[aldo_14]

To be fair, would anyone actually take Iran at their word on this?

Possibly? I don't know, i've never heard of Iran making blatantly fraudulent claims to the world, that seems more of a Western thing.

Well, would you trust them (the leadership) to?  Because even if they've never lied before, it doesn't make them incapable of deceit.  Especially as we know the effect of the admitting to having any form of nuclear weapons programme would likely be war (and yet, conversely, I'd imagine the US pre-emptive strike policy is what would lead to nuclear weapon development).

[Herra Tohtori]

To be fair, would anyone actually take Iran at their word on this?

Id doesn't really matter whether we believe them or not.

They either are trying to develope nukes or they aren't. They say they aren't. So, until there is conclusive eidence (and I'm not talking about trucks in satellite pictures or some vague things pointing that this might be the case) we have to presume they are not trying to develope nukes.

Well, telling blatantly untruthful things is not actually just a western thing. Russians are well known of it too, so is the former Iraqi Minister of Information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.


Anyway, to say even something related to original subject: Putting National Guard to guard the border is definitely not on top of my list of not-so-good things in America, many other things reach much higher. But perhaps we should discuss about them on other threads.

[Bobboau]

god damnit, were did I say we were the saviors of the world? all I said was we were a counter balince to the USSR and an important force before that, that as far as world powers go things could be a whole hell of a lot worse, and you'd probly be better off not opposeing stuf just because you think we need to be opposed, that you should actualy look at each situation and ask if we have a point, rather than just saying, "the US wants it therefore it must be bad"

and the "president" of Iran has made a nomber of nutjob statements, do you realy want someone that unstable with both medium range missle technology AND nukes within strikeing distance of not mearly Isreal but also a great swath of Europe? if your thinking that Iran is not developing Nukes, a lot of people we treated very baddly after they refused not to go along with us in Iraq are saying that they are worried about the current situation, and calling for more action.

[Mefustae]

Yeah, before the Soviets came along, those Americans were all up in protecting the world with their important force and looking out for the free world! Go them! ...Wait a minute ...That doesn't sound right ...Oh, what I meant to say was that they were isolationist f***tards motivated to action only by direct threat economically or militarily. Yeah, we could do a lot worse, be would could also do a hell of a lot better.

and the "president" of Iran has made a nomber of nutjob statements, do you realy want someone that unstable with both medium range missle technology AND nukes...

I love the hypocrisy in that statement.

...do you realy want someone that unstable with both medium range missle technology AND nukes within strikeing distance of not mearly Isreal but also a great swath of Europe? if your thinking that Iran is not developing Nukes, a lot of people we treated very baddly after they refused not to go along with us in Iraq are saying that they are worried about the current situation, and calling for more action.

I hate to drag the subject on further, but for f***'s sake, I hate it when people instantly assume that if Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons, they'll suddenly have the ability to strike anywhere on the continent inside of a week. If they chose to develop nuclear weapons, it would be at least three years before they could even begin testing, which is going to be mighty f***ing difficult given the miriad of orbital cameras and seismic observation stations listening out for the slightest hint of a nuclear-scale detonation. Even if they manage to get nukes, I believe [correct me if i'm wrong] Iran lacks the capability to shoot into Europe without considerable investment which would be picked up years before it's even started, not to mention the distinct lack of will whatsoever to shoot into Europe... why the f*** would they shoot at Europe?!

The fact of the matter is, they say they're not developing Nukes, and nobody has any [publicly available] proof that they are, so - as Herra pointed out - cannot we entertain the possibility that they're not developing? I would think that, after the Iraq debacle, accusations from the US regarding WMDs would now hold considerably less credence on the global stage, but sadly, this appears not to be the case.

@Aldo: Point well made. Frankly, what I truly contest is not their willingness to lie, but their willingness to actually develop nuclear weapons in the first place. Iran has been around long enough to know that nukes - while alluring with the whole 'cleansing holy fire' thing - cause more problems than they solve. They know just as well as anyone else that the discovery of a nuclear weapons programme within their borders will 'serously jeopardise the continued existance of the Iranian people' if you know what I mean.

[Deepblue]

As much as a nutjob you might think Bush is, he hasn't denied the Holocaust.

[Mefustae]

But Bush supports ID, which - while it may not be as wrong as Holocaust denying - is so damn stupid I can't even think of an adjective to denote how stupid it is!

[Deepblue]

*Sigh*

It's not THAT stupid though.

[Col. Fishguts]

Yes. Yes it is. And we had multiple very long discussions why that is.

[Rictor]

It's irrational, not stupid. There's a slight but crucial difference.

And I don't know how US foreign policy became mixed up in all this. In fact, one of the only reasons I support the whole "lock down the border" plan is because it's exclusively a domestic poilicy decision. The difference being that one is a more or less illegitimate exercise of power, while the other is wholy legitimate.

[Bobboau]

ok, we did play an important role in WW2, yes? did I say "protecting the free world" at any point in that coment? no, I said we were important, and implied not evil.


Iran's presedent has even more questions to his legitimacy than Bush, and that is saying something.

I am fairly sure the guy has said he/Iran has a divine right to develop nuclear weapons, once they get them it will be a hell of a lot more dificult to take them away than it would be to simply keep them from getting them in the first place, the question is are they developing them and should we do something about it, I am simply asking that you slow, down look at the situation and think about it, without reactivly saying 'if the US invades we'll blockade them cause tehy is teh ev1|!!!1!'. we're no were near that point yet, just consiter it might be bad if Iran gets Nukes.

and Iran actualy has very good missle technology, they currently posses missles that can reach parts of Europe (not that missle are the only delivery system at there disposal).

[Kosh]

and Iran actualy has very good missle technology, they currently posses missles that can reach parts of Europe (not that missle are the only delivery system at there disposal).

True, but again, why would they want to go after Europe? At least 2 EU members have more than enough nuclear missiles to flatten Iran if they tried something like that.

And about the USSR, to be fair it was a legitimate threat to literally everyone around it. However, that still does not excuse some of the things the US did during the Cold War.

[DeepSpace9er]

What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions. What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay has been trialled and either convicted or freed (in which case the US would have to pay significant sums of money to little compensate the suffering of innocents that there might are. Added with a public apology. If they are so sure they are "dangerous people" that cannot be set free - why don't they trial them and convict them if proven guilty? I mean, if they have done something illegal by national laws, or illegal by US laws on US soil and it can be proven, there should be no problem trialing and convicting them. AFAIK no one should be convicted for crimes he hasn't yet done.

Quite unfortunate that you are that desperate to see America defeated and humiliated. You forgot to mention that the UN sits in New York.. dont think they would imagine trying something that foolish, and the US is a permanent member on the security council.

[Herra Tohtori]

What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions. What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay has been trialled and either convicted or freed (in which case the US would have to pay significant sums of money to little compensate the suffering of innocents that there might are. Added with a public apology. If they are so sure they are "dangerous people" that cannot be set free - why don't they trial them and convict them if proven guilty? I mean, if they have done something illegal by national laws, or illegal by US laws on US soil and it can be proven, there should be no problem trialing and convicting them. AFAIK no one should be convicted for crimes he hasn't yet done.

Quite unfortunate that you are that desperate to see America defeated and humiliated. You forgot to mention that the UN sits in New York.. dont think they would imagine trying something that foolish, and the US is a permanent member on the security council.

Where in my post did I say I want to see United States defeated and humiliated?

What I would like to see is the following:

- US starts to mind more their own business (which, by te deteriorating state of its economical situation would be much more profitable and useful to it than invading countries in fear of nonexistent WMD's) and if they have a problem with some other country, deal with it THROUGH the United Nations just like any other country and not by bypassing it and practically using the "right of the strongest" in world policy against countryes they are pissed off by, and

- US either releases the prisoners they keep in Guantanamo Bay OR gives their a trial and convicts them. If they have a way to prove they are criminals, it shouldn't be any kind of a problem to trial and convict the, If, on the other hand they cannot get the proof to convict them... Why keep them there? Also, to those who they cannot prove to be guilty of committing crimes and convict them, they owe some big compensation and a public apology, though I doubt their ability to compensate for being kept imprisoned for years without trial.

Also I'd very much like to see US government starting to follow their own legislation (incliding constitution) and stop to bypass it in the name of national security. I'm talking, of course, mainly the incident(s) involving illegally authorized wire tapping and lying to their own citizens. But that, on the other hand, is not my headache. It should be the US citizens' headache. My opinion doesn't matter on this; if you really are not disturbed by it, by all means allow your government to do whatever they wish inside your own borders. That's your problem.

It becomes my problem when they start breaking international laws outside their own borders, imprisoning citizens of other countries, transporting them to US military facilities and keeping them there without trial for years.

Now, if you see those things listed there as being defeated and humiliated... well, that's your problem. Perhaps I should give a clearer definition to what I meant by this:

What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions. What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay has been trialled and either convicted or freed (in which case the US would have to pay significant sums of money to little compensate the suffering of innocents that there might are.

What I meant by this, is that if the US keeps having continuous difficulties with international laws, something should be done, if we don't want international laws to be just words on the paper. All meaning in having an international law disappears when the strongest state in the world leaves themselves a possibility to bypass the international law if it's appropriate for them. Now, of course things as extreme as a commercial blockade are highly unlikely to happen, and I wouldn't want to see it in the first place. But I also don't want to see the small authority the UN has being undermined completely by a state that only follow the common rules when they want, and when they don't want to they just show the UN the finger and do whatever they want... but still want anyone else to keep it civil with the UN?

So. A random state breaks UN rules, it's but under commercial blockade or otherwise hindered. US breaks the international laws and UN rules - the logical follow-up would  be at least SOME action that would at least prevent a thing like that from happening in the future.

The things become entirely different if the US gets UN appreciation for attack on Iran, which I don't think they will likely get, but anyway. In that case the operation would be completely legal and I would have no great grimes about it.

And if someone yet has difficulty comprehending what I have just said, here's the deal shortly:

I think United States is a country amongst others and should be susceptible to same rules as any other UN member country is (considering that the US was actually a major contributor when the UN rules were being made, it shouldn't be very difficult for them, but it seems to be nevertheless).

I do not think US is some great devil that should be punished or anything like that. That would be kinda stupid. I also don't want to see Us being "humiliated" or "defeated", I'd only like it to follow the same rules they presume everyone else must follow. By all means the US can be as profit-seeking and arrogant as they want as long as they keep it within the limits they helped to set up themselves.

If you see that as humiliation, so be it. I call it equality. Which, I believe, is also quite a prominent thing in your own constitution.

I'm sorry for the obvious repetitive for this message. I just wanted to make sure it would be as hard to misinterpret as possible.

[BlackDove]

Mmmmmm... so Egyptian.

[aldo_14]

What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions. What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay has been trialled and either convicted or freed (in which case the US would have to pay significant sums of money to little compensate the suffering of innocents that there might are. Added with a public apology. If they are so sure they are "dangerous people" that cannot be set free - why don't they trial them and convict them if proven guilty? I mean, if they have done something illegal by national laws, or illegal by US laws on US soil and it can be proven, there should be no problem trialing and convicting them. AFAIK no one should be convicted for crimes he hasn't yet done.

Quite unfortunate that you are that desperate to see America defeated and humiliated. You forgot to mention that the UN sits in New York.. dont think they would imagine trying something that foolish, and the US is a permanent member on the security council.

Hmmm.... it's interesting that this would entail 'defeated and humiliated', given that it'd be punishment for 2 manifestly illegal (presuming there was no mandate for a war on Iran) acts under treaties the US has signed and pledged to obey as a UN member (is a thief 'defeated and humiliated' when they are jailed for stealing, or just punished?). 

Even though the US' veto would prevent any security council resolution against it, I don't see how it would be 'foolish' for the UN to actually do it's job and enforce those treaties and the will of the member states, although there could be (just & fair) criticism if it were only the US being held to rights.  In a world where the US is the only superpower, it is really necessary for the UN to function as it should do (not necesssarily as it does), to prevent a de-facto hegemony; if you want a reason for it, imagine if China was the only superpower and how happy you would feel about it.