Quote:
|
Let me get this straight. Iran violated international law (NPT) and the US has no right to prosecute a war that it sees fit to do? So, instead of just destroying that outright violation, you want the US to invade (which it sees no need to do) just so that they can lose a war on your terms. Bullocks.
|
Initially, I am inclined to ask just what specific violations Iran has wrongfully committed, with reference to the actual international laws as sanctioned by the UN. Second, we shall compare such potential wrongdoings with their neighbours', primarily concerning Israel. Additionally, the US has absolutely no right to prosecute a war "it" sees fit, considering international law has never been a factor on its mind. The entire ordeal in Iraq is illegal, yet they have the nerve to demonize a nation exploring nuclear energy (a technology practiced by itself and a large handful of other nations).
Quote:
|
It is not the largest which is what you claim and I knew you were going to bring up that numbers game. The Iranian force is almost pure foot infantry. A single Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group got more firepower and manouver capability than an Iranian Division and by military standards (which is what this board is made of), that is a far larger capability than just counting people. Hell, I would pit a Turk Regimental Group against an Iranian corps anyday.
|
I will not argue the quality of their military, because you know the point I was attempting to spread was the sheer quantity of their forces. As for capability within, I cannot envision awry conclusions to foreseeable war, considering the US has tarnished severely its once mighty image. They are susceptible now more than ever.
Quote:
|
Paramilitary is just another name for thugs. They have no organization nor any infrastruture to make them stand up on any battalion, hell even company level.
|
Such "thugs" in Iraq then, we can say, have cost the Americans thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Perhaps their goal is economical?
Quote:
|
Most of us are convinced that Iraq is a better place without the baathists. Nothing short of our invasion would accomplish that. Not a drop of Iraqi oil has gone to the Bush-Cheney cabal. No WMD program is likely to arise in Iraq anytime soon. No invasions of neighbors. A well-documented focus upon bringing pluralistic governance to a former totalitarian dictatorship.
|
Well, I see you are poorly informed, which makes my job here even more tedious and aggravating. Specific laws in Iraq were recently passed, so that Western companies could operate and have full access to Iraqi oil (currently under American control). What does this mean? Simple, really. They reap the profits (by the trillions), and heavy investors are paid handsomely. No invasion of neighbours? Oh, you must be referring to the Iran-Iraq war; the same war America aided Saddam in, and gave information on how to create mustard gas. You know, the mustard gas that killed tens of thousands of Iranians.
Quote:
Meanwhile, I DO trust the comments made by Gen. Dave Petraeus last Sunday.
Petraus On Iran
This is a VERY carefully-schooled officer. There's no slip of the tongue here. No phrase "out of turn". Note the details as described by the general. A nice synopsis and refresher of the issue surrounding Iranian "interference".
|
This is merely incommodious reinstatement of the same poor arguments. You cannot justify a fullscale invasion based on the reports of an
Americangeneral alone. There must be some form of a neutral force stationed in Iraq to observe whether or not there are foreign militants, and if so, where they belong to. If you ask the Iranian generals, they'll say they are void of involvement or support of any insurgent factions. Who is to give more credit to the Americans than the Iranians in their reporting?
Quote:
|
Laws? Buu, Iranian complicity in these matters are acts of war. American forebearance is what keeps it from being so.
|
Exploring and enhancing nuclear technology is considered an act of war nowadays? Perhaps I missed something that you could make clear to me. If nuclear technology is supposedly illegal and deserves global attention for a war, then I feel for the safety of the billions of people worldwide living under governments who openly explore nuclear technology/develop nuclear weapons that aren't entitled "Iran". Maybe America would do well to wage a war on itself to rid their nation of the weapons they fear Iran may create in the future.
Quote:
In sum, the nuclear issue revolves simply around Iran's nineteen year history of duplicity, in violation of I.A.E.A. accords and NPT bylaws, before discovery in 2003. Thus a fundamental issue of credibility arises towards Iran's true intent. Rejection of EU-3 proposals, American proposals, and, most of all, Russian proposals that would allow for Iranian generation of peaceful nuclear energy- Iran's stated purpose, in the face of otherwise dubious credibility, makes clear to most (even France ) that Iran can't be trusted.
|
Iran does not have to accept individual proposals targetted to them. Besides, your descriptions fit the unfortunate bill of Israel's terror organization. Of course, who dares point the accusing finger at a non-Muslim nation? At least, Iran admits its nuclear program to raise awareness and generate acceptance. Israel keeps their program secretive through denial and disregards UN inspections, which are infinitely more important that individual proposals.
Quote:
America/Israel has done nothing to alleviate that distrust, well-earned on a matter of catastrophic import to the region and, by irrevocably damaging the NPT, the world.
America's worst enemy remains itself.
|
I wholeheartedly agree to this account of the story. See how similar we are? Change a name or two, and our ideas are virtually identical.
Quote:
Buu, I do hope that you make yourself at home. We ALL look forward to getting to know you so much better.
|
It's certainly an eye-opener to hear the other side of the story for once, is it not?