TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Thread about a possible War on Iran
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I don't understand why people say this. How long did it take the US to develop the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It wasn't 10 years.

And you think Iran has the resources and alliances to do it? Please.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I don't understand why people say this. How long did it take the US to develop the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It wasn't 10 years.

point taken,but here is a question for ya,why didnt the U.S drop bombs on North Korea a few years ago to stop them from making nukes?even tho everyone knew 100% that they are actually making them?
why is it ok to bomb Iran but not North Korea?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer point taken,but here is a question for ya,why didnt the U.S drop bombs on North Korea a few years ago to stop them from making nukes?even tho everyone knew 100% that they are actually making them? why is it ok to bomb Iran but not North Korea?

b/c of China

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Isnt this the same U.N that told Bush not to attack Iraq?isnt this the same U.N that showd proof to the world that there are not WMDS in Iraq?and yet the U.S decided to go ahead with the invasion. Why should Iran have to listen to them then?if the most powerful nation ignors U.N all the time why should others take them seriously? It is not me that has to take my head out here you ass clown.

Maybe you've been under a rock or something lately but I'm pretty sure the U.S. has been playing by the U.N.'s rules (when it's been dealing with Iran).
No?
Prove it.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Maybe you've been under a rock or something lately but I'm pretty sure the U.S. has been playing by the U.N.'s rules (when it's been dealing with Iran). No? Prove it.

LOL

The U.S. has always used the U.N to get what they want,but if it is the other way around they would walk all over them.perhaps you are the one that has been hiding in a cave somewhere in Manitoba all your life.

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. It knew then, full well, that inspections where part of the deal. Over a year ago, in February of 2006, Iran halted those inspections. I find it hard to believe that a country claiming "good intentions" with its nuclear program would deny UN (IAEA) inspections for a year.

Bringing up any other country in this situation is a non sequitor. We're talking about Iran and Iran alone. It willfully signed a treaty and it has willfully decided to break that treaty both by vocal affirmation and by prohibiting inspections.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. It knew then, full well, that inspections where part of the deal. Over a year ago, in February of 2006, Iran halted those inspections. I find it hard to believe that a country claiming "good intentions" with its nuclear program would deny UN (IAEA) inspections for a year. Bringing up any other country in this situation is a non sequitor. We're talking about Iran and Iran alone. It willfully signed a treaty and it has willfully decided to break that treaty both by vocal affirmation and by prohibiting inspections.

Damn right!

Similar to how the US signed the Geneva Conventions and would never even think of using torture for personal means.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Damn right! Similar to how the US signed the Geneva Conventions and would never even think of using torture for personal means.

Gotcha...the old "two wrongs make a right" argument. So as long as one country breaks a treaty you have no problem with another doing so? Giving examples of where one country may have broken their word does absolutely nothing to justify another country in doing so.

This is a world problem, not just a US problem. If Iran does make nukes and finds the reason to use them, I can almost guarantee it would be another Middle Eastern or European country that would be hit first. Again though, I fail to see how one country's transgressions gives another country the go-ahead to build nuclear weapons.

This thread is exactly why I party as hard and as long as I can each and every chance I get. The Chinese are sitting back, just laughing. The 2008 Olympic games have a very familiar feel to them. Anyone remeber Hitler and the '36 Olympic games? The similarities are pretty obvious, and scary. If my estimates are correct, we'll be knee deep in Chinese soldiers by 2012.

quote:

Originally posted by misterpink This thread is exactly why I party as hard and as long as I can each and every chance I get. The Chinese are sitting back, just laughing. The 2008 Olympic games have a very familiar feel to them. Anyone remeber Hitler and the '36 Olympic games? The similarities are pretty obvious, and scary. If my estimates are correct, we'll be knee deep in Chinese soldiers by 2012.

Nah, I still think they are at least a good 15-20 years away from being capable to doing what you are suggesting. Maybe the 2028 games will be in China.

GODDAMN DISASTER

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Gotcha...the old "two wrongs make a right" argument. So as long as one country breaks a treaty you have no problem with another doing so? Giving examples of where one country may have broken their word does absolutely nothing to justify another country in doing so. This is a world problem, not just a US problem. If Iran does make nukes and finds the reason to use them, I can almost guarantee it would be another Middle Eastern or European country that would be hit first. Again though, I fail to see how one country's transgressions gives another country the go-ahead to build nuclear weapons.

While I agree with you completely that two wrongs do not make a right, I think you have to agree with hardcore's inherent point that it's very difficult for the U.S. to claim any moral highground on abiding international laws when we have certain ethical lapses such as breaking Geneva (and throw in extraordinary rendition as well). Our leading by example philosophy has seemingly gone right out the window. We are, albeit a very light version, slowly becoming the very thing we are fighting, and it's difficult for us to point any fingers at anyone else having certain ethical lapses in international treaties when we refuse to address the guilty irony.

Again, that's not to say sanctions against Iran shouldn't be enforced, nor is it saying we shouldn't be frowning upon Iran and continuing to push diplomatic plans on nuke inspections, but I feel we've certainly come a long way during this Administration, and most around the world (except our wonderful buddy in Australia) would agree it's not in the right direction.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 (except our wonderful buddy in Australia).

So KICK Cheney also

From the Conservative-friendly Daily Telegraph:

quote:

Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal. To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon. A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...24/wiran124.xml

Take that article for whatever you think it's worth. Again, this may be mere contingency plans, but it's still slightly troubling regardless.

The tin foil hat I've got on right now is telling me that there's another rationale for our troop "surge" in Iraq, which has much to do with Iraq in the short run but very little to do with it in the long run. Must be on too tight, methinks.

quote:

US refuses to ban cluster bombs The United States has rejected an international call to ban the use of cluster bombs, despite 46 other countries calling for a ban on the weapons. Groups such as the Red Cross and the United Nations are opposed to cluster munitions because of the high proportion of civilians killed by the weapons. But the US State Department says cluster bombs have a place in armed conflicts as long as countries follow proper rules of engagement. Forty-six nations at a conference in Norway have called for a treaty to ban such weapons by next year. But some of the world's major military powers did not attend, including the US, Russia and China.

Source


Getting LURK now to achieve her misssion in MEast beside Israel

quote:

Originally posted by M.Johan Source Getting LURK now to achieve her misssion in MEast beside Israel

Since when China became a major military power? Is that because they shot down a bunch of garbage flying on earth orbit?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. It knew then, full well, that inspections where part of the deal. Over a year ago, in February of 2006, Iran halted those inspections. I find it hard to believe that a country claiming "good intentions" with its nuclear program would deny UN (IAEA) inspections for a year. Bringing up any other country in this situation is a non sequitor. We're talking about Iran and Iran alone. It willfully signed a treaty and it has willfully decided to break that treaty both by vocal affirmation and by prohibiting inspections.

First of all, Iran no where near having nuclear capability for military purposes. Secondly, it's in their national interest to aquire nukes since the sole super power in the world has made it clear that you'd better have a deterant otherwise we'll invade you. Thirdly, I really don't see any reason why any country shouldn't have nukes while the countries which are part of the nuclear club won't disarm their. It the same fucking reason, a deterrant. And they could use one right now.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Bringing up any other country in this situation is a non sequitor. I find it hard to believe that a country claiming "good intentions" with its nuclear program would deny UN (IAEA) inspections for a year. It willfully signed a treaty and it has willfully decided to break that treaty both by vocal affirmation and by prohibiting inspections.

• That's complete BS.
  
• I already gave the example of Iraq, no WMDs.
  
• How exactly has it broken that treaty? And if so, how does that justify and invasion or military strike? And if that's to be a standard response to violation of a contract, and assuming you think that standard applies to everyone, well then, we're long overdue for being carpet bombed the fuck out of. Two wrongs don't make a right, yes. But considering how many treaties we pay no heed to and violate, you can't really use that as an argument against Iran with out being quite hypocritical.
  

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 From the Conservative-friendly Daily Telegraph: Take that article for whatever you think it's worth. Again, this may be mere contingency plans, but it's still slightly troubling regardless. The tin foil hat I've got on right now is telling me that there's another rationale for our troop "surge" in Iraq, which has much to do with Iraq in the short run but very little to do with it in the long run. Must be on too tight, methinks.

I think it's rather obvious who these war policies help by altering the power dynamics in the region in you know who's favour while keeping certain things status quo. While true they're several different aspect to the implication of those policies, one state clearly benifits from them, and it ain't the US.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z First of all, Iran no where near having nuclear capability for military purposes. Secondly, it's in their national interest to aquire nukes since the sole super power in the world has made it clear that you'd better have a deterant otherwise we'll invade you. Thirdly, I really don't see any reason why any country shouldn't have nukes while the countries which are part of the nuclear club won't disarm their. It the same fucking reason, a deterrant. And they could use one right now.

You're right the Cold War was awesome. Two superpowers on the verge of nuking each other for decades. Let's give every country nukes so we can live in a persistent Cold War state. How exactly do you know that Iran is nowhere near having nuclear capabilities? Did they let you in for an inspection? Are you privileged to Iranian internal documents or sources?

Secondly, world response is a deterrent for the nuclear club's use of nuclear weapons. If any of the current world powers used a nuke, for whatever reason, the following economic and political effects would be devastating...I don't care who it was who used it. Iran, and pre-war Iraq for that matter, have shown time and time again that they have no concern for world reaction. A perfect example is right now. For all practical purposes, the entire planet wants inspectors to verify that there is no chance of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Even in the face of sanctions and military intervention, Iran continues to disregard the requests of the entire world. In short, the problem with Iran having nuclear weapons is both their instability and lack of restraint.

You're also missing a key point; the US wants to invade Iran because it is believed to be in the process of producing nuclear weapons. If anything, Iran having nuclear weapons is an anti-deterrent.

quote:

That's complete BS. I already gave the example of Iraq, no WMDs. How exactly has it broken that treaty? And if so, how does that justify and invasion or military strike? And if that's to be a standard response to violation of a contract, and assuming you think that standard applies to everyone, well then, we're long overdue for being carpet bombed the fuck out of. Two wrongs don't make a right, yes. But considering how many treaties we pay no heed to and violate, you can't really use that as an argument against Iran with out being quite hypocritical.

Non sequitur: 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

The US and their compliance with international guidelines has absolutely no consequence on Iran breaking the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Unless, and I'll say it again, you're arguing that two wrongs make a right and since one country breaks the rules, another country should be able to.

Iraq refused international inspections (a condition of surrender of the first gulf war) just as Iran is now refusing inspections (a condition set forth by both the Non-proliferation treaty as well as the UN). Are you now arguing that no country should be held accountable for UN inspections? Or are you saying that no country should be inspected or required to follow international law or treaty?

quote:

In 2005, Iran was held to be non-compliant with the NPT Safeguards agreement; which is Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute as it had not disclosed it's civilian uranium enrichment program.

Right now a military invasion is hypothetical at best. People can cry wolf at contingency plans all they want, but right now the only facts we have are that Iran is currently working in the field of nuclear power/weapons and it refuses inspection, mandated by both the UN and the Non Proliferation Treaty. People love to look at the US and its faults as a scape-goat for Iran, but this is an international problem and an Iranian problem.

This entire issue would be irrelevant if Iran would simply agree to IAEA inspections as it agreed to when signing the NPT. However, since Iran has decided to go against the NPT as well as the UN, here is where we find ourselves. Iran is the culpable party here. It has the power to ease international pressure and relic this incident to history. However, it continues not to do so, and nothing cited about the US has any impact on making Iran's decision any more acceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z [*]How exactly has it broken that treaty? [/list]

quote:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 was passed by the United Nations Security Council on 31 July 2006. The resolution, proposed by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, demanded Iran stop its uranium enrichment program. 14 members of the Security Council voted for the resolution; one, Qatar, voted against. Iran's failure to respond satisfactorily led to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, applying sanctions.

>>Source<<

Iran you sexy bitch, you can break my treaty anytime Yea you like breaking treaties don't you? DON'T YOU?? Yea you want me to spank you hard with some bunker busters and then rub it nice with a furry reconstruction grant. You're so naughty. I love your style Iran.

Eeeeeeeww, what the fuck are you wearing though? That's an UUUHGLY colour yo.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey Iran you sexy bitch, you can break my treaty anytime Yea you like breaking treaties don't you? DON'T YOU?? Yea you want me to spank you hard with some bunker busters and then rub it nice with a furry reconstruction grant. You're so naughty. I love your style Iran. Eeeeeeeww, what the fuck are you wearing though? That's an UUUHGLY colour yo.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

Seymour Hersh's latest in Reuters:

quote:

Despite the Bush administration�s insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue. The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the March 4 issue. http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...422219220070225

It goes on further to say that the Pentagon unit was initially in charge of going after strategic nuclear facility sites, but has now been changed "to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq."

This corroborates pretty well with what the BBC reported earlier this week:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

But that's not all. Seems a few head haunchos are threatening to resign if Bush decides to push the shiny red button on Iran:

quote:

SOME of America�s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack. ....."There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle1434540.ece

One has to wonder if 4 or 5 Generals or Admirals is very significant, nevertheless it is more troubling signs.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Seymour Hersh's latest in Reuters: It goes on further to say that the Pentagon unit was initially in charge of going after strategic nuclear facility sites, but has now been changed "to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq." This corroborates pretty well with what the BBC reported earlier this week: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm But that's not all. Seems a few head haunchos are threatening to resign if Bush decides to push the shiny red button on Iran: One has to wonder if 4 or 5 Generals or Admirals is very significant, nevertheless it is more troubling signs.

All I can say is they better have a REEEEEALY precise reason for doing it with no speculation or the backlash is going to be amazing.
I seriously doubt any land forces will be involved; they simply can't afford it.
Unless Iran decides to play ball; air strikes are the way to go.

Now on carrier sucks ,Wat NExt



>Source<

Anyone act like this ,unforunatly i've no images 4Iran acts i think that there'sno irredeem f it's happened and nothing on the surface for any delicating....needing tact or easily offended

quote:

Lieutenant Commander Matt Pothier returned yesterday from Afghanistan having delivered air support to British soldiers. He said: "Right now I have more opportunities than I've ever had to use weapons where we know there aren't any friendly people. In combat that's very rewarding."

STOP KIDS

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