It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Sec. State Rice Fails To Get Russian Support On Iran Nuke Issue

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Speaking at an official meeting in Russia, the American Secretary of State has failed to persuade the Russians to support a hard-line approach against Iran over its nuclear programme. The Americans, with the Europeans, want to force the Iranians back to the negotiating table or refer the Islamic nation to the U.N Security Council for possible sanctions. The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, refused to support Security Council referral, stating: "We think that the current situation permits us to develop this issue and do everything possible within the means of this organization, without referring this issue to other organizations now,"
 



news.yahoo.com
MOSCOW - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice failed Saturday to persuade Russia to offer new support for a hard line on
Iran's disputed nuclear program, despite making a hastily arranged trip to the Russian capital.

Rice wanted Russian cooperation as the United States and its European allies try either to draw Iran back to diplomatic talks or invoke the threat of punishment from the powerful
U.N. Security Council.

Despite lengthy meetings with Russian officials, including a long session alone with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, it was clear Russia had not changed its opposition to using the Security Council.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The Russians wont support a UNSC referral and neither will the Chinese. Even if a referral took place the aforementioned would definitely veto any sanctions or authorizations of force.

What does that leave the Americans and Europeans? There's always the Iraq option i.e. work outside of international law and the UN and attack Iran militarily. The Israeli's have threatened to do the job themselves if the Americans don't act.

The Americans are being pushed against a rock and a hard place here and I for one worry about the eventual outcome. Allowing the Iranians to pursue their NPT approved nuclear programme would cause the Americans to lose face. Whether the Bush administration could weather the international embarrassment is any ones guess but I don't think they have a choice.

Force really isn't an option with Iraq still tieing up vast amounts of American resources and personelle. Would the country really allow more reservists to leave to fight on a foreign battlefield in a post-Katrina setting?

Yep, I really think the Americans have miscalculated the strength of their position here and the only way this thing can come to a head is with American embarrassment or American military action. Neither bode well for the current administration.




posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
That was a really tough sell Rice attempted. I'll give her credit for trying, but she had to know Russia would not back the U.S. on this issue unless and until hard evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program is produced. What really concerns me is what the Israelis may attempt on their own (or with covert backing from other countries).

[edit on 15-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Well, with all this going on, I'm starting to wonder if there might have been another motive for the recent Isreali withdraws from Gaza and the West Bank. Heck, there were 55,000 troops and 8,000 Israeli police involved in the Gaza operation alone. With all that firepower now more available, I am wondering if it could be part of a bigger plan. Maybe the "Greater Israel" idea isn't so far-fetched? Could it be that Condi was there to also warn Russia of impending action on Iran? (As in, get your people outta there?)

Clean out Lebanon and Syria so that an attack can eventually be mounted on Iran? Or possibly even at the same time? (Israel hit Lebanon from the south, while the US advances on Syria from the eastern border with Iraq, and attacks Iran's nuke sites from the Persian Gulf, maybe?)

Heck, between those three, we'd certainly lose a lot of terrorists. But somehow I just can't see Russia or China sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing if all that were to happen. At least covert support, probably.

I dunno, things just don't seem to be getting much better over there.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Yeah, a lot is riding on the outcome of the referendum taking place in Iraq right now. Will the country at last start to come together, or will it continue down the path to civil war? If the former, a bunch of U.S. troops could be freed for other purposes and if the latter.....?



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I don't think the Americans are in any position to tactictly strick the Iranians at all, in fact, they can barely tend to thier obligations in Iraq, and the ammount of support for this war is depreciating as the months roll by. Duly, this is a tough situation, and military efforts will only make it worse, even on side of the Israelis who can't afford international criticism if they do implore to strike the Iranian nuclear facilities, which, mind you, are well hidden, and as it should also be noted, that the Iranians have a formidable army which is fully capable of striking back.

TrueAmerican,

I don't in any way see attacking Lebanon and Syria as an advancment in hindering terrorism, if anything, it will only further create conflict in the region and tension towards the west and Israel.

Luxifero



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
There's no way the US can pursue its goals in Iraq if Iran provides overt support to the insurgency. Basically, Iran has our nuts in a precarious spot. If we didn't have troops in the region we would have a lot more options, but alas.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
In a short term myopic kind of way it can be said to harm crediblity of both the EU and the USA.

The EU dickered around for two years and came up empty handed - so much for multi-lateralism

The Bush administration has not changed its stance about Irans true intent, so policy wise they're ok - the credibilty issue will be the lack of action possible under the current political climate which dictates a damned if you do, damned if you don't mentality.

Long run loss of face or crediblity will be born by Russia and China due to their claims backing the ludicris claim of Iran having peaceful intent for power generation.

One day the Iranians will conduct a test so that its foreign policy can be backed by the implicit threat of annihilation to its neighbors (democratic Iraq for example).

Only then will people wake up to the true threat at hand, absolving the Bush administration and EU efforts. That absolution will be meaningless though - it'll be too late to do anything short of full scale war.


cjf

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Russia and China both abstained from the IAEA voting sending Iran’s to the UNSC.

Russia has been hard on insistence that there is no evidence of nuclear weapons development, yet Russia has been equally as hard on Iran’s lack of transparency and shares the US position against Iran obtaining Nukes.

The IAEA has found Iran in ‘non-compliance’ and the case will be before the UNSC; abstention in voting is still an option and the IAEA has not yet presented its’ case. However; the diplomatic pressure is being turned-up quite a bit, even based upon statments from Lavrov...


the NPT regime must "under no conditions" be violated.
( AFP)


.
.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
In a short term myopic kind of way it can be said to harm credibility of both the EU and the USA.

The EU dickered around for two years and came up empty handed - so much for multi-lateralism

Typical, I bet you would of liked to see more unilateralism and invasions from the get go? You do realize that there is no evidence of a Iranian nuclear weapons programme don't you? Not even fabricated evidence as used to justify the Iraq WMD case. Maybe that's why they "dickered" around for a few years, they are fishing for evidence and they arent finding it.


Originally posted by Phoenix
The Bush administration has not changed its stance about Irans true intent, so policy wise they're ok

Yeah they wont drop those "strong beliefs" that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme will they. I could strongly believe that George Bush was made from lesser parts of chimpanzees at a secret Haliburton lab in Virginia, doesn't make it right does it? It makes it less right to spout off my strong belief and try to fob it off as unequivocal fact. An unequivocal fact that sanctions would be based on? Forget it


Originally posted by Phoenix
the credibility issue will be the lack of action possible under the current political climate which dictates a damned if you do, damned if you don't mentality.

Oh yeah, the current political climate of not getting to invade who you want, when you want. What a shame. That international law is a complete pain in the ass when your foreign policy is illegal.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Long run loss of face or credibility will be born by Russia and China due to their claims backing the ludicris claim of Iran having peaceful intent for power generation.

Well I suppose they could wait 8 years then just carry on as normal and reward them with more weapons and jets. Hey, at least the Iranians are a part of the NPT, what's the U.S excuse over Pakistan and India?


Originally posted by Phoenix
One day the Iranians will conduct a test so that its foreign policy can be backed by the implicit threat of annihilation to its neighbours (democratic Iraq for example).

Much like the US over the past 50 years? Yeah I can see why the Americans wouldn't want to see their whipping boy with a 12-gauge.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Only then will people wake up to the true threat at hand, absolving the Bush administration and EU efforts. That absolution will be meaningless though - it'll be too late to do anything short of full scale war.

That's rather subjective but please, take my opinion as well. The Bush administration is the true threat at hand here. The current climate of invasions of ones rivals was initiated by Washington with the invasion of Afghanistan. If that climate wasn't created we wouldn't see nations scrambling to protect themselves. North Korea is another prime example.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Typical, I bet you would of liked to see more unilateralism and invasions from the get go? You do realize that there is no evidence of a Iranian nuclear weapons programme don't you? Not even fabricated evidence as used to justify the Iraq WMD case. Maybe that's why they "dickered" around for a few years, they are fishing for evidence and they arent finding it.


As I've tried to say earlier - The only way some are to believe Iran is weaponizing its nuclear progam - is when one blows up in your face.

Short of that if Iran were to declare its weaponization some would defend that as its right just as they defend the so-called power program.

The Iraqi situation has nothing at all to do with this post, for the record though, There is no dispute they had them and used them. The Darfur report concludes Iraq had viable programs that also could have been reconstituted quickly had Saddam remained in power. Given all the time for diplomatic machinations that took place before the invasion Saddam had plenty of time to dispose of what he had - to say there absolutely was no WMD in Iraq is to spin the information easily available. All that can be truthfully said is that significant amounts of WMD were not found in the latter part of 2003 or so, but thats inconclusive about the time before that.

The Iranians would have a bit harder time doing so with the type facilities they have constructed.

Suspected Bomb Plant

Fishing for evidence is not the issue when Iran has been reported to the security council for NPT non-compliance at this time by the IAEA.

The issue is that beneficiaries of Irans nuclear program may veto any action decided to further their own interests.

UN body cites Iran on nuclear program

I scoff at todays version of multi-lateralism because it can't be said to work.

Gulf war - inconclusive because kowtowing to allies regarding regime overthrow.

Bosnia - nothing but a big mess for years.

Lebanon - UN, US forces run out by Iranian and Syrian supported thugs.

Somalia - just a huge horror house.

I could keep going but I've shown what I mean........................

Multi-Lateralism is nice concept in a utopian sense, unfortunately this is not utopia and even Hitler and Stalin had stauch allies right up to the bitter end.

Under International law it has been interpreted that a country has the right to defend itself even if that means pre-emptive action is required - some give it a snide connatation by using the word unilateralism as a negative.



With respect to preemption, the National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by U.S. President George W. Bush itself does not necessarily significantly challenge prevailing international law. It rests upon a standard doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, and explores the question of when an attack is imminent. On its face it does not seek to overturn the rule, but to explore how the rule and its underlying purpose could be applied in particular situations not existing in the past.


Pre-emptive War and International Law



posted by subz
Yeah they wont drop those "strong beliefs" that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme will they. I could strongly believe that George Bush was made from lesser parts of chimpanzees at a secret Haliburton lab in Virginia, doesn't make it right does it? It makes it less right to spout off my strong belief and try to fob it off as unequivocal fact. An unequivocal fact that sanctions would be based on? Forget it


I too could claim that most if not all of Irans leadership are made of the lesser parts of sheep dung irradiated and spun at Natanz..................nevertheless spouting off claims of a need for nuclear energy in a country swimming in natural gas strains credibility.

Nuclear = $2000 per generated kilowatt of capacity.
Natural Gas = $250 per generated kilowatt of capacity.

That extra $1750 adds up to $1,750,000,000 per megawatt of capacity that surely would do much better for the Iranian people were it spent on something more worthy.


originally posted by subz
Oh yeah, the current political climate of not getting to invade who you want, when you want. What a shame. That international law is a complete pain in the ass when your foreign policy is illegal.


I believe I've already answered that question above. For thought though lets not forget to mention Irans current government is the one that invaded sovereign territory when it took over our embassy in Tehran, I suppose that conformed to international law? unless I'm mistaken that usually is construed as an act of war. Iran also conforms to international law when providing men, military material and support for Hezzbollah? Iran certainly conformed to international law when it allowed the 911 hijackers to travel through its territory without getting passport stamps which would have flagged them for further security checks elsewhere? Its really conforming to international law when providing money, support and bomb making material for the Iraqi theatre - isn't it?


originally posted by subz
Well I suppose they could wait 8 years then just carry on as normal and reward them with more weapons and jets. Hey, at least the Iranians are a part of the NPT, what's the U.S excuse over Pakistan and India?


In the case of Pakistan, ever hear of this little thing called the "cold war"



On several occasions, under the authority of amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Pakistan, cutting off economic and military aid as a result of its pursuit of nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. suspended sanctions each time developments in Afghanistan made Pakistan a strategically important "frontline state," such as the 1981 Soviet occupation and in the war on terrorism.


Pakistan - Nuclear Weapons

Where did Pakistan get its initial help, why coincidentally its one of the places thats helping Iran and North Korea today.

Reading up on India and Pakistans programs provide a case history in how to turn civilian nuclear energy into a clandistine weapons program successfully as I believe Iran is doing today.



In the past, China played a major role in the development of Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls in western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and technology elsewhere. According to a 2001 Department of Defense report, China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear facilities.

In the 1990s, China designed and supplied the heavy water Khusab reactor, which plays a key role in Pakistan's production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation also contributed to Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges.

According to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, China is also reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads, which is relatively sophisticated in design and lighter than U.S. and Soviet designed first generation warheads.

China also provided technical and material support in the completion of the Chasma nuclear power reactor and plutonium reprocessing facility, which was built in the mid 1990s. The project had been initiated as a cooperative program with France, but Pakistan's failure to sign the NPT and unwillingness to accept IAEA safeguards on its entire nuclear program caused France to terminate assistance.

According to the Defense Department report cited above, Pakistan has also acquired nuclear related and dual-use and equipment and materials from the Former Soviet Union and Western Europe.


Pakistan - Nuclear Weapons

India,



India's nuclear weapons program was started at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Trombay. In the mid-1950s India acquired dual-use technologies under the "Atoms for Peace" non-proliferation program, which aimed to encourage the civil use of nuclear technologies in exchange for assurances that they would not be used for military purposes. There was little evidence in the 1950s that India had any interest in a nuclear weapons program, according to Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1). Under the "Atoms for Peace" program, India acquired a Cirus 40 MWt heavy-water-moderated research reactor from Canada and purchased from the U.S. the heavy water required for its operation. In 1964, India commissioned a reprocessing facility at Trombay, which was used to separate out the plutonium produced by the Cirus research reactor. This plutonium was used in India's first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, described by the Indian government as a "peaceful nuclear explosion."


Looks like Canada was the protagonist here, surprise, surprise.

India - Nuclear Weapons


orginally posted by subz
Much like the US over the past 50 years? Yeah I can see why the Americans wouldn't want to see their whipping boy with a 12-gauge.


Yup - which in this case has more than probably ensured your freedom such as it is. Or do you prefer Russian or Chinese as a primary language?



The current climate of invasions of ones rivals was initiated by Washington with the invasion of Afghanistan. If that climate wasn't created we wouldn't see nations scrambling to protect themselves. North Korea is another prime example.


subz I wish to see your opinion but I obviously don't share your world view on the US's motives.

Sanctions are made to be broken and don't work, usually harming civilians caught up in disputes. The UN is nothing but a corrupt do nothing organization rife with anti-western political hackism.

Trusting an Iranian government already steeped in terrorism is playing Russian roulette with to many lives. Doesn't seem a good option based on history.

So whats left?

Either the Iranians overplay their hand by detonating a nuclear weapon on another countries territory (ah la Rafsenjani) or allow others to place one of their weapons in a city near you.

The Iranians use a small arsenal to bolster military invasion of its neighbors or influence policy in an unacceptable fashion without using them. (forcing theocracy)

Certain western countries find either of the above scenarios to much to brook and carry out pin-point strikes to neutralize Irans capability.

I am not promoting this as policy - I only argue this position because I firmly believe history and events dictate that sooner or later these things will come to pass whether we like it or not.

Right wrong or otherwise, liberal, conservative or centrist, conspirationist or debunker, US and Isreal hater, US and Isreal lover, Bush hater or Bush lover.

It doesn't matter this is going to hit the fan - only question is when?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
First of all, thanks for your substantive reply



Originally posted by Phoenix
As I've tried to say earlier - The only way some are to believe Iran is weaponizing its nuclear progam - is when one blows up in your face.

You cannot possibly know that. Every time a country acquires a nuclear bomb we hear how its going to start WW3 and they are going to detonate it straight away. I personally heard the same thing when Pakistan, India and North Korea declared they had nuclear weapons. To this day, none have used their nuclear weapons.

Do you know why? Because for these countries these weapons are a huge investment and their use for anything but a deterent factor is out of the question. These countries know, like every other country in the World, what would happen if they used nuclear weapons offensively. They would be annihilated in the blink of an eye, its a certainty. Hence, they gain nuclear weapons for two purposes, 1) because their main enemy has one and they want to deter THEM from even threatening to use them and 2) because they deter any other country from even contemplating to take them on in a War.

Why would Iran be any different in this case?


Originally posted by Phoenix
Short of that if Iran were to declare its weaponization some would defend that as its right just as they defend the so-called power program.

Unless the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel all declare to destroy their nuclear arsenals tomorrow I wouldnt object to Iran also arming herself with nuclear weapons. I've argued in other threads my reasoning behind such a statement. World peace is best served by nuclear equilibrium, be it total nuclear armament or total disarmament. Having such a belligerent nation as the United States with an arsenal of nuclear weapons, whilst a nation like Iran has none, creates a situation where conflict is highly likely. Throw an Iranian nuclear weapon in to the mix and all chances of conflict disappear.


Originally posted by Phoenix
The Iraqi situation has nothing at all to do with this post, for the record though, There is no dispute they had them and used them. The Darfur report concludes Iraq had viable programs that also could have been reconstituted quickly had Saddam remained in power. Given all the time for diplomatic machinations that took place before the invasion Saddam had plenty of time to dispose of what he had - to say there absolutely was no WMD in Iraq is to spin the information easily available. All that can be truthfully said is that significant amounts of WMD were not found in the latter part of 2003 or so, but thats inconclusive about the time before that.

In the interest of this topic, I too think that Iraq has nothing to do with this post and will not discuss it any further, ok?


Originally posted by Phoenix
Fishing for evidence is not the issue when Iran has been reported to the security council for NPT non-compliance at this time by the IAEA.

The reasons for that referal are debatable, whether its elBaradei trying to avert a worse confrontation by throwing a bone to the United States and Europe is yet to be seen. Lets see what the eventual outcome of the Security Council's findings are first.


Originally posted by Phoenix
The issue is that beneficiaries of Irans nuclear program may veto any action decided to further their own interests.

Thats right, its the way it works. I bring up the example of Israel as a prime example of protecting ones own interests. It may not be right, but its also one of America's own past times. Hence, America can hardly object when others do the very same.


Originally posted by Phoenix
I scoff at todays version of multi-lateralism because it can't be said to work.

Gulf war - inconclusive because kowtowing to allies regarding regime overthrow.

Bosnia - nothing but a big mess for years.

Lebanon - UN, US forces run out by Iranian and Syrian supported thugs.

Somalia - just a huge horror house.

I could keep going but I've shown what I mean........................

No, all you've highlighted is the utter waste and futility of all armed conflict. You cant call the Iraq War II a successful war can you? That was not a multi-lateral affair as the UN was completely bypassed. Yet, that is a quagmire of epic proportions with over a thousand American troops having lost their lives there. I dont think you did prove your point.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Multi-Lateralism is nice concept in a utopian sense, unfortunately this is not utopia and even Hitler and Stalin had stauch allies right up to the bitter end.

You misunderstand my whole angle here. Im not pushing multi-lateralism as the best way to expedite a call to arms, far from it. Im pushing for more multi-lateralism because its the best way to avoid a War in the first place. Anything that delays or prevents a War is a good solution in my mind.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Under International law it has been interpreted that a country has the right to defend itself even if that means pre-emptive action is required - some give it a snide connatation by using the word unilateralism as a negative.



With respect to preemption, the National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by U.S. President George W. Bush itself does not necessarily significantly challenge prevailing international law. It rests upon a standard doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, and explores the question of when an attack is imminent. On its face it does not seek to overturn the rule, but to explore how the rule and its underlying purpose could be applied in particular situations not existing in the past.


Pre-emptive War and International Law

Boy, that really is some double speak you have quoted there. The highly important word though is "interpreted". Also your quote says that Bush's stance "does not necessarily significantly challenge prevailing international law" which (decoded) means that it does actually challenge the prevailing international law but not a lot. That means that he is going against international law, but the authour doesnt see it as being significantly so which is highly subjective.

Lets face it, any nation could easily create a scenario to explain away a War of aggression as a pre-emptive strike. The Nazi's did it to Poland because of the supposed raids on Germany by German prisoners dressed as Polish soldiers. This is why pre-emption has never been allowed under international law, it is so easy to fake. Thats why, if you feel an imminent threat, you go to the UNSC and state your case. If the UNSC believes your case then you are more than allowed to go to war to prevent it. The United States is in no way allowed to scrap an established law and method just because we're all meant to trust her to not lie.


Originally posted by Phoenix
I too could claim that most if not all of Irans leadership are made of the lesser parts of sheep dung irradiated and spun at Natanz

Which additionally highlights how ridiculous "strong beliefs" are. Remember why I brought that up, the only proof given to the World by the United States over Iranian nuclear weapons programmes is a "strong belief" that they are making nuclear weapons. It doesnt work like that.


Originally posted by Phoenix
nevertheless spouting off claims of a need for nuclear energy in a country swimming in natural gas strains credibility.

Nuclear = $2000 per generated kilowatt of capacity.
Natural Gas = $250 per generated kilowatt of capacity.

That extra $1750 adds up to $1,750,000,000 per megawatt of capacity that surely would do much better for the Iranian people were it spent on something more worthy.

Oh come on, the United States has vast amounts of oil, coal and natural gas yet has plenty of nuclear power plants. Why? I'll tell you why, fossil fuels are a finite resource. Once they are gone, they are gone. If you've based your entire energy supply on them then one day you'll be crippled first by high oil/gas prices (which is happening today) and then you'll be finished when they run out.

Iran, like every other nation, knows this. They also know that the prices of oil and gas are just going to continue to skyrocket. Any gas/oil they would be using for domestic energy generation could be sold off for ever increasing prices if they switch to nuclear energy. It's a smart economical decision and a decision that is Iran's to make, not the United Bloody States'.


Originally posted by Phoenix
I believe I've already answered that question above.

No, you provided a quote that accepted the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war goest against International Law, but not by a lot.


Originally posted by Phoenix
For thought though lets not forget to mention Irans current government is the one that invaded sovereign territory when it took over our embassy in Tehran, I suppose that conformed to international law?

Thats not correct, Iran didnt have a government at the time of the embassy seige. They'd just gone through a revolution. Plus a criminal act of a group doesnt render the entire nation responsible. Thats a fact lost on the Americans when they bombed Afghanistan over Al-Qaeda's reported actions.


Originally posted by Phoenix
unless I'm mistaken that usually is construed as an act of war.

So is meddling in another countries internal affairs. You do remember why the Iranian embassy seige occured dont you? Something about America trying to prop up a corrupt Iranian monarchy when the people wanted a republic. Then America granting assylum to the Shah (former Iranian King) when the Iranians wanted to try him for his crimes against the state. Sounds like they had a reason to be angry with the United States and it could be argued that a state of war already existed due to American interference in a sovereign nations internal affairs.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Iran also conforms to international law when providing men, military material and support for Hezzbollah?

That has nothing to do with this issue. I agree that support for Hezzbollah should stop. That doesnt change the facts of their nuclear programme though. Hezzbollah is fighting Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, Iran sees that as fighting an injustice. Much like American support of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Were they terrorists or freedom fighters, I forget the correct terminology now. Or perhaps they were insurgents.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Iran certainly conformed to international law when it allowed the 911 hijackers to travel through its territory without getting passport stamps which would have flagged them for further security checks elsewhere?

Thats not proven. Also you do know the United States allowed the very same hijackers to pass through the country and stay in New York for a full 2 years before 9/11 occured. Citing that the suspected terrorists had protection from arrest because they were discovered by a covert military intelligence unit on American soil. Supposedly that makes it alright...


Originally posted by Phoenix
Its really conforming to international law when providing money, support and bomb making material for the Iraqi theatre - isn't it?

I suppose if the terrorists were a nation-state the United States might apply to supply them weapons too. There really is no difference in my mind of selling weapons to Hezzbollah or the Israeli forces.


Originally posted by Phoenix
In the case of Pakistan, ever hear of this little thing called the "cold war"

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the actions of George W. Bush, the freedom crusader, who dropped the bans on U.S weapons sales to the nation over its nuclear weapons. Not to mention Pakistan is a dictatorship with nuclear weapons. Supposedly acceptable to George W. Bush because they're on his side, forget the fact that the Pakistani people are living under a dictator, the United States wont object.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Yup - which in this case has more than probably ensured your freedom such as it is. Or do you prefer Russian or Chinese as a primary language?

Please dont try and patronize me, I could well bring up much more important and older examples of what might of become of the United States if it werent for my country of birth, Britain. Something about speaking French or living in tee-pees... But you see the futility of such a contest, surely.


Originally posted by Phoenix
subz I wish to see your opinion but I obviously don't share your world view on the US's motives.

Well if you want me to be succinct and sum it up, I am against American hegemony. I believe the United States is only acting in her own interests of securing access to the Middle East's oil supplies when it demonizes Iran. Iran has a legal right to these nuclear programmes and even if it wanted to leave the NPT it can. If Iran built nuclear weapons it would use them like every other country has and keep them as a deterent to belligerent nations.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Sanctions are made to be broken and don't work, usually harming civilians caught up in disputes. The UN is nothing but a corrupt do nothing organization rife with anti-western political hackism.

I agree about the sanctions, I dont even think sanctions should be placed on Iran. Iran has done nothing that warrants action. Even if they left the NPT and declared they were going for nuclear weapons they are well within their legal rights to do so. Article X of the NPT specifically states that a nation can withdraw from the NPT so long as it gives the UN 90 days notice. A treaty's worth to the United States can easily be seen by the American withdrawal from the ABM treaty. No difference in my eyes.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Trusting an Iranian government already steeped in terrorism is playing Russian roulette with to many lives. Doesn't seem a good option based on history.

That is based upon the flawed assumption that the Iranians would use a nuclear weapon if they acquired one. That is complete unfounded speculation. The most speculated receipient of an Iranian nuclear weapons is Israel. Israel contains some of Islam's holiest sites. You want me to believe that a theocratic government is going to turn places like the Temple Mount into glass and then get its own nation (including themselves) turned to glass in the process? Forgive me if I think thats complete load of scaremongering rubbish!


Originally posted by Phoenix
So whats left?

Either the Iranians overplay their hand by detonating a nuclear weapon on another countries territory (ah la Rafsenjani) or allow others to place one of their weapons in a city near you.

Rafsanjani? The moderate? The moderate that the United States hoped would win the recent Iranians elections?


Originally posted by Phoenix
The Iranians use a small arsenal to bolster military invasion of its neighbors or influence policy in an unacceptable fashion without using them. (forcing theocracy)

With the United States army on both flanks? Where would they spread theocracy to? Syria? Or take on the United States military in a conventional war? Hmm they maybe theocrats but they are not insane. They would lose for sure and with that loss they lose control of their country. It would play straight into the hands of the United States who would love nothing more than a cassus belli to attack and tople the Iranian government. Give them a little bit of credit atleast.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Certain western countries find either of the above scenarios to much to brook and carry out pin-point strikes to neutralize Irans capability.

Thats more than likely going to be carried out by the Israelis. They dont want an even playing field as their nuclear weapons are allowing them to punch above their weight for decades.


Originally posted by Phoenix
I am not promoting this as policy - I only argue this position because I firmly believe history and events dictate that sooner or later these things will come to pass whether we like it or not.

Emulating the Cold War is the only way I can see World Peace surviving. The United States will sooner or later invade Iran if they do not acquire a nuclear deterrent.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Right wrong or otherwise, liberal, conservative or centrist, conspirationist or debunker, US and Isreal hater, US and Isreal lover, Bush hater or Bush lover.

It doesn't matter this is going to hit the fan - only question is when?

I totally disagree. I think the UN will not allow the sanctions or punishment to be levelled at the Iranians. The Iranians will continue their nuclear programme. If they were infact carrying out a clandestine nuclear weapons programme they will exercise their right under Article X of the treaty, give the UN 90 days notice and declare themselves in the posession of a nuclear weapon a few months later.

No one has ever started a War with a nuclear armed country and the United States will not tackle a nuclear armed Iran. Iran will not tackle a nuclear armed United States or Israel. The threat of more Wars in the region will decline.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join