that if the U.S attacks Iran they wont be just going after their nuclear facilities,infact they are going to hit evcery military compouds in Iran.Iam sure like always they ll have a good excuse such as: "those sites were hit because they were sponsoring terrorism" etc etc. Once that happens,what do you think Iran is gonna do?open its borders and let the American troops walk in?as much as the neocons would love to see that the reality is much diiferent and instead we will have a full on war. Even if lets say they just go after Irans nukes,Iran will retaliate no matter what. The outcome of any sort of Military action against Iran will have a negative results and its impact will be felt around the world for a long time.

Agreed. As much as I despise the Iranian elite, a US attack on Iran would be detrimental to any stability in the Middle East. It would be foreign intervention. The very reason in my opinion why we have a proliferation of radicalism in the region. Let's not make the mainstream muslims shift towards radicalism. That's whats happening.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Agreed. As much as I despise the Iranian elite, a US attack on Iran would be detrimental to any stability in the Middle East. It would be foreign intervention. The very reason in my opinion why we have a proliferation of radicalism in the region. Let's not make the mainstream muslims shift towards radicalism. That's whats happening.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Firestarter there is something that you are failing to see here,and that is the fact that if the U.S attacks Iran they wont be just going after their nuclear facilities,infact they are going to hit evcery military compouds in Iran.Iam sure like always they ll have a good excuse such as: "those sites were hit because they were sponsoring terrorism" etc etc. Once that happens,what do you think Iran is gonna do?open its borders and let the American troops walk in?as much as the neocons would love to see that the reality is much diiferent and instead we will have a full on war. Even if lets say they just go after Irans nukes,Iran will retaliate no matter what. The outcome of any sort of Military action against Iran will have a negative results and its impact will be felt around the world for a long time.

I never suggested a full assault and it wouldn't be the first time a reactor has been bombed in the area (see Iraq / Israel over 25 yrs ago) though.
I may be taking a hard stance on this but even if the U.S. or some sort of consortium didn't do it, Israel has proven that it's not afraid of being the scapegoat on such an issue.

Believe me, the last thing anyone needs is the U.S. trying to take on Iran when their plate is already quite full and the world psyche on the whole matter appears to be at it's peak.

You guys are right, it would be like swatting a bee's nest...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I never suggested a full assault and it wouldn't be the first time a reactor has been bombed in the area (see Iraq / Israel over 25 yrs ago) though. I may be taking a hard stance on this but even if the U.S. or some sort of consortium didn't do it, Israel has proven that it's not afraid of being the scapegoat on such an issue.

Yes it has. If you know anything about neoconservatism you would know that America's desire to attack Iraq had everything to do with protecting Israel from its one major and realistic threat - Saddam Hussein, yet where were Israel in 2003?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yes it has. If you know anything about neoconservatism you would know that America's desire to attack Iraq had everything to do with protecting Israel from its one major and realistic threat - Saddam Hussein, yet where were Israel in 2003?

Are you suggesting that Israel actually needed to do anything?

They did well to stay clear when it came to Iraq knowing full well what the implications would have been had they become involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Are you suggesting that Israel actually needed to do anything? They did well to stay clear when it came to Iraq knowing full well what the implications would have been had they become involved.

I'm just saying that my research on neoconservatism has suggested that they will take any action to support Israel including eliminating their enemies

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.