Considering a war with Iran

[Officer of Engineers]

Oh crumbs! :)

Let's not forget that there is no evidence to support this,

Plenty of evidence. AQ Khan provided the evidence. The Iranians bought a nuke warhead blueprint from AQ Khan and were acquiring the equipment through him and his expertise to make a nuke.

[timhaughton]

Plenty of evidence. AQ Khan provided the evidence. The Iranians bought a nuke warhead blueprint from AQ Khan and were acquiring the equipment through him and his expertise to make a nuke.

If I was the leader of an oil rich nation, and if the US didn't like me, I'd be trying to get a nuke too. There doesn't seem to be any other mechanism to prevent illegal assaults.

[Officer of Engineers]

Except that Iran signed the NPT and has not expressed any indication of withdrawing from the NPT to which any direction towards nuclear weapons is illegal.

[Dreadnought]

If I was the leader of an oil rich nation, and if the US didn't like me, I'd be trying to get a nuke too. There doesn't seem to be any other mechanism to prevent illegal assaults.

Sure there is:

1) Dont supply arms,ied's to known major terrorists orgaizations (AKI,Hezbollah etc)
2) Dont let your army train and arm them within your borders.(AKI,Hezbollah etc)
3) Dont threaten a country with complete anillation because of their religious rights and beliefs such as Israel.
4) Sign a nuclear proliferation treaty and then hide it in order to threaten other nations at a later date with nuclear arms and rhetoric.

Seems like completely reasonable mechanisms to avoid confrontation to me.

But as you can see they persist in the above four so obviously they must want confrontation in any case.

Illegal assults? You mean like Saddam going into Kuiwait and ransacking and killing and conquering for said oil purposes calling it Iraqi 4th province?

The glass is not just half empty my friend....Its also half full and its almost time to pay the check!;)

[HistoricalDavid]

If I was the leader of an oil rich nation, and if the US didn't like me, I'd be trying to get a nuke too. There doesn't seem to be any other mechanism to prevent illegal assaults.

First you say there's no evidence to say Iran is looking into the matter, when that's rubbished you (effectively) say they should get nukes, and another point you said there is no basis in international law for this, despite OoE's explanation of the NPT (which he's repeated so many times on this forum he's probably drowning himself in scotch in despair). Is there any basis to what you say?

Iran could stop the nuke programme and begin serious steps to a free democracy. I know I advocate this as a panacea to everything but Iran does have some of the mechanisms already in place (e.g. elected parliament). Then even if you want to play Machiavellian politics, you could say any action by the United States would be too politically controversial within and outside of its own borders. Certainly I cannot think of any historical precedent for actual conflict between two such nations.

[wabpilot]

If I was the leader of an oil rich nation, and if the US didn't like me, I'd be trying to get a nuke too. There doesn't seem to be any other mechanism to prevent illegal assaults.

Really? Let's examin that propsition, shall we. 1979. Iran, an oil rich nation takes an overt step toward war with the USA by seizing its embassy in violation of international law and its treaty obligations with the US, but it has no significant nuclear weapons program. During the 1980s and 1990s Iran supplies terrorist organizations with money, training and weapons to strike at the US and our allies, yet has no significant nuclear weapons program. At no time did the US invade Iraq. In the 2000s, Iran starts to act seriously about acquiring a nuclear weapon and the US along with our European allies begins pushing back through diplomatic means. The US and UK indicate that force is not off the table.

Now, if you are thinking logically, the conclusion you have to draw is that a little terrorism, and a little propaganda will not get you invaded, but serious pursuit of a nuclear weapon will certainly get the US upset enough to do real harm to your economy and at least threaten an invasion.

[Guest]

First you say there's no evidence to say Iran is looking into the matter, when that's rubbished you (effectively) say they should get nukes, and another point you said there is no basis in international law for this, despite OoE's explanation of the NPT (which he's repeated so many times on this forum he's probably drowning himself in scotch in despair). Is there any basis to what you say?

The issue with NPT is certainly correct. But really does these technicalities matter. Technicalities is nice to have. For example, the Russian can prove scientifically that the seabed of the roof of the world is linked to their Mother Russia, thus fullfilling the terms of the previous aggrement. But is it really that simple!!!

Technicalities matters not. They matter in Court of Laws and definitly not in the world stage politics.

Iran could stop the nuke programme and begin serious steps to a free democracy.

REALLY ... what is point of that???

whats the point of seting up a free democracy?? Why in the west, people immediatly relate "free democracy" as an immediate-ally of the United States is beyound me!!! ... what if the Iranian people are 80% anti-American. A free democracy would naturally yield an Anti-American government.

Will you have another 1953 coup d'etat, and replace that free democracy with a regime that sees thing eye-to-eye with Washington.

One must wonder what would happen if Egypt and Pakistan turn into free democracies.

Certainly I cannot think of any historical precedent for actual conflict between two such nations.

Certainly, the case of a forgien country overthrowing your goverment is cause enough for war as much as forgien country invading and occupying your soil (US Embassy in Iran) is itself cause enough for war.

Americans LOVE to beat that 1979-American-embassy drum, and we, Iranian, we love to beat our own 1953 drum. Another thing we have in common (Iranians and Americans), is that we consider other side opinion to equal horseshit. Certainly, I have yet to meet an American that can climb down and say: "We were damn wrong to do it. It was complete violation of another nation soveriegn right. And no It-was-Cold-War-so-it-was-okay babbeling can excuse it"

However, as an analyst, if I could look beyound the BS and look from an analytical point of view, it certainly make sense what the US government did what it had to do: which was after all to protect their intrest. But the same analytical eye will look at the Embassy '79 crisis and say: "that was bound to happen, afterall there was a goddamn revolution and the whole place was going to hell"

Unfortunatly, most Americans see the 1953 event with an analytical eye, while conviniantly see the 1979 event with their human emotional outburst: their anger at the humilation. Samething could be said of the Iranians that see the humiliation of 1953 event from human point of view, while seeing the Embassy '79 crisis from analytical eye and say:"well it was bound to happen"

Goodday

[Officer of Engineers]

The issue with NPT is certainly correct. But really does these technicalities matter. Technicalities is nice to have.

Sorry, that is completely not the issue. Iran buying nuclear warhead blueprints is a smoking gun, requiring a smoking gun response.

[timhaughton]

Except that Iran signed the NPT and has not expressed any indication of withdrawing from the NPT to which any direction towards nuclear weapons is illegal.

Of course, I totally agree. I've not seen the proof suggesting they have. The NPT is already on life support; with states like Israel being allowed to build nuclear arsenals without having to sign the NPT, and also with the US reputedly considering a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear state, it may not survive.

[Officer of Engineers]

I've not seen the proof suggesting they have.

EXCUSE ME!!!!!!! A Q K H A N !!!!!!!!!!!

The NPT is already on life support; with states like Israel being allowed to build nuclear arsenals without having to sign the NPT, and also with the US reputedly considering a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear state, it may not survive.

Israel is not a declared nuclear weapons state nor is she a member of the NPT. The matter is one of proof. That is not the case with Iran. AQ Khan has proven that he provided nuclear weapons expertise to Iran in contradiction to the NPT.

[timhaughton]

1) Dont supply arms,ied's to known major terrorists orgaizations (AKI,Hezbollah etc)

Terrorist is a funny word, it seems to mean different things depending on where you're standing. There are plenty of people in Lebanon who don't view Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, and there are even more people who view the US as a terrorist state.

Shall we also leave aside all the support and backing the CIA gave Al Queda?

2) Dont let your army train and arm them within your borders.(AKI,Hezbollah etc)

See above.

3) Dont threaten a country with complete anillation because of their religious rights and beliefs such as Israel.

As difficult as this might be for you to believe, Ahmadinejad has no problems with Jews. There are around 25,000 Jews living in Tehran quite happily, and Ahmadinejad's office recently gave a sizable donation to a Jewish hospital. I suggest his problem with Zionists in Israel does not revolve around religion.

4) Sign a nuclear proliferation treaty and then hide it in order to threaten other nations at a later date with nuclear arms and rhetoric.

Yes, better they had never signed it like Israel.

Illegal assults? You mean like Saddam going into Kuiwait and ransacking and killing and conquering for said oil purposes calling it Iraqi 4th province?

Or like the original British invasion of Iraq 80 years ago. Or maybe the US backed Israeli assault on Lebanon. Or perhaps we should look at the support the US gave Saddam and his murderous aggression against Iran.

[Officer of Engineers]

Terrorist is a funny word, it seems to mean different things depending on where you're standing. There are plenty of people in Lebanon who don't view Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, and there are even more people who view the US as a terrorist state.

Name any national government that does so.

Shall we also leave aside all the support and backing the CIA gave Al Queda?

Never happened. Check your history. Or are you too lazy?

See above.

Please do because I can tear you apart on this inaccuracy alone.

As difficult as this might be for you to believe, Ahmadinejad has no problems with Jews. There are around 25,000 Jews living in Tehran quite happily, and Ahmadinejad's office recently gave a sizable donation to a Jewish hospital. I suggest his problem with Zionists in Israel does not revolve around religion.

And he hosted a forum stated that the Holocaust never happened. Yeah, he have no problem with the Jews ... as long as they're dead.

Yes, better they had never signed it like Israel.

Yes, it would make them honest.

Or like the original British invasion of Iraq 80 years ago. Or maybe the US backed Israeli assault on Lebanon. Or perhaps we should look at the support the US gave Saddam and his murderous aggression against Iran.

Cite the legalities of which this was illegal.

[timhaughton]

First you say there's no evidence to say Iran is looking into the matter

There isn't any. It simply doesn't exist. I have the plans for several aircraft on my computer. I give you my word I'm not looking to build any of them. But I retain the right to. The US reserves the right to act unilaterally and in contravention of international law if it feels threatened, should we not extend that right to Iran? Why? Or why not?

Iran could stop the nuke programme and begin serious steps to a free democracy.

You and I both know that democracy is not what we want in Iran. Unless of course they elect the right people. We've already seen the punishment we deal out if the wrong guy gets elected. If we deem it right and proper, we'll drop our democracy from American B52s.

Certainly I cannot think of any historical precedent for actual conflict between two such nations.

I'm not sure I follow, could you elaborate?

[Officer of Engineers]

There isn't any. It simply doesn't exist. I have the plans for several aircraft on my computer. I give you my word I'm not looking to build any of them. But I retain the right to.

Iran does NOT have the right to do so! Period. She gave up that right when she signed the NPT. She can get it back by withdrawing from the NPT. But she does not even have the right to buy those blueprints.

The US reserves the right to act unilaterally and in contravention of international law if it feels threatened, should we not extend that right to Iran? Why? Or why not?

Name those contravention of international law.

You and I both know that democracy is not what we want in Iran. Unless of course they elect the right people. We've already seen the punishment we deal out if the wrong guy gets elected. If we deem it right and proper, we'll drop our democracy from American B52s.

Irreverent. We tolerate Russian and Chinese totalitarianism without resorting to B52s.

[Parihaka]

Shall we also leave aside all the support and backing the CIA gave Al Queda?

Prove it.