US will invade Iran in '06

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Somebody seems to have spread the notion that nukes prevent wars. Whoever it is has some explaining to do, because that is not universally true.

Nuclear weapons stop aggression against nuclear powers by non-nuclear powers, they do not stop wars. Nuclear weapons are a blank check to carry out foreign policy, including military actions, without fear of retaliation. Do you think America would have gone to Korea without nukes? The nukes were what ensured that the war with China would be contained to the peninsula.

Could Russia and Cuba have run around Africa and the Middle East during the Cold War if Russia hadn't owned nukes? I think not. I think America would have followed them around kicking the snot out of them everywhere they went.

Would the Arabs have kept attacking Israel if it weren't for the assurance that Russia would use its deterrent to force Israel into peace if things went badly? Russia's deterrent made Egyptian aggression possible repeatedly by shielding them from the consequences of defeat.

If Iran gets the bomb, there is nothing to stop them from controlling the Strait of Hormuz and manipulating oil prices. There is nothing to stop them from resuming old conflicts with Iraq, possibly seizing Iraqi land. There is nothing to stop them from aggression to the North, persuing a greater share of the Caspian Sea's natural gas. Iranian nukes promote violence in the Middle East to any extent that the US does not become willing to jeopardize Israel and Turkey.

For my money, you can just about take it for a certainty that the United Arab Emirates is fried if Iran gets the bomb. Iraq and Kuwait should certainly be nervous. Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia... it depends on how cozy Russia and Iran are.

Iran does not have a legal right to nuclear weapons, but we don't even have to make rights a factor here. Let's just step back and think logically.

Force is the way things are resolved in this world. Sometimes its just diplomatic or economic, other times its military. In man situations, nobody is really right or wrong. It's a simple matter of conflicting desires. It's going to be resolved. It can be resolved by agreed upon laws, but the UN has proven again and again that laws are only good when backed by force. It can be resolved arbitrarily by force between those in conflict. It can just be let go, and still one side has lost by force, just by minimal force. Nobody has come up with a better way yet that can survive against force without resorting to force.

There is no reason why any power should not seek immunity from force. Morally speaking, as opposed to legally, sure there is no reason Iran shouldnt persue nukes, assuming they don't plan to use those nukes immorally, but there is also no moral reason America should let them. Its a conflict without objective right, to be resolved by force. It's just that simple. America can, and in my opinion should, use force to get its way here.




posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
yes i believe that they could possibly sell nukes to terrorists which is always a fear, but whos to judge who is credible and who isnt? we are all suspects in this world of fear and terror. just because they are not democratic and are some what hostile doesnt mean they are going to use these nukes. if this were the case im sure that they would have already stolen nukes or had terrorists steal them, or something to that extent and have them used already.

that is the threat of any country though, to have your weapons end up in the hands of extremists who dont care. i highly doubt the leaders are will to be killed and lose what they have by using nukes, but terrorist is what i would worry about more. having such nukes stolen and used by people who truely are suicidal. that is my concern.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
the vagabond you in fact proved my point. you have 8 powers that bully these lower powers BECAUSE they dont have nukes. if they had them such wars would have NEVER occured in fear of them using them. in this world if you dont have nukes or you arent corrupt with some big nation to watch your back like you were in jail then you are a target like no other. either your the big guy on the block, some countries "girlfriend" or a big target for "terrorist" breeding grounds.

since nukes can never be rid of at this point, you need nukes to insure your own safety. and we may not agree with iran but iran cares about who? thats right, IRAN. they dont care what the US thinks is right or wrong, they are watching their own backs, and have every right to do so post second gulf war. if i were running a country right now i would have been trying to get a hand full of nukes just to secure my countries safety against any other country. if you have nukes, nobody is going to openly attack you.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Well why attack iran? There nukes dont threaten America on Israel why cant be we neutral in the middle east. O yeah thats right oil as long as we use oil american forces will always be in the middle east kind of sad. We should stop our imperalism for oil. And come up with alternate resources but since the oil industy has a crapload of money annoying lobbyitwill pay our senators and congressman to never vote for the changing of oil to alternate resources. Thus showing the american government is run by large coropartions not people themselves.
Plus if Iran had nukes it would keep people away from the middle east which is a good thing. It would be a great detterent from corrupt governments stealing their resources.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by PsychoSteve85]

[edit on 4-1-2006 by PsychoSteve85]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
One thing is for sure, out there in the big, bad world, it's dog eat dog.

Iran is a soveriegn nation. Just like the USA is. Just like Israel is. It's interesting to note, the west pretty much looked the other way when Israel built its nuclear arsenal. Is it not possible, that has led to more instability? Has that not fueled an arms race? I support Israel, but logical minds have to come to the conclusion that there's quite a bit of double dealing on this issue.

Until the Iranian people feel they can rise up and overthrow the mullahs, its not gonna get any easier. It's only gonna get worse. Their crazy "the holocaust didn't happen" leader is saying the end of the world is going to happen in two years. And that he may just go ahead and build those nukes. He's making a lot of people very uneasy. One thing is for sure. He is not helping his country any with this attitude of sheer defiance.

Nobody does diplomacy anymore.


I, for one, would support a true Iranian uprising. But until that happens, I think everyone needs to work a lot harder on a peaceful solution.

Here's an article I saw today:



Secret services say Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear missile
Document seen by Guardian details web of front companies and middlemen


Ian Cobain and Ian Traynor
Wednesday January 4, 2006
The Guardian

The Iranian government has been successfully scouring Europe for the
sophisticated equipment needed to develop a nuclear bomb, according to
the
latest western intelligence assessment of the country's weapons
programmes.
www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
the vagabond you in fact proved my point. you have 8 powers that bully these lower powers BECAUSE they dont have nukes. if they had them such wars would have NEVER occured in fear of them using them.


But you have not followed your own point to it's logical conclusion. The wars will not stop unless you give EVERYBODY the bomb. If you just give one more nation the bomb, all you are doing is creating a new bully, and that means more war, not less.

The problem is that you think the world should be fair, and you think you can make it fair by proliferating the most unfair weapon ever devised. It's not a fair world, and no weapon will ever make it fair. Personally I don't believe this world will ever be fair, but I have the common sense to realize that a fair future lies in fewer armed bullies, not more.

It's common sense that weapons are designed for more than just killing. Weapons allow you to do what you want and get what you want unimpeded. All weapons are, ultimately, a form of deterrence, and every form of deterrence can and usually will eventually come into actual use.

Your point is a good one, your conclusion is not. Arming another bully would be a very costly mistake. Iran needs to be put down.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
before you say im wrong though, put yourself in their shoes. as an american its easy to say not everyone should have nukes because...we have them.

the step has already been taken. im not saying its right but it is logic. logic goes beyond humanity everytime. its not logic to make world peace with these weapons, but they arent aiming for world peace...they want their peace, and their security. what we are doing is denying them the right to secure their country against these current bullies.

theres the bullies then theres the victims. growing up ive been a victim to bullies because they were far stronger to me. in a fist fight, i lose everytime. all the sudden weapons come in and eventually its gun verse gun. doesnt matter how big or strong he is anymore, we are evens reguardless. the war will never end till one side is gone. humane doesnt exist because we arent advanced to. we are too unadvanced and divided to ever have peace. sure in the end those two guns get used, people die. however unhumane that sounds it doesnt matter because problem is solved.

talk it out? lets go back to the bully scenario. bully comes up and says "you give me your lunch everyday and i wont bother you" yea you could always just give in your lunch everyday and let them have it. of course your losing everyday but so are these third world countries who are at the mercy of such bullies. ever been bullied in school? unless you got weapons that will destroy them to a point of no return you are no threat and they treat you how they feel is reasonable in their minds. talking it out doesnt profit those that are on the victim end, so why should they want to talk it out?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
It's funny, I learned long ago, usually those who pick fights will get their clocks cleaned.

If only we had a few good statesman around who could hammer out an agreement all sides could live with.

Did you all know, Reagan's ultimate goal with the Arms race and in his life's work, was to abolish nuclear weapons completely (giving the UN sole authority over its uses)? It's true. It took me a while to get my head around that - being I think, at this point, its pie in the sky. Dwight Eisenhour was also a member of the same disarmament group Reagan was a part of. For real. Read it in the book: Ronald Reagan and his Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons by Paul Lettow. Its eye-opening.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Thanks for that post, ECK.
It reminds me of Eisenhower's Farewell Speech. While I was too young to know anything about it, I heard this snippet in the movie JFK. It caught my interest and I had to read it in its entirety.


In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

Where would we be if we had heeded Eisnehower's warning...we wouldn't be needing this discussion.....



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Ubetcha!
Good to see ya again, btw.

You ask a good question.. Had we gone the way IKE suggested, we probly wouldn't have gotten into Vietnam, maybe not the Gulf War and definitely not the Iraq invasion.

You know, I went overseas in my war willing and ready to kill . And to this day, I'm proud of my service. But at this point, all I want is peace. Everywhere. I know that will never happen. But it sure would be nice, wouldn't it? I think we should have really listened more to IKE. Our nation would be smarter, healthier and more prosperous.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
before you say im wrong though, put yourself in their shoes. as an american its easy to say not everyone should have nukes because...we have them.


Don't be so sure that I haven't considered it from their point of view. We've all been in positions of wanting to do something for our own advancement that others won't tollerate. It's all well and good to try, I can't say I blame them for that. I'm just saying that when that is against the interests of others, sometimes they stop you.

I want an M-16. In my hands an M-16 could almost completely ensure the safety of my home and my loved ones. But you know what? The government says I can't have an M-16 because they are afraid that I might use it in a conflict where I might be in the wrong. The government, along with a large portion of voters, seem to think that it would be a whole lot safer to entrust safety to a body of laws and the duely appointed enforcers of those laws, rather than to my unilateral ability to wield a weapon that could concievably kill quite a few people.


what we are doing is denying them the right to secure their country against these current bullies.


Allow me to propose an alternative for people who think Iran should have nuclear weapons. Now, theoretically, the United Nations, whose five permanent members of the Security Council possess nuclear weapons, exists to stop this bullying. The international equivalent to laws and law enforcement exist. The problem is that they are toothless. They've got nothing to do and no way to do it as they are currently being run.

I suggest, that rather than voicing support for the idea of nuclear proliferation, that you instead voice support for the idea of compulsory enforcement of international law. Such a position kills two birds with one stone: it ensures the legitimate interests of Iran against aggression, even from security council members, and it stands against nuclear proliferation, thereby preventing the drawbacks to Iran securing itself by possession of nuclear weapons.


theres the bullies then theres the victims.

Exactly. This has to be changed. The only way to stop being a victim is to become a bully, and that is what nuclear proliferation represents. A change in the system which allows bullying is what is necessary, not nuclear proliferation.


growing up ive been a victim to bullies because they were far stronger to me. in a fist fight, i lose everytime. all the sudden weapons come in and eventually its gun verse gun.


This is a wonderful demonstration. Suppose you had a teenage son who comes home from school bloody because some gang members jumped him. Do you give him a gun, or do you call the police? I think the case for changes in the UN as opposed to encouraging proliferation is very strong.
Put a few nukes under direct UN control on a circulating basis. Build a missile defense system under similar international control. Establish a Supreme Court of sorts which rules by majority rather than unanimous decision as the Security Council does. Authorize in advance the enforcement of that court's decisions by UN forces and/or by unilateral action of any security council member.



humane doesnt exist because we arent advanced to. we are too unadvanced and divided to ever have peace. sure in the end those two guns get used, people die. however unhumane that sounds it doesnt matter because problem is solved.


I don't see how that outlook forbids the US from killing Iran before they go get their own gun though. You seem to agree with me on the point that force is the ultimate arbitor in every system yet concieved, and that is the very point of view which brought me to conclude that there is no legitimate reason for the US to stand by and wait for the odds to turn against them.

Continuing to leave morality aside, the most universally advantageous system is to go with law enforcement. Granted it's not as advantageous for the bullies, but it does protect them from the consequences of their past actions, which sooner or later will probably catch up with them.

The way I see it, the first thing on the agenda is to keep Iran from arming, and the very next thing is to end weapons proliferation once and for all in some manner, perhaps in the manner that I have described.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
yes i agree with you about the war thing. but i also agree that if iran wants nukes, they can have em. im not saying the US wont act on it.
there are no good or bad people, only good and bad decisions.

reguardless of what the UN was "MEANT" to do, it doesnt work. US still rolled over afganistan and iraq like it was nothing with poor excuses and many countries against it. it really doesnt matter at all what these toothless people do. they are corrupt just like the government and arent here to help and more then hurt. it may not be in irans best interest for foreign affairs wise, but im not going to call iran wrong for wanting them. morally or politically. its not in our best interest to let them have any obviously.
"war doesnt decide whos right, just whos left" and it really isnt about whos right or wrong because no one can judge such a thing.

america is looking out for americas best interests so yes, i feel we will go to war with iran. iran feels nuclear protection is in their best interest, so they will build nukes most likely. right and wrong is only that in the eyes of the beholder.

its quite simple. the bully and the victim both think they are right to do what they do because well, its in their best interest to react and defend or do what they must to survive.
every action there will be an effect, let iran and america both remember that, a reaction foreign and domestic. let them keep that in mind before they decide to start war.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
yes i agree with you about the war thing. but i also agree that if iran wants nukes, they can have em. im not saying the US wont act on it.
there are no good or bad people, only good and bad decisions.



I think the proliferation of Nukes by any country should be stopped at all costs.

To many people underestimate and trivilize the destructive power of a Nuclear weapon, if you allow Iran to Obtain Nukes especially in light of what they have said regarding Israel, Armageddon comes one step closer to reality.

There will be no winners after a Nuclear detination in the modern age, i bet even just one City Nuclear bombed any where on earth would trigger a instant World Financial markets meltdown.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
again in your best interests, yes it should be. in irans...not so much. again your going to deem them wrong because they are a threat to you.
at the same time your deemed a major threat to them after coming into the middle east and taking afganistan and iraq.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I wonder why there are even people attempting to apologise for Bush wanting to invade Iran. He's already invaded 2 countries and it is now FACT that Iraq was an illegal war (wmds, "freedom", Saddam out of power, Bin Laden, 9/11...the reason changes each week). Seriously, have some geopolitical insight, look around you....



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
again in your best interests, yes it should be. in irans...not so much. again your going to deem them wrong because they are a threat to you.
at the same time your deemed a major threat to them after coming into the middle east and taking afganistan and iraq.



I would think avoiding a Nuclear War would be in your best interests, i live in a small Town in the middle of no where Australia, its you people in the Northen hemisphere that are all gonna die when # hits the Fan.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Hey V, I was flowing through your debate, as in the days of old, and I stumbled over something I had to comment on. I hope you don't take offense at my pointing this out.


Originally posted by The Vagabond


I suggest, that rather than voicing support for the idea of nuclear proliferation, that you instead voice support for the idea of compulsory enforcement of international law. Such a position kills two birds with one stone: it ensures the legitimate interests of Iran against aggression, even from security council members, and it stands against nuclear proliferation, thereby preventing the drawbacks to Iran securing itself by possession of nuclear weapons.


I've always supported the state of Isreal and its right to protect itself (tiny, buffered by a sea of Arabians). But.. the truth is, Isreal is in contravention of a lot of UN resolutions, itself. It simply defies and ignores them. How can we demand Iran bow to the international community if there are nations out there, the US included, who are allowed to duck scrutiny? We have to acknowledge that if we hope to ever find a state of peace.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
It's a shame the U.S backed out from it's word that they're not going to invade Iran and its counterpart. Personally, I can't make myself see that U.S is actually getting rid of evil in this world. Unleashing more evil is what I see. They have stirred up a hornet's nest and are trying to finish the job as viciously and quickly as possible but hey, since majority here in ATS feels that's the right thing to do, I should probably shut my mouth.

A note to add, some of the members here in this thread said something like the Iranian people are not the target of the invasion. I ask you what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq? They destroyed the government but the whole city comes down aiding in the resistance against the U.S led invasion.

Sooner or later the civilians are going to get pulled into the battle so I believe it isn't that wise to assume the civilians will just hide inside one corner of their rooms and let the invasion happen. Furthermore, since only the young intellectuals would like the change, there is still going to be resistance from the regime loyalists who are probably made up of the older and conservative generations.

Once the innocents are killed be it accidentally or purposely, they'll probably put their differences aside and fight the "common" enemy. Moreover, I have said it once and I'll say it again : Iran is not Iraq.

But who cares, U.S is right, right?
(Sarcasm)



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
me, i no longer care, cause im simply sick of watching the news and watching people get hurt or die. im sick of being around here. things aint getting better, anybody that says different is a liar. we aint never winning the war on terror, its not possible. personally i rather just go now then live the rest of my dads as a prison rat of fear and security. either something changes in our government and they start making SERIOUS changes or things are gunna get alot worse, thats what i know.

i aint worried about them nuking eachother. as long as they keep it over there i dont care what they do. they arent my concern. my concern is me my family and friends who are over there in harms way to fight a war the most of us dont believe in because it was based on lies. thats what i know.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
Once the innocents are killed be it accidentally or purposely, they'll probably put their differences aside and fight the "common" enemy.


that they will, unfortunately the common enemy is us. hell who knows maybe the craziest thing will happen and the middle east countries will put aside there difference and kick our ***** out lol, like that would happen

seriously though, the last thing america needs is ANOTHER invasion. where are we going to get the money for all this. hell lets go on a world conquest while were at it, every country that doesnt have nukes yet. watch how many start going for nukes. then we can say we are justified to invade...





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant