Nope. Regardless of the context, "America is the definition of democracy" is a silly thing to say. It carries very strong overtones of American democracy being the only true democracy. If you want to say that the USA is an example of a democracy, then you can say it in those words, or any one of many other formulations which don't imply that the USA provides the template for all democracies.
Iran Invasion soon ?
- Thread starter GG20DELTA
- Start date
Point taken Regarding the above...but
This is unfair as my reply was in response to Obama/An American President stance on the situation.
Beatmaster
New Member
Unfair or not, however the fact is that Obama finds himself hostage to Israels wishes at this point.
True democracy demands a majority of the government to agree and support that.
However there is a LARGE majority who has been saying for more then 2 years to calm down on the middle east and see things trough a more perspective way to avoid being dragged into another war.
As the saying goes: There are more ways that lead to Rome
But at this moment they are being overruled and so democracy fails on that part, As i do not see being held "hostage" part of a US democracy policy.
And as the media have pointed out multiple times true democracy in the US would demand that Obama picks up the phone and tells the Israeli Government to calm down and take a chill pill, so that diplomatics can be executed the way they should be executed, and by having Israel symbolically held Obama hostage by calculating US support if Israeli military actions turn out not the way they would like it only complicates things.
And if i remember correctly one of the cornerstones rules of US democracy says that: No foreign nation should be able to dictate US policy.
Cheers
Equinox
New Member
'True' democracy has nothing to do with government. I believe you'll find that while democracy (or whatever form of government a state may subscribe to) may certainly influence and guide the actions of states, in the end what wins out is what is going to best meet the ends of said state. If Obama is hostage to anything, it's that; certainly not to a foreign nations wishes. The US could happily tell Israel to get lost etc... except that it would be hurting itself by doing so.Unfair or not, however the fact is that Obama finds himself hostage to Israels wishes at this point.
True democracy demands a majority of the government to agree and support that.
However there is a LARGE majority who has been saying for more then 2 years to calm down on the middle east and see things trough a more perspective way to avoid being dragged into another war.
As the saying goes: There are more ways that lead to Rome
But at this moment they are being overruled and so democracy fails on that part, As i do not see being held "hostage" part of a US democracy policy.
And as the media have pointed out multiple times true democracy in the US would demand that Obama picks up the phone and tells the Israeli Government to calm down and take a chill pill, so that diplomatics can be executed the way they should be executed, and by having Israel symbolically held Obama hostage by calculating US support if Israeli military actions turn out not the way they would like it only complicates things.
And if i remember correctly one of the cornerstones rules of US democracy says that: No foreign nation should be able to dictate US policy.
Cheers
Adding on to that, who says the American people, if it went to plebiscite, would think that? I doubt it would be that clear cut.
This wouldn't be the first time that America has been held hostage to Israel's interests, resulting in its interests and standing in the Arab world suffering because of its unconditional support for Israel. I could provide a few examples but then I would be getting very off-topic. IMO America's long term security and economic interests would benefit much, much more from a rapprochement with Iran - based on actual diplomacy and realpolitik - rather than with a conflict with Iran, which though might solve near term objectives, will inevitably lead to problems in the long term. A strike on Iran would benefit Israel for a number of reasons - some of which Israel will rather not disclose - but would be disastrous for others.
How would it be hurting itself from doing so? Because America's interests would be effected or because of other reasons?
Last edited:
Equinox
New Member
It's interests, I certainly don't mean hurting itself directly.
My thoughts aren't coming together very well at the moment, but what I'm trying to get across is that along as the US perceives it's own interests to be, well, it's interests, then it would be hurting those interests by not siding with Israel.
Edit: Grand strategy was the word I believe I was looking for.
Beatmaster
New Member
I can certainly see the grand strategy thing and i agree that it will play a major part here.
But from that same grand strategy POV the biggest problem lies in the politics and economics that come directly from military actions that might be taken against Iran.
Hypothetical speaking (And not counting who has legit reasons or who is right or wrong for that matter) The US will be able to get Iran on its knees i do not think that Iran would be able to withstand the US in the very long term.
However because of various factors already explained in this topic Iran will be perfectly able to make this a LONG and very costly war IF it wishes to do so.
Another thing is Iran would not be the first to open fire, also the US will have to send ground troops to get the proof they need to justify everything that has come to pass between US/Israel and Iran (If this does exists) and so far every credible source that did have a say in the ungoing investigations did not find ANY proof what o ever.
So in the regard Iran is playing by the book which means that IF Israel strikes Iran then its a unprovoked attack which will probably lead to a declaration of war or at least retaliatory strikes.
As we all know Obama pledged his unrestricted support to Israel on ANY situation and in ANY case so its very reasonable to assume that the US will be drawn in.
Mainly because if Israel does not drag the US in the Iran will do it.
Because the Iran leadership has said if Israel strikes then the US will be automatically be regarded as accomplice to the attack itself.
So Iran might lash out against US assets in the region.
Now this all might sound like Iran is the bad guy here but just a matter of fact they are defending them self at that point to the best of their abilities and they are justified to do so, and here lies the crucial point, till now there is no legal right either by Israel or US to justify any military action.
Now the major part of the middle east is somewhat friendly to the US but if this war is going to happen and it turns out to be another "iraq ala grave concerns" situation then the US will lose way more in terms of politics and interests in the region then they managed to build up in the past 20 years.
So from a US point of view as long Iran does not enrich its uranium beyond the agreed (NPT) limts it would be best for the US to call Israel and have them stand down, because at this point the Israeli hold the US hostage on their own words, however Obama can redraw his support for the time being to make Israel stop their first strike plans, and thus have Iran on the table until proven otherwise.
The Grand Strategy of the US is not being helped with a another war infact it would set the US back at least years as this is roughly the time needed to get any control back in the region if this war is going to start.
And imo its Obama's democratic right and duty to make that call towards the Israeli government even if it would hammer down the relations between both as the alternative is way way less pleasant for the US, specially when Obama's own administration and his own staff members have made it crystal clear that a military intervention in Iran carries some real difficulties and the US aint ready for that, nor is Israel ready to carry such heavy weight and this is also exactly the reason why the US would be drawn in from a Israeli pov.
Iran is not Syria, Iran is not Iraq Iran is 5 times bigger and a heck more defended then both previous nations combined.
So its relative save to say that a Israeli strike will probably be successful but the after math is way way above Israels payrate..
That would be the logical thing to do, assuming that the stated reasons for not wanting Iran to have nukes - because it will use it to threaten Israel, will use it to blackmail the world, will lead to a regional nuke race, might fall in the hands of 'terrorists', etc, - are true and is a not smokescreen for something else. Granted, the situation with Iraq was somewhat different but I do recall that every time Saddam made concessions to the U.S, UN or the IAEA, excuses and justifications would be made to still find reasons to invade Iraq. What happens if Iran makes concessions but then somethings else pops up, with Iran been accused of not abiding to the agreement or vice versa?
Why Israel's rattling sabers - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
Questions:
- Which media do you rely on?
They seem big on conspiracy theories for Jewish/Israeli domination of the US government. Probably the rest of the world as well. - Press reports have had the Whitehouse/Obama claim that they have calling Israel a number of times to tell them to calm down (though not in so many words). The assumption here seems to be they are calling to get orders from their boss.
- What are diplomatics “executed the way they should be executed”?
- The statement “Israel symbolically held Obama hostage by calculating US support if Israeli military actions turn out not the way they would like” would be editorializing by a reporter, not reporting.
Equinox
New Member
Why would they need to send in ground troops to gain "credible proof"? Going off the last decade, the US would probably gain more international credibility by not sending in ground troops, especially if they are just going after specific targets.
Are the Iranians justified doing what they are doing? Maybe. But just as justified as Israel and the US. Each is doing what it thinks are in it's best interests. Whether anything is "legal" or not is also, in my opinion, irrelevant beyond where action may breach the domestic law of a state. International law is meaningless when it comes down to a country acting in it's best interests, even if this means "illegal" military action. The only way it's going to have an affect is when a state is weighing up whether the benefits are worth the costs, and even then whatever backlash may come from the international community is only one factor among many--especially for the US.
As for the level of uranium enrichment... sure the US may be content if the Iranians go no further. The Israeli's probably would be too. Problem is, you have to trust the Iranians not to be hiding further enrichment, or to not attempt more at a latter date. Hard to do so when they spend quite a lot of time preaching about killing you etcetera. Not to sound like an arse, but you seem keen to portray Iran as a rational actor, but ignore that if this is the case, then Israel certainly has to be too. Which means they aren't going to do something stupid, well, at least as much as anyone else never does anything stupid.
Beatmaster
New Member
Hmmm advise: Turn on the TV check CNN, Foxnews, Or Al Jazeera or any big news agency for that matter.
It might help to read some news papers as well, and if all fails Google is ur friend.
No in all seriousness:
Which media do you rely on?
They seem big on conspiracy theories for Jewish/Israeli domination of the US government. Probably the rest of the world as well.
Thats BS you know that as well as i do, but to be nice and reply to this, its pretty simple regardless if Iran said serious things they better should have not said TRUE.
But while that may be the case they are being painted down as another axis of evil and the world is being prepared for another military confrontation just like Iraq and Afghanistan.
I understand from a US perspective that a nuclear Iran is not something you want, however give me one good reason why the US and Israel have the right to terminate the program without a single piece of evidence that suggest that Iran is not honoring the NPT treaty?
There is not a single intelligence agency that has beyond the reasonable doubt confirmed that Iran has started a weapons nuclear program, also nearly every high resolution satellite is probably fixed on Iran and again not a single event that even points in that direction, and on top of that in the news it has been said by Obama himself that the mullahs did not give the order to go beyond the threshold which has been agreed in the NPT.
The only concern that is a fact is that IF Iran wishes to go beyond the limits of the NPT treaty it could, as it advanced far enough in the program to make that switch.
Neither US Neither Israel has any authority or legal ground to confront Iran in the way they are doing now.
Infact IF Iran is going to build that bomb then there are 2 reasons why they would do such a thing:
1) To avoid their regime to collapse thanks to a outside aggressor
2) To defend them selfs against the biggest danger they have ever faced since the Persian empire namely Israel and the US.
Because like it or not but those 2 nations are gearing up for war and i cannot blame Iran for taking that into account.
Does that make them the axis of evil? Does that make Iran Satans lair? NO
Infact if you read the news Iran did have some minor demands before they would agree to stop the program and those demands are not being honored, however US and Israeli demands must be honored or they will be forced into it.
Now call me crazy....but that sound to me pretty much like double standards.
And if i am wrong....proof me wrong then.
Press reports have had the Whitehouse/Obama claim that they have calling Israel a number of times to tell them to calm down (though not in so many words). The assumption here seems to be they are calling to get orders from their boss.
True, however Obama has the power to make that call and stop Israel and i am not saying asking nicely....NO just tell them..
The hostage thing is this: US does not want to attack Iran, however if Israel does attack Iran then the US will be automatically be involved that has been said during the last meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and Obama.
Because Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel must choose its own fate and do its own actions to serve its national security and he hinted to a possible attack if deemed necessary and Obama agreed to that saying that Israels national security is a top priority to the US as well and they will ALWAYS have Israels back.
It has been covered by at least 50 news agencies from around the world....google it.
What are diplomatics “executed the way they should be executed”?
Diplomatic actions have been taken and steps have been made and other diplomatic actions are in progress, attacking Iran would disrupt that and will complicate things beyond repair.
And so far the US and Israel are accusing Iran of many things but so far no proof has been handed out, while in the mean time they demand a whole list of things that Iran must change or else.......
While Iran's words are being totally overruled...even if Iran is telling the truth (Not saying they are not and not saying they are) but there is no way they could clear their name without losing....
How about the US shows its evidence and Israel shows its evidence and then you may demand......Instead of pointing fingers and call upon the world to punish a country in this case Iran.
What i mean with have diplomatics do its thing is by lay ur card on the table and meet eye to eye.
The statement “Israel symbolically held Obama hostage by calculating US support if Israeli military actions turn out not the way they would like” would be editorializing by a reporter, not reporting
You might wanna read this piece from Reuters News Agency
Not trying to be disrespectful towards you buddy, its just that as has been said everyone is looking trough a western scope upon the problem.
But none is even considering Iran's point of view.
Yes they have said really stupid things and yes that does make them very hated and untrustworthy i will not deny that.
But other then lose words they have done nothing major, but they are being punished in a ever increasing way for a crime they YET have to commit.
Iran has the sovereign right to advance their nation like everyone else, they have the sovereign right to defend their national security and they have the sovereign right to issue their case to the world.
But that right has been taken away for a large part, why would they agree to any demand made by the west as not a single demand is agreed upon that Iran did request?
Simple put Iran with all its BS talks and actions might be as corrupt as hell, but attacking them as a sovereign nation without any legal reason is a act of war and pure in the self interest of the attacker who already knows that it will get what it wants.
So what makes Israels right to defend their national security more pressing then that of Iran?
And why must Iran bend to Israels demands while its own demands are just cleaned of the table?
Why must the discussion being a one way thing?
Please forgive me for saying this but Israel (right or wrong) cannot play this game, and if they choose to do so then they should accept the fact that they will be served with the same in return.
But obviously thats not a option specially with the US backing them.
So who can blame Iran for shutting the door and perhaps considering the option to say: Hey we are being accused of making a bomb, and we are being punished for it as well, and now we might even be attacked for it.....we might as well make that damn bomb and get it over with....
But ill guess i am just a crazy person here .....
Cheers buddy
Last edited:
Beatmaster
New Member
Acting in your best Interest does not include bombing a nation to the stone age, it does not include making demands without being prepared to take some demands yourself.
In regards to the US imo when it comes to the middle east the US has lost every bit of credibility they can possible lose.
That has been proven so i will not comment on that.
But i will say this: Israel & US fail to come up with hard facts that show that Iran is building a bomb, without that every military action that they MIGHT do against Iran is illegal and will be seen as a act of war plain and simple.
And i did not say Iran is acting rational imo they are completely out of their minds, but that can be said towards Israel as well.
The whole thing started wrong and has been played out wrong on both sides.
Fact remains that IF Israel is going to hit Iran and IF the US gets involved then its in their own best interest to make sure that they find that crucial piece of evidence that can assure the world that they took the right actions.
Because after Iraq, Afghanistan the world will be furious towards Israel and the US if it turns out that Iran with all its crazy talks and actions still was honoring the agreements they made and if this all turns out to be a wild Gooze chase.
Ill personally bet that China, Russia, the Arab Community, Pakistan and India will have Obama's and Benjamin's head on a diplomatic plate.
Do you have any idea how bad it would be for the US relations and diplomatics/economics? Not to mention the fact that next time the US is after something (Good or bad) they will have a very hard time.
Simple said this will not go away and will not be forgotten infact it will haunt the US for many years to come...
So if they are going to bomb Iran for whatever reason then they better make damn sure they have credible evidence that justifies it, if not then the US might even see their allies in the middle east turn on them, and the US will lose it footprint and influence in the region.
And thats why Iran does not have to proof anything, infact a war is what those mullahs need because they do not care that their nation is getting destroyed as Persia has been destroyed many times in the past 3000 years the only thing they care about is how to remain in power and how to get rid of the US in the region (Yes they are crazy) And only those mullahs know if they are going to build a bomb or not, and if not? they can kill a few Americans during that war in the name of self defense and the funny thing is that it would be legal to as they where not the first to open fire.
And this is the point why the US is going to need troops, because anything else will only escalate things and on a military note we have seen what Iraq did to the US forces after 10 years fighting a guerrilla war, we have seen it in Afghanistan
Any idea what a mess its going to be in Iran which has 3 times the population as AFG and IQ combined? While its nearly 4 times bigger in land mass?
Sure US airpower will hammer Iran in such way that they wish they never have been born but it does not stop a program, it may slow it down and will provoke the mullahs to take steps towards building a bomb as this would be the only standoff they can have against the US forces.
Sure dropping that bomb will make Teheran glow for the next 50 years and it will destroy the nation, but on the other hand lets assume that Iran was never going to build a bomb and never planned it their country is being attacked and destroyed and in that regard you cannot blame them for making the enemy pay in every way possible.
So proof of that bomb program is VITAL.
Do the math....
Beatmaster
New Member
Great piece....and a good read.
That's a myth. What's certainly not a myth is the fact that the pro-Israeli lobby has a tremendous amount of political pull in congress and that no U.S. president can ignore this, and neither can senior U.S. military officials or people in the Defence Industry. in his 'The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East '' Robert Fisk mentions how he brought back fragments of a Hellfire that was used by an Israeli Apache pilot to incinerate non-terrorist occupants of an ambulance [during the 'Grapes of Wrath' operation in 1996] to the U.S.. During the course of the discussion with Lockheed Martin officials, they got very defensive when Isreal was mentioned and made it clear that they did not want to be quoted as having said anything about Israel, because it was too 'sensitive' and would be career damaging.
Looking back at the past few decades, whether as a result of its policy of unconditional support for Israel or for other reasons, certain policies undertaken by the U.S. has benefited Israel but has damaged U.S. interests and its standing in the Muslim world. Whilst I agree 100% that Israel's security is important, the same should also apply to all countries in the region, and this security should not be at the expense of others.
Last edited:
I have only one comment about the above often coverer and often stated arguments in the above and that is to the standard of evidence you are using. The one that you use is the legal standard used America for criminal actions “beyond a shadow of doubt, standard”. Since this standard is very tuff one to reach for things that already have happened (not for something that might happen) for real events which have witnesses and documents and other physical evidence to support what in fact happened, it might be a very risky standard to be applied to in the case when making decisions about the possible threats to your nations’ existence.Hmmm advise: Turn on the TV check CNN, Foxnews, Or Al Jazeera or any big news agency for that matter.
It might help to read some news papers as well, and if all fails Google is ur friend.
No in all seriousness:
Which media do you rely on?
They seem big on conspiracy theories for Jewish/Israeli domination of the US government. Probably the rest of the world as well.
Thats BS you know that as well as i do, but to be nice and reply to this, its pretty simple regardless if Iran said serious things they better should have not said TRUE.
But while that may be the case they are being painted down as another axis of evil and the world is being prepared for another military confrontation just like Iraq and Afghanistan.
I understand from a US perspective that a nuclear Iran is not something you want, however give me one good reason why the US and Israel have the right to terminate the program without a single piece of evidence that suggest that Iran is not honoring the NPT treaty?
There is not a single intelligence agency that has beyond the reasonable doubt confirmed that Iran has started a weapons nuclear program, also nearly every high resolution satellite is probably fixed on Iran and again not a single event that even points in that direction, and on top of that in the news it has been said by Obama himself that the mullahs did not give the order to go beyond the threshold which has been agreed in the NPT.
The only concern that is a fact is that IF Iran wishes to go beyond the limits of the NPT treaty it could, as it advanced far enough in the program to make that switch.
Neither US Neither Israel has any authority or legal ground to confront Iran in the way they are doing now.
Infact IF Iran is going to build that bomb then there are 2 reasons why they would do such a thing:
1) To avoid their regime to collapse thanks to a outside aggressor
2) To defend them selfs against the biggest danger they have ever faced since the Persian empire namely Israel and the US.
Because like it or not but those 2 nations are gearing up for war and i cannot blame Iran for taking that into account.
Does that make them the axis of evil? Does that make Iran Satans lair? NO
Infact if you read the news Iran did have some minor demands before they would agree to stop the program and those demands are not being honored, however US and Israeli demands must be honored or they will be forced into it.
Now call me crazy....but that sound to me pretty much like double standards.
And if i am wrong....proof me wrong then.
Press reports have had the Whitehouse/Obama claim that they have calling Israel a number of times to tell them to calm down (though not in so many words). The assumption here seems to be they are calling to get orders from their boss.
True, however Obama has the power to make that call and stop Israel and i am not saying asking nicely....NO just tell them..
The hostage thing is this: US does not want to attack Iran, however if Israel does attack Iran then the US will be automatically be involved that has been said during the last meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and Obama.
Because Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel must choose its own fate and do its own actions to serve its national security and he hinted to a possible attack if deemed necessary and Obama agreed to that saying that Israels national security is a top priority to the US as well and they will ALWAYS have Israels back.
It has been covered by at least 50 news agencies from around the world....google it.
What are diplomatics “executed the way they should be executed”?
Diplomatic actions have been taken and steps have been made and other diplomatic actions are in progress, attacking Iran would disrupt that and will complicate things beyond repair.
And so far the US and Israel are accusing Iran of many things but so far no proof has been handed out, while in the mean time they demand a whole list of things that Iran must change or else.......
While Iran's words are being totally overruled...even if Iran is telling the truth (Not saying they are not and not saying they are) but there is no way they could clear their name without losing....
How about the US shows its evidence and Israel shows its evidence and then you may demand......Instead of pointing fingers and call upon the world to punish a country in this case Iran.
What i mean with have diplomatics do its thing is by lay ur card on the table and meet eye to eye.
The statement “Israel symbolically held Obama hostage by calculating US support if Israeli military actions turn out not the way they would like” would be editorializing by a reporter, not reporting
You might wanna read this piece from Reuters News Agency
Not trying to be disrespectful towards you buddy, its just that as has been said everyone is looking trough a western scope upon the problem.
But none is even considering Iran's point of view.
Yes they have said really stupid things and yes that does make them very hated and untrustworthy i will not deny that.
But other then lose words they have done nothing major, but they are being punished in a ever increasing way for a crime they YET have to commit.
Iran has the sovereign right to advance their nation like everyone else, they have the sovereign right to defend their national security and they have the sovereign right to issue their case to the world.
But that right has been taken away for a large part, why would they agree to any demand made by the west as not a single demand is agreed upon that Iran did request?
Simple put Iran with all its BS talks and actions might be as corrupt as hell, but attacking them as a sovereign nation without any legal reason is a act of war and pure in the self interest of the attacker who already knows that it will get what it wants.
So what makes Israels right to defend their national security more pressing then that of Iran?
And why must Iran bend to Israels demands while its own demands are just cleaned of the table?
Why must the discussion being a one way thing?
Please forgive me for saying this but Israel (right or wrong) cannot play this game, and if they choose to do so then they should accept the fact that they will be served with the same in return.
But obviously thats not a option specially with the US backing them.
So who can blame Iran for shutting the door and perhaps considering the option to say: Hey we are being accused of making a bomb, and we are being punished for it as well, and now we might even be attacked for it.....we might as well make that damn bomb and get it over with....
But ill guess i am just a crazy person here .....
Cheers buddy
Let us talk about the uses of intelligence and open disclosure. Good diplomacy and open information standards, with the use of the safety net of having good intelligence sources as a backup to them are very effective at preventing unintentional wars that happen by mistake. Open discloser is a standard of transparency which Iran, like Iraq before it, has not chosen to adopt. To be restated in yet another way, open disclose prevents wars from starting that neither side really wants to start but could start if one side or the other perceives that actions of the other as hostel to its existence. It does not prevent intentional wars however it only makes them more difficult for the aggressor to win.
Many unnecessary wars have been started by such miscalculations in perceived intent of the other in the past while at other times countries have been unprepared for war when unexpectedly attacked, so both outcomes are always a real danger in the real world that we live in.
However if one sides goal is to go to war someday for some great and wonderful cause or for a great national goal and is only looking for the best time to make its move? Open discloser does not serve that countries prepossess but a continues barrage of disinformation and pointless failed diplomacy does.
With this observations, what is the most logical way to evaluate Iran’s actions?
Beatmaster
New Member
Might be so but it is not so dangerous as setting the stage to invade/ attack a foreign nation based upon suspicion.
I agree to the fact that all sides have to come clean and i think that all sides did miss the ball during the past 20 meetings.
But regardless how things are going to be, If you accuse a person you must base that upon some serious evidence.
This is not a normal murder trail, this is not a regular court case.
This is a case where nearly 70 million people are being put into a corner.
You are not going to make those 70 million people suffer based upon "Grave concerns"
But the logical steps would be to have Iran do what it must do according to treaties till proven otherwise. Eitherway Iran has made some small demands / wish list.
Try to accept it as every other option failed so far.
So make a concession here and there and then see where that leads.
And i am sure that IF Iran is not building a bomb (assuming they telling the truth all along) that the end result cannot be as bad as going to war.
So by just giving eachother some space you achieve more then force Iran into the trenches.
Just saying.
Equinox
New Member
Er, since when? Last I checked, "bombing a nation back to the stone age" has been in one form or another, a rather popular and effective way of getting things done. The Romans certainly never had any more trouble with Carthage after they burned the city and sowed it with salt... And why should the US have to compromise? Last I checked it was the super power, not Iran. It might of course, as an act of good faith, or to get a better outcome, but it doesn't have to.
And how do you propose that the US and Iran get these "hard facts"? The Iranians are certainly not to be trusted to provide their own, and short of that you'd need your own people with unfettered access to be certain what was going on. Put simply, if the US and Israel come to believe there is a credible threat that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons and that this will be a danger to their people and interests then they don't need anything more to justify doing whatever action they take. Also, once again I will mention that notions of how military action would be "illegal" are naive. Until the UN can enforce such on the whole world, then it's just meaningless words spouted by those who disagree with the action.
I just want to ask... why would the world be furious? A large majority of the world (essentially all the important parts, bar Russia/China) have in some way or other denounced Iran, and some such as the EU have issues sanctions. I would suggest that it is more likely that they'd be supportive of any action to put Iran back in its place. There will be no massive backlash if the US do anything, at worst a lot of countries will talk a bunch of anti-war rhetoric and then proceed to work with the US on the next thing they have going. Especially other middle-eastern nations, to whom the US is a source of stability and security.
Why would the US need ground troops? You keep saying it, but you aren't offering any valid reason. You are also ignoring how difficult it would be to get large numbers of troops and equipment into Iran and the un-willingess to do another Iraq/Afghanistan. If there is any action taken, I would be heavily lean towards it being air and missile strikes on specific or widespread targets (the effectiveness of this is another question altogether).
Once again I will point out that you are eager to portray Iran as a rational actor, but are ignoring that Israel and the US are too. Also ignoring that whatever justification the Iranians may have, the US and Israeli's have too. They also happen to have the bigger stick.
I don’t watch TV, it is a waste of time, too politically driven (No, I am not referring to just FoxNews, they are possibly less biased than ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN), and nearly 50% commercials. Online newspapers are better, and you can get a wider range of opinions in a fraction of the time. I frequently read al-Jazeera, they have different criteria for selecting their articles and can be very interesting as a result.
What do you feel would constitute ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ proof to confirm an Iranian weapons program? That is a legal definition used by the courts mostly after a crime has taken place. Strictly speaking the only ways that would work would be to either
- Monitor a detonation, at which point it is too late to do anything (which may be your intent).
Or - Stage a raid and grab the assembled device before detonation, which is probably the only thing worse than bombing Iran, except for an all out invasion.
Does it ever occur to Iran that they could cut the legs out from under the US and Israel simply by complying with the IAEC requests for access and inspection? That is what drives all this.
The 2 reasons you give are actually just the same reason presented 2 different ways. And Iran was the Persian Empire, so they were hardly a threat to themselves.
[sarc]Your right, it works great when dealing with Iran, so why shouldn’t it work with Israel.[/sarc]
Israel cannot dictate US policy, and the US cannot dictate Israeli policy.
If an attack happens it will be because Israel, and at least one Arab country, have given up on the diplomatic process and feel they have nothing to lose by disrupting and complicating it.
Just give the IAEC full open access. The IAEC gives them a clean bill of health and Iran wins, and the US and Israel each get a pair of huge diplomatic ‘black eyes’.
But as long as Iran refuses to give in the IAEC inspectors that access no one believes them, not even the Russians and Chinese.
Diplomacy has never worked that way, in fact the exact opposite is the rule. Effective diplomacy depends on available information, destroy the information gathering network, which is what putting everything on the table would do, and diplomacy grinds to a halt.
Yes, Israel is uncomfortable with Obama’s reaching out to Iran, but what is the connection to this discussion. Except Israel is probably concerned about his refusal to support an Israeli bombing raid on Iran, too.
You might want to read this article. I found the link was at the bottom of the page you linked to.
Obama, Netanyahu face struggle over Iran red lines | Reuters
The situation between the US and Israelis nowhere near what you appear to assume.
What do you feel would constitute ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ proof to confirm an Iranian weapons program? At what point do you feel action should be taken, or do you think that action should never be taken?
And what happens when the Sunni nations of the Persian Gulf acquire nuclear weapons because of a fear of a nuclear armed Shia Iran? Then the whole Middle East depends not on the stability of their rulers, but on which is the least stable. Israel is afraid of a nuclear armed Iran, the US is afraid of the whole Middle East (and its oil) going up in a series of nuclear explosions.
Consider also that Israel will probably have to switch to a ‘launch on warning’ to provide a survivable defense for their ground based missiles. Then the massive increase in the chance of an accidental launch makes the situation even worse.
Beatmaster
New Member
Please do not twist my words around and please read back the whole topic, as you are taking my words out of context.
Er, since when? Last I checked, "bombing a nation back to the stone age" has been in one form or another, a rather popular and effective way of getting things done. The Romans certainly never had any more trouble with Carthage after they burned the city and sowed it with salt... And why should the US have to compromise? Last I checked it was the super power, not Iran. It might of course, as an act of good faith, or to get a better outcome, but it doesn't
So because the US is a super power it can do everything it wants? Thats BULL :jump:jump And its automatically legal?
Why does Iran need to come clean? Why does Iran have do do everything that the US wishes? To use your own words as a act of good faith the US should specially after Iraq and Afghanistan present their case as a act of good faith.
Where i come from its like this: If you point a finger then you must have reasons and evidence to do so, specially if you accuse a person of being a criminal.
This same applies for the US they are the ones doing the accusing they are the ones that point a finger and they are the ones that issue the punishments.
Then they are automatically the ones that should come with the evidence to do so.
And how do you propose that the US and Iran get these "hard facts"? The Iranians are certainly not to be trusted to provide their own, and short of that you'd need your own people with unfettered access to be certain what was going on. Put simply, if the US and Israel come to believe there is a credible threat that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons and that this will be a danger to their people and interests then they don't need anything more to justify doing whatever action they take. Also, once again I will mention that notions of how military action would be "illegal" are naive. Until the UN can enforce such on the whole world, then it's just meaningless words spouted by those who disagree with the action.
Alright i see ur point, however the US and Israeli government is doing some serious lobby work to accuse Iran in every way possible, then my question is IF they lack the evidence i mean hard cold facts then why is it that they find suspicion a justified reason to take every action needed and even close a eye to Israel if it is going to attack?
Also both Israel and the US accuse Iran of "crimes" they did not commit yet.
But to use your own words against you IF all the actions are justified from a US/Israeli point of view then this would automatically apply for Iran as well.
Both the US and Israel do not have a inch more right to defend their national security then Iran has.
However at this point IF Iran takes any action to secure their interests then its called a provocation......
Who is seriously planning a military strike?
Who demands the program to be stopped either voluntary or either by force?
And who is responsible for isolating Iran and its 66 million population?
Now i ask you from one DT forum member to another who is doing the provocation here? Iran said some words YES and its very stupid but it has not done ANY action against Israel or the US that would hurt them in the way it hurts Iran right now, infact regardless how sick the leaders are of Iran but you have to give them credit for having patience because i know for a fact that there are nations out there who would have Obama's head on a political plate if he would pull the same trick.
Once again I will point out that you are eager to portray Iran as a rational actor, but are ignoring that Israel and the US are too. Also ignoring that whatever justification the Iranians may have, the US and Israeli's have too. They also happen to have the bigger stick.
If you read back the posts i made, the posts other DT members made then you will see that i did not say and did not portray Iran as a rational actor, however i neither portrayed the US or Israeli as a rational actor, and to be honest BOTH sides have totally lost their mind and BOTH sides screwed up.
In regards to the bigger stick what you seem to forget that Iran/Persia has a track record of over 3000 years they have been defeated and crushed down so many times and they did have victories obviously.
The US has a way bigger stick then Iran specially the military HOWEVER Its not Iran who will pay the biggest prize, do you have any idea what impact it would have in the region if US/ Israel go to war with Iran? Do you have any idea what it would cost the US taxpayer and its nearly collapsed economy? Do you have any idea what it would do to the world economy?
The last war Iraq/Afghanistan costed the US 5 trillion dollars (Borrowed money) and analysts from all over the world have said that a war with Iran would be way more costly in every aspect.
So who is having the bigger stick in the end? that is just a matter of perspective here.
But one IMO there is one thing i like to say:
So far Iran has done nothing major which is fact, i did not say they are right and i did not say they are wrong as obviously alot of what is discussed here is based upon what if agree?
Now regardless who is right and regardless how this ends i can say that IF after a military strike/action or operation it turns out that Iran did not do anything of what they are being accused of then the repercussions for the US and Israeli will be seriously painfull.
So please do not say that i do not come forward with evidence or that i state the wrong things, USE your rational mind, read the news papers, read this topic and you will see that the whole thing about the program itself is just a minor part of the whole situation, its way more complex then you and me can comprehend, and never claimed to know it all as i don't BUT it does not take a genius to try to see the issue from both a western scope as from a Irani scope personally i do not like Iran and i personally think that their leadership lost its freaking mind, but that does not mean that they and their interests are automatically irrelevant to the US or Israel.
And that does not mean they are or have committed a crime.
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power
And this is not a crime so unless proven otherwise Israel has not right to speak and so is the US
The UN Security Council has ordered Iran to stop enrichment. Why?
Because the technology used to enrich uranium to the level needed for nuclear power can also be used to enrich it to the higher level needed for a nuclear explosion.
And Iran said it would do so if the international community give them the fuel.
And it asked for a written agreement/ promise that NONE would try to bring down the Iranian government.
Both requests have been denied.
Iran is seeking nuclear knowledge like every other nation that has nuclear tech.
Now to me its a pretty sound deal, to stop the program.
So why all the saber rattling?
Also little funny fact Iran is being accused of lots of things right?
Read this:
On 18 September 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. The resolution said that the IAEA "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards... "
Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.
Hmmm perhaps the international community should sanction them and perhaps prepare air strikes to stop running programs
Sounds wrong huh? Well thats exactly the same as pointing a finger to Iran.
While Iran all its nuclear facilities ARE under comprehensive IAEA safeguards since day one.
Cheers
Last edited:
Beatmaster
New Member
Points taken...
Forgive me that i do not comment on everything you said, and for the most part you come up with very valid points.
But personally i believe that i brought up some valid points as well.
But short said i think we both can agree on a simple thing.
The whole situation is a very big mess and we should expect from those in power that they have their act together and use their brains, however it seems that none is keen to do so.
What do you feel would constitute ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ proof to confirm an Iranian weapons program?
Please read this and specially the summary section
Source IAEA 2012:
What right does the US have and what right does Israel have to question the IAEA?
IF there is any proof to be found then the IAEA is the only legit way of doing so.
This all can be done without bombing Iran, Without creating a regional war and without all the sanctions.
However Israel insists (And by force if needed) upon the demand that Iran must halt the whole program peaceful or not, and for that Israel has NO authority.
And regardless if Iran is not 100% working with IAEA demands what Israel is doing and demanding at this point is by all means criminal to the bone.
So if Israel would back off it would open the window for Iran to comply with IAEA as they stopped complying due the fact that if a NON NPT member (Israel) can demand by force that a program must be stopped while that same nation has a program on its own and a 400 nukes big stockpile, then Iran does not have to follow the IAEA inspections either.
Because thats whats happening at this point.
regardless if there is a double agenda or not and regardless if one side is wrong or right there is a key role for the international community here, they have the legal power to force Israel to halt any military strike options as a attack upon Iran is infact a act of war, and according to UN regulations this can be stopped by law.
And Israel will have to honor that.
So why on earth would the US allow Israel to attack Iran if it wishes to do so?
And why would the US be put into the direct danger of becoming involved into this war?
Or is it convenient for the US if Iran can be cleared out?
The US can just call Israel and tell them to stand down, regardless how strong the Israeli lobby in the US is it will stand down if Obama insists on it.
They even can demand a Non Aggression Promise from Israel to have them remain under the protection of the US. (If played down hard)
Doing so means that Iran is more willing to discuss things.
Not saying its good or right but you cannot expect to have Iran jump on commando with a virtual gun pointed at them.....so to speak.
Iran has said it would follow the IAEA if Israel backs off, and it said it would halt its enrichment efforts if the international community is willing to provide them with the fuel they need for civilian applications.
And as i said in my previous post thats a hell of a lot better deal then going into a armed conflict.