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.
Iraq opened itself up to full inspections.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Iraq opened itself up to full inspections.
Iraq ASKED to talk directly with its accuser.
The LEAST we could of done, was listen when the inspectors said 'we found nothing' and accept when the iraqis said ' we have nothing, so lets talk '
I dont call that humouring, I call that avoiding a unnessecary war, which has resulted in hunderds of thousands of innocent DEAD!
Everyone was in on the oil for food scandal, But that doesnt mean the UN was wrong.
The UN process
- made inspections occur ** Which found nothing
- Brought Saddam to talk to the Americans ** which bush refused to do
To Me, the UN Succeeded, but the US didnt care, and was going in regardless.
Yes the UN is dead, and yes the UN was curropt. But in this particular case the UN Worked, its the US that ruined any chance of peace.
Originally posted by grover
The world is a much safer place with Nygdan nowhere near the halls of power.
wolfie_uk
joke, but how would you know when aiming your catapult, rifle or laser guided bomb know what or who you are hitting is an Iranian ???
Agit8dChop
I personally think Iran have just as much a right to be in Iraq as the Americans Do.
They have a right to be helping their region defend against the foreign invaders.
The USA if it takes on IRAN, will fail.
Iraq opened itself up to full inspections.
The LEAST we could of done, was listen when the inspectors said 'we found nothing'
Brought Saddam to talk to the Americans ** which bush refused to do
luxifero
It's nonsense that nobody can provide substantial evidence that Iran is arming Militias;
regensturm
But does this low-fi war of assymetrical warfare need to become more?
War is genocide if it’s discriminate as people who declare sending people ‘back to the stone age’ want it to be.
‘back to the stone age’ is regarded as hyperbole for either a nuclear attack, or mass carpet bombing, that is genocide and extermination.
There are changes underway in Iran.
Threatening Iranians with death if they don’t overthrow their government is vulgar.
Many Iranians do not care about politics, and just want to get through life
They will unite behind their government because of the threat of war.
They will unite behind their government because of the threat of war.
Fascist and communist regimes popped up through the mid to late 70’s in Latin America and elsewhere.
The US did develop space technology from war, with the help of Nazi scientists.
War brings about more wars. People said after WW1 that it was the war to end all wars. They were wrong.
World War One led to World War Two, which led to The Cold War and the proxy wars, which led to where we are today.
Unamed Iranian officials have been saying for a while that US ‘feet’ are on the ground in Iran. The Iranians could say the war started with that.
marg6043
like Agit8dChop they are welcome in Iraq.
rogue1
The Iranians support teh Ahiite militia's such as the Mahdi Army.
Originally posted by Nygdanwho's the real looser there? The americans, who at least have destroyed a state that supports international terrorism
Originally posted by Togetic
This is interesting logic. However, if wars are spiraling as you say, what do we do about it? And, more importantly, assuming that everyone embraces peace and, say, disarms, how do you deal with someone who later on decides to take up arms?
Originally posted by Togetic
The assumption that if there were no weapons there would be no war is illogical.
Originally posted by TogeticFirst, someone not satisfied with their lot in life could create weapons. Someone in the mists of time had to do it to get the ball rolling.
Originally posted by Togetic Secondly, this seems to be a misunderstanding of human nature. Violence is there; it is not going away. Is there then an imperitive for some sort of defense against someone who would threaten you? It that not just, not fair?
Originally posted by Togetic
With regard to the second point, the question begs: is there ever a point where talks fail? Further, you seem to assume that any bargaining will be in good faith. This is a naive assumption. Talks can be entered into for the purposes of stalling, political posturing, probing another country's weaknesses, and a whole bunch of other reasons not related to securing peace.
Originally posted by Togetic
Further, the reason someone wants to arm and perhaps possibly go to war is an important thing to understand. However, even if you understand it, does that necessarily mean that you can bring about peace? What if a country is led by a madman who wants global domination by his religion, and he would rather die than see that goal unfulfilled? Is that man ever going to be appeased by negotiated concessions that allow co-existence? The principal question in your scheme is: when does talking become futile? Would you sit by and let someone who has said that they want to kill you arm themselves? Would you talk, or would you disarm them by choice?
Originally posted by Togetic
The desire for peace is a noble one. But we live in an imperfect world, and the approach you seem to be espousing is precisely the one Neville Chamberlain took in appeasing Hitler, and is precisely one of the major actions that allowed Hitler to move into France.
Originally posted by Nygdan
I agree, there are definitly good arguements for not escalating it at this point. Perhaps the best arguement is that the public in the US compltely withdrew support for the war in iraq, and clearly is going to elect a democrat in 2008. THat means that we'd have to invade, occupy, and at least in theory stabilize and permit an open liberal democratic government to form in Iran, in little more than a year. Which is immpossible.
Originally posted by Nygdan
IF there was any time to invade Iran, it was years ago.
Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't think that that is what people mean when they say that. They are saying to completely destroy the government and infrastructure of the country. Punitive war isn't genocide.
Originally posted by Nygdan
The problem with that is that, any movement that is anti-government that gains steam, we're going to have to support it, that'll make it an american puppet ANYWAY, and delegitimatize it.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Either way, I don't see a revolution, either radical (overthrow the government) or reactionary (vote in liberals/moderates), as happening anytime soon, and I certainly don't think that if there was a radical revolution, that the moderate democrats would win, nationalists, socialists, or islamists would win.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Well, that'll be their fatal mistake then. If they're going to sit there and do nothing while their government is killing our troops in iraq, then its their own fault for supporting war against us, and they'll really have no legitimate basis of complaint if we counter-attack, and destroy their nation in the process.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Their government won't exist if we go to war with them. There will be one big region of anarchy and sectarian violence, from the Jordan river to nearly the Indus River. They can pick and choose which local warlords they want to support and stick with them, be they former government commanders or civilian militias, but there won't be any 'government' to back.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Thats completely false. WWII defeated the nazis, italians, and japanese. It didn't result in the overthrow of franco, but so what? There was no more danger of a global fascist axis.
Originally posted by Nygdan
None of those regimes were actual fascists regimes, engaged in world fascism. They were localised military juntas. They weren't fascist ideolouges.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes. War brought modernization. War made europe what it was, and allowed it to spread its empire across the globe, and that resulted in the modern world, with liberal democratic governments where before there were god-kings, emperors, and rajas.
Originally posted by Nygdan
They were off by one. After WWI, and WWII, Europe entered into a stage where its inconceivable that, say, modern France and Germany would ever invade each other or go to war against one another.
Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm not saying that we're going to end war. BUt its false to say that war settles nothing. The wars in europe lead to democratic unity and peace in europe.
Originally posted by Nygdan Wars can be won, its crazy to say that it doesn't happen.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Fair enough for the iranians then. We shouldn't be trying to struggle with them indirectly anyway. They're weak and have no power beyond their own borders, other than to equip terror groups. Better to smash them than try to contain them.
Originally posted by Regensturm
The approach you seem to be taking is that of someone who has from the start a negative outlook on talks at a time of potential crisis, which is precisely the sort of actions that has led to wars the world over.
Well, it could be answered that why would that someone need to arm when everyone else is disarmed.
Intelligence, knowledge and reaction following the knowledge is the defence.
I am not an appeaser, someone who will do anything to placate rather than negotiate, I am just someone who sees the route of talks something to explore before going in guns blazing without any true knowledge of whether a settlement could have been reached otherwise.
Call me an optimist, call me what you like, but it is better to be an optimist in such a case as this then one who just says "Oh f*** it, let's nuke 'em" and by not being able to be negotiated with because he refused to see any point from the outlook in talks becomes as bad as the person he said was not worth negotiating with because he could not be reasoned with.
Give jaw-jaw a chance. Not the end solution, just a chance.
If that makes me a Chamberlain type figure to you, that's fine.
You are wrong and dismissive to say that, but fine.
Obviously to talk is to surrender on your knees, apparently.
Originally posted by Regensturm
It’s impossible not only in little more than a year, but at all.
Originally posted by Nygdan
IF there was any time to invade Iran, it was years ago.
Not really. Before Ahmadinejad, a moderate was President.
Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't think that that is what people mean when they say that. They are saying to completely destroy the government and infrastructure of the country. Punitive war isn't genocide.
Punitive war is genocide when it destroys people, and the facilities to stay alive. Electricity. Water.
Then don’t have American support for it. Just let such movements progress and continue in a natural manner. Such movements can become influential.
I’m telling you, attacking Iran will destroy any chance of change.
The youth of Iran want change, and they can not be held back forever. Leave them and their country be, and they may be able to enact reform easier.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Well, that'll be their fatal mistake then. If they're going to sit there and do nothing while their government is killing our troops in iraq, then its their own fault for supporting war against us, and they'll really have no legitimate basis of complaint if we counter-attack, and destroy their nation in the process.
...
Not every Iranian supports attacks on US troops, but just because Iranians do not care about politics, or simply live to work through the day and feed their kids and pays no attention to the wider world in the process of family life does not mean they are deserving of being killed.
You know as well as I do that the governments rarely suffer in wars as they hide in their bunkers and around the country.
They will be there to backed, as they voice their leadership.
Just because they lost, does not mean a percentage of their people did not unite behind their governments at a time of war.
As for no more global fascist axis, Franco survived to continue his persecutions, as did other fascist regimes who popped up. Just because they did not threaten the US did not mean a global fascist axis did not exist.
Endless wars for a long time sustained god-kings, emperors and rajas, and little else. More progress could have been made without such wars that held nations back. Liberal democratic governments came in the peace that followed not in wars.
Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm not saying that we're going to end war. BUt its false to say that war settles nothing. The wars in europe lead to democratic unity and peace in europe.
The end of wars did, not the wars in themselves. Wars settle nothing but the foundations of future wars, and Europe may not be safe from further wars. We saw that in the Balkans.
Originally posted by Nygdan Wars can be won, its crazy to say that it doesn't happen.
Wars are won and lost, then fought again.
And create two hells of battleground: Iraq and Iran.
How does that improve the US’s situation in The Middle East precisely?
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
you will not have destroyed a STATE which sponsors terrorism, you would of further embolden the terrorists, giving them a much larger battlefield in which to hit westerners.
regensturm
It’s impossible not only in little more than a year, but at all.
Before Ahmadinejad, a moderate was President.
Punitive war is genocide when it destroys people, and the facilities to stay alive. Electricity. Water.
Then don’t have American support for it. Just let such movements progress and continue in a natural manner. Such movements can become influential.
I’m telling you, attacking Iran will destroy any chance of change.
Leave them and their country be, and they may be able to enact reform easier.
That’s like an Iraqi saying “If the American citizens are just going to sit there and do nothing while their government is killing our people, then it’s their own fault for supporting war against us, and they’ll really have no legitimate basis of complaint if we counter-attack on their mainland and destroy their nation in the process.”
and pays no attention to the wider world in the process of family life does not mean they are deserving of being killed
You know as well as I do that the governments rarely suffer in wars as they hide in their bunkers and around the country.
Just because they did not threaten the US did not mean a global fascist axis did not exist.
. More progress could have been made without such wars that held nations back.
Liberal democratic governments came in the peace that followed not in wars.
Because they found they were allies in The Cold War, had two wars previously, and needed to form a alternative to being a US client state or a Soviet one.
And create two hells of battleground: Iraq and Iran.
How does that improve the US’s situation in The Middle East precisely?
Togetic
Both extreme sides need to stop and take a hard look at their opinions, and do their homework. And I agree that most Iranians are innocent and just trying to make it through the day.
quote: Togetic
Both extreme sides need to stop and take a hard look at their opinions, and do their homework. And I agree that most Iranians are innocent and just trying to make it through the day.
This is silly. I never said 'target the iranian populace' or 'kill innocent iranians' or even to do things for the express purpose of harming the population. If we can go to war with iran and not kill a single civilian, then all the better. But we all know that that doesn't ever happen in a war. I am merely saying that the fact that innocent civilians will certainly suffer during the war, is not a good enough reason to not have the war. THe only reason to have a war is if your own civilians are endangered, and you have to be willing to kill other civilians and peoples to protect your own civilians.
At the same time, if you resist the US committing what you say is genocide, then what about Africa? You need to put the same vehemence into stopping those injustices as well to stay consistent. This means putting pressure on the UN and other countries.
The reform movements in Iran have historically been quashed by the ruling clerics and government. The problem in Iran is that their highest court adjudicates with Islamic law, which will not allow moderate change. Moderate presidents in the past have tried and failed. Something more than leaving them alone is required, because that has a record of failure.
It took the wars to create the moderate regimes because the belligerent regimes in place were too war-like to cede power to moderation. Perhaps, then, there is a place for war to institute changes that are, in the end, positive?
I agree that just smashing Iran doesn't work. The political process can work, but it must be backed up with the option of force so that Iran knows that if they do not come to the table and start being a positive member of the community, they won't be around much longer. I am willing to give them the opportunity to change, and to become a moderate state. I hope that your prediction that it can happen through the political process is correct in this case.
I disagree. Genocide is the destruction of a people or at least their attempted eradication. No one is saying 'lets exterminate the persian ethnicity', and no one is suggesting anything that actually would destroy them.
Well, too bad. Lots of people that don't deserve to die or get killed do. Besides, the vast majority of civilian deaths in iraq have been at the hands of fellow iraqis, not american soldiers. If the US invades iran and there are massive casualities ala iraq, it won't be at the hands of the americans. True, we'd have a responsibility, but in the end, its their own people that are killing them
I understand your position as you have laid it out in this post, and I agree with most of your responses. I agree that change in Iran is impossible under the status quo, and that American and/or international military intervention may be the only thing able to effactuate before the state becomes a real threat. Either Iran comes to the table in good faith, or they need to suffer the consequences of defying the international community. This is not an American thing, this is a global safety thing.
Originally posted by Luxifero
Rubbish.
Iran is not a threat nor is an international thing.
America simply conjured vague intelligence reports its refuses to verify,
some exaggerated remarks from the Iranian leadership and a lot of exploitation of the American publics sensitivities and finds a marginal case to wage a war against Iran; just like Iraq.
Iran has come to the table but been refused audience or simple refuted for it's vehemence in actualizing it's right to nuclear energy as officiated by the Nuclear proliferation treaty, something which the U.S does not abide by mind you.
Luxifero