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.

 

US will invade Iran in '06

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
we can stop them from creating any further (which is also proliferation, just because you already have them doesnt mean its no longer proliferation if you make more) and from having them anymore at all.


I'm not aware that Israel is producing any more nukes, so I don't think there's anything to stop.




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
if we take there nukes away, we need to make sure they cant make anymore, thats what i meant



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
First of all, I'd like to say that you've inspired me (i'm half serious)... I think that when I get to congress I'm gonna campaign to have its name changed to "The House of So-called Representatives".

I fully agree with you then as far as how to resolve the problem goes, since you realize that diplomacy has to stick to be worthwhile. I agree it would be nice to try some.
I'm under no illusion that America ever looked for an alternative to violence against Iraq in 1991, at any point in the mid to late 90s, or in 2003. We attacked them the first time because they'd served their purpose (The Iraq-Iran War) and we didn't need them to be strong anymore.

We bombed them several times throughout the Clinton Administration because in the eyes of Hawks, you can't really qualify as a "moderate" Democrat unless you occasionally kill a few Arabs, so it was politically good for Clinton with a certain part of the population. Ironically if he'd been serious about making Iraq comply I might not be so down on the so-called "Monica Missiles", but since Clinton never really seemed fixed on making the inspections work, bombing them a couple of times was just senseless slaughter.

The most recent invasion is of course the most striking example. There was no stopping that war. Saddam could have hoisted the American flag over Baghdad himself and turned himself in for arrest at our embassy, and Bush still would have invaded.

Speaking of which, reminds me of something my brother and I talked about the other day, but it's BTS stuff- I'll send you the link when I post it.


I'm not so keen on the idea of considering our nukes to be our insurance though, because although if push came to shove, I would advocate using them, it really is my belief that those weapons ought to never be used again, and although we cannot unmake the invention, we certainly should devise some system whereby their future use by any nation including ourselves becomes utterly impossible.
Furthermore, we can't really use them anyway- it's not politically viable or legal.

I believe that the insurance needs to come in the form of a legal whereby at least in this one case the UN will actually do what it is meant to do- enforce international law and see that neither side is in a position to make the first hostile move. In other words- if Iran welches the UN lets us go. If Iran honors their word, the UN pledges to physically restrain us from breaking the NAP, and monitors our fulfillment of any other promises made as part of the deal.



None of this had to happen.


I agree. What kills me is that we could have honored the promise not to go to Baghdad (the flimsy excuse for not finishing the job in 1991) and still backed a successful coup to defeat the Republican Guard and leave the rank and file of the Iraqi Army semi-intact under new leadership.

I honestly believe that could have worked- Saddam was humiliated, his goons were up to their necks in crap, some of his army was ready for a coup- we had every reason to believe that a better (though not perfect) government with an all-Iraqi face was completely possible. Not that it would have been of any profit to Americans though (not counting billions of tax dollars and thousands of lives saved) so why bother, right? Sickening decision.


I lay that one at the foot of the Clinton administration.


So do I, but in the interest of fairness I'd like to shake my finger at the Republican congress between 1994 and 2000, especially after 1998, for not digging its heels in and trying to beat some sense into the Clinton Administration. I think Americans very often lose sight of the fact that the President, while he is a convenient figure head and can do a few things on his own, actually can't cause very much trouble if Congress really stands up to him.
If Republicans want credit for the balanced budget, they've also got to accept some culpability for North Korea. They can't have it both ways.


The only thing that will get us out of the middle-eastern woods is our government enacting a comprehensive energy policy to make us energy-independent.


Congrats, you just landed yourself a job in my administration if I ever get beyond congress and into the White House.


There's no reason we can't get that


I give that an 80-90% shot at being true, but I do have to reserve the possibility that Iran will not give up those weapons, no matter what we offer them, however unlikely that is. I do generally agree with the words of Jack Sparrow- the only rules are what a man can do, and what he can't do. If Iran thinks they can, they want to just go for it.

In that case though, we don't necessarily have to go to war- we just need to prevail upon them that they can't. We should do that with as little force as possble, then take the peaceful route.



If Israel is so certain that it can't happen, I suggest they take care of it. It's their neighborhood and they're fully capable.


I trust that you don't really want them to, at least not as a first option. I could deal with that option if it came to that, but in a perfect world (ie, where the US Government didn't want a war) I'd just as soon leave Israel out of it. Israel overreacts sometimes, and their neighbors tend to repay the favor.

Since the US is more potent both militarily and diplomatically (if only we'd try that), we're really the logical choice to deal with Iran, and we ought to deal with it in the way that works out best for the stability of the region, not just the security of Israel. Whether from a selfish point of view or an objective one, Israel just doesn't warrant top priority when it comes to concerns of nukes in the middle east. The threatened economic collapse of every major oil-consuming economy, at least in my opinion, takes priority over what's good for Israel. Then again, I don't believe that they'd God's chosen people, so maybe I'm just out of touch.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
so let me get this straight, because israel doesnt sign the NPT they can have and create nukes legally? i mean if you really want stability force them to sign the NPT since they have pursued nukes, and then disarm them. simply dont let iran have a reason for nukes. taking nukes out of the middle east completely and quickly should be the goal, not just iran.

iran shouldnt have any reason whatsoever. if you present that fact then and only then can you have a massive support by the UN. if this were the case, that no middle eastern country had any control of nuclear capabilities then iran would have no excuse either.

iran can say, you rerstrict us because you forced us to sign the NPT but israel can do whatever it pleases and doesnt have to sign the NPT. to me they would have perfect justification. take that justification away and nuclear weapons in iran will no longer be a threat, in fact nuclear weapons in the middle east wouldnt be a threat. why should we favor israel amoung other nations anyway? regaurdless of how good friend their government is, we are dealing with their entire nation. we shouldnt say because their leader said it, they all must want it. we should deal with each country the same way, strictly and with no bias. these rules apply to iran as to israel equally and strictly enforced. to me that sounds not only fair but alot more simple



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
After reading the main thread I can tell you 100% Positive that the US will not attack Iran yet alone any country byitself for a very long time.
With the increase of anti-us politicians and goverened countries, it would be a foolish mistake for US to make.
US no longer has the power to make such decisions. It knows very well the consequences of such actions. China would defenately not watch US take over another country. and China by itself can cause serious problems, however, China is also backed up by Russia, which is backed by India.

Furthermore, most of the South American countries have become opposive to the US adminstration, any war delcared by US, would see Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina probably retaliate.
Other countries around the world would join the cause.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by ufobug]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
so let me get this straight, because israel doesnt sign the NPT they can have and create nukes legally? i mean if you really want stability force them to sign the NPT since they have pursued nukes, and then disarm them. simply dont let iran have a reason for nukes. taking nukes out of the middle east completely and quickly should be the goal, not just iran.

iran shouldnt have any reason whatsoever. if you present that fact then and only then can you have a massive support by the UN. if this were the case, that no middle eastern country had any control of nuclear capabilities then iran would have no excuse either.


People seem to be forgetting, why does any western country have more right to have nukes then any others. One of the most dangeriouse country in the world has the most nuclear capabilities, and they should be disarmed before they can tell anyone else to do it.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
see we have to take it one step at a time. the middle east is most unstable right now so we must start their. US doesnt have any right to nukes, but we need to start where the most immediate threat is.

though i am starting to feel US should have nukes and be treated like the rest of these nations considering talks of using mininukes on bunkers calling them battlefield safe



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
see we have to take it one step at a time. the middle east is most unstable right now so we must start their. US doesnt have any right to nukes, but we need to start where the most immediate threat is.

though i am starting to feel US should have nukes and be treated like the rest of these nations considering talks of using mininukes on bunkers calling them battlefield safe


REALY??? i hope not, if so i belive thet the US then deserves to be stoped and disarmed by other UN or NATO members, i do belive that the us has gotten well out of hand and should be put in there place.

I am sorry if this offends are US freinds but this has gone too far, i fear the us more then i did Iraq or Iran. This must stop soon before they cause WW3.




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

REALY??? i hope not, if so i belive thet the US then deserves to be stoped and disarmed by other UN or NATO members, i do belive that the us has gotten well out of hand and should be put in there place.


Some other NATO and UN members have Nuclear Weapons as well, so I don't see your point. I would just like to say (whether you want to admit it or not) it was the US having nuclear weapons that kept most of Europe war-free during the 45 years of the cold war.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

REALY??? i hope not, if so i belive thet the US then deserves to be stoped and disarmed by other UN or NATO members, i do belive that the us has gotten well out of hand and should be put in there place.


Some other NATO and UN members have Nuclear Weapons as well, so I don't see your point. I would just like to say (whether you want to admit it or not) it was the US having nuclear weapons that kept most of Europe war-free during the 45 years of the cold war.


I agree with you about the other UN and Nato countries, but if you read further up i state that all countrys should not have Nuclear wepons. If we need any they should be controled by a groupe like the UN (doesn't have to be them, just a example), so that one country could not just get a itchy trigger finger and start a nuclear war.

But i disagree that the US has kept europe free of war, the fact is they have started most of the wars in the past 45 years, and besides there is enough power in the EU to defend are selves form aggressors as this has been proven in the past. The point i am trying to make is that the US is too quick to jump into conflict to safly own these types of wepons.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

People seem to be forgetting, why does any western country have more right to have nukes then any others.


Well Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which specifically bans all but 5 signatories from acquiring or seeking nuclear weapons. The five which are allowed to have them are also the ones who enforce the NTP because they make up the UN Security Council.


Five states are permitted by the NPT to own nuclear weapons: the United States (signed 1968), United Kingdom (1968), France (1992), Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights assumed by Russia), and the People's Republic of China (1992). These were the only states possessing such weapons at that time, and are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These 5 Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) agree not to transfer nuclear weapons technology to other states, and the non-NWS state parties agree not to seek to develop nuclear weapons.


Source


The point i am trying to make is that the US is too quick to jump into conflict to safly own these types of wepons.


The US has no need to use Nuclear Weapons to win conventional wars it enters into, Iran does, that’s what makes them to unstable to posses nuclear weapons, that plus the fact that they signed the NTP. Note, I did not include WWII because that was a different situation with different circumstances.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
and what about israel who isnt a signer of the NPT, or the fact iran was pressure into it, yet we didnt pressure israel?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
see we have to take it one step at a time. the middle east is most unstable right now so we must start there.


I truly don't know where one would start.
It seems to me that the middle east has a long, long history of instaility going back centuries.

Why do we think we will be able to do what others have not?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

and what about israel who isnt a signer of the NPT


Umm... I’m not sure what your question is, as I said before only signatories of the NPT are bound to it’s regulations, since Israel is not one it does not have to follow it.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
thank you westpoint you have just describe for everyone why the NPT is worthless and not worth having. what he just said is a country can decide what international laws it chooses to abide by. so for instance israel, even if it was a threatening nation, could legal have and produce nuclear weapons since they havent signed the NPT. iran was pressured into signing it though and now is breaking the international law. so nations can choose what laws they want to abide by...that just makes me feel like nonproliferation is working out so great.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

thank you westpoint you have just describe for everyone why the NPT is worthless and not worth having. what he just said is a country can decide what international laws it chooses to abide by.


It’s always been that way, no international body can legally force a sovereign country to sign a treaty if they do not want to, that's why wars happen because diplomacy cannot always solve things. Since Iran has signed the NTP it must follow it, and what pressure are you talking about concerning Iran‘s signature?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
www.memri.org...

pressure? propaganda? lies? you decide.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
www.freerepublic.com...

well alittle more research and i found this. you still want to tell me that iran doesnt see israel as a threat? they publicly anounced it so.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Iran sees and has always seen Israel as a threat, because Israel sees Iran as a threat, because Iran wants Israel to not exist. Same is true about the rest of Islamic world.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which specifically bans all but 5 signatories from acquiring or seeking nuclear weapons. The five which are allowed to have them are also the ones who enforce the NTP because they make up the UN Security Council.


Although that is how it happens to work out, the wording of the treaty actually only requires that a nation obtained and tested the weapons before 1967.

It is fairly arbitrary in light of the way it's written, especially when you consider, as I have mentioned before, that Israel's nukes would be legal if only they'd tested them.

That being said however, it is the law, and it is a law which Iran has recognized, so they can just relieve themselves right now of any notion that they are entitled to nukes. They made the deal, they haven't got the strength to violate it if anyone opposes them- that's that.

Now, although it's not fair, legally speaking we have to remember that the UN does not supercede the sovreignty of nations. The UN and international law consist basically of a framework of treaties, and at this point are not technically applicable to anyone who doesn't sign them. So yes, reaper, technically Israel doesn't have to follow the NPT.

I am of the opinion that Israel needs to be brought into compliance in the same way as Iran, however I do not decieve myself into thinking that there is any legal precedent for this. I look at it as a matter where the US and other nations need to force Israel to the bargaining table, whether it's fair or not, whether it's legal or not, because it's something that has to be done. Such is the nature of conflict and war- there is not necessarily any objective moral right, there are only conflicting desires and options of greatest utility. When a nation insists on pursuing what is beneficial to them at the expense of others, and cannot be brought to compromise, you are at an impasse, and force is the last resort. Note that I'm talking about Israel right now, although this sounds a lot like my argument in regards to Iran.

Now, the way of greatest utility for most concerned parties, in my opinion, is first, to deal with Iran in order to keep the situation from going from bad to worse. Second, we apply the same tactics to Israel: ensure their safety without the nukes, give them what they need, but demand that they exchange their weapons for those things. If they don't want to do it, we force them to the table. If they still don't wanna play ball, that means war.


As for the justification of America having nukes- there is no objective moral justication for anyone having nukes, but it's a matter of utility. These weapons enable the members of the Security Council to best work either individually or cooperatively towards resolving conflicts as they arise. Eventually they ought to be phased out, but the Security Council members, by virtue of having the best ability to use them for good because of their other strengths, are logically the last ones to be disarmed.

As for America being too dangerous to have them; it's not quite as clean cut as America being too quick to go to war. The larger problem is the way America goes about war. None of the wars that America has engaged in in recent memory (except for Vietnam) had to be bad wars, but they were badly managed because of ulterior motives. The most practical answer is not to disarm America (the only way to disarm America by force is to force America to launch them all), but rather to reform to American government.

There is a serious disconect in my country between the government and the governed. America is hardly alone in this regard either, although the nature of the disconnect may vary from country to country. In my opinion, there can only be minimal progress until the major powers in this world are governed in a truly representative manner. Elites will rarely make peace because they do not share in the consequences of war.

For now, all we can do is all we can do, and we ought to do it. Stop proliferation, encourage whatever good we can get out of the current governments, and work to retake control of the political processes in our own nations.

The big steps forward- the end of detrimental wars for the profit of the few, the disarmament of the major powers, the democratization of politics on an INTERNATIONAL level, etc, are a long way, a lot of work, and possibly a few revolutions away.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join