Bush wants Irans Revolutionary Guards Declared Terrorists.

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

I see, so it's "joe pubic's" fault for not having the gumption to stick it huh?
Nevermind the bankrupt ideology of the neocons..

I'm not blaming Joe Public. He has been led to believe that the US is all-powerful and that the US can go to war without sustaining casualties. Because this is untrue then fear of public opinion will, in my humble opinion, prevent the US from launching any more invasions for a while.

Nor am I backing the Neo-con ideology. You are reading too much into a simple comment.

RedPlanet wrote:

When did America ever cease backing their "anti-regime" movements? Insofar as i can tell, it's been full steam ahead on that score for most a century.

What I meant was that there will be a suspension of conventional warfare and a return to or, more emphasis placed on if you prefer, backing anti-regime movements.

eoin5 wrote:

The reason that Iran may be attacked by the US (officially) is that they are not cooperating with the demands to halt enrichment. This would be a preemptive strike, just like Iraq was.

Granted. Of course, the US also wants to strike back for the Hostage Crisis humiliation and for Iran backing insurgents in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

eoin5 wrote:

many of them may respond in some way, be it politically or in aid to Iran in some form. The reason the nuclear states may respond more strongly is that they have better ground to stand on economically and cannot be attacked preemptively.

You mean like the US took so much notice of Russia, France and Germany before it attacked Iraq. All these states are as morally bankrupt as the US. In addition they have too much to lose by taking any action against the US other than empty platitudes on the floor of the UN.

eoin5 wrote:

the world may just respond by putting pressure on the US to hold their end of the bargain..

What all this means is that the US themselves may come under the same pressure as they and others have put on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

How?

eoin5 wrote:

That means they must make good faith efforts to rid themselves of nuclear weapons...

That statement is so naive it doesn't merit a response.

eoin5 wrote:

So which is it? They either have friends or they havent. Will they not find it impossible to carry out a regime change because they have no friends to finance?

They don't have friends, just people who need them temporarily to get their noses in the trough. Saddam Hussein is a prime example of this, Aerica backing him against Iran in the 1980s. In Middle eastern terms, The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But friendship is a fleeting thing in politics.

RedPlanet wrote:

If those things constitute in your opinion, an attack on America then whatabout when protesters here burned down the British embassy in 1972? Did Ireland attack Britain then?

Yes.

RedPlanet wrote:

The USA has therefore attacked China: they destroyed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Thank god China has a steady hand and didn't unlease nuclear destruction on us all.

I think both sdes agreed it was a mistake. It's not as if the USAF has a particular reputation for accuracy. Ask the British Army.

RedPlanet wrote:

The relationship between Iran and the US starts before 1979 Mick86.
For example the fact that the US and Britian conspired to overthrow the elected government there in Operation Ajax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax in a move for oil, sorta soured people's opinion of America and Britain.

Yes, and Persia was invaded by Britian in the 1850s. You asked for an example of Iran attacking the US and I gave it to you.

RedPlanet wrote:

Arming proxies or allies as it were, to assist them in their battles is nothing out of the ordinary. It's ok for the USA to do it eh? Bad when the Iranians do. :rolleyes:

I'm just commenting on the state of play between the two sides. I don't believe I was critical or supportive of either side's policies.

eoin5

There is no group or combination of groups with enough numbers that would accept weapons from the US in Iran to effectively challenge the current regime. Operation Ajax and the Shah hasent been wiped from memory just yet.

Here is article six from the treaty which references where the US much make good faith efforts to disarm:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

If you say that this is naive then you may as well tear up the whole thing. If the US go around doing vigilante enforcement of the treaty (which the Iranians arent technically in breach of yet) and they choose to ignore article six then the rest of the world may call them on that. Of course they cant impose sanctions on the US but some of the countries I mentioned may impose some economic action themselves should the US continue down their slippery slope.

The US arent the only superpower in the world anymore. China have a similar stake in the world now and is growing at an enormous rate. There is a good relationship between China and Iran so if Iran is attacked China has a lot to lose.

Another topic worth looking at is the dissent within the military should an attack be ordered without the support of the US people.

I'm not saying any of this will happen but its possible. Its all ifs, butts (teehee ) and maybes.

Just a little aside: The Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences reckons that our only hope (for survival in general, not just Iran) is that China organises a group of countries to counter the US aggressiveness.

Logos

It doesn't matter because there is very little Iranian oil on the market now anyway. The only serious military option is a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear facilities because conventional options do not adequately cover off the risks involved with missing something. A strike would be a 'one hit' option and it would not be acceptable to leave any significant Iranian nuclear infrastructure in place.

Having said all of that it would be politically very difficult to exercise a nuclear strike option. So close to Iraq and on the back of this whole sub-prime issue in the markets. Also the russians are rattling around in their bears lately and once again threatening Western liberty. But the price of defiance is sometimes high and freedom must be protected.

Will be an interesting few months.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

There is no group or combination of groups with enough numbers that would accept weapons from the US in Iran to effectively challenge the current regime. Operation Ajax and the Shah hasent been wiped from memory just yet.

I'd start with the 5 million Iranian Kurds who don't like their masters, myself.

eoin5 wrote:

Here is article six from the treaty which references where the US much make good faith efforts to disarm:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.".

Well now that makes all the difference. I'm sure as soon as the US is compliant with Kyoto, it'll get rid of all those nasty nukes. And naturally everybody else will scrap theirs.

eoin5 wrote:

If you say that this is naive then you may as well tear up the whole thing. If the US go around doing vigilante enforcement of the treaty (which the Iranians arent technically in breach of yet) and they choose to ignore article six then the rest of the world may call them on that.

And the US will care because...?

eoin5 wrote:

Of course they cant impose sanctions on the US but some of the countries I mentioned may impose some economic action themselves should the US continue down their slippery slope.

Highly unlikely. No country is likely to endanger it's own prosperity by launching an economic war with the US. N Korea definitely dare not. Pakistan and India will not want another Islamic Nuclear Power on their doorstep. Russia probably doesn't either.

No, there would be loads of humming and hawing in the UN, people waving placards from Dublin to Dubai. And that's about it really.

eoin5 wrote:

The US arent the only superpower in the world anymore. China have a similar stake in the world now and is growing at an enormous rate. There is a good relationship between China and Iran so if Iran is attacked China has a lot to lose..

China has a lot more to lose if it takes any serious stance against the US.

eoin5 wrote:

Another topic worth looking at is the dissent within the military should an attack be ordered without the support of the US people.

The Military Command doesn't do dissent. And as long as the casualties are minimal, as they would probably be so long as a ground invasion does not occur, the US public will support the action. The US real problem is that apart from Israel, nobody is going to actively join in this time.

eoin5 wrote:

I'm not saying any of this will happen but its possible. Its all ifs, butts (teehee ) and maybes.

Of course, which of us has a crystal ball.

eoin5 wrote:

Just a little aside: The Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences reckons that our only hope (for survival in general, not just Iran) is that China organises a group of countries to counter the US aggressiveness.

One word.

Tibet.

Mick86

Logos wrote:

The only serious military option is a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear facilities .......................................................................But the price of defiance is sometimes high and freedom must be protected.

I'm going to enjoy being free during the nuclear winter.

eoin5

The Kurds make up 7% of the Iranian population. They have it really tough but even if you got them another 3% through other groups it isnt going to break the regime.

The US will care if major countries start refusing to do business with them, and I do believe that it is very possible for China to do so.

They do not have all that to lose by taking a strong stance to the US and to secure their growth it may even become necessary. Theyre already at serious odds. Consider Canada, the USAs friendly neighbour to the north. The US hardline stance in NAFTA sees China mop up nicely. Iran is a focal point in this bipolarisation, so I expect a strong show of Chinese solidarity with the Iranians.

My guess is that the US public would not support another attack on Iran, I trust in that they have learned a little in the past 5 years.

RedPlanet

Mick86 wrote:

I'm going to enjoy being free during the nuclear winter.

Cheerleading for the use of nuclear weapons?

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

The Kurds make up 7% of the Iranian population. They have it really tough but even if you got them another 3% through other groups it isnt going to break the regime.

It doesn't have to. The Kurds are not the only ones opposed to the Iranian regime. If one group starts to cause real problems others will follow. And they don't have to overthrow the regime, just cause a little chaos.

eoin5 wrote:

The US will care if major countries start refusing to do business with them, and I do believe that it is very possible for China to do so. .

Economies are inter dependent. So those countries that refuse to do business with the US will find the US refusing to do business with them. I would say that the country to suffer least would be the US.

eoin5 wrote:

They do not have all that to lose by taking a strong stance to the US and to secure their growth it may even become necessary.Theyre already at serious odds. Consider Canada, the USAs friendly neighbour to the north. The US hardline stance in NAFTA sees China mop up nicely. Iran is a focal point in this bipolarisation, so I expect a strong show of Chinese solidarity with the Iranians..

If you say so.

eoin5 wrote:

My guess is that the US public would not support another attack on Iran, I trust in that they have learned a little in the past 5 years.

The US public won't know until the pictures appear on Fox News.

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

Cheerleading for the use of nuclear weapons?

You don't do irony, do you?

eoin5

I think that the US would suffer much more from any economical action taken against it. The US is totally dependant on other countries to maintain any sense of the American dream. China can continue growing even if it orders every company that supplies American companys to stop doing so, but it would be a huge blow to the coffers of corporate America and would probably cause a stock market crash.

If the US armed the Kurds and got them to start a little chaos it would become the greatest atrocity this century so far. NATO would probably be called in to stop the massacre, and then things get very complex. Its not going to happen.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

I think that the US would suffer much more from any economical action taken against it. The US is totally dependant on other countries to maintain any sense of the American dream. China can continue growing even if it orders every company that supplies American companys to stop doing so, but it would be a huge blow to the coffers of corporate America and would probably cause a stock market crash.

I think I get the picture. I think you're wrong but repeating the smae thing over and over won't change my mind.

eoin5 wrote:

If the US armed the Kurds and got them to start a little chaos it would become the greatest atrocity this century so far.

The century is young yet.

eoin5 wrote:

NATO would probably be called in to stop the massacre, and then things get very complex. Its not going to happen.

What, like NATO intervened in Rwanda, Chechnya, Darfur, Bosnia and Algeria.

Logos

My post was a little facetious but the original thread here is about Bush declaring the Iranian 'revolutionary guard' as terrorists. Well the evidence does seem to support this as these guys have been involved with taking hostages, supporting Hezbullah and stoking sectarian conflict in Iraq.

Does the fact that Bush may denounce this organisation as terrorists mean that Iran will be nuked/invaded etc? Well who knows, after all there was no logic about the invasion of Iraq as such - basically that was about O.I.L. (oil, israel and logistics) and not a shred of evidence for 'WMD' was turned over in the final analysis.

I suppose the difference now is that Iran actually does have a chance at becoming a nuclear (weapon) power and I think anybody with perspective should be very worried about that prospect. Frankly we depend on the US to sort out their (and by extension our) interests globally.

eoin5 wrote:

Just a little aside: The Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences reckons that our only hope (for survival in general, not just Iran) is that China organises a group of countries to counter the US aggressiveness.

Do you really believe (or follow others who believe) that either
a) we need defending from America or
b) even if we did that China would be the people to do it???

My god what planet do you hail from?

I think the bottom line is that the RG is a terror group intent on spreading revolutionary Islam through violence....enough said.

eoin5

Logos wrote:

Do you really believe (or follow others who believe) that either
a) we need defending from America or
b) even if we did that China would be the people to do it???

My god what planet do you hail from?

Yes, yes, and earth.

I really dont want to get into it on this thread though. If you want to discuss it you can start a thread called: "America vs everyone else" and I'll partake

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

Yes, yes, and earth.

Incredible.

jonny72

Logos wrote:

I suppose the difference now is that Iran actually does have a chance at becoming a nuclear (weapon) power and I think anybody with perspective should be very worried about that prospect.

Why worried though? are we worried that North Korea may have nuclear weapons right now?

I find it very very odd that more than a few people seem incredibly concerned that Iran may get nuclear weapons whilst at the same time they don't seem to be very bothered that North Korea may have reached that stage.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

Why worried though? are we worried that North Korea may have nuclear weapons right now?

There is no MAY about N Korea having Nukes.

jonny72 wrote:

I find it very very odd that more than a few people seem incredibly concerned that Iran may get nuclear weapons whilst at the same time they don't seem to be very bothered that North Korea may have reached that stage.

The concern is that the Iranians are possibly crazy enough to use their nuclear weapons.

jonny72

Mick86 wrote:

There is no MAY about N Korea having Nukes.

So this is more worrying than Iran possible having nukes in 8 years.. or no?

The concern is that the Iranians are possibly crazy enough to use their nuclear weapons.

The concern is that the Iranians are possible crazy enough to use their nuclear weapons?.. hilarious, I had to reread that, forget the credible and proven threat of Saudi and Pakistani extremists, no I prefer the one about Cuba, oh I mean Iran, the single basic easily identifiable enemy that the idiot redneck warmongers can recognise.

RedPlanet

Firstly, there exists no proof whatsoever that Iran are even considering weaponising nuclear power.
Secondly, the Iranians already have a plethora of weapons that they are not "crazy enough" to use.
Thirdly, the Iranians do not have a history in modern times, of waging war.

The Americans on the other hand, do all 3.

Now who's the biggest threat peace?

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

Firstly, there exists no proof whatsoever that Iran are even considering weaponising nuclear power.

Thats irrelevant to the need to stop nuclear proliferation.

Secondly, the Iranians already have a plethora of weapons that they are not "crazy enough" to use.

With respect,nuclear weapons are probably the most potent of virtual weapons to have.You don't need to use them physically in warfare as you know to have the benefit of them.

Thirdly, the Iranians do not have a history in modern times, of waging war.

Thats arguable.

The Americans on the other hand, do all 3.

Thats also arguable.They've waged conventional wars but no nuclear war obviously in 62 years.You can't uninvent nuclear and you can't trust others to disarm their holding of that technology.It's therefore been a deterrant for 62 years.

Now who's the biggest threat peace?

I'm afraid I don't share the implied trust of Iran with nuclear.I wouldn't like the influence they might want to extend with it.I'd prefer if they kept their sphere of influence on lifestyle and politics to themselves.
As for America's-whilst I'll mostly oppose war,I'm too happy with my capitalist lifestyle to reject American influences for now thanks.
I'll continue to reject Iranian influences completely.Thats a personal choice and I'd imagine a popular one.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

So this is more worrying than Iran possible having nukes in 8 years.. or no?

N Korea has ahad nukes for many years. A wonderful achievement for a country that cannot manage to feed it's own people but there you go. They seem to like sabre-rattling but as long as the US and S Korea keep sending the rice that's about it. That said WMDs in the hands of Third World Peasants is always a worry.

jonny72 wrote:

The concern is that the Iranians are possible crazy enough to use their nuclear weapons?.. hilarious, I had to reread that, forget the credible and proven threat of Saudi and Pakistani extremists, no I prefer the one about Cuba,.

The Saudis and Cuba do not have nuclear weapons. Pakistan does but at the moment both the Pakistani and the Saudi governments are allies of the US. It is a worry that Islamic extremists may take power in Pakistan and gain control of the nuclear arsenal. However that's a secondary concern. The primary concern is the Iranians, who are not well disposed to the west and who are probably developing nuclear weapons.

jonny72 wrote:

oh I mean Iran, the single basic easily identifiable enemy that the idiot redneck warmongers can recognise.

Just because you have issues with the US doesn't make the Iranian regime any more benign.

Mick86

Tristrame wrote:

Thats also arguable.

I believe they fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s. Yes, I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

eoin5

RedPlanet wrote:

the Iranians do not have a history in modern times, of waging war.

In fairness they are very good at waging war. Only for the constant support that Saddam's Iraq got from other countries and his use of chemical weapons he wouldve been in big trouble.

I suppose they dont have much of a modern history of starting wars though.

Ping Chow Chi

Mick86 wrote:

I believe they fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s. Yes, I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

aye, which Iraq started, while still supported by the west....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Iran_War

I don't know if defending yourself from attack is classified as 'waging war'

jonny72

Mick86 wrote:

N Korea has ahad nukes for many years. A wonderful achievement for a country that cannot manage to feed it's own people but there you go. They seem to like sabre-rattling but as long as the US and S Korea keep sending the rice that's about it. That said WMDs in the hands of Third World Peasants is always a worry.

Many years? NK announced in 2003 that it had nuclear weapons. Did you believe in appeasing the North Koreans before they had nuclear weapons? It sounds like you believe in appeasing them now that they have them. Double standards? if so, all the more incentive for Iran to get nuclear weapons.

The Saudis and Cuba do not have nuclear weapons. Pakistan does but at the moment both the Pakistani and the Saudi governments are allies of the US. It is a worry that Islamic extremists may take power in Pakistan and gain control of the nuclear arsenal. However that's a secondary concern. The primary concern is the Iranians, who are not well disposed to the west and who are probably developing nuclear weapons.

By that logic you would have thought the primary concern should be North Korea, who are not well disposed to the west, have a tyrannical dictatorship and who have already developed nuclear weapons.

This whole thing is not based on realistic credible threats. It stinks of bullsh*t fearmongering Islamophobic (they can't differentiate) propaganda. I don't buy it at all.

eoin5

Ping Chow Chi wrote:

aye, which Iraq started, while still supported by the west....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Iran_War

I don't know if defending yourself from attack is classified as 'waging war'

They invaded Iraq and held land inside the border, thats not exactly defence is it? I think Iraq did nearly as much defending in that war as Iran did.

Ping Chow Chi

eoin5 wrote:

They invaded Iraq and held land inside the border, thats not exactly defence is it? I think Iraq did nearly as much defending in that war as Iran did.

They only did after Iraq started the war though..

I can see what your saying, I wonder if the British and the Americans saw it in the same way when they pushed into Germany, or thought that they should have stopped once they reached Germanys border?

again, I don't know if 'waging war' means just the act of fighting a war or starting one.

Mick86

Ping Chow Chi wrote:

I don't know if defending yourself from attack is classified as 'waging war'

I assume that waging war and fighting one are the same thing.

Mick86

Ping Chow Chi wrote:

I can see what your saying, I wonder if the British and the Americans saw it in the same way when they pushed into Germany, or thought that they should have stopped once they reached Germanys border?

No. By 1945 Germany was defeated anyway but Hitler wasn't about to surrender. Neither was the German army. The Soviets had to fight for every inch of Berlin. The allied objective was to destroy Germany to such an extent and teach it's people a lesson. Stopping at the German border would not have done that, nor would it have toppled the Nazi regime.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

Many years? NK announced in 2003 that it had nuclear weapons. Did you believe in appeasing the North Koreans before they had nuclear weapons? It sounds like you believe in appeasing them now that they have them. Double standards? if so, all the more incentive for Iran to get nuclear weapons.

No I don't believe in appeasement. It's just the way things work at the moment. I'm sure if Iran could be bought off in some way the US would go down that road but the Iranians appear to want a showdown so they'll probably get it.

You appear to support the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

jonny72 wrote:

By that logic you would have thought the primary concern should be North Korea, who are not well disposed to the west, have a tyrannical dictatorship and who have already developed nuclear weapons..

All that tough talk is just so much wind. The North Koreans can't eat their nukes. They depend on the US to feed them most of the time as I said. Realistically the NKs cannot use their nukes either since it would invite their own destruction and they aren't that crazy. The Iranians on the other hand might be that crazy. God botherers frequently are. Muslim fanatics have been known to kill themselves taking out the infidels so who says that the Iranian Mullahs wouldn't do it on a grand scale.

jonny72 wrote:

This whole thing is not based on realistic credible threats. It stinks of bullsh*t fearmongering Islamophobic (they can't differentiate) propaganda. I don't buy it at all.

Well of course you don't. Why should you? The Yanks got caught lying in 2003so why should anyone believe them now. There is the problem of course that in giving the US the finger, you are putting all your faith in the Iranians not developing nuclear weapons. And personally I don't think that's a good bet.

Islamophobia is based on Islamic terrorists attacking New York, London, Glasgow and Madrid. And they apparently planned an attack in Germany last week. On that basis why should we trust any Muslim, anywhere.

Liam Byrne

I can't believe the double-standards here. While I'm not in favour of ANYONE having nuclear - or even any other - weapons (in an ideal world), why is there an objection to Iran or Korea or wherever having them, and no objection to Bush having them ?

As pointed out above, most of the countries that have them haven't started a war, with the one obvious exception being America.

What is it that drives people to have the opinion that "if America does it, it's OK", while still viewing anyone else that has similar, even less deadly or aggressive tendencies as the "one-size-fits-all" label of "terrorists" ?

Islamophobia is based on Islamic terrorists attacking New York, London, Glasgow and Madrid. And they apparently planned an attack in Germany last week. On that basis why should we trust any Muslim, anywhere.

Ah yes, another double-standard.....if anyone is anti-Islam, then it's justified based on the actions of a minority, but if anyone even opens their mouth to question Bush's administration, they're somehow anti-American or pro-"terrorist" :rolleyes:

And while it could not be suggested that Bush "planned" the invasion of Iraq (it looks like there was no planning or preparation), how does that invasion and the subsequent deaths of innocents differ from anything that the "Islamist terrorists" [sic*] might do in Germany ?