Force Against Iran

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

Pakistan is the hot bed of terrorism. They supplied the Taliban with arms and men. They have also shetlered many Al-qeda members who managed to cross the borders into Pakistan.

They have Nukes and have had em for a while. They have tested them, they have also tested various mid and long range missiles capable of carrying nuclear war heads to most US bases in the middle east and even all the way to Israel.

Yet no one wants to dismantle their nuke progarm, even though most of the reasons that apply to attacking Iran apply here and then some?

Why is Pakistan being excused? Hypocrisy ? Ignorance? Fear? What?

122

[quote]samsmarts wrote:
Pakistan is the hot bed of terrorism. They supplied the Taliban with arms and men. They have also shetlered many Al-qeda members who managed to cross the borders into Pakistan.

They have Nukes and have had em for a while. They have tested them, they have also tested various mid and long range missiles capable of carrying nuclear war heads to most US bases in the middle east and even all the way to Israel.

Yet no one wants to dismantle their nuke progarm, even though most of the reasons that apply to attacking Iran apply here and then some?

Why is Pakistan being excused? Hypocrisy ? Ignorance? Fear? What? [/quote]

I think it’s a very dangerous situation when you allow third world contries to have nuke capabilities.

However, even though Pakistan has nukes, their gov’t is much., much more stable than iran’s. That is a key difference.

Another reason for giving Pakistan a pass probably has to do with India - their arch enemy - who also has nukes.

123

[quote]snipeout wrote:

They do hate our way of life, they don’t like the fact that the average citizen has a say in government our that women have rights. Not to mention you just help emphasize my point of these prehistoric retards still fighting a crusade that ended roughly 600 years ago.

Much like a jail inmate, we give them what they want i.e. the gaza strip and they still want more. All you people who sympathize for the extremists(LIBERALS) don’t think for a minute these people wouldn’t saw your head off and hold it up for al-terroisteera or jazeera or whatever.

I’m just glad MY president isn’t afraid to take action, god forbid canada or france was attacked and I was a citizen of one of those countries. Well I mean france did take action against that rouge nation the ivory coast a few months back.[/quote]

You are either confused in regards to what I was saying, or your logic escapes me. I did not mention the crusades. If you want to bring them up I would be more than happy to, as I’ve studied the subject thoroughly. The crusades were an absolutely brutal and barbaric display to destroy the infidels. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? What is even more interesting is that your noble crusaders slaughtered their own people, and turned their hatred towards the jews (they never get a break) when they could not complete their journey.

I do not understand where you get the assumption that women’s suffrage is the cause of their animosity towards the west. Prove it. Your assertions are unfounded and make little practical sense.

“Much like a jail inmate, we give them what they want i.e. the gaza strip and they still want more.”

I fail to see the comparison to an inmate. How about this, I’m going to seize your house but give you back a lamp. Not happy with that? why not? does this make you a prison inmate? Surely even you can understand why such an action as giving one back what is viewed as their property and expect gratitude at your generosity would not in any way quell anger/outrage.

Before you continue making asinine statements about the backwards nature of the east, go there and experience it for yourself. It is you snipeout who is the prehistoric retard for accepting as fact the images portrayed by those looking to sway your opinion in their favor.

124

[quote]snipeout wrote:
iran and its problems date back to the carter administrations inability(like all democrats) to handle an aggressor.
[/quote]

Actually it should probably be dated back at least to the CIA-backed coup against Mossadegh in 1953. Or if you’d care to look back further you’d see that the Great Powers have treated Iran and other Middle Eastern countries as pawns in their power struggles for much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

125

I can understand the desire to dismantle an enemies nuclear weapons program. Why, however, should anyone be denied nuclear power? Electric power generation is a critical element in supporting a growing infrastructure, why is it necessary to destroy this as well?

126

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
But I can ask again: USA violating international law is ok with you. If the Iranians do it, it is not.

Went went to Iraq with a UN resolution in our hands. Hardly a violation of law. And which international court has indicted the US? Just because you wish really hard for something to be true doesn’t make it so.
[/quote]

Yes, but that resolution did not mean that you could go to war. Again UN charta, article 42. I know that you are fully able to interpret that charta on your own if you are trained in tax law. And yes there is no judge among nations (you really had to come up with Hegel, you intellectual snob ;-)) , but that also means there is none if Iran decides to break the “Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”.

Well, I would define international community as nations that have a little more significance than the average member of the “coalition of the willing”.

And as an american general(?) has said:
Europe is an economic giant, a political dwarf and a military worm.

Unfortunately that is true. For now.

And hey, we (and I mean Austria alone!) are sending, gasp, 200(!!!) soldiers to Afghanistan to help with the elections. Who says you don?t need our help!

127

[quote]JohnGalt wrote:
I can understand the desire to dismantle an enemies nuclear weapons program. Why, however, should anyone be denied nuclear power? Electric power generation is a critical element in supporting a growing infrastructure, why is it necessary to destroy this as well?[/quote]

Because if a country that practically swims on a sea of cheap oil all of a sudden feels the urge to build a whole nuclear industry for “civilian” use, it tends to make other people nervous.

128

[quote]orion wrote:
Yes, but that resolution did not mean that you could go to war. Again UN charta, article 42. I know that you are fully able to interpret that charta on your own if you are trained in tax law. And yes there is no judge among nations (you really had to come up with Hegel, you intellectual snob ;-)) , but that also means there is none if Iran decides to break the “Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”.
[/quote]

If the UN actually mattered, maybe I would agree with you.

But seriously - you are tryig to tell me that the US is in violation of International Law when you are merely interpreting a UN rule?

Please.

129

Wasn’t one of the “reasons” for going into Iraq because they were in violation of “international law”… or those same up-for-interpretation “UN rules”?

130

[quote]doogie wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
WMD wrote:
doogie wrote:
Can one of you peacenik douchebags explain what the U.S. could do, short of everyone converting to Islam, to make the terrorists happy?

Send you and RJ to Iraq?

Yes, indeed, WMD you have hit the nail on the head. I would rather be a peacenik who claimed it then a warnik who talked the talk, but let others walk the walk. Oh, whats that doogie? You would rather stay and teach the schoolchildren… go home at night to your own children?

Those damn peaceniks, I hate those cowardly bastards!

Hey WMD and Elkhntr,

Have you douchebags been camping out in Crawford, protesting the war? Have you sent Moveon.org 50% of your net income?

If you think this war is wrong, that our soldiers are dying needlessly, and that we are just in it for the oil, what are you doing to stop it, other than hanging out on the internet?

You see I think the war is right, and it is happening. So pretty much all I have to do in order not to be a hypocrite is pay my taxes and vote Republican. I do a little more than that. I have bought two A/C units for the troops, I donated my last two income tax returns to military charities, and everytime there is a supply drive for the troops I drag my kids down to Wal-Mart to spend $50 or so for stuff the troops need.

You on the other hand think the war is morally wrong. That means you are obligated to try and stop it. So what are you doing? I’ll bet you paid your income taxes the last two years, hypocrites. I’ll bet you still drive an automobile instead of peddling everywhere you go. I’ll bet you still waste electricity while jerking off to Vroom’s picture on the computer.
[/quote]

Where, oh where is, the pious one? If a “bush hater” had called someone douchebag and accused them of masturbating to another members picture the morality and standards judgments would have been flying fast and furious. But, I guess when it’s one of you like-minded brethren it is easy to overlook.

doogie, I applaud your purchase of two A/C’s (were they brand new what was the cost) and donating your last two tax returns (you whole tax returns?) and buying goodies for the troops. But, your A/C’s and goodie bags are really not what is needed. They need bodies over there, they need drivers willing to drive the death gauntlet from Baghdad to the airport.

They need fervent war supporters who agree with this action and have the balls to get to a recruiting station and put their money (not goodie bag money) where their mouths are.

Men who because they know this action is fully warranted and justified are gladly willing to offer their life (not an A/C) in the mother of all battles for freedom. Men who will look straight into the keyboard while typing “you peaceniks are cowards and douchebags”!

I didn’t start this war and I am not going to camp out on a road to protest it. The women who did lost her son and I am sure feels just like you would if you lost one of your children.

I am not going to stop paying my taxes as I don’t want to go to jail. Those are unrealistic demands. However it isn’t unrealistic for you as you fully and without fear of contradiction support this action to re-enlist and offer your life if need be in a war that again you support 100 percent.

I say this if a draft was initiated and my age was determined to be needed as much as I disagree with this war and the men who started it. I would go. I am an American and just like paying my taxes being drafted would be an obligation that I would be required to fulfill.

You call me a douchebag, If I had children in your classroom they would be removed with haste for I wouldn’t want the influence of a hypocritical coward to be something they were subjected to!

131

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Yes, but that resolution did not mean that you could go to war. Again UN charta, article 42. I know that you are fully able to interpret that charta on your own if you are trained in tax law. And yes there is no judge among nations (you really had to come up with Hegel, you intellectual snob ;-)) , but that also means there is none if Iran decides to break the “Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”.

If the UN actually mattered, maybe I would agree with you.

But seriously - you are tryig to tell me that the US is in violation of International Law when you are merely interpreting a UN rule?

Please.

[/quote]

“interpreting” ?

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

“Interpret” that! Now show me how an act of war can not be in violation of article 42 unless you are acting on aricle 51 (self-defense), or you are acting on behalf of the security counsel.

This is not just my “interpretation” it is the interpretation of pretty much all the governments that refused to join the US.

And the UN charter is not just another international treaty like the non-proliferation treaty it is the constitution of the UN. The US not only joined that charter and signed it, there would have been no UN without the US.

There is no way that you would admit that the US could have done something illegal like breaking an international agreement, mh? Kyoto protocol?

132

[quote]vroom wrote:
Wasn’t one of the “reasons” for going into Iraq because they were in violation of “international law”… or those same up-for-interpretation “UN rules”?[/quote]

Iraq was in violation of, not just one rule, but 16 resolutions passed by the UN dealing specifically with Iraq.

hardly the same thing, vroom.

133

[quote]JohnGalt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
JohnGalt wrote:
Iranian is not a word. It does not define someone from or relating to Iran. Someone from Iran is Irani, not iranian. I’m sure the population of Iran does not run around calling us Americanians.

Please provide further details on this.

I just checked Wikipedia, Irani does not appear although Iranian does.

From www.m-w.com

Main Entry: Ira?ni?an
Pronunciation: i-'rA-nE-&n, -'ra-, -‘r?-; I-’
Function: noun
1 : a native or inhabitant of Iran
2 : a branch of the Indo-European family of languages that includes Persian – see INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES table

  • Iranian adjective

It appears that both Irani and Iranian are legitimate although usage of Iranian is much more common.

I find that completely bizzare. Having been born in the middle east and and lived there for 10 years (not to mention half my family is Indo-Irani) I have never until coming to america heard the word iranian.[/quote]

Isn’t the English language wonderful?

It is amazing how it can butcher other countries names.

134

[quote]indra wrote:
rainjack wrote:
indra wrote:
rainjack wrote:
We should have alrady kicked Iran’s ass twice by now. They have the whispers of political unrest and a growing affinity for democracy floating in the air. It probably wouldn’t take more than a little shove to topple the gov’t they have now.

I think that Syria should be leveled. That’s where the “insurgants” are coming from. I say kick the shit out of Syria, and put up a big freakin wall between them and Iraq. Then you’d see stability.

Rainjack,
you need to get the facts before you speak. Iran is better then our friend the saudi’s in terms of treating women and human rights plus iran did not support 9/11 which saudi arabia did. If we look at irans situation you have iraq and afghanistan occupied by a hostile USA and israel which has nuclear weapons thretening attacks on it every day. If i was iran i want nuclear weapons to defend myself from this threat.

Most of the insurgents in iraq actualy come from saudi arabia and jordan as the us does not have any border controls here. Anyone can drive from jordan to iraq without any check whatsoever. Saudi arabia actually likes the struggle in iraq right now because all of it’s pesky islamo -terrorists can go fight the us there rather then cause trouble in saudi arabia.

Tell me where my facts are wrong. You didn’t do that. You just put on your Iranian cheerleeding outfit. That does nothing to prove that I am short on facts.

You are wrong about syria and about iran, read the message.

How anyone with a brain can believe Bush is beyond me, he lied about the invasion of iraq and lied about september 11th.
Iraq was lead by a brutal, homocidal maniac but was no threat to USA, had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION as confrimed by the UN weapons committee and HATED OSAMA BIN LADEN.

Lets look at saudi arabia, it’s ideology is exactly the same as bin laden, it gave money and still does to bin laden, it sends insurgents to iraq to kill american troops and is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. It has a worse human rights record then iran. Other brutal dictatorships supported by the US include pakistan, uzbekistan, tajikistan, kuwait etc.

Your focus on iran is misplaced and if anything the US should be invading saudi arabia but bush would never do that because he makes money out of them.

[/quote]

You can’t trust Bush huh? Look at all the crap the Iranians have believed over the years and the actions they have taken. The Iranians have fallen for propoganda and agitation more then anyone. The nieghbors don’t trust them and niether does the great Satan.

Kidnapping, State sponsored Terrorism, Religous hatred. Are you serious even trying to compare the two cultures?

Hezbollah? Guess who supports them? Training camps for Terrorists take a guess on that one.

How anyone could think the world would be a better place with people who murder in the name of relgion in charge and having nuclear weapons is beyond me. Why did you leave such a paradise?

If Israel wanted to destoy Iran they would but, they show restraint. The Iranians have never shown restraint about anything.

135

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:

… I’m not to familiar with what the US is using now, but have the jamming issues with M16’s been resolved? Do they still have small parts that are easily lost? Either way, AK 74s are some damn good guns.[/quote]

AK47 is still better. AK74 and M16 are poodle shooters.

The AK47 round at least has a little stopping power.

M16 does reportedly jam more, but it is more accurate.

136

[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
Wasn’t one of the “reasons” for going into Iraq because they were in violation of “international law”… or those same up-for-interpretation “UN rules”?

Iraq was in violation of, not just one rule, but 16 resolutions passed by the UN dealing specifically with Iraq.

hardly the same thing, vroom.[/quote]

That is true, but that is hardly how laws work, because one murder is still worse than 16 speeding tickets. Going to war against another country is the worst thing you could do to break UN law because the UN was founded to prevent wars.

137

Orion -

You are just totally wrong. I don’t know what else to say. Where is your outrage over 16 ignored resolutions wrt Iraq?
Whereis your indignation over the fact that some of your Euroean neighbors were in bed with the Iraqis, and filling their pockets with OFF money?

You are just wrong. There is no violation of the Security Council, because the U.S. has veto power. We decided to uphold a resolution against a rogue state, and you want to accuse us of violating international law?

Go right ahead, but you’ll be slaying windmills.

138

[quote]orion wrote:
Going to war against another country is the worst thing you could do to break UN law because the UN was founded to prevent wars.[/quote]

That pretty much marginalizes your entire argument right there. You are against the use of force. Period. With that bias - it is no wonder you think that the U.S. is in violation of “International law”.

139

[quote]orion wrote:
…

The USA is a member of the UN. The UN charta (signed by the USA) clearly states that a war is only justified if a) in self-defense or b) if sanctioned by the UN.

The 2nd Iraq war to the best of my knowledge was not sanctioned by the UN and the US was certainly not attacked by the souvereign nation of Iraq.

I am referring to the article 41 and 42 of the UN charta especially the part of article 42 that states that only the whole security counsel can decide that a war is necessary.
[/quote]

The 2nd war in Iraq was nothing more than an extension of the first.

Iraq did not meet the terms of the peace treaty.

We have been at a continual state of war with Iraq since 1991.

140

[quote]Iraq was in violation of, not just one rule, but 16 resolutions passed by the UN dealing specifically with Iraq.

hardly the same thing, vroom.[/quote]

If the UN is a farce, who cares how many rules and resolutions a country is in violation of?

The UN is either useful or it isn’t, you don’t get to change the status based on the issue you are discussing.

Honestly, I don’t care either way, I just wish I knew which it was!